(Again REALLY Belated) Weekend Update – July 31, 2011

31 07 2011

“Acting is not about being someone different. It’s finding the similarity in what is apparently different, then finding myself in there.”

– Meryl Streep

“You have to show violence the way it is. If you don’t show it realistically, then that’s immoral and harmful. If you don’t upset people, then that’s obscenity.”

– Roman Polanski

Out and About in the Community

As a sort of cop-out for not publishing this on time, I’m going to overpublicize two events I participated in recently over at the Large Association of Movie Blogs (The LAMB), a giant database of bloggers that get together and pool ideas and posts.

The first was the LAMB Acting School, a monthly series that gathers reviews and retrospectives centered around a single actor.  This month, it was the legendary Meryl Streep, the woman who may well be the greatest actress of her generation.  For those who get sick of her or claim that the Oscars are overly obsessed with her, just look at her filmography and tell me that the diversity of roles present and the dexterity with which she pulls them off isn’t flooring.  Her emphasis is obviously on the drama, but she can pull off comedy just as easily.  She is often lauded for her ability to change the accent of her voice to fit a character; however, it’s that incredible Streep pathos that she brings to every role that has made her a symbol of consistency and reliability in a volatile cinematic climate.

Not to mention I owe Meryl Streep a very special favor myself.  If it hadn’t been for her and “Julie & Julia,” this blog probably wouldn’t exist.  She has changed my life for better and for always, and I am eternally grateful.

Large Association of Movie Blogs

Click on the graphic to go see all the posts, but here are links to what I have reviewed from her illustrious career:

It’s Complicated

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Julie & Julia

Adaptation

Music of the Heart

Then, a week prior, I participated in the “LAMBs in the Director’s Chair” event, which celebrated the career of Roman Polanski.  I haven’t seen too many of his movies and have reviewed even fewer, but I admire his skill behind the camera and don’t wish to comment on his legal status.  I saw “Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired,” which I found an interesting portrait of a haunted man, and it just made me even more torn.

Nonetheless, “The Pianist” may be one of my all-time favorite movies.  It is so powerful and moving, perhaps the only intensely personal non-documentarian account of the Holocaust we will ever get.  I’m really hoping “Carnage” is another big success – I always love a good play adaptation.

Large Association of Movie Blogs

Again, click the link to be taken to the post with reviews and commentary. Here’s what I submitted:

The Ghost Writer

Classics Corner: Rosemary’s Baby

A Week in Review

This week, I reviewed the two non-Smurf new releases, “Cowboys & Aliens” and “Crazy Stupid Love.”  My expectations were high for the former, low for the latter; the output was low for the former, high for the latter.  Click the pictures to be transported to the reviews.

I also celebrated my two year birthday/anniversary, whichever it is – without the pomp and circumstance.  And I’m totally OK with that.

Recommended Reading

Here’s some of the great work I read this week:

The Rant

This is a thought I had upon further thought on the sex friend movies of 2011, “No Strings Attached” and “Friends with Benefits.”  (Believe it or not, it is possible to think on them.)

Isn’t in hypocritical that the MPAA has begun a crusade against cigarette smoking yet have done nothing about what I think is a much bigger issue in movies nowadays: the casual attitude towards unprotected sex.  While I’m not going to dismiss smoking in movies as something that can influence kids and teenagers, I would argue that they are much more likely to imitate the sexual behavior of screen characters.  Smoking is a social behavior, so kids see it out in public all the time.  Movies just reinforce what they see in real life.

Sex, however, is a very private matter.  Their education nowadays is abstinence or a very sanitized, conservative, condoms-on-bananas approach, like Coach Carr from “Mean Girls” (see the clip below).  What they see in the movies defines how they perceive it in the real world.

While sex on film has evolved with the constantly changing societal norms, from “Carnal Knowledge” to “Brokeback Mountain” to the 2011 duo touting casual sex, I’m surprised that public awareness (and perhaps anger) of how sex is being portrayed on screen hasn’t caught up with the times.  While the conservative definition of sex as an act between man and wife was thrown out quite a while ago, that isn’t an excuse not to care.  Attitudes may have changed, but that doesn’t mean that we turn a blind eye and abandon all responsibility simply because we don’t fully agree with something.

The routine nowadays for sex is two people start passionately kissing, find a flat spot, disrobe each other, and begin thrusting.  Is it really that hard to add the simple, responsible step somewhere before the thrusting begins of adding a condom?  Would it really disrupt the scene that much to add in a shot of a Trojan wrapper on the ground?  A hand reaching in the drawer for a rubber?  We don’t actually have to see it slide on, but for kids who believe that movies reflect real life, there really needs to be some sense conveyed that these people have taken measures to be safe.  Otherwise, there should be consequences.

Only two mainstream movies (to my knowledge) have really dared to have any major results from having unprotected sex, both coming in 2007: “Knocked Up” and “Juno,” both of which featured characters who had to deal with a life-changing pregnancy either willingly not using a condom (the latter) or accidentally not using one (the former).  Both tackle the issue in a respectful manner but also serving as subtle cautionary tales.  But other than those, the only other movie I can think of that shows safe sex being practiced are, ironically, “No Strings Attached.”  (I should also credit 2005’s “Must Love Dogs,” a lame Diane Keaton rom-com that featured a scene where she and John Cusack choose not to have sex because they can’t find a condom.)

Does Hollywood really expect us to believe that 95% of the time, there are no consequences of having unprotected sex?  Wouldn’t it be so refreshing to see Katherine Heigl get chlamydia in her next romantic comedy?  Or after a drunken one-night stand, have Jessica Alba get pregnant?  These are things that happen to real people when they don’t act responsibly, and by dwelling on the small percentage of times that unprotected sex has no ramifications, they are promoting an illusion that could damage lives.

In our immediate gratification culture which demands movies on DVD sooner, data quicker, and social information faster, I find it almost unfathomable that people have chosen to fixate on eradicating smoking from cinema with all of its LONG-TERM effects.  Lung cancer takes a while to develop; you start to feel pregnancy within a month or so, a sexually transmitted disease sets in even sooner, and emotional scarring may be present the next morning.  While the wages of sex are usually not life-threatening, that doesn’t mean we should just turn a blind eye to Hollywood’s dangerous condoning of an irresponsible practice.

Check back for more “Weekend Update” on August 7 … hopefully it will be published on time!


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Features, Weekend Update

(Super Belated) Weekend Update – July 26, 2011

26 07 2011

“He adored New York City. He idolized it all out of proportion. Eh uh, no, make that he, he romanticized it all out of proportion. Better. To him, no matter what the season was, this was still a town that existed in black and white and pulsated to the great tunes of George Gershwin.

He was as tough and romantic as the city he loved … New York was his town, and it always would be.”

– Woody Allen as Isaac Davis, “Manhattan” (1979)

Empire State of Mind

In case you couldn’t tell from the epigraph, this post is going to have something to do with New York City.  This post is so late because I just got back from a fantastic vacation there, a “graduation trip” of sorts.  I chose this domestic locale rather than some European hotspot mainly for one reason: Broadway.  I’ve been so busy being in shows for the past four years – 10, to be exact – that I haven’t had the flexibility to get up to see shows.  So, as a celebration of my semi-retirement from theater, I chose to see four musicals in the hotbed of the business.

But before I get into the shows, I have to talk about the city.  Just walking around, you feel the cinematic quality of the town.  More than anywhere in the world, New York City has been a muse to countless filmmakers from Scorsese to Woody Allen, who might as well built a celluloid shrine to the place.  It’s a city full of character and life, beauty and squalor, successes and failures, but above all a sense of passion in the air, a passion that can only be found in truly great cities.

First, it was off to “Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark.”  Even those who don’t pay attention to musical theater HAD to have heard about this show, be it the cast members getting injured, the plot problems, the dreadful music, or the direction turmoil – all amplified by the biggest Broadway budget ever.  With all the problems and publicity, they made a wise move to stop the show for a month to iron out the kinks, and about a month ago, they opened a “reimagined” version.

It could have been absolutely dreadful originally; however, what I saw was nothing short of incredible.  The story wasn’t all that great, and some of the music didn’t really work for me.  However, as I often say about cinema, theater is not only a written medium, but also a visual one.  If a work can be truly stunning to the eye, showing innovation, creativity, and imagination, then it can still be successful.  So in that regards, consider the musical version of “Spider-Man” the “Avatar” of musical theater.  Both are breathtaking experiences that push the boundaries of what we consider possible from their respective artistic media.  Say what you will about them being shallow works of art, but we need them just as we need movies like “The Social Network” and “Pulp Fiction.”

Then it was on to “The Book of Mormon,” this year’s Tony Winner for Best Musical.  It was probably the main reason I wanted to come to New York this summer in the first place; I mean, who doesn’t want to see the guys from “South Park” and “Avenue Q” take on Mormonism in a musical?  And to have it win 9 Tony Awards just increased the allure.  It’s now the hottest ticket on Broadway, and we were very lucky to get seats as cheap and as early as we did.  Try getting one now and you’ll probably be asked for $900 to $1,000.  Unless you are a politician paying for love, that kind of money for that amount of time just isn’t reasonable for most people.

I don’t know if I could ever justifiably fork over that much for any one show, but I can tell you that I’d easily pay $500 to see “The Book of Mormon” again.  It’s the musical you’ve been praying to see your whole life – smart, funny, electrifying, and a rocking good time.  While musical theater has generally been considered an artistic medium solely for escapism, Matt Stone and Trey Parker turn the tables on the preconceived notions, delivering a shocking work that deserves to be deconstructed like any other piece of intelligent literature.

I may not personally agree with all that Stone and Parker have to say, but anyone who dares to tackle an issue as big as religion in this age of artistic repression amidst commercial domination deserves a listening ear.  “The Book of Mormon” is not anti-religion, but it will ask of you to keep an open mind and ponder certain notions that you’d probably prefer to leave alone.  It certainly weeds out the weak at heart by the fourth number, “Hasa Diga Eebowai” (if you want to know what it means/ruin the surprise, go ahead and listen).  It’s bold but never brazen, mocking but never disrespectful, offensive but never off-putting, and challenging but never condemning.  While art nowadays consists so much of staying far away from the fine lines of acceptability, “The Book of Mormon” takes joy in finding those lines and having a rollicking song and dance number on them.

I can’t recommend this show enough.  Now that you’ve read this, I’ve officially dubbed every day that you spend in New York without seeing this show a wasted day.  It’s a musical theater experience unlike any other I’ve ever seen, and if for nothing else, see it for a laugh.  I laughed more in one scene of “The Book of Mormon” than I have at the movies ALL SUMMER.  Yeah, it’s that good.

After “The Book of Mormon” blew my mind at the matinee, I moved onto the revival of “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying” that evening.  Yes, that IS the musical with Daniel Radcliffe.  I’ve never had any reason not to admire him, but this was a very smart career choice.  While I’m sure Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are fretting about how to break away from their Harry Potter personas, Radcliffe has already proven that he can do just about anything he can put his mind to.  Here, he sings and dances like a trained professional Broadway star.  He has charisma and charm totally independent from his world-famous character.

It takes time to get used to him speaking in an American accent, but after a while, the strangeness subsides and the fun reigns.  He and John Larroquette are an awesome duo; neither are classical musical theater actors, yet it’s so evident that they are having so much fun on that stage that it reverberates through the whole theater.  Call it the anti-“Spider-Man” with its top-notch satire on corporate ladder-climbing and its simple, resourceful set design.

And then, because I’m stupid, I tried waiting for him Daniel Radcliffe at the stage door for a picture/autograph.  Big mistake.  Huge.  I even left the show before the bows on a tip that as long as you left a little early, you were all good.  Well, all the “Harry Potter” fans were already lined up, so I was WAY in the back.  Then everyone else came out, and I was caught in this claustrophobic clump of hot, sweaty fans all voraciously craving an autograph.  I like to think I was most deserving since I made him a big sign for his birthday, which I couldn’t even raise above my head due to the crowd’s tightness restricting the motion of my arms.  This picture is all I have to show for my hour of waiting.  He’s the short, scrawny looking one in red – not the big one in orange.

My last stop on the musical theater tour was “Anything Goes,” the Cole Porter classic that was this year’s Tony winner for Best Revival.  While everyone loves contemporary, there’s something to be said for the classics, and this one reminded me of why musicals keep getting revived.  This production featured the incomparable Sutton Foster, a name you should start knowing.  She’s the Bernadette Peters of a new generation, a fantastic performer abounding in skill and smiles.  In the past decade, she has been nominated five Tony Awards and won twice – and she has only been in six shows!  Those are stats that would make Meryl Streep blush.

So get on board the Sutton Foster train; you won’t be disappointed.

What Else …

Not much.  I had a bunch of stuff planned, but I’ll save it for next week when I can do a better job.  I’ll throw in a few links here so a few people will actually read this post.  But until the next reel, hasta luego.

  • Sam of “Duke and the Movies” premiered his interesting new series, featuring capsule reviews by a variety of bloggers published each Sunday.  I’ll throw my hat into the ring this week because I’m back home.
  • While I wished happy birthday to Daniel Radcliffe from afar on Saturday, Andrew at Encore Entertainment was wishing happy birthday to Philip Seymour Hoffman and did a picture retrospective of his roles.  Gosh, that man can act.
  • Jim Turnbull at “Anomalous Material” counts down the best 10 actor-director combos.  It makes me feel bad that A) I haven’t seen a Kurosawa movie and B) James Stewart and Alfred Hitchcock weren’t the chosen combo.
  • The LAMB Photoshops turning adult films into kiddie flicks are great for a laugh; I highly suggest you click on it.
That’s about it for me.  In case you missed my reviews this week, I’ll save you the trouble of a scroll and link here.

Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Features, Weekend Update

Weekend Update – July 17, 2011

17 07 2011

An Introduction

“Writing should be useful. If it can’t instruct people a little bit more about the responsibilities of consciousness there’s no point in doing it.”

– Edward Albee

So what is this “Weekend Update” thing that Marshall wants me to read now?  Is it some rip-off of the “SNL” feature that seriously needs to get another good-looking girl on it (sorry, Seth, but we need a Tina/Amy) and just roasts American politicians and other assorted morons?

Well, to answer the questions that I posed for you to hypothetically ask me, it’s a new feature on “Marshall and the Movies” that conveniently borrows the non-trademarked name of a popular, long-running “Saturday Night Live” segment.  It seeks to provide a lot of the same things for its audience as that segment – humor, commentary, and all sorts of fun characters.  Ultimately, it’s something dependable that is always here on the weekends no matter what else I’m writing about, just like no matter how poor the “SNL” writing is nowadays, you can always get a giggle from “Weekend Update” sandwiched in the middle.

Now, as to the epigraph of this post, it mainly refers to my random factoid series, which, as you may have noticed, has gone the way of the VHS tape.  It was, simply put, a pain in the butt to come up with some new nugget of commentary every single day.  I would get ridiculously behind on posting them, and writing became a chore rather than a passion.  So with “Weekend Update,” I’ll get the chance to provide you some of that clever witicism I like to think I’ve been providing through the “Random Factoid” series – just on a more manageable timetable.  Who knows, maybe I’ll still surprise everyone with a factoid every now and then when I get REALLY worked up about something.

So without further ado…

In case you missed it…

It was a very Potter week at Marshall and the Movies, in case you couldn’t tell by my changed header (which previously adorned the 2010 Oscar favorites from October).  I got the chance to see the movie early on Monday, which was totally AWESOME.  To show you how true of a fan I am, just 12 hours before the screening, I had all 4 of my wisdom teeth removed.  When the Warner Bros. logo flew at me in 3D, I could still feel some of the anesthesia lingering in my bottom lip.

Read my review of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2.”

And then, because I couldn’t miss the opening night festivities, I had to go on Thursday night as well.  I got all dressed up, wearing my Gryffindor Quidditch robe from Halloween … in third grade!  I also had my Deathly Hallows T-shirt and Platform 9 3/4 cap (won at Monday’s screening) along with a wand borrowed from a friend.  Oh, and I rocked the Harry Potter 3D style glasses that I got at the Monday screening as well.  No one had them at the 7 P.M. screening I went to, so they were quite the rage.

The first time was a charm for this movie, but that didn’t stop me from seeing it for the third time on Saturday.  I was babysitting, and the decision was easy between this, “Green Lantern,” and the torture better known as “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.”  I got to see it in the lovely RPX, a nice way for Regal to charge slightly more money for a slightly better experience.  Still, the 3D is totally awesome on this movie, something I’ve been longing to say about a movie since … well, “Avatar.”

But the week wasn’t without its sad moments too, as the joy of this momentous occasion also brought the sorrow of knowing that there will be no more “Harry Potter” movies to bring us all together in a night of magic and fun.  With that in mind, I ranked all eight of the films on Thursday – you’ll have to read it to figure out which prevailed.

See how I ranked the “Harry Potter” films.

And there was also a Friday DVD release (can you say random?), so I posted my review since I saw the film back in its theatrical run.

Read my review of “Rango.”

Recommended Reading

Here are some of the best posts that I’ve read in the past week from other bloggers.  For future reference, I’ll probably post things here that are either ridiculously intelligent or ridiculously funny.

And in case you thought I was the only one talking about Harry Potter, think again:

Hard to Say Goodbye

“Harry Potter” truly went out with a bang this weekend, scoring countless monetary records.  The biggest midnight opening ($43.5 million).  The biggest single and opening day ever ($92.1 million).  The biggest opening weekend and three day stretch ever ($168.6 million).  The biggest worldwide opening ever ($475.6 million).  In case there was any doubt that J.K. Rowling’s series is a truly exceptional phenomenon, the record books can speak to its magic.

But this opening speaks to something more than just a movie.  While “The Dark Knight” is definitely an all-time favorite and a far superior movie, I’m not as sad as I thought I would be to see its 3 year run at the top end.  That was a movie that gained prestige over the weekend; there wasn’t such a rush to see it (I, for example, waited until Sunday).  It also had the Heath Ledger factor that contributed to its massive opening, bringing crowds that normally wouldn’t see a comic book movie but had to see the character that brought about his demise.  They came back through the floodgates in record numbers because beneath that performance, Christopher Nolan had actually made a fantastic movie that totally transcended a genre.

“Harry Potter,” on the other hand, is a phenomenon unlike any other in this generation.  It’s an event picture, one that brings together people around the medium of cinema in a way that renews interest and passion in moviegoing.  No matter if you were an avid reader of Rowling’s novels, just saw the movies, or have no interest in Hogwarts, if you love movies, you had to be happy on Thursday night.

The “Harry Potter” movies renewed my faith in an experience that many people are convinced is dying: the communal movie theater experience.  Over the course of cinematic history, we’ve gone from watching movies at a theater to television screens to computer screens to iPod screens to cell phone screens.  Just in the past decade with the series, our availability options have increased dramatically.  When “Sorcerer’s Stone” enchanted us in 2001, we had to go to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video to get our DVDs (and VHS tapes).  Now, we can rent and buy movies on our computers, phones, televisions, video game consoles, and disc players.  Needless to say, times have changed.

So, taking all that into account, seeing everyone gathered in the lobby of my local theater on Thursday night was an incredibly magical experience.  We were all gathered around a common experience: a movie, a character, some enchantment, and the end of an era.  The Christian Science Monitor called it correctly when they called that night the bookend of a generation.  I find this especially apt for people in my grade; as we head off to college, we tie the bow on a part of our youth with the completion of the “Harry Potter” series that we grew up with.  When we were nine, the first movie was released, and their progression roughly matched our aging through puberty, middle school, high school, and finally off towards the rest of our lives.

And as the Monitor article also points out, the books and movies have also endowed a shared moral compass to our generation.  While life won’t always be as simple as an all-encompassing evil like Voldemort, we can learn to be brave and triumph over our shortcomings like Harry, facing whatever life throws at us with courage.  It’s a rare movie series that can do that in addition to bringing the masses to the theater.

On an NPR segment I listened to a few months ago, an expert said that a result of our fragmented culture is our dearth of moments that connect a generation to each other.  Nowadays, it’s almost strictly limited to tragedies.  We will all remember where we were when 9/11 happened, just like we will all remember where we were when Michael Jackson died.  But the “Harry Potter” series defies the times and has produced several moments that have brought together not only this generation, but others as well.  Between midnight book releases and movie premieres, this series has forged positive bonds and provided many experiences that people will remember for a lifetime.  It is only fitting that the last one (at least for now) be the biggest one of them all and, more than that, the biggest movie opening ever.

As J.K. Rowling said at the London premiere, “Whether you come back by film or by page, Hogwarts will always be there to welcome you home.”  So although I, along with a world full of grateful readers and moviegoers, am saying goodbye to hellos for the series now, I do so knowing that the magic will always be there in the movies and books.  It has brought magic to the screen for a decade, and this week, it brought the magic back into the theater.  At least for this generation, it will linger there for the rest of our lives, a comforting thought even if at times it feels out of reach.

So thanks, J.K.  Thanks, Harry.  You may have just saved movies.


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : Features, Weekend Update

LISTFUL THINKING: Ranking Harry Potter

14 07 2011

For millions of fans across the world today, it all ends.  The Harry Potter series is officially coming to a close.  To commemorate, I thought it would be appropriate to rank all the films in order of quality.  Perhaps with the exception of my last ranked pick, they are all exemplary films that highlight Rowling’s incredible knack for storytelling with nuanced acting and clever cinematic tricks.  But when it comes down to putting them in order, some inevitably rise to the top … and others don’t.

So here’s an installment of “Listful Thinking” that, for my money, is how the “Harry Potter” films stack up to each other.

#8
“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”
2007, dir. David Yates

The only major misstep of the series, which I can attribute to the absence of one presence: screenwriter Steve Kloves.  Although Yates’ first outing with Potter did some nice things stylistically and visually, nothing could compensate for the fact that this was a mess in terms of storytelling that would not have been coherent to fans who hadn’t read the book.

#7
“Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”
2002, dir. Chris Columbus

While we all love Harry Potter, we don’t need this much of it at once.  At a whopping 165 minutes, Chris Columbus’ second time around with Potter felt more like a marathon than a fun time at the movies with our friend from Rowling’s novel.  It’s a solid movie but could have used a lot more time on the cutting room floor.

 #6
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”
2010, dir. David Yates

Once I’m able to watch this one directly before part 2, it might rise.  But for now, it is as I saw it in November – just the first half of a grander storyline that tries to have its own pseudo-plot complete with a climax that just really doesn’t feel as grand as any other Harry Potter movie.

#5
“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”
2009, dir. David Yates

Yates, combined with scribe Steve Kloves, gets into the groove of the Harry Potter series with his second entry in the series.  It’s a great movie not just about the wizarding world but also about our world; that is to say, it could easily double as a great high school movie.  This is a lot of fun, but I thought this and “Order of the Phoenix” were among the bottom of Rowling’s books, so I’m not surprised that it doesn’t rank higher.

#4
“Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”
2005, dir. Mike Newell

Here’s where it starts getting REALLY difficult.  The top 4 Harry Potter films are all spectacular, standing head and shoulders over the others.  But to say that there’s no discrepancy is to do the better of the series a disservice.  Mike Newell’s only time in the director’s chair for the series takes one of my favorite books and makes it an equally entertaining movie.  It’s got great action, stunning visuals, and really delivers on emotion.  I’ll drop anything and watch this movie when I see it on TV.

#3
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2”
2011, dir. David Yates

Goodbyes are tough to do, and the final Harry Potter film of them all pulls off its swan song with grace and poise.  It reminds us of everything that the series has done so right – mixing high-flying visuals with potent storytelling and a soaring humanity – while never indulging itself in low-grade tears or emotion.  Yates’ finest hour is an excellent way to send off a series that has entertained us so well for a decade.

 #2
“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”
2001, dir. Chris Columbus

Goodbyes may be hard to do, but hellos might be harder.  Chris Columbus built this incredible series from scratch, and going back and watching the first film in the series makes you realize how incredibly well he introduced a generation to the world of Harry Potter.  The book has its fans, sure, but for those who needed to be brought up to speed, Columbus gives them everything they need to know without making it feel like a trudge through exposition.  It introduces the magic of cinema into J.K. Rowling’s series, and the sensation of first seeing Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, and Quidditch can truly never be paralleled.

#1
“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”
2004, dir. Alfonso Cuarón

However, nothing for me tops Alfonso Cuarón’s only entry into the “Harry Potter” canon.  While Columbus did a fantastic job of getting the series set up, Cuarón made the series grow up a little.  He made the films more mature and dark, introducing some fantastic art into the commerce, and changing the series for better and for always.  “Prisoner of Azkaban” will always be the greatest triumph of the series for me, both on paper and on screen.  It’s the most compelling story, easily Rowling’s most ingenious (save the stunning conclusion).  And Cuarón’s fantastic vision of the series, whimsical when necessary but dark buy default, still excites me more than any other film in the series.

How do you rank the films in the “Harry Potter” series?  Where does the conclusion rank for you?


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags:
Categories : Features, Listful Thinking

OPINION: The Cinema of Casey Anthony

5 07 2011

I know that I’m a movie blogger by name, but if you’ll allow me a brief aside, I’d like to address a different field altogether.  I, like many Americans this summer, have been following the developments in the trial of Casey Anthony.  Today, to the shock (and disgust) of many captivated American television watchers, she was acquitted of murdering her two-year-old daughter, Caylee.

I will inevitably catch heat for this, but I do not sit in front of my computer typing this post in dismay.  Just a day after 311 million Americans celebrated the preservation of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that so many men have died for, the trial by jury guaranteed to all citizens in the Bill of Rights produced a verdict of not guilty.  Regardless how much Nancy Grace or Bill O’Reilly told us she is guilty, or will continue to tell us she is guilty, we have to trust the American legal system here.  We have to trust that these jurors listened to the evidence and made the right call.

But this post isn’t about the woman in the courtroom, it’s about the people that watched her courtesy of the courtroom cameras.  I learned a lot about how Americans view concepts of justice, vengeance, and entertainment, three ingredients that can make be quite poisonous when mixed.  Quite frankly, what I’ve seen over the past month should have the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.  This cannot be the America they wanted to create.

Just last Christmas, “True Grit” was an unprecedented success, grossing $171 million, scoring nearly unanimous critical support, and raking in 10 Academy Award nominations.  The Coens’ film grapples with the tricky question of revenge; in the movie, Hailee Steinfeld’s spunky 14-year-old Mattie Ross embarks on a journey to kill Tom Chaney, the man who murdered her father in cold blood.  She is seen as the hero of the film, and when she ultimately succeeds, the audience cheers.  The character representing justice, Matt Damon’s LeBoeuf, is a clown that is mostly mocked by the audience.

While the Coen Brothers likely expected this to play mostly for their usual niche audience, the excellent film wound up entering the mainstream and playing well into February and March in most theaters.  Not to insult the average moviegoer, but I don’t think that many of them understood that “True Grit” is supposed to be a meditation on the merit of retribution, not a vindication of it.  The movie is just ENTERTAINMENT, and the Coens deliver a cinematic vengeance that excites inside a theater.  But outside that theater, we aren’t meant to feel inspired to deliver payback in such a dramatic fashion.

Which brings me to the matter in question here, the Casey Anthony trial.  How does an ordinary 25-year-old mother from Orlando, Florida become “The Social Media Trial of the Century,” according to Time?  How does she grace the cover of People alongside Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Jennifer Aniston?  Simply put, people want VENGEANCE.  They want to see the death of Caylee Anthony avenged, and they want blood to pay for it.

How do I feel so confident in making this statement?  Because most people didn’t need a trial or the deliberations of a jury to reach their own verdict; they just went ahead and pronounced her guilty.  Bill O’Reilly even said, “She is as guilty as they come.”  Although it is not specifically codified in the Constitution, it is considered a part of common law and an American virtue that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Everyone has the right to due process of law.  Everyone has the right to a trial by jury.  It is not up to people watching the trial on Fox News from their couch, nor is it up to those catching glimpse on CNN from the water-cooler.

But how can Americans have strayed so far from the ideals of our Founding Fathers?  In my opinion, it’s the means of information that induce such expectations for violent ends.  It’s a tired argument, I know.  Let’s blame the media and putting cameras in courtrooms for everything!  But in this case, the drive for ratings and good television has muddled the distinction between justice and vengeance by adding entertainment to the mix.  We have become convinced that the American legal system is only doing its job when it’s convicting people because there is too much crime in this country for punishment to be spared.

All of those title cards for coverage of the Casey Anthony trial, no matter what channel you watched, read “JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE.”  But it was never about justice for them, it was about retribution for her.  They found a woman who represented all sorts of bad parenting and immoral behavior, two things they could prove without a trial.  They made the trial about the condemnation of a woman more for her lack of scruples and less for her action since the case was based largely on circumstantial evidence.  They wasted no time calling her a representative of all evil in society.

This, to any well-versed film watcher, echoes the message of “Chicago,” Rob Marshall’s 2002 Best Picture winning musical movie.  Richard Gere’s Billy Flynn is a master of the media; in the number “We Both Reached for the Gun,” he is shown manipulating everyone literally as marionette puppets, holding their strings and making them dance.  He is the best lawyer in Chicago because he can turn the tide of public opinion in favor of his merry murderesses, thus providing a nice complement to evidence that suggests, but doesn’t prove, their innocence.  Billy has a mastery of the courtroom too and manages to get false acquittals for Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) and Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) because he knows one fact: “This trial … the whole world … it’s all … show business.”

Here is a perfect study of opposites: Roxie is a victim of culture’s evils, while Casey Anthony was made to represent them.  The media tried to make her trial a proxy trial for her behavior.  But it’s not; it’s about her actions, and the jury could not find in evidence that her actions included murdering her daughter.  It makes for good television to focus on her unscrupulous behavior in the wake of her daughter’s disappearance, but it does not make for a trial in the American judicial system.

While I’m indulging in pessimism at the moment, I don’t believe this condemnation is a final verdict on America’s fate.  Now perhaps more than ever, I think “12 Angry Men” rings true and relevant.  The movie revolves around a twelve man jury deliberating a case based on reasonable doubt, not unlike the Casey Anthony trial.  When they enter the deliberation move, it seems that all will vote guilty.  However, one juror known as #8, played by the noble Henry Fonda, votes in dissent.  Over the course of Sidney Lumet’s movie, #8 tries to convince the other jurors that their mental picture of the defendant is not enough to justify a vote.  As he so eloquently puts it, “It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first …We’re talking about somebody’s life here.”

With the death penalty on the table for Casey Anthony, she found herself in a position very similar to that of the Puerto Rican man in the movie.  But thanks to one noble juryman, he was saved.  As #8 struggles to change the rest of the jury’s mind, they take a second look at the evidence that seems to tell one story yet find that it tells another one – a story where the defendant is innocent.  When there are only three holdouts, #8 makes this speech that gets straight to the heart of the trial that has been the center of American attention for months:

“It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth. Well, I don’t think any real damage has been done here. Because I don’t really know what the truth is. No one ever will, I suppose. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we’re just gambling on probabilities. We may be wrong. We may be trying to return a guilty man to the community. No one can really know. But we have a reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard which has enormous value to our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s sure.”

Perhaps Casey Anthony is guilty.  That’s what many Americans still think in spite of this verdict.  But how many of us have come to this decision based on piecing together the evidence presented in court?  I’m going to guess very few of us have.  However, whatever notions I may have had about Casey Anthony thanks to Fox News or CNN have been wiped clean today with the jury’s verdict.  I’m not sure if the deliberations played out like “12 Angry Men” or if they took on another shape or form entirely.  Yet I am going to trust that however they came to their verdict, it is the right one.  And if you believe in the justice system that our Founding Fathers envisioned is morally right, then you must scorn notions of retribution and entertainment and believe in their verdict too.


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Features, Opinion

10 for ’10: Best Movies (The Challenge)

31 12 2010

Catch up with the idea behind this series here.

By the time the clock runs down on 2010, I will have seen over 90 movies.  Most of them were average, nothing special but nothing horrible.  An alarming number were downright terrible.  But, as always, there are enough gems that shine above the coal to fill out a top 10 list.  It wasn’t quite as agonizing a process this year, but that’s beside the point.  I want to leave 2010 smiling because, for the most part, it was a good year for the movies – provided you were willing to look off the beaten path.

What I found in common with these 10 special movies released in 2010 was a challenge.  Each movie, in an entirely different way, issued a challenge to the moviegoer.  These movies weren’t complacent just providing two hours of escapism; they went so far as to engage our minds, hearts, and souls in the moviegoing experience.  They provided something that stuck with me, the movie watcher and reviewer, long after they ended and will continue to stick with me well into 2011.

So, here’s to the challenge, here’s to 2010, and here’s to movies!

#10

“Easy A”
(A Challenge to High School)
Directed by Will Gluck
Written by Bert V. Royal
Starring Emma Stone, Penn Badgley, and Amanda Bynes

It was about time that a movie like “Easy A” came along and perfectly encapsulated what it’s like to be a high school student in the era of texting and Facebook.  I was scared that my generation wasn’t going to get a Hollywood spotlight until twenty years later, and that would make us look like some kind of hokey antiques like the kids in “Grease.”  What makes “Easy A” so brilliant is how it incorporates the modern with the past, be it as distant as the Puritans or as recent as the Breakfast Club, to show how fundamentally different the high school experience has changed even since 2004’s “Mean Girls.”

For me, very few moments were so beautifully authentic this year as the movie’s high-speed mapping of the rumor mill, which now moves at the speed of light (or a 3G connection).  Propaganda posters after World War II suggested that loose lips cost lives, but in 2010, “Easy A” shows how it can cost reputations, something much more precious in high school.  Technology may have evolved, but high school hasn’t.  Society may have improved thanks to these innovations, so why haven’t we?

#9

“Rabbit Hole”
(A Challenge to Coping)
Directed by John Cameron Mitchell
Written by David Lindsey-Abaire
Starring Nicole Kidman, Aaron Eckhart, and Dianne Weist

Grief is either overdone or understated.  In “Rabbit Hole,” it’s presented in a manner so raw that it manages to be both at the same time, making for one of the most moving experiences of the year.  A story about a husband and wife, played to brilliance by Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart, grieving their lost child, the movie shows many ways to cope.  Kidman’s Becca wants to move on, Eckhart’s Howie wants to live with it, and in the middle of it all is Becca’s mother, played by Dianne Weist, offering her advice on how to get to the peaceful state in which she resides.  There’s no answer to the question of who handles it best or which way is best; in fact, there’s not even an attempt to answer it.  But there’s something beautiful about an unanswered question, and maybe that’s why the grace of “Rabbit Hole” has stuck with me for so long.

#8

“Get Him to the Greek”
(A Challenge to Remain Silent)
Written and Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Starring Jonah Hill, Russell Brand, and Sean Combs

Okay, you can forget the challenge here.  It’s not coming from “Get Him to the Greek,” it’s coming from me – I dare you not to laugh at this movie.  Between the dynamite comedic pairing of Jonah Hill and Russell Brand, the scene-stealing farce that is Sean Combs’ foul-mouthed music exec Sergio, the ridiculous and totally awesome music of Infant Sorrow, and the hilarious situations that drive the movie, “Get Him to the Greek” was my favorite comedy of 2010.  It’s filled with endless quotables and capable of many repeat viewings without any diminishing laughter.

#7

“Fair Game”
(A Challenge to Patriotism)
Directed by Doug Liman
Written by Jez and John-Henry Butterworth
Starring Naomi Watts and Sean Penn

Rather than fall into the pile of scathing movies about America’s involvement in Iraq, “Fair Game” takes its anger in a fresh and different direction and funnels it into something constructive.  The story of Valerie Plame Wilson, a scapegoat for the federal government in the wake of their exposure, is meant to rouse us, not to dismay us.  We are proud that there are still people in this country who believe in the Constitution and the principles on which we were founded, and staying silent is simply not an option.  While it hits you with rage, the knockout punch is of pride in Valerie and her courage to stand up for herself.  “Fair Game” stands out as an exuberant flag-waving fan while all other movies of the same vein just mope in dreary cynicism.

#6

“Inside Job”
(A Challenge to Care)
Written and Directed by Charles Ferguson
Narrated by Matt Damon

Who is responsible for the financial collapse of 2008?  Charles Ferguson lets us know who he thinks in the activist epilogue, which you can more or less disregard if you choose to do so, but in the hour and 40 minutes prior, he points the finger at just about everyone possible.  Including us.  Sure, there were many factors leading to a worldwide meltdown of the economy that were out of our control, but a little bit of oversight, we could have seen it coming.  By his systematic explanation of everything you need to know to understand what went down (call it “Global Meltdown for Dummies” if you must), he is challenging us to be the oversight that was lacking two years ago.  And judging by how things have developed since then, we are going to need a whole lot of it.

#5

“Inception”
(A Challenge to Imagination)
Written and Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Marion Cotillard

For as much as I love the four movies I’m ranking ahead of “Inception,” none had such a monumental impact on the way movies are perceived and made quite like it.  Christopher Nolan successfully redefined what imagination means for millions of moviegoers, many of whom had to see the movie multiple times to figure out what was going on in his labyrinthian dreamscape.  With a massive spending allowance, he brought the spectacle to life and managed not treat the audience like children, which proved to be one of the most thrilling and psychologically satisfying experiences ever.  If a movie like this can’t change the fabric of filmmaking, maybe we are headed for the dark ages like Roger Ebert cries.

#4

“The Social Network”
(A Challenge to Modernity)
Directed by David Fincher
Written by Aaron Sorkin
Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, and Justin Timberlake

As an old adage goes, “Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up.”  David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin’s “The Social Network” may appear to be a movie planted in the digital era, but as has been said many times, it’s a movie about age-old themes like power, greed, and betrayal.  In essence, we’ve seen it before.  Yet retold as the story of the site we visit every day, it’s fascinating.  And it’s sublime thanks to brilliantly sculpted characters who never fit traditional hero/villain roles driving the narrative.  However, this is not just a rehash; it’s a brilliant cautionary tale for our times about individuality, innovation, and solitude.  “The Social Network,” along with its cryptic leading man Mark Zuckerberg, is the best movie of 2010 for serious conversation that’s relevant away from the screen and out of the theater.

#3

“Toy Story 3”
(A Challenge to Feel)
Directed by Lee Unkrich
Written by Michael Arndt
Voices of Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, and Joan Cusack

So maybe the whole prison escape plot wasn’t the most original thing in the world.  But “Toy Story 3” has a heart so big that nothing else matters.  I have no shame in admitting that I cried like the child that the movie made me feel like.  For the last 20 minutes of the movie, I felt the most beautiful mix of nostalgia, sadness, and joy that may just be the most powerful potion Pixar has brewed.  To be my age and watch this movie is like an ultimate realization that childhood can’t last forever.  But the tears aren’t just mourning, they are happy as the torch is passed to a new generation.  I pray, for their sake, that no technology can ever replace the comfort that a toy and a little bit of imagination can bring to any child.

#2

“127 Hours”
(A Challenge to Live)
Directed by Danny Boyle
Written by Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy
Starring James Franco

Life-affirming isn’t a word I get to use to describe movies very often, and that’s precisely what makes “127 Hours” one of the most special experiences of 2010.  The perfect combination of Danny Boyle’s superhuman directing with James Franco’s rawly human acting makes for a movie experience defying the odds.  Who would have thought that a movie about a man losing his arm would be the movie that made me most glad to be alive?  The movie that made me most appreciative for the relationships in my life?  The movie that took me on the most gut-wrenching yet blissfully rewarding roller-coaster ride?  I don’t know if I’ll be able to watch “127 Hours” again, but I’m so glad I watched at least once because it truly was a movie I’ll never forget.

#1

“Black Swan”
(A Challenge to EVERYTHING)
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Written by Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz, and John MacLaughlin
Starring Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, and Vincent Cassel

It’s such a fantastic irony that “Black Swan” is a movie about the inability of humans to achieve perfection, yet Darren Aronofsky’s movie is the closest thing to cinematic perfection in 2010.  Behind Natalie Portman, who delivers one of the finest, if not the finest, performances I’ve ever seen from any actress, the movie soars to heights that I had previously thought unfathomable.  It challenges just about every cinematic boundary that still exists and then proceeds to demolish them.  But “Black Swan” doesn’t just destroy these boundaries for fun; it’s a purposeful and intelligent movie that gives a reason to change the boundaries of cinema for better and for good.  Fearless director Darren Aronofsky choreographs a master ballet of a movie that weaves together horror, beauty, and psychological breakdown with such poise that you’ll wonder why every movie can’t be as thrilling as his.  “Black Swan” is a glorious exaltation of cinema and a monumental achievement that will go down in history.


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : 10 for '10, Blog Events, Listful Thinking

FEATURE: From Rom-Com to Oscar Gold, Part 1

23 11 2010

Before I begin, let me give credit to Lisa Schwarzbaum at Entertainment Weekly for inspiring this post after her blog entry on Jennifer Aniston got my creative juices flowing.  It’s a great post, and it’s worth a read.

After Sandra Bullock becomes the latest comedic actress to put on a serious face and win an Oscar (in the tradition of Julia Roberts and Reese Witherspoon), Schwarzbaum wonders if Jennifer Aniston could ever join the list.

Since she’s taken Aniston, I figured I would take eight other actresses who have a similar track record as Bullock on the comedy side of things.  In part one of the “From Rom-Com to Oscar Gold” series, I will analyze four actresses who many people could actually envision with an Oscar in their hand.

These actresses are …
Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Garner, and Kate Hudson.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Features

OPINION: The Versatile Movie Review

14 11 2010

NOTE: While this post is a direct response to the Central Florida Film Critic‘s post “I should have gotten the training,” I mean no ill will towards the author.  I only wish to express my own opinions on the matter and defend my own writings.

I’ve been a little busy doing clean-up work on my own site for the past week, but one thing I’ve been meaning to address is some criticism laid out against me by a fellow blogger.  In a post calling out flaws in himself and other bloggers, he specifically addressed my post on “Citizen Kane.”  For those of you who didn’t catch it, here’s the portion of the article that was written about me:

“The second thing I want to point out is Marshall of Marshall and the Movies, another fun writer. Recently he wrote a piece on CITIZEN KANE, and two things bothered me about it. Firstly, his declaration that he can count the films he has seen from before 1941 on one hand. While I can’t boast about being too much better (sixteen total, and seven came within the last few months), I do have to wonder if any of us can intellectually discuss cinematic worth with such a lack of foundation. Would you trust someone to discuss music without a foundation in understanding The Beatles or Bob Dylan? That is not to say any opinion is invalid; after all, anyone can judge art. However, a lack of classic cinema knowledge seems like it leads to false understandings of a film’s importance. Throughout his piece on Welles’ masterpiece, Marshall talks about the comparisons to THE SOCIAL NETWORK. Of course, there was a lot of talk about such comparisons, and I have referred to Fincher’s film as a modern-day CITIZEN KANE. However, I think Marshall spends so much time writing about the comparisons that it seems as if he views the classic as a building block to the Facebook movie. Welles made a masterpiece without any pretenses of Fincher, and it seems like a better way to judge it. I assume part of it is to encourage his readers to see the Welles film (like all of us, Marshall is young and his friends likely have not seen it), but I don’t think he gives CITIZEN KANE the proper critical overview, which needs more independent remarks.”

While I certainly see where James is coming from on a number of things, I think he vastly misread the intent of the post.  I don’t think I’m alone in recognizing that different movie reviews serve different purposes and audiences and should be written to reflect them.  In case you didn’t catch my October post entitled “A Great Movie Reviewer,” perhaps now is a better time than ever to check it out.  Here’s one of the five points I laid out, which I think is especially pertinent to this discussion:

“Know why you write and who you are writing for. It’s important to know your purpose and your audience when you write because it will affect your tone, diction, syntax, and all those other things your English teachers loved to talk about.  If you are writing to tell people that they need to see a movie that is unknown, you need to use different rhetoric than what you would use to tell people they should see the latest James Cameron movie.  You can inform, persuade, and urge with a review, but know which you want to do when you write it.  And be sure to write in a way that can appeal to the people that will read you.  Intellectual ramblings will only get you so far if you write to an audience that just wants to know what to put on their Netflix queue.”

I write largely for an audience that could care less about classic film.  I myself don’t really care that much for it, but I know that it’s important that I see these movies to have a larger understanding of film.  The movies I choose to review don’t require an incredible amount of knowledge of classics, and referring to them in reviews or posts would be largely wasted intellectual ramble.  I choose to spend most of my time watching movies that help me make accurate comparisons to help my friends and bloggers.  It makes more sense to say that the latest indie comedy is no “Juno,” not that it’s no “Citizen Kane.”

My post on “Citizen Kane” wasn’t so much a review or an intellectual discussion so much as it was a reflection piece.  What I wanted to look at was how a movie 70 years old can be relevant to a movie about Facebook, and when I sat down to write, that’s what I was trying to convey.  I don’t have the education to talk about Orson Welles’ masterpiece in any great depth; besides, there are plenty of scholars willing to do that for me.  “Citizen Kane” means something different to an 18-year-old movie buff than it does to a film student or a filmmaker, and I found an interesting way to discuss what it meant to me through a comparison with “The Social Network.”  I’m not incredibly well-suited to write a piece on the movie many critics deem the greatest ever made, but I think my perspective mirrors most of my readers.

I’m sorry to put this bluntly, but if you plopped the average moviegoer down to watch “Citizen Kane” without them knowing what it was, I doubt they would think it was anything special.  I say this not in the sense that the movie is bad, but because it was so revolutionary, so many movies have mimicked it that what made Welles’ movie sensational in 1941 makes it average in 2010.  What better way to illuminate the exciting side of “Citizen Kane” than by placing it side-by-side with the sure-to-be generational classic “The Social Network?”  My hope was that the logic of my readers would go, “This worked in ‘The Social Network,’ so if ‘Citizen Kane’ used it, then it must be good too!”

I had no intentions to give “Citizen Kane” a full critical overview because I’m simply not qualified.  But I believe that taking into account my purpose and my audience, my post did what it was supposed to do.  I’m not asking you to trust me as a film scholar; I’m asking you to trust me as a teenager with an appreciation for film.  I’m willing to hear criticism of my work, but my overall message to James at Central Florida Film Critic is that you can’t judge all writing through one lens.  You have to take into account different perspectives, and I think your scolding of my post simply didn’t do that.  If the way I view movies doesn’t align with the way you want to view them, I can only recommend you finding another site to read.

But I certainly hope that isn’t the case.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : Features, Opinion

OPINION: A Great Movie Reviewer

27 10 2010

Dear Koungaroo (the neophyte blogger who left this comment exactly four months ago):

There’s no right or wrong way to be a movie reviewer; start off knowing that.  But you can never stop getting better.  In over a year of blogging, my movie reviews have changed quite a bit because I have been open to change.  Since you seem to be so eager to accept it as well, let me offer you five tips that have helped me find success in writing reviews.

Read lots of reviews. There is so much to learn, and you are never done learning.  Read as many reviews as you can tolerate because no two people write them the same.  I’ve picked up so much from reading other people’s reviews, everything from words to styles.  Be they professional or amateur, every writer enthusiastic enough to pen a review has something to offer you.  Other writers can help you discover your voice, which is a very important thing to have when writing reviews.  If you are a funny person, don’t hesitate to let it show.  Don’t be afraid to crack a joke or two. If you talk like a Cambridge professor, don’t be afraid to spin an eloquent phrase.

Write what you would want to read. Just because millions of people read The New York Times doesn’t mean that you have to write like that to get readers.  Don’t write in a style that would be off-putting to you.  If you woudn’t want to read what you write, how can you expect anyone else to read it?  Write first to please yourself, and then worry about how other people will see it.  If they are coming to read it on your blog, they want your unique spin and a movie reviewer they can have somewhat of a relationship with.  There are plenty of Roger Eberts out there; there’s only one you.

Know why you write and who you are writing for. It’s important to know your purpose and your audience when you write because it will affect your tone, diction, syntax, and all those other things your English teachers loved to talk about.  If you are writing to tell people that they need to see a movie that is unknown, you need to use different rhetoric than what you would use to tell people they should see the latest James Cameron movie.  You can inform, persuade, and urge with a review, but know which you want to do when you write it.  And be sure to write in a way that can appeal to the people that will read you.  Intellectual ramblings will only get you so far if you write to an audience that just wants to know what to put on their Netflix queue.

Perhaps a distinctive feature will help. Aimless reviewing makes for a lack of clarity for readers at times.  Give them ways to get what they want out of your reviewing, particularly through categorizing reviews and memorable columns.  Perhaps write something focusing on classics or undiscovered gems or overrated movies.  The possibilities are endless, but find a way to be distinct from the average movie reviewer.

Make your review memorable. Until you get paid to review movies, you have no credibility other than what you give yourself. So what are you going to do to make people value your opinion as much as Peter Travers’ opinion?  Be original and creative; don’t merely rehash what every other critic is saying.  There are infinitely many ways to express a common sentiment, find your own!  You have to give your reader a reason to remember your review, be it through the way your phrase your review or the way you rate it.

Until the next reel,
Marshall


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Features, Opinion

FEATURE: Cruise Control, Part 2

24 06 2010

“Action is character.  If we didn’t do anything, we wouldn’t be anyone.”

– Carey Mulligan as Jenny in “An Education”

Yesterday, I celebrated Tom Cruise by discussing the roles he didn’t take.  It’s certainly an honor to be considered for so many incredible parts as he has been, and it does show a lot about him.  However, like Jenny suggests in the quote above, we are defined by what we do, not by what we don’t.

So, to top off my look at Tom Cruise, I will offer up what I’ve taken from the movies that he has been in.  As you will probably notice, I have seen very little of his work prior to this decade.  So the portrait I can paint of Cruise with what I have seen is very limited.  It’s definitely not the prime of his career; most will agree that his celebrity has waned this decade, particularly in the past five years.  But nonetheless, he’s still a big draw – or at least a talking point.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Features

FEATURE: Cruise Control, Part 1

23 06 2010

Tying into the release of “Knight & Day” today and the LAMB Acting School on Tom Cruise on Saturday, I thought I would offer up some thoughts on the star.  I haven’t reviewed any of his movies in depth, but I wanted to have something to contribute because I definitely have something to say.

When I was born in 1992, Tom Cruise was one of the biggest stars in the world.  He rose from obscurity in the early ’80s to superstardom by the end of the decade.  People seem to malign Cruise now, claiming he’s a ham and a pompous action star.  But we can’t forget that Cruise has been nominated for three Academy Awards and seven Golden Globes (including three wins).  He has starred in four Best Picture nominees and worked with acclaimed directors such as Rob Reiner, Stanley Kubrick, Michael Mann, and Oscar winners Sydney Pollack, Oliver Stone, Barry Levinson, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, and Steven Spielberg.  His films have grossed nearly $3 billion combined.  So to belittle Tom Cruise’s talent or appeal is, at least in my view, practically pointless.

His popularity has dropped off in recent years amidst the couch-jumping incident with Oprah and his outspoken support of Scientology, but those are hits that the celebrity of Tom Cruise has taken.  The actor that is Tom Cruise is still in good shape.  So to celebrate his career, I’ll offer up a double-edged approach to writing about Tom Cruise.

First, I’m going to talk about the actor Tom Cruise could have been by exploring some of the roles he was considered for and turned down.  Second, I’ll walk through his career, offering little capsule reviews of some of his movies that I have seen.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Features

LISTFUL THINKING: Summer Movie Survival Guide

9 05 2010

Summer means a lot of things, but to the movie industry, it means extracting a whole lot of capital from unsuspecting moviegoers.  They have developed little ways to squeeze every last penny they can out of us, and they prey on the clueless among us to get it.  If you fall into that category, I have devised a list of ten ways to stay smart and stay cheap at the movies this summer.

Join your theater’s rewards program. This is the easiest way to be a smart moviegoer without drastically changing your moviegoing preferences.  All it takes is filling out a quick application (some can even be done online) to join a rewards program.  From then on, it’s just another card in your wallet to pull out at the box office when buying tickets.  It won’t take long for you to start earning free popcorn, drinks, and even tickets.

With AMC’s MovieWatcher program, it only takes buying 15 tickets to get you a free ticket, although you have to be particularly savvy to work around their policy attempting to cap your rewards at only two tickets per visit counting for points.  It’s only a slight inconvenience; simply make as many two-ticket transactions as you need.  With a membership in Regal’s Crown Club, you earn points by the number of dollars you spend; like AMC, they cap you at $15 per visit.  I assume that the same multiple transaction strategy would work there too.  Regal also offers an “extra credit” system where seeing big studio movies in their first two weeks of release earns you five or ten extra points.

When you do get free tickets, use them wisely.  First of all, do not let them expire.  Be sure to look at restrictions on the ticket because most only allow you to see movies that are more than two weeks old.  Most importantly, think about the time of day when you want to use the ticket.  It saves you a lot more money to use free ticket on the $10 evening show than on the $7.50 matinee.

Find free screenings. What’s better than saving money on movies?  Not spending any money on them at all!  There are plenty of free advanced screenings in most metropolitan areas.  To find them, just spend a little time on Google.  Usually, there are reliable sites that list these screenings.  A lot of times, stores or radio stations sponsor them and give away tickets.  They also give away some goodies before the movie starts.

Last summer, I went to 7 free screenings, which saved me about $70.  The only sacrifice these screenings require you to make is a little extra time.  It is of the utmost importance to arrive at least an hour early or you will not get in.  They deliberately overbook to have a full house, and I have been shut out of enough of these to know.

Go to early bird specials. Ten years ago, you could go to a matinee for $5.  That ticket probably costs about $8 now.  But AMC has a clever campaign offering patrons that same $5 ticket.  They offer these discounted tickets before noon any day.  I frequently take advantage of the system, and there are a lot of pluses to going to these early movies beside the price.  You don’t have to wait in lines for concessions; you can get good seats; you don’t have to deal with a crowded theater.  So if you can get up early enough, why wouldn’t you want to save at least $3 per movie?

And AMC isn’t the only chain with worms for the early bird.  At Cinemark, the first showtime of the day for every movie is cheaper than a regular matinee.

Save evenings and weekends for special movies. This seems like an odd request.  But theater owners know that these are the two peak times for moviegoers, and they exploit that by raising the prices.  Most people know the price jump from matinee to evening tickets, which usually runs about $2.  Yet many are oblivious to the fact that theaters raise their evening prices on Fridays and Saturdays, milking them an extra 50¢ or $1.

Part of the reason so many people go to the movies at these times is because they like the communal experience of sitting down and enjoying a movie with a theater full of other people.  If you think about it, though, how important is it to sit in a movie with an audience for a very serious dramatic film?  Or an action movie?  Some movies don’t gain much from being watched with a host of other people, and it might be wise to abstain from spending extra money to see it in that atmosphere.  In my opinion, comedies are the only movies for which a big crowd is vital.

Think about the necessity of 3D and IMAX. Is it really worth your extra $4 for 3D and extra $7 for IMAX?  If it’s a slipshod 3D conversion (“The Last Airbender”) or a movie not shot in IMAX (no movie actually was, but animated movies usually play better on the big screen), the overall experience may not justify the extra money.  Here’s a statistic that might make you a pinch a few pennies: if you saw every movie this summer in the most extravagant format available, it would cost you over $50 in premium ticket fees.  That’s five movies you could see at night in 2D!

Scout the cheapest priced tickets. There is a difference between theaters in their prices, even if it is ever so miniscule.  If you were to see 20 movies this summer, going to a theater with tickets fifty cents cheaper would save you an entire full-price ticket.

For example, the Edwards Marq*E in Houston is currently fifty cents cheaper than the other Edwards theater.  It’s a little difference, but as any smart spender knows, the little things add up pretty quickly.

Don’t be afraid to show your age. Seniors, don’t be afraid to show your age at the box office because it could mean the difference between a $7 ticket and a $10 ticket.  Other than children, seniors are the only age group to always be guaranteed a cheaper priced ticket.

Students, however, are a little more iffy.  The only theater in Houston that always gives a discounted student ticket is the River Oaks Theater, the oldest theater in town.  They only show smaller, independent movies though.  The bigger chains – your AMCs, your Regals – have slowly diminished the availability of the student ticket.  At Regal, the $1 cheaper student ticket used to be available every night.  Now, it is only available Sundays through Thursdays; in other words, not on Friday and Saturday when most younger people flock to the theaters.  But that’s better than AMC, which only offers one student day a week!  At my closest theater, that day is Thursday.  On that day, I can get $1 off a matinee and $3 off an evening show.

Know a theater’s matinee cut-off times. The matinee cut-off time has been slowly rolled back in my lifetime from 6 P.M. to 5 P.M. to now 4 P.M.  The theaters are doing this to sell more of the expensive evening tickets.

But say you head to a 3:45 showing and are running a little late.  You get to the box office, and that 3:45 showing is sold out.  Now, you have to wait for the 4:15.  The inconvenience is little, but the price jump is steep.  That 4:15 will cost you two or three dollars more than the 3:45.  Theaters love to put showtimes right along that cut-off time with hopes that some unforeseen circumstance will force you to buy the more expensive ticket.

Find a theater with free parking. This seems trivial, but the theater closest to my house charges $3 for parking.  If you think about it, that’s like paying for 3D.  Going to the movies 20 times at $3 per trip for parking is $60 extra – that’s six evening tickets!  It’s obscene, and I’ve started to go to other theaters where free parking is offered more often to save some money.

Eat before you go to the movies. I paid an outlandish $3.75 for a small package of Buncha Crunch on Friday at the theater.  Even if you manage to thwart them on ticket prices, they can get you at the concession stands.  When you are hungry, you are hungry, and you will buy whatever will pacify your stomach no matter what the price.

So what’s the best way to fight being ripped off by concessions?  Eat before you go to the movie!  That way, you won’t be hungry during the movie.  Even if you aren’t going after a big meal, have a tiny snack to tide you over for two hours.

I now declare you all smart moviegoers!  Go and save money!  Be sure to tell me at the end of the summer if any of this helped you be more economical.


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Features, Listful Thinking

FEATURE: More Reflections on “Avatar”

22 04 2010

With the release of “Avatar” on Blu-Ray and DVD today, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on the impact and legacy of the biggest movie of our time.

First of all, let’s go back to the movie itself.  Back in December (after seeing it at the earliest IMAX 3D showing on opening day), I gave it a solid “A.” I saw it again at the end of March, and I still stand by that rating.  Here’s some of what I said then:

”Avatar” is breathtaking moviemaking at its finest, with astonishing visuals that are designed to do more than just floor you.  They engulf you and transport you to Pandora, a land of untold beauty complete with its own indigenous people, language, and wildlife, for an exhilarating ride and fascinating experience.

“Avatar” isn’t just a movie; it is a full-scale experience that your visual cortex will never forget.  If it is the future of cinema remains yet to be seen, but it will most certainly usher in a widespread acceptance of the motion capture technology.  The movie also secures its fearless helmer a place among cinema’s greatest pioneers, and it could even reinforce his self-bestowed “king of the world” title.

“Avatar” is one of very few movies of the past decades that deserves to be called an epic.  Everything is bigger and grander than we have ever experienced before in a science-fiction or action movie.  It is a tremendously ambitious movie, and director James Cameron gives his vision every tool to succeed.  Whether you like the final product is up to you, but it’s pretty hard to deny that the movie is of epic proportions.

I think that the mere size of the movie has led to some massive exaggerations of opinions.  Normal people who didn’t absolutely love “Avatar” immediately say they hated it, and if they did love the movie, it’s their all-time favorite.  The same kind of feelings spread into awards talk too; people were either completely behind “Avatar” winning Best picture or vehemently opposed.  Very few people seem to take moderate, or even less extreme, stances.  My two cents here: it’s fine to just like “Avatar” rather than love it or loathe it.  There is not a problem with just kicking back in your theater chair and being transported; you don’t have to be wowed or disenchanted.

I do have to share the most extreme reaction to the movie that I heard of – and this is not a joke.  There is a syndrome called “Avatar Blues” that psychologists are actually studying.  Large numbers of people flocked to the Internet to discuss the depression that they felt after seeing “Avatar.”  It may not be what you think, though.

Ever since I went to see “Avatar,” I have been depressed. Watching the wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na’vi made me want to be one of them. I can’t stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it.  I even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora and the everything is the same as in “Avatar.“ (posted by “Mike” on an Internet forum)

You might not have been so blown away by the world of “Avatar” that you felt clinically depressed, but you had to have felt something.  Even if the story wasn’t your cup of tea, it’s hard not to have been struck by how intricately the movie was put together.  When I saw it a second time, I was floored by the impeccable attention to detail and just how thorough the world of Pandora was designed.

“Avatar” also brought consciousness of 3D and IMAX to a greater multitude, many of whom had never experienced either beforehand.  The movie absolutely blew away what we thought we could experience in the two mediums, and it has single-handedly been the catalyst for much of 2010’s discussions.  Because of the smashing success of “Avatar,” every theater owner is rushing to up his 3D theater count.  Our wallets have already begun to feel the pain from these additions with the soaring price of 3D tickets.  In addition, every studio is rushing to shoot their next big movie in 3D (acceptable) or convert their already complete movie into an extra dimension (unacceptable).  James Cameron has now become the wise owl in the tree on the matter, offering cautionary words to the future of the rapidly growing 3D market:

I draw a distinct line in the sand between films where you have no choice — “Jaws,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” “Indiana Jones”, James Bond movies, “Terminator 2” — I would love to see all those films in 3-D and the only way to do that short of having a time machine, is to convert them. Now, on the other hand, if you’ve got a movie that’s coming out in seven weeks and you wake up one day with a wind bubble saying, I want to turn it into 3-D, that’s probably a bad idea. “Clash of the Titans,” even though it made some money, has set off this controversy that we’re going to piss in the soup of this growing 3-D market. If you want to charge a premium ticket price you have to give people a premium experience. So I’m against slapdash conversion. And I’m against anyone who’s making a major tentpole movie whether it’s a new Spider-Man film or a new Pirates of the Caribbean film and they want to release it in 3-D but they don’t want to take the time and the energy to shoot it in 3-D. Again, they’re charging the audience for something that they’re not delivering.“

And what about all that money it made?  Simply put, “Avatar” is the highest-grossing movie ever because it was more than a movie; it was a true cinematic event.  It was a movie that returned the urgency to take the whole family to the theater, and people were willing to spend the extra money to enhance their experience.  Once everyone saw the movie, they knew that watching the DVD or Blu-Ray simply wasn’t going to thrill them in the same way.  So they went back to theater and saw it one or two times more.  How else do you explain the movie’s opening only counting for 10% percent of its total revenue?  How else do you explain the minuscule weekend attendance drops?  How else do you explain the fact that “Avatar” made more money in its second through seventh weekends than any other movie made in the same frames?  Perhaps most telling of all, how else do you explain that 124 days after its first day in release and the day it is released on video, it is STILL in the top 12 at the box office?  You can’t deny it; “Avatar” is simply a phenomenon.

And if you think I’m finished now, that was just the impact of “Avatar.”  Now moving on to the legacy…

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Features

FEATURE: The Importance of the Speech

1 03 2010

At the Screen Actors Guild Awards, they call it “Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role.”  At the Golden Globe Awards, they call it “Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture.”  But at the Academy Awards, the most celebrated show of them all, they call it simply “Best Actor.”

This distinction is important because at the Oscars, it is not just the performance that is rewarded.  It is the actor themselves.  The Academy elects four actors each year to become the face of quality of their industry to the world.  These actors can forever affix the title “Academy Award Winner” to their name on any poster or trailer they so desire.  Thus, they vote not only for a great body of work but also for a face and a personality that represents them well.

The performance gets a select group of actors some attention.  Their name and reputation gets them to the next step: consideration.  Then, a few big groups take a leap and select one of them.  At this point, the part of the voter is done.  It is up to the actors to let us know where they stand.  With their acceptance speech, it is their job to convince us why they deserve the highest honor that their craft has to give.  It is their job to show voters what a vote for them really means.

Let’s take a look at the five actors who have won top prizes from the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : 2009 - Oscar Moment, Features, Oscar Moment

FEATURE: Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Box Office

4 02 2010

I don’t know if you have heard, but there is this little movie out in theaters now called “Avatar.”  It has been breaking box office record after box office record, every day stealing the top spot from movies like “The Dark Knight” and “Titanic.”

The past two weeks have brought a tidal wave of incredibly important titles for James Cameron’s motion capture epic.  On Monday, January 25, “Avatar” became the highest grossing film in overseas markets.  The very next day, it became the highest grossing movie worldwide.  On Tuesday, February 2, the day “Avatar” was nominated for nine Academy Awards including Best Picture, it became the highest grossing movie ever at the United States box office.  (All three titles were nabbed from Cameron’s “Titanic.)

Before I delve into deeper analysis, I think some hearty congratulations are in order for James Cameron and everyone involved in bringing “Avatar” to the screen.  No matter what you thought of the movie, you have to appreciate the tremendous amount of work that went into making it.  The amount of money that it takes to pay for a movie ticket has skyrocketed to prices that have forced Americans to reconsider how often they go to theater.  As a result, watching movies on laptops, iPods, and video game consoles has soared.  “Avatar” has returned the urgency to getting full immersion in the theatrical experience, and James Cameron deserves to be raking in all the money that he is.

But does “Avatar” really deserve to be called the biggest movie of all time?  There are people who claim the system by which that claim is made is flawed.  What I want to do is introduce you to the system that the detractors swear by – the “adjusted” system – and let you decide what system you think is the best.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Features

« Previous Entries Next Entries »