Classics Corner: “2001: A Space Odyssey”

12 09 2010

Gut reaction to Stanley Kubirick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” – WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT?!?

I just had to put that out there.  From my past experiences with Kubrick, which only include “Spartacus,” “The Shining,” and “Full Metal Jacket,” I was definitely expecting a head-scratcher.  But I can honestly say that in my nearly 18 years of watching movies, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie so cryptic.  I feel like I’m going to be left baffled for the rest of my life, and somehow I feel like Kubrick is grinning mischievously down at me from the afterlife, sniveling “I’ve got him just where I want him!”

Honestly, how did they discuss this movie in the 1960s?  Without the Internet to bounce ideas and theories off each other, did people just accept the fact that they couldn’t understand it since they didn’t have access to the geniuses who post things on the Web?  I can’t even fathom how dinner conversations might have gone in discussing such an innovative movie.

As you can see from the poster, the movie is advertised as the ultimate trip.  It truly is … the ultimate ACID trip.  I strongly advise anyone who might be under the influence of certain influences to stay away from this movie, not because of the content, but because the style might cause you to have some kind of seizure, stroke, or spasm. But what makes this movie a classic?  I can tell just from my first viewing that it has had an enormous influence on filmmaking in the 42 years since its release.  I felt a particularly urgent desire to watch “2001” now because Christopher Nolan named it as an influence of “Inception.”  Here are the specifics according to The New York Times:

The influence of the director of ”2001: A Space Odyssey” is readily apparent in a ”dream-gravity” sequence during ”Inception” that tracks Joseph Gordon-Levitt through an environment of rotating rooms followed by a period of total weightlessness. ”Kubrick to me always had a wonderful sense of calm and specificity in everything he did,” Mr. Nolan said. ”Every detail had a specific meaning and purpose. That’s something I always try to aim for in my filmmaking. It’s not a specific thing. It’s an approach of saying: ‘Why is this thing here? What are we doing with this detail, this element?'”

I can definitely feel a sense of overarching purpose in both the works of Nolan and Kubrick. The former, however, is much more forward while the latter is more subtle, really requiring us to trust in his directorial abilities.  In 2010, a time where Kubrick has been given God-like status among filmmakers, it’s very easy to do that.  But in 1968, I can imagine I might have been a little more skeptical.

The movie is packed with all sorts of themes, imagism, motifs, and symbols, many of which I have absolutely no idea how to interpret.  And I’m not even going to try (to quote “A Serious Man” despite the fact that I despise it, “accept the mystery”).  On the surface, the most accessible thematic element is that of artificial intelligence.  We build computers to be smart, even machines like the HAL-9000 that can supposedly make no errors, but when will come the time that they become smarter than us?  This idea has definitely been echoed quite a bit ever since, often times in a more paranoid tone (see “The Matrix”).

There’s also the ground-breaking special effects, which wow me even in 2010.  Crowd reaction must have been like “Avatar” on steroids.  The fact that someone can watch visual effects over four decades old and not be able to laugh at them is practically unfathomable, yet here is “2001” with spectacles that are barely even dusty.  And beyond the graphics, the movie also boasts some very appealing cinematography and skilled make-up artistry.

And of course, no discussion of “2001” can be complete without discussing the music.  I swear that “Requiem” was used in “Inglourious Basterds” when the Nazis killed Shoshana’s family, but I can’t confirm it anywhere (and thus risk looking like a fool if I am refuted).  But the eccentric, or as some would say, innovative, sequences where the only thing we is hear is instrumental music are definitely incredibly influential.  Not to mention the incredibly eclectic nature of the film’s music, which often times feeling entirely out of place, that I say for sure manifests itself in today’s movies.  Look no further than Quentin Tarantino for that.

I’m not ready to crown Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” one of my favorite movies of all time, although I know many would include in their pantheon of fantastic films.  However, I am thankful that this movie was made because it got the ball rolling for the future masters of science-fiction and fantasy to further expand the possibilities for the genre.  I think it’s a topic to debate whether this still reigns supreme or if any of the movies it has inspired have eclipsed it.

*NOTE: I wrote this entire review without consulting any source that would attempt to explain the mystery that is the movie to me.  That has to count for something.


Comments : 9 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Classics Corner, Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #410

11 09 2010

Happy Patriot Day, as today has been designated.  Nine years later, we still will never forget.  So forget “The Hurt Locker” and especially forget “Green Zone” today.  I am an American and proud of it; no movie will ever make me feel ashamed of my country.

As you can see, this factoid comes with the poster for the 2000 Mel Gibson movie “The Patriot.”  It’s a nice tie-in with the subject of today’s factoid, the movies I watched in school.  (Conversation starter courtesy of Moviefone’s Inside Movies.)

I remember many a movie I watched in school.  Most of them come from lower and middle school; I recall watching a 40-minute segment of “Gladiator” in my freshman Latin class and all of “Luther” in my sophomore history class.

In my eighth grade history class, I was introduced to the greatness that was “The Last of the Mohicans” and “The Patriot,” two great movies about America around her birth.

In sixth grade, we spent an entire week watching Stanley Kubrick’s “Spartacus” in my Latin class.  It was very entertaining and informative, plenty worth the wait to understand the phrase “I am Spartacus.”

Beyond that, I really can’t think of other movies.  But when I inevitably remember them, they will make for some easy factoid material.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Oscar Moment: “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps”

11 09 2010

You absolutely have to love Michael Douglas now.  The man is in the fight of his life against Stage 4 throat cancer, and he’s talking about it openly to millions of Americans on late night television.  Now that’s courage.

Here’s what doctors have to say about Douglas’ future:

Doctors say the therapy is grueling. Many patients develop painful mouth sores that require morphine-like narcotic pain relievers, says Robert Haddad, an oncologist with the head and neck cancer program at Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Radiation also can burn the throat, which makes it painful to swallow. About half of patients require a feeding tube, says Haddad, who has no personal knowledge of Douglas’ case.

Despite the side effects, Haddad says, Douglas’ long-term quality of life “should be excellent.”

Although the treatment is tough, it can cure 50% to 80% of patients, depending on the location and other details of the tumor, he says.

Douglas appears optimistic, and everyone in America will certainly be cheering when he beats cancer.  But will the Academy be cheering with everyone?

Will an unintended side effect of Douglas’ treatment be an Oscar nomination?  While we are expecting him to make it through, recovery is not 100% certain.  Just think of how many Oscar nominations have been given to people that we have been afraid are going to leave us – Hal Halbrook, Ruby Dee, and Christopher Plummer, just to name a few.

Douglas also has two horses in the stable for an Oscar run this year: the critically acclaimed indie “Solitary Man” and the sequel to the 1987 movie that won him an Oscar, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.”  Having a really good year is always a big plus for the Academy, who often like to reward several performances through one nomination.  Case in point: Kate Winslet in 2008 for “The Reader” but also for “Revolutionary Road” and Leonardo DiCaprio in 2006 for “Blood Diamond” but also for “The Departed.” (NOTE: One actor cannot receive two nominations in the same category.)

“Wall Street” represents his best chance seeing as “Solitary Man” was released by a very small company that can’t afford a big enough campaign.  Some have speculated that he will be in the Supporting Actor category for this effort, perhaps to run Shia LaBeouf for leading.  I can’t really see this happening; I think the most likely outcome will be a co-lead push for LaBeouf and Douglas.  He’s solid as always, early word says.  According to Variety‘s Justin Chang, “Older, grayer and perhaps a touch less snakelike, Douglas is still insinuatingly good, and his performance lays the groundwork for the film’s one spectacularly cynical twist.”  I’d say he has a great shot, and the somber spotlight (sadly) only helps.

A funny note, no one has ever won two competitive Oscars for the same role.  In 1946, Harold Russell, a World War II veteran, won Best Supporting Actor for his role in “The Best Years of Our Lives” and an honorary Oscar for inspiring hope.  And the role of Vito Corleone in “The Godfather” saga has given Oscars to two actors, Marlon Brando in 1972 and Robert DeNiro in 1974.

As for the rest of the movie’s chances, it gets pretty spotty.  Here’s Guy Lodge of In Contention after seeing the premiere at Cannes back in May, offering what I see as a pretty accurate representation of feelings toward the movie from across the board:

“Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” is one of the more pleasantly surprising studio pictures of the year thus far, and a significant improvement on its po-faced (and, 23 years on, now fearsomely dated) predecessor. If the sequel could never have been deemed “necessary,” it’s certainly as handily timed as can be. As the original served as dumb but not ineffective allegory for the coke-fuelled iniquities of 1980s capitalism, the new film not only does the same for credit-crunch sobriety in the post-2000s, but allows Stone his “Toldja!” moment to boot.

Oliver Stone has two Oscars for Best Director already, so I say there’s no chance that he even gets nominated.  Best Picture is not entirely out of the question, although I wonder if “The Social Network” will fill the movie of the moment quota.  I can see an outside possibility for Shia LaBeouf, but odds are he’s too young and people haven’t forgotten that he’s been in the “Indiana Jones” and “Transformers” series.

Everyone loves Carey Mulligan, and like Douglas, she has two performances in play this year (the other coming from this week’s release “Never Let Me Go”).  They are much more likely to recognize her for the other movie, but if reception for that is tepid, she could sneak into Best Supporting Actress.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actor (Douglas)

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress (Mulligan)


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Random Factoid #409

10 09 2010

I rarely let you know what my friends think of my blog.  They do know, and the longer this whole thing goes on, the less it becomes a talking point.  Now, it’s just an understood part of who I am, much like some people are football players or others are perfect scorers on the ACT (which I’m shooting to be tomorrow!).

Back in Random Factoid #130, I gave you a rare instance of what my friends think:

I don’t know how many of you use Facebook, but there is an app on Facebook called Social Interview that allows you to answer random questions about a person and then post it to their walls.  Here are some of the most recent question/answer pairs I have received:

Q: What was your first impression of Marshall?

A: Man, this guy really likes movies.

Q: What will Marshall be doing in ten years?

A: Reviewing movies.

Glad to know they get me.

I had to turn in 4 “senior grids” today for the yearbook with some questions for friends to fill out.  Every single person put “his blog” under the category known for.  Two people put that I will be Roger Ebert in 20 years.  So it’s not just you select few that read out there that are enjoying this blog, which is comforting to know.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags:
Categories : Random Factoids

F.I.L.M. of the Week (September 10, 2010)

10 09 2010

There’s been plenty of attention paid to the Oscars on this site recently, and there will be significantly more starting next week.  The Venice Film Festival will wrap tomorrow; Toronto began yesterday; Telluride came and went.  The race is now beginning to take shape.  Exciting, isn’t it?

I find myself getting a little too carried away with the whole awards season, as do many other people.  We think that Hollywood is obsessed with the Oscar hunt, spending millions upon millions pushing their movie in an attempt to secure it a place in cinematic history.  But not everyone is amused.

Case in point: Christopher Guest.  His 2006 ensemble comedy “For Your Consideration” is a dead-on satire of the Oscar chase, seen from the eyes of the people whom the outcome directly affects.  It’s a reminder for those of us who get caught up in the craze that the whole thing is really a silly game and doesn’t deserve the serious attention we give it.  So I’m hoping that by entering it into the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” series, I might remember how trivial these awards really are in the grand scheme of things.

It all starts with a rumor as some idle Oscar buzz around Marilyn Hack, played with hilarious gusto by the ever hilarious Catherine O’Hara, and her performance in “Home for Purim” gets the star’s attention.  The movie is still shooting when the word gets out, and all of a sudden, it becomes all that anyone can can talk about.  The actors, the directors, the writers, the technical crew, the producers, the agents – everyone suddenly begins to believe they are a part of something special.

Dynamics begin to change around the set as the arbitrary layer of prestige is added to the production.  Hack’s performance is affected as she tries to pull typical over-the-top emotions just begging for Academy attention.  Beyond Hack, everyone starts acting solely out of self-interest to push themselves into awards contention as well.  This is more than just a movie about the Oscars; it’s a cautionary tale of what can happen if we get too wrapped up in layers of self-importance.

There’s a great exchange between Harry Shearer’s B-list actor Victor Allan Miller and his makeup artist.  While fixing his hair, the artist says, “The Oscars are the backbone of this industry,” to which Miller replies, “In an industry known for having no backbone.”  In just two lines, Guest smacks the nail on the head of Oscar frenzy.  Actors are involved in more compelling drama off screen than on, and their lives become an act to satisfy the politics of awards gimmicking.  The Academy or any other significant voting body couldn’t in their right minds honor a movie that so deftly lambasts their institution, but “For Your Consideration” has a home here.  I’m an Oscar maniac and won’t hide it; however, I’ll have Guest’s movie in the back of my head all season telling me to recognize these movies for their art, not their campaigning.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #408

9 09 2010

Marriage – there’s one in basically every movie.  And like we’ve been taught since middle school, in order for there to be a plot, there has to be conflict.  Marriages don’t get an exemption. 95% of all movie marriages are, in my estimation, either falling apart or struggling to maintain the façade that they are perfectly happy.

I’ve been lucky enough to have two parents that have been happily married for 19 years, so the only time I get to witness such great marital strife is on the big screen.  It’s there that I get the idea that divorce is this hunky-dory thing that happens to two people when they just can’t get along, and that adultery is perfectly acceptable when marriage isn’t working out.  Just look at us glorifying Brad and Angelina as the perfect couple; he cheated on Jennifer Aniston to be with her, and Hollywood thinks its perfectly OK.

Apparently, I’m not the only person noticing this.  I got this idea (which has now turned into a rant) from Cinematical, who observes this:

I do know about ‘movie marriage’, and I’ve come to the sad conclusion that most movie marriages — for the lack of a better word — suck. This epiphany came to me when I was watching the Tina Fey and Steve Carell comedy, “Date Night,” and I noticed that every time the movie would start to find its rhythm, the fun would grind to a halt as our two lead characters would have a heart-to-heart about their marital troubles (talk about a buzz kill).

I know what you’re going to say: “But there has to be conflict!” Sure, but in the case of “Date Night” we already had a big fat conflict — our lovable duo have been mistaken for a criminal couple and were plopped into the middle of a mob shakedown. Watching masters of wacky like Carell and Fey slow their roll for cliched exposition about how hard it is to keep the love alive was a disappointment to say the least, and I had to ask myself: Whatever happened to the ‘Madcap Marrieds’?

I feel like Hollywood has turned movies of marriage into cautionary tales.  Maybe by showing us enough people who disrespect the covenant of marriage, we will in turn be inspired to choose our spouses wisely.  Heaven knows, I don’t want to end up like Frank and April from “Revolutionary Road.”  The couples that are so bad it’s scary are the only ones I remember; I can’t pull a paradigm of happy marriage from a movie off the top of my head.

So what’s the message you are getting from Hollywood marriages?


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

“The American” Poll Results

9 09 2010

All I keep hearing about “The American” is that it got a D- CinemaScore average but still managed to take the #1 spot at the box office.  If that’s not a testament to how much America trust George Clooney, I don’t know what is.

Commercial success is nice (although being #1 in September is hardly anything to brag about); however, it doesn’t always mean that the Oscar love is going to start flowing.

In my Oscar Moment on the movie two weeks ago, I sold its awards case based on the respect for Clooney and director Anton Corbijn.  There weren’t any reviews out at the time of posting, but we know now that it hovers around 60%, which is nothing to scoff at by any means.  That’s not exactly prime Oscar territory when a movie isn’t very baity.

Seems like you all weren’t feeling particularly optimistic about the chances of “The American.”  60% said it was heading down the path to obscurity while 40% said it was heading to glory.  Based on the poor audience response and middling box office and critical reception, I’d say the readers are probably right today.

(P.S. – Take “The Social Network” poll … I want more votes for that one!)


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : Marshall and the Movies, Polls

Random Factoid #407

8 09 2010

Today’s entry is mainly for the fellow bloggers, but any movie aficionados are welcome to chime in as well.

I love randomly surfing the App Store on my iPhone for movie-related apps.  The other day, I downloaded a freebie in the top 25 called “Movie Quizzle.”  It sounded like something totally up my alley, so I decided to download it and give it a try.

After quizzing myself for five minutes, I had to delete the app because it was so patronizingly easy.  As an obsessive moviegoer, the questions were an insult to my intelligence.  But sometimes an insult to intelligence is good because it reminds you that you have a brain and are intelligent in the first place.

Movie Quizzle isn’t the only thing I’ve sworn off, too.  I don’t play Scene It! anymore because it’s just no fun to play with friends when I know so much and they so little.  I don’t like to gloat, and it’s all too easy to get a big ego for me playing that game.

Anyone else feel like their cinematic knowledge is so far superior to the average bear that any sort of trivia thrown at us just seems too easy?


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

REVIEW: The Ghost Writer

7 09 2010

There are plenty of political thrillers thrown at us each year, and despite being directed by Oscar winner Roman Polanski, “The Ghost Writer” has little to distinguish itself from the countless other entries in the genre.  Thanks to solid direction and capable acting, it definitely ranks among the upper echelon of similar movies.  Yet at the same time, there’s nothing that jumps out and makes you think “now THAT is the work of an Academy Award winning director.”  (It’s almost impossible to top “The Pianist,” and I don’t expect Polanski to do so.)

It’s your prototypical tale of intrigue involving the usual chain of events: suspicion, investigation, and ultimately startling discovery. Ewan McGregor’s Ghost takes on the lofty task of adapting the verbose memoirs of former British Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) after the first ghost writer drowns.  The Ghost senses that there might be foul play afoot in the unforeseen disappearance, and sure enough, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.  He stumbles upon a web of deceit and betrayal where allegiance and alliance are never certain.

There are some nice twists in the end, but the build-up can get a little tedious at times.  Nothing is ever boring because it is a Polanski movie, after all.  There is often an occasion where the movie thinks it’s a lot better than it is.  Maybe it’s this Polanski-instilled confidence that elevates the movie a few rungs above mediocre.  He does a good job of escalating the tension slowly over the movie until the end when it could be cut with a knife.  The tautness is also due in large part to Alexandre Desplat’s brassy score, sometimes quirky but always blaring.

In short, “The Ghost Writer” doesn’t quite measure up to the Roman Polanski standard.  But not quite measuring up to his standard is exceeding a whole lot of other ones.  B+ /


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #406

7 09 2010

I have no intention of seeing “Piranha 3D” … really, ever.  But for the sequel (which seems strange to already plan given the movie’s lackluster box office receipts), I might be kind of interested.  The folks running the marketing may have come up with the greatest way for moviegoers to participate in creating a movie.  Sorry, I just couldn’t bring myself to say art.

Listen to this proposition (via Cinematical):

We already know a sequel to Alexandre Aja’s rebooting of the “Piranha” series is in the works, and now comes news that The Weinstein Company is planning to let the fans get involved with the story development.

The as yet untitled sequel will take a page out of the Paranormal Activity playbook — not by asking viewers to demand the film, but instead letting them vote on which celebrity they’d love to see turn up in the sequel and die a horrible death. Sounds fun to me — and the possibilities are endless!

The author of the post suggested some great dramatic actors like Meryl Streep, Judi Dench, or Robert DeNiro.  If I had to cast my vote, and I think I will because the opportunity is just too good to pass up, I would choose someone very unlikely to ever take such a role.

So here are my picks.  For female, I’d love to see Tilda Swinton do it because she is so serious about everything.  She stated her days as a “Hollywood spy” are over, which would make taking this role all the more hilarious.  Female runner-up is Marion Cotillard, mainly because I want to see how great a swimsuit they could put her in (hey, I am a guy).  And for the same reason, I’d love to see Leonardo DiCaprio do it as well because like Swinton, he’s made editorial headlines for his stubborn insistence to only take on intensely dramatic roles.  Runner-up for males would be Steve Carell, but only if he played Michael Scott.  The real exit of Michael from “The Office” – he goes on a beach vacation and winds up getting mauled by piranha.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

REVIEW: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

6 09 2010

With the sense of wonder of a child and the intelligence of an adult, “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” is a truly dazzling film. From the mind of Terry Gilliam, this Faustian fairy tale indulges our imaginations, often growing dusty from years without activity and becoming more seldomly used with each technological advance and each passing year. I feel like I saw in this movie what the multitudes saw in “Pan’s Labyrinth,” but I found the bubbly exuberance on display here was ultimately much more winning.

The titular Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) is traveling England doing an antiquated theater and magic show in a horse-and-buggy. He has sold his soul to Mr. Nick (Tom Waits), an incarnation of the Devil, to counteract the immortality he won from the big red guy down below in a bet several hundred years before. Parnassus soon has to give back his 16-year-old daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole), to Nick, and he’s especially dreary given those circumstances. It doesn’t help that his “imaginarium” has become somewhat of a laughing stock.

But everything changes when they rescue a hanging man (Heath Ledger), later discovered to be a philanthropist named Tony. Parnassus’ crew discovers first, though, that Tony has a true knack for the theatrical, and he revolutionizes their marketing approach. Soon enough, all sorts of high-class mall shoppers are entering their mysterious mirror into a world of untapped imagination. But soon enough, they find out that Tony was involved some shady dealings, and the troupe is subsequently brought into this world of danger along with their newest member.

The movie has the unfortunate distinction of being Heath Ledger’s final role. As it was widely publicized, he was still in the middle of filming this movie when he passed. While his performance as the anarchical The Joker will forever make him an icon and legend in cinematic history, it was a role that certainly did not represent Ledger’s off-screen personality. As the mysterious Tony, all the charm and artistry that made him one of the movies’ golden boys is on display. It’s really comforting to know that Ledger’s final movie shows us the Ledger we want to remember.

I was worried that the movie would be too much of a memorial to Ledger and that Gilliam couldn’t figure out a way to downplay his death. His solution is executed with poise, having Ledger play Tony in the real world and three capable actors (Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell) play different incarnations of him inside the mirror. Depp, Law, and Farrell are all great, bringing their distinctive acting skills to the role while also keeping in line with Ledger’s version of the character. It’s also nice to know that their dedication extends beyond the screen as they all donated their salaries for the movie to Ledger’s daughter, Matilda.

But let’s not dwell on the past too much because this movie gives us a great opportunity to look forward to the future. “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” is one of the first roles for Andrew Garfield, recently cast in the reboot of the Spider-Man series. Audiences will probably look back and see “Never Let Me Go” and “The Social Network” as the movies in which they discovered him, but here we get a very nice introduction to the actor who is poised to make a big splash in Hollywood. With charisma, nobility, and sensibility, not so unlike Ledger, Garfield should be a welcome addition to Hollywood’s A-list.  A- /


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #405

6 09 2010

Can a movie be too intense?  After premiering at the Telluride Film Festival this weekend, medics have labeled Danny Boyle’s “127 Hours” just that.  According to a rep from Fox Searchlight, this is precisely what led to the label:

From what I understand, an older gentleman was light-headed at the first screening (Galaxy) and the medics helped him calm down. Second screening at the Palm was a young woman (maybe 19 or 20) who had a panic attack. Paramedics attended to both people. I didn’t even know about the second incident until after the screening was over and someone told me (I was sitting in the first half of the theater).

The movie is the story of climber Aron Ralston, played by James Franco, who was trapped under a boulder for over 5 days.  He wound up having to take drastic measures to escape, but seeing as he is still alive, it’s hardly a spoiler to say that he was successful.  I won’t ruin how he escapes for those that may not know; however, he didn’t walk out of the canyon unscathed.  Boyle has stated that he wants the movie to be “a challenge for moviegoers.”  I’m very curious to see how he turns being trapped for 5 days into a good movie.  According to the reviews, he uses his typical energetic directing style to do it.

Is there really a need to label a movie “too intense?”  There has been discussion recently to change ratings for 3D movies, which I understand because it can freak little kids out when something comes flying at them from the screen unexpectedly.  But for a hard-hitting, 2D drama film?  Some people can’t handle certain experiences at the movies.  I got motion sickness from “Cloverfield” (as I described in Random Factoid #2–), and it was definitely hard to watch movies with tough subject matter like “Precious,” “Schindler’s List,” and “The Pianist,” just to name a few.

There are certain movies, though, that I believe are made in a stylistic manner that is meant to engage our senses.  The best director out there utilizing such techniques is, in my mind, Darren Aronfosky.  You can’t tell me you didn’t feel a little sick at your stomach watching “Pi” or “Requiem for a Dream.”  I feel like the MPAA ought to include some sort of advisory in their rating that these movies have such stylistic power.

So what do you think?  Does the establishment need to advise the moviegoing public about movies that are going to be intense?


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

SAVE YOURSELF from “Lost in Translation”

5 09 2010

Plenty of people will tell you to run to “Lost in Translation;” I, however, am not telling you to walk. I’m telling you to run in the other direction and SAVE YOURSELF!

Now, by all means, if you want to spend an hour and a half of your valuable time watching an excruciatingly subtle movie that shows not the slightest bit of emotion, this could be your movie. Some people take pleasure in seeing movies like this because they, in some form or fashion, feel like they have power because the filmmaker has let them fill in the emotional blanks. I like movies that show people living their lives, no matter how dismal or boring that may be. Sofia Coppola gives us in this movie a portrait of two people who might as well be dead because they show such few signs of life.

It’s a 90-minute movie that feels like 90 hours in moviewatching hell – or, as Coppola sees it, Japan. We get to see plenty of a much younger Scarlett Johansson (here in her breakout role), but if you want to go ScarJo watching, there are plenty of magazines and websites for that. In “Lost in Translation,” Coppola gives us these ten minute asides of Johansson visiting various tourist locations looking perplexed and bored to tears. I’ll give her that she really communicates the later of the two emotions to the audience, as our impatient American mind yells, “GET ON WITH IT! SEE THE DARNED SIGHTS AND GET THE PLOT MOVING!”

The movie drags on following two bored souls in Japan, the photographer’s wife left to stew in her own juices played by Johansson and a burnt-out alcoholic actor played admirably by Bill Murray.  I won’t pretend like Murray deserved a Razzie for his work here because it wasn’t awful.  But in terms of the kind of performances the Oscars have rewarded and nominated in the past decade, this just falls short of expectations.  In essence, it’s Murray playing the same character we’ve laughed at for two decades, only now we are supposed to pity him because this funny guy has suddenly turned vapid.

The two strike up friendship unexpectedly and begin to converse on occasion.  Talking makes up only about a third of the movie, however.  Coppola left me wondering how on earth I’m expected to buy their relationship, but more importantly, why I should care an iota.  I’ve been more invested in the characters that populate corny romantic comedies than this, something that should not be able to describe any Best Picture nominee.  The counteracting of my argument is that Coppola is using the European technique of letting the dialogue provide the mood and the emotions to tell the story.  I have no problem with this, but “Lost in Translation” is so frigidly distant that I felt there was never an opportunity to make any sort of connection to it.

By the time the movie wrapped up, I could have cared less about how to interpret the open-ended conclusion. It’s as painfully reserved and wistfully distant as the shy kid in middle school.  All politeness aside, that’s NOT the person I want to spend my valuable time with.  The Coppola last name is the stuff of legends, and it’s a shame that Sofia can just tote it around because she was born with it, not because she truly earned it.


Comments : 26 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews, Save Yourself!

Random Factoid #404

5 09 2010

Somehow at a dinner conversation tonight, the topic of VHS tapes came about, and I was forced to retrieve the tape of “The Sound of Music” to prove my point.  I opened up the secluded cabinet where the VHS tapes have always been in my house and was absolutely stunned to see the volume of tapes we still own.

Technology is very temporal, and I understand that.  There was the LaserDisc and the BetaMax before the VHS, and you don’t see those being sold at your local Best Buy any more.  As the times have changed, people have adapted.  They might still have their library of LaserDiscs, but chances are they have bought into VHS tapes … and then DVDs … and perhaps now Blu-Ray discs (although my money is on a digital library).  Eventually, novelty becomes necessity, and we look back and see all the money we spent on the technology that has gone the way of the dinosaur.

I looked into that cabinet tonight and saw upwards of 30 VHS tapes that haven’t been watched in well over half a decade.  My family hasn’t owned a VHS player in at least three years, so we haven’t been able to watch them.  But I looked into that cabinet and saw the movies that defined my childhood because VHS was the technology that made moviewatching possible when I was younger. It’s kind of sad to see all those movies sitting there that simply can’t be watched.  I feel like Andy in “Toy Story 3” right now; I can’t just throw them away, can I?

Does anyone else still have their VHS tapes?  If yes, do you still have a VHS player to watch them with?

P.S. – If the “Random Factoid” series wasn’t so rigidly set in terms of titles, I would have called this post “Requiem for a VCR.”


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Oscar Moment: “Never Let Me Go”

4 09 2010

“Never Let Me Go” seems like a perfect awards candidate on paper.  Let me run you down a bulleted list of why this is an ideal candidate for the Academy Awards.

It is based on a best-selling novel. Popular novels have what many consider to be a carved-out niche at the Oscars.  In 2008, it was “The Reader.”  In 2007, it was “Atonement.”  In 2004, it was “Sideways.”  It also helps that Time called “Never Let Me Go” the best novel of the decade.  The writer of the book, Kazuo Ishiguro, also wrote another novel adapted into a movie, “The Remains of the Day.”  In 1993, it received 8 Academy Award nominations including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay.

It has British people. More and more attention has been shone on the growing influence of our friends across the pond on the Academy Awards.  Their tastes have become more closely aligned with the BAFTAs in recent years.  Plus, there has been a British movie in the Best Picture race quite consistently in the last decade.  In 2009, it was “An Education.”  In 2008, it was “The Reader.”  In 2007, it was “Atonement.”  In 2006, it was “The Queen.”  The British are coming, the British are coming!!

It has Oscar friendly British people.  Although they didn’t give her the golden statue last year, the Oscars certainly like 24-year-old Carey Mulligan, and she looks to be in prime position to make a run for the prize again.  There’s also Keira Knightley, an unexpected addition to the 2005 Best Actress slate for her work on “Pride and Prejudice.”  She looks to compete in the Best Supporting Actress race here, generally pretty friendly to younger actresses.  In addition, there’s Andrew Garfield, who will probably rack up plenty of Best Breakout Performer awards for his work on this and “The Social Network.”

It is a story of “love, loss, and hidden truths.” Now think of that vague description of the thematic content of the movie, and name some Best Picture nominees that phrase could describe.  2008’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” perhaps?  “The Reader” that same year?  “Atonement?”  You get the picture.  It’s only an added bonus that the movie takes place in a dystopian society, which the pessimistic Academy will eat up.  They have certainly loved movies that take a bleaker, honest look at our nature – a trend of winners I’d say started with “Crash” back in 2005.  Some have linked it to a general sense of American disillusionment that the liberal Hollywood has decided to make the zeitgeist sentiment of the nation.

Doesn’t this sound like a winning equation?  It’s hard to believe that this is just now emerging as a big player and wasn’t a favorite from the very beginning.  (Relevant side comment: why didn’t 2010 have an early favorite to win it all?)  But the Oscars haven’t exactly chomped at the bait recently.  They chose to include different tastes like “District 9” and “The Blind Side” that aren’t usually represented, snubbing early favorites like the dismally reviewed “Nine” and the coolly received “Invictus.”

So is “Never Let Me Go” going to continue the glorious British literary adaptation streak?  Or have those movies been represented so much recently that the Academy will say enough?

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress (Knightley), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Score

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Garfield), Best Production Design


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »