REVIEW: When In Rome

29 08 2010

I was preparing for the worst when I popped “When In Rome” into my DVD player.  It’s a romantic comedy, so that means a marriage to formula and the same old gimmicks for an easy laugh.  But the thing about low standards is that it becomes a whole lot easier for a movie to really surprise you.  Such was the case here.

Shockingly enough, it’s not half bad.  I’m sure you are shaking your heads, saying it’s not possible for a romantic comedy that looked pretty uninspired from the previews to actually be any good.  And I’m not saying that this a new classic for the genre or that it has successfully introduced a new formula into the romantic comedy lexicon.  It’s nothing highly original or innovative.  All I’m saying is that something about “When In Rome” … works.

At the start of the movie, I was preparing to hate Kristen Bell’s character Beth after she can’t stop rambling to herself about a bad experience in an Applebee’s.  It’s even worse because she’s a high-brow art curator and Guggenheim obsessive, something regular Applebee’s customers usually aren’t too fond of.  Yet at her sister’s wedding in Italy, she gets a little too much champagne in her and makes an impulsive decision, yanking coins out of a fountain of love.

All of a sudden, that paradoxical facade is wiped away, and Beth is someone we can actually like as she is thrown into a crazy situation.  She had never been the kind to actively seek love, but by taking the coins, the men who threw them come looking to her for love.  Four men are over-the-moon smitten for her: a sausage mogul (Abe Froman, anyone?) played by Danny DeVito, an Italian painter played by Will Arnett, a model in love with himself as much as Beth played by Dax Shepard, and a loopy magician played by Jon Heder.

And then there’s a wild card thrown into the mix: the best man at her sister’s wedding, Josh Duhamel’s charming Nick, seems to be quite interested in Beth after they had a connection at the reception.  Her concern at first is that these four men will ruin her chance with Nick, but she soon realizes that he could just easily be one of her head-over-heels lovers.  It’s a bit of a romantic mystery, enough to keep a little bit of suspense throughout the fun and funny “When In Rome.”  B /





Random Factoid #396

28 08 2010

How’s this for an exciting proposition?  This according to Cinematical

Would you go out to the movies more if you got something out of it? I mean other than the movie, of course. Say you also got a free Scott Pilgrim t-shirt for seeing “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World?” Or the complete graphic novel collection if you saw it a certain number of times? Or some other Universal Studios-related swag for seeing Pilgrim and “Charlie St. Cloud” and “Nanny McPhee Returns?” These are some incentive ideas related to a proposal by (former Cinematical writer) Chris Thilk at Ad Age that Hollywood studios reward moviegoers based on their check-ins on location-based social network apps like Miso and GetGlue. And of course Foursquare, Twitter and Facebook.

It’s an interesting suggestion, though there is the problem of fake check ins. You can easily put yourself into a location you’re not in or say you’re watching a movie you’re not. For studios to trust the concept, these apps would require some means to prove you’re telling the truth.

I am a huge fan of this idea because it rewards me for doing two things I do very normally – social network and go to the movies.  I don’t movie hop or watch pirated movies because I respect filmmakers, and I wouldn’t use the system to cheat the studios.  I’d treat it like I treat the Regal Crown Club or AMC MovieWatcher programs.

My suggestion: perhaps to verify that the people actually see the movies, they could put a code in the pre-show entertainment or on the theater door that would allow them to be checked in.  Or maybe in the ending credits to make sure that they stay the whole movie.

What do you think, bloggers?  I expect a resounding yes because we all go to the movies so often.





REVIEW: Leap Year

28 08 2010

Why does anyone still bother to see romantic comedies? Look at the poster for “Leap Year” and guess how it ends; the genre has become so formulaic that my previous statement can’t even be branded a spoiler. So why is it that they are still made, and why is it that anyone still wants to see them?

Simply put, it’s because actresses like Amy Adams take roles in romantic comedies that the audiences come in droves.  So you really need me to go into the plot?  Or the production values?  If you truly want to see this movie, it’s almost a guarantee what you really want to see is Amy Adams.

So do you want me to waste both my time and yours by reviewing “Leap Year?”  In a sentence, it’s a stale rehash of all the romantic comedy cliches we’ve come to love and hate.  But the movie isn’t a total waste of time because of all the charm Amy Adams breathes into it.  As Anna, the girl so desperate to get married that she’s willing to travel in dismal conditions to propose to her boyfriend, she manages to turn someone with traits we would generally despise into a character we can actually like.  That’s no small feat.

She doesn’t really get to be funny or sexy, two things you can be very little of in a movie that’s rated PG.  But that girl-next-door sensibility and smile as wide as a mountain range are present, and they somehow make the corny plot more digestible.

If you decide to watch “Leap Year,” you won’t get anything you can’t get from any other romantic comedy.  You’ll wind up feeling about as warm as you do looking at the poster, watching the trailer, or reading a plot synopsis.  But you will get a big portion of jubilant Amy Adams, and that’s enough to make 100 minutes of banalities feel a little less dusty.  B- /





Films You Didn’t Know You Needed To See @ Kai’s The List

28 08 2010

Sound familiar?  Kai of “The List” rounds up a group of people every month or so to elaborate on “Films You Didn’t Know You Needed To See.”  I do that every Friday with my “F.I.L.M. of the Week” column.  So when I got the invitation to contribute three movies to Kai’s August edition, I couldn’t very well decline!  So I doctored a little bit of three posts from my series.  My choices were three movies that emphasize the L in F.I.L.M., little-known.

Here were my three picks and the write-ups as they will appear over at Kai’s site.

“Cats Don’t Dance”

I watched “Cats Don’t Dance,” a fun-loving musical that was a staple of my childhood, after a particularly hard day. I remember how much I loved it when I first saw it at the age of 5, and that passion has not faded a bit as I watched it for the first time in years.

The movie is a celebration of dreams as Danny, the singing cat from Kokomo, heads to Hollywood to light the world on fire. But things are not what he imagined, and he soon finds that life isn’t easy for an animal actor – especially when his co-star is a tyrannical child actor who refuses to be upstaged. He refuses to be crushed, keeping his optimism while bringing together a large group of animals to recapture their dreams. There are some hilarious characters, including a hippo voiced by Jennifer Tilly and a surly goat voiced by Hal Holbrook, as well as some rousing musical numbers (thankfully all are easily found on YouTube).

It may be a movie for kids, but I think it has one of the most profound quotes I have ever heard in a movie of this style: “They can smash your cookie, but they can never take your fortune.” It’s a great helping of nostalgia for me, but I think anyone can enjoy “Cats Don’t Dance.” It really is that disarming.

“Friends with Money”

If you look at the poster for “Friends with Money,” see Jennifer Aniston and instantly think, “This movie is going to be stupid,” be prepared to think twice. It’s an incredibly, perhaps surprisingly, deep look at the effects of money and social class on four friends in Los Angeles. It rounds all the bases, touching on all the big issues that an obsession with money can bring.

Each of the women (Frances McDormand, Catherine Keener, Joan Cusack, and Jennifer Aniston) undergoes a metamorphosis over the course of the movie’s 88 minutes. Holofcener creates four wonderfully elaborate women whose stories unfold before our very eyes. The character study is incredibly effective and entertaining, largely due in part to the wittiness of the script.

And bring on the puzzled looks – the star of “Friends With Money” is Jennifer Aniston. Her Olivia is by far and away the film’s most complicated character, and in the hands of Aniston, she is completely realized. We can buy every move she makes and feel the emotion behind each line. All you Jennifer Aniston haters out there, watch this movie. You may not be silenced, but it should shut you up for a little while.

“Waltz with Bashir”

When I explain the genre of “Waltz with Bashir,” it will probably sound like an oxymoron. An animated documentary?!? How does that even work? But at some point in history, peanut butter and jelly sounded like a strange combination. Someone had to be bold and try it, and Folman should be remembered as a pioneer of a new style of filmmaking that I really hope will catch on. Using animation in a documentary is a fascinating way to make people’s memories come to life, especially ones that might be too costly or difficult to shoot in live action. Nothing is wasted and no holds are barred.

Folman’s documentary revolves around a very intriguing concept. As a young man, he fought for Israel in the Lebanon War of the 1980s. Fast forward to the present day, and Folman has absolutely no recollection of anything that happened during the fighting save one memory of he and some comrades emerging from water completely naked. He begins to visit some people who might be able to jog his memory, asking them about their experiences. The stories slowly become more and more brutal, and Folman begins to remember.

If you decide to watch “Waltz with Bashir,” prepare yourself. It’s not an easy movie to sit through, but it’s a rich and rewarding hour and a half. Hopefully other documentary filmmakers have seen that Folman’s film is unbounded in its possibilities, and other stories that we could barely imagine will find life on celluloid.

Go check out Kai’s entire post by clicking HERE.





F.I.L.M. of the Week (August 27, 2010)

27 08 2010

Comedy Week kicks off here on the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” series with a look at “Shopgirl,” an inspiredly funny adaptation of Steve Martin’s novella that is also tinged with a fair amount of melancholic reflection.  The movie takes a look at an unassuming girl entering the urban jungle of Los Angeles to find herself confronted with a choice between two very different relationships with two polar opposite men.

Mirabelle (Claire Danes) didn’t expect much when she moved from Vermont to LA and began working the glove counter at Saks.  Yet suddenly, she is faced with some very big problems, namely love.  Unsure of what it is, how to find it, or how to recognize it, she sits back passively waiting for it to come to her.

Sure enough it does come, although in two very different forms.  First, she meets Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman).  He’s a bumbling fool with no set of social skills, but he does have the best of intentions and all of his heart to offer Mirabelle.

Second, she meets Ray Porter (Steve Martin).  Unlike Jeremy, he’s a smooth operator who always does things with class.  Despite being music older than Mirabelle, they both find themselves falling for each other.  He’s a very wealthy entrepreneur with all of his wallet to share with her, buying her first fitted dress.  Yet he often feels a little too distant, hiding away parts of himself.

“Shopgirl” is everything a romantic comedy should be, scorning formula to provide a thought-provoking rumination on love in the modern world.  In the context of these two relationships, Mirabelle is searching for love although unsure of what shape or form it will take.  The movie doesn’t hold back and is willing to delve deep into the psychological ruin of not finding love.  But it’s precisely because it goes there that there’s just an irresistible charm about this movie.  Even when the going gets rough for Mirabelle, we still feel light as a feather.





Random Factoid #395

27 08 2010

Avatards, reassemble today!

James Cameron gives us 9 new minutes of his global phenomenon “Avatar” in 3D and IMAX exclusively today. Here’s what we’re getting:

Cool stuff. All cool stuff. There’s a big rousing sequence where they’re hunting these herd animals called sturmbeests. There’s another new creature that you haven’t seen before called the stingbat. There’s a really powerful emotional scene toward the end of the film where the leader of the Na’vi is dying after a battle. There’s a bit more in the love scene with Jake and Neytiri. There’s more bioluminescent stuff in the night forest. Little bits and pieces here and there.

He had me at “more in the love scene.”  I mean, who wanted that scene to end SO soon?!  (There’s a hint of facetiousness that I hope you picked up on.)

But seriously, 8 months for a re-release?  It seems a bit soon, even for the biggest movie in recent memory.  Cameron describes it as “a limited special edition. It’s just an experience you can have with your family at the end of the summer. The last hurrah in theaters.”  Judging by the lineups at the theater this weekend, it’s probably the best thing out there besides “Inception.”  Just the sad state of Hollywood this time of year.

I think that after the past 6 months have brought nothing but 3D controversy and argument, maybe “Avatar” will remind audiences of what good use of the technology looks like.  Perhaps they will then apply that sentiment and make a ruckus for all the false 3D filling theaters recently.  I can dream, can’t I?

I’ve been to two re-releases in my lifetime, “E.T.” back in 2002 and “Grease” in the ’90s.  Both of those were fun to see with my parents because we were able to share in the theatrical experience together as they relived the wonder and the excitement of the first time they saw it.  I feel like “Avatar” holds that same sense, and I can’t wait to one day watch the movie with my kids whenever its 3D technology and groundbreaking effects look like rubbish.  But, in a purely hypothetical situation, if I had conceived a child the day “Avatar” was released, it would still be in utero for this re-release!  So perhaps it is a little too soon, yet everyone could use the escape to Pandora in order to escape the dismal titles on the multiplex marquees.





Random Factoid #394

26 08 2010

Can you enjoy a film if you “hate” the filmmaker? That’s the question posed over at Cinematical, who examined the work of three controversial directors.  Here’s what was said on Roman Polanski, whose rearresting this past year has caused quite a stir:

Crimes: Giving drugs and sex to an underage girl; fleeing from indictment and avoiding America forever.

This is the big one among movie geeks. Polanski’s crimes were committed in 1977, and since then he’s produced films both good and not so good … every time one of his new films hits cinemas, the movie world is abuzz with opinions on Polanski’s legal problems. Given that Polanski’s latest was actually produced while he was under house arrest, well, that just gave Polanski’s detractors another reason to hate the guy.

Frankly I’m not qualified to judge a man like Roman Polanski. This guy escaped the Warsaw ghetto and lived to see his pregnant wife murdered by the Manson family … so clearly he has some emotional issues. Obviously that does not excuse a man from committing statutory rape and then fleeing from justice, but I just see Polanski as a tragic figure altogether. A truly gifted filmmaker who’s survived some horrible things (and committed some unpleasant acts)…

I’ve been lucky enough to surround myself with people who are more interested in the value of the art than the values of the people creating it.  I separate life on and off the screen because they are two entirely different forms of reality.  I’m in no position to judge these people’s lives, only the art that they create.  This even goes for Roman Polanski.  I’m not going to condone the actions he allegedly committed, but it’s not my call to decide how he should face judgement.  From my experience, I have found that there is passing judgement on others, particularly based on incomplete information, only produces anger and resentment.

I once had a teacher who wouldn’t see “Mission: Impossible 3” because she didn’t like that Tom Cruise was open about his belief in Scientology.  I think it’s a little silly to boycott a movie when an actor takes on a role that doesn’t espouse his beliefs.  When the actor or actress does, however, it’s an entirely different ballgame.  If someone told me they didn’t want to see “Capitalism: A Love Story” because they don’t appreciate Michael Moore’s outspokenness, then I’d be more comfortable with that decision.

To close, I’ll leave you with the article’s final stance, which pretty much sums up my feelings.  Sometimes it’s best not to reproduce something that already hits the nail on the head.

But ultimately … I don’t have to like a person to admire their films. And I guess that’s where I stand in general: my job is to evaluate and appreciate a film. Anything beyond that is simply not all that interesting to me.





Random Factoid #393

25 08 2010

Are all comic book movies not created equal from the start?  Seth Rogen apparently doesn’t think so.  In an interview with The Los Angeles Times‘ Hero Complex, the star of the upcoming comic book adaptation “The Green Hornet” had this to say:

“I like Marvel; I’ve kind of given up on DC at this point.”

The massive flaw of saying that DC sucks despite the fact that they have Batman notwithstanding, it’s an interesting prejudice/predilection.  Automatically judging a comic book – or movie – based on the comic book company behind it seems a bit over the top for me.  To me, a comic book movie is a comic book movie.  It’s up to the filmmakers, not the company, to make it good.  I bet Spider-Man could be just as cool at DC and Batman could rock at Marvel.

But then I got to thinking about the prejudices we all hold when we go to the movies.  Face it, we all have them.  I bet everyone has, at some point in their lives, used “Disney” as a pejorative term to describe something kiddy or campy.  That’s not to say they haven’t earned the association with their officially honed output of only animated and inspirational movies.

Beyond Disney, though, I don’t even give a hoot about the studio releasing a movie when it comes to quality.  I don’t think I’m the only one, but then again, is anyone going to say “Ugh, I’m not seeing ‘Takers’ because it was released by Screen Gems” this weekend?





Oscar Moment: “The American”

24 08 2010

I really have no idea what to say about “The American,” but I know there has to be something to say.

Looking at the poster, we see a giant George Clooney.  That’s what Focus Features wants you to see because the rest of the poster (and the trailers as well) give you zero clue what the movie is supposed to be about.  He’s an assassin, as we might deduce from the gun, but no peeking at plot has given me any insight into the events of the movie.  Which may be just what Focus wants.  Hey, I’m not complaining about a movie shrouded in mystery.

In the past five years, Clooney has become a dominant force in Oscar season.  With three nominations for acting under his belt since 2005 (four if you count his Best Director nomination); the only people to match that total in the same amount of time are Philip Seymour Hoffman, Cate Blanchett, Penelope Cruz, and the legendary Meryl Streep.  So we have to assume that anything Clooney stars in nowadays is an Oscar contender – although look at the mistake we made with “The Men Who Stare At Goats.”  If the Best Actor field is particularly weak this year, the Academy could easily sneak in a familiar face like Clooney.

The cast may become an issue in awards season.  The problem isn’t that the movie stars George Clooney; it’s that the movie stars George Clooney and no one else you’ve ever heard of before.  “The American” is being sold almost entirely on Clooney, a little bit on Corbijn for those whose moviegoing tastes are far enough off the beaten path to recognize his name.  So if Clooney isn’t at the top of his game, the whole movie’s chances may be derailed.

This is just Anton Corbijn’s second film, but he’s been behind the camera for quite a while, making music videos for groups as well known as Nirvana and U2.  Prior to that, he spent time behind a different lens doing music photography.  He still keeps up his first profession, albeit as a hobby, chronicling the production of “The American.”  Corbijn kept up a photo blog during production, posting some really interesting shots.  In the very near future, he will release them in a picture book called “Inside The American.”

His first feature, “Control,” about the lead singer of the band Joy Division, premiered at Cannes in 2007 to great reviews.  It opened theatrically later that year to very respectable critical marks, a 78 on Metacritic and an 87% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  Across the pond in Britain, it won Best Film and Best Director among others at their equivalent of the Indie Spirit Awards, the British Independent Film Awards.

Despite these laurels, “Control” didn’t exactly ignite here, failing to earn a release over 30 theaters or a revenue over $1 million.  Not that money really matters that much, especially in the context of a directorial debut.  Last year’s Oscar winner for Best Director, Kathryn Bigelow, made only $3 million with her first film, “Near Dark,” in 1987.

The bar has been set high, at least in terms of quality, for Corbijn’s follow-up.  First films usually don’t receive much notice at the Oscars, the rare exception coming, ironically, for the George Clooney vehicle “Michael Clayton,” which received nominations for Best Picture and Best Director for Tony Gilroy.  Second films, however, have been able to gain traction.  Let’s look at last year’s Best Director nominees and their second films.

  • Winner Kathryn Bigelow made her second film, “Near Dark,” in 1987.  A vampire movie can become a cult favorite, but it’s certainly very hard to take seriously as an Oscar movie.
  • James Cameron made his second film, “The Terminator,” in 1984.  Wildly under-appreciated at the time, it’s now a classic, enshrined in the National Film Registry.
  • Quentin Tarantino made his second film, “Pulp Fiction,” in 1994.  It is considered by some to be a watershed movie in the history of independent film and got Tarantino an Oscar nomination for his directorial work.  The movie also won Best Original Screenplay and was nominated for Best Picture.
  • Jason Reitman made his second film, “Juno,” in 2007.  The movie was nominated for Best Picture, and Reitman was a surprise announcement for a Best Director nomination.
  • Lee Daniels made his second film, “Precious,” in 2009.  The movie was nominated for Best Picture, and Daniels was nominated for Best Director.

See, it does happen!  Second films have found great success, both for the movie and for the director.  The question is whether “The American” will trod the glorious path in 2010 or march its way into (potentially momentary) obscurity.  There has yet to be a review of the movie, so the path truly is unknown.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actor (George Clooney)

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography





Random Factoid #392

24 08 2010

Do you ever wish you were really creative?  I mean, like really creative.  Well, I do, and I think other blogging peers have the same wish.

Anyways, that desire serves as my segue into this Moviefone post of movies that would have been ruined by Facebook.  It’s funny because I was just thinking about how having certain technologies would affect events in the past – for example, being able to FaceTime on your iPhone 4 in 1944.

The only majorly spoiler-proof image they created was based on “The Empire Strikes Back;” that is, spoiler-proof in the sense that we all know the ending.

Does anyone else just look at other blog posts and just think, “Why didn’t I come up with that!?”  Or am I just some envious pig, all alone in my quest for innovation?





Random Factoid #391

23 08 2010

Sometimes when I need blogging inspiration, it’s best just to go to fellow amateur bloggers rather than the professionals.  Now that it’s officially the dog days of summer, there’s not much to write about for the mainstream that can captivate.  But we, as true film connoisseurs, can entertain our little niche audience with just about anything our little minds can dream.

Enter Heather of “Movie Mobsters” and Kai of “The List” to do just that when all I could find on my usual sources of inspiration, Cinematical and The Los Angeles Times, were stuck talking about “The Switch.”  They gave a list of 10 movie props they wished they owned.  What a great idea!  I think I’ll chime in with the movie prop I most want to own.

Their lists were both heavy on nostalgia, so I think I’ll lean back on that old friend as well.  Shamefully, I don’t think I’ve mentioned how in love I was with “Space Jam” as a five-year-old.  It’s an iconic movie of my childhood, one that I still enjoy watching today.  Basketball, the Looney Tunes, Michael Jordan, the ’90s – what’s not to love?

In the movie, the Looney Tunes challenge the pint-sized Monsters to a game of basketball, assuming that a game of height would ensure their defeat.  But the Monsters get smart and steal all the talent from NBA players, putting into one basketball that endows them with all the skills of a pro.  The Monsters then get very large like all basketball players are and proceed to dominate (that is, until the Looney Tunes whip out the tricks).

I want that basketball.  I’m not even a huge player of basketball, although I was once.  But to just be able to touch a ball and receive all the strength, agility, and coordination of an NBA star would be pretty sweet.





Random Factoid #390

22 08 2010

I watched “Magnolia” last night.  At a whopping 3 hours and 8 minutes, it’s definitely one of the longest movies I’ve seen in quite some time.  Most of it was worth my time, although the last hour bored me (up until it started raining frogs, that is).  And I bought Aimee Mann’s cover of “One” from the movie today.

It really is trying to watch a three hour movie.  For a movie to take that much of your time, it needs to hold your attention the entire time.  And the experience got me thinking about time.  It is very precious, especially for a student.  And being a blogger, there never seems to be enough of it to get everything that you want written.

Often times, my movie choice hinges heavily on the length of the movie.  Sometimes I know I don’t have the patience to sit through a really long movie.  Other times, I really do feel a great desire to be fully engrossed in the world of a movie, something I feel longer movies are more capable of doing.  (For those wondering, I watched “Magnolia” because the iTunes rental period was about to expire.)

I can’t find it anywhere online, but I swear that John Waters once said that a good movie should never be longer than an hour and 45 minutes.  Whether he said it or not, I think it provides a good question to discuss.  How much does a movie’s length impact its effectiveness?

I think certain movies should hover around that time length, like horror movies and comedies.  But an innovative drama like “Magnolia” or a sprawling epic like “The Lord of the Rings” should be able to take as much of our time as the filmmakers need to fully achieve their vision.  Really, I’m willing to sit out anything with vision.

Thoughts?  Can you sit through a three hour movie?





“Eat Pray Love” Poll Results

22 08 2010

“Eat Pray Love” third wheeled it at the box office this weekend, scrounging a nice $12 million on a fair 48% decrease from its opening.  With $47.1 million in the bag, it’s outpacing last year’s “Julie & Julia,” which wound up with about $94 million overall.  But that

Anyways, box office speculation aside, it’s time to talk about awards.  Back before anyone had even seen the movie, I wrote an Oscar Moment on “Eat Pray Love” speculating on its chances in Best Actress and Best Picture.

With a low 38% on Rotten Tomatoes, it’s doubtful that the movie will garner the critical support necessary to get a Best Picture nod.  Then again, that’s just one point higher than “Nine,” which was still in the hunt for Best Picture last year, albeit as a bottom-feeding disappointment.

But there hasn’t been any hating on Julia Roberts, and good actresses have gotten into the Best Actress field with worse ratings – just ask Cate Blanchett, who scored a nomination in 2007 for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” a movie with a 35% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

So I asked the readers where the awards season run for “Eat Pray Love” would end.  Would it wind up with an Oscar nomination of any kind or just be a Golden Globes movie?  Or, heck, would it even have an awards season?

No one seemed particularly optimistic.  Only one-fourth of voters in the poll thought it could manage an Oscar nomination.

The other six were split half and half.  Three think it will be nominated for a Golden Globe, while three others think it won’t have any luck in the winter.  It’s really tough to tell, but Julia Roberts would be an easy fallback if the rest of the season disappoints.  So for now, we will just have to wait and see.





Random Factoid #389

21 08 2010

Smoking in movies.  The MPAA is cracking down on it like Congress is cracking down on steroids in baseball.

The movement to get cigarettes out of the fingers of our favorite movie stars has been going on for quite some time now, but James Cameron definitely threw some kerosene on the fire last December when Sigourney Weaver’s Grace lit up liberally throughout “Avatar.”  When I saw it, quite frankly, I laughed.  I saw it as James Cameron’s big “*&$% you, MPAA, I’m an artist and I’ll do what I want!”  Here’s what he actually said about it though:

“I wanted Grace to be a character who is initially off-putting and even unpleasant. She’s rude, she swears, she drinks, she smokes. She is not meant to be an aspirational role model to teenagers — in fact our young protagonist, Jake, through whom we experience this story, finds her to be obnoxious at first. Also, from a character perspective, we were showing that Grace doesn’t care about her human body, only her avatar body, which again is a negative comment about people in our real world living too much in their avatars, meaning online and in videogames. In addition, speaking as an artist, I don’t believe in the dogmatic idea that no one in a movie should smoke. Movies should reflect reality. If it’s O.K. for people to lie, cheat, steal and kill in PG-13 movies, why impose an inconsistent morality when it comes to smoking?

I do agree that young role-model characters should not smoke in movies, especially in a way which suggests that it makes them cooler or more accepted by their peers. In the same way that I would never show lying, cheating, stealing or killing as cool, or aspirational, I would never portray smoking that way. We need to embrace a more complex set of criteria than simply the knee-jerk reaction “smoking is bad, therefore cannot be shown.” It should be a matter of character, context, and the nature of the portrayal. I think the people who are earnestly trying to do some good in this area would be more supported by the artistic community if they were less black and white in their thinking. Smoking is a filthy habit which I don’t support, and neither, I believe, does ‘Avatar.'”

I agree with Cameron totally.  If smoking in movies sends a message, either blatant or subliminal, that cigarettes are cool, then that’s worth cracking the whip on.  But the purposes of historical accuracy or showing the true nature of tobacco, then I think it’s totally fine.  And also, as Cameron said, would you rather have a teen who picks up smoking from a movie or picks up murdering?  I think that choice is pretty clear.

It’s silly, in my opinion, for the MPAA to add worthless descriptors like “brief smoking” to the ratings of movies.  Are there really parents that concerned about their kids’ response to seeing cigarettes in movies that they need to know before seeing it?  There’s no replacement for good parenting and informing children of the danger of tobacco; you can’t let the MPAA do that job for you.

As long as the cigarette police don’t interfere with the art of film, I’m fine with the crusade.  For those of you who believe in the fight against smoking in movies, here’s some good news for you.

…smoking in high-grossing films fell to 1,935 “incidents” last year, down 49 percent from a recent peak of 3,967 in 2005. The study defined an incident as the use or implied use of a tobacco product by an actor, with a new incident occurring each time a tobacco product went off-screen then came back, or a different actor was shown with tobacco.





REVIEW: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

21 08 2010

The video-gaming culture that has shaped the lives of my generation has never been so vibrantly alive as it is in “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World,” a movie with as much frenetically spontaneous action as you can handle without toggling a joystick.  Based on a comic-book series, Edgar Wright’s third film takes a reality from in front of a console and puts it on screen: any loser, even if they are as frail or feeble as Michael Cera, can kick butt and take names in the world of the video game.

Cera’s Candian chump, Scott Pilgrim, is a pathetic twenty-something bunking with the affluent homosexual Wallace Wells (Keiran Culkin, Macaulay’s little brother) and playing bass for the band Sex Bob-Omb.  Much to the dismay of his friends, he starts dating high-schooler Knives Chau (whose name should have been a warning).

But everything falls away when he sees pink-haired Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) delivering a package on roller-skates in the Toronto snow.  After some casual stalking at a party, they get together, drawing Scott into a world of violence he can’t even fathom.  He has to defeat Ramona’s seven evil exes (not ex-boyfriends, as she consistently reminds him) in order to date her.  Unfortunately for him, they have formed a League to hunt him down, and their union includes a music mogul (Jason Schwartzman), an egotistical skateboarder-turned-movie star (Chris Evans), and a vegan with powers (Brandon Routh).

Read the rest of this entry »