My moviegoing pet peeve is crying babies. Most people know by now that talking on your cell phone during a movie is like urinating in your front lawn – that is, something that you just know not to do. With the dawn of the iPhone and other touch screen cell phones, the annoying clicking of texters has been significantly minimized. And I talk a lot during movies, so for me to say that is my pet peeve would be extremely hypocritical.
But whenever some couple brings their infant to the movie with them because they were too lazy to get a babysitter, I want to go punch a wall. The majority of the time, they start whining and crying. Unfortunately, most parents are too busy serving their selfish desire to watch a movie to take their disruptive child into the lobby, thus ruining the movie for the rest of the audience who has paid good money to see the movie.
I do have a specific worst crying baby moment. I was at “Funny People,” and I was jammed next to a woman and her baby. I knew that it would be bad news before the movie started when her daughter wouldn’t stop whining during the pre-show entertainment. She managed to keep it together for the beginning of the movie, but I knew she was a ticking time bomb. During a poignant and emotional scene between Adam Sandler and Leslie Mann, the baby starts screaming at a level so loud that it blocked out the sound from the movie. And if the audience was staring bullets at her mother, she must have been wearing a Kevlar body suit. She let her daughter scream and cry for over 2 minutes before taking her out, just in time to ruin the scene for the entire theater.
I have always been a fan of reading a book from which a movie is adapted before going to see the film. Usually, I like the book better. But, in my opinion, whichever you experience first makes indelible impression on you, making it hard to enjoy the other one without making judgement based on the other.
My book choices are often based around movies, often slaving myself to finish books before they are released on the big screen. I finished “Flags of our Fathers” literally minutes before walking into theater. However, my habits will change soon. I want to see all the adapted movies considered to be Oscar contenders this year without having my experience tainted by prior knowledge. Nothing is more painful than sitting in a movie saying, “That wasn’t in the book,” or “Why did they leave that part out?” (Cough, “Public Enemies.”)
The F.I.L.M. (First-Rate Independent, Little-Known Movie) of this week is “Music of the Heart.” It was one of my favorites growing up, the first movie I saw at the then brand new Edwards Greenway Palace 24 Theaters in 1999. I occasionally catch it playing on Starz, and it still possesses the magic that enthralled me when I was 7. The movie features one of the most underrated of Meryl Streep’s 15 Oscar-nominated performances, an emotionally compelling tour de force that connects with the audience on a level that very few ever have.
Roberta Guspari (Streep) is down on her luck. After her husband runs off her with her best friend, she moves with her two young sons to the turbulent neighborhood of East Harlem in New York. She starts a violin program in an inner city school, inspiring a love of music among youth who have never been given an opportunity to study it. At first, it is tough to spark a work ethic among the kids and to convince their parents that the violin is a worthwhile skill to learn. The program, over time, becomes a great success. Unfortunately, many years later, budget cuts force the district to fire Roberta and cancel her program. With help from teachers and parents, she fights for the right for kids to have access to arts education.
“Music of the Heart” is a movie that aims for the heart and hits it dead-on. Immensely inspirational and uplifting, it provides wholesome entertainment with morals that don’t even fly over the little ones’ heads. The film forges a deeply sentimental connection with the audience, and it pulls you in for a compelling experience. It might be a hard find on the rental shelf, but it is worth the search.
You know what your problem is, it’s that you haven’t seen enough movies – all of life’s riddles are answered in the movies.
– Steve Martin
31 days ago, I sat on my bed with my computer and a dream. Never did I think it would reach where it is today. I had feared that the blog would just be a new outlet for my obsession, but it would really end up being me talking to myself. Yet as I am writing this post, the blog has just passed 1,700 views. Not too shabby. So, I think that thanks are in order. THANK YOU, READERS! This blog has become somewhat of a success because of you. And I especially commend those of you have commented, whether on your own will or as a result of my constant prodding.
Usually anniversaries are a good time to sit down and reflect since the original event. And I intend to do just that. In my first post, I laid out a very rough mission, if you will: “What I do hope to do is to inspire a deeper appreciation of movies, foster a desire to discuss movies, and connect with people through the glorious medium of film.”
Have I reached the goals that I set out? Overall, I think I have made good progress towards them, but my work is by no means finished. Of those three categories, I think I have done the best job of connecting with people through movies. I have several movie blogs that I now check because they stumbled upon my blog and commented, and I felt the need to pay it forward and read their blog as well. Some of these excellent blogs include Joel the teen critic and James the Central Florida film critic. The blog has served as a great conversation piece among friends and acquaintances at school, allowing me to talk without being reticent about my obsession. One post even inspired an hour long debate with a friend.
I can obviously work on fostering a desire to discuss movies, seeing as I have 1,707 views and 43 comments. For those of you who don’t have a calculator within reach to do the math, that is a meager 2.5% of all viewers who have left a comment. I hope I am not nagging about commenting, but the blog becomes a project in vain if I can’t get your input. And as for inspiring a deeper inspiration of movies, hopefully that will come with some of my guided projects that will be starting soon … I PROMISE!
My obsession with the Academy Awards when I was younger wasn’t exactly a secret. So I don’t know why I was so surprised when I received a book with a detailed recap of every single winner from two different people one Christmas about seven years ago. I still have them both, but maybe one should go to the recycling bin. My pick would be with my little brother’s scribbles on the cover.
When I was very young, I saw the famed actor Christopher Lloyd at a hotel in Austin, Texas. I recognized him and asked him for an autograph. Usually people recognize him as zany Doc Brown from the “Back to the Future” movies. But, according to my mom’s report of the incident, he claims that I was the first person to recognize him as “Mr. Hunches and Bunches” from “In Search of Dr. Seuss,” my favorite movie when I was 4.
I still have the autograph. It’s in a binder in my closet. He wrote it on the back of a piece of the hotel’s stationery; it reads: “Marshall, very best to you! Christopher Lloyd”.
I won’t normally do this, but I just have to now. At the moment, “Inception” is my most anticipated movie of 2010. It is Christopher Nolan’s first movie since he lit the world on fire with “The Dark Knight,” which he directed and wrote. He has gathered a superb cast for the project, including Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, and Michael Caine. He has kept the plot of his latest outing shrouded in secrecy … until today, when a very detailed plot summary was released. I beg you, PLEASE DO NOT LET ME READ THEM! And if you tell me, I will unleash my wrath on you. I cannot accurately put into words my euphoria for the release of this movie. I do not want it to be tainted by knowing the intricacies of the plot before I step into the movie theater! Yes, I am using exclamation points because I really do feel that strongly! Watch the teaser trailer that played before “Inglourious Basterds” below … the best since “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” It sets up the movie perfectly and without giving away anything about the plot.
In third grade, I became obsessed with the “Moulin Rouge” soundtrack. I found a 30 second clip of “Lady Marmalade” on AOL Music and played it nonstop for weeks until my mom capitulated and bought me the CD.
Quentin Tarantino has made movies the way he wants for nearly two decades now, and that is precisely what has made him one of the most beloved and distinguished directors in recent memory. His latest outing, “Inglourious Basterds,” has been a pet project for over ten years. It is Tarantino at the top of his game: gruesomely violent, side-splittingly hilarious, and outrageous fun. It brings the high-energy approach that Tarantino takes to his classics set in the present day and applies it to World War II. The result is a testosterone-pumping farce with a climax that will get you up out of your seats, screaming and applauding.
The movie revolves around Lt. Aldo Raine, played to hysterical brilliance by Brad Pitt, and his team of “Basterds,” comprised of Jewish-American soldiers on a mission to brutally massacre the Nazi soldiers in France out of nothing but cold vengeance. But Tarantino’s story consists of multiple layers that contribute to his five-part harmony. Perhaps the most chilling is the loquacious Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), better known among the French as “The Jew Hunter.” Landa is always one step ahead of the game, and every scene in which he appears brings you to the edge of your seat. He radiates a very calm exterior, but on the inside, he seems to be a ticking time bomb. This aspect lends an aura of suspense to his character as we eagerly await him to just explode with anger.
The story also follows Shoshanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), the lone survivor of the Nazis massacre of her family who then becomes motivated to avenge their deaths. She finds the perfect opportunity when German war hero turned Nazi propaganda movie star Frederick Zoller (Daniel Brühl) becomes smitten with her. He wants to host hundreds of high-ranking Nazis for the premiere of his movie at the theater that she owns. Her plan is to torch the theater. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to Shoshanna, the British are organizing a plot to blow up the theater along with the Basterds and a German movie star gone spy named Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger). The collision of the story lines results in a final act that will not soon be forgotten.
As far as I can remember, I have only been alone in a theater (that is, without anyone other than the group I came with) once. I was 6 years old, the year was 1998 (for those who need chronology), and it was the 20th anniversary of the movie “Grease.” To commemorate, they re-released it in theaters. It was my mom, her college friend, her daugher, and me. We had the theater to ourselves, so we sat on the front row and danced and sang our hearts out to “Greased Lightning” and all the other classic songs. That still remains one of the most fun movie experiences ever for me.
Everyone has “their movie” that they love and have seen so many times that they know every line. For my dad, it’s “Caddyshack.” For my mom, it’s “The Sound of Music.” For me, it’s “The Little Rascals.” There are several movies that I could recite line after line for hours, but with “The Little Rascals,” such a staple of my childhood, I could go for days.
It has been 12 long years since James Cameron’s “Titanic” took the movie world by storm, becoming the sixth highest selling movie ever (NOTE: I didn’t say “highest grossing” movie because ticket prices have fluctuated so much over the years that the most fair way to gauge a movie’s success is through its adjusted gross. This method takes the amount of tickets sold and multiplies it by the ticket price in the current time). With “Titanic,” he got girls to come back week after week, swooning at Leonardo DiCaprio for over 3 hours.
Now, Cameron is aiming for a new group of moviegoers: the visual effects nerds. “Avatar” has been hyped for years, and now we are finally getting to see what Cameron has been crafting for over a decade. He has had the idea for quite a while, but he wanted to wait for the technology to be developed to make the movie the marvel that he imagines. Because Cameron so deeply values the role of technology in making movies, I figure I should briefly explain how they are making this fantasy world. The movie uses an advanced version of the motion capture technology used for movies like “The Polar Express,” allowing Cameron to see and control the virtual environment, normally added later, alongside the actors on the virtual stage. They are also experimenting with allowing the actors while they are on the motion capture stage to interact fully with computer-generated characters. The team has also made improvements to the motion capture technology, making the characters and their expressions look even more real.
The project has been mysterious for many years, and the first time that the general public really got a glimpse at it was at Comic-Con in San Diego a few weeks ago. It was there that Cameron announced that he would be screening 15 minutes of the movie in select IMAX 3D theaters across the country, calling it “Avatar Day.” That was yesterday, August 21st, and I was fortunate enough to view it. The first official trailer for the film was released the day before, and all of a sudden, “Avatar” is everywhere. Yet due to the project’s enigmatic nature, many normal moviegoers have no idea what all the buzz is about. So, hopefully I can answer the question I posed in the title of this post. Read the rest of this entry »
The first time I ever saw two movies in the same day at a theater was July 18, 2008. Recognize that date? It’s the day cinema was changed forever with the release of “The Dark Knight.” Was that one of the two movies that I saw? Of course not. I saw “Wanted,” which was pretty tight, and “Hancock,” which was good at first but then became just plain dumb. The crazy part is that I did this combo by choice, not because “The Dark Knight” was sold out. If anyone really wants to know, they can ask me personally why I did this. But I feel that it is in the best interest of the people involved that I not discuss it on the blog.
My mom usually makes pizza as we watch the stars slowly descend on the red carpet on E! I print out ballots for my whole family but I am the only one that actually fills one out. I scream and cheer and boo and get nervous for my favorite actors and movies like a football fan would for his team. At the conclusion of the ceremony, I am usually hot and sweaty. Yeah, I do some intense viewing.
The new feature that I hyped up (OK, I briefly mentioned in a post that no one read) is here! The F.I.L.M. of the week will be unveiled every Friday; F.I.L.M. is an acronym for “First-Class Independent, Little-Known Movie.” But the movies will not be limited to independent films, although I would like to highlight them. The word just works better in forming a strategic acronym.
The whole point of this weekly feature is to suggest a movie that you might not have seen, considered, or even heard about (barring you are a major film buff like myself). So if you are browsing Netflix or walking around Blockbuster, rather than picking up “17 Again” or, God forbid, “Paul Blart: Mall Cop,” you will be armed with the knowledge of at least one movie that is a safe bet for excellent entertainment.
It is my distinct pleasure to award the distinction of the first “F.I.L.M. of the Week” to the exquisite “Little Children.” The movie is just on the outside of my top 10, although given more viewings, it just might move into the elite ranks. It is one of very few movies that I can say are practically flawless. Every performance is great. Every character is well-developed. Every minute of it is absolutely spellbinding. Unfortunately, audiences didn’t pick up on its brilliance; it grossed about $5 million at the box office, most of which was from Oscar season. The movie was nominated for Academy Awards for Best Actress (Kate Winslet), Best Supporting Actor (Jackie Earle Haley), and Best Adapted Screenplay. The Golden Globes nominated it for Best Picture.
The movie is based on the novel by Tom Perrotta, but he decided to take the movie in a distinctly different direction than the book rather than just make a carbon copy. The screenplay is about as good as it gets. It complexly weaves together the tales of Sarah (Kate Winslet), the resistant mother stuck among droves of Stepford wives, Brad (Patrick Wilson), the stay-at-home-dad emasculated by his wife (Jennifer Connelly) and her success, Larry (Noah Emmerich), a disgraced police officer out for vengeance, and Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley), a pedophile who moves in with his loving mother. They all impact each other in ways they cannot even fathom, and the film’s overlying messages become clear through their encounters.
Everyone is magnificent in the movie, but I do have to single out a few names. Director Todd Field gives the film narrative poise unlike any movie of the decade, and his presence and guiding hand is clearly felt throughout the movie. He skillfully handles the very tough material that the movie tackles, treating it with the respect and dignity that they deserve. Despite its heavy themes, Field also allows it to function as a very dark comedy as well. This should have been Kate Winslet’s Oscar-winning performance. It is nuanced, emotional, and absolutely gripping. She immediately draws you in and never lets go. Jackie Earle Haley does the unthinkable by turning a feared sexual predator into someone we can ultimately feel compassion for and empathize. He moves you almost to the verge of tears, especially in scenes with his gentle and loving mother (Phyllis Sommerville). Here, we see him as emotionally raw and not a pedophile, but as an insecure human being just like the rest of us.
But it’s time for me to stop writing and let the movie speak for itself. I will say that the movie might be disturbing for some easily squeamish, mainly because of its brutally honest and often graphic portrayal of things that exist in our society. Nevertheless, for a movie that will keep you thinking for days, drop everything and watch “Little Children.” If you do see it, write your thoughts in a comment, or if you have seen it, still express yourself in a comment.
Until the next reel,
Marshall
P.S. – Watch the trailer. It’s one of the rare ones that doesn’t give away anything about the plot. And it also sets you up for the ride that “Little Children” offers.
Recent Comments