Random Factoid #550

29 01 2011

I’m freakishly addicted to Netflix now thanks to their incredible selection of movies available through instant streaming.  Thanks to some very nice technology, I can watch them while I work out on a TV in front of my exercise machine.  Needless to say, their iPhone app has been a godsend.

And to think I was so against it this time last year…

Anyways, back at the beginning of this month, it was reported through many blogs (such as Cinematical) that Netflix was going to have a button added to new remote controls for Blu-Ray players and such.  All I have to say is BRING IT ON!!!  As much as a stake that Netflix has in the business, I don’t mind its ominpresence.

Economists, however, might have something to say about its monopolistic tendencies.  But that’s something for them to sort out.


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

Random Factoid #549

28 01 2011

Clearly I’m gasping for air with the factoid column as I dig way back into the annals of the bookmark folder I call “Factoid Material” for something to write about today.  I need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and remind myself that I like this column.  Also, I need to look at the number and remind myself that I have now been blogging for an astounding 549 days.  Wow.

I’ve had this article saved since September from io9, a site I don’t normally read (which means I must have stumbled across this article on IMDb’s Hit List), about the future of film and how it could be destroyed.  No, I don’t mean by Michael Bay’s movies, I mean by fungus.  Get this:

“Cinematographic film has a layer of gelatin on its surface. This emulsion layer is where the image is formed but also provides ideal food for fungi like Aspergillus and Penicillium.

If the fungus forms a layer of mould on a film it produces enzymes which allow it to use the film as food and to grow.

So the damage it can cause is irreversible as the mould ‘eats’ the image stored on the film’s surface.

While all film is potentially at risk, it is film that has been stored in damp conditions that is most likely to become infected in this way.”

This is obviously frightening to any film enthusiast, but at the same time, is there any need to be worried in a digitized age?  If everything exists on the Web out there, I don’t feel like any film could ever be truly lost.  From what I’ve read, only one Best Picture nominee has been lost, which is pretty good.  Never have I feared waking up and losing “The Social Network” when a disc sits on my desk with the movie on it.  As far as I’m concerned, cinematic history is as good as gold as long as it’s preserved somewhere other than celluloid.


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

F.I.L.M. of the Week (January 28, 2011)

28 01 2011

It’s forgivable to ask who the $#%@ John Hawkes is upon hearing 2010’s Academy Award nominations.  He’s not an incredibly recognizable name, largely because he’s been a character actor making his way around the indie circuit.  In “Winter’s Bone,” the movie that earned him a nomination, he played a hard-as-nails uncle to Jennifer Lawrence’s Ree with a bit of a soft side.  While I wasn’t entirely sold on the performance, I did see some real talent and acting prowess.

So, after Hawkes earned the nomination (which I should have seen coming given his SAG recognition), I hit Netflix and flipped through his filmography.  He’s been lurking in the shadows for most of his career, but he had a phenomenal leading turn in an incredibly quirky but ultimately winning indie called “Me and You and Everyone We Know.”  The Sundance breakout written and directed by star Miranda July is a strange meditation on connection in the digital age paired with a story of teenage sexual awakening.  Does it sound weird enough yet?

Hawkes plays separated shoe salesman Richard, clumsily trying to be a good father to his children while they are totally absorbed in the world of the computer.  He begins a cordial relationship with the off-kilter modern artist Christine (July), whose works would look strange in the universe of “Napoleon Dynamite.”  Their courtship is unconventional, but it’s charming through and through.

Meanwhile, Richard’s sons, a curious teenager and a naive youngster, do some searching of their own.  Perhaps it’s because they can’t feel connected to their father, or maybe they just need escapism.  But they are only one of the movie’s subplots involving kids and coming-of-age.  There’s also a young neighbor preparing her dowry and two adolescent teenagers trying to front as sexual beings.

These stories are peculiarly juxtaposed, but they hit home with an unexpected resonance.  “Me and You and Everyone We Know” predates the Facebook age, but it’s still a fascinating look at how the digital disconnect affects us in all aspects of our lives.  Our relationships, our feelings, and even art – all of it, irrevocably changed.


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

Random Factoid #548

27 01 2011

How important is historical accuracy in film?

Get this: Issac Chotner of The New Republic called “The King’s Speech” “historically inaccurate, entirely misleading, and, in its own small way, morally dubious.”  That’s not exactly one of the jubilant cries in support of the movie that have become so boisterous recently.

Here’s just an excerpt of the article that looks to tell the ACTUAL events that Tom Hooper’s movie depicted:

“The only reason that Bertie managed to ascend to the throne in the first place was that his older brother, David (aka Edward VIII), decided to abdicate so he could marry a Baltimore divorcee by the name of Wallis Simpson. In the film, Edward VIII (nicely played by Guy Pearce) is presented as childish and cruel to his brother (which no doubt he was). And, as a way of presenting his political views, we see him make a single foolish comment about the Nazis. What the film never mentions is that Edward VIII was an ardent admirer of Hitler and of fascism, and a proponent of appeasement long after Germany moved onto Polish soil and hostilities began in earnest. Edward lived in continental Europe with Simpson after abdicating; following the German invasion of France, he absurdly asked the Nazis to look after his house. Eventually, the British government convinced the couple to move to the Bahamas, where he became governor. The idea was to keep the pair far away from the Nazis so as to prevent Edward from cutting any deals with Hitler. The last we see of Edward and Simpson in the film is when they listen to Bertie’s big speech. (There is a beach in the background but the viewer has no idea where they are.)

By shortchanging the danger that Edward posed to Britain, the viewer is likely to believe he was no more than a ridiculous and self-indulgent brat. But he isn’t the only character who is sanitized in the movie. First, there is Winston Churchill, played by Timothy Spall in a small role. Spall’s crucial scene takes place after the Simpson affair has become known. Churchill counsels Bertie and reports his (Churchill’s) dismay at the way Edward is behaving. This will come as news to historians because Churchill—astonishingly—supported Edward throughout the abdication crisis. His grandstanding on the issue even shocked his allies, who couldn’t believe that he would risk his political comeback to support an appeaser and fascist like Edward. Most likely because of Churchill’s historical standing, the film simply omits all of this and assigns the heroic war leader the opposite position to the one he actually held.

Bertie himself is also romanticized. He is seen presciently raising the question of German aggression before the invasion of the Sudetenland. Edward waves off Bertie’s warning, and, the next time we are instructed to focus on political questions, the King is heroically rallying his people to the battle against fascism. The film leaves out what happened in the intervening period.”

It’s hard to even say “inspired by true events” when you stray that far from the truth.  But while I find myself a little peeved that I got such a candy-coated version of history, I can’t get too worked up about this.  There’s a reason that “The King’s Speech” is not presented as a documentary or a History Channel special – it’s not about the events and the history.  It’s about the humans, and it’s about the emotional story of how one man overcame his stutter.  To move the audience, some liberties had to be taken.  Maybe they went a little too far, but it worked for me.

But I think Guy Lodge of In Contention said it best when he compared it to the smear campaign against the accuracy of “A Beautiful Mind” – the argument holds water, but it doesn’t destroy what the movie tries to do.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : Random Factoids

“Easy A” Poll Results

27 01 2011

Well, Emma Stone didn’t get an Oscar nomination.  Shocker.  It’s unfortunate because – get this – I think she gave a better performance than Annette Bening AND Jennifer Lawrence, both nominated actresses this year.

It’s just another tough year for comedic actresses, who fare only slightly better than Christopher Nolan nowadays.  A truly comedic performance is rarely nominated, probably around once or twice a decade.  We technically classify some performance as comedic – Meryl Streep in “The Devil Wears Prada,” Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Charlie Wilson’s War,” Alan Arkin in “Little Miss Sunshine,” Keira Knightley in “Pride and Prejudice,” Kate Winslet in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” to name a bunch – but these are really just light-hearted dramatic acting in movies with some laugh.

There were only a few that charted with the Academy over the last decade: Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder,” Ellen Page in “Juno,” Johnny Depp in “Pirates of the Caribbean,” and Renee Zellweger in “Bridget Jones’ Diary” are the only nominated performances of the last decade that I consider to be truly comedic actor.  I’m willing to debate a few others, but all of those are heavily tinted with dramatic shades.  These comedic actors get, in the words of Rodney Dangerfield, “no respect.”

In my Oscar Moment about “Easy A,” I didn’t offer any hope that Emma Stone would be nominated; in fact, I didn’t even ask the question in my poll.  I defended the award-worthiness of comedic actors and actresses, saying that they excel in a very different kind of acting that requires a different but still challenging set of skills.  My poll asked voters whether they thought comedic actors deserved to receive Academy Award nominations.

The results were overwhelmingly in favor of actors like Stone receiving nominations.  Nearly 90% of voters replied that they think that comedic actors ARE deserving.  I don’t think that Emma stone’s snub represent a sort of “last straw” for audiences in the consistent overlooking of comedic actors, but I do hope that the unofficial policy gets some serious thought soon.


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

REVIEW: Red

26 01 2011

There’s more to the fun of “Red” than Helen Mirren firing away like a madman with a machine gun.  It’s an action movie not afraid to flash its AARP card, which makes its rather typical action and plot feel a lot fresher than it probably is.  With Bruce Willis finally embracing his age, rather than doing movie after movie that’s one “yippee-ki-yay” away from complete implausibility, it’s a nice change of pace for the action star that could signal better days ahead.

As Frank Moses, the retired and extremely dangerous (hence the acronym RED) former CIA agent, Willis is having a rough time adjusting to life after his time in black-ops.  He’s trying to do the whole suburban thing, but the only thing that gives him real joy is chatting with Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), a federal pension phone customer service representative.  Of course, at 55, main street Americans only wish they could be receiving retirement benefits as opposed to unemployment benefits.

But whatever normalcy he built in suburbia is shattered as he’s drawn back into the bullet-ridden world by an attempt on his life.  Frank discovers that thanks to being part of a Guatemalan mission back in the ’80s, he’s being targeted for death.  Gathering up a gang of other Baby Boomers including the incredibly paranoid conspiracy theorist Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich), Frank’s terminally ill mentor Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman), and Victoria (Helen Mirren), a former assassin with class and grace.  Yet the best part of all is that Frank brings Sarah, oblivious to the perils of the, along for the ride.

The trigger-happy travelogue through the United States is a wild romp that excites and entertains at surprisingly high octane and high thrills.  At 110 minutes, the premise ages quickly and begins to drag a little bit.  Yet the entertainment is always solid as the bullets fly and bombs explode, even as the trek through the plot gets a little … dare I say it, old.  But it has a plot, and that’s more than I can say for most action movies nowadays.  B / 


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #547

26 01 2011

I’m generally against watching recut movies; this includes all those DVD gimmicks like unrated versions and director’s cuts.  If what we are seeing in the theaters isn’t the best thing the director can put forward, why bother releasing a movie at all?  I firmly believe that artistic integrity dictates that the original theatrical version of a movie represents a movie in its most pure and true form.  (See more in one of my earliest factoids, Random Factoid #11.)

But Company Town wrote yesterday in a very buzzed-about piece that Harvey Weinstein has spoken to Oscar-nominated director Tom Hooper about recutting his Best Picture-nominated “The King’s Speech” to be PG-13 or potentially even PG by cutting some of the movie’s language (which comes mostly in one scene that’s a comedic riot).  Weinstein unsuccessfully tried to appeal this rating to the MPAA earlier, saying that the profanity isn’t offensive to anyone.  It’s a common sense argument, and I think the movie has PG-13 subject matter.  But no matter how tame the context, you just can’t drop the F-bomb that many times in a movie that anyone can see unsupervised.

This move is forcing me, at least for the moment, to reconsider my policy on recut movies.  Removing the profanity would make the movie more accessible to audiences, although I’m not quite sure how many teenagers would consciously choose to see a movie about a stuttering king over the latest half-baked mindless horror flick like “The Rite.”  Trust me, I was a middle schooler not too long ago – movies are a social experience, not a time to absorb quality cinema or to think.  And smaller kids – well, I just don’t think it would be of that much interest to them.

According to the article, the recut version would not even be ready until AFTER the Oscars.  I think that makes it kind of pointless as this whole marketing move is centered around getting attention for the Oscars or making money off the Oscars attention.  Since that aspect is out of the picture, I think Harvey should just leave “The King’s Speech” alone and let parents decide for their selves whether or not to let their children under the age of 17 see it.  Most will probably be mature enough to say, “Oh, it’s only R because of some harmless profanity they hear every day in the hallways at school.”


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

Oscar Moment: The 2010 Academy Award Nominations!

25 01 2011

Well, folks, the Academy just chimed in with their best of 2010 in cinema.  It’s an exciting day for all who love to celebrate the craft that captivates countless people worldwide.

I’ll delve into my opinion after the cut, but before I go any further, let me post the nominees!

Best Picture

Best Director

Best Actor

Best Actress

Best Supporting Actor

Best Supporting Actress

Best Original Screenplay

Best Adapted Screenplay

Read on for more.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 21 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Random Factoid #546

25 01 2011

Back in Random Factoid #189, I told you that I would finish my stories of finding out the Oscar nominees in 2011.  So, as promised, here are some more stories of nomination day.

In the year 2006…
I had to get to school on time, so I missed the nominations announcement at 7:30 A.M. (Central Time Zone).  I had to wait until 9:30 A.M. to get to my computer class to find out that “Walk The Line” had been cheated out of a Best Picture nomination.  That was the year where “Brokeback Mountain” dominated the field with a paltry 8 nominations…

In the year 2005…
Again, no real memory.  I don’t remember caring too much as I had seen only “Finding Neverland” of the nominated movies.

In the year 2004…
I was in fifth grade and an eager Oscar disciple.  Since I hadn’t fathomed using Google at school to look at the nominations, I had kindly asked my mom to print out a nomination list and leave it in my locker.  She didn’t come through, and I waited until 4:00 P.M. to find out that “Cold Mountain” was left out in the cold from Best Picture and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” was setting the stage for a sweep.

And what about now, 2011?  How did I find out about the nominations today?

I had to be at school by 8:00 A.M., which ruled out watching them on TV at home.  Thanks to the joy of the Internet, I watched them via the AMPAS LiveStream channel on my computer at Starbucks.  The magic of the Internet was really working for me today.


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

Oscar Moment: FINAL 2010 Predictions!

24 01 2011

Best Picture

  1. The Social Network 
  2. The King’s Speech 
  3. The Fighter 
  4. Black Swan  (5)
  5. Inception  (4)
  6. True Grit  (9)
  7. Toy Story 3  (6)
  8. The Kids Are All Right  (7)
  9. 127 Hours  (10)
  10. The Town  (NR)

In case you needed any reminder of why the movie in the top spot is comfortably perched there, look above.

“The Social Network” is way ahead in the lead, and I personally don’t think that anything is going to stop it.  But “The King’s Speech” threw an interesting twist into the race with its PGA victory on Saturday night with the help of a preferential ballot, and more discussion about this will be appropriate once the slate is officially set for February 27.

At this point, I honestly think that “The Fighter” could be the only movie with a chance to knock it out of the top slot.  It could easily take the SAG ensemble win, and it has popped up unexpectedly in many guilds.  The movie has also positioned itself to win two acting awards after victories with the BFCA and HFPA.  I just get a sinking sensation that this is the movie that has enough across-the-board love to pull an upset on a preferential ballot.

“Black Swan” has popped up on EVERY guild list this year, something that could make it the most nominated movie of the year.  This is obviously huge for the movie, but now that it’s assured a nomination, I’m thinking about how likely a win would be.  Given that the movie tends to polarize, the chances are small.  And as I’ve said about “The King’s Speech” all year, it’s not the Academy’s type of movie anymore, so I still have a hard time seeing it win.  “Inception” is out of the running because it missed out on a SAG ensemble nod despite being star-studded, and you need the support of the actors to win.

Those are the five certainties, and I’d be awestruck if any of those five miss.  I think “True Grit” and “Toy Story 3” are locks for nominations as well.  “The Kids Are All Right” is in, but I still stand by my assertion earlier this year that it would not shock me to see it left off.

It’s down to three movies – “127 Hours,” “The Town,” and “Winter’s Bone” – to battle it out for the final two slots.  There could, of course, be lurking surprises like “The Blind Side” last year, but no movie seems to have positioned its chips to make a big move on nominations day.  Every critical darling is underseen, and all the box office smashes are poorly reviewed.

I think “127 Hours” is in because it has a passionate base of supporters that should be able to overcome the faction of the Academy that simply won’t watch the movie.  It’s from Danny Boyle, who is clearly an Academy favorite after his “Slumdog Millionaire” orchestrated a sweep of the Oscars in 2008 that we only see once or twice a decade.  This a powerful movie, and those who can sit through it walk out with an enhanced appreciation of life.  I think they can easily power it to a nomination.

Previously, I had predicted “Winter’s Bone” to take that final slot.  But ever since the PGA left it on the outside looking in, I’ve been more inclined to favor “The Town.”  As I said on the LAMBcast, putting Ben Affleck’s movie in the field would make for a perfect 50-50 split between indies and blockbusters.  It would give a nice sense of “something for everyone” to Best Picture, which is kind of what I think the idea was when they expanded the field.

But “Winter’s Bone” does have a few things going for it.  While I don’t think many people LOVE “The Town,” I do think that there is a significant handful of people that do love “Winter’s Bone.”  It’s nothing like any of the other Best Picture nominees this year; it’s understated, quiet, stars no-name actors, and is truly of an independent sensibility.

The other so-called “indies” in the race feature recognizable actors and have largely entered mainstream consciousness.  I wouldn’t count out the desire to represent a part of the industry that isn’t manifest in the first 9 nominees, but my pick is still on “The Town.”  For better or for worse.

In case you were really hankering for my no guts no glory pick for a Best Picture nominee, it would be “Shutter Island.”  But I don’t think that’s likely.

Best Director

  1. David Fincher, “The Social Network” 
  2. Darren Aronofsky, “Black Swan”  (3)
  3. Tom Hooper, “The King’s Speech”  (4)
  4. Christopher Nolan, “Inception”  (2)
  5. David O. Russell, “The Fighter” 

No real change in the field here.  If there’s any surprise in this category, it will likely come at the expense of David O. Russell, a prickly figure in Hollywood.  But since this would be his first nomination, and those likely to replace him have won in the past three years (Danny Boyle/The Coen Brothers), he seems like a good bet.  I’d also say that Christopher Nolan isn’t as safe as most would like him to be; the DGA has shortlisted him twice and the Academy has yet to recognize him in this category.  A snub would be shocking but not unforseeable.

For the win, it’s Fincher way out in front.  Even if “The King’s Speech” or “The Fighter” makes headway in the Best Picture race, there is no doubt that this award will be going to “The Social Network” and its genius helmer.  It would be foolish to place your money anywhere else.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Random Factoid #545

24 01 2011

Money is hard to come by in Hollywood these days, and many movie studios are going to an audience that was relatively ignored in the past – foreign markets – to make profits off of risky film investments.  For many movies that bomb in the United States, their saving grace comes from overseas audiences, and they can break even or even turn a profit for producers.

The Big Picture, a blog written by Patrick Goldstein for The Los Angeles Times, featured an article today about the huge stream of revenue coming in from foreign markets and how it is affecting the way movies are made and marketed:

“Hollywood is taking advantage of its most compelling competitive advantage in world cinema. The epic scope of its Big Event movies can’t be achieved in other countries, which is why some of the most striking overseas box-office successes have been achieved by 3-D movies or special-effects driven animated films. When it comes to the riches available in the ever-expanding global market, there is no better example than the box-office trajectory of the ‘Ice Age’ series. The franchise has largely remained constant in the U.S.–with each of the three films making between $176 and $197 million–while the films have exploded around the globe, with the first film making $207 million overseas, the second one $457 million and the third one a whopping $690 million.

The potential for overseas box-office bullion is also driving the explosion in 3-D releases. 3-D movies have two distinct advantages overseas–they can’t be duplicated by local productions and, even better, they have a built-in safeguard against piracy, since the 3-D ingredient can be seen only in a theater. The real payoff came for horror films like the ‘Resident Evil’ series. When the franchise’s third installment was released, it did $50 million in the U.S., $96 million overseas. But the fourth film, ‘Resident Evil: Afterlife,’ released in 3-D, exploded when it was released last fall, making $60 million in the U.S. but an astounding $236 million overseas.

As Jeff Blake, Sony’s chairman of worldwide marketing and distribution, explains: ‘We’re increasingly having to compete with local product in each marketplace, so to get people’s attention away from the local product, you need something special. 3-D is the element that really makes the film stick.'”

It’s definitely true that Hollywood movies provide an unmatched spectacle, and the focus on that spectacle is what is selling overseas.  But what’s killing them in America is an overemphasis on spectacle and a lack of emphasis on storytelling and plot, the basic conventions necessary to make a story work.  Summer blockbusters like “Robin Hood” and “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time,” which did a faceplant in America, played like gangbusters overseas.

What we are faced with is an existential divide between worlds: foreign markets wanting all the benefits of modern technological advancement and domestic markets wanting a return to the classic conventions of cinema, especially fresh, original story material.  The studios will ultimately have a big choice ahead: provide quality filmmaking that is often a big gamble or continue to produce movies that will turn a profit even if they disappoint domestically.

And then, of course, that leads to the biggest question of all: Do movies need to be produced for a worldwide audience?

As a film blogger and lover of cinema, I’m of course inclined to say quality trumps all.  But money is money, and it’s not easy to have faith in studios to keep profits secondary to quality.  I think we are seeing a fundamental shift that will affect filmmaking, for better or for worse, in dramatic ways over the next decade.


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

“Another Year” Poll Results

24 01 2011

There was a time when “Another Year” seemed like not only a sure-fire Best Picture and Director nominee, but a legitimate threat to win them both.  That was back in the summer after the Cannes Film Festival when it had all the buzz.

Fast forward two seasons and Mike Leigh’s movie is on life support, barely breathing in an awards season that has given the movie little love other than for Lesley Manville from the BAFTAs and National Board of Review.  Mike Leigh’s direction and writing have gone basically unnoticed.

Now, the movie hopes to draw enough support from the Mike Leigh-loving Academy voters to get a nomination and salvage itself.  I can’t say whether or not the movie merits a nomination as it has yet to open in Houston.  But I can tell you that its prospects are slim.

Back in September when the Oscar race looked entirely different, I wrote an Oscar Moment piece covering “Another Year.”  In it, I pointed out that the deserving factor could work to Mike Leigh’s advantage:

“… at 67, Leigh may be the beneficiary of ‘let’s-give-it-to-him-before-he-leaves-us’ syndrome in the Best Director category.  If he’s nominated, he’ll be a big threat because he’s been there twice before and many will feel that he finally deserves it.  Plus, according to Kris Tapley of In Contention, ‘to say the least, it’s Leigh’s finest hour in years.'”

The poll voters were split back then with half thinking it would be Leigh’s time and half thinking it wouldn’t be.  Four months later, it seems almost certain that it will NOT be Leigh’s time.

I enjoy looking back and seeing what the race could have been.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Marshall and the Movies, Polls

Random Factoid #544

23 01 2011

The seriocomedy is probably one of my favorite sub-genres.  Who says you can’t have your cake and eat it to?  The seriocomedy lets you have the sweetness of the icing (comedy) with all the bulk and substance of the cake itself (drama).

But name the last really good one produced inside of the studio system in the last ten years or so.  (“The Kids Are All Right” was independent, so try again.)  It’s hard because so many of them miss the mark.  “Love & Other Drugs” and “How Do You Know” both could have been so good but wound up falling short.

Here’s The Los Angeles Times on what could be a dying genre after “The Dilemma” flopped:

“The seriocomedy has never been easy creative ground for directors. To make a good one you need to be proficient at constructing both laughs and drama, and have the dexterity to switch between them. From a business standpoint it’s even dicier: How, in this age of marketing, do you retail these tweeners?

Movie-making these days seems to have calcified into genres. Dramas are intense and serious, like ‘The Social Network,’ or weepie and inspirational, like ‘The Blind Side’ or ‘Secretariat.’ Comedies are  broader and more gross-out, like the best of Adam Sandler or Apatow.

‘The problem is trailers,’ said James Schamus, the Focus Features chief who released “The Kids Are All Right.” ‘These days with the Internet, it’s more important than ever, and it’s very hard to cut a good trailer for [seriocomedies]. If you go for the laugh you never get the full laugh because the humor is situational, and you can’t play the drama because then you kill the comedy vibe.'”

I think the death is due to two things: the declining quality of studio output and the hyperfocused nature of the American moviegoing audience.  We want straight drama or straight comedy when we go to the movies; a hybrid just doesn’t satisfy much as it often feels like a muddled mess.  That’s partially the fault of filmmakers, but I think that most moviegoers nowadays can’t handle them both together.

So, is the seriocomedy DEAD?  Sound off!


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

“Animal Kingdom” Poll Results

23 01 2011

With all the hype around Jacki Weaver’s performance in “Animal Kingdom,” I just had to see what all the fuss was about this week.  And to be honest, I wasn’t all that impressed.  In my review, I wrote:

“As for Jacki Weaver, the reason I plopped this movie in my DVD player, I saw why she needed an Oscar campaign but not why she deserved a campaign.  She plays a one-note character that doesn’t play much of a part in the storyline until the conclusion.  Her big emotional scene falls pretty flat, unless, of course, you consider changing her facial expression ever so slightly compelling enough for an award.  Had I not heard all the buzz around Weaver, I would have forgotten about her as quickly as I’ll forget ‘Animal Kingdom.’  Neither have any teeth, something necessary to make a crime thriller bite.”

But with the campaign in high gear, she seems to be making a mark.  So back in December, I polled readers on an Oscar Moment, asking them if they thought Weaver would receive an Oscar nomination.

The jury was in favor of Weaver as both voters said she would be nominated.  If I were an Academy member, I wouldn’t vote for her.  But I’m not an Academy member, and I think she will probably make it.  But I’m not confident or positive in that assertion.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Marshall and the Movies, Polls

REVIEW: Devil

22 01 2011

I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again for good measure: I absolutely DREAD writing reviews for middle-of-the-road movies like “Devil.”  I didn’t hate it, so there’s no reason to rip it to shreds – and besides, I think M. Night Shyamalan took enough of a beating in 2010 with “The Last Airbender.”  But at the same time, I didn’t really like it either, so there’s no aspect of the movie I can praise – not the acting, writing, directing, or production values.  In essence, there’s nothing to talk about!

Yet being a movie reviewer, and you being a reader willing to go this far into a review, I’m obligated to give you at least three paragraphs about the movie.  So what is there to write now?  I could talk about the plot, which is stale and laughable but at least gets in and out in roughly 75 minutes.  5 people trapped in an elevator, 1 is probably the devil.  Who could it be?  You’ll find out if you watch the movie, but don’t expect any sort of terror, horror, or suspense in getting there.

The claustrophobia of being stuck in an elevator isn’t exactly present as the movie frequently cuts back to the control room, where a skeptic and religious fanatic debate the events going on with a battered police officer (Chris Messina).  It’s packed with enough corny horror entertainment to keep you awake, but not enough to really keep you engaged.  In other words, don’t plan a movie night around “Devil.”  Plan to fold the laundry or do an hour of Facebooking.  C+ / 


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

« Previous Entries Next Entries »