For most of my life, the annual Christmas movie was, A Christmas Story. Who didn't love the adventures of Ralphie in his quest for the "Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and this thing which tells time" while everyone tells him that he'll "soot his eye out." The quotes and the movie are sheer poetry.
I never thought that my favourite Christmas movie would ever stop being my favourite Christmas movie. Now it's a very close second, slightly behind Bad Santa. Yeah, I know, how could you go from a movie that uses the "f" word once, to a movie whose dialogue is based in profanity? I don't know. But if you look beneath the profanity, Bad Santa is a sweet movie about friendship, redemption and finding the spirit of Christmas, but for adults. Humour me.
So, since 1983's A Christmas Story, there have been dozens of pretenders that have tried to de-throne the champ. Many have tried, feebly. Among the pretenders: Earnest Saves Christmas, all the Santa Claus(e) movies, Fred Claus, Surviving Christmas (which, by the way, filmschoolrejects.com picks to be the worst Christmas movie ever). The list of bad Christmas movies is just an endless list of... um... bad Christmas movies. To be honest, I can’t think of any good ones. Elf was funny only because Peter Dinklage beats the crap out of Will Ferrell. Peter Dinklage was really great in The Station Agent AND there aren’t enough movies where Will Ferrell gets the crap beat out of him.
Oh yeah, Arthur Christmas. I first watched what was called the "teaser." If by tease they mean, annoy, then it was successful. It told me nothing and I didn't care. The theatrical trailer gave much more. The gist of it is the answer to the question: how does Santa deliver all those toys? Well Santa's amazing hi-tech Christmas machine is how every kid gets presents in one night. Like all hi-tech, however, there is always a glitch - kind of like Microsoft Windows freezing for no reason at any given moment. This glitch is that one kid doesn't get a present. So, Arthur Christmas uses the old-school method, reindeer and sleigh (which doesn't make sense, at least in the trailer) because how did the old school method ever deliver all those billions of presents? Well, he saves Christmas by getting the present to the one kid. I'm guessing that most of the story will be the “humourous journey.” Yes, it's all in the trailer.
I hope kids enjoy this movie, because it's important for kids to believe in something. Me? I believe that I will likely never see this film. No risk of de-throning the champ from this one.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Hugo
I love Martin Scorsese. I don't care for 3-D movies. I love Ben Kinglsey. I don't care for Jude Law. I like that this trailer made me think that this may (or may not be) an updated fantasy version of Oliver Twist. I like that Sacha Baron Cohen is in a comedic role without the use of Ali G., Borat or Bruno.
Even though the trailer for Hugo is 2:26, it doesn't really give away the core of the story. What we know is: a young boy is orphaned. His father, an inventor of sorts, leaves him a clue to something special before he dies. Not sure why The Great Mouse Detective just popped into my head. Speaking of The Great Mouse Detective, Jude Law as Dr. Watson in the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Homes was the most tolerable Jude Law in memory.
So, Hugo, lives in the train station and artfully dodges Baron Cohen, the security guard until he, by chance, discovers the "key" to his father's secret. The secret is some sort of magical fantasy world.
The not-so-secret part is, films directed by Martin Scorsese, though not always great, are often interesting. If I were to make a list of my favourite movies (there are too many to actually ever list), Scorsese directed quite a few (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Cape Fear, Casino...). Though this is a departure from his usual dramas, I just know that it'll be entertaining and worth the cost of admission.
I will likely see this on a big screen.
Even though the trailer for Hugo is 2:26, it doesn't really give away the core of the story. What we know is: a young boy is orphaned. His father, an inventor of sorts, leaves him a clue to something special before he dies. Not sure why The Great Mouse Detective just popped into my head. Speaking of The Great Mouse Detective, Jude Law as Dr. Watson in the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Homes was the most tolerable Jude Law in memory.
So, Hugo, lives in the train station and artfully dodges Baron Cohen, the security guard until he, by chance, discovers the "key" to his father's secret. The secret is some sort of magical fantasy world.
The not-so-secret part is, films directed by Martin Scorsese, though not always great, are often interesting. If I were to make a list of my favourite movies (there are too many to actually ever list), Scorsese directed quite a few (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Cape Fear, Casino...). Though this is a departure from his usual dramas, I just know that it'll be entertaining and worth the cost of admission.
I will likely see this on a big screen.
Monday, 28 November 2011
VIEWED: 50/50
My recommendation for this one was...
"If 50/50 is half as moving as the trailer looks, then I would say it's a must see."
It was.
50/50 is the story of a 27 year old man, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is diagnosed with cancer. Despite the serious subject matter, the film depicts the cancer journey and its effects on the individual and the ones close to him with humour and compassion. What I noticed is that everyone's reaction to the cancer was different.
Though 50/50 was a bit slow at first there were some great performances. Gordon-Levitt is honest and real. Angelica Houston is always great. She was perfect as Gordon-Levitt's mother. And, though Rogen continues to play what is now expected of Rogen in every role: the immature, goofy side-kick, in 50/50 it worked, well.
Because everyone has been touched by cancer in some way, this film is relevant.
"If 50/50 is half as moving as the trailer looks, then I would say it's a must see."
It was.
50/50 is the story of a 27 year old man, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is diagnosed with cancer. Despite the serious subject matter, the film depicts the cancer journey and its effects on the individual and the ones close to him with humour and compassion. What I noticed is that everyone's reaction to the cancer was different.
Though 50/50 was a bit slow at first there were some great performances. Gordon-Levitt is honest and real. Angelica Houston is always great. She was perfect as Gordon-Levitt's mother. And, though Rogen continues to play what is now expected of Rogen in every role: the immature, goofy side-kick, in 50/50 it worked, well.
Because everyone has been touched by cancer in some way, this film is relevant.
Saturday, 26 November 2011
VIEWED: X-Men: First Class
My recommendation for this one was...
I heard through the grapevine that Dr. Manhattan and Mystique were dating. Big screen viewing.
I finally got around to seeing X-Men: First Class. I loved the 60's feel and the historical context. The Cuban missile crisis stuff was cool. It had all the elements, drama and acting that I expected, and brought some context to the franchise, but it just didn't deliver on the action. While it had it's moments, it didn't live up to my comic book movie adaptation devotion.
So, what would I say to the makers? It isn't you, it's me... Was anyone else disappointed in this one?
I heard through the grapevine that Dr. Manhattan and Mystique were dating. Big screen viewing.
I finally got around to seeing X-Men: First Class. I loved the 60's feel and the historical context. The Cuban missile crisis stuff was cool. It had all the elements, drama and acting that I expected, and brought some context to the franchise, but it just didn't deliver on the action. While it had it's moments, it didn't live up to my comic book movie adaptation devotion.
So, what would I say to the makers? It isn't you, it's me... Was anyone else disappointed in this one?
Friday, 25 November 2011
Snow White and the Huntsman
After watching the trailer for Snow White and the Huntsman, another trailer caught my eye called, Mirror Mirror. I watched that one, too. Mirror Mirror is a comedy of sorts and a kind of twist like Drew Barrymore's Ever After: A Cinderella Story. It's kind of annoying how two movies with basically the same story are released around the same time. It happens every so often, but that's not what I'm reviewing...
Snow White and the Huntsman looks pretty damn cool. The original Brother's Grimm story wasn't the light Disney story. It was a harsh look at vanity and envy served with cruelty and supernatural elements - no mention of dwarfs in the trailer. One of the elements of a "fairy tale" is the happy ending. I've heard that early, original "fairy tales" were created to scare kids into choosing a righteous path. I wonder what the modern equivalent is?
Charlize Theron. She looks great as the evil queen. She's made some good movies and was intense in her Oscar winning performance in Monster. The problem is that every time I see her, now, I think of the character she played in Arrested Development. She played, Rita, a developmentally delayed (not sure if that's the politically correct term) love interest of Michael. She was funny and cute and it further showed her versatility, especially after Monster. I just hope that I don't think of Rita and giggle while the evil queen in Snow White and the Huntsman is trying to scare me.
While I trust Snow White and the Huntsman will stick to its fairy tale roots and have the happy ending, I like the dark medieval feel and am curious as to how it will play out. The trailer kind of reminded me of Harry Potter meets Lord of the Rings. While I doubt Snow White will be as epic, I get the sense that it'll be an entertaining spin.
I think I'll see this one on the big screen.
Snow White and the Huntsman looks pretty damn cool. The original Brother's Grimm story wasn't the light Disney story. It was a harsh look at vanity and envy served with cruelty and supernatural elements - no mention of dwarfs in the trailer. One of the elements of a "fairy tale" is the happy ending. I've heard that early, original "fairy tales" were created to scare kids into choosing a righteous path. I wonder what the modern equivalent is?
Charlize Theron. She looks great as the evil queen. She's made some good movies and was intense in her Oscar winning performance in Monster. The problem is that every time I see her, now, I think of the character she played in Arrested Development. She played, Rita, a developmentally delayed (not sure if that's the politically correct term) love interest of Michael. She was funny and cute and it further showed her versatility, especially after Monster. I just hope that I don't think of Rita and giggle while the evil queen in Snow White and the Huntsman is trying to scare me.
While I trust Snow White and the Huntsman will stick to its fairy tale roots and have the happy ending, I like the dark medieval feel and am curious as to how it will play out. The trailer kind of reminded me of Harry Potter meets Lord of the Rings. While I doubt Snow White will be as epic, I get the sense that it'll be an entertaining spin.
I think I'll see this one on the big screen.
Thursday, 24 November 2011
The Muppets
In the forgettable, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Segal writes and acts in a musical of Dracula and is surrounded by Muppets, he also shows his penis - but not to Muppets. That would just be sick. Harvey Keitel showed his penis in the original Bad Lieutenant. It symbolized his vulnerability. I don't think there was a point to Segal showing his. While Segal may have the edge in that category, he is no Keitel as an actor.
The first thing that popped into my head when the trailer started was, "The band, man! Let's put the band back together..." The Blues Brothers.
It looks like it's a movie about bringing the old Muppets (band) together to make a movie. Why couldn't they have made a sequel to Muppets in Space? How about Muppet the Barbarian? Maybe a superhero movie called Muppetman. That would be fun. A movie about making a movie or a story of someone writing a story is beyond unoriginal.
It's sad because Muppets are original. I loved Sesame Street and the Muppet Show. I like Amy Adams and I even like Segal. They both seem genuine.
The problem is that this trailer just looks so lame. I'll have to pass, for now.
The first thing that popped into my head when the trailer started was, "The band, man! Let's put the band back together..." The Blues Brothers.
It looks like it's a movie about bringing the old Muppets (band) together to make a movie. Why couldn't they have made a sequel to Muppets in Space? How about Muppet the Barbarian? Maybe a superhero movie called Muppetman. That would be fun. A movie about making a movie or a story of someone writing a story is beyond unoriginal.
It's sad because Muppets are original. I loved Sesame Street and the Muppet Show. I like Amy Adams and I even like Segal. They both seem genuine.
The problem is that this trailer just looks so lame. I'll have to pass, for now.
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
The Descendants
After reading the synopsis I almost added this one to this month’s Trailer Park.... almost. I'm not sure why I watched the trailer but I'm glad I did. It was pretty good.
George Clooney is an interesting character. In half his films he plays George Clooney and the other half he is a decent actor. Not that I've seen all of his movies... He even won an Oscar for Syrianna, in which he plays George Clooney acting. Hmmm, I guess that’s the third side. Now that I think about it he was the third side in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Maybe the third side is really the first side and the second side is still the decent actor. Maybe this posting should be called confusions of a blogging mind.
Where was I? The Descendants is the story of a man who calls himself "the back-up parent... the understudy." His wife has an accident and he must step up and become a full time parent to his two daughters, one is post-pubescent, one is pre-pubescent. We never actually see the wife in the trailer but we learn that she has been having an affair and the post-pubescent daughter knew about it and is acting out her anger. The synopsis describes something about needing to sell the family house that has been in the family for years, but the trailer only focuses on the human conflict.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking. How does this sound interesting or important or relevant? Well, it doesn't but for some reason I found the trailer compelling. I also made the wife watch it just to be sure the soy milk that I used to drink hadn't altered my hormones. When the trailer ended she looked at me and said, "hmm, let's see this film." I told her that just because I liked the trailer doesn’t mean I’ll be seeing the film AND there's a difference between being in touch with your feminine side and actually touching your feminine side.
Yeah, this will be a date night movie.
George Clooney is an interesting character. In half his films he plays George Clooney and the other half he is a decent actor. Not that I've seen all of his movies... He even won an Oscar for Syrianna, in which he plays George Clooney acting. Hmmm, I guess that’s the third side. Now that I think about it he was the third side in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Maybe the third side is really the first side and the second side is still the decent actor. Maybe this posting should be called confusions of a blogging mind.
Where was I? The Descendants is the story of a man who calls himself "the back-up parent... the understudy." His wife has an accident and he must step up and become a full time parent to his two daughters, one is post-pubescent, one is pre-pubescent. We never actually see the wife in the trailer but we learn that she has been having an affair and the post-pubescent daughter knew about it and is acting out her anger. The synopsis describes something about needing to sell the family house that has been in the family for years, but the trailer only focuses on the human conflict.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking. How does this sound interesting or important or relevant? Well, it doesn't but for some reason I found the trailer compelling. I also made the wife watch it just to be sure the soy milk that I used to drink hadn't altered my hormones. When the trailer ended she looked at me and said, "hmm, let's see this film." I told her that just because I liked the trailer doesn’t mean I’ll be seeing the film AND there's a difference between being in touch with your feminine side and actually touching your feminine side.
Yeah, this will be a date night movie.
Sunday, 20 November 2011
Tower Heist
I had to watch two trailers for Tower Heist because the first trailer was a bunch of 40ish guys being taught to shoplift by Eddie Murphy, but without context. The second trailer brought clarity to what the film was really about: stealing back from one who stole, or an eye for an eye, or breaking the law to seek justice... Sadly, the reality of our society (and the films that we see) promote revenge and contradict all Judeo-Christian ethics. Or is this movie really just a metaphor for the Occupy Movement? The 99% seeking revenge on the 1% that has been sticking it to the 99%?
I will give my humble, marginally informed opinion on Occupy and get back to judging this film by its trailer(s).
Arab Spring had a purpose: overthrow the Egyptian government. I get it. It worked. It's done - yet there is still conflict. From my limited understanding, the Occupy moverment is about overthrowing the 1% that holds the 99% of the wealth? What exactly is the objective? Further, how do they propose to make change happen? (If someone has a link to the manifesto, please send it to me).
Today, I heard on the radio that the Occupy movement in D.C. wants an old school that used to be a homeless shelter turned back to a homeless shelter. Good idea, but is that what the Occupy Movement is about? Is the movement now advocacy in tents? I know there are organizations all over North America trying to address the homeless issue - NYC's Common Ground is doing an amazing job. I saw the work, first hand, a few years ago and it was very impressive. I digress.
Will Tower Heist make Occupy people feel good? The trailer didn't make me feel good. Nor did it make me laugh, nor anything, really. Well, not true. I hate to hear about pension money being pissed away by greedy assholes.
So, here we have a cast of actors that haven't done much of note lately - at least in my opinion. Stiller had so much promise and then gave us Zoolander - Tropic Thunder was fun, though. Broderick is likeable but hasn't replicated his Ferris Bueller screen presence in anything I've seen him in, since. Casey Affleck is versatile. Michael Pena is a solid actor but isn't in enough movies. Eddie Murphy peaked with Beverly Hills Cop, though I loved him in Bowfinger, he hasn't really made a decent film in a long time.
Tower Heist is a sort of reflection of our times. Pensions misappropriated, unstable economy, white collar crimes perpetrated by the 1%, not brought to justice and the working stiffs doing the wrong things for the right reasons to seek revenge... It's kind of sad to think that in the real world it's the working stiff that gets stiffed the most. Yeah, I get the occupy thing. I just don't know if it's going to be effective.
Tower Heist. Don't get me wrong, I like Eddie Murphy, as I do the cast of this film. I just don't think it will deliver. That said, I'll likely see it on a big screen at The Rainbow on a Tuesday. For $4, most of us 99% can afford to see a movie once in a while.
I will give my humble, marginally informed opinion on Occupy and get back to judging this film by its trailer(s).
Arab Spring had a purpose: overthrow the Egyptian government. I get it. It worked. It's done - yet there is still conflict. From my limited understanding, the Occupy moverment is about overthrowing the 1% that holds the 99% of the wealth? What exactly is the objective? Further, how do they propose to make change happen? (If someone has a link to the manifesto, please send it to me).
Today, I heard on the radio that the Occupy movement in D.C. wants an old school that used to be a homeless shelter turned back to a homeless shelter. Good idea, but is that what the Occupy Movement is about? Is the movement now advocacy in tents? I know there are organizations all over North America trying to address the homeless issue - NYC's Common Ground is doing an amazing job. I saw the work, first hand, a few years ago and it was very impressive. I digress.
Will Tower Heist make Occupy people feel good? The trailer didn't make me feel good. Nor did it make me laugh, nor anything, really. Well, not true. I hate to hear about pension money being pissed away by greedy assholes.
So, here we have a cast of actors that haven't done much of note lately - at least in my opinion. Stiller had so much promise and then gave us Zoolander - Tropic Thunder was fun, though. Broderick is likeable but hasn't replicated his Ferris Bueller screen presence in anything I've seen him in, since. Casey Affleck is versatile. Michael Pena is a solid actor but isn't in enough movies. Eddie Murphy peaked with Beverly Hills Cop, though I loved him in Bowfinger, he hasn't really made a decent film in a long time.
Tower Heist is a sort of reflection of our times. Pensions misappropriated, unstable economy, white collar crimes perpetrated by the 1%, not brought to justice and the working stiffs doing the wrong things for the right reasons to seek revenge... It's kind of sad to think that in the real world it's the working stiff that gets stiffed the most. Yeah, I get the occupy thing. I just don't know if it's going to be effective.
Tower Heist. Don't get me wrong, I like Eddie Murphy, as I do the cast of this film. I just don't think it will deliver. That said, I'll likely see it on a big screen at The Rainbow on a Tuesday. For $4, most of us 99% can afford to see a movie once in a while.
Thursday, 17 November 2011
Melancholia
I liked Kirsten Dunst in Jumanji.
You know how some movies are described as "rip roaring romps," or "action-packed," or "awakens the senses" or even "thought provoking?" Melancholia is none of those. The title perfectly describes it and while melancholy is a mood/emotion that certainly has a place in movies, two hours of it? Seriously... based on the trailer for this one, it should be called Dullancholia.
I'm being a bit harsh. While watching the trailer I laughed when, during the typical dysfunctional family dynamics of the wedding, we learn that a planet is heading straight for earth and there is a chance that all life will end. So, why is this funny? It's a Simpson’s episode.
In the Simpsons episode, Homer predicts that the meteor about to hit Springfield will dissolve once it enters the earth's atmosphere. To everyone's surprise, he's right.
Nothing in the trailer for Melancholia indicates that the characters, all suffering from melancholy, by the way, embrace life and try to make the best of their remaining days. There's nothing to show that their melancholy changes in any way in the face of imminent death. On the contrary, the melancholy seems to be the mood from beginning to end. So, what's the point of that? The writers could have placed any scenario after the wedding. How about a terrorist attack or maybe a tidal wave or impending ice age or zombie plague? The only thing missing from Melancholia is a soundtrack by The Smiths. I know there's more of a point to Melancholia. The planet is called Melancholia and the mood is reflected in the film. Wow. Clever. The trailer, however, says nothing to make me want to care.
The other thing about the trailer is that there is nudity - albeit a long shot of it - naked, melancholy from Kirsten Dunst.
I think I'll pass on this one and dust off some Smiths records. Louder Than Bombs should give me a more meaningful melancholy than Melancholia, and I could clean out the shed and not lose the 2 hours I'll never get back.
You know how some movies are described as "rip roaring romps," or "action-packed," or "awakens the senses" or even "thought provoking?" Melancholia is none of those. The title perfectly describes it and while melancholy is a mood/emotion that certainly has a place in movies, two hours of it? Seriously... based on the trailer for this one, it should be called Dullancholia.
I'm being a bit harsh. While watching the trailer I laughed when, during the typical dysfunctional family dynamics of the wedding, we learn that a planet is heading straight for earth and there is a chance that all life will end. So, why is this funny? It's a Simpson’s episode.
In the Simpsons episode, Homer predicts that the meteor about to hit Springfield will dissolve once it enters the earth's atmosphere. To everyone's surprise, he's right.
Nothing in the trailer for Melancholia indicates that the characters, all suffering from melancholy, by the way, embrace life and try to make the best of their remaining days. There's nothing to show that their melancholy changes in any way in the face of imminent death. On the contrary, the melancholy seems to be the mood from beginning to end. So, what's the point of that? The writers could have placed any scenario after the wedding. How about a terrorist attack or maybe a tidal wave or impending ice age or zombie plague? The only thing missing from Melancholia is a soundtrack by The Smiths. I know there's more of a point to Melancholia. The planet is called Melancholia and the mood is reflected in the film. Wow. Clever. The trailer, however, says nothing to make me want to care.
The other thing about the trailer is that there is nudity - albeit a long shot of it - naked, melancholy from Kirsten Dunst.
I think I'll pass on this one and dust off some Smiths records. Louder Than Bombs should give me a more meaningful melancholy than Melancholia, and I could clean out the shed and not lose the 2 hours I'll never get back.
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Jack and Jill
I never thought I'd say this, but... I'm getting really bored with Adam Sandler. Every movie is an extension of Billy Madison or Happy Gilmore. Isn't Happy Madison also the name of his production company?
Let's take a look (at the ones I've seen - and I did like most of them):
Billy Madison: Adam as rich loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Happy Gilmore: Adam as lovable loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
The Wedding Singer: Adam as love-scorned loser who makes good, and gets the hot girl.
The Waterboy: Adam as momma's boy loser who annoys momma then makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Big Daddy: Adam as lovable loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Little Nicky: Adam as son of Satan who annoys demons then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Punch Drunk Love: Adam as odd, straight man who annoys the wrong people then does right thing, gets the girl but still makes odd.
Then a few "family man" movies and movies where he's the untamed ladies’ man who falls for one special "hot girl." Didn't Harlequin Romance build a mega-franchise on this premise? Sandler is smart and has made millions making formulaic mindless comedies. Respect to him for knowing what sells, that alone is a talent.
In Jack and Jill (the second 2:33 trailer in a row for me) appears to be another Happy Madison formulaic "comedy." This time, Sandler, who gets to flex his acting muscle, plays twins. The comedic Jill, twin sister of straight man, Jack. The too long trailer shows a series of gags, ranging from one-liners to slapstick - he looks terrible as a woman. The only thing that made the trailer interesting was Al Pacino's interest in Jill. It was funny, yet kind of creepy. Was this the first comedy for Pacino? Oh, Al.
So, Jack and Jill is: Twin sister of rich family man loser, annoys people then does the right thing and gets Al Pacino.
Yawn.
Let's take a look (at the ones I've seen - and I did like most of them):
Billy Madison: Adam as rich loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Happy Gilmore: Adam as lovable loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
The Wedding Singer: Adam as love-scorned loser who makes good, and gets the hot girl.
The Waterboy: Adam as momma's boy loser who annoys momma then makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Big Daddy: Adam as lovable loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Little Nicky: Adam as son of Satan who annoys demons then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Punch Drunk Love: Adam as odd, straight man who annoys the wrong people then does right thing, gets the girl but still makes odd.
Then a few "family man" movies and movies where he's the untamed ladies’ man who falls for one special "hot girl." Didn't Harlequin Romance build a mega-franchise on this premise? Sandler is smart and has made millions making formulaic mindless comedies. Respect to him for knowing what sells, that alone is a talent.
In Jack and Jill (the second 2:33 trailer in a row for me) appears to be another Happy Madison formulaic "comedy." This time, Sandler, who gets to flex his acting muscle, plays twins. The comedic Jill, twin sister of straight man, Jack. The too long trailer shows a series of gags, ranging from one-liners to slapstick - he looks terrible as a woman. The only thing that made the trailer interesting was Al Pacino's interest in Jill. It was funny, yet kind of creepy. Was this the first comedy for Pacino? Oh, Al.
So, Jack and Jill is: Twin sister of rich family man loser, annoys people then does the right thing and gets Al Pacino.
Yawn.
Sunday, 13 November 2011
J. Edgar
On every level this looks like a winning combination, but...
The trailer is too long (2:33) and tells too much of the story, unnecessarily. It's a true story and can all be verified on Google so why the overkill? J. Edgar Hoover's life and career are well documented, and frankly, there was enough interesting stuff in the first minute of the trailer to make the film look appealing (who didn't love The Untouchables?)... but what do I know, right? What I have heard about J. Edgar Hoover, founder of the FBI, is that he used to like to wear women's clothing. That part wasn't in the too long trailer.
Leonardo DiCaprio. Never had time for him until I saw Catch Me If You Can. Since then, I've become a fan. The only exception was that terrible film he starred in after Catch Me If You Can, about Howard Hughes. I trust this biopic will be better than The Aviator.
Clint Eastwood movies. We all know that, within the 2 hours of this film, we will be manipulated into caring about the characters only to have that attachment ripped from us in the form of a tragic death or loss of some kind (Million Dollar Baby? Gran Torino?). While I like Eastwood movies, he kind of has that clever, I'll fuck with your emotions because I'm a good film-maker, I'm brilliant at developing plot and character and don't you forget who the man is, so go ahead, make my day, Disney-style arrogance.
J. Edgar could be one of those movies that sweeps the Oscars, earning the gold for both Eastwood and DiCaprio. It could be this year's Ray or Walk the Line or The Last King of Scotland. It could also be one of those movies that I will never get around to seeing.
Kind of curious about the women's underwear thing... but not sure how curious.
The trailer is too long (2:33) and tells too much of the story, unnecessarily. It's a true story and can all be verified on Google so why the overkill? J. Edgar Hoover's life and career are well documented, and frankly, there was enough interesting stuff in the first minute of the trailer to make the film look appealing (who didn't love The Untouchables?)... but what do I know, right? What I have heard about J. Edgar Hoover, founder of the FBI, is that he used to like to wear women's clothing. That part wasn't in the too long trailer.
Leonardo DiCaprio. Never had time for him until I saw Catch Me If You Can. Since then, I've become a fan. The only exception was that terrible film he starred in after Catch Me If You Can, about Howard Hughes. I trust this biopic will be better than The Aviator.
Clint Eastwood movies. We all know that, within the 2 hours of this film, we will be manipulated into caring about the characters only to have that attachment ripped from us in the form of a tragic death or loss of some kind (Million Dollar Baby? Gran Torino?). While I like Eastwood movies, he kind of has that clever, I'll fuck with your emotions because I'm a good film-maker, I'm brilliant at developing plot and character and don't you forget who the man is, so go ahead, make my day, Disney-style arrogance.
J. Edgar could be one of those movies that sweeps the Oscars, earning the gold for both Eastwood and DiCaprio. It could be this year's Ray or Walk the Line or The Last King of Scotland. It could also be one of those movies that I will never get around to seeing.
Kind of curious about the women's underwear thing... but not sure how curious.
Thursday, 10 November 2011
Editorial: Re-releasing classics instead of re-making them?
As I scanned through the usual sources looking for trailers of now playing and upcoming movies, I noticed something quite odd. The following movies were in the "Now Playing" sections:
Hitchcock's The 39 Steps and The Birds and Rear Window (Rear Window is one of my all-time favourites)
Ben Hur with Charlton Heston (many years ago I heard a joke: What did Ben Hur say to his sister Ben Him? We should switch names or they'll start calling me Ben Gay - not that there's anything wrong with it)
Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn (Two icons)
Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (Sick and brilliant movie)
Dial M for Murder with Grace Kelly (Great story stars a great beauty)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail AND The Life of Brian (Love them both)
Rebel Without a Cause with James Dean (Serious Classic)
What a novel idea! Instead of remaking classic films, just re-release! What a great way to expose audiences to the classics, without butchering the classics with lame remakes. Speaking of butchering, while I was going to school, I had a job at Colorization. I used to paint by numbers, on computer, coloring black and white movies. I was involved in thebutchering Colorizing of films such as It's a Wonderful Life, The Stranger (Orson Welles), Otto Preminger's St. Joan (where, in a crowd scene I found someone wearing a wrist watch - not unlike the Peter Sellers character on the set of a movie in The Party) and the entire Laurel and Hardy collection.
My point? One of the key messages of Colorization was: Colorizing black and white classics will expose a whole new audience to great cinema. The logic was that young people didn't want to watch black and white films. While it exposed me to some great cinema, the concept inevitably failed and so did the company. Again, what's my point? I think I'm trying to say that re-releasing will hopefully provide a big screen viewing opportunity for people who likely own these films and maybe expose younger people, too. I don't know if younger generation movie buffs will seize the opportunity to see these films on the big screen, but I really hope they do. Movies often reflect our cultural evolution, our changing values and so, for me, it's really cool to glimpse the history of an art form that is only about 100 years old. Thus, re-releasing classics instead of remaking them is appealing to me. Maybe when all the classics are re-released, some new ideas will evolve... oh my, I actually sound optimistic.
The first time I saw the film, Casablanca, I marveled at how cliché the sayings were, you know, "play it again, Sam." "There's been a murder, round up the usual suspects..." "The lives of two people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world..." But then I realized that many of the expressions we consider cliché had to start somewhere. Many started in these classic, often quoted and misquoted films of yester-year.
While basking in nostalgia and goodwill I had another thought, which is sadly based in cynicism. You know, cash grab, cheaper to re-release than make movies now that Blockbuster is dead (please see my post on Oct. 27, 2011). But you know what? I think it's great that we have opportunities to view classics on the big screen. So, all cynicism aside, I hope movie lovers take advantage of this opportunity because there is so much crap out there.
Think of viewing an old classic on a big screen like putting your money on a sure thing. Send me your thoughts.
Hitchcock's The 39 Steps and The Birds and Rear Window (Rear Window is one of my all-time favourites)
Ben Hur with Charlton Heston (many years ago I heard a joke: What did Ben Hur say to his sister Ben Him? We should switch names or they'll start calling me Ben Gay - not that there's anything wrong with it)
Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn (Two icons)
Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (Sick and brilliant movie)
Dial M for Murder with Grace Kelly (Great story stars a great beauty)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail AND The Life of Brian (Love them both)
Rebel Without a Cause with James Dean (Serious Classic)
What a novel idea! Instead of remaking classic films, just re-release! What a great way to expose audiences to the classics, without butchering the classics with lame remakes. Speaking of butchering, while I was going to school, I had a job at Colorization. I used to paint by numbers, on computer, coloring black and white movies. I was involved in the
My point? One of the key messages of Colorization was: Colorizing black and white classics will expose a whole new audience to great cinema. The logic was that young people didn't want to watch black and white films. While it exposed me to some great cinema, the concept inevitably failed and so did the company. Again, what's my point? I think I'm trying to say that re-releasing will hopefully provide a big screen viewing opportunity for people who likely own these films and maybe expose younger people, too. I don't know if younger generation movie buffs will seize the opportunity to see these films on the big screen, but I really hope they do. Movies often reflect our cultural evolution, our changing values and so, for me, it's really cool to glimpse the history of an art form that is only about 100 years old. Thus, re-releasing classics instead of remaking them is appealing to me. Maybe when all the classics are re-released, some new ideas will evolve... oh my, I actually sound optimistic.
The first time I saw the film, Casablanca, I marveled at how cliché the sayings were, you know, "play it again, Sam." "There's been a murder, round up the usual suspects..." "The lives of two people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world..." But then I realized that many of the expressions we consider cliché had to start somewhere. Many started in these classic, often quoted and misquoted films of yester-year.
While basking in nostalgia and goodwill I had another thought, which is sadly based in cynicism. You know, cash grab, cheaper to re-release than make movies now that Blockbuster is dead (please see my post on Oct. 27, 2011). But you know what? I think it's great that we have opportunities to view classics on the big screen. So, all cynicism aside, I hope movie lovers take advantage of this opportunity because there is so much crap out there.
Think of viewing an old classic on a big screen like putting your money on a sure thing. Send me your thoughts.
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Big Night (1996)
This month my friends who participate in "Edible Cinema" have chosen to view Big Night (1996). They will be cooking Italian food and drinking Italian wine. I don't know much about wine, but if I attend I'll bring a bottle of one of my favourites, Farnese Sangiovese. It's less than 8 bucks a bottle but tastes like a $12 bottle with food. You can get a big bottle for $13. Cheap and cheerful.
I've never heard of Big Night. I like to say (in a pompous British accent), "how can it be famous if I've never heard of it?" I enjoyed another lesser known Stanley Tucci film that was released a few years after this one called The Imposters, which starred other favourites Oliver Platt and Alfred Molina.
So, according to the trailer for Big Night, it's about two brothers who own a too authentic Italian restaurant. I like this Edible Cinema theme and I liked the trailer for Big Night. The film looks like a fun, dialogue driven story of food, family, and the frustration of restaurateurs struggling to provide authentic Italian food to customers who just want spaghetti and meat balls.
I know for a fact that Ron will prepare an authentic, delicious meal and choose perfect wines that would easily grace the menu of any good restaurant - even the one in this film. Sounds like a perfect evening.
Boun Appetito, my friends.
P.S. If I host an Edible Cinema evening, I'd screen Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and have people guess what's for dinner. If they guess wrong, they don't eat.... but that's why I haven't hosted, yet.
I've never heard of Big Night. I like to say (in a pompous British accent), "how can it be famous if I've never heard of it?" I enjoyed another lesser known Stanley Tucci film that was released a few years after this one called The Imposters, which starred other favourites Oliver Platt and Alfred Molina.
So, according to the trailer for Big Night, it's about two brothers who own a too authentic Italian restaurant. I like this Edible Cinema theme and I liked the trailer for Big Night. The film looks like a fun, dialogue driven story of food, family, and the frustration of restaurateurs struggling to provide authentic Italian food to customers who just want spaghetti and meat balls.
I know for a fact that Ron will prepare an authentic, delicious meal and choose perfect wines that would easily grace the menu of any good restaurant - even the one in this film. Sounds like a perfect evening.
Boun Appetito, my friends.
P.S. If I host an Edible Cinema evening, I'd screen Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and have people guess what's for dinner. If they guess wrong, they don't eat.... but that's why I haven't hosted, yet.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Immortals
I liked it when it was called, Clash of the Titans, but only the remake because I didn't see the original. Speaking of original, what is original about this film? A step further: what is interesting, entertaining, intelligent, relevent about this film?
I guess the only only logical answer is: Mickey Rourke. He has gone from the handsome, slightly bad boy of great films like Diner, Pope of Greenwich Village and Angel Heart, to a brilliant rendition of Charles Bukowski in Barfly.... fast forward to the monster in Sin City and then The Wrestler. I know he's made tons more movies but I just haven't seen them all to comment. I was completely blown away when I saw Sin City and realized, "holy crap, that's Mickey Rourke!" I was also blown away by the tragedy of Shakespearean (f**k-off Anonymous) proportions of the Wrestler.
Whatever happend to him (and we don't have to come out and say it...), there are two Mickey Rourkes - then and now. Then was charming and, frankly a good actor. Now is an aging action anti-hero. His metamorphisis was almost Kafka-esque. His transformation, almost frightening. Yet, he still has the acting chops.
I really didn't care for this trailer, it just seemed to, as Rourke says as Bukowski in Barfly, "ooze obviousness..."
I guess the only only logical answer is: Mickey Rourke. He has gone from the handsome, slightly bad boy of great films like Diner, Pope of Greenwich Village and Angel Heart, to a brilliant rendition of Charles Bukowski in Barfly.... fast forward to the monster in Sin City and then The Wrestler. I know he's made tons more movies but I just haven't seen them all to comment. I was completely blown away when I saw Sin City and realized, "holy crap, that's Mickey Rourke!" I was also blown away by the tragedy of Shakespearean (f**k-off Anonymous) proportions of the Wrestler.
Whatever happend to him (and we don't have to come out and say it...), there are two Mickey Rourkes - then and now. Then was charming and, frankly a good actor. Now is an aging action anti-hero. His metamorphisis was almost Kafka-esque. His transformation, almost frightening. Yet, he still has the acting chops.
I really didn't care for this trailer, it just seemed to, as Rourke says as Bukowski in Barfly, "ooze obviousness..."
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Another Happy Day
Q: When is Another Happy Day not another happy day?
A: When it's this movie.
With the back drop of a wedding: the special day where the bride is as beautiful as she will ever be and the groom is happier than he'll ever be. Sounds cynical, yes? Having been involved in many weddings, once as the groom in a failed one, my observation is meant to be coolly clever and not to piss on anyone's wedding cake. But that's not what Another Happy Day is about.
From the trailer, which looks angry, sad and a bit intense, we are introduced to a "modern" family (father leaves mother for another woman and mother raises kids alone) coming together for the wedding of their eldest son. Ellen Barkin, who in my opinion hasn't made nearly enough movies, is the scorned mother of the groom. Thomas Hayden Church, who in my opinion also hasn't made enough movies, plays the ex-husband who is now with Demi Moore. Demi Moore seems to play a more mature version of the character she played in the terrible adaptation of Carl Hiaasen's very entertaining novel, Strip Tease. She still looks great but her beauty seems only skin deep. I think she is perfectly cast as the selfish, apparently narcissistic step-mother. Does anyone else feel that, as an actress, Demi is kind of soul-less?
So, Another Happy Day is not. It's an examination of a family broken, and unable to come together for what is supposed to be a happy day. The kids, all at or close to adulthood are fighting their own respective demons.
I'm sure I'll see this because I know the wife will want to see it and we'll likely watch it on-line when Netflix Canada gets it - in three years or so...
A: When it's this movie.
With the back drop of a wedding: the special day where the bride is as beautiful as she will ever be and the groom is happier than he'll ever be. Sounds cynical, yes? Having been involved in many weddings, once as the groom in a failed one, my observation is meant to be coolly clever and not to piss on anyone's wedding cake. But that's not what Another Happy Day is about.
From the trailer, which looks angry, sad and a bit intense, we are introduced to a "modern" family (father leaves mother for another woman and mother raises kids alone) coming together for the wedding of their eldest son. Ellen Barkin, who in my opinion hasn't made nearly enough movies, is the scorned mother of the groom. Thomas Hayden Church, who in my opinion also hasn't made enough movies, plays the ex-husband who is now with Demi Moore. Demi Moore seems to play a more mature version of the character she played in the terrible adaptation of Carl Hiaasen's very entertaining novel, Strip Tease. She still looks great but her beauty seems only skin deep. I think she is perfectly cast as the selfish, apparently narcissistic step-mother. Does anyone else feel that, as an actress, Demi is kind of soul-less?
So, Another Happy Day is not. It's an examination of a family broken, and unable to come together for what is supposed to be a happy day. The kids, all at or close to adulthood are fighting their own respective demons.
I'm sure I'll see this because I know the wife will want to see it and we'll likely watch it on-line when Netflix Canada gets it - in three years or so...
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Monthly Film Quips
Best film viewed by me in October: Real Steel (yeah, I know what I said - shut up, Huss)
Best film viewed by me, but not reviewed: Death to Smoochy (More like this please, Mr. DeVito)
Best actor in a film viewed by me regardless of whether reviewed: Wilfred Brimley in The Thing (1982)
Best blog entry on Beerbohmtastic in October, based on reader views: Good-bye Blockbuster (editorial)
Best pizza I've had all year while watching a movie: ZAZAZA in Ottawa (try the Crazy Horse)
Best new soft drink consumed while watching a movie and eating pizza: Tangerine Fanta
Best film viewed by me, but not reviewed: Death to Smoochy (More like this please, Mr. DeVito)
Best actor in a film viewed by me regardless of whether reviewed: Wilfred Brimley in The Thing (1982)
Best blog entry on Beerbohmtastic in October, based on reader views: Good-bye Blockbuster (editorial)
Best pizza I've had all year while watching a movie: ZAZAZA in Ottawa (try the Crazy Horse)
Best new soft drink consumed while watching a movie and eating pizza: Tangerine Fanta
October Recap
Three months of Beerbohmtastic.
Here are some month end stats for October:
Movie trailers/synopsis reviewed: 13
Movies viewed in October: 8
Movies reviewed actually viewed: 4
Reader insults: 4
Feelings hurt: 1
I hope you're having as much fun reading the blog as I am writing it.
Thank you for reading.
Here are some month end stats for October:
Movie trailers/synopsis reviewed: 13
Movies viewed in October: 8
Movies reviewed actually viewed: 4
Reader insults: 4
Feelings hurt: 1
I hope you're having as much fun reading the blog as I am writing it.
Thank you for reading.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
Trailer Park (formerly the No Parking Zone)
The Trailer Park is reserved for trailers or synopsis that:
A) caused me to make that teenage girl sound, "meh"
B) the synopsis didn't warrant a trailer viewing
C) content I had no interest in
D) trailers viewed that evoked nothing
E) trailers that were so forgettable that by the time I was ready to review them, I couldn't even remember the title of the film
F) All of the above
G) None of the above
Think of the Trailer Park as a public service....
So, in no particular order, I give you the next (first) installment of Trailer Park:
The Three Muskateers 3D (Stupid gimmick on a tired story)
Puss in Boots (Antonio doesn't need to be seen anymore but Salma does)
Atlas Shrugged Part 1 (The vitue of selfishness, Ayn, is not waiting for Part 2)
Cell 211 (The lead's name is Tosar)
In Time (Justin Timberlake playing Justin Timberlake, yet again)
RA. One (Bollywood big budget sci-fi cheese curds)
Sophie (Dum without the bo)
Thanks for reading.
A) caused me to make that teenage girl sound, "meh"
B) the synopsis didn't warrant a trailer viewing
C) content I had no interest in
D) trailers viewed that evoked nothing
E) trailers that were so forgettable that by the time I was ready to review them, I couldn't even remember the title of the film
F) All of the above
G) None of the above
Think of the Trailer Park as a public service....
So, in no particular order, I give you the next (first) installment of Trailer Park:
The Three Muskateers 3D (Stupid gimmick on a tired story)
Puss in Boots (Antonio doesn't need to be seen anymore but Salma does)
Atlas Shrugged Part 1 (The vitue of selfishness, Ayn, is not waiting for Part 2)
Cell 211 (The lead's name is Tosar)
In Time (Justin Timberlake playing Justin Timberlake, yet again)
RA. One (Bollywood big budget sci-fi cheese curds)
Sophie (Dum without the bo)
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)