Over two hundred million dollars in less than 5 days for a movie which is, reportedly, utterly incomprehensible and maybe even just a touch racist.
You people realize that if you keep encouraging Michael Bay, he won’t go away, right?
Wow, it felt really weird finally polishing off this collection…
I scored The Complete Calvin and Hobbes on eBay a couple of months back (at a significantly reduced cover price, of course) and it’s been my bedside companion ever since. I would knock out twenty or thirty pages a night, in no real hurry at all to finish. The collection is the very definition of “light reading” and it always felt like a good way to end my day. An hour or two ago, I read the last ever strip — a Sunday comic from December of 1995. Three hardcover volumes, nearly fifteen hundred pages at a total weight of roughly twenty two pounds (including the fancy slipcase). Now that it’s over, I’m sorry to see it go.
I think I may have commented a time or two on this blog that I didn’t give cartoonist Bill Watterson his proper due back when “Calvin” was still running in newspapers. At the time — to me at least — the strip felt repetitive and dry. Now, having consumed the whole ten year run in a relatively short period of time, I see it for what it is — a disciplined and articulate work by a genuine artist.
Calvin and Hobbes has several things in common with its only slightly more famous forebear, Peanuts. It focuses on a narrow set of circumstances, has a very limited cast of characters and is clearly not meant to be perceived only as what it is on its surface. Both Watterson and Charles Schultz before him don’t intend for us to take their dialogue and comic scenarios featuring children at face value. What we get when we read Calvin or Charlie Brown’s dialogue is a direct window into the worldview of the their respective creators. So, to be clear, we’re not talking Ziggy here. Calvin and Hobbes has a consistent voice and an integrity that sets it apart from the vast majority of the comic strips done over the roughly one hundred year history of the medium. Yes, it has a limited series of repeating motifs, but the overall effect is a fully-realized world with honest-to-God thematic through lines. Some novelists have trouble laying claim to that sort of artistic achievement, let alone lowly cartoonists.
I get why The Hangover is doing so well at the box office — you pays your money; you gets your laughs. Would that all of life’s transactions were that simple. Beyond the yucks, the movie’s script is also relatively tight for such a balls-out, “hard-R” comedy. Not only do we get characters with a smattering of depth & definition, we get a structure more complicated — with its nested flashbacks within flashbacks — than is typical for this sort of fare. It’s a good, solid time at the movies, but let me issue a warning to its makers: The Hangover is fine by itself and in no way warrants a sequel. But I’m sure Warners smells money and they won’t leave well enough alone. We can all look forward to The Hangover 2: Even Hung Overer in about eighteen months. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Post Script:
The Hangover MVP award goes to Ken Jeong who plays “Mr. Chow”. He does one of the bravest things I’ve seen an actor do in a movie all year. Believe me, you’ll know it when you see it.
[80s-palooza Part 15 (unofficial entry)]
I had a hankering to see Ghostbusters again because a) there’s a new video game releasing this week which features all of the original cast and b) just because. What can I say? It is what is, and you all know what it is. There’s always a problem revisiting a movie like this, a movie that you know so well that it holds few surprises. It’s a particularly odd feeling when it’s a comedy and it isn’t funny per se because you know exactly what the next line is going to be. The fact that I’ve seen this movie so many times in the past quarter century is a testament, I suppose, to how well it works. It creates its own weird little world that you just accept despite the absurdity. Part of that verisimilitude comes thanks to Dan Aykroyd who’s influence is all over this flick. You always know that Aykroyd had a hand in a script because of the odd-ball detail, the technical jargon and lore that ties everything together. Were it not for that sort of embellishment, I don’t think Ghostbusters would work as well or feel as “real” as it does. Your other Most Valuable Player here is undeniably Bill Murray. As great as the details are, you also need a Wisecracking Skeptic in a movie like this, and Murray fulfills that role better than anyone else could.
Anyway, I guess the best word I can think of describe a viewing of Ghostbusters 25 years later is “comfortable”. It’s like spending an hour and a half with an old friend.
Post Script: The Perils of Hi-Def:
This is going to sound like a weird thing to say but I think the new blu-ray of Ghostbusters looks pretty terrible. The level of visual detail is unquestionably higher, but this comes at a price: The film grain is annoyingly prominent and noisy, so much so that it’s distracting. In darker scenes, I actually had trouble following the action because I was so transfixed by the dancing patterns of dots. I must say that this is not a problem I expected to have when I decided to dive into this new format.
The 80s-Palooza Film Festival to Date:
[80s-palooza Part 14.]
The critic in me is demanding that I tell you that Lone Wolf McQuade is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a good movie — the script is sub-par, Chuck Norris’ acting is, to be generous, extremely wooden, etc. But you knew all of that (or could guess it). Let me make a case now for why “McQuade” isn’t just a stupid early 80s actioner… Are you ready? Bullet-point number one: One of the villains is an articulate (albeit maniacal) midget bound to a wheelchair. Bullet-point number two: The musical score is unabashedly Spaghetti Western, lending the whole enterprise an infectious over-the-top absurdity. Both of these bullet-points add up to one thing: The filmmakers weren’t taking this movie seriously, so we shouldn’t either. They weren’t striving to create Cinema (in the grand sense of that word) and we should take their film in the spirit it was intended — good, silly fun with a deliberate wink and a nod. I took it on that level and had a good time.
The 80s-Palooza Film Festival to Date:
John Carter:
The latest on Pixar’s John Carter of Mars film (via Chud.com)…
Local Utah news station KLS is reporting that Pixar’s foray into the world of live action, an adaptation of Edgar Rice Burrough’s John Carter of Mars, will be shooting in Utah this fall. That doesn’t mean that John Carter will have multiple wives or attend an indie film festival, but it could mean that Pixar intends to do less green screen then we might have thought.
After all, Utah is home to some of the most unearthly geography on Earth. Monument Valley, which it shares with Arizona, became famous in the films of John Ford; it’s buttes and columns truly look like an alien landscape, and the reddish sands call to mind Mars (or as the Martians call it, Barsoom). Zion National Park also offers incredible scenery, better than anything the CGI masters at Pixar could come up with, as does the Arches National Park. Then there’s Moab. Essentially Utah is Mars.
Utah story via Slashfilm.
Meanwhile, Coming Soon is reporting that Lynn Collins, who played Wolverine’s girlfriend in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, has signed on to John Carter of Mars. Or at least her Twitter feed gives that impression. I wasn’t that impressed with her acting in Wolverine, but looks-wise she’d make a great Deja Thoris, the Martian Queen.
Conan:
The above constitutes my second or third posting on the in-production John Carter movie, but strangely, I’ve failed to mention the concurrently in-development adaptation of Conan the Barbarian. If you’ve been following this site for a while you’re no doubt aware of my affection for the original stories by Robert E. Howard (not to mention the 70s comic book adaptation by Roy Thomas and John Buscema), so isn’t it odd that I haven’t mentioned the forthcoming flick? Well, the reason for my silence heretofore is simple: I don’t believe that Lionsgate (the studio currently in possession of the property) is serious about giving the material its due. The first director announced for “Conan” was Brett Ratner, a filmmaker I have no great love for (his movies are competently made, I suppose, but they also have a slick and superficial quality). Some time ago, Ratner left the project and the film went into a sort of “it’s still happening, but we can’t give you any specifics” limbo. Yesterday, the (rather strong) rumor that Marcus Nispel would be taking over the reins on the project emerged. Nispel’s most prominent credit to date was the recent remake of Friday the 13th. Again, not serious. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I did not see Friday the 13th, but that was primarily because my lack of interest in the film was practically tangible. (I mean you could’ve poked it with a stick and it would’ve cried out.) Anyway, no one’s hoping more than me that Nispel will do right by the material, but my hopes aren’t running high. I just have to wonder whether or not there were better choices for “Conan”. Let me give you two fer instances…
- Howard McCain, the Director of Outlander. As you can see by going down just one post, I thought Outlander was well-made and was certainly infused with some elements which were very Conan-like.
- Michael J. Bassett, the director of the forthcoming Solomon Kane. “Kane” hasn’t gotten a theatrical release yet, but I am assured by an impeccable source that Bassett gets this sort of material. (And, hell, Solomon Kane himself is also a Robert E. Howard creation.)
So, despite the fact that I have a great deal more affection for Conan than I do John Carter, I am convinced that “Carter” will be a better film. At least in the case of “Carter”, I know the director (Andrew Stanton — he of Wall*E and Finding Nemo) is not only highly competent, he is excited about the stories upon which the film will be based.
Post Script:
Okay, I take back some of the above confidence in the adaptation of John Carter. Again, via Chud…
A couple of hours ago I was all high on John Carter of Mars (which I called a Pixar film, but I guess it’s a co-production with Disney and all of the animation nerds on the boards got enraged about the mistake. Sorry!). I loved the idea of the picture shooting in the otherworldly landscape of Utah. I was okay with the idea of Lynn Collins, who didn’t wow me in Wolverine, playing Dejah Thoris.
But then I went to see The Taking of Pelham 123 (review coming!) and when I got home the world had been turned upside down. See, they had hired John Carter himself. And it seems like they did all of their casting during a screening of Wolverine. They hired Gambit.
The guy who played Gambit is going to be playing John Carter, a Civil War soldier who teleports to Mars.
Ugh.
I know that there will be some of you who will point to Taylor Kitsch (what a fucking name. Was is mother’s maiden name KnickKnack?) as an actor on Friday Night Lights, and maybe he’s good there, but he’s still a pretty boy. A pretty, pretty boy.
But I have to try and have faith in Andrew Stanton. I must try to remain open-minded. I must try. I must try.
via Hollywood Reporter
I agree with our faithful commentator. Kitsch is completely wrong for the part. Oh well, Strike One.
Post Script #2:
Well, Nispel has been confirmed by Variety as the director of Conan the Barbarian. Chalk it up my curmudgeonly nature if you like but it really irks me that Variety keeps referring to the film as a remake of the Schwarzenegger flick from the 80s. Whatever the intentions of the helmers of this new movie, I’m fairly certain they have no desire to “remake” the older film.
At least I hope that’s the case. If I’m wrong, my outlook just got a whole lot bleaker.
Wow, what a pleasant surprise Outlander was. This is clearly a low-budget movie, but it looks like every dollar was thrown up on the screen — not to mention a ton of enthusiasm as well as a dash of cleverness.
I can give you the basic gist of the picture quickly: “Beowulf with space aliens”. I’m sure that’s how it was initially pitched and it follows through on that promise effectively. Director Howard McCain steers the story with confidence, taking his time to set situations up and, at times, even telling the tale completely visually. How quaintly old-fashioned — and refreshing given this modern era of filmmaking which often feels more assaultive than it does sincerely entertaining.
Give Outlander a try since, chances are good, you didn’t get to see it when it had it’s extremely limited theatrical run (I know I didn’t). We’re not talking High Art here, but the movie certainly deserved better than the dumping it got from The Weinstein Company back in 2008.
Below you’ll find the trailer for the video game The Beatles: Rock Band which releases this fall. You should watch this trailer if you fit any one of the following descriptions: 1) Like me, you grew up listening to the Beatles, 2) You’ve played Rock Band or Guitar Hero at any point in the past, or 3) You like things that are righteously cool. Honestly, I have very little interest in the video game itself, but as I watched the trailer, I kept thinking to myself ‘Damn, I’d pay to see a feature film done in this style…’ It’s like Yellow Submarine only, you know, good.
By the by, here’s the trailer for The Princess and the Frog that’s currently showing with UP. “Princess ” is the first traditionally animated feature from the Disney Studio since the disastrous Home on the Range. For a while there, it looked as though there would be no more hand-drawn animation from the studio that Walt built, but Michael Eisner was finally deposed and the new CCO (John Lasseter) understands the studio’s roots better than any other executive could. In the wake of Pixar’s early successes, Eisner and other short-sighted executives decided that people didn’t want to see feature length cartoons done the old fashioned way anymore. The very notion that 2D animation was to blame (when, in fact, it was bad storytelling more than anything else) is ludicrous. I think that traditional animation still has a spark that’s lacking in CGI and I trust that the movie-going public will still embrace the format given a well-told tale.
That being said, I’m not sure The Princess and the Frog looks all that amazing based on this trailer, but I’m pulling for it nonetheless.
Drag Me to Hell isn’t as good as the “Evil Dead” films. How could it be? It doesn’t have Bruce Campbell.
Now, with that out of the way, let me just say that “Hell” was a very entertaining return to form for Sam Raimi, the Master of Slapstick Horror. Raimi practically invented the genre and here he shows us why he’s still its leading (and practically only) practitioner. The sort of tone found in Raimi’s horror flicks is decidedly difficult to get rolling and maintain. Keeping the audience on the bleeding edge between laughter and terror is a tricky proposition, to be sure. When it works, it’s balls-out good fun. It works in the “Evil Dead” trilogy, it works in Re-animator, and it works here too. I know Raimi’s about to re-enter the Spider-man saltmines for a fourth (and possibly fifth) installment. That’s all well and good, but I’d really love to see him crank out one of these little horror movies about every five years, too. Lord knows they’d be better than the slap-dash remakes Michael Bay’s company’s churning out every few months. Heaven forbid someone do something original in the field…
Pete Docter’s only other film as director is Monster’s Inc. — a decent enough movie, I suppose, but not one of Pixar’s best. “Monsters” certainly doesn’t prepare you for the marvel that is UP. I hesitate to say this, but this tenth movie from the Emeryville studio might just be its best. I hesitate to say it because I have a tendency to deify Brad Bird, and my prior Pixar favorite was The Incredibles. I still think The Incredibles is a tremendous achievement, but UP actually manages to do more with less. It takes a simple premise and a small group of characters and does everything a movie ought to do. It’s got action, it’s got laughter, it’s got tears — in short, it’s got all of the things that any storyteller aspires to deliver. Watching this movie was like watching Pete Docter move up from the minors to The Big Show.
See UP. You’ll love it.
Today marks the tenth anniversary of the release of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. I mention this mainly because it’s trippy, not because it’s an important landmark. I mean, seriously, where did the time go? I have very clear memories of seeing it at a midnight show in suburban Atlanta with my friend Nathan. It’s like it was last year, not an honest-to-God decade ago.
My ambitions for this post were considerably grander when the idea first occurred to me a few days back. My intention at that time was to revisit the film and share with you my feelings ten years after. But then I thought ‘Fuck that. Life is too goddamn short and the film has almost certainly not improved with age’. In that moment I was absolutely sure that I could come up with something better to do with my time even if that something ended up being nothing at all. I did think back to my reactions to the film when it first appeared, though, and, I must say, I’m embarrassed about those reactions today. I was, to my shame, an apologist for “Menace”. Having had my psyche shaped to a large degree by the first three films, I just couldn’t live in a world where there could be a bad Star Wars movie. It hurt me to even acknowledge the possibility. With a decade between now and then (as well as a few additional viewings of the picture on DVD), I now know full-well that it’s a miserable turd. Sure, the prequels did get better from installment to installment, but they never achieved the spirit of fun or mythic transcendence of their forebears. But let’s not devolve into Prequel Hating — the ‘net is clogged with that kind of thing already. Let us instead focus on the fact that we are ten years closer to the grave. Salut!
Based on the “B-” Owen Gleiberman gave Terminator Salvation in Entertainment Weekly, I expected a mildly mediocre action movie with some definite low points but a high point or two along the way. My expectations were half right — the highs were sorely lacking. “Salvation” is easily the worst film I’ve seen this year, and were I to suddenly start assigning letter grades in my reviews, I would counter Gleiberman’s “B-” with a solid “D”. This movie didn’t work for me from frame one. I didn’t like the look, a lot of the special effects were poor, the script was astonishingly bad, and the direction was, to be kind, extremely uneven.
Let’s start with the screenplay… It’s murky, it’s uninvolving and it’s illogical. For all of the ribbing I gave Star Trek, Terminator Salvation makes that film look like the Aristotelian ideal. Yet again, I’m astonished that Hollywood would hand the keys to such a powerhouse franchise to the guys who brought you Halle Berry’s Catwoman. Remember, folks, that somewhere in the 1980s Show Business began transforming into, well, Just Business. The people in charge at the moment neither know nor care about the things that make a story good or not good. It’s all about bottom line. Which certainly begs the question Why does this writing team continue to work despite the fact that Catwoman bombed? My assumption would be that these guys know how to work the system. In the Hollywood of today, being an effective political animal is more important that being talented.
Which brings us to director McG. The guy can’t tell a story or work effectively with actors. If there was any doubt of that going into Terminator Salvation, those doubts are out the window now. Let’s forget about the fact that the movie is occasionally disjointed and tonally “off”… One of the things that bugged me most about “Salvation” was the acting style. Since this style is consistent throughout the picture and applies to nearly every actor, guess who’s accountable? Good ol’ McG — this is clearly something he asked for and got. Let me be a little more specific: The McG brand of film acting has two elements: 1) Actors must talk in a throaty whisper ala Christian Bale’s Batman or the Clint Eastwood of old and 2) Before an actor may reply to another actor, he must wait roughly ten seconds. The movie is full of these pregnant pauses and they’re tremendously grating. Despite his deficiencies, though, I’m sure that McG (and others like him) will continue to work and the overall quality level of Hollywood movies will continue to go down. I keep thinking that, the older I get, the less I want to go to the theater. As a lifelong movie buff, that makes me really sad.
Post Script:
Terminator Salvation’s opening weekend box office estimates are running at roughly 43 million dollars — a distant second to Ben Stiller’s sequel to A Night at the Museum. Warner Brothers is, of course, doing some spin control. They maintain that the reason for the lackluster opening is the fact that it coincides with the basketball playoffs. You know what? I’m willing to meet them halfway on that. There could be a modicum of truth to that statement. How crazy would it be, though, if they were to actually man-up and say “You know what? The movie’s not as good as it could have been. The audience wanted a story and we gave them a Product. We’ll try harder next time”?
Post Script #2:
Chud.com just posted a fascinating piece paralleling the script for Terminator Salvation and the finshed film. While the script sounds no better than the movie, they do make a convincing case as to what exactly went wrong during the making of the flick.
[80s-palooza Part 13.]
Well, 80s-palooza got a bit of a hiatus since there were actually a couple of things to see in the theaters, but we’re back and back in good form…
Re-animator is one of these weird little horror films that somehow manages to bridge the gap between terror and comedy without wholly undermining one or the other. This is a pretty elite group come to think of it — only Re-animator and Evil Dead 2 do it with anything approaching total success. It’s a fine line to walk, but a terrific mix when it works. The thing both of these movies have in common is the way they blithely walk up to the edge of the ridiculous — and then leap over that edge wile extending a jaunty middle finger. I don’t know about you, but when I see that rare film that actually embraces the absurd rather than cautiously dancing around it I get a little bit tickled. Not only am I enjoying the fact that I’m being shown something completely nutty, I’m appreciative of the fact that the film-maker gave me credit for being able to go on this ride with him. It takes some big, brass balls to make films like Re-animator and it’s nice that that sort of bravado is usually rewarded with the kind of earnest cult following the movie has retained for going on twenty-five years. I wish we’d get movies like Re-animator and Evil Dead 2 a little more often.
The 80s-Palooza Film Festival to Date:
- War Games
- The Sword and the Sorcerer
- Big Trouble in Little China
- The Beastmaster
- Buckaroo Banzai
- Dreamscape
- Excalibur
- To Live and Die in L.A.
- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
- Top Secret!
- The Thing
- Hoosiers
Seeing Re-animator again reminded me of just how much fun Jeffry Combs is to watch. I think I might have to break out The Frighteners again some time soon.
Not to mention Evil Dead 2.
I went into Star Trek really wanting to love it. I have a fondness for the Kirk/Spock/McCoy era of episodes/films, and it’s been a bumpy enough couple of weeks that I was really looking forward to some good ol’ Summer Movie Fun. As it is, I merely liked Star Trek, but that’s hardly the end of the world, is it?
Let me start off by saying that director J.J. Abrams and his crew get a whole lot more right than they do wrong. The movie looks fantastic, the actors are generally quite good and there are many, many moments that will make fans of “classic era” Star Trek smile. Honestly, this film has a high likability quotient and it would be hard for me to imagine anyone giving it an out-in-out pan. So, why aren’t I gushing over it the way the mainstream press seems to be? Well, honestly, I think the script needed another pass. Again, the vast majority of the story is engaging and likable, but there are a couple of logic holes through which you could drive a space truck. If I’m forced to pause and consider a plot point in your movie, that means that I’m not engaged with what’s happening on the heels of that plot point, and that’s not good for me or you. [For more on this, skip down below the asterisk. Never let it be said that I spoiled anyone's first viewing.]
Bottom line: Should you go see Star Trek? Oh, hell yeah you should. You’re going to have a good time and you’re going to look forward to the inevitable sequels. Just don’t expect the movie to be perfect.
*
Most of my problems with the story hinge around a mid-movie detour to an ice planet. Allow me to elaborate…
- Why in the world would Young Spock banish Kirk from the Enterprise when he could have just as easily put him in the brig? (KIrk was unconscious, after all, and no longer a threat.) I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Young Spock’s behavior was, at best, unorthodox and, at worst, a grievous violation of Starfleet regulations. This is ironic since Spock is later removed from command based on his adherence to said regulations.
- In a similar vein, why would Nero banish Old Spock to the self-same ice planet to which Young Spock banished Kirk? Nero’s stated aim in capturing Spock was to have him watch the destruction of Vulcan. Could Spock not have done this just as easily from the bridge of Nero’s ship? In fact, wouldn’t the view have been even better?
- Don’t you find it wildly implausible that, again, on this magical ice planet Scotty has also been banished and that his presence there represents Kirk’s only way of getting back on the Enterprise?
- Are these nitpicks? No, I don’t think they are. This ice planet and this series of banishings are nothing more than a plot contrivance so that Kirk can meet Old Spock and get the 411, and then meet Scotty so that he can get back into the thick of things and act upon what Old Spock has told him. Honestly, you’ve got such a big property on your hands and you’re doing so many things right… Why not take a little more time and massage this section of the story? That’s all I’m saying.
Still, things could have been a lot worse. This Star Trek reboot was brought to you by the same team of writers behind Transformers — and I found that film nearly unwatchable. Either these guys have gained some artistic ground since Transformers or J.J. Abrams is just a better filmmaker than Michael Bay. It’s probably a little bit of both.
Post Script:
As of this writing (Sunday evening), Star Trek is estimated to have finished the weekend with a very healthy 72.5 million dollar take. Meanwhile, Wolverine has dropped off roughly 68%. I can’t say as I’m surprised at all by that latter factoid. Word of mouth is a bitch.
Recent Comments