Dan O'Bannon
1946-2009
(Writer of Alien, and writer/director of the horror comedy classic Return of the Living Dead - which is, for my money, one of the best horror films ever)
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Next post: Hal Ashby
I know, I know... Long time, no post... But my next one will be totally worth it:
I'm doing a retrospective on Hal Ashby, one of my all-time favorite directors, who in the 1970's was able to produce an incredible streak of films. In the years 1971-1979, he directed Harold and Maude, The Last Detail, Shampoo, Bound for Glory, Coming Home, and Being There. Sure, we all love Scorsese and Altman, but being able to turn out six great (and sometimes amazing) films in a row is pretty incredible.
As a side note, I'll also talk a little bit about his life, which included being married and divorced twice (!) by the time he was 21, his notoriously reclusive nature, and how his constant drug use eventually forced him out of feature film work altogether. If ever a movie needed to be made, this is it - perfect biopic material. Problem is, nobody knows who the guy is...
I'm doing a retrospective on Hal Ashby, one of my all-time favorite directors, who in the 1970's was able to produce an incredible streak of films. In the years 1971-1979, he directed Harold and Maude, The Last Detail, Shampoo, Bound for Glory, Coming Home, and Being There. Sure, we all love Scorsese and Altman, but being able to turn out six great (and sometimes amazing) films in a row is pretty incredible.
As a side note, I'll also talk a little bit about his life, which included being married and divorced twice (!) by the time he was 21, his notoriously reclusive nature, and how his constant drug use eventually forced him out of feature film work altogether. If ever a movie needed to be made, this is it - perfect biopic material. Problem is, nobody knows who the guy is...
Friday, October 16, 2009
Movies You May Have Missed - #11
Anything Else (2003)
"Do you love me?"
"What a question! Just because I pull away when you try to touch me?"
In the long and prolific career of Woody Allen, it seems as if there have been two distinct camps of fans: The people who long for the "glory days" of vintage Woody from the '70s and 80's (and who have viewed most of his recent output as frivolous and disappointing), and the major devotees who wait for each Woody Allen film with anticipation and excitement, and usually come away from even one of his less-than-stellar films with something positive to say. I am - and always have been - firmly planted in the latter category. While most of his early-2000's work has been looked down upon with disdain, I've enjoyed most of them - especially the next movie we're about to cover.
Now, a word of note about this post: I usually include some video clips with the articles, but for this particular post, I went a little crazy. This write-up includes over 30 minutes of video, and while you're not required to watch them, of course, I do highly recommend it. There's some great material here.
Now, on to the movie:
Let's set the scene. It's 2003. At that time, Woody hadn't had a positively-reviewed film since 1999's Sweet and Lowdown with Sean Penn (which I also highly recommend, by the way). His three films since then - Small Time Crooks, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, and Hollywood Ending - had garnered mixed-to-bad reviews (personally I thought Crooks and Jade Scorpion were so-so, but I kind of liked Hollywood Ending). His next film, Anything Else, didn't fair much better with critics or audiences: reviews were pretty terrible and it only grossed $3 million on an $18 million budget. But I thought it was terrific. Critics didn't cry "comeback" until 2 years later with Match Point, but for me, this was Woody Allen's best film in years.
I will admit that this was the first Woody Allen film I saw theatrically, so for that reason it still holds a special place in my heart. But I know a good film when I see one, and this one definitely rises to that level. Above all else - the great dialogue, the interesting characters, the sharp direction - there's one main reason this film succeeds, however unlikely it may seem from first glance: It's a dead-on depiction of Borderline Personality Disorder. Seriously, it is. It's a fact that's never explicitly stated in the film, but anyone familiar with this behavior will spot it in a second. And most amazingly, it's very very funny.
The premise of the film involves Jerry Falk (Jason Biggs - American Pie), a young comedy writer who struggles with his sanity as Amanda, his emotionally unstable girlfriend (Christina Ricci - Buffalo '66) wreaks havoc in their lives. Mood swings, infidelity, and paranoia ensue, and through it all, he consults with David Dobel (Woody Allen), a fellow writer and friend who gives him fatherly advice.
Of course, the advice is not always sound - however well-intentioned it may be - because Dobel is quite the crazy character himself.
I've known some people who are Borderlines. It's basically Bipolar Disorder with some added elements like extreme impulsiveness and frequent sexual promiscuity. Christina Ricci nails the role. In this, her character's first scene, we're introduced to this girl's manic personality - although it barely skims the surface of all the chaos that brews underneath.
After this, we're shown how they first met, by way of flashback. Both characters were already in relationships of their own, but when Jerry meets Amanda, they begin a lengthy affair and they soon leave their significant others to be with each other instead. However, true to the Amanda character's impulsive, chaotic nature, the excitement that came with having the affair is gone when they actually start a relationship. Unable to have a stable, exclusive relationship, their sex life quickly suffers. Great scene here: one long take, tightly choreographed. Classic Woody Allen.
Interspersed throughout Jerry's trials and tribulations with Amanda are scenes chronicling his bonding with Dobel in their many walks through Central Park. Needless to say, this is some of the best stuff in the movie. Playing the role of the wise old man, it was refreshing to see that Woody had finally realized that he could no longer realistically play the love interest at his age. It was long overdue, and a welcome change of pace.
Meanwhile, Jerry tries to regain the "spark" in his relationship with Amanda, and hits upon the idea of renting a hotel room for the night, hoping it will stir some excitement in her and get her back into bed. Needless to say, things go horribly wrong:
And all the while, Woody's character Dobel delivers his special kind of paranoia-inducing advice (and in the process, delivers one of the best lines in the film, suggesting that this girl's hormones be used for "chemical warfare"):
Also entering the story is Amanda's mother (Stockard Channing), who begins staying in their apartment as she tries to get her life back together after a failed marriage. This is part of the real genius of the story. While most filmmakers would have been content with simply letting the "crazy girlfriend" story play out, Allen shows us where all of this insanity comes from, and how it's frequently passed down from generation to generation. Very observant, and totally spot-on. But the real genius is how this is all portrayed. We see that in this family, the parent/child roles were reversed, and it still goes on to this day:
Sure, this isn't a psychological case study we're watching here, but the basic motivations behind everything are totally factual. And that's what keeps everything grounded.
And here's a scene that I've included for no other reason than it's really funny, and something I thought I'd never ever see - Woody Allen destroying... well, you'll see...
The story continues on, through break-ups and fighting and infidelity, and you want nothing more than for this guy to finally realize what he's gotten himself into. But, as in real life, sometimes the few positive moments outshine the negative, and things become harder to judge. Like his narration states, you sometimes wish you could "freeze" a moment in time - but I suppose that if things were going the way they should, you wouldn't have to, because it would be an ongoing, continual thing that wouldn't have to be "frozen" at all.
I won't tell you whether they stay together or not, but I'll simply leave you with Woody's closing lines from the movie - some helpful words of advice, from a wise old man.
It still boggles my mind that this movie isn't more appreciated than it is. I've really only picked some of my favorite moments from the film; there's still loads of other great material there, including Danny DeVito in a great comic role as Jerry's agent, and a great little subplot involving Dobel's "survival kit" that he's been piecing together for years - should the end of the world happen to occur. A few people did actually see some merit in this film, including Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, who gave the picture "Two Thumbs Up" and really seemed to enjoy it. I'll end this post now with a clip of their review. Enjoy... and if this movie seems like it'll appeal to you, I'd highly recommend that you check it out.
EDIT: Someone just brought to my attention that this movie was recently listed on Quentin Tarantino's list of his favorite movies that have been released since 1992 (when he made his first film, Reservoir Dogs). Hmm... Great minds think alike? Possibly. *wink, wink*
"What a question! Just because I pull away when you try to touch me?"
In the long and prolific career of Woody Allen, it seems as if there have been two distinct camps of fans: The people who long for the "glory days" of vintage Woody from the '70s and 80's (and who have viewed most of his recent output as frivolous and disappointing), and the major devotees who wait for each Woody Allen film with anticipation and excitement, and usually come away from even one of his less-than-stellar films with something positive to say. I am - and always have been - firmly planted in the latter category. While most of his early-2000's work has been looked down upon with disdain, I've enjoyed most of them - especially the next movie we're about to cover.
Now, a word of note about this post: I usually include some video clips with the articles, but for this particular post, I went a little crazy. This write-up includes over 30 minutes of video, and while you're not required to watch them, of course, I do highly recommend it. There's some great material here.
Now, on to the movie:
Let's set the scene. It's 2003. At that time, Woody hadn't had a positively-reviewed film since 1999's Sweet and Lowdown with Sean Penn (which I also highly recommend, by the way). His three films since then - Small Time Crooks, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, and Hollywood Ending - had garnered mixed-to-bad reviews (personally I thought Crooks and Jade Scorpion were so-so, but I kind of liked Hollywood Ending). His next film, Anything Else, didn't fair much better with critics or audiences: reviews were pretty terrible and it only grossed $3 million on an $18 million budget. But I thought it was terrific. Critics didn't cry "comeback" until 2 years later with Match Point, but for me, this was Woody Allen's best film in years.
I will admit that this was the first Woody Allen film I saw theatrically, so for that reason it still holds a special place in my heart. But I know a good film when I see one, and this one definitely rises to that level. Above all else - the great dialogue, the interesting characters, the sharp direction - there's one main reason this film succeeds, however unlikely it may seem from first glance: It's a dead-on depiction of Borderline Personality Disorder. Seriously, it is. It's a fact that's never explicitly stated in the film, but anyone familiar with this behavior will spot it in a second. And most amazingly, it's very very funny.
The premise of the film involves Jerry Falk (Jason Biggs - American Pie), a young comedy writer who struggles with his sanity as Amanda, his emotionally unstable girlfriend (Christina Ricci - Buffalo '66) wreaks havoc in their lives. Mood swings, infidelity, and paranoia ensue, and through it all, he consults with David Dobel (Woody Allen), a fellow writer and friend who gives him fatherly advice.
Of course, the advice is not always sound - however well-intentioned it may be - because Dobel is quite the crazy character himself.
I've known some people who are Borderlines. It's basically Bipolar Disorder with some added elements like extreme impulsiveness and frequent sexual promiscuity. Christina Ricci nails the role. In this, her character's first scene, we're introduced to this girl's manic personality - although it barely skims the surface of all the chaos that brews underneath.
After this, we're shown how they first met, by way of flashback. Both characters were already in relationships of their own, but when Jerry meets Amanda, they begin a lengthy affair and they soon leave their significant others to be with each other instead. However, true to the Amanda character's impulsive, chaotic nature, the excitement that came with having the affair is gone when they actually start a relationship. Unable to have a stable, exclusive relationship, their sex life quickly suffers. Great scene here: one long take, tightly choreographed. Classic Woody Allen.
Interspersed throughout Jerry's trials and tribulations with Amanda are scenes chronicling his bonding with Dobel in their many walks through Central Park. Needless to say, this is some of the best stuff in the movie. Playing the role of the wise old man, it was refreshing to see that Woody had finally realized that he could no longer realistically play the love interest at his age. It was long overdue, and a welcome change of pace.
Meanwhile, Jerry tries to regain the "spark" in his relationship with Amanda, and hits upon the idea of renting a hotel room for the night, hoping it will stir some excitement in her and get her back into bed. Needless to say, things go horribly wrong:
And all the while, Woody's character Dobel delivers his special kind of paranoia-inducing advice (and in the process, delivers one of the best lines in the film, suggesting that this girl's hormones be used for "chemical warfare"):
Also entering the story is Amanda's mother (Stockard Channing), who begins staying in their apartment as she tries to get her life back together after a failed marriage. This is part of the real genius of the story. While most filmmakers would have been content with simply letting the "crazy girlfriend" story play out, Allen shows us where all of this insanity comes from, and how it's frequently passed down from generation to generation. Very observant, and totally spot-on. But the real genius is how this is all portrayed. We see that in this family, the parent/child roles were reversed, and it still goes on to this day:
Sure, this isn't a psychological case study we're watching here, but the basic motivations behind everything are totally factual. And that's what keeps everything grounded.
And here's a scene that I've included for no other reason than it's really funny, and something I thought I'd never ever see - Woody Allen destroying... well, you'll see...
The story continues on, through break-ups and fighting and infidelity, and you want nothing more than for this guy to finally realize what he's gotten himself into. But, as in real life, sometimes the few positive moments outshine the negative, and things become harder to judge. Like his narration states, you sometimes wish you could "freeze" a moment in time - but I suppose that if things were going the way they should, you wouldn't have to, because it would be an ongoing, continual thing that wouldn't have to be "frozen" at all.
I won't tell you whether they stay together or not, but I'll simply leave you with Woody's closing lines from the movie - some helpful words of advice, from a wise old man.
It still boggles my mind that this movie isn't more appreciated than it is. I've really only picked some of my favorite moments from the film; there's still loads of other great material there, including Danny DeVito in a great comic role as Jerry's agent, and a great little subplot involving Dobel's "survival kit" that he's been piecing together for years - should the end of the world happen to occur. A few people did actually see some merit in this film, including Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, who gave the picture "Two Thumbs Up" and really seemed to enjoy it. I'll end this post now with a clip of their review. Enjoy... and if this movie seems like it'll appeal to you, I'd highly recommend that you check it out.
EDIT: Someone just brought to my attention that this movie was recently listed on Quentin Tarantino's list of his favorite movies that have been released since 1992 (when he made his first film, Reservoir Dogs). Hmm... Great minds think alike? Possibly. *wink, wink*
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Movies You May Have Missed - #10
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
"You know what I expected? Applause. I was only 20 years old then, I couldn't see how it looked to people. I was surprised by what happened. They didn't applaud."
OK, let's set the scene:
It was a cold winter night in December of 2007 when I sat down to watch this movie. It has only happened to me a few times in my life, but this was one of those times when the theater was completely empty. I knew that this movie was getting mixed reviews and pretty terrible box office, but I couldn't have imagined that the theater would actually be empty... Anyway, I'll always remember this movie-going experience, for a couple of reasons: Not only was it a good movie, but walking out of the theater itself was particularly memorable...
This was the last showing of the night, at 10 PM. Since the movie is nearly 3 hours long, I didn't get out until about 1 AM. The forecast had called for a "dusting" of snow, but as most Mainers know, weathermen - especially around here - don't know anything. So I walked outside, having just seen this wonderful movie... and I discover that there's over a foot of snow covering everything. Under normal circumstances, this would have unleashed an avalanche of expletives. But on this night, all I could think about was the movie. Scenes ran through my head as I thought of the pitch-perfect performances, beautiful photography, and strong direction. But my biggest thought was a simple one: Why didn't more people see this?
Well, there's many reasons for that. The film's post-production turmoil was pretty widely discussed before its release, but here's a simplified run-down: Director Andrew Dominik and Warner Brothers clashed frequently during production, especially during editing. Dominik was making a slow, languid, Terrence Malick-esque mood western, and the studio had hoped the film would include more action and violence (no doubt due to the frenetic 3:10 to Yuma remake which had been released earlier that year - and had been a pretty sizable hit). Warner Brothers wasn't getting what they wanted, and after Dominik's original four-hour cut played at the Venice Film Festival and garnered the Best Actor award for Brad Pitt, Dominik suddenly had ammunition in his fight to get his cut released. However, Dominik (whose only prior directing credit was the independent film Chopper in 2000) didn't have the experience - or the clout - for contractual final cut. Warner could have conceivably done whatever they wanted, but, thankfully, Brad Pitt was the one major wrench in the works. Being a producer on the project and personally backing Dominik, Pitt was able to work with Warner to get most of Dominik's vision on screen. So Brad Pitt, apart from giving a great performance in the movie itself, is a big reason for its success. Since the studio wanted to keep a good relationship with him, they were basically prevented from screwing around with the movie and fucking it up. Even the movie's title (we'll get to the genius of the title later) - a constant point of contention with the studio - was unable to be changed: Brad Pitt had a clause put in his contract stating that he would only participate in the film if the title was not changed or shortened. Thank God for Brad Pitt.
But enough back-story - let's get to the movie itself. As it begins, there are no opening credits; not even a title. Based on a book by Ron Hansen, the movie uses copious narration as a framing device, and it's some really beautiful stuff. Lush and often quite majestic, most of it is taken straight from the book:
We are introduced to the title characters: Jesse James is the famous outlaw, and Robert Ford is the wide-eyed kid who has adored him since he was a child. Bob's older brother Charlie is part of Jesse's gang, and through him Bob somehow finagles his way into the group. Famously cautious and mistrusting of new people, Jesse sees something in Bob, and allows him to join in:
But for all his charm and mystique, Jesse is still a ruthless and calculating killer, and when he snaps, he's a truly frightening beast. This next sequence is one of Brad Pitt's best moments in the movie. A truly great piece of work, Pitt is able to capture the duality of the role beautifully. Now a middle-aged father of two, Jesse has slowly become disgusted with himself and his brutality over the years, most notably in this scene as he crosses the line when bullying a young boy for information:
Bob has also discovered the real Jesse, and has quickly become disillusioned. The man he idolized in his youth has been revealed to him, flaws and all, and it's not something he can easily accept. Here's a beautifully written scene in which Bob, comparing himself to Jesse, acknowledges that the Jesse he had admired was nothing more than boyhood fantasy. Bob speaks of this mythical figure of Jesse James as though he's already dead, and the sense of loss that Casey Affleck imbues in these words is really quite exceptional. With his hero all but gone, at least in his eyes, he's lost his sense of purpose...
...But when the sheriff makes Bob a proposition - a reward for Jesse's assassination - his sense of purpose is renewed, and he finally has his shot at glory: as the man who killed Jesse James. In the lead-up to the ending, here's a couple of great scenes...
The first is in the days leading up to the planned assassination. As you can see, Jesse has become more and more whacked-out... and dangerous.
And here's a great little sequence. As Bob prepares himself for the big day, he immerses himself one last time in Jesse's world.
Now we arrive at the last act of the movie, which is also my favorite section of the film. Bob has successfully completed his task, and he's now known as The Man Who Killed Jesse James. The narration tells us that at that time, his name was more well-known than that of the President. He and his brother Charlie portray Bob and Jesse, respectively, in a popular theater re-creation of the assassination for the stage. Hundreds of people make the pilgrimage across the country to visit the house where the assassination took place. Bob has finally made something of himself. The entire world finally knows his name.
But public opinion changes. The legend of Jesse James grows over the years, becoming a sort of fairy tale. The story now turns Jesse into a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. His dozens of murders are glossed-over, and the stories of those murders altered to fit the needs of this new history. Jesse James becomes an American Hero, and Robert Ford is now the Coward who murdered him. And this is where, finally, the absolute genius of that title comes into full view. Everything comes full circle, and that title, which before seemed to be simply a statement of fact, is turned completely upside down and becomes something else entirely. I don't need to spell it out for you - you get what it means. But I found it pretty damn powerful. It seems odd that something so simple as the title of a movie could affect me in such a way, but to see the story play out, and to see why the name of "Coward" given to Robert Ford is so wrong in so many ways... It really hit me. In a totally honest, primal way. Thank God that title wasn't changed.
Now we come to the last scene of the film. My usual warnings of Spoilers obviously apply here, but there's really no reason not to watch it - there's nothing you see here that you wouldn't discover by Googling "Robert Ford". There's really no need to comment on it - it's just extraordinary... very well done.
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was nominated for two Academy Awards: Roger Deakins for his beautiful cinematography (he was nominated twice that year for Best Cinematography - for this, and also for No Country for Old Men), and a very well-deserved Supporting Actor nomination for Casey Affleck. Of course, if it was up to me, I would've thrown a whole load of other nominations in there for it as well, but I must especially point out the amazing score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis, which I'm sure you've noticed when watching these clips. It's definitely a well-acted and directed movie, but the score has a lot to do with the movie's impact. (A little bit of trivia - Nick Cave has a cameo as the saloon singer in one of the clips above).
I'd really like to see the full four-hour version eventually, although it seems unlikely given Dominik's rocky relationship with Warner Brothers. I love the film as it is, but there was over an hour of material that was cut! In particular, Zooey Deschanel's character was almost completely cut out- the last clip above contains nearly all of her screen time in the film. I may sound insane, but I could do another hour of this movie - easy.
As you can tell from this post, I really loved this movie. I loved it when it came out, and it only seems to get better every time I see it. It's obviously a long haul, but if you're into these kind of slow, languid, unhurried pictures (à la Terrence Malick) and you haven't seen it yet, you should definitely give it a try. Like I said, reviews were mixed-to-good, but it seems like one of those pictures that people really start to appreciate years later. I really only hit the main points in the review; there's lots of great stuff I didn't even mention, including great supporting performances by Sam Rockwell (Snow Angels) and the always-reliable Paul Schneider (Lars and the Real Girl). So, if it seems like your cup of tea, give it a shot.
OK, let's set the scene:
It was a cold winter night in December of 2007 when I sat down to watch this movie. It has only happened to me a few times in my life, but this was one of those times when the theater was completely empty. I knew that this movie was getting mixed reviews and pretty terrible box office, but I couldn't have imagined that the theater would actually be empty... Anyway, I'll always remember this movie-going experience, for a couple of reasons: Not only was it a good movie, but walking out of the theater itself was particularly memorable...
This was the last showing of the night, at 10 PM. Since the movie is nearly 3 hours long, I didn't get out until about 1 AM. The forecast had called for a "dusting" of snow, but as most Mainers know, weathermen - especially around here - don't know anything. So I walked outside, having just seen this wonderful movie... and I discover that there's over a foot of snow covering everything. Under normal circumstances, this would have unleashed an avalanche of expletives. But on this night, all I could think about was the movie. Scenes ran through my head as I thought of the pitch-perfect performances, beautiful photography, and strong direction. But my biggest thought was a simple one: Why didn't more people see this?
Well, there's many reasons for that. The film's post-production turmoil was pretty widely discussed before its release, but here's a simplified run-down: Director Andrew Dominik and Warner Brothers clashed frequently during production, especially during editing. Dominik was making a slow, languid, Terrence Malick-esque mood western, and the studio had hoped the film would include more action and violence (no doubt due to the frenetic 3:10 to Yuma remake which had been released earlier that year - and had been a pretty sizable hit). Warner Brothers wasn't getting what they wanted, and after Dominik's original four-hour cut played at the Venice Film Festival and garnered the Best Actor award for Brad Pitt, Dominik suddenly had ammunition in his fight to get his cut released. However, Dominik (whose only prior directing credit was the independent film Chopper in 2000) didn't have the experience - or the clout - for contractual final cut. Warner could have conceivably done whatever they wanted, but, thankfully, Brad Pitt was the one major wrench in the works. Being a producer on the project and personally backing Dominik, Pitt was able to work with Warner to get most of Dominik's vision on screen. So Brad Pitt, apart from giving a great performance in the movie itself, is a big reason for its success. Since the studio wanted to keep a good relationship with him, they were basically prevented from screwing around with the movie and fucking it up. Even the movie's title (we'll get to the genius of the title later) - a constant point of contention with the studio - was unable to be changed: Brad Pitt had a clause put in his contract stating that he would only participate in the film if the title was not changed or shortened. Thank God for Brad Pitt.
But enough back-story - let's get to the movie itself. As it begins, there are no opening credits; not even a title. Based on a book by Ron Hansen, the movie uses copious narration as a framing device, and it's some really beautiful stuff. Lush and often quite majestic, most of it is taken straight from the book:
We are introduced to the title characters: Jesse James is the famous outlaw, and Robert Ford is the wide-eyed kid who has adored him since he was a child. Bob's older brother Charlie is part of Jesse's gang, and through him Bob somehow finagles his way into the group. Famously cautious and mistrusting of new people, Jesse sees something in Bob, and allows him to join in:
But for all his charm and mystique, Jesse is still a ruthless and calculating killer, and when he snaps, he's a truly frightening beast. This next sequence is one of Brad Pitt's best moments in the movie. A truly great piece of work, Pitt is able to capture the duality of the role beautifully. Now a middle-aged father of two, Jesse has slowly become disgusted with himself and his brutality over the years, most notably in this scene as he crosses the line when bullying a young boy for information:
Bob has also discovered the real Jesse, and has quickly become disillusioned. The man he idolized in his youth has been revealed to him, flaws and all, and it's not something he can easily accept. Here's a beautifully written scene in which Bob, comparing himself to Jesse, acknowledges that the Jesse he had admired was nothing more than boyhood fantasy. Bob speaks of this mythical figure of Jesse James as though he's already dead, and the sense of loss that Casey Affleck imbues in these words is really quite exceptional. With his hero all but gone, at least in his eyes, he's lost his sense of purpose...
...But when the sheriff makes Bob a proposition - a reward for Jesse's assassination - his sense of purpose is renewed, and he finally has his shot at glory: as the man who killed Jesse James. In the lead-up to the ending, here's a couple of great scenes...
The first is in the days leading up to the planned assassination. As you can see, Jesse has become more and more whacked-out... and dangerous.
And here's a great little sequence. As Bob prepares himself for the big day, he immerses himself one last time in Jesse's world.
Now we arrive at the last act of the movie, which is also my favorite section of the film. Bob has successfully completed his task, and he's now known as The Man Who Killed Jesse James. The narration tells us that at that time, his name was more well-known than that of the President. He and his brother Charlie portray Bob and Jesse, respectively, in a popular theater re-creation of the assassination for the stage. Hundreds of people make the pilgrimage across the country to visit the house where the assassination took place. Bob has finally made something of himself. The entire world finally knows his name.
But public opinion changes. The legend of Jesse James grows over the years, becoming a sort of fairy tale. The story now turns Jesse into a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. His dozens of murders are glossed-over, and the stories of those murders altered to fit the needs of this new history. Jesse James becomes an American Hero, and Robert Ford is now the Coward who murdered him. And this is where, finally, the absolute genius of that title comes into full view. Everything comes full circle, and that title, which before seemed to be simply a statement of fact, is turned completely upside down and becomes something else entirely. I don't need to spell it out for you - you get what it means. But I found it pretty damn powerful. It seems odd that something so simple as the title of a movie could affect me in such a way, but to see the story play out, and to see why the name of "Coward" given to Robert Ford is so wrong in so many ways... It really hit me. In a totally honest, primal way. Thank God that title wasn't changed.
Now we come to the last scene of the film. My usual warnings of Spoilers obviously apply here, but there's really no reason not to watch it - there's nothing you see here that you wouldn't discover by Googling "Robert Ford". There's really no need to comment on it - it's just extraordinary... very well done.
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was nominated for two Academy Awards: Roger Deakins for his beautiful cinematography (he was nominated twice that year for Best Cinematography - for this, and also for No Country for Old Men), and a very well-deserved Supporting Actor nomination for Casey Affleck. Of course, if it was up to me, I would've thrown a whole load of other nominations in there for it as well, but I must especially point out the amazing score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis, which I'm sure you've noticed when watching these clips. It's definitely a well-acted and directed movie, but the score has a lot to do with the movie's impact. (A little bit of trivia - Nick Cave has a cameo as the saloon singer in one of the clips above).
I'd really like to see the full four-hour version eventually, although it seems unlikely given Dominik's rocky relationship with Warner Brothers. I love the film as it is, but there was over an hour of material that was cut! In particular, Zooey Deschanel's character was almost completely cut out- the last clip above contains nearly all of her screen time in the film. I may sound insane, but I could do another hour of this movie - easy.
As you can tell from this post, I really loved this movie. I loved it when it came out, and it only seems to get better every time I see it. It's obviously a long haul, but if you're into these kind of slow, languid, unhurried pictures (à la Terrence Malick) and you haven't seen it yet, you should definitely give it a try. Like I said, reviews were mixed-to-good, but it seems like one of those pictures that people really start to appreciate years later. I really only hit the main points in the review; there's lots of great stuff I didn't even mention, including great supporting performances by Sam Rockwell (Snow Angels) and the always-reliable Paul Schneider (Lars and the Real Girl). So, if it seems like your cup of tea, give it a shot.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Dancer in the Dark: An Appreciation
"I used to dream that I was in a musical. Because in a musical, nothing dreadful ever happens."
Wow, I've just done it. It didn't take much. Just four little words. But I've just split this site's readers down the middle. Half of you love this film, and probably also its director, Lars von Trier. The other half of you despise it (and probably von Trier as well). But right from the start, I'll warn you that this is going to be a love-fest: I unabashedly love this film, and Lars von Trier as well. If you happen to hate the movie or the man, I'd advise you to skip this and wait for the next post, because this one will be completely devoid of any sort of negative criticism whatsoever. I love this movie, and Lars von Trier is brilliant.
There, we have that out of the way. Those of you who know nothing of the movie or this von Trier fellow are probably scratching their heads. Well, Lars von Trier is just about the most outspoken person on the planet. He has some fundamental problems with the United States, yet he has never been here (he blames this on his fear of flying), even though most of his recent films take place in the U.S. Does that make what he has to say any less relevant? Some think so. I don't. Sometimes to fully examine something, it takes an outsider looking in.
Dancer in the Dark is Lars von Trier's seventh film, and won both the Palme d'Or (Best Picture) and Best Actress at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival. Trier had previously won the Grand Prix (2nd Place) at Cannes in 1996 for Breaking the Waves. But the biggest thing this movie has to offer is the performance by Icelandic musician Björk, in her first (and only) major film role. I won't go into the problems she had with von Trier, as it's already been widely discussed, but apparently the experience of shooting the film was so demanding and emotionally exhausting that she's decided to never act again (although she's changed that story since). Whatever the reasons, the fact remains that we have an amazing performance here. Co-star Catherine Deneuve, explaining why Björk was so psychologically destroyed after filming, described her performance as "feeling" and not "acting". And that's why she's so good. It's rare to see someone completely baring their soul like she does in this film, and that's probably why this picture is so real - and devastating - despite the contrived plot. It's still amazing to me, 9 years later, that she wasn't nominated for a Best Actress Oscar.
The film takes place in Washington state in 1964 (although, obviously, it was shot in Trier's home country of Denmark). Björk plays Selma, a single mother who immigrates from Czechoslovakia with her young son in hopes of a better life. Selma has a condition in which she is slowly going blind, and since it's genetic, she knows her son will also eventually go blind. The United States has developed a procedure to cure this ailment, but it costs several thousand dollars, so Selma moves to the U.S. and spends hours a day toiling away in a factory, in hopes of acquiring enough money to cure her son's disease.
I know what you're thinking. You've just read the summary above, and you're thinking "Yeah, right". I admit, it looks pretty stupid and soap opera-ish on paper, but it really works. Sure, it requires a suspension of disbelief, and not everyone could pull something like this off, but I completely bought it. And I'll explain why:
It all starts at the beginning. This is a two-and-a-half hour movie, and this is a film that knows that. The first scene is a nearly four-minute musical overture, set to a constantly-dissolving set of abstract paintings. So right from the beginning, it feels big. It feels like an Event. I'm not gonna lie to you - I saw this film in the theater, and it was exciting.
So, after this scene we're introduced to Selma, who's practicing for an upcoming community theater production of The Sound of Music. Even with all the hardships in her life, she still has one outlet for happiness: Musicals.
We see her working in the factory, cheating on eye exams so she can continue working, the little house she lives in with her son, and the rich landlords who think they're doing something "nice" by cutting her a deal on the rent and letting her come over every once in a while to eat dinner in their big, expensive house. The man is a cop, and the wife stays at home and spends their money, putting them deeper and deeper in debt. Trier's depiction of American consumerism is a little on-the-nose, but shockingly accurate: The wife not only likes to spend, but also likes the ego-boost in seeing Selma's wide-eyed awe at the couple's wealth.
This all leads up to the scene that really starts everything. Bill, the landlord/police officer mentioned above, comes over late one night to discuss his financial troubles with Selma. She, in return, tells him of her blindness.
This is probably a good time to mention the technical aspects of the film. Lars von Trier again uses his tried-and-true method of handheld camerawork, coupled with copious cutting. I love this style when it's used well, and von Trier certainly knows how to use it to maximum effect. Others hate it, but then again... we're not talking about them, are we?
This film was also shot on video - one of the first large-scale productions to do so. Of course, we're not talking about the advanced HD cameras used today on films like Zodiac, but good, old fashioned DV tape. The camera used for the majority of the film was a more expensive professional model, while the musical sequences (in vivid color as opposed to the dark, grainy nature of the rest of the film) were shot by setting up many, many consumer-grade cameras (sometimes as many as 100) in predetermined spots and editing the footage together in quick succession to create fluidity. In my opinion, it was a terrific use of technology and meshed well with Trier's style of shooting.
So Selma continues her life, slaving away in the factory and practicing for the play. I haven't included a clip of it here, but scattered throughout the film are her "daydreams" - Hollywood-style musical numbers that take place entirely in her head, and serve to distance her from the depressing monotony her life has become.
But, of course, her gradual blindness eventually becomes too much. She struggles to do her work in the factory, and even has to give up her biggest love: the musical.
It's at this point that her landlord, desperate for money in his steadily increasing debt, steals Selma's life savings for himself. She confronts him, and it ends in his murder.
As you've probably realized by now, this is not a film whose merits can be easily explained with description. Sure, I can give you the simple nuts and bolts of the story, which (admittedly) doesn't sound like much. To get a real understanding for this film, you have to witness the power of Björk's performance, and to do that, I'll have to show you the ending. If that's not something you'd like to see now, than I'd advise you to skip to the end of the post, because herein lies SPOILERS...
Now we're in the last act of the picture, and Selma is on death row awaiting her execution. But in the quiet cell block, she's unable to escape into her fantasy world and is instead faced with bleak, harsh reality. Her last musical fantasy is devoid of the vivid colors and dancing as in the rest of the film: It's just a simple, grainy image of a broken woman and her music. It's beautiful and devastating, and you'll never look at "My Favorite Things" the same way again.
Now we arrive at the last scene of the film. I've always believed the last scene of a movie is just as important as the beginning, and this ending is just about as good as you can get. Selma sings, and she's back in her world, although this time, we don't join her. Simply put, we don't need to. Everything plays out on Björk's face, and the emotional power with which she sings these final lyrics is more than what most actors can do with ordinary dialogue. This is what real musical acting is all about - the people who thought Jennifer Hudson was deserving of her Dreamgirls Oscar obviously never saw this movie. And then a simple crane up, in complete silence. Beautiful.
I know I've repeated the word "devastating" in this post several times, but that's the best way I can describe it. It's a hard movie to watch at times, and it leaves you emotionally drained at the end, but it's a real Experience, and that's hard to come by these days. I can see why some people feel that Lars von Trier was trying to manipulate his audience with this picture, and to tell you the truth, I agree. But you know what? I bought it. The whole damn thing. Every last word. A movie should make you feel something, whether it be sadness, or joy, or anger. When a filmmaker goes the extra mile and attempts to get these sort of genuine reactions from an audience, that's commendable. But when a film actually succeeds at this, it's something special.
Wow, I've just done it. It didn't take much. Just four little words. But I've just split this site's readers down the middle. Half of you love this film, and probably also its director, Lars von Trier. The other half of you despise it (and probably von Trier as well). But right from the start, I'll warn you that this is going to be a love-fest: I unabashedly love this film, and Lars von Trier as well. If you happen to hate the movie or the man, I'd advise you to skip this and wait for the next post, because this one will be completely devoid of any sort of negative criticism whatsoever. I love this movie, and Lars von Trier is brilliant.
There, we have that out of the way. Those of you who know nothing of the movie or this von Trier fellow are probably scratching their heads. Well, Lars von Trier is just about the most outspoken person on the planet. He has some fundamental problems with the United States, yet he has never been here (he blames this on his fear of flying), even though most of his recent films take place in the U.S. Does that make what he has to say any less relevant? Some think so. I don't. Sometimes to fully examine something, it takes an outsider looking in.
Dancer in the Dark is Lars von Trier's seventh film, and won both the Palme d'Or (Best Picture) and Best Actress at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival. Trier had previously won the Grand Prix (2nd Place) at Cannes in 1996 for Breaking the Waves. But the biggest thing this movie has to offer is the performance by Icelandic musician Björk, in her first (and only) major film role. I won't go into the problems she had with von Trier, as it's already been widely discussed, but apparently the experience of shooting the film was so demanding and emotionally exhausting that she's decided to never act again (although she's changed that story since). Whatever the reasons, the fact remains that we have an amazing performance here. Co-star Catherine Deneuve, explaining why Björk was so psychologically destroyed after filming, described her performance as "feeling" and not "acting". And that's why she's so good. It's rare to see someone completely baring their soul like she does in this film, and that's probably why this picture is so real - and devastating - despite the contrived plot. It's still amazing to me, 9 years later, that she wasn't nominated for a Best Actress Oscar.
The film takes place in Washington state in 1964 (although, obviously, it was shot in Trier's home country of Denmark). Björk plays Selma, a single mother who immigrates from Czechoslovakia with her young son in hopes of a better life. Selma has a condition in which she is slowly going blind, and since it's genetic, she knows her son will also eventually go blind. The United States has developed a procedure to cure this ailment, but it costs several thousand dollars, so Selma moves to the U.S. and spends hours a day toiling away in a factory, in hopes of acquiring enough money to cure her son's disease.
I know what you're thinking. You've just read the summary above, and you're thinking "Yeah, right". I admit, it looks pretty stupid and soap opera-ish on paper, but it really works. Sure, it requires a suspension of disbelief, and not everyone could pull something like this off, but I completely bought it. And I'll explain why:
It all starts at the beginning. This is a two-and-a-half hour movie, and this is a film that knows that. The first scene is a nearly four-minute musical overture, set to a constantly-dissolving set of abstract paintings. So right from the beginning, it feels big. It feels like an Event. I'm not gonna lie to you - I saw this film in the theater, and it was exciting.
So, after this scene we're introduced to Selma, who's practicing for an upcoming community theater production of The Sound of Music. Even with all the hardships in her life, she still has one outlet for happiness: Musicals.
We see her working in the factory, cheating on eye exams so she can continue working, the little house she lives in with her son, and the rich landlords who think they're doing something "nice" by cutting her a deal on the rent and letting her come over every once in a while to eat dinner in their big, expensive house. The man is a cop, and the wife stays at home and spends their money, putting them deeper and deeper in debt. Trier's depiction of American consumerism is a little on-the-nose, but shockingly accurate: The wife not only likes to spend, but also likes the ego-boost in seeing Selma's wide-eyed awe at the couple's wealth.
This all leads up to the scene that really starts everything. Bill, the landlord/police officer mentioned above, comes over late one night to discuss his financial troubles with Selma. She, in return, tells him of her blindness.
This is probably a good time to mention the technical aspects of the film. Lars von Trier again uses his tried-and-true method of handheld camerawork, coupled with copious cutting. I love this style when it's used well, and von Trier certainly knows how to use it to maximum effect. Others hate it, but then again... we're not talking about them, are we?
This film was also shot on video - one of the first large-scale productions to do so. Of course, we're not talking about the advanced HD cameras used today on films like Zodiac, but good, old fashioned DV tape. The camera used for the majority of the film was a more expensive professional model, while the musical sequences (in vivid color as opposed to the dark, grainy nature of the rest of the film) were shot by setting up many, many consumer-grade cameras (sometimes as many as 100) in predetermined spots and editing the footage together in quick succession to create fluidity. In my opinion, it was a terrific use of technology and meshed well with Trier's style of shooting.
So Selma continues her life, slaving away in the factory and practicing for the play. I haven't included a clip of it here, but scattered throughout the film are her "daydreams" - Hollywood-style musical numbers that take place entirely in her head, and serve to distance her from the depressing monotony her life has become.
But, of course, her gradual blindness eventually becomes too much. She struggles to do her work in the factory, and even has to give up her biggest love: the musical.
It's at this point that her landlord, desperate for money in his steadily increasing debt, steals Selma's life savings for himself. She confronts him, and it ends in his murder.
As you've probably realized by now, this is not a film whose merits can be easily explained with description. Sure, I can give you the simple nuts and bolts of the story, which (admittedly) doesn't sound like much. To get a real understanding for this film, you have to witness the power of Björk's performance, and to do that, I'll have to show you the ending. If that's not something you'd like to see now, than I'd advise you to skip to the end of the post, because herein lies SPOILERS...
Now we're in the last act of the picture, and Selma is on death row awaiting her execution. But in the quiet cell block, she's unable to escape into her fantasy world and is instead faced with bleak, harsh reality. Her last musical fantasy is devoid of the vivid colors and dancing as in the rest of the film: It's just a simple, grainy image of a broken woman and her music. It's beautiful and devastating, and you'll never look at "My Favorite Things" the same way again.
Now we arrive at the last scene of the film. I've always believed the last scene of a movie is just as important as the beginning, and this ending is just about as good as you can get. Selma sings, and she's back in her world, although this time, we don't join her. Simply put, we don't need to. Everything plays out on Björk's face, and the emotional power with which she sings these final lyrics is more than what most actors can do with ordinary dialogue. This is what real musical acting is all about - the people who thought Jennifer Hudson was deserving of her Dreamgirls Oscar obviously never saw this movie. And then a simple crane up, in complete silence. Beautiful.
I know I've repeated the word "devastating" in this post several times, but that's the best way I can describe it. It's a hard movie to watch at times, and it leaves you emotionally drained at the end, but it's a real Experience, and that's hard to come by these days. I can see why some people feel that Lars von Trier was trying to manipulate his audience with this picture, and to tell you the truth, I agree. But you know what? I bought it. The whole damn thing. Every last word. A movie should make you feel something, whether it be sadness, or joy, or anger. When a filmmaker goes the extra mile and attempts to get these sort of genuine reactions from an audience, that's commendable. But when a film actually succeeds at this, it's something special.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Out of the loop...
Man, I was without a computer for about two weeks, I log on tonight and see that John Hughes died! Holy shit.
I imagine it was probably mentioned on the news at some point, but it's still maddening (and somewhat sickening) that there's been hundreds of hours of coverage of Michael Jackson's death, and Hughes only gets a cursory mention? I realize it's not David Mamet we're talking about here, but this is still the guy that gave us The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller and countless other classic movies. I grew up a little after Hughes's prime, but for many high school kids in the 80's, this guy was God. And with just a quick glance at his filmography, you can certainly see why.
John Hughes
1950-2009
I imagine it was probably mentioned on the news at some point, but it's still maddening (and somewhat sickening) that there's been hundreds of hours of coverage of Michael Jackson's death, and Hughes only gets a cursory mention? I realize it's not David Mamet we're talking about here, but this is still the guy that gave us The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller and countless other classic movies. I grew up a little after Hughes's prime, but for many high school kids in the 80's, this guy was God. And with just a quick glance at his filmography, you can certainly see why.
John Hughes
1950-2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Attention HITCHCOCK Fans -- AWESOME DVD Deal
I rarely ever post anything about DVD deals online, but this was too huge to ignore...
Is anybody out there a fan of Alfred Hitchcock? If you are, DO NOT PASS UP this awesome deal I just came across tonight:
Over at Amazon.com (where they're having a HUGE DVD box-set sale, by the way) they have the 15-disc "Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection" on sale for HALF OFF the normal price of $120.00 - it's only $62.00!!
You get 14 films - that's only $4.40 per movie - plus a 15th disc of bonus material (not to mention movie-specific bonus material on each disc).
The movies included are:
Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, Family Plot, Frenzy, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Marnie, Rope, Saboteur, Topaz, Torn Curtain, The Trouble with Harry
Link to the Amazon listing is here.
I already own about half of these, but it's totally worth it to buy the set, sell/trade the double copies, and have a nice-looking set on the shelf.
So, act fast and grab it before it sells out... good luck!
Is anybody out there a fan of Alfred Hitchcock? If you are, DO NOT PASS UP this awesome deal I just came across tonight:
Over at Amazon.com (where they're having a HUGE DVD box-set sale, by the way) they have the 15-disc "Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection" on sale for HALF OFF the normal price of $120.00 - it's only $62.00!!
You get 14 films - that's only $4.40 per movie - plus a 15th disc of bonus material (not to mention movie-specific bonus material on each disc).
The movies included are:
Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, Family Plot, Frenzy, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Marnie, Rope, Saboteur, Topaz, Torn Curtain, The Trouble with Harry
Link to the Amazon listing is here.
I already own about half of these, but it's totally worth it to buy the set, sell/trade the double copies, and have a nice-looking set on the shelf.
So, act fast and grab it before it sells out... good luck!
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Movies You May Have Missed - #9
Angus (1995)
"Superman isn't brave... he's indestructible. And you can't be brave if you're indestructible."
Well, here we are... one of my all-time favorite movies. I really have a soft spot for this one. I suppose part of the reason for that is that I saw it in the theater when it was originally released, and watched it many times on video when I was growing up. However, I revisited this movie about five or six years ago and found that not only does it hold up surprisingly well, but also that my fondness for it is rooted not only in nostalgia... this is a great movie.
I'll start this right off the bat by pointing out the sad, disappointing truth: This movie is not available on DVD. Yes, that's right. We're in 2009, and this great little movie is STILL not on disc. Apparently, rights issues have held up the release, but more on that later. Needless to say, the clips below are from my VHS copy of the movie, currently the only way to see it.
Angus is the story of an overweight high school boy (the title character), who, when picked as the "Winter Ball King" at the upcoming school dance as a prank by his nemesis Rick Sandford (James Van Der Beek, in his first major role), decides to actually go through with it for the chance to dance with Melissa (Ariana Richards - Jurassic Park), the girl he's had a life-long, unspoken infatuation with.
Now, wait. Let's stop right there. I know what you're thinking. How many times have we seen that before? The answer: way too many. Although the story doesn't really have anything new to offer, the characters shine, and that's the real reason to see this film. Angus was played by first-time actor Charlie Talbert, who was discovered by the director at a Wendy's restaurant, goofing around with a friend as they waited in line. He truly is a revelation. Talbert never really went on to do much after this, but he really was amazing in this role, and I'd like to see him make a comeback.
The other two reasons for the film's success are director Patrick Read Johnson and writer Jill Gordon. Johnson had previously directed two mainstream comedies, Spaced Invaders and Baby's Day Out, but it's obvious that he was working on a more personal level here, and that passion continuously shines through. Gordon, a former television writer for shows like My So-Called Life and thirtysomething, adapted a short story by Chris Crutcher into this feature. The fact that she was involved with My So-Called Life says it all, and needless to say she brings lots of nice little realistic touches to this story of high school life.
After a pre-title sequence in which we see Angus grow up through the years, we join him in the present day, where he and his best friend Troy (Chris Owen - American Pie) are both on the school's football team, yet are still unappreciated. This title sequence, set to Love Spit Love's "Am I Wrong", is a wonderful opening to the film, and sets just the right tone - humor and honesty, with a little bit of heartbreak thrown in:
This is probably a good time to point out the music in the film. Although the movie itself was far from a hit, the soundtrack was a bestseller. Filled with songs from alternative bands like Weezer and Green Day, the music is stellar. Below, here's a scene featuring great use of the Goo Goo Dolls song "Ain't That Unusual". It's also a great example of the direction in the film; this short sequence is obviously evocative of the character's isolation, and gets this point across efficiently and effectively:
And here's a montage sequence featuring Green Day's song "J.A.R. (Jason Andrew Relva)", which they wrote specifically for the film:
Now it's time to talk about the two biggest tricks this movie has up its sleeve: Oscar winners George C. Scott and Kathy Bates. Playing Angus's grandfather and mother, respectively, Scott and Bates both deliver great performances in a short amount of screen time (although they are, quite understandably, first-billed). Most of their work is done separately, but this is the second of their two scenes together, which I've always found quite moving:
Apparently, from what I've read online, the original cut of Angus was quite different from the final version. In the original short story (which I've never read) both of Angus's parents are gay, and the film was shot with this story structure intact. Eventually, however, perhaps due to test screenings or some other reason, this was changed, and Angus's opening narration explains that his father died of a heart attack when his mother was in labor. That's all fine with me, since these changes meant the beefing-up of the grandfather character, and the addition of fine scenes like this one, in which Scott explains to Angus that "Superman isn't brave". Great stuff.
Here's another music sequence, set to Peter Gabriel's "Washing of the Water". It's a scene following a main character's death (which, although I won't reveal who, you can probably figure it out), and it's all done very well: simple and beautiful, with no dialogue.
And finally, Angus gets his "moment" as he dances with Melissa. The best-ever use of Mazzy Star's wonderful (and overplayed) "Fade Into You". A heartbreakingly short moment of triumph for Angus after all the trials and tribulations throughout the film, but that's how it should be, because after all, that's how it really is.
Although it was barely a blip on the radar when it was released back in 1995, Angus has steadily grown a cult following over the years, leading many to ask "What gives?" of the movie's non-presence on DVD. Apparently there was a huge movie-rights snafu somewhere along the line: The movie was a production of Ted Turner's short-lived Turner Pictures, but was distributed by New Line. As the story goes, the film is still under copyright by Turner Pictures, but New Line thought that they were the owners of the film when they sold the rights to the movie years ago. Neither of the companies remember who they sold the rights to, and no one has stepped forward to claim they own it. So the only reason that this film is unavailable (even the VHS is out-of-print) is that someone lost some paperwork. Hopefully this will be cleared up at some point.
But as the many fans of this film know, we're just glad that it's available at all. Although the humor can be a little broad at times (probably in an attempt to appeal to a young audience), Angus gets so many things right that it's easy to look past its faults. It came from the heart and swung for the fences, and although it really is a simple little story about a big kid who dreams of being anything other than himself, it was told with such honesty and warmth and affection for its characters that it has found a steadily increasing audience, grateful for the conviction of the filmmakers in presenting us a warm, admirable and memorable character named Angus.
If you'd like to see Angus released on DVD, please sign the petition here. Although this is unlikely to single-handedly influence a studio to release it, every little bit helps.
Well, here we are... one of my all-time favorite movies. I really have a soft spot for this one. I suppose part of the reason for that is that I saw it in the theater when it was originally released, and watched it many times on video when I was growing up. However, I revisited this movie about five or six years ago and found that not only does it hold up surprisingly well, but also that my fondness for it is rooted not only in nostalgia... this is a great movie.
I'll start this right off the bat by pointing out the sad, disappointing truth: This movie is not available on DVD. Yes, that's right. We're in 2009, and this great little movie is STILL not on disc. Apparently, rights issues have held up the release, but more on that later. Needless to say, the clips below are from my VHS copy of the movie, currently the only way to see it.
Angus is the story of an overweight high school boy (the title character), who, when picked as the "Winter Ball King" at the upcoming school dance as a prank by his nemesis Rick Sandford (James Van Der Beek, in his first major role), decides to actually go through with it for the chance to dance with Melissa (Ariana Richards - Jurassic Park), the girl he's had a life-long, unspoken infatuation with.
Now, wait. Let's stop right there. I know what you're thinking. How many times have we seen that before? The answer: way too many. Although the story doesn't really have anything new to offer, the characters shine, and that's the real reason to see this film. Angus was played by first-time actor Charlie Talbert, who was discovered by the director at a Wendy's restaurant, goofing around with a friend as they waited in line. He truly is a revelation. Talbert never really went on to do much after this, but he really was amazing in this role, and I'd like to see him make a comeback.
The other two reasons for the film's success are director Patrick Read Johnson and writer Jill Gordon. Johnson had previously directed two mainstream comedies, Spaced Invaders and Baby's Day Out, but it's obvious that he was working on a more personal level here, and that passion continuously shines through. Gordon, a former television writer for shows like My So-Called Life and thirtysomething, adapted a short story by Chris Crutcher into this feature. The fact that she was involved with My So-Called Life says it all, and needless to say she brings lots of nice little realistic touches to this story of high school life.
After a pre-title sequence in which we see Angus grow up through the years, we join him in the present day, where he and his best friend Troy (Chris Owen - American Pie) are both on the school's football team, yet are still unappreciated. This title sequence, set to Love Spit Love's "Am I Wrong", is a wonderful opening to the film, and sets just the right tone - humor and honesty, with a little bit of heartbreak thrown in:
This is probably a good time to point out the music in the film. Although the movie itself was far from a hit, the soundtrack was a bestseller. Filled with songs from alternative bands like Weezer and Green Day, the music is stellar. Below, here's a scene featuring great use of the Goo Goo Dolls song "Ain't That Unusual". It's also a great example of the direction in the film; this short sequence is obviously evocative of the character's isolation, and gets this point across efficiently and effectively:
And here's a montage sequence featuring Green Day's song "J.A.R. (Jason Andrew Relva)", which they wrote specifically for the film:
Now it's time to talk about the two biggest tricks this movie has up its sleeve: Oscar winners George C. Scott and Kathy Bates. Playing Angus's grandfather and mother, respectively, Scott and Bates both deliver great performances in a short amount of screen time (although they are, quite understandably, first-billed). Most of their work is done separately, but this is the second of their two scenes together, which I've always found quite moving:
Apparently, from what I've read online, the original cut of Angus was quite different from the final version. In the original short story (which I've never read) both of Angus's parents are gay, and the film was shot with this story structure intact. Eventually, however, perhaps due to test screenings or some other reason, this was changed, and Angus's opening narration explains that his father died of a heart attack when his mother was in labor. That's all fine with me, since these changes meant the beefing-up of the grandfather character, and the addition of fine scenes like this one, in which Scott explains to Angus that "Superman isn't brave". Great stuff.
Here's another music sequence, set to Peter Gabriel's "Washing of the Water". It's a scene following a main character's death (which, although I won't reveal who, you can probably figure it out), and it's all done very well: simple and beautiful, with no dialogue.
And finally, Angus gets his "moment" as he dances with Melissa. The best-ever use of Mazzy Star's wonderful (and overplayed) "Fade Into You". A heartbreakingly short moment of triumph for Angus after all the trials and tribulations throughout the film, but that's how it should be, because after all, that's how it really is.
Although it was barely a blip on the radar when it was released back in 1995, Angus has steadily grown a cult following over the years, leading many to ask "What gives?" of the movie's non-presence on DVD. Apparently there was a huge movie-rights snafu somewhere along the line: The movie was a production of Ted Turner's short-lived Turner Pictures, but was distributed by New Line. As the story goes, the film is still under copyright by Turner Pictures, but New Line thought that they were the owners of the film when they sold the rights to the movie years ago. Neither of the companies remember who they sold the rights to, and no one has stepped forward to claim they own it. So the only reason that this film is unavailable (even the VHS is out-of-print) is that someone lost some paperwork. Hopefully this will be cleared up at some point.
But as the many fans of this film know, we're just glad that it's available at all. Although the humor can be a little broad at times (probably in an attempt to appeal to a young audience), Angus gets so many things right that it's easy to look past its faults. It came from the heart and swung for the fences, and although it really is a simple little story about a big kid who dreams of being anything other than himself, it was told with such honesty and warmth and affection for its characters that it has found a steadily increasing audience, grateful for the conviction of the filmmakers in presenting us a warm, admirable and memorable character named Angus.
If you'd like to see Angus released on DVD, please sign the petition here. Although this is unlikely to single-handedly influence a studio to release it, every little bit helps.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Oscar’s Best Picture Nominees Will Expand to Ten
In the Best Picture category, instead of five nominees and one winner, next year there will be ten nominees and one winner.
Read article here:
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/breaking-oscars-best-picture-nominees-will-expand-to-ten
My opinion? This is way too little, way too late...
The Academy needs a complete restructuring, right from the bottom up, with the addition of new categories like an Academy Award for CASTING, not to mention a change in the rules for who actually gets to be an Academy member (if an Academy member dies before their ten-year term as a voter is up, the privilege of voting often goes to a family member or spouse, even if they're not involved in the industry).
Oh well, at least they're doing something, I guess...
Read article here:
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/breaking-oscars-best-picture-nominees-will-expand-to-ten
My opinion? This is way too little, way too late...
The Academy needs a complete restructuring, right from the bottom up, with the addition of new categories like an Academy Award for CASTING, not to mention a change in the rules for who actually gets to be an Academy member (if an Academy member dies before their ten-year term as a voter is up, the privilege of voting often goes to a family member or spouse, even if they're not involved in the industry).
Oh well, at least they're doing something, I guess...
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Movies You May Have Missed - #8
Roger Dodger (2002)
As always, Facebook users need to click "View Original Post" to see the video clips.
Also, regarding the clips themselves: All of them contain varying amounts of strong language and/or semi-graphic sexual dialogue - so it's probably best to consider them NSFW.
Writer/director Dylan Kidd's debut feature Roger Dodger never really got the kind of attention it deserved when it was released back in 2002. But with its terrific, memorable dialogue and fascinating insight into human sexuality and loneliness, Kidd's film was able to garner critical acclaim, several awards, and a well-deserved place among many of 2002's "Best-of" lists.
Campbell Scott (Singles) plays the titular Roger, a perpetual bachelor whose life has always revolved around himself - and, by extension, his many women. A well-educated and intelligent man with an uncanny ability to quickly size-up anyone around him, he's been able to implement this talent into a successful career as an advertising executive, where he coerces people into playing a sort of "substitution game", as they attempt to fill the insufferable "voids" in their lives by purchasing material things.
There's only one thing Roger enjoys more than women: Hearing himself talk. Roger's a man with an answer for everything, and he wants to make sure you've heard every single word of it. This, of course, is where Dylan Kidd's amazing dialogue comes into play. I present to you the opening scene of the movie:
After watching the above clip, there's probably one thing that stood out for you even more than the deft wordplay... I'm talking, of course, of the camerawork. Now, this has proven to be a real sore spot with people. Even those who praised the dialogue and performances had a real problem with the constantly-moving, intentionally "shaky" hand-held camera. Me? I loved it. I thought it was perfect. It's a bold choice (the entire film is shot this way) - but for me, it's the perfect visual embodiment of Roger's chain-smoking, loose-cannon, shoot-from-the-hip character. The one sequence where the camera is locked off - a single shot near the end of the film - is a great pay-off, suggesting his character's growth and maturity. Of course, there were other technical and budgetary reasons behind the movie's style, but we'll get to that later...
So, from that first scene, we're introduced to the kind of person that Roger is, and has been, for quite some time. But Roger, now in his late 30's, has been flirting with stability. He's been in a relationship with his boss, Joyce (Isabella Rossellini), for an extended period of time. We sense that, with him reaching middle age and she being nearly twenty years older than him, he's grown content - perhaps even comfortable - with the arrangement. But his world is about to come crashing down.
Joyce dumps him, and Roger, enraged and at a loss for what to do next, returns to the late-night bar-hopping ways of which he's most familiar. We see him eyeing a girl across the room, and we think we know what's about to occur. But then Kidd's screenplay surprises us:
He obviously sees a parallel between these women and his own situation. But, feeling deeply hurt and betrayed, he's unable (or unwilling) to care about anyone or anything other than himself, and so he sets out to destroy them, so that he''ll be able to feel - if only for a moment - a little bit better about himself.
It's at moments like this when you realize how amazing the writing and direction - and especially Campbell Scott's performance - really are, because all of this is, at face value, some really fucked-up shit... But it's funny as hell, and you can't wait to see what will happen next.
What does happen next is not only a surprise, but the perfect place for the film to go. Roger's 16-year-old nephew, Nick (Jesse Eisenberg -The Squid and the Whale) drops by for a visit. The primary reason for Nick's New York trip is apparently some college interviews, but we quickly learn that he has other intentions: He's come for some much-needed advice from Roger...
The above sequence was shot in Times Square (only a month after 9/11), with no permits, and very little money. It was accomplished by placing the camera in a van, parked on the street, and placing a "shade" in the van's window which would allow the camera to see out, but no one else to see in. An obvious case of form following function, you can now see a main reason for the film's handheld look. The scene above was shot in the only way possible for the budget available: Throwing the two leads out into a sea of real people, and quickly framing-out of the picture the many, many people who have not signed releases to be in the film. But because they've started the film's bold camerawork from the very first scene, this sequence, admittedly chaotic from a cinematographic perspective, doesn't feel out of place.
So, without going much further and giving anything away, I'll mention that the film goes on to even more amazing dialogue and an incredible, nearly 30-minute sequence consisting entirely of four characters around a table. I'll leave it at that.
This picture, while not a huge success, was far from a failure. Its final gross was $1.2 million on a somewhat low budget. I've never been able to find an exact number on the budget, but it was not nominated for the Independent Spirit Awards' John Cassavetes Award (best film made for less than $500,000) so I'd guess that the budget was somewhere between that and $1 million.
The movie's real success was on the awards circuit: It won Best First Film at the Venice Film Festival, Best Narrative Feature Film at the Tribeca Film Festival, and (most surprisingly) Best Actor for Campbell Scott from the National Board of Review.
Dylan Kidd never really ended up delivering on the promise of this picture... His follow-up, P.S., starring Laura Linney, was based on a novel and was co-scripted by the novel's author and Kidd. A good film, but a complete 180-degree turn from Roger Dodger, and it only grossed $175,000.
So, in summation: Great movie, completely worth your time, not quite as dark as I may have made it seem from the comments and clips, and very, very funny.
(I should also mention that Spike Lee in 2005 named Roger Dodger as one of his "favorite films of the decade so far", alongside films like Brokeback Mountain and Requiem for a Dream.)
Also, regarding the clips themselves: All of them contain varying amounts of strong language and/or semi-graphic sexual dialogue - so it's probably best to consider them NSFW.
Writer/director Dylan Kidd's debut feature Roger Dodger never really got the kind of attention it deserved when it was released back in 2002. But with its terrific, memorable dialogue and fascinating insight into human sexuality and loneliness, Kidd's film was able to garner critical acclaim, several awards, and a well-deserved place among many of 2002's "Best-of" lists.
Campbell Scott (Singles) plays the titular Roger, a perpetual bachelor whose life has always revolved around himself - and, by extension, his many women. A well-educated and intelligent man with an uncanny ability to quickly size-up anyone around him, he's been able to implement this talent into a successful career as an advertising executive, where he coerces people into playing a sort of "substitution game", as they attempt to fill the insufferable "voids" in their lives by purchasing material things.
There's only one thing Roger enjoys more than women: Hearing himself talk. Roger's a man with an answer for everything, and he wants to make sure you've heard every single word of it. This, of course, is where Dylan Kidd's amazing dialogue comes into play. I present to you the opening scene of the movie:
After watching the above clip, there's probably one thing that stood out for you even more than the deft wordplay... I'm talking, of course, of the camerawork. Now, this has proven to be a real sore spot with people. Even those who praised the dialogue and performances had a real problem with the constantly-moving, intentionally "shaky" hand-held camera. Me? I loved it. I thought it was perfect. It's a bold choice (the entire film is shot this way) - but for me, it's the perfect visual embodiment of Roger's chain-smoking, loose-cannon, shoot-from-the-hip character. The one sequence where the camera is locked off - a single shot near the end of the film - is a great pay-off, suggesting his character's growth and maturity. Of course, there were other technical and budgetary reasons behind the movie's style, but we'll get to that later...
So, from that first scene, we're introduced to the kind of person that Roger is, and has been, for quite some time. But Roger, now in his late 30's, has been flirting with stability. He's been in a relationship with his boss, Joyce (Isabella Rossellini), for an extended period of time. We sense that, with him reaching middle age and she being nearly twenty years older than him, he's grown content - perhaps even comfortable - with the arrangement. But his world is about to come crashing down.
Joyce dumps him, and Roger, enraged and at a loss for what to do next, returns to the late-night bar-hopping ways of which he's most familiar. We see him eyeing a girl across the room, and we think we know what's about to occur. But then Kidd's screenplay surprises us:
He obviously sees a parallel between these women and his own situation. But, feeling deeply hurt and betrayed, he's unable (or unwilling) to care about anyone or anything other than himself, and so he sets out to destroy them, so that he''ll be able to feel - if only for a moment - a little bit better about himself.
It's at moments like this when you realize how amazing the writing and direction - and especially Campbell Scott's performance - really are, because all of this is, at face value, some really fucked-up shit... But it's funny as hell, and you can't wait to see what will happen next.
What does happen next is not only a surprise, but the perfect place for the film to go. Roger's 16-year-old nephew, Nick (Jesse Eisenberg -The Squid and the Whale) drops by for a visit. The primary reason for Nick's New York trip is apparently some college interviews, but we quickly learn that he has other intentions: He's come for some much-needed advice from Roger...
The above sequence was shot in Times Square (only a month after 9/11), with no permits, and very little money. It was accomplished by placing the camera in a van, parked on the street, and placing a "shade" in the van's window which would allow the camera to see out, but no one else to see in. An obvious case of form following function, you can now see a main reason for the film's handheld look. The scene above was shot in the only way possible for the budget available: Throwing the two leads out into a sea of real people, and quickly framing-out of the picture the many, many people who have not signed releases to be in the film. But because they've started the film's bold camerawork from the very first scene, this sequence, admittedly chaotic from a cinematographic perspective, doesn't feel out of place.
So, without going much further and giving anything away, I'll mention that the film goes on to even more amazing dialogue and an incredible, nearly 30-minute sequence consisting entirely of four characters around a table. I'll leave it at that.
This picture, while not a huge success, was far from a failure. Its final gross was $1.2 million on a somewhat low budget. I've never been able to find an exact number on the budget, but it was not nominated for the Independent Spirit Awards' John Cassavetes Award (best film made for less than $500,000) so I'd guess that the budget was somewhere between that and $1 million.
The movie's real success was on the awards circuit: It won Best First Film at the Venice Film Festival, Best Narrative Feature Film at the Tribeca Film Festival, and (most surprisingly) Best Actor for Campbell Scott from the National Board of Review.
Dylan Kidd never really ended up delivering on the promise of this picture... His follow-up, P.S., starring Laura Linney, was based on a novel and was co-scripted by the novel's author and Kidd. A good film, but a complete 180-degree turn from Roger Dodger, and it only grossed $175,000.
So, in summation: Great movie, completely worth your time, not quite as dark as I may have made it seem from the comments and clips, and very, very funny.
(I should also mention that Spike Lee in 2005 named Roger Dodger as one of his "favorite films of the decade so far", alongside films like Brokeback Mountain and Requiem for a Dream.)
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Baby reacts to "Where the Wild Things Are" Trailer
This has got to be the cutest thing I've ever seen:
A one-year-old boy reacting to the trailer for Where the Wild Things Are.
I guess the studio shouldn't have had any worries about the movie not appealing to kids...
Here it is:
A one-year-old boy reacting to the trailer for Where the Wild Things Are.
I guess the studio shouldn't have had any worries about the movie not appealing to kids...
Here it is:
Trailer Reaction from We Love You So on Vimeo.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Movies You May Have Missed - #7
Jack the Bear (1993)
Wow, it's really been almost a month since I've posted anything? Crazy how time flies. Here's a new post for ya:
(As always, Facebook users must click "View Original Post" to see the clips)
Movies You May Have Missed #7:
Jack the Bear (1993)
Marshall Herskovitz has been responsible - in the form of either producer, writer, or director - for three of the best television shows of all time: Family (1976-1980), thirtysomething (1987-1991), and My So-Called Life (1994). After thirtysomething and before MSCL, Herskovitz made his feature directorial debut with this very likable little film.
Based on a novel by the same name, Jack the Bear centers on John Leary (Danny DeVito, in what is probably still his best-ever performance), a father who, after the death of his wife in a car accident, struggles to care for his two young sons: twelve-year-old Jack and three-year-old Dylan (Robert J. Steinmiller Jr. and Miko Hughes, respectively).
In an attempt to give the family a fresh start, he moves with his boys to a close-knit, suburban community in Oakland, California. John - a kid-at-heart with some genuine comic ability - accepts a job as a late-night horror movie show host for a local TV station. The kids in the neighborhood, aware of his antics on the show, frequently knock on his door and ask him to play "the monster", chasing them around the yard as he pretends to be the character from his show. Behind closed doors, however, his title of "the monster" is, unfortunately, quite apt: He's a long-time alcoholic who's given to fits of rage while intoxicated. Since the death of his wife, the situation has gone from bad to worse, and since he's frequently drunk or hungover, older son Jack is forced to shoulder much of the responsibility for both the household, and his young brother Dylan.
This is a film that has somehow, over the years, fallen through the cracks. Reviews were mixed when it was released, and although it wasn't a total commercial bomb, it was far from successful (it grossed just over $5 million on a $3 million budget). With a wonderfully nuanced and touching performance from DeVito, and two of the most remarkable performances by young actors in quite some time, this is a film that's long overdue for a serious reevaluation.
The pedigree of the talent alone speaks volumes. Apart from Herskovitz, we have a great score by James Horner, and a script by future Oscar-winner Steven Zaillian (Schindler's List) who adapted Dan McCall's novel for the screen. Zaillian is able to strike a great balance between humor and sentiment, and succeeds in the difficult task of making DeVito's character sympathetic and likable. He's a flawed person, to be sure, but his character is so well-defined and anchored in reality that it makes both his inner-torment believable, and his eventual redemption emotionally satisfying. Very well-done.
And yes, that is a young Reese Witherspoon. The idea of young love is handled very well in this picture, by the way - just the right mix of awkwardness and longing and what-have-you. Set in 1972 Oakland, CA, the film also has a great sense of time and place. The feeling of a close-knit community is pretty spot-on, too; the neighborhood and its quirky inhabitants add another nice layer to the film.
Which brings us to the final act. It's the section of the picture that was most criticized. Without giving too much away, I'll briefly summarize: Throughout the film, in Jack's narration, we're introduced to a character named Norman Strick (played by the always-reliable Gary Sinise). He's quiet, lives alone, and keeps to himself. Needless to say, the children in the neighborhood find him to be pretty, well... creepy. On Halloween night, Norman stops by the Leary house, and shocks John by his actions in the following sequence:
(Oh yeah, word of caution: the following scene features some strong language. Nothing overly crude, but there are some racial epithets that some may find offensive)
So, yeah... the guy's a Nazi racist. Good times, eh?
Anyway, after a few twists and turns which I will not reveal here, the youngest son - 3-year-old Dylan - is kidnapped. This threatens to tear the family apart, as his deceased wife's parents (who've frequently voiced their disapproval of John's parenting because of his alcoholism) threaten to take the children away, as they believe he can no longer adequately care for them. And this all leads to a "showdown" of sorts - but probably not the kind you're expecting.
I'll be the first to admit that this last act is pretty unconventional. Most critics totally hated it. Even reviewers who had liked the film up until that point made sure to voice their displeasure. Loudly. But does it work? In my opinion... most definitely. Sure, it gets a little Hollywood-ized in this section, but the ending sure doesn't wrap everything up neatly with a ribbon and bow. It ends on a note of melancholy, with the distinct feeling that, while things have changed for the moment, and their lives have reached some sort of level of understanding and acceptance, it's going to take a lot of work, a lot of time, and a lot of love. And that's the way it should be, because anything less would be a cop-out.
(As always, Facebook users must click "View Original Post" to see the clips)
Movies You May Have Missed #7:
Jack the Bear (1993)
Marshall Herskovitz has been responsible - in the form of either producer, writer, or director - for three of the best television shows of all time: Family (1976-1980), thirtysomething (1987-1991), and My So-Called Life (1994). After thirtysomething and before MSCL, Herskovitz made his feature directorial debut with this very likable little film.
Based on a novel by the same name, Jack the Bear centers on John Leary (Danny DeVito, in what is probably still his best-ever performance), a father who, after the death of his wife in a car accident, struggles to care for his two young sons: twelve-year-old Jack and three-year-old Dylan (Robert J. Steinmiller Jr. and Miko Hughes, respectively).
In an attempt to give the family a fresh start, he moves with his boys to a close-knit, suburban community in Oakland, California. John - a kid-at-heart with some genuine comic ability - accepts a job as a late-night horror movie show host for a local TV station. The kids in the neighborhood, aware of his antics on the show, frequently knock on his door and ask him to play "the monster", chasing them around the yard as he pretends to be the character from his show. Behind closed doors, however, his title of "the monster" is, unfortunately, quite apt: He's a long-time alcoholic who's given to fits of rage while intoxicated. Since the death of his wife, the situation has gone from bad to worse, and since he's frequently drunk or hungover, older son Jack is forced to shoulder much of the responsibility for both the household, and his young brother Dylan.
This is a film that has somehow, over the years, fallen through the cracks. Reviews were mixed when it was released, and although it wasn't a total commercial bomb, it was far from successful (it grossed just over $5 million on a $3 million budget). With a wonderfully nuanced and touching performance from DeVito, and two of the most remarkable performances by young actors in quite some time, this is a film that's long overdue for a serious reevaluation.
The pedigree of the talent alone speaks volumes. Apart from Herskovitz, we have a great score by James Horner, and a script by future Oscar-winner Steven Zaillian (Schindler's List) who adapted Dan McCall's novel for the screen. Zaillian is able to strike a great balance between humor and sentiment, and succeeds in the difficult task of making DeVito's character sympathetic and likable. He's a flawed person, to be sure, but his character is so well-defined and anchored in reality that it makes both his inner-torment believable, and his eventual redemption emotionally satisfying. Very well-done.
And yes, that is a young Reese Witherspoon. The idea of young love is handled very well in this picture, by the way - just the right mix of awkwardness and longing and what-have-you. Set in 1972 Oakland, CA, the film also has a great sense of time and place. The feeling of a close-knit community is pretty spot-on, too; the neighborhood and its quirky inhabitants add another nice layer to the film.
Which brings us to the final act. It's the section of the picture that was most criticized. Without giving too much away, I'll briefly summarize: Throughout the film, in Jack's narration, we're introduced to a character named Norman Strick (played by the always-reliable Gary Sinise). He's quiet, lives alone, and keeps to himself. Needless to say, the children in the neighborhood find him to be pretty, well... creepy. On Halloween night, Norman stops by the Leary house, and shocks John by his actions in the following sequence:
(Oh yeah, word of caution: the following scene features some strong language. Nothing overly crude, but there are some racial epithets that some may find offensive)
So, yeah... the guy's a Nazi racist. Good times, eh?
Anyway, after a few twists and turns which I will not reveal here, the youngest son - 3-year-old Dylan - is kidnapped. This threatens to tear the family apart, as his deceased wife's parents (who've frequently voiced their disapproval of John's parenting because of his alcoholism) threaten to take the children away, as they believe he can no longer adequately care for them. And this all leads to a "showdown" of sorts - but probably not the kind you're expecting.
I'll be the first to admit that this last act is pretty unconventional. Most critics totally hated it. Even reviewers who had liked the film up until that point made sure to voice their displeasure. Loudly. But does it work? In my opinion... most definitely. Sure, it gets a little Hollywood-ized in this section, but the ending sure doesn't wrap everything up neatly with a ribbon and bow. It ends on a note of melancholy, with the distinct feeling that, while things have changed for the moment, and their lives have reached some sort of level of understanding and acceptance, it's going to take a lot of work, a lot of time, and a lot of love. And that's the way it should be, because anything less would be a cop-out.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Wow.
Anybody else happen to catch the trailer for Spike Jonze's upcoming film Where the Wild Things Are?
Stop whatever you're doing right now and check it out below.
It looks AMAZING. Never read the book when I was younger, but I'm definitely excited for this. It's Spike's first film since Adaptation in 2002.
(Oh, and this is the HD version, so be sure to switch to full-screen mode and turn that sound up loud!)
Lots of behind-the-scenes drama on this one:
Stop whatever you're doing right now and check it out below.
It looks AMAZING. Never read the book when I was younger, but I'm definitely excited for this. It's Spike's first film since Adaptation in 2002.
(Oh, and this is the HD version, so be sure to switch to full-screen mode and turn that sound up loud!)
Lots of behind-the-scenes drama on this one:
- It was originally set up at Universal, but Spike and the studio had the classic "creative differences" and he took it to Warner Brothers.
- It's been in production since 2006 (that's when it started shooting - although some reports have said that filming began a year earlier in 2005) and is just now being finished.
- In an effort to give the film the surrealistic quality he wanted, Spike shot the majority of the film outside in the Australian wilderness. As most special effects-heavy pictures are shot inside on soundstages to provide more control over elements such as weather, the decision to shoot outside caused constant delays.
- Reports say that the estimated budget of $80 million may have ballooned to a figure of $115 million.
- Apparently, when the finished film was turned in to the studio last year, executives were shocked by what they saw - a dark, brooding picture that was deemed to be largely "inaccessible" to a family audience. They considered firing Jonze, hiring another director, and re-shooting the entire film, but instead he went back and completed several months of re-shoots in an effort to appease the studio and reach a satisfactory "middle-ground" in terms of tone and content. The release date was subsequently rescheduled from late 2008 to October of this year.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Hey guys, just a quick post tonight - somebody wanted me to re-post this:
"The Great Movies"
I made this about 2 years ago. Took me about 3 nights to complete - most of that time was spent ripping the clips from the various movies. Full list of movies can be found below the video.
(As always, Facebook users have to click "View Original Post" to see the video.)
Score by Jerry Goldsmith (theme from "Rudy")
Clips from the following movies used in this video (in order):
Night of the Hunter
Breathless
Rain Man
Easy Rider
The Seventh Seal
The Shawshank Redemption
Brazil
Platoon
Fargo
Casablanca
The 400 Blows
2001: A Space Odyssey
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Midnight Cowboy
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Jaws
Rocky
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
On the Waterfront
Rebel Without a Cause
All Quiet on the Western Front
Fanny and Alexander
Harold and Maude
Back to the Future
Network
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
The Godfather
Dr. Strangelove
North by Northwest
A Clockwork Orange
12 Angry Men
Raging Bull
Apocalypse Now
Do the Right Thing
Annie Hall
Kramer vs. Kramer
Full Metal Jacket
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
A Christmas Story
The Graduate
Taxi Driver
The Shining
Citizen Kane
The Wild Bunch
Cinema Paradiso
The Godfather, Part II
Apollo 13
Seven Samurai
Mean Streets
The Bicycle Thief
It's a Wonderful Life
To Kill a Mockingbird
A Streetcar Named Desire
Chinatown
The Searchers
Schindler's List
"The Great Movies"
I made this about 2 years ago. Took me about 3 nights to complete - most of that time was spent ripping the clips from the various movies. Full list of movies can be found below the video.
(As always, Facebook users have to click "View Original Post" to see the video.)
Score by Jerry Goldsmith (theme from "Rudy")
Clips from the following movies used in this video (in order):
Night of the Hunter
Breathless
Rain Man
Easy Rider
The Seventh Seal
The Shawshank Redemption
Brazil
Platoon
Fargo
Casablanca
The 400 Blows
2001: A Space Odyssey
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Midnight Cowboy
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Jaws
Rocky
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
On the Waterfront
Rebel Without a Cause
All Quiet on the Western Front
Fanny and Alexander
Harold and Maude
Back to the Future
Network
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
The Godfather
Dr. Strangelove
North by Northwest
A Clockwork Orange
12 Angry Men
Raging Bull
Apocalypse Now
Do the Right Thing
Annie Hall
Kramer vs. Kramer
Full Metal Jacket
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
A Christmas Story
The Graduate
Taxi Driver
The Shining
Citizen Kane
The Wild Bunch
Cinema Paradiso
The Godfather, Part II
Apollo 13
Seven Samurai
Mean Streets
The Bicycle Thief
It's a Wonderful Life
To Kill a Mockingbird
A Streetcar Named Desire
Chinatown
The Searchers
Schindler's List
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
American High
Note: Facebook users have to click "View Original Post" to see the video clips.
Also, some of the clips below contain (mostly bleeped) strong language.
Today we're going to talk not about a movie, but instead a television series. The series in question is American High, a show that was briefly aired on Fox in the summer of 2000 (who airs a show about high school in the summer?) but canceled after only four episodes. Created by R.J. Cutler (who later went on to produce Morgan Spurlock's FX show 30 Days), American High was a documentary series presented in 30 minute episodes, in which we follow fourteen Illinois high school students (mostly Seniors) throughout a single year. Sound ambitious? Just wait, there's more... Along with the obligatory camera crew following the kids around, Cutler made the decision to equip each kid with their own DV camera, with which they would shoot their own footage. Originally meant only for shooting "Video Diary" segments which would be used later in editing for a narrative framing device, eventually the kids went off on their own and shot additional, non-"Diary" footage. The result was one of the most captivating, intimate, and honest looks into teenage life ever captured on film. I present to you the beginning of the first episode:
Wow. Brilliant, right? That has got to be one of the most amazing openings for a show, ever. Talk about setting the tone for a series...
So, anyway, Cutler produced 13 episodes of the show (including a one-hour finale), although only four ended up airing on Fox that summer. I was one of the few who watched those first episodes on Fox (it was the lowest-rated program on the network that year - ouch), and man, was I disappointed when it was canceled... Luckily, however, a year later PBS picked up the show and broadcast the entire 13 episodes over a several-week period (although they only aired it during those weeks and never re-aired it). Fortunately, I was able to record the entire series on videotape. Since it's never been officially released on DVD or any other format, this past week I started backing up my old tapes to DVD, and so I figured now would be a good time to share it with you all.
Each half-hour episode usually focused on 5-8 of the kids, and the opening credits were subtly different in each show, crediting the ones who appeared. The main subjects included:
From just a basic filmmaking perspective, there must have been an insane amount of footage to go through. The two film crews alone shot several hours of footage a day, seven days a week, for the entire school year (9 months). Then, add in the fact that you have an additional 14 cameras out there in the field, also shooting several hours of footage a day. That's over 75,000 hours of footage in total. Wow. That's crazy.
But it was also totally worth it. Take the scene below, for example. Morgan, using his "video diary" camera in a decidedly different way: walking around the house as his parents yell at him.
This is the show at its most unique, cinéma vérité best. People tend to clam up when a professional camera crew is around; whether it's intentional or not, it's completely natural. But that's not the case when it's just "a kid with a camera". Because of this, the show is full of great moments like the one above, whether it be nice little moments of happenstance, or late-night confessions by the kids, lying in their bed and lit only by a flashlight.
The professional crew was also able to capture great footage; just check out this scene below:
Immensely relatable, completely honest, and very, very funny.
And one of my favorite moments from the series - Allie singing along to Steve Miller's "The Joker" in her car. She follows right along, but trails off during the line "I sure don't want to hurt no one..." I'm probably reading too much into it, but I love it:
Because PBS airs programs with no commercials, and the episodes don't quite fill up an entire half-hour block (they're 22 minutes) when the series was picked up by them the following year, we also got a great bonus: R.J. Cutler filled up the extra time by producing new five-minute segments that aired after each episode. Titled "Stories From the Field", each segment deals with certain behind-the-scenes aspects of the show, including interviews with many of the producers and some never-before-seen footage. Here's the first segment, which aired after the first episode:
So, yeah... a wonderful, criminally underseen show that deserves to be rediscovered (and hopefully released one day on DVD - although I think music-rights issues will prevent that from happening for a while; there's lots of contemporary, popular music on that show). I will eventually post all the episodes up online in their full form, and post a message here to let you guys know when that happens.
I should also mention that American High won the Emmy for Best Non-Fiction Program, based solely on the four episodes that aired, and not the complete thirteen. It was nominated again the following year for the same award, this time for the rest of the episodes that had finally aired on PBS. (Unfortunately, this award has been re-named "Best Reality TV Program", and now counts shows like Extreme Makeover among its winners.)
It's not perfect - it sometimes suffers from "TV-itis", with melodramatic music and longing shots of teens looking at the horizon... and the middle episodes sometimes suffer from character overload, but for a 6-plus hour documentary production, it really is an amazing achievement, and one of the best programs ever produced for American television. It deserves, in my opinion, to be mentioned right up alongside Hoop Dreams as one of the best documentaries ever made.
(Postscript: R.J. Cutler returned to similar territory in 2003 with Freshman Diaries for Showtime, which followed first-year college students. Good program, but not as memorable.
Also, even though PBS only aired it once, its website for American High is, amazingly, still up. It's located here. Also, the AH page on Cutler's official company website, Actual Reality Pictures, is here.)
Also, some of the clips below contain (mostly bleeped) strong language.
Today we're going to talk not about a movie, but instead a television series. The series in question is American High, a show that was briefly aired on Fox in the summer of 2000 (who airs a show about high school in the summer?) but canceled after only four episodes. Created by R.J. Cutler (who later went on to produce Morgan Spurlock's FX show 30 Days), American High was a documentary series presented in 30 minute episodes, in which we follow fourteen Illinois high school students (mostly Seniors) throughout a single year. Sound ambitious? Just wait, there's more... Along with the obligatory camera crew following the kids around, Cutler made the decision to equip each kid with their own DV camera, with which they would shoot their own footage. Originally meant only for shooting "Video Diary" segments which would be used later in editing for a narrative framing device, eventually the kids went off on their own and shot additional, non-"Diary" footage. The result was one of the most captivating, intimate, and honest looks into teenage life ever captured on film. I present to you the beginning of the first episode:
Wow. Brilliant, right? That has got to be one of the most amazing openings for a show, ever. Talk about setting the tone for a series...
So, anyway, Cutler produced 13 episodes of the show (including a one-hour finale), although only four ended up airing on Fox that summer. I was one of the few who watched those first episodes on Fox (it was the lowest-rated program on the network that year - ouch), and man, was I disappointed when it was canceled... Luckily, however, a year later PBS picked up the show and broadcast the entire 13 episodes over a several-week period (although they only aired it during those weeks and never re-aired it). Fortunately, I was able to record the entire series on videotape. Since it's never been officially released on DVD or any other format, this past week I started backing up my old tapes to DVD, and so I figured now would be a good time to share it with you all.
Each half-hour episode usually focused on 5-8 of the kids, and the opening credits were subtly different in each show, crediting the ones who appeared. The main subjects included:
- Morgan (featured in the video above) - A somewhat childish, reckless teen suffering from ADD, who constantly struggles to pass his classes in his Senior year.
- Brad - A gay Senior who has kept his sexuality secret until only six months previous, when he decided to "come out" in the middle of his Junior year. He's also the only openly gay student in the entire school.
- Robby - Brad's straight friend, also a Senior, known around school for being a "jock", but who has much more going on underneath the surface.
- Sarah - Robby's girlfriend, who, in her Junior year, struggles with the fact that Robby is graduating at the end of the year and moving away for college.
- Allie - A Senior who ditched four months of school last year and may not graduate. Her home life is also in turmoil, with parents who are divorcing and her father set to marry the woman he left his wife for.
- Kiwi - Kicker on the school's football team, who is looking forward to playing for a college team next year.
- Anna - Kiwi's long-time friend, who, despite being beautiful and single, is perpetually boyfriend-less, mostly due to an overprotective father - who is also pressuring her to attend his alma mater, Brown University, next year.
- Pablo - Born in Ecuador and moved with his mother to the U.S. when he was young. His mother's been divorced twice, and he lives with her and his young half-sister. A talented writer, poet, and photographer, he's also well-known amongst school administrators for his frequent troublemaking and drug involvement. In a surprising turn of events, near the end of the series, he considers enlisting in the Marines instead of going to college next year.
- Suzy - A shy, insecure Senior whose one joy in life is singing. With ambitions of one day becoming an opera singer, and her fluctuating weight a constant damper on her self-esteem, she decides to basically give up on a high school "social life" and spend her Senior year refining her craft and pursuing her dream.
- Kaytee - One of the few Juniors chronicled in the series. A talented singer and songwriter, she really hasn't pursued this avenue seriously until this year, when she starts recording demos and performing in small gigs around town.
From just a basic filmmaking perspective, there must have been an insane amount of footage to go through. The two film crews alone shot several hours of footage a day, seven days a week, for the entire school year (9 months). Then, add in the fact that you have an additional 14 cameras out there in the field, also shooting several hours of footage a day. That's over 75,000 hours of footage in total. Wow. That's crazy.
But it was also totally worth it. Take the scene below, for example. Morgan, using his "video diary" camera in a decidedly different way: walking around the house as his parents yell at him.
This is the show at its most unique, cinéma vérité best. People tend to clam up when a professional camera crew is around; whether it's intentional or not, it's completely natural. But that's not the case when it's just "a kid with a camera". Because of this, the show is full of great moments like the one above, whether it be nice little moments of happenstance, or late-night confessions by the kids, lying in their bed and lit only by a flashlight.
The professional crew was also able to capture great footage; just check out this scene below:
Immensely relatable, completely honest, and very, very funny.
And one of my favorite moments from the series - Allie singing along to Steve Miller's "The Joker" in her car. She follows right along, but trails off during the line "I sure don't want to hurt no one..." I'm probably reading too much into it, but I love it:
Because PBS airs programs with no commercials, and the episodes don't quite fill up an entire half-hour block (they're 22 minutes) when the series was picked up by them the following year, we also got a great bonus: R.J. Cutler filled up the extra time by producing new five-minute segments that aired after each episode. Titled "Stories From the Field", each segment deals with certain behind-the-scenes aspects of the show, including interviews with many of the producers and some never-before-seen footage. Here's the first segment, which aired after the first episode:
So, yeah... a wonderful, criminally underseen show that deserves to be rediscovered (and hopefully released one day on DVD - although I think music-rights issues will prevent that from happening for a while; there's lots of contemporary, popular music on that show). I will eventually post all the episodes up online in their full form, and post a message here to let you guys know when that happens.
I should also mention that American High won the Emmy for Best Non-Fiction Program, based solely on the four episodes that aired, and not the complete thirteen. It was nominated again the following year for the same award, this time for the rest of the episodes that had finally aired on PBS. (Unfortunately, this award has been re-named "Best Reality TV Program", and now counts shows like Extreme Makeover among its winners.)
It's not perfect - it sometimes suffers from "TV-itis", with melodramatic music and longing shots of teens looking at the horizon... and the middle episodes sometimes suffer from character overload, but for a 6-plus hour documentary production, it really is an amazing achievement, and one of the best programs ever produced for American television. It deserves, in my opinion, to be mentioned right up alongside Hoop Dreams as one of the best documentaries ever made.
(Postscript: R.J. Cutler returned to similar territory in 2003 with Freshman Diaries for Showtime, which followed first-year college students. Good program, but not as memorable.
Also, even though PBS only aired it once, its website for American High is, amazingly, still up. It's located here. Also, the AH page on Cutler's official company website, Actual Reality Pictures, is here.)
Friday, April 10, 2009
Movies You May Have Missed - #6
Matinee (1993)
Note: Facebook users have to click "View Original Post" to see the video clips.
"When I was in film school, I was the only kid wearing a Roger Corman button. Everybody else had a Jean-Luc Godard button. So I was a fan. I grew up watching Roger's pictures. I always thought he was a great filmmaker."
-Joe Dante
Matinee is director Joe Dante's love letter to the movies - and, more specifically, the "B movie" genre of the 50's and 60's. It's also one of the best matches of director and screenplay that you'll probably ever see.
Out of all the films I've talked about on this site, this is probably the one you're least likely to have seen. Not by virtue of its quality, but simply the fact that it's been out of print, in every format - VHS, laserdisc, and DVD - for over ten years. Used copies usually sell for over $50, and a brand new, sealed DVD of this film can easily go for $200. It's a shame, because it's one of Joe Dante's best films.
Set in Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, Matinee stars John Goodman (in one of his best performances) as Lawrence Woolsey, a small-time film promoter who makes - what else? - monster movies. He's trying to sell his latest picture, MANT!, a cheesy horror film in which nuclear radiation turns a man into - you guessed it - a half-man, half-ant creature. In an effort to sell his movie to theater owners, he decides to preview the film with audiences. And what better place than in Key West, Florida, where the residents are frozen with fear at the potential of nuclear destruction. They're already scared, and Woolsey thinks his monster movie just might be enough to push everyone over the edge, and turn his film into an enormous hit.
In all honesty, this movie is a mess. There's secondary characters and subplots all over the place, and most of the running time consists of a bland teen romance. But it's all worth it to see Dante's unabashed tribute to the movies.
Having grown up on Roger Corman's films, and having started his career on Corman pictures such as Piranha, Dante knows this material well. He knows the appeal of these films, and the reason for that appeal. While poking good-natured fun at the low production value and bad acting in these pictures, he never looks down on them. He knows they're just as valid as anything else. And that's why almost everything in the film rings true.
Matinee was co-written by Charlie Haas, who had earlier worked with Dante on Gremlins 2. Something special seems to happen when these guys get together. In the case of the earlier film, Warner Brothers was in desperate need of a sequel to Gremlins, and begged Dante to make another one, after several other directors had turned them down. Dante agreed to make the film on one condition: that he be allowed to do whatever he wanted. The result of this was one of the most insane studio pictures ever made. Filled with vicious satire and an off-the-wall tone akin to a live-action cartoon, this second Gremlins film was the rare chance for Dante to completely let loose. Dante and Haas have managed to re-capture some of that magic here, and not surprisingly, both films are very similar in form and function: A wafer-thin plot, which serves only to place the characters in a situation that Dante can riff on for the rest of the film.
With Corman as his inspiration and his idol, Dante has made a career out of making the films he's always loved: low-budget monster movies. The only difference is that he's somehow been able to make them in Hollywood with millions of dollars of their money. And this is his tribute to the old days, when cheesy monsters and a well-timed buzzer under the seat could still give someone a cheap thrill. People will probably always remember Joe Dante for films like Gremlins and The Howling, but the rest of us, the ones who really understand what he's all about, will always remember Matinee as his magnum opus.
Oh, and remember: Keep your eyes open for the scary parts...
"When I was in film school, I was the only kid wearing a Roger Corman button. Everybody else had a Jean-Luc Godard button. So I was a fan. I grew up watching Roger's pictures. I always thought he was a great filmmaker."
-Joe Dante
Matinee is director Joe Dante's love letter to the movies - and, more specifically, the "B movie" genre of the 50's and 60's. It's also one of the best matches of director and screenplay that you'll probably ever see.
Out of all the films I've talked about on this site, this is probably the one you're least likely to have seen. Not by virtue of its quality, but simply the fact that it's been out of print, in every format - VHS, laserdisc, and DVD - for over ten years. Used copies usually sell for over $50, and a brand new, sealed DVD of this film can easily go for $200. It's a shame, because it's one of Joe Dante's best films.
Set in Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, Matinee stars John Goodman (in one of his best performances) as Lawrence Woolsey, a small-time film promoter who makes - what else? - monster movies. He's trying to sell his latest picture, MANT!, a cheesy horror film in which nuclear radiation turns a man into - you guessed it - a half-man, half-ant creature. In an effort to sell his movie to theater owners, he decides to preview the film with audiences. And what better place than in Key West, Florida, where the residents are frozen with fear at the potential of nuclear destruction. They're already scared, and Woolsey thinks his monster movie just might be enough to push everyone over the edge, and turn his film into an enormous hit.
In all honesty, this movie is a mess. There's secondary characters and subplots all over the place, and most of the running time consists of a bland teen romance. But it's all worth it to see Dante's unabashed tribute to the movies.
Having grown up on Roger Corman's films, and having started his career on Corman pictures such as Piranha, Dante knows this material well. He knows the appeal of these films, and the reason for that appeal. While poking good-natured fun at the low production value and bad acting in these pictures, he never looks down on them. He knows they're just as valid as anything else. And that's why almost everything in the film rings true.
Matinee was co-written by Charlie Haas, who had earlier worked with Dante on Gremlins 2. Something special seems to happen when these guys get together. In the case of the earlier film, Warner Brothers was in desperate need of a sequel to Gremlins, and begged Dante to make another one, after several other directors had turned them down. Dante agreed to make the film on one condition: that he be allowed to do whatever he wanted. The result of this was one of the most insane studio pictures ever made. Filled with vicious satire and an off-the-wall tone akin to a live-action cartoon, this second Gremlins film was the rare chance for Dante to completely let loose. Dante and Haas have managed to re-capture some of that magic here, and not surprisingly, both films are very similar in form and function: A wafer-thin plot, which serves only to place the characters in a situation that Dante can riff on for the rest of the film.
With Corman as his inspiration and his idol, Dante has made a career out of making the films he's always loved: low-budget monster movies. The only difference is that he's somehow been able to make them in Hollywood with millions of dollars of their money. And this is his tribute to the old days, when cheesy monsters and a well-timed buzzer under the seat could still give someone a cheap thrill. People will probably always remember Joe Dante for films like Gremlins and The Howling, but the rest of us, the ones who really understand what he's all about, will always remember Matinee as his magnum opus.
Oh, and remember: Keep your eyes open for the scary parts...
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Movies You May Have Missed - #5
The Cure (1995)
Note: Facebook users have to click "View Original Post" to watch the video clip.
This little forgotten film from 1995 stars Joseph Mazzello (Jurassic Park) and the late Brad Renfro (The Client, Sleepers) as two young boys who set off down the Mississippi River to find a cure for AIDS, a disease which the Mazzello character suffers from. This story could have been ripe fodder for a bad TV movie, but instead becomes much more.
Peter Horton, a frequent TV director of shows like thirtysomething and The Wonder Years, made his first and only theatrical feature with this film, and it's a shame that he's yet to make another. His direction is confident and assured, and he shows a particular strength for directing the young actors in the film. The screenplay by Robert Kuhn thankfully sidesteps melodrama and theatrics, and remains simple, nuanced, and deeply moving. So it's similarly puzzling that Kuhn has also disappeared from features, having co-written only one film since this.
Mazzello and Renfro are terrifically cast, and are able to lift already good scenes off the page and turn them into sensational, heartbreaking moments.
This movie was barely a blip on the radar back in 1995, barely making back its minuscule $3 million budget. But today it stands, in my opinion, right up alongside Stand By Me as one of the best films about childhood - and friendship - ever made.
This little forgotten film from 1995 stars Joseph Mazzello (Jurassic Park) and the late Brad Renfro (The Client, Sleepers) as two young boys who set off down the Mississippi River to find a cure for AIDS, a disease which the Mazzello character suffers from. This story could have been ripe fodder for a bad TV movie, but instead becomes much more.
Peter Horton, a frequent TV director of shows like thirtysomething and The Wonder Years, made his first and only theatrical feature with this film, and it's a shame that he's yet to make another. His direction is confident and assured, and he shows a particular strength for directing the young actors in the film. The screenplay by Robert Kuhn thankfully sidesteps melodrama and theatrics, and remains simple, nuanced, and deeply moving. So it's similarly puzzling that Kuhn has also disappeared from features, having co-written only one film since this.
Mazzello and Renfro are terrifically cast, and are able to lift already good scenes off the page and turn them into sensational, heartbreaking moments.
This movie was barely a blip on the radar back in 1995, barely making back its minuscule $3 million budget. But today it stands, in my opinion, right up alongside Stand By Me as one of the best films about childhood - and friendship - ever made.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Benjamin Button on Criterion too? Yes!
Wow. Pretty rare for a new-release title to debut on the Criterion label (except of course for Wes Anderson's movies), but I'm extremely happy that Button's going to be a Criterion release.
This was first reported over at The Digital Bits - visit the site for release info and cover artwork. I must also say I'm really happy with the cover artwork. It's a variation of the original poster, but it's nice and simple. Hope it stays that way.
It only sucks that The Wrestler is stuck over on the Fox Searchlight label. The DVD will only contain a few featurettes, and NO COMMENTARY from Aronofsky. Really sucks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
