Bond-arama: No. 00? Dr. No (1962)

As we enter the top three, I’m going to avoid putting a rank on these for the moment. Instead, I’m going to outline the cases pro and con for each being number one. Today we start with Dr. No. Dr. No is not the first time Bond has appeared on the screen, but this is the first James Bond film in the series... this is the film which started it all and which made Sean Connery into a superstar. It is a solid film with no real plot holes and all the elements we have come to expect from Bond. It has only a couple minor weaknesses. Could it be No. 001 of 0023?

Plot Quality: Dr. No’s plot is superb. Dr. No opens with the murder of British Intelligence Station Chief Commander Strangways and his secretary in Jamaica. His disappearance sets London into motion. A man is summoned. This man is found playing Chemin de Fer in a casino. He has amazing luck and he defeats a woman named Sylvia Trench, a woman who will follow him to his room. This man is Bond, James Bond.

Bond is briefed by M, the head of MI-6, and sent to Jamaica to investigate. Upon arrival in Jamaica, he is picked up by a driver who works for the bad guys. Bond captures the man, but the man kills himself rather than being questioned. This tells Bond the type of villain he is up against, a man who strikes suicidal fear into his henchmen. This also establishes the fact that Bond is not just your average police man. He deals with a special type of criminal.

Bond meets with his local contacts and learns that Strangways had been investigating an island named Crab Key, which belongs to a man named Dr. No. The issue at had is that NASA is planning to launch a rocket in a few days and the CIA is concerned that an attempt will be made to topple the rocket using radio jamming. Strangways thought he was on to something when he vanished.

As Bond investigates, he finds that one of the men closest to Strangways (Professor Dent) lies to Bond about this. He also finds the man who took Strangways to Crab Key. This is Quarrel, and he is working with CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jack Lord). He tells Bond that Crab Key is off limits because of stories of a dragon. This intrigues Bond and he focuses on Dr. No. This leads Professor Dent to make an attempt on his life, which fails. Another attempt is made by Miss Taro, the secretary of a British official, but Bond foils that as well. Bond has her arrested and kills Dent when he arrives at the scene.

Bond now sets his sights on Dr. No. He and Quarrel venture to Crab Key, where they find Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress), a nomadic woman who collects sea shells from the beach. They are attacked by Dr. No’s men and taken prisoner. Bond finally meets Dr. No and learns that he works for an organization which is tying to set East against West by toppling the rocket... SPECTRE. Bond eventually defeats Dr. No and destroys the base, saving the American rocket.

Everything about this film works. The travelogue feel is fantastic. The story is larger than life with huge stakes. The whole film has Bond doing actual spying, something he doesn’t do in later movies. The characters are richly drawn and interesting; they don’t feel cardboard. And this film establishes all the elements we want in Bond.

The only real downside to this film is after Bond is captured by Dr. No. It feels a bit like the film didn’t know how to create a real climax, so the story gets wrapped up too easily. It’s still a decent ending, but could have used something more. And what’s really missing is a more personal struggle between Bond and Dr. No.

Bond Quality: This is the first Bond in the series, so no one quite knew how to play him. Connery would set the standard. And while he is a little stiff in this compared to his future films, his Bond here is still suave and charming. Bond in this film is also one of the most cold-blooded of any in the series. The way he lets Dent build up his hope that he can escape his fate and then coldly shoots him down when he is essentially unarmed is something you just won’t see again until Daniel Craig. Even the cold-blooded Bond in Thunderball isn’t particularly cruel, but Bond is in the Dent scene. His misogynism is strong in this one as well, particular related to Miss Taro, the secretary who tries to kill him. He thinks nothing of having sex with a woman he is about to kill or have locked away. At the same time, Connery lets slip some genuinely warm and loyal moments, particularly when he’s among friends like Felix. Connery sets the bar amazingly high here.

The Bond Girl: The Bond girl is Ursula Andress, as Honey Ryder. She’s a creature of the 1960s. She’s an uneducated girl in a bikini whose job is to look up to Bond with awe and she does that well, but she’s hardly an engaging character. Nothing highlights this more than when Dr. No drugs her so that he and Bond can speak without having to worry about her being at the table as well. This moment feels as if the film itself tired of her. Still, she’s adequate when it comes to the task of creating “The Bond Girl.”

Villain Quality: Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman) is one of the hardest villains to judge. On the one hand, he’s the prototype for the super villain. He’s a man without a country who punches at the level of a superpower. He owns an island. He terrorizes the locals. He’s taking on the United States and winning, and his plan could lead to a whole host of bad things.

He has an interesting backstory too. A half-Asian, born to a Chinese girl and a German missionary, Dr. No became the treasurer of a Chinese crime syndicate, the Tongs. From them, he stole $10 million and he fled China. He then offered his serves as a scientist to the US and the Soviet Union, both of whom turned him down. He subsequently joined SPECTRE and set out on his plan to topple an American rocket for profit and revenge.

One of the more fascinating things Dr. No does is finish Bond’s character for us by telling us that he believed Bond to be more than “a stupid policeman” and he had hope Bond could join SPECTRE. That tells you that Bond is something truly special if he’s that respected by this organization of super villains. It also tells us something further that Bond shows no interest in the offer. This scene does a lot to lift Bond beyond the level of just being another secret agent.

On the other hand, all is not perfect with Dr. No. He’s one of the first to underestimate Bond. In fact, he seems to have no security whatsoever after having captured this super spy. That makes him a much weaker challenge for Bond than he’s been built up to be. He’s also not a very interesting character on screen. He speaks in monotone and affects being bored by everything. That makes him rather dull to watch. And in the end, he never really has his moment to take on Bond one on one.

So how should this film rank? Well, it’s a fantastic film with a weaker-than-expected, but still solid ending. The villain is great until you meet him. The Bond girl is iconic, but a little dull. Connery is in top form, even if he isn’t yet perfect in the role. And most importantly, this film set the series off to the right start. On the other hand, in terms of the public, this one always plays in discussions of the top film, but rarely wins. Its box office also was surprisingly weak, coming in at 19th.

So where should this film rank? Is it worthy of the top spot? You tell me.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: The Wiz (1978)

I love the Wizard of Oz, and I often enjoy the remakes. I love blaxploitation films too. And I enjoy musicals a lot. So The Wiz sounds perfect. Heck, how can you go wrong with Michael Jackson, Diana Ross, Lena Horne, Quincy Jones, and Richard Pryor? Well, you can. The Wiz sucks and I marvel that somewhere along the way someone didn’t say, “Wow, we need to change this.”

The Plot

Diana Ross is having a midlife crisis, so she goes outside into the snowy streets of New York after a family dinner. A freak ice-tornado picks her up and dumps her in Oz. In the process of landing, she kills a witch – Evermean. This frees the kids (Munchkins) who Evermean turned into graffiti as punishment for graffiting. They celebrate Evermean’s death and Ross meets Miss One, a good witch and a numbers runner who tells her to follow the yellow brick road and to never take off her silver slippers.

After Ross fails to hail a cab, she finds herself outside a tenement building, where a group of crows are eating corn and hassling a Scarecrow (Michael Jackson) who is stuck on a pole. Ross chases away the crows and helps the Scarecrow to his feet. They dance and move on down the yellow brick road.

Next, they pick up the Tin Man (Nipsy Russell) at an amusement park and the Cowardly Lion (Ted Ross) in front of the New York Public Library. Then they go to the Emerald City, where they see a bunch of sycophants and hookers and finally meet the Wiz (Richard Pryor), who tells them to kill Evillene (Mabel King) if they want their wishes granted. Evillene runs a sweatshop in the sewers of New York and she controls the Flying Monkeys, a motorcycle gang of stinking apes. Ross assassinates Evillene and they return to the Wiz, where they learn he is a fake. Ross then returns home by clicking her heels together.

What Went Wrong... And Wrong... And Wrong

The critics hated The Wiz and audience stayed way from it; it cost $24 million to make and took in only $13 million. And you know what? They were right. This thing is a turd on so many levels. Everything went wrong with this production.

● The Songs: A musical lives or dies by its songs, so let’s start with the songs. Put simply, the songs are crap. There are basically two decent songs. One is Michael Jackson singing “Ease on Down the Road,” and one is Mabel King singing “No Bad News.” Both songs are original to the musical, but they do feel like they could have been more than that. Neither is particularly strong, but both are adequate.

The rest of the songs, however, are a total waste. They have basic lyrics with obvious rhyme schemes and no cleverness at all. Neither the music nor the lyrics will surprise you in any way. None of them are memorable and there no moments of little joy of the type that make a song touch your emotions. You can’t even sing along.

Even worse, the lyrics are primitive. In fact, most of these songs are transactional in nature in the sense that they simply convey information to the audience in the most simplistic manner. If a character is evil, they sing, “I’m so bad.” If a character is sad, they sing, “I’m so sad.” When you meet the cowardly lion, he sings, “You better run and hide, I’m a mean old lion.” Yawn. Compare that to the imagery of “Build Me Up Buttercup” or “You Can’t Hurry Love.” Or think of how “Riding Along In My Automobile” takes simple seeming lyrics and steps those up to paint a strong picture that brings you a climax. Now compare that to how the lion’s song continues as Ross encourages him to be brave:

Keep on tryin’ and tryin’ and tryin’
You’re a lion.
Keep tryin’
I’m a lion.
In my own way, I’m a lion.

Nothing. No cleverness. No double meanings or turns of phrases. No imagery you can grab onto. No build up. No payoff. And the few times the lyrics try to be clever, they are jarring and unpleasant. Here is a woman singing how she wears red instead of green because red is the “in” color and green isn’t:

I wouldn’t be caught dead [waaaaay overly-long pause]
And if I’m caught at all [second long pause], then catch me in dead red.

Apart from the two songs mentioned, you won’t remember a single line from the film.

● The Choreography: In addition to singing, musicals often include dance numbers which are equally important. Director Sydney Lumet (12 Angry Men) really drops the ball here. For one thing, he repeats imagery. The three “big” numbers each involve him pulling the camera back so you can see about 150 feet across. Then he films as a large number of dancers, all standing equidistant, slowly move in a large circle as if they were a record on a record player. Three times you’ll see this same image repeated.

Further, there is almost no contact during the dancing. The extras essentially spin in place or do generic dance moves without touching each other except for the occasional moment where they touch and separate again. The main characters touch more often, but there’s no togetherness in this. Everyone is basically doing their own independent thing side by side, and that gives the movie a very cold, sterile, distant feeling.

Really, the only exception is Michael Jackson, who does his best to breathe life into the other actors, but they lose whatever life he gives them the moment he separates from them.

● The Script: The script is horribly weak. Your first clue to this is that each scene involves the actors gathering together center stage and standing around trying to look busy as all the necessary lines are delivered. What this tells you is that the characters lack motivation, i.e. they are dialog-delivery vehicles and nothing more. And that’s just the beginning of the problems with the writing.

There is little verbal interaction. Essentially the characters read lines at each other rather than communicate, which prevents any sense of relationship. Again, there are no double meanings, no hidden depth, and no verbal cleverness. The word choice is awkward as well. The dialog is a strange mix that feels like an educated white liberal with a thesaurus vocabulary wrote the dialog to appeal to others at his level, but then included the occasional black slang he had seen in other blaxploitation films. The result is characters who sound like accountants and lawyers talking shop, but who will suddenly whip out a very uncomfortable “ghetto” phrase. It feels condescending.

Further, the story itself is weak. Yes, the story is a remake of The Wizard of Oz, but what’s missing here are the motivations. Why does anyone in this film act the way they do? The script offers little more than the characters changing locations, reading a few lines, and then standing there long enough for the current problem to suddenly solve itself. Nothing in this film feels connected. The result is a weak plot, zero character development, and no relationships get built... and you end up not caring about any of them.

One reason this may be the case is that the writer wasn’t nearly as clever as he thought he was. The writer packed the film with symbols that presumably are meant to convey the real meaning of what is going on. The problem is that these are undeveloped. For example, there are cabs that refuse to pick up Dorothy in the several early scenes. This is a “racism” complaint made by black groups, that cabs won’t pick up blacks. Ok, so we are to read “racism” into the film, right... but why? What is the point to including it? There are no whites in this Oz, so who is the allegation made against exactly? And how does it fit into the story? It doesn’t seem to motivate or cause anything. It’s a bit like having a character hold up a picture of Jesus and point at it, only to have the film have nothing to do with religion.

Then you have the fake Wiz living at the World Trade Center, which is presumably some statement about wealth and power. But again, what does this mean? It’s never connected to the world we see. Outside, you have a huge number of sycophants who change the color of their clothes the moment the Wiz declares a new “in” color, which could be a statement against consumerism or peer pressure or perhaps some penchant in the black community to follow their leaders mindlessly... but if it is, you’ll never know because it doesn’t factor into any decisions that get made, it doesn’t motivate any character, and it doesn’t affect the plot. Likewise, there are statements about the existence of graffiti and worthless politicians that mean nothing. There are portrayals too that would normally bring howls of racism (blacks as crows or apes), yet, there is no message attached. In short, none of these symbols means anything.

This is poor writing. When you throw something into a story, it is supposed to have a purpose that helps the audience understand some aspect of the story they wouldn’t otherwise have known. Here things are included without any clues as to why they are included. What the writer has done is essentially take things that blacks in New York City complained about in the 1970s (corrupt politicians, racist cabbies, tenements, etc.) and has included them all without any purpose except to say, “Here’s a list of some things I hear black people talk about.”

This film fails at all levels. Its songs are hopelessly dull and forgettable, which is a real crime considering the talent they had on hand. The choreography creates a vibe that undermines the film. The characters are indifferent or unlikeable. The dialog is conflicted and confused. And the story itself is hollow. That no one caught this is shocking.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why I Despise Critics

I was going to write about Stanley Kubrick, but then I saw a quote which struck a nerve. The quote comes from A.O. Scott of the New York Times. Scott is their film critic. And to me, this quote highlights just how sick the critic profession is. Observe.

I've written about this idea before. Our society is packed with cynicism. And nothing is more cynical than film critics. These are people who make their living by finding fault with other people's work. What's more though, an ethos has arisen around their work which suggests that a film critic must be jaded and cynical if they are doing their jobs correctly. This is because they need to project themselves as smarter than everyone else, as attuned to the nuances that normal people miss, and you can't do that if your tastes are seen as common. The problem is that most of them just aren't that deep. They don't get nuance. They have no greater understanding than anyone else. Even experience hasn't enlightened their path like you would expect. So they fake it: they favor films the public will hate and then claim to find deep meaning within them. This is the modern version of "The Emperor's New Clothes."

As a result of this, almost the entire profession worships the negative. They have no praise for comedy, the most difficult type of entertainment requiring the most skill and craft. They have no praise for joy. To the contrary, they dismiss joy as hokey or "sentimental"... as if that were a bad thing. They don't care for love either. What they praise is angst... pain... desperation... the twisted and the depressed. That, to them, is the only true measure of an actor: "Can they make me feel their suffering." It never occurs to them that suffering is easy, and what they mistake for drama is melodrama.

In any event, what a sick soul these people must have to worship at that alter. It reminds me of the people who think religion is about learning who to hate and then spend their timing looking for people to victimize.

Anyway, what triggered this was the following quote from Scott about the passing of Philip Seymour Hoffman:

“He had a rare ability to illuminate the varieties of human ugliness. No one ever did it so beautifully.”

Up yours. First, of all, the ugly side of humanity is not beautiful, and if you think it is, then you're an idiot who doesn't understand either good or bad. There is simply no beauty to be found in a bully beating an over-matched victim to a pulp, in a skinhead terrorizing a Jewish or black family, in a child molester destroying a young life, in a thug killing a random victim, or a Soviet work camp for those the state fears. If there is beauty in these moments, it is in those who stand up to the bad and the ugly, it is never in the ugly itself. A-hole.

Secondly, I find it amazing that of Hoffman's entire career, this is how Scott sees him. I first noticed Hoffman in Twister where he played a good guy with a cool hobby, and he always struck me after that as a rather good-natured fellow on screen, even when he was the villain. Sure, he had some creepy roles, but nothing that ever left me thinking, "Wow, I understand evil like I never have before." I don't think he specialized in ugly either. Some of his characters were good, some bad, but his bad was just as often done in action films (Mission Impossible III) where the villain is always a caricature or in comedies (The Big Lebowski) where his "ugly" was hilarious.

I think Scott's quote tells us nothing about Hoffman except that Scott wanted to give him his highest praise, and the fact that this is Scott's highest praise tells us volumes about Scott.

Sad.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Toon-arama: Frozen (2013)

by tryanmax

The latest animated feature from Disney has received enormous praise, and deservedly so. Disney hasn’t quite mastered CGI yet, but they more than make up for it in storytelling prowess. When it comes to serving up a story full of heart, no studio can top them. And this time they’ve really outdone themselves.

** Spoiler Alert **

The Story
My praise begins with the script, as it rightly should. It is compelling, generous and efficient. More after a brief synopsis.

Elsa, princess of Arendelle, has the magical ability to create ice and snow, but she must hide it to prevent causing harm or fear. Her sister, Anna, unknowing of Elsa’s powers, thinks she is responsible for the rift between them and is desperate to make amends. When Elsa reaches the age to take the throne, her emotions get the better of her and her power is unleashed at the coronation. Arendelle is thrust into a perpetual winter as Elsa flees into the mountains and hides herself in an enormous ice palace.

Anna pursues her sister, determined to bring her home and end the winter spell. She finds the palace with the help of a mountain man named Kristoff and Olaf, an enchanted snowman brought to life by Elsa’s magic. Anna begs her sister to return home but Elsa refuses and, in agitation, accidentally strikes Anna with an icy blow to the heart. Without an act of true love to melt it, Anna will turn to ice.

Meanwhile, others intent on destroying Elsa capture her and are set to kill her. Though Anna has fallen in love with Kristoff and believes his kiss will save her, she instead goes to defend her sister. In the same moment that she rescues Elsa, Anna turns to ice. But because her sacrifice was an act of true love, her heart and the rest of her thaw and Elsa learns that love is the key to mastering her gift.

Trust me, that was brief. I’ve found “synopses” for Frozen that are four pages long.

Relationships are the driving force of this story—a narrative essential that is overlooked with alarming frequency. You care about these characters because of the way they care about each other. Yes, action is important, and in this film engaging, but it must be meaningful, and that comes from the characters’ motivations to act. In fact, I only recall two sequences that fell short for me, and they involve bit characters that are basically unmotivated.

The plot is very layered, especially for a children’s movie. I only told you about two of the storylines. There are at least three more. Despite their number, it isn’t the least bit confusing for a couple reasons. First, everything works to the same end, coming together naturally with thrift and at a steady, brisk pace. Second, the character of Olaf is a naïve observer who can state the obvious without it coming off ham-handed, so an adult can laugh at the simplicity of his assertions while a child is gently ushered toward the moral of the story.

The crowning achievement of this film, however is that Disney has finally managed to produce what so many have demanded of them for the longest time: an anti-princess movie. Fairly or unfairly, the specters of Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty have hung over every Disney princess of the modern age. I personally feel that those three have been caricatured as less capable than they really were. Still, the ongoing demand is for heroines who are increasingly spirited, independent, and less interested in romance.

While romance still plays a big role in Frozen, the climax of action veritably spits in the eye of “true love’s first kiss.” That, in time, may become a mark against the film, just as the spunky princess who “gets the guy” was ultimately deemed unworthy even as she upended the trope of the prince who gets the girl. Still, I think the focus on sisterly love, an overdue reminder that love isn’t limited only to the romantic sense, is a real narrative coup for Disney.

The Music
Another area where Frozen has received lavish praise is on the music. Disney has taken a slightly different approach to the songs in this film than in previous musical features. Probably owing to the number of films that eventually found their way to Broadway, Disney tapped Broadway songwriters for the musical numbers and filled the cast with veterans of song and stage. The result is a distinctly modern musical sound. It also makes the film seem as though it was adapted from the stage instead of the (very probable) other way around.

The Broadway sound lends an instant familiarity to the music; there are more than a few earworms in the bunch. Having musical theater veterans on both sides ensures that the songs are packed and delivered with dynamism, power and expression. For the most part, the songs propel the plot while being able to stand just as well on their own.

The intro tune, “Frozen Heart” is easy to overlook but does a nice job of setting a Nordic tone for the film. The next song, “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” is absolutely wrenching with its mix of cheer and longing. All that angst is released by “For the First Time in Forever,” a swelling, expository piece that is easily the most “musicalesque” number. The quirky, guitar-strumming duet “Love is an Open Door” is also a stage number that forces a broad smile and is regrettably brief.

The mood turns sharply with “Let it Go,” the show’s triumphant keystone song, sung powerfully by Wicked’s Idina Menzel. (Sorry, Demi Lovato, but you just don’t hold a candle.) This is where Elsa flees and feels free for the first time and is accompanied by spectacular visuals as she builds her ice palace. It arrives a bit early to be an Act I closer, but maybe they’ll work that out before it hits the stage, because it would be perfect.

Another sharp turn comes with “Reindeer(s) are Better than People,” a faux-duet novelty. It is little more than an extended one-liner set to music that is predictable and oh, so worth it. The introduction of Olaf the snowman leads into “In Summer,” another humorous piece (basically, Olaf longs for summer) that sets up a running gag for the rest of the show.

The only song I don’t care for is “Fixer Upper.” It feels contrived and formulaic, like it is trying too hard to be cute. But you can’t win ‘em all.

The Animation
This is the only aspect that offers a mixed bag. The animation certainly does not deserve a thumbs-down, but Disney doesn’t hold the mastery over CGI that they hold over hand-drawn animation. There is something of an unfair comparison embedded in that critique, but that’s a topic for another day.

You may have heard some slight controversy over the two main characters’ design, that they looked too much like Rapunzel from Tangled. Below is a comparison; I’ll let you be the judge.

Frankly, Disney has never labored toward diversity of appearance for its animated ingénues. The hand-drawn ladies all have acorn-shaped faces and tiny pencil-flick noses. This is par for the course. Plus, such criticisms conveniently overlook Merida from Brave.

The real disaster of character design is Olaf. Don’t get me wrong. I love the character, he’s adorable. And I understand the need to make a snowman who looks unique. But, really. Look at him.

Otherwise, the character designs are well done. There is nothing terribly original about any of them, but the characters look like Disney characters. The animation itself is not quite there yet. It is fluid (rarely a problem for CGI) but there is something robotic and weightless about some of it. It is not distracting, at least, no more than the visible sketch lines in Disney’s rush-projects of yesteryear. It is merely a sign that there is work to be done.

Conversely, the settings are magnificent. The backdrop of the Norwegian fjords is beautifully rendered, as are the snowy mountains. The kingdom of Arendelle is replete with quaint Nordic flourishes, and the CGI technology is really in its element as we witness the formation of Elsa’s ice palace.

Frozen is a huge win for Disney and it shows just how the company can compete and lead in the CGI arena. They delivered what people expect, a strong narrative, enjoyable music, and colorful characters. To keep moving forward, they only need to stick to those along with some technical ironing and, of course, a little luck.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

My Favorite Films: Westerns

I know that many of you don't like westerns. To that, I can only call you dirty commies and refuse to ever speak to you again. As for the rest of you, the good Americans among us, I could probably give you a Top 500 here, including anything by Gene Autry or Audie Murphy or John Wayne or Glenn Ford or Randolph Scott. But I'm going to keep this to the ten I turn to most often. Head 'em up!

1. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (1966): The ultimate Spaghetti Western and in many ways the ultimate Western. You've got three men, Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and Eli Wallach playing cat and mouse as they pursue a buried treasure in a grave. In the process, you have iconic moments, a twisting game of revenge complete with last second reprieves, beautifully staged gun fights, and one of the greatest scores ever in a film. I can watch this one every day.

2. The Magnificent Seven (1960): This film is just fantastic. A remake of Seven Samurai (another excellent film), you got seven big named action stars teaming up to take on Mexican bandit Eli Wallach. What makes this film so great is that it explores each character, including Wallach, and you come to like (or pity) them all, including Wallach. Add in snappy dialog, scene stealing Steve McQueen, and a booming soundtrack and this is easily the best classic Western you will ever find.

3. The Wild Bunch (1969): If the The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly was a story about antiheroes, then The Wild Bunch is simply the story of villains. One group of villains robs a bank. Another group of villains is hired to stop them. They chase them to Mexico where they encounter villainous Mexican soldiers. Directed by Sam Peckinpah, this is "tough guy" Western at its peak. It's brutal, it's bloody, and it's packed full of action and, of all things, philosophy.

4. Silverado (1985): This is a great redemption story done with tremendous ability. Interesting characters with strong relationships, great actors, some great situations, some likeable villains, and a plot that pulls you in and keeps you going from start to finish, I highly recommend this film.

5. High Plains Drifter (1973): This one's really fascinating. This is the story of a man with no name, Clint Eastwood, who may well be an avenging angel come back to town to punish the townsfolk for hiring killers to get rid of their sheriff and then watching as these killers whip him to death. Interestingly, this was remade by Eastwood in the 1980s as Pale Rider, and while Pale Rider was a good film which I enjoy very much, it completely lacks the spirit which made this film so special. This film feels like a glimpse into hell at times.

6. Dodge City (1939): If there's such a thing as a cliché Western, this is it. Errol Flynn needs to clean up Dodge City to make it safe for the good people who live there and in the process, he fights cattle barons and gunslingers. But this cliché is done right!

7. Blazing Saddles (1974): Funniest... western... ever.

8. Unforgiven (1992): This film pissed me off originally. The first time through, it felt like Eastwood was repudiating his Spaghetti Western days. But over time, I've come to see this as a film that wants to be a more serious, realistic Western, but at the same time lets us know that The Man With No Name lives in Eastwood's spirit and he'll come shoot every last one of you if you give him cause.

9. The Quick and the Dead (1995): I'll admit it, I like this one. This film was meant to deconstruct Westerns and essentially mock them. But it's got an amazing cast and it soft-pedaled the satire a little too much to achieve its purpose of sending a nasty message about Westerns. Thus, what was meant to be smug and condescending actually turns out to be a heavily-clichéd but fun Western... a serious version of Rustler's Rhapsody mixed with Bloodsport and I enjoy it.

10. High Noon (1952): This is a very uncomfortable Western because everyone is made out as a coward, a hypocrite or a monster. Nevertheless, the story is made with undeniable quality and in the end you feel satisfied when the Marshall saves the day and then walks away from the townsfolk he once thought were decent people. In a way, this is a revenge fantasy where Cooper proves everybody wrong and then shames them by leaving them to wallow in the own cowardice and avarice.

Let me also give a shout out to Sergeant Rutledge. This is a really well done film that handles race and racism in the US better than any film I've seen in Hollywood. It's also a fantastic legal drama.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: After Earth (2013)

After Earth came out in 2013 during the summer of bombs when a series of films with weak scripts and political agendas did their best to repel audiences. After Earth was one of these. But despite its weak script that does feel like a Scientology indoctrination film at times and some bizarre choices, this film was watchable. It didn’t suck.

Plot

After Earth starts with you the audience trying to figure out if Will Smith’s son is retarded: “Wow! Is that really how he talks?” I’m sure other things are happening, but that’s all you’ll notice. Within a few minutes, however, you realize that his dialect was intentional because Will Smith and some of the others speak the same way. Their speech pattern is best described as Foghorn Leghorn without the charm and minus about 40 IQ points. Apparently, the folks from Deliverance are the only ones who survive the robot holocaust.

Anyway, there are these monster things. And they are hunting humans because humans moved to their planet after we rich white Republicans destroyed the Earth with our factories and stuff. So humanity went multi-ethnic... minus the Asians who apparently all died of acceptable racism before this film takes place, and our little chocolate rainbow of inbreedery moved out into space to some alien world picked by these noble warriors, “the Power Rangers United Ranger Corps”, who are infallible... except that they picked this crappy monster planet and the fact they can’t really protect us from these monster thingies. But they are infallible.

The leader of the Rangers is Will Smith, who plays General Writer-Producer Cypher Raige (yeah, seriously). Smith is the baddest of the bad because he has learned to wipe out his fear. See, the monsters hunt us by sniffing our pheromones, which we let out when we are afraid. //chuckle chuckle Just the tiniest bit of fear can kill you. But if you can learn to never fear anything, then you can do what is called “ghosting,” which makes you invisible to these monster thingies. Then you can kill them easily with your pointy stick, which is the height of military technology.

As our story opens, poor Will Jr. is failing out of Ranger school. He’s good in the books, but really weak in the field. His father does not understand this because old Will Sr. is emotionally dead and probably blames (in a non-emotional way) Will Jr. for not saving Mrs. Will Sr. when a monster attacked the home. “Sigh My son is a dud.”

After Will Jr. is told he sucks, he and his father hop on a space flight to somewhere. No, it doesn’t matter where, because that’s not the point. In the cargo hold of the spaceship is one of these monsters. They are transporting it for the sake of the movie. Of course, the Indian cabbie pilot flies too close to an asteroid storm and they get whacked. To save the ship, they wait for Will Sr. to tell them to hit the “travel” button which sounds like space jump technology. A moment later, they are hit, then they jump, then they crash.

Surprise, you’re back on Earth, sucka!

Now, as an interesting aside, Earth seems to have been turned back into a paradise, though this goes unremarked in the film. It’s lush and beautiful and visually stunning. Real estate is dirt cheap too. The only catch is that there are some bugs and animals who are dangerous to humans (unlike now) and Will Jr. can’t breathe the air without sucking on a pacifier.

Once on the Earth, we are told that Will Sr. has a broken leg so he needs to send his wuss kid 100 km away to light off a beacon. Of course, the monster survived the crash too and it’s hungry for chicken boy, who spews pheromones like an Italian army in full retreat. Still, they have no choice, so Will Jr. heads on out.

Ok, everything you’ve read up to now is the essentially backstory and set up. This has taken about 10 minutes of the film. The next ninety minutes or so involve Will Jr. running 100 km before his air runs out and before the monster eats him. Will he light the beacon? Will he save Will Sr.? Will he overcome his humanity and make himself emotionally dead so he can kill the creature? That’s your movie.

Huh

As strange as this may sound, this film doth not suck. M. Night Shyamalan directed this and he’s pretty good with things like pacing and images. The story itself is uber-simple, but not offensive or stupid. It’s just a boy racing through the woods as he’s hunted by a monster and runs into all kinds of obstacles. At that level, I can’t really complain. The film was pretty and it was just exciting enough to be watchable. It wasn’t ever truly exciting or all that interesting, but it was watchable.

Beyond this, they tried to inject a very standard “boy must reconcile with his father” story, but that part was very, very weak. Not only are Will Smith Jr. and Sr. not really up to the task of an emotionally serious task like this, but there are some flaws which made this an impossible task. The problem is this: the film posits that the highest state of being is to be emotionally dead. So to survive, Will Jr. needs to get off his lazy, incompetent butt and learn to surrender his emotions. That’s going to make it really hard to tell an emotionally strong story if the goal of his character is to become cardboard. Even worse, the guy he’s playing off of is already cardboard. So that’s a problem.

Then it gets worse. To inject the father-son drama, the film tells us that Will Sr. needs to stop being so distant and so (non-emotionally) angry at his son. This is a cliché father-son storyline, but it doesn’t make any sense here. Are we to believe that being emotionally dead is a good thing or a bad thing? It seems to be a good thing for Jr. but a bad thing for Sr. We’re told this is the ultimate goal of humanity, but it obviously has ruined two lives. So what is it? Even worse, why doesn’t the film recognize this problem and resolve the conflict? Worse yet, neither Will Sr. nor Will Jr. is up to handling this paradox. Consequently, their relationship sputters and stalls and jumps in multiple directions at once. Moreover, a low-dialog film like this requires the actors to project their emotions and thoughts more so the audience can understand them, yet neither actor is very good at that, especially with both trying to play emotionless drones, and with neither actor even in the same location. Each of these choices really undercuts the storyline and makes it uninteresting.

Anyway, as with Oblivion, this film was better than you would expect given its 11% rating from the critics. Also like Oblivion, this feels like an adult science fiction story in many ways, for which I’m always thankful. But unlike Oblivion, this one isn’t. This is just a "chased by hillbillies monster" movie combined with a flat "father-son reconciliation" story. There’s really no science fiction to it except as the setting. Still, the end result was surprisingly watchable, though I wouldn’t call it interesting. Ultimately, I would say that if you watch it, it will hold your attention, but you won’t remember a thing about it the moment the credits start.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bond-arama: No. 004 Casino Royale (2006)

Casino Royale is the first official “reboot” of the James Bond franchise, though unofficially there were several prior reboots. This time, they took the franchise is a much darker, smaller and more realistic direction. This is not the Bond of volcano lairs and stolen nuclear weapons, this is the Bond who fights modern terrorists. With a new Bond and a new style, they produced what is arguable one of the best Bond films ever. And if it weren’t for the historical advantage of the three films above it (and some problems near the end), this one could arguably rate at or near the top. As it is, it sits at No. 004 of 0023.

Plot Quality: Casino Royale has a unique plot. For one thing, this is really the story of the villain more than it is the story of Bond. For another, this is the “smallest” Bond film ever as most of it takes place in a casino. There are action scenes attached to it, but the driving force is the drama of the card game. There is nothing else like this in the series.

Casino Royale begins with Bond chasing down an explosives maker in Africa named Mollaka. Bond has just been promoted to double-O status and his job is to monitor and capture Mollaka, but he ends up killing him by nearly blowing up an embassy. M is furious and wants Bond brought in for a debriefing, but Bond ignores her and follows the clues he found to the Bahamas, where he finds Alex Dimitrios, an associate of a banker named Le Chiffre. Bond kills Dimitrios and follows his henchman Carlos to Miami International Airport, where he discovers that Carlos intends to explode a prototype jetliner. Bond stops Carlos by planting the bomb on Carlo’s body. Carlos then blows himself up by mistake.

With Bond having foiled Carlos, Le Chiffre finds himself in a world of trouble. He has taken his terrorist clients’ money and used it to short-sell the company who makes the jetliner. When the jet does not explode, the stock price does not fall and Le Chiffre loses his investment. He must now raise one hundred million dollars before his clients kill him for losing their money. To do this, he arranges a high stakes poker game in the Casino Royale in Montenegro.

MI-6 enters Bond into the tournament in the hopes of defeating Le Chiffre. If they can defeat him, then they can blackmail him into spying on his clients for them. Aiding Bond in this are a British Treasury agent, Vesper Lynd, whose role is to protect the $10 million Bond needs to buy his way into the tournament, and René Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), a local MI-6 contact.

As the game unfolds, we see a rashness in Bond that proves to be his biggest weakness. Le Chiffre exploits this and soon Bond is wiped out. Vesper then refused to give him the rest of the money he needs to keep playing. At that point, we discover that another one of the players is Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright). He still has money but isn’t a very good player, so he agrees to sponsor Bond to keep him playing in exchange for Bond letting the CIA have Le Chiffre. Bond agrees and eventually beats Le Chiffre.

Soon thereafter, Le Chiffre abducts Vesper and Bond pursues him. But this is a trap and Bond is captured. Bond is then tortured for the codes to the Swiss bank account into which the money has been deposited. The torture, however, is interrupted when Le Chiffre’s superior, Mr. White, arrives and kills Le Chiffre.

Bond awakens in a hospital and has Mathis arrested for being a double agent. Then he admits to Vesper that he loves her and he plans to resign from MI-6 to be with her. They go to Venice, where Bond learns that Vesper never deposited the Treasury’s money. He chases her and is attacked by Mr. White and his henchmen. In the ensuing fight, the house they are in collapses into the water over which it is built and Vesper dies. The film ends with Bond shooting Mr. White in the leg and taking him in for interrogation.

This film does a lot really well. First, it’s beautifully shot and the sets and scenery are fantastic. One mistake they do make, however, is in going for extreme close-ups and shaky cam action pieces – they do some amazing stunts, but you never get to see them because the director shoots them as close-ups. The travelogue feel is definitely back. So is the sense of class or opulence we like in Bond as everyone is well-dressed and he only goes to luxurious places... no smelly tourists pushing $1 bets in these casinos.

The plot is fast and strong and intense too. It twists and turns throughout. The writing is good too and the dialog is strong. The film is also strewn with interesting moments where we see the Bond elements reassembled. We see him get the Aston Martin. He meets Felix for the first time. We see him make his first vodka martini. We hear his first use of “Bond, James Bond.” The relationships of the characters are interesting too. All told, this is an excellent film that is well put together on a great many levels. It could almost be the best in the series.

That said, there are some flaws. For example, the device of M being upset that Bond was promoted too soon grates, seeing as how Craig is already rather old looking. The big problem, however, is the ending. For one thing, the timing simply doesn’t work. The CIA failing to pick up Le Chiffre immediately and no one bothering to notice that Vesper hasn’t deposited the money with the government for what should be days don’t work. Mr. White coming in to save Bond at the critical moment isn’t very credible either. Indeed, the most likely realistic result of that scene is that White would have shot Bond and then tortured Le Chiffre. It is also hard to believe that aged, experience, cold-blooded Mr. Bond would chuck his job for Vesper.

Despite these flaws, this is a stellar film, but it would have been better with the last 15 minutes lopped off. They don’t fit the rest of the very tight script – they feel like someone felt forced to impose a “big ending” on a strong, personal film.

Bond Quality: This was Daniel Craig’s first outing as Bond and a lot of people thought he wouldn’t be up to the task. Craig wasn’t exactly internationally known and he doesn’t come across as suave. He’s short too, and people didn’t like that he was blond. A great many people seemed to want Clive Owen instead. Craig, however, proved them all wrong. From the very first frame of the film, he grabs the role and he never lets it go. And by the time the movie was over, people were calling him the best Bond since Connery.

What Craig brings to this role which the others didn’t is a sense of genuine menace and relentlessness. When Craig’s Bond targets you, there is no escape. He’s like the Terminator. Yet, at the same time, he’s so tightly wound that you think he’s always ready to explode even as he comes across as the most cold-blooded Bond ever. Connery had flashes of this cold-bloodedness, particularly in Dr. No, but Craig lives it in every scene. Apart from this, Craig does lack the charm Connery had, but the writers help hide that by matching him with equally cold women, which limits the sex in his films, and makes his male-female relationships almost combative.

The Bond Girl: The Bond girl here is Eva Green, who plays Vesper Lynd. Frankly, she’s the weak spot in this film. Yes, the story is largely about the love-hate relationship between these two, but there just isn’t enough passion between them to make it work. Still, Green is adequate and she’s not the focus of the film, apart from the last 15 minutes.

The real relationship(s) Bond has in this film are with men: Mathis and Leiter. Both are much closer relationships than the one he has with Vesper. In fact, it is the relationship between Bond and Mathis which drives the film and the relationship between Bond and Leiter that gives the film its second act. I would measure the quality of these relationships as being on a par with those in the Ocean’s franchise starring George Clooney and Brad Pitt. Wright and Bond and Giannini and Bond are simply compelling together. And they also bring a welcome heist feel to the film.

Villain Quality: Casino Royale has a fascinating villain. He is Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a man whose primary villainy is that he launders money for terrorists. In other words, he makes it possible for them to use their ill-gotten funds to fund their activities. But there is more to Le Chiffre. Le Chiffre has been using his clients’ funds to gamble. Well, gamble is an odd word. What he’s done is take his clients’ money and use it to short the stock of the company that makes the Skyfleet airliner, a prototype plane being flown out of Miami. His plan is to have a henchman (Carlos) blow up the prototype, which will tank their stock and make him super wealthy when the stock price falls.

Things go wrong for Le Chiffre when Bond traces a terrorist to Carlos and follows Carlos to Miami. Once there, Bond saves the plane, preventing the stock price from falling and causing Le Chiffre’s bet to become worthless. Le Chiffre has lost his clients’ money and they will not be happy about this. In the hopes of saving his butt, Le Chiffre sets up a high-stakes poker game at the Casino Royale in Montenegro. The game has a $10 million buy in. MI-6 sees this as an opportunity to force Le Chiffre to work for them. They enter Bond in the tournament with the idea being that if Bond can win, then Le Chiffre won’t have the money he needs. To avoid being killed by his angry clients, Le Chiffre will then agree to spy for MI-6 if they agree to cover what he owes to his terrorist clients. That's "the scheme." No prior Bond film has had a scheme like this, where the villain's life is at stake.

This is all very cool and it’s different from any prior James Bond villain. What they’ve done here is take what would normally be the villain’s backstory, i.e. the background told to Bond by M as M briefs him about the mission, and they’ve made that the plot. This is an interesting choice which makes Le Chiffre perhaps the most interesting villain ever in a Bond film because you are actually watching his story rather than Bond’s story.

It also helps that Mikkelsen is fantastically creepy in the role, and he manages to walk the line between being seen as a genuine threat to Bond while being seen as terrified of the killers who want their money back from him. He is no ordinary banker. All of this makes him a fascinating and compelling villain, even if his “scheme” would normally be considered far too small to sustain a Bond film. What seems to help here in particular, is the sense that Le Chiffre is just a front for something much bigger.

All of this adds up to an excellent Bond film. Indeed, this could well be the best in the series, though I think at this point, we are largely in the “matter of personal taste” realm. And if it weren’t for the tradition with which the other films have been steeped and a bit of a strange left turn in the final fifteen minutes, this could easily be at or near the top. So in the future, I could see this entering the discussion of “best Bond,” but right now it still sits at No. 004 of 0023.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What Woody Allen Tells Us

Let’s talk about Woody Allen. For those who don’t know, Woody Allen’s adopted daughter has just written a letter accusing him of molesting her when she was 7. These aren’t new allegations, but they are unresolved. My question is, how should we respond?

To begin, let us be clear. We have no idea if these allegations are true or not. On the one hand, we have no reason to doubt the daughter. But, these allegations first arose from the mother Mia Farrow during nasty litigation against Allen in which she was trying to get his adoption of her children nullified. So they could well have been invented by Farrow -- a seven year old would come to believe these things happened if the mother pushes them as true. On the other hand, the reason Farrow left Allen was that he had begun a relationship with her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, and Farrow found naked pictures Allen had taken of her – he would go on to marry Previn. Although Allen never adopted Previn, he did unofficially act as her step-father. Uber-creepy. So there are reasons to believe and to not believe.

So how do we handle something like this?

Allen, unfortunately, sits in a special place in our society. He has created and continues to create works of art (films) that the public respects and enjoys. Several of his films have become iconic and can arguably be considered as culture forming. So if we believe he is guilty, do we throw away the work or do we separate the man from the work and keep his contribution or do we let his crimes pass?

The moralist in me says that if we believe Allen is guilty, then we should shun Allen and his works. But I know that’s not how society works. It’s certainly not how Hollywood works. In fact, there was an interesting (read: disturbing) article the other day which gave four reasons why Hollywood continues to ignore these allegations and actively seeks to work with him:

(1) Allen has talent and his films can raise an actor up into the next tier of actordom. Specifically, his films have brought a certain level of immortality to the actors who have been in them, something you won’t be getting out of Green Lantern II: It Pukes Yellow.

(2) There is no conviction, and Hollywood works on technicalities, not moralities.

(3) Allen's films are Oscar bait and that means the chance of getting an award goes way up by staring in his films.

(4) Most disturbingly, there apparently isn’t a major film set in Hollywood without “a genuine creep – someone with reprehensible habits in the bedroom, boardroom or bathroom; someone who has committed crimes and had them swept under a deep carpet crafted out of threat letters from lawyers and publicists. . . actors know this and most see no reason to blow off one director when there are dozens of others.”

In other words, it benefits the actors and everybody does it. Nice.

Anyways, before we condemn these people too loudly, the public does this too. It’s pretty rare that a person gets expunged from history. In fact, I can only think of one – Hitler. And even then, his ideas and his works are still exploited to a degree. Our military and scientists were happy to take what the Nazis developed. We certainly didn’t throw away the good ideas he had, like highways. And Hollywood loves a good Nazi.

So the question is how bad does your crime need to become before you become perona non grata? And does any of this change if the person shows contrition? Allen denies everything, Polanski gets angry about being charged, but what if either had admitted their acts and asked for forgiveness? Local evangelical jerkoff preacher Ted Haggard is back at it again after his gay sex and meth diet was exposed. He did the redemption thing at first, but now he's calling himself battle tested, which is frankly a joke... but it seems to work.

I guess the lesson is that we talk big about morality, but as long as people claim “hey, that was in the past,” then we kind of look past the things they did.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Toon-arama: Jonny Quest (1964-1965)

Jonny Quest is an amazing cartoon. Everything about it works, from its realistic, comic book drawing style to its fast plots to its intriguing storylines to its cool characters. This is every young boy’s fantasy. Too bad they only made 26 episodes. Sigh. Still, the ones we have are fantastic.

Jonny Quest is ostensibly the story of Jonny Quest, the son of Dr. Benton C. Quest, a multi-field scientific genius who is considered one of the top scientists in the world. In truth, however, the story is really that of Race Bannon, a special agent and bodyguard hired to protect Jonny from falling into the wrong hands, which would compromise Dr. Quest.

Bannon is the ideal masculine image. He’s tall, strong and athletic, and comes from a good mid-western family. He has incredible skills, everything from being a pilot to being trained in a variety of weapons to being a judo expert, and when it comes to hunting, skydiving, scuba diving, skiing, aerial combat, defensive driving, he’s done it all. He’s clever, active, and afraid of nothing. In a very real sense, Bannon is an American James Bond. Unlike Bond, however, Bannon never loses touch with his responsibilities, which are to protect Jonny and Dr. Quest.

The people Bannon is protecting Dr. Quest and Jonny from are first and foremost, Dr. Quest’s nemesis Dr. Zin. Zin is a cartoon version of Dr. No and his organization is similar to James Bond’s SPECTRE. Zin and his group are constantly trying to steal Quest’s inventions or sabotage them. Zin also does things like trying to launch a rocket. Apart from Zin, each episode Dr. Quest and Jonny run into someone who has it in for them. This could be anyone from a scientist friend turned to evil, a monster created by accident, an old Nazi hiding on a mountain top, or angry natives.

Accompanying the group is Jonny’s friend Hadji, an Indian orphan who performs a few magic tricks and is generally a little more responsible than Jonny... but not much. He’s been unofficially adopted by Dr. Quest. Also along for the ride is Jonny’s annoying dog Bandit – Bandit is a smart and capable dog, but his bark is rather annoying as a sound effect.

The story is episodic and encompasses 26 episodes in total. In those 26 episodes, Jonny and his father and Race and Hadji travel the world to all the cool places kids read about in adventure stories: the mysterious Orient, the Egyptian ruins, secret mountaintop castles, India, Nepal, Africa, jungles, the Caribbean, etc. They reach these places in Dr. Quest’s private jet and, in each location, they fight a villain or a monster of some sort and prevail.

Unlike other cartoons of the era, and indeed unlike cartoons even today, the show was rather violent. People were constantly being shot and killed or fed to giant lizards or something. The bad guys were genuinely bad and thought nothing of enslaving a village or killing it off, and the good guys shot first and asked questions later. This made for a fast-paced, exciting cartoon that brings to life all the old adventure books that so many generations of young boys loved. This isn’t Tin Tin.

Moreover, the show was unique on television. In an age where cute, stylized characters were the thing, the characters here were drawn in a more realistic comic-book style. To supplement this, they avoided using the never-ending scrolling backgrounds whenever possible. They directed these like real movies with cutaways, scene-to-scene dissolves, and reaction shots. Nothing else really looks like this because of that. In effect, this was an early animated action show rather than a cartoon, something I normally do not like, but which fits the storylines perfectly here as these stories were in no way cartoonish.

The writing was unique too as it was noir style writing, i.e. short impactful sentences and limited dialog overall. No other cartoon used this style of dialog. The soundtrack too wasn’t your standard pop or classic soundtrack found with most cartoons. This show used a big-band jazz theme which was heavy on the percussion. This again makes the show stand out.

All told, this was really top notch stuff.

Of course, you can’t have something good without the permanently offended trying to take it away. Because of the violence, Jonny Quest was shown in prime time rather than during kiddy hour. The show was both a critical and ratings success, but was cancelled after one year after it became a target by the parental whiner group Action for Children’s Television who lamented the onscreen deaths, the murder attempts, the use of guns, and the moments that scared their pathetic kids.

After cancellation, the show went into syndication and continued to do really well until it was finally taken off the air in 1972 because of the whiners.

Attempts were made to re-edit the show to remove the “objectionable” material. In fact, they refocused on the dog and tried to make him the center of each show as if this glorious action adventure had been a comedy about a barking dog. This resulted in lots of stupidity as villains would seemingly drop dead without a single shot ever being fired and things would happen for no apparent reason.

In the 1980s, they created the New Adventures of Jonny Quest. These were a waste. They tried to be more kid-friendly and in the process lost everything that gave the originals life. Skip those.

Anyways, if you get the chance, check these out. They are fun, intense and interesting. The characters are strong, as is the writing, the drawing style and music and direction are all stupendous, and it’s just a great adventure.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

My Favorite Films: Sports Films

With the Superbowl upon us today, I thought I would list my favorite sports movies. Ironically, this is a genre that to me is defined more by its failure than its successes. Sports is tailor-made for drama and film, and yet so many sports films just don't seem to get what draws people to sports. In any event, here goes.

1. Major League (1989): One of the problems with serious sports films is that they focus only on the ugly, cynical side of sports. They may or may not have that one moment of triumph at the end, but they skip all the other things that make us love sports. Major League is a comedy and it chooses instead to focus on all of that. And the end result is the definitive baseball movie. Seriously. This comedy has it all: the whacky hijinx that surround sports teams, the good and bad characters, the tropes we really believe, the ugly underbelly that we sometimes read about as well as the childlike joy of playing sports, bad owners, crazy fans, fair weather fans, loyal fans, the start of brilliant careers, the end of other careers, and all the amazing lows and the unbelievable highs that only sports can bring. It's all here.

2. The Longest Yard (1974): That this ranks as a sports film really shows you how poorly Hollywood does sports. This is really a prison movie with a sports subplot. That said, it's a hell of a film. This film takes all the tension and drama of a prison movie and lets that tension be released in a brutal football game between the guards and the convicts, with Burt Reynolds as their quarterback. Solid fun here.

3. The Bad News Bears (1976): This is a fascinating film. This is a "losers do well film," which has become the standard format for sports films, but this is the first film I can recall doing that. What really makes this film work for me though, is the sense of nostalgia it brings for the 1970s. This was an era where people weren't rule bound or litigious, didn't obsess about safety and self-esteem, and weren't afraid to let their kids be kids. And while the Bears are a multi-ethnic team to make a point and their star is a girl, this film was not making a politically correct point... it was making comedic points. That's so refreshing in our demographically-regulated world.

4. All The Right Moves (1983): This is a depressing film, but it's compelling. It's the first film that really made me realize that Tom Cruise can act. It also felt very real to me in terms of the high school football experience.

5. Rocky (1976): This is one of the best sports films around, even though I don't like boxing. Rocky's character and his struggle to prove himself is truly inspiring and there is just enough of a glimpse into the boxing world (without smothering us) that it feels like you are getting some insight from the film too.

6. Friday Night Lights (2004): This is the definitive high school football "exposé film." This film is highly derivative, but it derived well. I can't say I love this one, but I do find that I watch it periodically and I enjoy it.

7. Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004): First of all, I love dodgeball... damn you sick f***s who got it banned from schools. What I love about this film though is both that it's so ridiculous, yet it perfectly parodies other sports films, and Rip Torn, who delivers some of the best lines of all time.

8. Real Steel (2011): Yeah, how sad that a movie about fake robot boxing makes the list... what does this say about other sports film? Anyway, this is a highly manipulative film that really lands every blow it attempts. What makes this film work ultimately is the touching father-son story, where the roles are reversed and the son is the more responsible one. It's hard not to cheer during this film.

9. Slapshot (1977): Yeah, I like this one. This is a dark comedy that's a lot more dark than comedy, but it's satisfying. The story involves a failing minor league hockey team captained by Paul Newman who decides to inject a little chaos into things when he realizes the team is falling apart. It's an interesting film with some compelling characters and moments.

Others I Like: There are other sports films I like, but not enough to really recommend. Days of Thunder was a decent movie, but forgettable. Bull Durham was good, but feels overshadowed to me by Major League. I do love Field of Dreams and The Blind Side, but neither really includes any sports. Here's one I like though, Heaven Can Wait, a 1970s comedy that is well worth the time... and has a great theme song. I also sort of recommend North Dallas Forty as a fascinating, but unsatisfying film -- it needed more. I despise Any Given Sunday, however, as nothing more than a glitzy rip off of North Dallas Forty, with nothing new to say.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...