Thursday, April 29, 2010

Why Jason Patric Should Be in Every Movie


By now Jason Patric has become just about one of my favourite actors. He started out in the 80s as a heartthrob of sorts and made his name in stuff like The Lost Boys. But in 1990 he proved just what an excellent actor he is in a film that got little recognition at the time called After Dark, My Sweet. In it he starred beside Bruce Dern (another inductee in this list) as a worn out drifter who gave up a career in boxing and looks like it was maybe a good idea because he seems to have taken maybe one too many shots to the head.

Here Patric creates a perfect film noir hero. a guy who we don't quite know what to make of: is he good, is he bad, does he have alerter motives or is he really just a burned out bum? Here, as with every subsequent great performance, Patric creates characters out of his presence, not his ability as an actor. He plays things internally, letting notes stew just below the surface. He's the kind of cool, collected man who could burst out at any moment as if he seems to be folding in on himself in order to contain his hidden rage.




It's no surprise then that Patric would go on to star in one of the coldest, most uncomfortable scenes in all of American film in Neil Labute's Your Friends and Neighbours. Watch as Patric looks on, telling his story, completely oblivious to the fact that what is conveying is truly horrifying. This is a man without a pulse and Patric creates him, once again, through presence and not showmanship. He's just there, cold, heartless, empty (note- this scene is at the heart of the film so if you don't want to spoil it, and you shouldn't since it's a masterpiece, don't watch this)




Patric played it tough and gritty and the police drama Narc but it was in another underrated gem, My Sister's Keeper that he changed his tune. Once again, he relied on his presence, but this time he was the emotional heart of a film and every scene he was in was a keeper. Rarely have Hollywood films presented dads as so honestly what they are: caring, understanding, rationale and suppurating from the background. Watch what Patric's presence does to the trailer alone:




Patric belongs to the film's best scene (which appears at the 1:53 mark). Look at how he takes the scene, not by making himself the center of it, but by reacting to it; knowing what it needs and giving it nothing more than that though the look of the eyes, the slant of the mouth, etc. These are roles that many actors would take and go over-the-top with, but not Patric who is an actor who understands the concept of restraint. He finds the truth in a scene and leaves it at that.

The Losers (4 out of 5)


The Losers is based on a comic book but it looks and feels more like an action movie. It’s big, loud, violent and dumb. God bless it. It recalls a time when action movies were allowed to be fun. Remember that? When they were just as much about personality as they were action, which The Losers has plenty of regardless? It has running, jumping, fighting, shooting, and, gasp, explosions that are created through the combination of gasoline, heat and oxygen, not a mouse and a keyboard. Remember that too? The Losers doesn’t go so far as to give rebirth to the classic days of the action hero, but it does manage to wrestle the genre away from the high tech, artificial flashes of light, sound and colour that have become a mainstay as of late and give it back to the characters who occupy it. Hey, it’s a start.

The Losers are a group of skilled military men, employed by the CIA to, oh I donno, kill bad guys. But when a mission is botched by an evil insider who goes by the name Max, the group pretends they are dead and set up shop in Bolivia where they hide away and live their new life. The team is made up of the leader Clay (Jeffery Dean Morgan), the tech guy Jensen (Chris Evans), the knife guy Roque (Idris Elba), the bomb guy Pooch (Columbus Short) and the marksman Cougar (Oscar Jaenada).

The team are getting along and getting by but deep down Clay wants to find Max and take him out for blowing up 25 innocent kids with a missile that was meant for him and his team. Max, it might as well be stated, when he finally appears, is played by one-time heartthrob turned character actor Jason Patrick who manages the wonderful feat of creating a completely original villain just through the nature of his presence. A lesser actor would have flown way over-the-top in the same role but Patrick always keeps both feet on the ground. He’s so good at creating evil men that he takes the role one step further into comedy instead making him both A) the film’s most amusing character and B) all the more shocking when his violence suddenly erupts.

Into the mix comes Aisha (Avatar’s Zoe Saladana) who hunts The Losers down in Boliva and is first mistaken for a foe so that, oh I donno, the film can justify burning down a hotel room. Fair enough. Turns out Aisha has one concern: killing Max. Why she wants to is unknown to the group but hey, she’ll cop the tab and they get their names cleared. Sounds good.

That’s the plot, the rest is all attitude. It’s kind of funny, kind of exciting, and all around, you know, kind of enjoyable in its glee for pulling out all of the stops for no better reason than to pull out all the stops. You’ve got to admire that. Action movies have been so mindless and hollow for so long that you’ve got to flag the ones with good senses about themselves. There’s a scene towards the end, during the big final shoot-out between Max and The Losers where a motorcycle becomes the prop at the centre of a wonderful action sequence. Many people who value their hearts and their minds will take issue with this. They’ll call it ridiculous. I don’t know, I call it kind of inspired because for one, there’s a certain danger, and therefore excitement, in ramping a motorbike off a high incline, second, motorbikes represent speed and speed somehow always translates into excitement and third, it’s something original. Good action movies take a certain degree of creativity to pull off successfully. The Losers has it to spare.

Maybe that has something to do with the script, which was written by that valuable subverter of genres Peter Berg whose own The Rundown was another staple of action filmmaking of the highest order. Heck, it may have been the last great Hollywood action movie. Here, like there, Berg creates actual characters out of personality types which is then elevated into fruition by the actors, while director Sylvain White goes into hyper-stylist overdrive trying to make everything look as delicious and exciting as possible. Sure, it’s trash, but it’s good trash and you know what Pauline Kael said: if we can’t enjoy good trash, why bother going to the movies in the first place?

7 Movie Questions

So in between working on the list and writing a review for The Losers and another Why X Should Be in Every Movie entry so that I had some stand-up stuff before said list takes over this space completely, I was tagged by Univarn to do another one of these memes. That's fine, I enjoy them. This one was started by Movienut14. It's 7 movies questions. So here goes:

1) What was you first movie-going experience?

The first time I went to the theater was to see Tomorrow Never Dies. I've probably told this story before but I was deathly scared of blood for the longest time and so therefore had never seen an action movie before. I was at my aunt's one time and Goldeneye was playing in the background and I watched it nervously being totally excited by it but ready to turn away quickly at any sight of blood and to my pleasure none ever came. It was my birthday a couple weeks later and me and some friends decided to rent a movie so I suggested Goldeneye. Needless to say we loved it and my love of shoot-outs and explosions was born and my fear of blood evaporated. Turns out, several weeks later, Tomorrow Never Dies was opening at the local theater and we just needed to see it right away and we did and that was my first time at the theater.

2) How many DVDs do you own?

DVD Aficionado tells me I own 1212 but I know it's more than that because some are stand-up comedy DVDs that aren't on that site and some are box sets which are counted as one but you know, have like 4 or 5 movies in them, so it's more like 1250 I'd guess.

3) What is your guilty pleasure movie?

I have a lot of them because, as someone told me and as I am very aware of, I am a lot easier a critic than some of my fellow bloggers who just aren't as easy to impress. What can I saw, I'm just as much a movie fan as I am film scholar. So anyway, some that I would pick would be Hollywood Homicide, The Honeymooners, The Wicker Man remake and so on. But really, no pleasures should be guilty.

4) You have compiled a list of your top 100 movies. Which movies didn't make the cut?

I really have no good answer to this because too many wouldn't make the cut.

5) Which movie(s) do you compulsively watch over and over again?

Adaptation, Commando, FUBAR, Police Squad (that's TV I know), you know, fun ones.

6) Classic(s) you're embarrassed to admit you haven't seen yet?

Okay, let the judgement be passed. I've never seen The Godfather Part 2. I own the box set and have seen the other two but that one has just eluded me thus far.

7) What movie posters do you have hanging on your wall?

La Dolce Vita, Boogie Nights, The Godfather, The Dark Knight, Casino

Okay, on to tagging:

Wild Celtic
The Movie Snob
Hal
Vancetastic

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Another List Announcement


Six days and the mystery list will be upon us. I've read a few of the entries and let me tell you ladies and gentlemen, they are good. I think I can also safely tell you that it'll be big (at one entry a day it will more than likely consume this site for the better part of a month). Although I'm still keeping the topic under lock and key I can bait your appetite a little more by telling you what films could have been on the list but wern't because, well, if we let every film on the list it could probably go on forever (or at least two months). So, can you make a connection between these films and guess what the list is about or are you scratching your head even more now and waiting with baited breath to know just what the heck this thing is about?


Last House on the Left

The Birds

Breathless

Clerks

Dawn of the Dead

The Exorcist

Fargo

The Fugitive

Citizen Kane

Persona

M*A*S*H

Dances with Wolves

Last Tango in Paris

Magnolia

Men in Black

Dirty Harry

Psycho

Yojimbo

Rosemary's Baby

Harold and Maude

The Breakfast Club

Silence of the Lambs

The Sixth Sense

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Speed

Suspiria

There's Something About Mary

Titanic

Vertigo

The Notebook

The Wild Bunch


Alright, put your thinking caps on.

Monday, April 26, 2010

A List Announcement


So if you read this space regularly you probably know that I'm compiling a list. The nature of the list and what it is counting down is a secret that will be revealed with the first entry. I can tell you this though: the first entry into the list will be posted in exactly one week, next Monday May 2, 2010. I can also tell you that one film will be revealed per day until the number one position is revealed.

I can also tell you, as I have before, that this is a collaborative effort. Each entry will be accompanied with an explanation from a reputable blogger, each of whom will also be contributing to the voting process to decide what order the films in question should appear on the list. So even if you don't agree with what number a film is presented at, well, it's not just my opinion, it's the pooled opinion of the contributors so ya know, take that.

Anyway, in order to get you excited I will reveal the list of people who will be contributing/voting in no particular order:




M. Carter @ M. Carter @ The Movies (http://mcarteratthemovies.wordpress.com/)

Simon @ Four of Them


Gringo @ He Shot Cryus


Wynter @ Cinema Scream












So there you go. Pass the week by checking out their blogs because they are all good ones and then tomorrow I'll reveal a little more. Stay tuned.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Linking Once Again

I haven't done the whole link thing in a while because I have really done much of anything in a while. I've been juggling studying for exams this week and trying to create a list that is going to be something entertaining, original and meaningful. On that note, I'll have an announcement about that on Monday, so until then you'll just have to wait in suspense, but a review of the Losers will be coming soon so you can look forward to that.

Univarn counts down his five favourite Miyazaki films. I didn't even really know he had more than 4.

Yojimbo didn't really think Kick Ass kicked much ass but Vancetastic did.

I liked Angels and Demons, Wild Celtic didn't like Angels and Demons, Karla liked Angels and Demons and Burning Reels didn't like Angels and Demons. Who will break this tie?

Travis at The Movie Encyclopedia has a video store closing by him and he's picked up a lot of good titles (and some not so good ones too). Check out his haul.

Casey counts down his top 10 super hero movies.

Luke's 34th favourite movie is Woody Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters. A good choice indeed.

Julian Stark is hosting 23 Days of Robert Downey Jr.

Filmgeek didn't like Adaptation and doesn't like Nicholas Cage. Do I really need to tell you I disagree?

Kid in the Front Row discovered Sasah Grey's acting abilities in The Girlfriend Experience, and the rest of her abilities elsewhere online.

Some anonymous commenter is giving Simon's sister a hard time. I know I thought the same thing: what, Simon has a sister?

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Thanks to Everyone


To everyone who responded to my last post about creating a mystery list, I thank you. The support has been wonderful and proof that the movie blogging community is made up of people who support each other and are connected through a love of film.

With that though, I have to announce that there is no room left for any more participants. But please, still follow along, tell your friends, leave comments, argue, debate, prove us wrong, tell us how narrow-sighted we are, tell us how ignorant we were for leaving your favourite film off the list, whatever.

And to all those who are following here, wondering just what the heck this thing could be and what it's all about, well, it's a secret, but I'll reveal a few details in the coming days, just to get you excited.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Big Things Just Over the Horizon


I'm creating a list. I'm not going to tell you what the list is about because then it wouldn't be a surprise. What I will tell you though is that I want you to participate. I have a list of bloggers who participated in the Desert Island DVD thing who I will be contacting but some of the people who I read regularly and who read me didn't participate in that yet I'd like for them to participate in this if they are feeling up to it. The reason: if I create a list then it's just another list that I created. However, if a bunch of people vote on it and contribute to it then maybe it can hold some worth. So, if you're interested and weren't on that Desert Island mailing list, drop me a line at my e mail: ml_movies@hotmail.com and tell me that you are interested in participating and I'll e mail the details within the next couple days. Trust me, it will be fun and unique!

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Sleepaway Camp


So last night I had a few drinks with the lady and whenever that happens we usually end up watching a really bad movie. It was a toss up between Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, Leprechaun In the Hood or Sleepaway Camp. We ended up watching Sleepaway Camp from 1983, which is a summer camp slasher movie that is about as bad and cheap looking as any I have ever seen (it apparently has 3 sequels too). The movie is about a killer running amuck at a summer camp that is being attended by a mouthy kid and his mute cousin whose father and brother are killed in an opening epilogue that's about as funny as any death scene I can imagine. While at camp the girl is made fun of by the slutty popular girl and the moronic counsellors while the guy in charge of the camp worries about his reputation as people are getting killed off one by one.

The movie itself is never once scary and is oftentimes very funny in it's amateurism (it looks like something I could have filmed on my back yard with a video camera that records on VHS), and leads to a really stupid conclusion that the movie itself advertises as one of the most shocking ever filmed.

Whenever I watch a movie like this I always wonder A) who actually put money into this and B) do people actually take this stuff seriously? So I was shocked when I went on Rotten Tomatoes and found that 7 of the 10 critics featured gave it a positive review. I know, none of these people fall into the Top Critic category but still, they are talking about it as if it is a serious piece of filmmaking. Here's some excerpts:

Tim Brayton says: Not a particularly effective movie... [but] it is an exceptionally memorable one - one that lingers in the brain, disturbing and discomfiting

Some guy named Stefan whose last name is too long for me to want to type out says: classic stuff, the ending is the creepiest since "invasion of the body snatchers"

Rumsey Taylor says: Sleepaway Camp belongs to a pool of slasher films known for their generic prolificacy; it must be noted that it is one of the first and best

Nick Schager says: Still the finest Sleepaway Camp, if only because of its memorable final shot.

And Pablo Villaca says: Capaz de despertar risos graças ao estilo datado (vide figurinos), ao roteiro ridículo e à direção capenga (o acidente que abre a narrativa é genial neste aspecto), merece créditos pelo plano final, que é simultaneamente hilário e perturbador. I have no idea what that means but it was a positive review nonetheless.

The movie's Wikipedia page even quotes someone with a Ph.D who, without giving anything away, wrote about the film for a thesis as if it were a serious work that needed to be considered on some level of social commentary.

So what the heck? Do people actually take movies like this seriously? Does Troma actually produce great works of art with unquestionable social significant and we just don't notice it?

Here's the trailer for this movie, what do you think: stupid or groundbreaking?





Just as a side note, although the trailer looks kind of scary, those scenes are the only "slasher movie" scenes in the entire movie. The rest is just kids doing camp things like playing baseball while councillors in too tight shorts look on stupidly.

Here's the ending if your curious but don't want to sit through the whole thing



Revisiting The Wicker Man Remake (3.5 out of 5)


Considering the first paragraph of my review of Death at a Funeral, I thought I'd look back at a review I wrote for Neil Labute's remake of The Wicker Man a couple years ago.

The Wicker Man is not a very good film, but it’s an interesting experience. It is not engaging, not scary and not even all that entertaining or likable, however I’m giving it three and a half stars which, in some small way, translates into a recommendation. I recommend it because, as big a mess as it is, it’s also dark, angry, cynical and, pessimistic; a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Hollywood has been playing it safe for so many years that it’s kind of uncanny that anyone would have the nerve to make this at all.

That anyone is Neil Labute who, outside of Todd Solandz, is probably the most unrelenting member of the new group of “auteur” filmmakers to emerge from the independent world in the 90’s. However, like many filmmakers before and after, Labute operates under a system that Solandz has thus far been able to escape: the “one for us, one for them” archetype. Thus, filmmakers make a film that the studios can sell, then giving them the freedom to then make the one that’s dear to their hearts. It can’t be stated as fact, but I have a sinking suspicion that if it were not for this system, Labute would not even be interested in poor remakes of cult horror films. However, to view the Wicker Man as the product of its specific maker, we begin to understand why Labute would be drawn to it.

When we first meet the cop Edward Malus (Nicholas Cage) he is involved in an arbitrary scene in which, after pulling over a mother and her daughter whose doll has blown out of the luggage strapped to the top of their car, the car is struck by a transport truck, trapping the two inside as they burn to death.

Miraculously unharmed, Edward, on his time off, receives a letter from a former fiancée who left him at the alter and is now living on a private remote island called Summersisle with her daughter who has gone missing. The letter asks Edward if he could journey to the island and help find her.

On the island Edward is not exactly welcomed. He is greeted by three women who hassle him, asking how he got there in the first place as you must be invited to enter. As Edward begins his search for the missing child he discovers that the island is run by a mysterious figure know as Sister Summersisle (Ellen Burstyn), that men seem to be voiceless slaves and the possibly murderous women talk to Edward in that exasperating way people talk when they are never telling quite as much as they know.

The plot thickens as Edward discovers that the little girl may be his own child and may have been kidnapped by the cultish inhabitants of Summersisle in order to sacrifice her so that the coming year produces a good honey crop (Summersisle is a bee keeping colony after all). I doubt that I would be giving much away if I tell you that nothing is as it seems.

Watching the Wicker Man we get the sinking feeling that it is simply playing by the numbers: the opening sequences spin the wheels of a plot that Labute never fully seems to be engaged in. Instead we discern that he is using the film as a backdrop in which to deal with the fears and anxieties that he so brutally and hilariously tried to repress back in his 1997 debut film In the Company of Men. That film centered on a corporate slime ball named Chad who, feeling threatened by the inclusion of women into the office world, makes a bet with his friend to become romantically engaged with one and then crush her when she least expects it.

In the time that has passed since, we have seen the equality of women in the work force rise and the uncrowning of men as rulers of the working world. The Wicker Man shows us the next logical social progression: a society that has been taken over by women who have created their own laws to govern their own ways of life and are ultimately vengeful towards the men who have repressed them for all these years. Notice how the only man of power on Summersisle is Edward because he is a working professional: a police officer with a badge and a gun, constantly threatening to arrest the women for misbehavior under a law created by men to govern a man’s world. If In the Company of Men was an attack on the shallowness of corporate men in a dog eat dog world, The Wicker Man serves as a counter attack against feminism in a sexually liberated social setting. These women are like Chad in reverse.

What else is interesting is that Edward is allergic to bees. If we trace the bee’s mythology we understand that they were seen as feminine creatures. Homer in his work also thought of bees as wild, untamed creatures. The list of comparisons is endless. It might not be a stretch to believe that this is how Labute perceives militant feminists: as wild and untamed creatures that are willing to sacrifice any man for the betterment of themselves. It seems no small irony that the one man on Summersisle who has the ability to overpower the women is also fatally allergic to bee stings.

The problem is that if Labute’s metaphor makes sense, his film doesn’t. It seems to be operating under the framework of the 1973 Wicker Man, but the plot never becomes more than this; as if Lebute is just spinning the wheels while his interests lay elsewhere. The car crash scene at the beginning seems without purpose, even worse is Edward’s constant flashbacks to it. Characters appear and we don’t know who they are, Cage runs around the island yelling at women, and an ending ritual in which the inhabitants of the island dress up in animal costumes is so strange that we can never quite grasp whether or not Labute is making a horror film or a strange comedy.

The truth is that a lot of people who see the Wicker Man will hate it; it is sloppy, convoluted, and confusing. Yet to not see it might be a shame as it unflinchingly goes for the throat when most horror films seem to be stuck on autopilot. I’d rather a film fail interestingly than succeed without inspiration. I therefore could have hated the film too, but I wasn’t satisfied: why would a great filmmaker reduce himself to a by-the-numbers picture? I’m reminded of a quote from Labute’s great 2003 film The Shape of Things in which a character states that Picasso didn’t take a shit and call it art. He knew the difference and that’s what made him Picasso. I think Neil Labute knows the difference too.

Death at a Funeral (4.5 out of 5)


A reviewer should never be faced with the feeling that their review requires an apology and yet that’s just the sentiments I am faced with over my thoughts on Death at a Funeral. Nothing about this film should work: it’s a remake of a very very minor British film from 2007 that was directed by Frank Oz (the voice of Miss Piggy), it stars Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence and Tracy Morgan, whose names aren’t exactly associated with measures of cinematic quality and it was directed by Neil Labute who is a brilliant director, writer and playwright, but who usually focuses on dark films (often comedies) and shallow, wounded people. This movie has paycheque written all over it.

But here’s the thing: it’s funny as hell. It not only surpasses the original despite being almost an exact remake, but keeps on going until its memory is completely out of sight. Here’s proof that Godard may have actually been on to something when he said that the best way to criticize a film is to make another one.

Here’s the situation. A man has died and it is the day of his funeral. His family is gathering at his home where Aaron (Rock) is hosting. The eldest son, Aaron is worried that his eulogy will not be sufficient especially under the close scrutiny of those who believe his writer brother Ryan (Lawrence) should be giving it. Also around for the proceedings is the boys’ mother, a cousin played by Avatar’s Zoe Saldana whose father hates her white boyfriend Oscar (James Marsden) and would prefer she ended up with Derek (Luke Wilson) who is there with family friend Norman (Morgan) who is in charge of looking after grumpy old wheelchair-bound Uncle Russell (Danny Glover stealing the show). Also around is Frank (Peter Dinklage, reprising his role from the original) as a man with secrets from the father’s past.

See how they all connect like that? So does Labute who, like a brilliant stagehand orchestrates the ongoing slapstick comedy that arises out of the situation like a master conductor. Although the film forges on at full comedic tilt at all times, with several different subplots taking place around the house within the same temporal space, Labute never loses focus amidst the chaos. We always know that Oscar is in the backyard, Frank is in the guest room, Uncle Russell is in the bathroom, etc, with all of the threads building to an equal pitch so that the film not only stays its course, but never loses its momentum either.

The idea behind the film is that of classic screwball comedy. A man just wants to get through the day with as little problems as possible only to have everything go wrong from the beginning. And that’s the essence of the film’s comedic approach: just one damned thing after the other. That’s appropriate. It’s always better when it feels like funny things are happening as opposed to people trying to be deliberately funny. So Labute and his cast take full measures in pushing this situation to the very brink of its comedic potential. There are things in this movie that are vulgar, tasteless and at least one that is just plain wrong, but oh boy are they all ever funny. There’s something about this cast in this situation under the guidance of such an assured filmmaker that everything just clicks. Sometimes films succeed just on the basis that they find that special cocktail of elements and personalities that just go off and magic is born. That happened last year with The Hangover. Here it is again.

Another interesting aesthetic device that Labute employs is that he films many of the scenes in close-ups. It’s as if he understands the actors are funnier than the actions and so therefore focuses on the actors performing them instead of the gags themselves. That makes sense. Labute makes films about people and how they interact and influence each other. Screwball is such a broad generic convention that it can speak for itself, but by keeping the distance between audience and actor an intimate one, we not only focus on the individual, allowing several quick moments of humanity and sweetness to sneak through, but the comedy is played off of the reaction as much as the act itself. Take the James Marsden character, who gets himself into a predicament too funny to even hint at. The situation is inherently hilarious but the mileage that Labute gets off of Marden’s face is invaluable. Anyone could have filmed this same bit (and Oz did) at a medium or long distance and we would have laughed for a moment and then been tired with it. By keeping us close, Labute keeps our interests vested.

And then the film works because of how completely shameless it is willing to be: how far it is willing to go for a laugh and how many it actually gets in the process because of the strange logic every joke follows. Like The Hangover, there is nothing redeemable about this film: it has nothing to say about death, life, society, race, sex, religion, anything. All it wants is to be funny and it succeeds. I used to think that Neil Labute was only good at making Neil Labute films but with this, Lakeview Terrace and The Wicker Man it turns out he can make good films about just about anything, no apology required.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

10


Alright so here's the deal. It's Saturday and I'm up to my ears in studying so that I can be ready for the exams I have every day next week. So this is going to be the last post for some time (save for a review of Death at a Funeral). However, this person made a meme where you list 10 movie facts about yourself and then call other people out to do it too. Simon did it and called me out so fine, I'll do it.

10) I hate it when someone asks me if there is "anything good out right now"

9) I used to be scared of blood so I could never watch anything but family movies and PG-13 comedies. Goldeneye changed all that. Now I have an extreme bias for action movies.

8) I've never not finished a movie that I've started. However Cannibal Holocaust is the only movie I have ever hated so strongly that it was a chore not to shut off.

7) I thought the movie version of The Honeymooners with Cedric the Entertainer was really funny.

6) The first movie that brought tears to my eyes was American History X. That ending just came out of nowhere for me.

5) I own every Fellini and Rohmer movie that is available on DVD in North America. I'm working on achieving the same with Bergman.

4) A combination of watching Adaptation and reading the Orchid Thief changed my life.

3) Nicholas Cage is one of my favourite actors. I don't understand all the haters.

2) I own a copy of Disney's least known animated feature Make Mine Music.

1) Every time I watch a great movie it's like falling in love for the first time all over again.

Who I call out:

Burning Reels at Burning Reels
Vancetastic at The Audient

Friday, April 16, 2010

The Celebrity Connection: Mickey Rourke

Mickey Rourke is such a strange man that it's always surprising to rediscover just what a great actor he is. And once upon a time, he looked like something that could possible resemble a sex symbol. Today he looks like someone who looks like he's about two or three steps from ending up in the ICU (I always wake up expecting to see headlines that say Mickey Rourke: 1952-2010), but in the 80s he was a hot commodity.

I was watching St. Elmo's Fire tonight which was also a staple of the 80s (like The Breakfast Club after graduation) and noticed something peculiar. Check it out:


Could Judd Nelson just be Mickey Rourke in disguise? You decide.

Why Bruce Dern Should be in Every Movie

A little context first. I was talking to the missus the other day and she said I should come up with more regular features on this site (like Celebrity Connections, which I haven't done since the Oscars). I thought about it and then it hit me. I'd keep extending a piece a wrote last month about why Charles S. Dutton should be in every movie. It will be a regular adding to that short list of distinctive actors who make you perk up whenever they come on screen because no matter what, you know what's coming is going to be something good. Oh ya and that whole Movies that Are Just Like Other Movies thing that I've promised at least twice by now, well, it's still coming sometime.


I was watching Hal Ashby's emotionally effecting Vietnam tale Coming Home in which Jane Fonda plays a woman left behind as her husband (Dern) goes off to fight. She takes up a position as a volunteer nurse at a veteran hospital and there begins an affair with a wounded soldier played by Jon Voight. Although the film has little social relevance today it is still an effecting work because of the quality of the acting and the impact of the relationship between the two leads.

Although the film is somewhat (maybe wrongly?) criticized for losing its course in the third act when Dern returns home after sustaining an injury, there is a scene within this time that I shall never forget. Dern, having been clearly effected by what he has witnessed in combat and by what has injury has done to his pride, finds out about the affair and erupts in anger over everything. A lot of actors play big scenes with big emotions. You can see them going into acting overdrive. They play bigger, they tremble, they raise their voice, they put the fruits of their entire craft on full display. Not Dern. His eruption is so pure and unexpected that it is almost hard to watch. He gives himself over to the scene entirely, cutting himself open and laying himself bare for the camera in the span of mere seconds. I've never seen anything quite like it before. It certainly may be the most honest and open scene Dern has ever played.




But now watch Dern play the goofy sidekick in Hitchcock's final film Family Plot





And now look at Dern as the ugly, emotionless villain of The Cowboys




Because Wild Celtic Made me Do It

A couple days ago Burning Reels posted a list of little blurbs on eight movies that had seemingly nothing in common other than the fact that he saw them in close enough proximity that he felt they could all be crammed into one post. One of those films was Angels and Demons, which, apparently, I am one of the few people who actually liked it. I said this in the comment section and Wild Celtic let me know, in a much friendlier way than I am used to, that I was wrong in my appreciation of said film. So here is my rebuttal: a posting of my original review from last year. It's from Suite101.com, which means it isn't written in the first person (ugh), but I don't have the non-Suite one saved on this computer so we'll work with what we have.
"Both book and film have caused tremendous public outrage within the Catholic church, which wanted it banned. The irony with this church-related controversy is that it has gotten so huge that people will read the book and see the film just to see what all the fuss is about. If the church wanted to hurt the Da Vinci Code, they would keep quiet about it, and then there would be no hype, no expectations, no reason to see the film other than for purposes of entertainment."

When that was written (by me) about The Da Vinci Code in 2006 it was trying to both stir the pot and skirt around the fact that there wasn’t much to say other than that the film itself was pretty entertaining.

However, now in 2009, with the film’s sequel, those words are almost prophetic. The film, based on the book by Dan Brown, has neither the hype nor controversy surrounding it that the original did and it opened to nearly $30 million less at the box office than its predecessor.

That means that, Angels and Demons’ returns are based, more or less, on people’s desires to be entertained by the intricate yarn it weaves and not any sort of outside cultural force. So, with no pots to stir, here’s the review of Angels and Demons in three words: it’s pretty entertaining.

Tom Hanks reprises his role as symbologist Robert Langdon who is summoned to the Vatican after a terrorist revival of the Illuminati, an ancient enemy of the church, begins running amuck around Vatican City.

Needless to say, Langdon, who has fallen out of favor with the church after the last films events, is their last hope after the pope has died and the cardinals who are set to replace him are kidnapped and will be killed one by one, hour by hour at different locations around the city.

The only way to discover the location of the church where the next assassination will take place: a complex web of ancient symbolic clues of course.

At the end of the maze, in the hidden Church of Illumination, is a canister that contains a stolen entity which is referred to as antimatter. This antimatter is the result of the crashing together of different neutrons and protons and other neat special effects and is considered highly explosive when it comes into contact with normal household matter which is, supposedly, everything that is not antimatter.

Unfortunately for Langdon and his allies at the Swiss Guard, the batteries on the antimatter’s container are running low, risking the complete obliteration of the Vatican. You’d think with technology advanced enough to create antimatter in the first place, there’d be a better means of storage for it than battery powered containers, no?

The official name of the antimatter is “The God Particle.” That’s what passes for irony in Dan Brown’s literary universe.

This is, let’s face it, basically nonsense. To put a description of Angels and Demons in print reads like the product of an overactive imagination trying to pull a complicated inside joke.

But Ron Howard is such a good filmmaker and Tom Hanks is such a good actor that they somehow get away with things that a lesser labyrinth potboiler wouldn’t.

Like the way Langdon, faced with an impossible riddle, looks off into the distance and conjures information that no normal human being, no matter how much passion they have for their field of study, should know off the top of their head, or that maddening way movie killers have of thinking up impossibly elaborate ways to commit their dirty deeds when a simple bullet would have achieved roughly the same effect.

But Howard is a true storyteller. He approaches the plot head on, treating it, not like a preposterous potboiler, but like an honest suspense film. To provide any hint that Howard or Hanks didn’t believe in this material would send it spiraling into chaos and self-parody, but because they approach it with a straight face, and keep the motion kinetic, it’s easy to get involved in the chase.

And like with The Da Vinci Code, Howard knows how to take a waterlogged story and weed out the true excitement in it. Dan Brown is an author whose plots are so complex and so steeped in history that his books sometimes get mistaken as great literature because they give the illusion of waging great debates between religion and culture or science, when really they are just pulp stories masked behind a wall of historical jargon.

Any Brown story can be broken down in several key actions: 1) description of exotic location, 2) heroes talk about plan of action, 3) heroes perform action, 4) heroes talk about performed action, and 5) repeat.

There’s a lot of standing around and talking in the Brown universe, as if time is infinite despite the hero’s constant working against the clock. Howard gets rid of that excess, always finding a visual momentum that keeps the story pushing forward.

And that’s the verdict. Angels and Demons, like The Da Vinci Code, is not a great film, but it gets the job done well enough, raising slight ideas about the associations between religion and science while twisting and turning upon itself so many times that it’s hard to tell if it’s even tied up all its lose ends by the conclusion.

Sometimes, when done well, that’s all anyone needs. It’s this simple: if you liked The Da Vinci Code, the chances of you liking this one are in your favor, and if you hated The Da Vinci Code, well, why read this far in the first place?

Thursday, April 15, 2010

One Minute Review- Franklyn (2 out of 5)


Franklyn is the kind of labyrinth film that begs to be decoded but never quite reaches the point where it seems to be worth much thought. The film tells two parallel stories for little apparent reason other than that they both involve religion in some way and that first time writer/director Gerald McMorrow wanted to see what would happen if an angsty drama was intercut with scenes from Watchmen.

One of the stories takes place in the fictional place of Meanwhile City, which looks like George Orwell crossed with Alan Moore, requires that every inhabitant practice religion of some sort by law and is haunted by an atheist played by Ryan Phillippe, who apparently has the same fashion consultant as Rorschach.


The other story, which takes place in contemporary London and weaves together several stories including a man searching for his son, a man haunted by a former flame and a suicidal woman. All of this is directed with style and I'm sure there is meaning to be found in some of it, but by splitting the story down the middle neither side quite manages take-off. The Meanwhile City sequences are merely a distraction and add confusion to an already muddled plot that never seem to come around full circle to an acceptable explanation.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

My Life For the Next Two Weeks

And if you haven't seen The Paper Chase, what exactly are you waiting for?

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Stealing a Fun Idea

I've been mostly M.I.A. for the past couple of weeks and by the look of things, will be for the next two weeks as well until my exams are over, with maybe a one-minute review popping up here and there just to stay in the game during that time. Therefore, for one, if I haven't commented on your blog posts or contributed in some way, I apologize. It's not that I'm not reading, I'm just not taking the time to think up meaningful ways to respond. With that I wanted to write a post that could get people talking so that I can simply watch what is being said and chime in from time to time in the comments section. So, here it is:


Do you read The Movie Snob? Well if not you probably should start. The other day he wrote a post about how the next Batman movie should be cast. Check it out here.

One of my suggestions would be to have Ethan Hawke play the Riddler, if that is truly to be the next villain. The reason for this is that, I think anyway, the best actor for the job will be the least expected.

When Jack Nicholson was cast as the Joker way back in the late 80s it made sense but the end result was simply Nicholson doing his usual thing but with face paint. When there were talks of who could potentially play the Joker in The Dark Knight Robin Williams is one of the people who made sense to me. He'd worked for Nolan before and he can play characters that are both dark and zany. But, like Nicholson, he was too much of an easy choice. I know big stars sometimes like to take on the role of villains so that they can dress up and act devious and go over the top but generally, when movie stars are cast in such roles, they tend to simply rely on their presence and phone it in.

Therefore, when Heath Ledger was announced as the actual Joker I scoffed only to realize, like everyone else, Ledger did the unimaginable: he went for broke and completely disappeared from the scene, creating a fully realized character. I thus realized that villains need to be played by actors not stars. I think Hawke is such an actor. It's been seen over the duration of his entire career that he is intelligent, versatile, and can play both dark and brooding while also zany and off-the-way. I threw around other names in the comment section at Movie Snob's post so check those out there.


So what do you think? Who should play the Riddler? Penguin? Catwoman? Poinson Ivy? Mr. Freeze? Who could work that Heath Ledger magic and create meaningful characters within these roles as opposed to the movie stars who played them in the past? Let's throw some ideas around.

While we are at it: who do you want to see as the new Spider-Man and who do you want to see as the villain and played by who? I'm curious to see how everyone weighs in.

Friday, April 9, 2010

The Rating Scale


So the other day when I wrote a one minute review of Next Day Air Andrew over at Encore commented that the movie sounded passable but he was surprised by the high rating which I allotted (3.5 out of 5). This inspired me to throw out some context.

There is one fundamental rule that I believe when it comes to scoring films: it is pointless. I do it because it comes with the territory but really, what does a rating out of four or five prove? It doesn't assess the worth of the film itself because it is based on the preference of the writer and reflects their experience of the film and not the film's overall worth, in which case you should scrap the rating and just read the review seeing as that's what it is there for in the first place.

It also doesn't assess the worth of a film in relation to other films because every rating is the rating solely of that film and not all films. It is possible to use other like films to justify a certain rating but when I give a five star rating to Up in the Air that by no means it is the equal to The Godfather which would also get five stars. Up in the Air is a five star film in the world of corporate human comedies and The Godfather is a five star gangster movie. In no way do either of those five stars cross over in relation to one another and I don't even begin to know how they would begin to compare in the overall world of film. However if The Dark Knight is a five star movie then the other four Batman movies before Batman Begins are around 2-2.5s.

Now, as for why I use five stars. It's because I like that extra star for indifference. Four stars doesn't really give you much wiggle room. However, in terms of thumbs up or thumbs down, five stars offers the 3-3.5 range which is basically the same (overall indifference) but 3 reflects the thumb tipping slightly in the down direction while the 3.5 reflects the thumb tipping slightly in the up direction.

But again, we're beating a dead horse because, as proof right in the first paragraph, the meaning of these ratings exist solely in the mind of the review (Andrew perceives 3.5 to be of greater worth than me and that's his right). To me good film criticism has, is and will always be about someone who writes about film sharing their experiences with those who like to read about film. As I've said elsewhere on this site, I read a review not to know if the movie is good or not (I can decide that on my own) but to see what reviewer X had to say about it. When I read Andrew's blog I care much more about who his personal favourite actors and actresses of the decade are and why he thinks so rather than what films he thinks I should be seeing because, knowing me, I'll probably see them regardless.

With that said, in most cases, to reference Jean Renior once again, the reviewer is often more important than the film he or she is reviewing, which simply acts as a springboard or starting point from which that person can begin to share their personal thoughts, fears, anxieties, philosophies, emotional responses, etc. Film criticism, like all art, is fundamentally composed of two parts: the emotional and the intellectual. It's on one (or both) these two levels that all great film (and art in general) moves us on. If a film doesn't stimulate a viewer's mind or move them to some emotional response then it has failed and this can only be expressed in the body of the review, not in the arbitrary number I put in brackets after the film's title.

My Desert Island DVDs



Alright, I've been seeing people doing this for a couple of weeks on their own blogs and I've read them all with joy but never quite wanted to do it for myself. I mean, 8 movies to watch for the rest of my life? How would I ever pick? But I'm going to do it anyway because, well I guess it's kind of fun and Wild Celtic told me I should and if she says it's a good idea, it simply must be. The idea original concept comes from Fandango Groovers and is basically what I just described it to be: a list of the 8 movies that I would take with me if I had to live for the rest of my life on a deserted island. I must say that picking just eight movies is going to be a near impossibility. What I do know however is that this list will in no way represent my list of eight favourite films, but the ones that I could picture myself watching over and over again. Jean Renoir's Rules of the Game is one of my favourite films but I'm not so sure I'd want to be stuck with it until my death, ya know? So anyway, without further ado:


8. Adaptation- My pick for the best film of the decade, Adaptation is a film of unending complexity, maturity, hilarity, tenderness and passion. It's a film that is at once a middle finger to Hollywood conventions, a meditation on screenwriting, a biopic about a man obsessed with flowers and the author who writes about him and a deep, profound meditation on the nature and necessity of passion and how it often veers dangerously close to obsession, not to mention a brilliant performance by Nicholas Cage who plays clearly identifiable identical twins without any make-up tricks. Hollywood rarely takes chances on films like this anymore, which maybe explains why it rarely produces meaningful works these days.


7. Con Air- I'd need an action movie because I have a weakness for chases, shoot-outs and things blowing up, so why not take the one with Nic Cage, John Cusack and John Malkovich? This one was one of my favourites from around grade 7 or 8 and still remains amazing. That last scene when Cage meets his daughter for the first time gets me every time.

6. La Dolce Vita- Fellini at his best. How could I live without this?


5. Fanny and Alexander- Haunting and magical. This is one of the few films that I have ever walked away from feeling as though the inner fabric of my being had been penetrated. This film plays upon every emotion known to the soul. It's also the culmination of Bergman's entire career.

4. Fubar- No matter the time nor the place this movie makes me laugh and laugh and laugh, and it's at different things every time. Maybe it's a Canadian thing?


3. Magnolia- Paul Thomas Anderson said that his approach to this film was to sit down and write everything he'd ever wanted to say, which is funny because this movie features just about everyone I've ever wanted to hear.


2. Rent Live on Broadway- I'd need a musical and since the Rent movie isn't very good and is missing important songs I'd take the live Broadway performance instead.

1. Richard Pryor: Live on the Sunset Strip- I would also need some stand-up comedy, so why not take the best? Not only do I love Richard Pryor because he was the greatest man to ever take the stage but with this performance he also gives you something to take home with you. As funny as this is, I always remember the discussion of going back to Africa where Pryor discovered just how equal everyone is. It's rare to be able to say that you're life is a little better from having seen a stand-up comedy performance. This is one of those.




If I could I'd also try to sneak Say Anything, but don't tell anyone.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Getting Some Action

Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables doesn't come out until August but with a recent trailer surfacing that shows not only the scene that he shares with Bruce Willis and Arnold, but lots of old school action mania, my appetite has been whetted. To be honest, as bad as this film could be, I'm still holding out hope. I used to love the silliness and senselessness of a lot of those old 80s action hero movies and even though most of them were horrible, I still cherish the authenticity they displayed that has been lost in today's technology fueled Hollywood. You know, the days when stunts were done by stunt men, explosions were caused by actual heat and gasoline and bullet holes were made with squibs and not mattes? That's what I hope to get with The Expendables. So, because I am bored and have been slacking over here for the past couple of weeks I've decided to collect a few of the most classic scenes from those 80s action movies. Some of the films are really quite horrible, but the lines are still great anyway.



Nothing can phase Chuck.



See



Classic Arnold line



My favourite line from Commando



Phone booths are nothing to a Commando



Really, this whole movie is classic



He showed him!



This is a bad man



This one basically speaks for itself

Hot Tub Time Machine (3.5 out of 5)


With The Hangover and now Hot Tub Time Machine comedies are once again vulgar for all the right reasons. The film is thus a wonderful throwback to the glory days of Harold Ramis and John Landis: films that were tasteless, but tastefully so because they believed in their comedy, followed it to the furthest extremes and, most importantly, didn’t let it fall outside of what could be acceptable as believable under the circumstances. There is nothing even remotely plausible about a hot tub that transports three men and one teenager back to the 80s, and yet, within the context of this film, it makes perfect sense as the actors play with the premise not into it. The hot tub is the maguffin that springboards into the laughs. That’s about the way it should be, for a macguffin, as Hitchcock teaches, is basically nothing important.


So then the question left is: does the film work? Well, I suspect that it does insomuch as any movie about a hot tub time machine ever could. That’s the trick; the movie continues to succeed outside of its outlandish plot because it’s clever, funny and well acted by men who rarely ever even acknowledge that they are trapped inside a movie about hot tubs and time travel. Too often movies like this draw attention to the fact that they are about something zany and come off as lazy and uninspired. These guys aren’t in on the joke and in turn the proceeds feel instead like what would logically happen to these men in this situation. That’s comedy.

It also helps that one of them, Adam, is played by John Cusack whose presence alone, in almost any movie, seems to make things a little nicer and a little brighter. Another, Nick, is played by Craig Robinson who you may know from The Office or as the deadpan scene stealer from Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Robinson is so good at delivering dialogue in such a flat, matter-of-fact manner that one gets to wondering whether or not a one-liner could ever be written that this man couldn’t make funny. It’s no surprise that this man get’s the film’s biggest laugh (you’ll know it when you see it).


Then there is Lou (Rob Corddry) who I guess by now can be considered to have the Zack Galafanakis role. You know the one: the token troublemaker. Lou is the guy who refuses to grow up, living life on the edge. “He’s an a-hole,” describes Nick. “But he’s our a-hole.” The fourth member of the group is Adam’s nephew Jacob (Clarke Duke) who is along for the ride and must ensure that the men stay their course in the past in order to avoid a butterfly effect.
Do you really need to know more than that? Maybe it’s also of note that Crispin Glover shows up as a one-armed bell boy every once in a while when an extra laugh is needed and Chevy Chase pops up here and there to play essentially the same character he’s been playing since Caddyshack.

The movie was directed by Steve Pink who wrote the invaluable High Fidelity and then went on to make his directorial debut with Accepted, the unexpectedly insightful and amusing college comedy. Now, with Hot Tub Time Machine, he’s pulled the rug out and gone all the way into shameless comedy. Is it tasteless? Sure it is, but it’s also funny, clever in its inside 80s references and Cusack especially brings a human quality to the entire thing. It’s by no means a major film, but like Accepted it takes a concept that sounds uninspiring on paper and makes it into something special instead of simply leaning on its gimmick premise. It’s not nearly as amusing as The Hangover, but I still laughed. How else is there to judge a comedy?

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

One Minute Review- Next Day Air (3.5 out of 5)


Next Day Air is the debut feature film from a music video director named Benny Boom. No joke. Generally guys with names like Benny Boom don't make boring movies and indeed Next Day Air is a hyper-kintisized version on that old fail safe genre of comedies parading around disguised as hard boiled thrillers. Someone has been reading up on their Elmore Leonard. It's a tried and true formula, and to be sure Next Day Air brings nothing new to it but hey, if it ain't broke, ya know?

So what we are greeted to is a large cast of eclectic characters who all go about different business but will, in one way or another, connect by the end of the film. There's the ever stoned delivery guy who delivers a package full of high grade coke, not to the proper door but to that of the incompetent bank robbers who stole the security tapes instead of the loot ("get the safe" is mistaken for "get the tapes," you see) and need to make way on foot after they discover that they locked the getaway car. Thus, the robbers want to sell the inheritance, the Mexicans who it belongs to want it back and the delivery guy just wants more weed. Although this whole enterprise is not plotted as tightly as say Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown, it's in the same artistic vein as early Guy Ritchie capers, and all of the actors seem to have a good time with the material, especially the surprisingly restrained Mike Epps who steals some of the film's best lines. Minor, but not bad for a first timer.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Fight! Fight! Fight!


Let me start with some context. I started this blog back in January for 2 reasons. The first was because ever since grade 11 I have had a deep love of film and knew that, no matter what I ended up doing in life, I would forever want to share that with anyone who would listen. Second, after writing for Suite101 for a year I was underpaid and tired to converting my reviews into the third person (a big critical no-no in my books) and so I wanted to start something more intimate and interactive. Something I could put myself into.

Over the course of those three months I have gained 22 followers, found countless wonderful film related blogs and have become associated with some great people (many of whom have come to comment regularly on this site). I won't name names for fear of alienating someone but you know who you are.

In a medium that is sometimes defined by snobbery and elitism I felt like I had found a variety of great blogs written by open minded people who were kind, accepting of other opinions and generally promote open and useful debate. Similarly, I have tried to prowl the comment sections of these blogs, offing things to say that would stimulate further thinking or debate as opposed to a simple hey, good job. Even when I disagreed with what someone was saying I kept mind of their opinion, the quality of their writing, the strength of their argument, etc. so that alternate views could be aired without any feelings hurt or respect lost.

Then, a few days ago I made a comment on Cinema Viewfinder, a good and popular blog run by Tony Dayoub. Tony said he was off for Easter but made mention of some interesting things coming soon to DVD, one of which was the release of a 2008 French film called Summer Hours. Having recently saw the film the found it enjoyable but minor I commented to Tony that I felt that the film did not deserve the Criterion treatment. That's it. Just a statement of opinion. No justification (not like I'm going to write a review in someone's comment section), just that I personally thought the film not deserving of Criterion's stamp.

Tony responding, said he thought Summer Hours was a great film but that we were even because he didn't personally felt that Gomorrah didn't quite deserve the Criterion stamp. Fair enough. The topic was done with. Then some figure who I've never heard of who goes by the name of Sam Juliano and I've since discovered is but one of many writers for some elitist blog called Wonders in the Dark, commented back, basically attacking me for not liking Summer Hours as much as he. I'll copy and paste our back and forth as follows here:

Mike Lippert said...
Hmmm Summer Hours got the Criterion treatment? I liked it but didn't think it was good enough for Criterion. It's always strange to see which modern movies they will decide to put out but hey, they can put out whatever they want as long as the quality titles keep coming like My Life to Live and the prices keep going down. Have a good one.

April 2, 2010 5:29 PM
Tony Dayoub said...
You didn't think it was good enough for Criterion? That was on my best list for 2008.

Well, part of the reason it is on Criterion is because it's part of the deal where they're releasing IFC films like CHE, A CHRISTMAS TALE, GOMORRAH, HUNGER, etc.

I guess we're even because though I liked GOMORRAH, I wasn't thrilled with it enough for a Criterion special edition, myself.

April 2, 2010 5:33 PM
Sam Juliano said...
Geez, if Mike Lippert doesn't think SUMMER HOURS is good enough for Criterion, then what contemporary film does he think does qualify??? This is one of the greatest films of recent years, as so many of the very best bloggers have attested to with stellar reviews, not to mention (dare I say?) the entire professional establishment. Criterion is lucky to get this masterpiece.

April 3, 2010 9:25 AM
Mike Lippert said...
The entire establishment agrees that Summer Hours is one of the very best of all recent films? That means that every critic who saw it liked it? Which means it should be getting 100% on the two big critics ranking sites? Seems like it's sitting at 92% on Rotten Tomatoes (sorry Tony, I know your feeling on this site) and 84% on Meta Critic. Plus the viewer ratings on IMDB are sitting at 7.1. I'd think a film that has swayed everyone with it's undisputed brilliance would be closer to 10 wouldn't you?

I'm not saying that Summer Hours is a bad film, I'm simply saying that, like other great critics like Roger Ebert and J. Hoberman, I found it somewhat minor. I'm sorry for presenting a view that is not the same as yours, I didn't realize that wasn't allowed. I was under the impression that criticism has thrived and remained alive all these years because of the fact that not everyone agrees.

Having read what Tony had written about the film I respect his opinion as all of his work is thoughtful and well written. I do not however buy into the argument that just because some of the "very best" bloggers have loved this film means anyone who doesn't love it is wrong.

As for contemporary films that deserve the Criterion treatment before this one? Everlasting Moments, Shotgun Stories, Balast, Best of Youth, 25th Hour, Man Push Cart, Chop Shop Conversation(s) with Other Women, Dopamine, Keane, Nobody Knows, Russian Ark, Saraband, The Son, L'Enfant, Lorna's Silence. On top of this there are still plenty of Ingmar Bergman movies that have never been released in North America, a couple of Fellini movies and Richard Linklater's SubUrbia still can't be found on DVD.

I would rather fork out the extra cash for a DVD with the Criterion stamp for any of these films before Summer Hours. I'm sorry you disagree.

April 3, 2010 11:15 PM
Sam Juliano said...
Mike, you are the first (and only) person who has contested this great masterpiece for Criterion treatment, and if any other bloggers venture over to this site on Easter weekend, I'm confident they'll make the same observation. Yeah, that's right. Your comment here is NOT the final word, and I felt incensed enough by the shortsightedness of your posting it in a public forum to mention that every film blogger I've read has praised this film to the rafters, with a number placing it as their #1 of the year, or in their top 5. So basically you're issue is that I brought up the whole of the critical establishment in the blogger world and within the professional ranks.

My bad. Every critic and every blogger out there should back off and let "Mike Lippert's" opinion stand tall. I'm sorry Mike, you seem like an intelligent young man, and you're fairly polite as well, but if you are going to make that statement in a public forum, with a film as celebrated at that one, I simply must call you on it. Criterion did not base they decision on whether YOU liked the choice, but rather on an overwhelming concensus, and I'd say it's one of their most inspired choices ever. I already own the film on Region 2, and will definitely be double dipping here.

You make a point that the film doesn't have a 100% rating, but what film does have a 100% rating? You pose that "prestigious" list of potential Criterions, but not a single one of those has a rating as high as SUMMER HOURS. And while you take extreme issue with a brief e mail that obviously rubbed you the wrong way, you then use Roger Ebert and J. Hoberman as examples of critics who didn't like the film. You make no mention of the fact that SUMMER HOURS captured the trifecta of winning Best Foreign Film from the New York Film Critics Circle, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association and the National Society of the Film Critics, which I think is the definitive critical word. But I know, Richard Linklater's SUBURBIA is far more important for Criterion treatment. Of course.

(to be continued)

April 4, 2010 10:12 AM
Sam Juliano said...
As far as that list you posed as films "more deserving" than SUMMER HOURS, I'll say first up that EVERLASTING MOMENTS was my #7 film of 2009, and it has actually already been announced for Criterion treatment. I also love teh Dardennes' films and that humanist Japanese gem NOBODY KNOWS, but I could really say the same thing here by saying that the following films deserve the Criterion treatment more than the ones you mention: (I am in the minority with RUSSIAN ARK, but I am humble enough to admit it has an overwhelming regard, so I say the issue is with ME not the film)

Kings and Queen (Despletchin)
Son Frere (Chereau)
The Lives of Others (Von Donnarsm)
Devils on the Doorstep (Wen)
The House of Mirth (Davies)
A Time For Drunken Horses(Ghobadi)
Werchmeister Harmonies (Tarr)
Talk To Her (Almodovar)
Downfall (Hershbiegel)
35 Shots of Rum (Denis)
Far From Heaven (Haynes)
Fateless (Koltai)
Dogville (Von Trier)
The Sweet Hereafter (Egoyan)
Seraphine (Provost)
Moolaade (Sembene)
4 Months 3 Weeks 2 Days (Mungiu)
Fateless (Koltai)
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
(Schnabel)
The Fountain (Aronofsky)
The Maid
Of Time and the City (Davies)
The Pool (Smith)
The Last Mistress (Breillat)
Synchedoche New York (Kaufman)
Inland Empire (Lynch)
Alexandre (Sokorov)
Children of Men (Cuaron)
Tropical Malady (Weerasethakul)
Rat-Trap (Gopalaskrishnan)
Police Adjective
Un Prophete (Audiard)
2046 (Kar-Wei)
Cache (Haneke)
Syndromes and a Century (Weerasethakul)
Assassination of Jesse James (Dominick)
Pan's Labyrinth (Cuaron)
The Ister (Barrison, Ross)
Crimson Gold (Panahi)

And there are a number of others that would be ideal candidates for the Criterion treatment from the contemporary period. But we know these are fantasies here, as a bevy of reasons won't allow such a gleeful development.

But of all the recent decision-making at the Voyager company, the decision to go with Assayas' masterpieces is frankly one of their finest hours.

I'm sorry you disagree.

April 4, 2010 10:14 AM
Sam Juliano said...
Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT and the wonderful Irish gem ONCE would be nice additions to the collection too.

But Mike, what exactly do you mean by this statement here:

"On top of this there are still plenty of Ingmar Bergman movies that have never been released in North America"

What do you mean by "plenty?" Bergman (who is my own personal favorite director of all-time) has been comprehensively served on region 1 on DVD, and completists have no doubt celebrated. The "plenty" that you note here is only FACE TO FACE (which has a long running rights issue and never even appeared on laserdisc) and THE MAGICIAN, which I understand we may see within the next year. But aside from those two, there is nothing of any consequence unrepresented on these shores. I do love SUMMER WITH MONIKA and ILLICIT INTERLUDE, but the all-Region Tartans are negotiable on North American players, so in effect that have been released for worldwide consumers, including North American ones. Similarly the all-Regions of MARIONETTES and THE SERPENT'S EGG are also on these shores in that Tartan series, and are easily obtainable cheaply.

What we have of course is nearly the entire kitten kaboodle for Bergman lovers:

Wild Strawberries (Criterion)
The Seventh Seal (Criterion)
Through A Glass Darkly (Criterion)
The Silence (Criterion)
Winter Light (Criterion)
The Virgin Spring (Criterion)
Sawdust and Tinsel (Criterion)
Smiles of a Summer Night(Criterion)
The Magic Flute (Criterion)
Cries and Whispers (Criterion)
Fanny and Alexander (Criterion)
Persona (MGM/UA)
Shane (MGM/UA)
Hour of the Wolf (MGM/UA)
The Passion of Anna (MGM/UA)
Torment (Eclipse)
Crisis (Eclipse)
Port of Call (Eclipse)
Thirst (Eclipse)
To Joy (Eclipse)

Geez, what's your beef? What's really left of any consequence at this point for North American and worldwide consumers? And no significant Fellini is MIA at this point either. I know, that was an April's Fool's Day joke, right?

Hey Mike, Happy Easter to you and yours!!

April 4, 2010 12:22 PM
Sam Juliano said...
And there are a few more I neglected to include too, every single one of which I own,like so many other bloggers.

Scenes From A Marriage (Criterion)
Saraband (Sony)
Autumn Sonata (Criterion)

At this point we should be thinking about the absence of Sjostrom's THE WIND, Vidor's THE CROWD and THE BIG PARADE, Von Stroheim's GREED, Sjostrom's THE SCARLET LETTER and HE WHO GETS SLAPPED and a bunch of other silent gems that continue to be MIA on legitimate DVD release (though VHS to DVD conversions are easily enough to manage) before we aim our thoughts at a virtually completed negotiation of Ingmar Bergman and Federico Fellini on DVD.

Back to SUMMER HOURS: In addition to Tony Dayoub's impassioned and brilliant commentary on the blog for Assayas's film I would point to three reviews of the film that were wholly extraordinary. One is by Joel Bocko at THE SUN'S NOT YELLOW and WONDERS IN THE DARK, Ed Howard at ONLY THE CINEMA and Craig Kennedy at LIVING IN CINEMA. It was Kennedy's #1 film of the year.

Needless to say it finished in my own Top 10 as well.

Yeah, I know I'm being a bully here, but this great film deserves every aggression I can muster.

April 4, 2010 12:43 PM
Mike Lippert said...
Sam, your passion for this film is inspiring but does not change in my mind that it is minor. Did I say I didn't like it? Nope, I only said that I didn't think it was Criterion worthy. And if you read my original statement, that's exactly what I said: That (I) didn't think so. I didn't say that Criterion has now lessened their brand, that they should have consulted me first, that this product should be boycotted. Nope, I only said I thought the movie was minor. I also encouraged its release saying that, if the release of contemporary films continues to promote the brand while driving prices down, all the better. I have no idea where you got that I put my foot down and deemed my opinion of the film more worthy simply because it exists in the minority. If others think it is a major work than I am glad they have found some joy in it that I did not and would gladly read and respect their entitlement to their opinions, including yours if you have a review of it out there somewhere.

April 4, 2010 4:13 PM
Mike Lippert said...
Another thing, the comment about Fellini was not an April fool's joke. Being my favourite filmmaker there is nothing I would love more than to own copies of Casanova, The Clowns and The Voice in the Moon, be they minor or not.

Same goes for Bergman. I don't care if the majority of his major work has been released in North America, as a completest I want copies of :

After the Rehersal
All These Women
Brink of Life
Devil's Eye
Devil's Wanton
Dreams
Face to Face
It Rains on Our Love
A Lesson in Love
The Magician
Monika
Music in Darkness
The Rite
Secrets of Women
Ship Bound for India
Summer Interlude
This Can't Happen Here
The Touch

Or did you forget about those ones?

On another note, every critic on every blog on the internet has loved this film? I think this is a case of someone being blinded by love. You've let your hyperbole get the best of you.

Here's a review from PA Editor's Blog: http://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/film-review-summer-hours-french-film.html

I especially agree with the last line: Looking for a lighthearted film with a little bit of seriousness, this is the film for you. Too bad, it could have been a more significant film.

The writer of Static Fix didn't seem to love it either: http://staticfix.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-my-best-bad-accent-summer-hours.html

Or do these two blogs not count because they are not part of the blog elite who all deemed Summer Hours an undisputed masterpiece?

But now we're just splitting hairs and wasting time. So on one final note, I must say that, you say my opinion here has been short-sighted. To be honest, of course it is. I didn't come here to this blog to write my own personal review in the comments section. If I wanted to review Summer Hours I have my own blog for that. I'm sorry you took such offense that you needed to fill up 4 comment boxes just trying to negate it but really, it was an off-the-cuff comment that referred simply to my own personal feelings and nothing more.

April 4, 2010 4:39 PM
Sam Juliano said...
Mike:

I did indeed take exception to what you said. And yes, I most certainly DID fill up four comment boxes on an Easter Sunday where I should rightfully be upstairs with my five kids in this gorgeous weather. But you made a statement at a public forum, making an assertion that I strongly condemn. Sorry, but you are fair game. Don't bother sending me links to the extreme minority. I can send you a recent review of a blogger who hated CITIZEN KANE! The point is I can send you tons of links to the contrary, and you conveniently ignored the awards it won from the NY, LA and NSOFC, which really says it all on that front. I did not take your comment as "off the cuff" at all, it was a provocative insult to tasteful movie lovers, and I responded in kind.

As far as the Bergamn responses, please, don't even go there. ALL REGION DVDs are available of these on Tartan!!!!

After the Rehersal
All These Women
Devil's Eye
Devil's Wanton
Dreams
A Lesson in Love
The Magician
Monika
Music in Darkness
Secrets of Women
Summer Interlude
The Touch

The few others there are minor beyond even the aspirations of the world's most fervant Bergman fanatics, and have not yet made it to DVD, which in the large sphere is no great catastrophe. What we want and need from Bergman is with us now, with the exception of those two I originally mentioned, one of which is on Tartan anyway. So it's really FACE TO FACE only!!!

April 4, 2010 5:42 PM
Sam Juliano said...
"I didn't say that Criterion has now lessened their brand, that they should have consulted me first, that this product should be boycotted."

Aye, Mike, aye. I thought it was oobvious I was employing deliberate sarcasm when I made the assertions I did to pound home my point. You are obviously bothered enough to respond in kind. Fair enough.

As you can see, Sam uses a lot of words in order to do exactly what he accuses me of doing in my initial post, which is to declare that any opinion other than his own is completely wrong. He refers to the "best bloggers" as if his own word is the authority under which great bloggers are deemed to be so and refers to the critics awards the film recieved as if those awards mean that everyone should automatically love the film. Sam seems to be one of those fellows who doesn't realize that a good film (which Summer Hours is) and a film he likes are not the same thing, which has afforded him the delusion that his voice has an authority that reigns over all others and expresses opinions to which everyone in the blog world should agree with. I'm reminded of the times in which Jim Emerson picked fights with Jonathan Rausenbaum because Rausenbaum expressed opinions that didn't conform exactly to his own. Sam also apperently is so gifted in his infinite wisdom that he knows the context under which I left my original comment despite my suggesting to the contrary. Not only does he speak for every critic in the known universe but he apperently speaks for me as well. I can't imagine the burden such power comes with.

Then Sam makes a statement of profound ignorance. Apperently while he was neglecting his five children on Easter Sunday to argue a worthless point with me, he failed to do the proper research it would have taken to make a statement about how Summer Hours has recieved a better critical rating than all of the films I deemed more worthy of Criterion release. Remember, Summer Hours sits at a comfortable 92% on the Tomato Meter. But look at this:
Best of Youth- 95%
Shotgun Stories- 93%
Chop Shop- 96%
Nobody Knows- 94%
Saraband- 94%
Looking over the entire dialogue it appears to me that what Sam's problem is is that he is simply blinded by his committment to the status quo. He first claims that every online critic gave Summer Hours a glowing review. I found two that didn't, of which he didn't even consider because, of course, they were below his stature. What he meant to say was that every critic that he deemed up to his level or are worthy of his attention gave Summer Hours a glowing review. He's right, the two links which I provided are minor blogs which, I will never return to again but really, when someone makes idiotic, generizled statements, this is the only way to respond. (Note- I have no researched whether this statement is true or not, but considering the tragectory of the entire debate, I suspect some exageration is at play here).

Then he gets into the Bergman matter which leaves me, to this moment, still stracthing my head. First he deems Bergman his favourite filmmaker but then goes on to state that every Bergman film worth watching is already available on DVD. You'd think, if Bergman was your favourite filmmaker, every one of his films, even the obscure ones that don't have the notoriety of the major works, would be worth exploring. Not for Sam, who is of such high pedigree that he can only be bothered with the major works of great filmmakers: the ones already to have been deemed masterpieces by the critical powers that be. I bet however, if a group of the very best online bloggers told him that the Devil's Wanton was a film that just needed to be seen he'd be hunting it down in a heartbeat, as that seems to be the very logic he is basing the entire crux of his argument on.

Then there is the overriding matter of his reliance on Summer Hours winning critics' awards as a gauge to assess the brillance of the film. It's as if he needs the opinions of others in order to justify his own feelings. That, to me, seems like a sign of insecurity. If you have a feeling, and propose an argument to support it than that is all that matters. Awards are prizes given by the elite. They mean nothing to me. If a film is good it is so in spite of the award and if a film is minor an award does not automatically negate said minorness. God forbid anyone ever argue with Sam about a film that hasn't won any awards. He'd acually have to justify his opinion on his own in the absence of statistics and the opinion of other critics to back him up. I can't imagine a feeling more hollow as the point when criticism becomes more about following the pack than experessing a personal experience. Congradulations Sam, the film won many critics awards, which ultimately means that I should be engaging in this debate with them instead of wasting time arguing with the middle man.

That's my final word on this debate. I'm done with. It's silly that this much effort has been given to it to begin with. I'm just curious, am I in the wrong here. Does my inital comment strike anyone as being condescending or provoking in any way? Does anyone agree with Sam or does he strike you the same way he strikes me, as an elitist windbag? Be honest. I'm curious to see how people will weigh in.