Greatest Movies That Made Going to the Movies Suck #24- Trainspotting

Simon Appears Courtsey of Four of Them

This had been one of those movies that had already achieved a following before it's eventual cinematic bombardment. I think the best adaptions are (no, not Twilight. Never Twilight). See, the late nineties was something of a blessing for cult writers with gritty, transgressive, and/or nihilistic styles. Fight Club was a-brewing, the travesty of Less Than Zero remained somewhat fresh in the minds of studio execs bidding for American Psycho, Pulp Fiction was still burning under filmmakers' asses, and American audiences were ripe for a precursor to these beauties, something miserable masquerading as awesome.

Thus, the year of 1996, Trainspotting was released upon a naive public. Danny Boyle, unknown in the States, a rising kinda-star in the European film industry for his noir thriller debut, Shallow Graves. He brought in Graves' star, Ewan McGregor, for the starring role in his adaption of Irvine Welsh's eponymous novel, a collection of connected vignettes following the misadventures of a group of young junkies. Also in the cast was Kelly MacDonald, Tommy Lee Miller (future Angelina Jolie plaything), Kevin McKidd (future Grey's Anatomy McSomething) and Robert Carlyle (future The Full Monty dude).

When this thing was released, it was released. Puritans cried glorifying drug use. Everyone else wondered where the glory was. The blackest black comedy to be released that decade--when people finally put subtitles on for the poor American audiences who couldn't understand a word--it set off a chain of controversy, acclaim, and mad dash to make a ripoff while it could still be called fresh.

Now, this is besides the black comedies featuring the underbelly of society, of various tones, success, and impact. There's Spun, a misbegotten 2002 indie starring Jason Schwartzman, Brittany Murphy, and Mickey Rourke. Requiem for a Dream, a successful drama, also from a book, made in 2000. Probably a million more I haven't seen.

But that's beside the point, the cinematic rip-offs. What it did most was really publicize drug addiction, which up until then had been treated as some glamorous rock-star-exclusive club. It managed the difficult line between slapstick and awareness, without treating the issue lightly, or getting preachy with the 'drugs are bad' stuff. It set a new standard in shock value, with the infamous Worst Toilet in Scotland, and especially the Baby Dawn episode, put Danny Boyle and Ewan McGregor on the map (sure, they split after the failure of their third project, A Life Less Ordinary) and influenced a generation of disillusioned, disaffected young things, who seemed to fast forward through the awful bits of ODing, death, and detoxing, maybe even Tommy's spiral which, okay, is relatively low-key in the midst of things, going straight for the fast-paced chase scenes, the comradely between junkies, and the relatively happy ending. Of course, that's the Catch-22, isn't it? Either make an awfully serious drug movie nobody will see, or a fast-paced drug odyssey that everybody will imitate.

People will look back on Trainspotting, no matter what the backlash, and still see a trippy, honest, brutal, hilarious, exciting, miserable, heartbreaking film.

Greatest Movies That Made Going to the Movies Suck #25- Spider-Man

Darren Appears Courtesy of The MOvie Blog

Let me pitch you a scene. It's early 2002. There's a whole rank of huge blockbusters looming. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers; Star Wars: Episode II; Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets; Austin Powers in Goldmember; Men in Black II; Ice Age. And then there's a strange one. Spider-Man, from that guy who made The Evil Dead. Really? Sure, Richard Donner's Superman was great, but that was decades ago. Joel Schumacher had killed the Batman franchise only a few years back. That Bryan Singer fella had proved he wasn't a one-hit wonder with X-Men, but it wasn't exactly box office gold (only the eighth biggest film of 2000). Comic book movies were a strange proposition - transitioning the characters to the big screen just didn't work naturally. Somethings aren't meant to be adapted.

Somehow, Spider-Man worked. Really worked. Sam Raimi somehow found himself the director of the most successful box office property of 2002. It trumped all the movies I listed above - even beating Lord of the Rings by $64m domestically. I think everyone was a bit surprised. I know I was, certainly.

Of course, some things come with box office success naturally. Sequels, for example. Spider-Man offered two huge sequels. One was a classic of the genre, the other an example of the bloated self-importance that came with success. Even as you read this a reboot is in the works. It's somewhat fitting that Spider-Man, heralding (as it did) the golden age of superhero films, should be the first of this particular age of movies to be rebooted - (500) Days of Summer director Marc Webb is handling a reboot due in 2012, a decade after the original arrived.

But most successful movies inspire more than just sequels. They shape the movie industry itself. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all. Queue knock-offs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not decrying the whole era of superhero movies that Spider-Man gave us. I enjoyed a fair amount of these movies. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are great movies, regardless of genre. I'm intrigued by the notion of the emerging shared "Marvel universe" heralded by Iron Man.

However, the problem is that rather than inspiring a genre, it seems to have led to its dominance. Did we really need a Ghost Rider film? Or two Punisher films in so many years? Watchmen offers perhaps the best example of the danger of this "film every possible comic book" mentality - Alan Moore's masterpiece is simply nigh impossible to adapt to film. Why couldn't we leave it as simply a literary classic?

Arguably the bigger problem is that rather than promoting adaptations from an emerging medium (as graphic story telling - if you'll allow me some pretension - is still in the process of evolving and growing) is that it codified exactly what to expect from these adaptations. Rather than proving that adaptations from the medium could encompass films like A History of Violence, Ghost World and The Road to Perdition, the word "comic book movie" became synonymous with "superhero movie". One might suggest that it's a problem with comic books in general, the dominance of superheroes within that medium, but Hollywood seems intent to convince audience members that the only films that come from the graphic medium are those featuring acrobats in tights. Where are our high-profile adaptations of Y: The Last Man or Asterios Polyp, sold to audiences as "based on the acclaimed graphic novels"? You can be sure that if Hollywood does get around to adapting them, they'll downplay the origins, and cinema-goers will go on believing that comic books are those ones featuring superheroes.

But all this comes from the emergence of the superhero movie in general, and could arguably be traced back to X-Men or even Superman. What precisely did Spider-Man do that was so bad? I think I can answer that question by identifying a single film: Daredevil. Daredevil is a fascinating comic book character - one who has arguably had the most consistent ten-year-run in modern comics under Brian Michael Bendis and Ed Brubaker - and one that is relatively unique. He's a character whose central premise is one of guilt and failure - he is anchored in angst, driven by the simple fact that he keeps getting knocked down by the world and has to keep rebuilding himself (he's had more than a couple mental breakdowns, all entirely deserved - to be honest). However, the movie isn't at all interested in this fascinating angle of the character. Instead, it looks like Fox pointed to Spider-Man, said "We want something like that" and locked a writer in the room. The result is a mess of a movie, which is ruined by stuntwork, camera work and storytelling clearly inspired by Raimi's take on Spider-Man.

That's the real damage of a huge movie like Spider-Man. It provided an outline of what a superhero movie should look like. As a result, movies like The Fantastic Four and Daredevil and others couldn't help but feel like cheap knock-offs of everyone's favourite webslinger, rather than adaptations of properties beloved for their own reasons. In fairness, it looks like The Dark Knight may be doing the same thing, with studios now demanding "darker and edgier" takes on heroes like The Green Hornet or Captain Marvel, rather than seeking each character's own voice.

Still, I'm not sure I'd take it back. We got two good movies out of Spider-Man and an above-average string of summer blockbusters. It's just hard not to rewatch Sam Raimi's original works without thinking back on it.

Music Facts

In the wake of roughly one thousand movie memes going around right now, Meaghan over at Wild Celtic decided it was time to do one about music. So I'll play along because 1) I said I would, 2) I was tagged and 3) I haven't written anything that has been my own on this site for 2 days so you may need a reminder that I am still here.

1. Open up your iTunes, music player, spin the CD, whatever, hit shuffle and tell us what is the first song to play...

Supercrush! by Devin Townsend

2. Name your top 5 favorite bands/musicians of all time

In no particular order: Nine Inch Nails, Tom Waits, Mike Patton (and all his bands), Devin Townsend (and all his bands) and Boyhitscar

3. What was your first CD to own? (8 track, Record, CD, MP3 for the newbies)

The first CD was Ren and Stimy's Radio Daze, but I started with tapes years before and my first was Weird Al's Greatest Hits.

4. Of all the bands/artists in your cd/record collection, which one do you own the most albums by?

Nine Inch Nails- When I heard the Downward Spiral i decided that I must own everything that NIN put their name on, which meant obsessive searching through every music store in sight for singles and EPS and importats. Today I have like 30 or 40 things by them (some of them may be worth some money) but yes, my days as an obsessive CD collector is done. It's DVDs now.

5. What was the last song you listened to?

Splinter by Sevendust, man that chorus soars.

6. What song would you say sums you up?

In grade eight it would have been Surfacing by Slipknot. Nowadays....I have no idea.

7. What’s your favorite local band or band that originated from your hometown?

The Kung Fu Lawyers

8. What's the greatest concert you've ever been to?

I've been to two concerts (Alexisonfire and Jack's Mannequin), one was free and the other was for my gilfriend's birthday. I don't particularily like either band but I guess Jack's is the better of the two if I needed to pick.

9. What musician would you like to hang out with for a day?

Tom Waits

10. What was the greatest decade for music?

All of them

11. What is your favorite movie soundtrack?

Rent

12. What’s the most awful CD/record/etc. you’ve ever bought?

There was this band called 20 Dead Flower Children who were cool at the time so I tracked down their hard to find debut album, but I didn't know it had a different singer and it was pretty unlistenable. A band that people would know? Probably something by Limp Bizkit.

13. What's your favorite band t-shirt or poster?

I only have a NIN poster in my room.

14. Rolling Stones or The Beatles??

Never really got into either but I'd say Stones because of Sumpathy for the Devil and Gimmie Shelter.

15. What is the one song you would most like played at your funeral? Your birthday? While on a romantic date?

Funeral- Innocent When you Dream by Tom Waits, Birthday- no idea, Date- She by Elvis Costello

Greatest Movies That Made Going to the Movies Suck #26- Gladiator

Ruth Appears Courtesy of Flixchatter

For this blog event, I recently re-watched Gladiator again. I’ve only seen the extended version twice and let me just say, this movie still blew me away as much as it did when I first saw it ten years ago. Yes, it has been over a decade since it was released and people are still talking about it. I’d be hard-pressed to find an article/review of a film of that genre since then without Gladiator being mentioned.

It’s hardly surprising as the famed director Ridley Scott single-handedly revived the long-dormant sword-and-sandal genre that’s been long absent for over 3 decades. This article mentioned that the flop of The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) – despite a stellar cast of Sophia Loren, Alec Guiness and Stephen Boyd (Messala in Ben Hur) – pretty much ended Hollywood’s golden age of historical epic. It’s quite interesting that the same historical characters of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Commodus and Lucilla brought the genre back to life. The story of Maximus Decimus Meridius, the Roman general who becomes a slave and later defies an empire, is pure fiction of course, craftily intertwined with the history of Rome.

The good: It’s no hyperbole to call Gladiator a masterpiece. It’s a visceral spectacle that offers a thrilling blend of intellect and physical strength. Massively entertaining and memorable, it lived up to the promise of Maximus himself: “I will give them something they have never seen before." Oh yes, we’re definitely entertained.

What Sir Scott did is filmmaking of epic proportion. Just reading the trivia on what it took to film this movie is awe-inspiring, i.e. building one third of Rome's Colosseum in Malta to a height of 52 feet, the 2000+ extras used for the crowd scenes, and how the Germania battle scene in Bourne Woods took 20 days to complete. The result is an uncompromisingly gritty sequences as well as a convincing look that evokes the grandeur of Rome. The scene when the city of Rome greets their new emperor Commodus is breathtakingly majestic even a decade later. It’s not just the set that’s epic, the revenge-fantasy story is equally complex, combined with grand action and grand acting from everyone involved (from Crowe’s heroic portrayal, Joaquin’s deliciously sinister villainous role, to Derek Jacobi’s theatrical-tinged performance) that results in entertainment in a grand scale.

Yet, on top of being a feast for the eyes, Gladiator has plenty of heart. Even with all the pulse-racing action stuff, the movie never forgets to make the audience connect with the central character. We weep when Maximus finds his home is burned down, and we rejoice when he comes out triumphant one gladiatorial race after another. On top of that, the movie also immerses us in the complex political web brewing underneath the revenge story. All that makes for a movie that warrants repeated viewing because it’s so satisfying every single time.

Now, the bad: As with the success of any particular ‘trend,’ it no doubt launched scores of imitators wanting to capitalize on the now-embraced genre. Alexander, King Arthur and Troy were all released in 2004, Kingdom of Heaven in 2005, the CGI-laden 300 in 2007 and the recently released Centurion, all carry the Greco-Roman mythology theme of which comparison to Gladiator is inevitable. There are also the B-movie versions: The Last Legion and In the Name of the King, as well as TV series: HBO TV miniseries Rome and the one currently playing on Starz cable network called Spartacus, Blood & Sand I’m sure there are countless others that escape me. The point is, Hollywood since realized that there is money to be made in this genre, and there’s no stopping them.

Unfortunately, none of those movies quite capture the ‘magic’ of the 2000 Oscar Best Picture winner, nor did they match its critical and box office success (Gladiator grossed nearly half a billion dollars worldwide). It’d take this entire blog to list the problems with each one, but suffice to say there is still nothing quite like the story of Maximus.

The thing with a lot of the swords & sandal movies is that they tend to go for sensationalism to make up for a subpar script. With the exception of the critically acclaimed Rome series (which had great characters to go with its magnificent sets), a lot of the characters in these movies are one-dimensional and lack an affecting/gripping storyline. Some of them even opt for more juicy and provocative scenes instead of character development, as is clearly the case in the Spartacus TV series. Think about it, there is zero sex scenes in Gladiator (we have Crowe to thank for that) and even the amount of violence isn't overblown, it's just enough to serve the story. The most alluring thing about Gladiator is in the script and the acting.

Additionally, the look and sound of Gladiator also spawned movies with similar visual style and music. It seems like I see a lot of movies in the past decade that use the overly muted color palettes. Then there’s the much-copied Hans Zimmer score with Lisa Gerrard’s emotive, tribal-sounding chant that felt so fresh the first time I heard it in Gladiator. The ‘Battle’ score also seems to have been imitated verbatim in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. My husband was playing POTC the other day and I swore I thought it was from Gladiator (you can listen to both of them here) But since Zimmer himself produced the soundtrack, it’s possible he simply recycled it.

Interestingly enough, even Ridley Scott himself has been trying to capture the magic of his own epic movie. He had tried – but failed – with Kingdom of Heaven just four years after Gladiator, but then again who in the right mind ever think that Orlando Bloom could match the intensity and credibility of Russell Crowe??! And if you were going to hire someone like Edward Norton, why the heck would you cover him up from head-to-toe playing a king suffering from leprosy??

In any case, now ten years later, the dynamic duo Scott and Crowe are at it again with Robin Hood, which a lot of people have been calling the Gladiator sequel. Even the producer of the movie himself admits it. Brian Grazer is quoted in Telegraph UK calling Robin Hood “the Gladiator version of Robin Hood.”

It thus remains to be seen if Scott can live up to even his own work.

Movies That Made Going To the Movies Suck #27: It Happened One Night

Ditty Appears Courtesy of Elizabethan Theatre




Ah, the romantic comedy. Once a person begins to self-identify as a film enthusiast or a cinephile, one is supposed to turn down his or her nose at the modern entries in the genre. And let's face it: the romantic comedy of today is quite often a pale and weak imitation of the great romantic comedies of the past. Whether it's Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, The Lady Eve, or any of the other stellar picks from the 1930s and 1940s, there's one romantic comedy for everyone that more or less forever ruins the genre. The king of them all, the one that ushered in the screwball comedy and the modern romantic comedy, is It Happened One Night.

Starring Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable, it follows the story of Ellie Andrews, a young, spoiled woman who, in a fit of rebellion, marries fortune hunter Westley King. Her father collects her before the marriage can be consummated only to have her run away once again. On board a bus to New York City, she happens upon one Mr. Peter Warne. Turns out he's a down-on-his-luck reporter in need of a good story, so he blackmails her: either she gives him an exclusive, or he'll rat her out to her father (and collect a handsome reward for it, too). Not a complete cad, he does offer to help reunite her with her beloved quasi-husband (readers love a happy ending).

Now, because the story arc of 90 percent of romantic comedies to follow used this one as a template, we can guess what happens. They hate each other at first, but she's a little charmed by him, and he's a little amused by her. Charm and amusement turn to affection, and all of a sudden it's "Westley who?" Of course, there's confusion and misunderstanding that leads to Boy Losing Girl, only to prove his worth and eventually get her back.

Along with the now-familiar storyline, we also get now-familiar comedic set pieces. The Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better Moment, for instance, features Gable's Peter trying to flag down a car, claiming to be an expert at hitchhiking. He must fail so that Ellie can hike up her skirt, show a little leg, and convince the very next car (screeching tries and all) that he needs to offer this woman a ride. There's also the Forced Into Close Quarters bit, where Peter and Ellie are forced to pretend to be man and wife to hide her identity. This means they have to share a motel room, of course, though the morals of the time demanded separate beds and a curtain strung up between them for propriety's sake. And the ever-important I'm Not The Man She Thinks I Am moment, where Peter takes the high road by not accepting the cash reward for returning her to her father because he's fallen in love with her.

The difference between this film and the cookie-cutter romantic comedies that follow is that, even now, the film has a certain energy you can't quite describe. It feels fresh, even though we've seen it hundreds of times over. Every once in a while, a romantic comedy captures some of that same spark, even if just for a moment. And I think that's why we keep coming back, hoping for the best from the genre, even when we're not supposed to. We're waiting for that moment when the romantic comedy can prove its worth, regain its honor, and recapture those magical moments we experienced in the past together with films like It Happened One Night. The truth is, when romantic comedy is at its best, the genre contains some of the greatest films and film moments in history.

Legend tells us that, after finishing, Colbert complained to a friend that she'd just completed "the worst picture in the world" — funny considering the film went on to win the Big Five Oscars, including a Best Actress statue for Colbert herself. Perhaps a more accurate lament would have been that she'd just cemented the rise of the genre that created some of the worst pictures in the world — but also some of the best.

The Moment You've All Been Waiting For

It's after midnight, which means it's Monday May 3, which means the list is upon us. I've been talking about it for the whole of this week, I've been dropping hints, and now it's time to reveal the banner. Check it out




I'll explain. You know when lightning strikes where it is least expected, a nothing movie that no one believed in becomes one of the most influential films of all time, shatters the box office, has critics and fans up in arms about it and all that? And then the knock offs come as feeble-minded execs want to cash in on the magic and movies get horrible for a while. Sometimes it lasts a couple months, a year, and in some cases, it's still happening as we speak. Those are the movies this list is about: the great movies the were trailed by a bunch of pretty bad ones that did everything short of tarnishing the original's legacy. It's both a celebration of great films and a condemnation of Hollywood's tendency to repeat trends until they are utterly and hopelessly dead.

As I've said in other posts, this is a collaborative effort. Some of the entries will be written by me, some of them won't. I provided a list of films that I thought should be on such a list and some of the fine bloggers who will be participating suggested there own. I wasn't a tyrant, didn't close any possible ideas off and let the bloggers basically run free with their thoughts. If you agree, great, if you don't, let's here about it in the comments.

I will, right off the bat, apologize if the film that you thought should be in here isn't, but you know, if we looked at every film that suffered from this phenomenon, well we'd be here forever. Now that you know what's not on the list, I'll be revealing one entry per day, which will be posted at midnight (Toronto time) until we get to number one. The order, as I've posted before was left up to a vote and represents the collective opinion of everyone who cast their vote.

I hope you enjoy, I hope you comment and spark debate, tell your friends and neighbours about this list and get them to follow along too. It should be a lot of fun.

A PIctorial List of People I Would Like to See Go Away

I don't feel like writing anything today because I've been busy writing entries for the list, which is starting in two days and because I've been writing script coverages like mad (that always happens when a festival is approaching) (how much are you willing to pay to snag a copy of Albert Nobbs or the Farrelly Bros.'s Hall Pass?) Anyway, there's some celebrities who just irk me and every time I see them I expect A) that they will annoy me and B) whatever they are in or make will be garbage because, you know, it involves them. Some of them annoy me because of unwarranted ego. Some of them annoy me because they shouldn't even be celebrities and some of them annoy me because they try so hard to be funny and just flat out aren't. Whatever it is, one thing ties them all together: I wish they would all go away

Kate Gosselin-

The most insufferable person on TV

Tyler Perry-
An insult to intelligent (black) people everywhere

Lee Daniels-

Egocentric hack.

Jonah Hill-

Fat guy who will never be Seth Rogen no matter how hard he tries

Russel Brand-

Two words: St. Trinians

Tracy Morgan-

Okay you were funny in Death at a Funeral but that whole constipated donkey thing you do just gets on my nerves

I didn't include the obvious choices like Paris Hilton and all that because why waste time? Who would you throw on here?