Everybody's Talkin' 11-20 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

I must admit, I do wish I was staring down the barrel at a long weekend. Things have been pretty crazy up here in the Great White North lately, and four days off would do me good.

Alas - no such luck. Not only did we already have our big turkey day last month, but we even had our festive parade last weekend. Yes gang, while many of y'all are eating, shopping, watching football, and taking in some good movies...we here in Canada will be celebrating the traditional holiday known as "Thursday".

It's not all bad - things on this blog have actually been getting busier lately. I might not be able to get out and see as many new flicks as I'd like, but that hasn't managed to stop a bit of a writing streak.

However, my writing proclivity will have to wait for now. It's Friday morning, and that means it's time to see what everyone else is up to. I feel especially indebted this week, since many of them stopped by my space in droves and left a lot of fun comments.

So, for your reading fulfillment I give you...

It's been ten years since FIGHT CLUB was released, and Evil Dead Junkie takes a look back at the cult classic.

Fandango put up a neat post this week combining my love of movies, my love of music, and my love of making lists. Give it a look!

Matthew at From The Front Row has seen Almodovar's latest film, BROKEN EMBRACES. Looks like he wasn't all that impressed.

The Flick Chick dedicated a post to one of my favorite scenes in movie history.

Blake watched 8 1/2 this week and thinks NINE will have a rough go living up to it.

Perhaps inspired by my talk of vampire movies that don't feature glittering emo twerps, Movieman has gone all the way back to Bela Lugosi in DRACULA and written a thoughtful piece about the grandaddy of 'em all.

And last but not least, Marcy at Because I Saw The Film rhymes off some movie moments she'd love to have happen to her.

Enjoy!

Goodnight, Goodnight (Carlton Cinema 1981 - 2009)

I can't say this surprises me, but it saddens me none the less. On December 6, The Carlton Cinema in Toronto will close for good.

For those of you reading this blog outside of 416, The Carlton is a bit of a mecca for indie movies here in my hometown. It has nine or ten screens and has long been dedicated to independent film. While gigantic monoliths of moviegoing and popcorn palaces around the city are only too happy to dedicate six screens to the latest Michael Bay blow-em-up, The Carlton has always proudly been a place to take in the worldly, weird, surreal, and sublime.

The cinemas might have been small, but they provided an intimacy for these thoughtful titles. Indeed over the years I had seen some wonderful movies there like GOODNIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, AMERICAN SPLENDOR, CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS, and 21 GRAMS. Anytime I read or heard about an edgier title that I wanted to see, I always got a smile knowing that it was only a matter of time before it showed up at The Carlton.

Now that smile is gone.

It's the way of the world unfortunately - Cineplex Odeon reports that receipts at The Carlton have been steadily declining for years - but it doesn't make it any more palatteable.

If you live in Toronto, I highly suggest visiting the old girl one last time before she leaves us in two weeks. If you don't, you'll just have to take my word for it - lovers of good movies have lost a dear friend today.

As Time Goes By

Pop quiz - what do THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and CITIZEN KANE have in common? If you answered that they are two of the best films of all time...well, you're right but that wasn't the answer I was going for. (Note to self, next time think your pop quiz through a bit more before you release it into the blogosphere).

The point I wanted to make with KANE and SHAWSHANK, is that while are both deeply loved, widely acclaimed films, it wasn't always so. When both films were released, they were more or less pronounced DOA. Both films struggled at the box office, and both were ultimately considered commercial flops. Think that's bad? At least they got good critical reception - one other classic wasn't so lucky.

IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, the film that has become a seasonal and family classic was not only commercially killed - it was also critically drubbed! Yes folks, the heartwarming tale of George Bailey, and what his life meant to everyone in Bedford Falls managed to get this reaction from The New York Times on its release:

"The weakness of this picture, from this reviewer's point of view, is the sentimentality of it—its illusory concept of life. Mr. Capra's nice people are charming, his small town is a quite beguiling place and his pattern for solving problems is most optimistic and facile. But somehow they all resemble theatrical attitudes rather than average realities..."

Did that critic really watch the same movie I did??? Weird. at least he didn't suggest to the FBI that the film was communist propaganda (An industry insider did that).

I think about KANE, SHAWSHANK, and LIFE today, because I wonder how they managed to endure. Just two back, I used this space to talk about movies that upon reflection aren't as good as they seemed to be. This morning, I'm wondering about the opposite...about how it happens that a film once dismissed manages to rise above and convince audiences that it is better than they first thought it was.

Recently, finding something to be better than I thought hasn't happened too often. The reason for this, is that I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy, and tend to be the one trying to convince everyone else that a movie they disliked "wasn't that bad". Still, it happens...usually with something edgier. At the risk of exposing my ignorance, I'll admit that neo-classics like THE THIN RED LINE and FARGO were once met with a yawn and a shrug by yours truly. 'Course, nowadays I consider them amongst my favorites.

How does this happen? What part of our movie-watchin'-minds gives these titles a reprieve? Is it mob mentality? Is it a change in perspective as our life situations change?? Or is it the fairy tale notion of good triumphing over evil in the end.

Months ago, I drove a fellow blogger nuts with the amount of times I said "You just didn't get it - watch it again". Sometimes that's all it takes - such was the case with IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, whose brilliance wasn't understood until RKO allowed its copyright to expire, thus allowing any TV station that wanted to air it ad naseum during the holidays.

What do you think folks? What is it that gives movies once tossed aside for scrap, the ability to paddle away from the Island of Misfit Toys and claim a spot in our cinematic hearts?

Review: A CHRISTMAS CAROL * * *

Alastair Sim...Albert Finney...Marcel Marceau...George C Scott...Bill Murray...Michael Caine...James Earl Jones...Bill Murray...Patrick Stewart...Kelsey Grammer...and a fluffy animated duck. Many a gifted actor has played this particular part, and now it's Jim Carrey's turn.

If you don't know the plot of this movie, I can't help but feel sad for you and your sheltered upbringing. Long story short, London miser Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is visited one Christmas Eve by the ghost of his old business partner, Jacob Marley (Gary Oldman). Marley isn't enjoying the afterlife and wants Scrooge to repent before he faces a worse fate. To help him, that very Christmas Eve, Scrooge is visited by the ghosts of Christmas Past, Christmas Present, and Christmas Yet-to-Come.

If you really need more than that, tune in to channel twenty any Sunday night starting in two weeks. I'll wager you'll get some version of the story. Moving on...

I wouldn't suggest that director Robert Zemeckis has produced the definitive version of Charles Dickens' classic tale, that championship belt is still held by Brian Desmond Hurst and Alastair Sim. That said, I dare say that the 1951 version is the only adaptation better than this new version.

Where Zemeckis' version excels, is the way it brings out the darkness of the story. Over the years, the heartwarming moral of this tale has taken away from the fact that this is a ghost story. In scene after scene of this new version, we are led through dreary rooms, darkened streets, and a bitterly cold winter night. Wrapped in darkest shadows, Scrooge seems so rickety and frail, that he himself seems like a mere ghost of a man. It all comes together with the right amount of sand to capture what a camera might not, and emphasize how dire Scrooge's situation has become.

Animated or not, Jim Carrey won't be causing any "Alastair who?" comments anytime soon. With that in mind, Carrey - and the animators who captured his every facial tick - deserves full credit for a rather understated performance as Scrooge. Over the years, Scrooge has become a bit of a caricature...an entity relegated to television commercials. Carrey's performance reminds us of just how cold, uncaring, and misguided the character really is. This is quite commendable when one remembers how much of a ham Carrey can be.

I did have two small disappointments with the adaptation itself. One is that the filmmakers seemed so bent on a less-than-two-hour runtime, that they have left aside one or two of the scenes in the past that further establish how Scrooge fell off the path to righteousness...specifically, his dislike for his nephew Fred is only aluded to. The other hitch is when Scrooge is brought to his future. The scene turns into a strange action sequence which feels a forced for starters, and seriously out of place at this, the dreariest portion of the story. These two major missteps are unfortunate, since I believe they hold the film back from becoming a touchstone of animation.

This is the third film in a row where Robert Zemeckis has used motion capture animation, and while the technology seems to be getting better with every venture, it still isn't quite perfect. When the camera stands back a step or two, or the scene is one of high contrast, the results are phenomenal. However, when the animation features warm tones, and gets close to the faces of the younger characters, the features appear too glossy...too shrink-wrapped...too unnatural. The look is getting better all the time, but it still isn't there.

While the animation might seem wanting, the 3-d rendering is top notch. My biggest complaint about many of the recent 3-D films, is that they felt gimmicky. More often than not, the 3-D effect felt like an afterthought, and not a technique deliberately used to enhance the story. That is not the case when it comes to A CHRISTMAS CAROL. Every single shot has been mapped out with 3-d technology in mind, and rather than rely on cheap stunts, they use the technique to give the entire film a tremendous amount of depth. Indeed, for shot after shot, I didn't feel so much that I was looking at a screen, as much as I believed I was looking out a window.

It's hard to believe that it's been five years since director Robert Zemeckis first trotted out this style of animation with THE POLAR EXPRESS. Indeed, it has been half a decade, and in my opinion the years have been kind to that film. For some, this version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL might not feel like anything to get worked up about. However, some have said, that like THE POLAR EXPRESS before it, the years will be kind to A CHRISTMAS CAROL, and in due time we will hail it as one of the greats...

...and I for one agree.

What did you think? Feel free to leave comments with any thoughts or reactions on A CHRISTMAS CAROL.

With Teeth (Top Five Vampire Movies)

This blog is, and henceforth shall remain, a TWILIGHT-free zone. I have nothing against the fans of the books and/or movies, but they are truly not for me. The blogosphere is full of places where any Twi-Hards who read my space (and there are a few of ya) can keep up with The Cullens. This won't be one of them.

However, one thing that the phenomenon has reminded me of, is my fascination with vampires. I used to love reading about 'em and watching 'em growing up. Not in the way that I would dress up in black and hang out in cemeteries...just in a way that I appreciated them as monsterous immortals, and consumed whatever books and movies I could.

So I'm handing the mic over to my sixteen year-old-self for once, and perhaps trying to expand the horizons of one or two members of Team Edward who might trip over this blog.

There are other...nay better vampire films out there. These are my favorites...

Hatter's Top Five Vampire Films

#5. DRACULA (1931)... First things first - the granddaddy of 'em all has not aged well. The pace feels laboured, and that which gave audiences the willies seventy years ago, now feels awkward at best...and sometimes outright hokey. However, to know where you're going, you must first understand where you've been. In that regard, DRACULA is an essential. Bela Lugosi made the Transylvanian monster a true gentleman, and with shot after shot of that leering stare, showed how easy it could be for something so vicious to put a victim under its spell. Worth the rent, just to hear the wry delivery of classic lines like "I never drink.....wine."

#4. THE LOST BOYS (1987).... Not to start a trend, but this is another vamp flick that hasn't aged all that well. The difference here, is that while DRACULA was steeped in what creeped out audiences in the age of Garbbo, LOST BOYS is wrapped in what audiences found fashionable in the time of Madonna. The story is what matters here, since that is the part I love so much...the brood of young vampires who seem to have their way with a summer town. This one really laid the groundwork for any vampire movie that portrayed the vampires as young and beautiful, rather that aged and eerie. Of course, not being a fan of The Coreys, this one doesn't get much play by me these days. Wait, why did I choose this one again...?

3. INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (1994)... Sorry Joel, I still love it. Ask anyone who knew a sixteen year old Hatter what they most readily associate with me, and this will likely be one of the top answers. Still truly beautiful to look at, and bringing the most elegance to the genre, Neil Jordan's adaptation of Anne Rice's novel is one of the greats. It features one of the best all-around casts, and shows off some of the most lavish production in any vampire films. Hell, it's so good, that I even fell head over heels for the radically different ending to the story I'd grown to love. Perhaps the only real flaw of the movie, is that it essentially ends the story of Lestat (please don't metion that Sutcliffe cat), denying moviegoers some of the best vampire tales ever written.

#2. SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE (2000)... Not only is this one of the darkest, and more unsettling, vampire stories ever told - but it's also one of the best movies about the movies. Telling the very twisted - yet by all accounts completely fictional tale, of Murnau's work to complete his 1922 masterpiece, NOSFERATU. John Malkovich plays herr direktor, a man who brought in a complete unknown to play the titular vampire. Not only was Max Schreck a complete unknown, but he seems so odd that many believed he could indeed be a vampire. the movie is a complete fiction of course, but needs to be seen for the brilliant performance by Willem Dafoe as Schreck. Bleak, and cold, the movie contains the best vamp dialogue never spoken by Bela Lugosi: "You killed the writer??!! Why him, you monster? Why not the... script girl?" "Oh...The script girl.....I'll eat her later."

#1. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008)... This may indeed be a trendy choice, but I don't care - it's my pick. From the ominous opening, that my astute friend Danger Girl pointed out, reminds us of just how deafening a snowstorm can be, to a monstrous conclusion that is both stunning and vicious all at once, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is everything a vampire story should strive to be. The relationship between
Oskar and Eli is both profound and innocent, and I don't think it's possible to find two more suited actors than the children in this film - both of who hadn't acted much coming into this project. It's rare to find a film that is equally violent and tender, yet LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is just that. Not to take pot-shots, but I truly do believe this film is the Anti-Twilight, and not only is it my favorite vampire movies, but it's one of the best films of the decade. See it before the American remake, LET ME IN, hits theatres next year.

Did I miss one? Feel free to leave comments naming your favorite vampire movies, along with suggestions for the next top five.

Listen Like Thieves

Missus Hatter and I have a new iMac on the way. Admit it - you're jealous.

Along with the endless opportunities this will provide our individual photo and video work, it also recently dawned on me that this could potentially make podcasting a possibility.

This leads me to wonder two things - would anyone out there have interest in a Dark of The Matinee podcast? And if so, besides reviews, what sorts of features would you like to hear yours truly babble about for twenty or thirty minutes?

Baby, It's Cold Outside

Today, I Feel Like This...

Everybody's Talkin' 11-13 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

Friday the Thirteenth today, huh? Interesting...guess it'd mean more if I were superstitious. If you're camping this weekend, I might stay away from the lake.

Speaking of staying away, I'm not sure if I'm even going to get to a theatre to see something this weekend! That sorta sucks since I'm still a few titles behind. Perhaps Monday or Tuesday I'll make up for it and see A CHRISTMAS CAROL or AN EDUCATION. There's actually nothing new coming out this week that interests me...not even 2012, which seems kinda fun, but also like something I've seen before.

I'm sure that even if I can't make it to the theatre this weekend, my fellow bloggers can. Let's see what they've been up to, shall we?

For your reading fulfillment, I give you...

Ross and Ross are rhyming off their Top Five Guilty Pleasures this week...none of mine made their list though.

Aiden at Cut The Crap has seen much-buzzed-about PRECIOUS. Here's his review.

In honour of Remembrance Day/Veteran's Day this week, Univarn contemplated the differences between a war film, and a film set during wartime.

Fletch at Blog Cabins took a moment to bitch about fellow bloggers offer some helpful hints.

Joel and his Wonderful Ticket Stub rented one of my all-time faves this week. Take a look at his thoughts on THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER...then go rent it if you've never seen it.

Finally, Tom at Plus Trailers has found a much better alternative than subjecting one's self to THE BOX.


Enjoy!

Somewhere Only We Know

Snobs.

Honestly, many of the people who read this space - and certainly the twerp who writes it - are in some small part a movie snob. We all have some sort of movie that we feel is beneath us, something we won't waste our time on...be it an action flick based on a comic book, or a slow-boiling drama starring no major Hollywood players. Such snobbery is common, and indeed can be overlooked.

However, there's a certain type of know-it-all that is starting to get on my nerves, and as the year winds down it will only get worse before it gets better. The film geeks that wear on my nerves, are those that feel fit to declare something well outside the box as an under appreciated bit of brilliance, higher than everything the rest of us can consider.

Wordy? You bet. Allow me to clarify...

Movie watchers and movie writers everywhere like to make lists around this time of year. Top tens, top fives, top twenties...you name the number, someone has a top of it. Let's use the top ten of the year as an example.

When it comes to naming the best ten films of the year, there are usually a collection of twenty or so titles that dominates everyone's lists. Person to person will shuffle the order, but they keep coming up no matter what. Using 2008 as an example, you have SLUMDOG, BENJAMIN BUTTON, MILK, WRESTLER, WALL-E, DARK KNIGHT, FROST/NIXON, etc. I can promise you, that every single one of those films landed on top of someones best-of list.

Where the snobs drive me nuts, is taking something amazingly far off the grid, and thrusting it to the top. The geek becomes the lone trout swimming upstream, trying to tell the rest of us that only she/he/they see this movie for what it truly is...far superior to the commonality the rest of us are debating.

Example? Last year, when the Toronto Film Critics got together to name their best film of the year, they turned their back on those seven I mentioned, and the rest of 2008's usual suspects. Forget about what you saw on The Oscars, The Golden Globes, even The Independent Spirit Awards. According to Toronto, WENDY AND LUCY was the best film of the year.

The word you're looking for is "huh?".

Another example? With this decade winding down, many of us (guilty!) are naming off the best films of the decade. These lists will of course be even more scattered, but still...there will be a cluster of forty or fifty regulars. If I didn't know better, I'd think Toronto was part of The UK, since The Times notched CACHÉ top of the list. Higher than any hobbits...mightier than any men on wires...superior to any spotless minds.

It's a daring choice, but like WENDY AND LUCY, screams "snob". Let me be clear, CACHÉ is a great film, and one that will be in the conversation...but its legacy is cloudy. In a decade so riddled with brilliant foreign cinema, how does one choose this over PAN'S LABYRINTH? Over THE SEA INSIDE? Over THE SECRET LIVES OF OTHERS? Over TALK TO HER?

I'll tell you how. By being an unashamed snob. By having the huevos to stand up and say "Nuts to you ya bunch of sheep...I'm the one who really knows the score". Come on snobs, if that film you're pontificating is really as mighty as you'd have us believe, it would transcend and indeed be in the debate with all the other usual suspects. Don't belittle the rest of us by trying to make us believe that we're asleep at the switch and haven't been paying attention. Don't act all superior with your foreign taste and encyclopedic knowledge of dogme.

Don't be a snob.

The Kids Are Alright ( KICK-ASS Trailer )

Though my comic book knowledge seems to swell by the day, which at 31 makes me an easy target, I must admit I'd never heard of Mark Millar's comic Kick-Ass until earlier this year.

Sheltered geekery aside, I now can't wait to see this upcoming flick, even if it does feature Nicolas Cage. This is just a teaser, but it sure will whet your appetite for all things Big Daddy, Red Mist, Hit Girl, and Kick-Ass.

And if it doesn't...I dunno...see you at SEX IN THE CITY 2??

Give Peace a Chance ( Top Five War Films )

Note: I posted this same post around this time last year, but considering I'm still trying to shake this cold, that many of you weren't reading my stuff back then, and that it's all still rather apropos, I've decided to repost it.
I took the photo above, of a Canadian soldier dressed in WWI fatigues at Toronto's Remembrance Day Ceremony ten years ago.

Tomorrow, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, our nations take pause to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

I wanted to pay them tribute in my own little way, those who have died so that we may live. So after the jump, take a look at five titles that will always remind me of the terrible price that must sometimes be paid for our freedom. If there are any titles in my five that you haven't seen, I truly recommend a run to the video store. And should you happen to see a veteran on your way, be sure to thank them for protecting our way of life.

Lest We Forget

THE THIN RED LINE (1998)

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998)

FULL METAL JACKET (1987)

LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA (2006)

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930)

Review: A SERIOUS MAN * * *

As much as I loved this movie, I can't help but wonder how much more I woulda dug it if I wasn't a Goy.

Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) is the titular serious man. He is a physics professor in 1967 Minnesota, thus an educated man. He is surrounded by a son coming up on his bar mitzfah, a daughter who seems to endlessly be going out with her friends, and a brother who is constantly preoccupied by draining a cyst on the back of his neck. Indeed, Gopnik is a family man.

Unfortunately, things aren't completely coming up roses - Larry's wife Judith (Sari Lennick)wants a divorce. It catches Larry very much offguard, making him a sad man. As if to add insult to injury, Larry's wife doesn't just want a divorce, but she feels a kinship with Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed). She deeply wishes to have Larry grant her a Get (A divorce within the faith), so that she can spiritually move on to be with Sy. The entire situation seems absurd to Larry, leaving him a shocked man.

As if this isn't bad enough, Larry has problems professionally. One of his students cannot accept getting a failing grade and is trying to bribe Larry for a higher mark. This situation couldn't be happening at a worse time, sinec Larry is up for tenure. Indeed, Larry is a stressed man. With his professional and personal life going topsy turvy, Larry turns to his faith for answers. He seeks counsel from a multitude of rabbis in an effort to make sense of why God is testing him in this way. He hopes, that by reaching out to the teachers of his heritage, he'll find himself less of an isolated man, and more of a consoled man.

This movie is a celebration of everyday absurdity. Through much of the film, Larry speaks for many of us who don't understand complacency. Larry is the part of us who repeats the same question three or four different way, hoping to eventually get an answer that makes sense. His frustrations are real, and might even seem familiar, so when he rubs his temples in frustration we feel the urge to massage along with him.

Perhaps the best example of this comes when Larry, Judith, and Sy sit down to discuss living arrangements as the divorce is settled. It is suggested that Larry leave the family home and get himself a room at The Jolly Roger - the sort of dive that makes a Motel 6 look swank. The idea makes almost no sense, but Larry gets bullied into it anyway.

This film is an ode to the life of suburban Jews. Jokes in my intro aside, it's not as if only Jewish moviegoers will find this movie rewarding (though I'm sure a bit of Judaism doesn't hurt). Everything from preparing for a bar mitvah, to sitting Shivah, to seeking a rabbi's counsel comes into play. And this is all after an odd introduction involving a Jewish folk tale. I dare say that this might well be the most Jewish movie this side of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF.

The film in its absurdity and peculiarity hearkens back to The Coen Brothers' early work. Indeed, this film has far more in common with FARGO and RAISING ARIZONA than it does O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU and BURN AFTER READING. That's not to say that the latter two are weaker films, just that they're more linear...or at least as linear as the Coen Brothers get.

Edit: After reading Univarn's comment, I realized I had neglected to mention a particular point. The plots and characters in Coen Brothers movies may change from title-to-title...but without a doubt, these films are always Coen Brothers movies. They are quirky, they are off-beat, and they are a particular brand of vodka. It took me a long time to get into their style of film making, so much so that I hated FARGO when I first watched it. With that in mind, their style may well rub you the wrong way. If that's the case, this film won't be the one to help you start seeing the world their way

One last thing. The Coen Brothers won Oscars for their direction of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Some of you may recall a slight frustration with that movie, what with a rather ambiguous and abrupt ending. Well dear friends, if you thought that was ambiguous and abrupt, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Not to give anything away, but do prepare yourself for and ending that will make NO COUNTRY seem tied in a neat little bow.

Then again, should we expect anything less from the Coen Brothers anynore?

What did you think? Feel free to leave comments with any thoughts or reactions on A SERIOUS MAN.

Been Caught Stealing

Two days ago, I was talking with someone who may or may not read this blog. I asked if they'd seen PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, and likewise what they thought of it.

The person told me that they weren't all that creeped out by it...which for better or worse, causes a pretty hefty degree of shock to yours truly since it got me pretty good. But then the person went and made matters worse. They told me that they didn't go to a theatre and watch it, that they in fact downloaded it from Ninja Video.

Grrrrr......

For starters, I've never believed in downloading movies. I think that unless it's something that absolutely MUST be seen right away (and such occasions happen very seldom), one must at least be able to wait for dvd. While I will always advocate getting to a screening, I realize this isn't always possible. When it isn't, I don't think the hard work of filmmakers should be experienced through a broadband connection.

What's worse is the particular film in question. If you must download...download TRANSFORMERS...download TWILIGHT...download a film that really doesn't need the money or the word of mouth. Don't rip off a director who turned eleven grand into an entertaining flick. Don't get me wrong kids, I've been privy to the odd bootleg copy or theatre jumping - but never at the cost of screwing indie cinema.

I know...I know...I'm a snob. But am I alone here? Have our cinematic morals dropped so far that we don't want to pay for anything anymore??

You Keep Me Hangin' On

Today, I Feel Like This...

Review: THE BOX *

A weird guy knocks on your door one morning and offers you a box. It’s got a bright red button covered by a locked lid. Weird guy tells you that if you press the button, two things will happen: you’ll be given one million dollars cash (tax free!), and somewhere, someone who you do not know will die. Seems like a cool movie doesn’t it? Too bad it doesn’t end there.

Allow me to fill in a few details. The couple who’s door gets knocked are Arthur (James Marsden)and Norma (Cameron Diaz). They have some slight financial burdens, but I emphasize the word slight. The weird guy is Mr. Steward (Frank Langhella). A polite, well dressed, soft-spoken man, with about a quarter of his face horribly disfigured. Arthur and Norma hum and haw for a few hours, but since the only have a day to press-or-not-press, a decision has to be made. Norma presses the button. True to his word, Steward returns, takes back the box, and gives them the cash. When asked what will happen to the device now, he says that it will be reprogrammed…and given to someone, somewhere, who Norma and Arthur do not know. (Dun-dun-duhhhhhhhhhhh….).

Friends, if this movie ended with that, I’d probably be raving about it. Unfortunately, at this point the story takes us by the hand and leads us down a rabbit hole that includes strangers who silently stare, random nosebleeds, wet gateways to other dimensions, and a fatal incident caused by Santa Claus. Yes, really.

The WTF factor of this movie is so far off the chart that when the weird went pro in the final act, I found myself shrugging and saying “Sure. Why not?”. I mean really, after Norma wakes up in her bed to find Arthur hovering over her in an invisible cube of water (which then disintegrates, dropping Arthur, and drenching half their house)…what’s another bleeding nose stranger, or five?

Talking to people about this movie, I got a lot of sneer’s at how bad Cameron Diaz must be in the film (wow is she ever unpopular these days!). I myself am also not a fan, but I have to quote the great science fiction writer and report that her work in THE BOX is “mostly harmless”. Speaking of acting, the only bright spot in the film has to be Frank Langella, who will charm your pants off and give you the heebie-jeebies all in one go. The man is a consummate pro, and for him to rise above this steaming pile of peculiarity without so much as a brown smudge is a true testament to his acting chops.

The blame for this skidmark must go to writer/director Richard Kelly. I’ve never been one to demand that every ounce of a movie make complete sense. I’ve actually often compared absurd film plots to songs whose lyrics don’t make sense. Think about it; you probably don’t have the foggiest idea what tangerine dreams and marmalade skies are…but they sure sound pretty when John Lennon sings about them, don’t they?

The difference, I believe, comes down to whimsy and elegance. Kelly must have combed the deepest corners of his imagination for the sci-fi oddities that unfold in this movie. However, none of them - the glowing water portals, the cryptic messages, the devil’s bargains – inspire or amuse. All they do is confound and insult. Kelly’s adaptation is not a fable with twists added in an effort to be imaginative. It is weird for the sake of weird, and it belittles its audience.

Admittedly, the story of the button experiment did spark my interest. When I looked into it, I discovered that the film is based on a short story from 1970 written by Richard Matheson. That story had a radically different ending (look it up – it’s pretty good). The story was then adapted into a teleplay for an episode of “The Twilight Zone” in 1986. The ending for that adaptation does happen in this movie, but it occurs long before most of the oddity shifts into high gear. In my research, I discovered that Matheson was never pleased with what happened to his story when it got adapted for “The Twilight Zone”.

If he didn’t like that TV show, I can only imagine how much he despised this movie!

What did you think? Feel free to leave comments with any thoughts or reactions on THE BOX.

Everybody's Talkin' 11-6 (Chatter From Fellow Bloggers)

Sometimes it's kinda fun to go see something you usually wouldn't. I mean, the reason most movies I write about get favourable reviews is because almost all the time I'm choosing what I go to see...and, well, I'm picky.

Then there's nights like last night. A magical evening where one Bruisey von Whippit asked me if I wanted to come with her to see cameron Diaz's new film, THE BOX. For free.

I figured, "Free movie - why not?". Well dear friends, I found out why not because the film is horrendously bad!!!. I'm not even all that pissed about wasting two hours of my life, because it was actually laughably bad! It sure as hell didn't entertain me, but at least it amused me with the batshit methods it tried employing to mess with my head.

I'll be writing about it soon, so please check back in a day or two. In the meantime, allow me to point you in the direction of some people far more intuitive than everyone who had any involvement with THE BOX.

Something a little different for this week's round of E-T. I've picked up more and more blogs that I follow, so I thought this week I'd feature entries from blogs I just started following. Sort of Hatter's All-Rookie Team.

So for you BOX-loathing fulfillment, I give you...

Evil Dead Junkie over at Things That Don't Suck says that THE 4TH KIND is the worst movie of the year (I say it can't be as putrid as THE BOX).

Film Geek from Final Cut has an interesting method of helping herself fall asleep (In the future I will laugh myself to sleep with memories of THE BOX).

Technically not a rookie, but still someone starting anew in a different space, MovieMan wonders aloud why children's films feel so much sadder (Though nothing is as sad as the two hours of my life wasted watching THE BOX).

And LuckyCricket over at The MovieGhoul-Undead Movie Blog dissects just what is needed to make for a truly creepy movie scene (I promise you, no moment from THE BOX is on this list).

Enjoy!

Remember the Time

Yesterday, Joel wrote a review of INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE. He didn't seem to care for it too much, giving it a score of 2 out of 4.

My first reaction when I read this was to call foul and/or scream "Blasphemy!". I say this because growing up this was one of my favorite movies, based on one of my favorite books. Thus, it has a special place in my heart.

However, since I haven't seen it in a long time, I got to wondering: Is my opinion of this movie blinded by the sixteen year old version of me that loved it to death so long ago?

It's been proven that the reason we all gravitate to the music of our youth, is because of how our brain stores memories. The part of our brain that stocks memories is most active between the ages of ten and twenty five. Thus, we will always default back to this era when honing our taste and relating to our favorite music. I have to believe that this is true of movies too.

Is it likely that we build up movies that aren't really all that great, because when we first see them we're more open to loving them? We take movies that are structurally flawed, and label them classics...even though somebody watching them for the first time today would tear it to pieces with how bad it actually is. As if to prove my point, Tim Burton's BATMAN was on last night.

The ending is a drawn-out climb up a tower, Kim Basinger is actually pretty flaky, and Burton seems more out to be an art director than a film director...but I still dig it. The eleven-year-old version of me shuts all those points down by reminding me about how vicious a killer The Joker finally was, and how dark it all seemed in comparison to the comics and hammy TV show.

Still, I have to think that if a blogger like Joel were seeing it for the first time they'd shrug and say "Meh", since they don't have the benefit of nostalgia to vaseline the critical lens.

Indeed over the last year or two, I have told people to go back and watch movies we grew up on. Forget you've ever seen them before, and soak them in with your adult eyes. You'd be surprised at how many so-called "classics" actually...kinda suck.

My mission now is to re-watch INTERVIEW as soon as I can, and to soak it in as a grown-up: one who isn't driven by the writings of Anne Rice. Maybe I had it right all along, and the film will forever stand with the opening chords of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and early episodes of The Simpsons as untouchable artifacts of my youth. On the other hand, maybe it's not so hot, and Joel is indeed on to something.

Drop me a comment gang, I'm curious what other people think about looking back on the awesome movies of our youth.

Dark Was The (K)night

Pardon me while I go back to last week.

In my post last Friday, I mentioned that I tend to alternate between being totally into Halloween one year, and just shrugging it off the next. When I wrote that, 2009 was firmly seeded as a "Bah, Humbug!" year.

My workplace, however, had other ideas.

Seems as though the company wanted to promote some seasonal fun, and gave each department a pumpkin to carve. There was some sort of nominal prize to be won, but the point was for staffers to have an excuse to act like kids for an afternoon.

My department thought it'd be a bright idea to get me to carve our entry. Interesting decision. Give a vegetable and a sharp object to a movie and comic book geek, chances are you'll get something like this...

Reload (Trailers for PRINCE OF PERSIA, AVATAR, INVICTUS, and GREEN ZONE)

It occured to me the other day, that I almost have my blogging schedule down to a tee, what with three days out of seven being accounted for with regular features. Of course that has diminished the amount of actual writing I do in this space, but that should correct itself soon.

One of those regular features is my Wednesday tradition of posting a good looking trailer. I realized last night that I have fallen somewhat behind in this regard, so I decided to play a bit of catch up today in an attempt to reload this space and get back on track.

So if you please, take a look after the jump to get a look at trailers for THE PRINCE OF PERSIA, GREEN ZONE, a full trailer for AVATAR, and INVICTUS.

What The **** Are We Saying?

It pains me to be in this position today. I'm never "That Guy", but I have to openly wonder:

THIS IS IT. What's the big deal??

Just yesterday, I gave it a three out of four rating. However, coming up with that rating was actually quite difficult, since my first reaction was that it was an event that couldn't be rated. It's not a movie...not really...so how could I assign it a score that puts it in a league with THE WATCHMEN and PUBLIC ENEMIES?

Today I find myself annoyed. Annoyed because once I put up my review, I started looking around to see what others thought of it. Roger Ebert gave it four stars. Peter Travers gave it three and a half. Peter Howell of the Toronto Star gave it four. These are three critics I usually trust and agree with...but today I have to wonder if they are mixing the movie with the man.

I mean really??? We're going to rank this concert film on the same plane as TRUTH OR DARE...as STOP MAKING SENSE...as WOODSTOCK??? It's good, and worth seeing, but I would never call it a must-see. Does the passing of an icon really slant our collective judgment that far?

If this isn't bad enough, I also have to shake my head at the Sony marketing machine. Headlines everywhere Monday morning blared about how THIS IS IT pulled in $100M worldwide. Read that again - worldwide. Usually North American media outlets report the domestic box office take, not the global receipts. Why the sudden shift in measuring stick? I'll tell you why - at North American theatres, the film brought in $23M this weekend. Impressed? Me neither.

Let me put that into perspective, two weeks prior, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY pulled in $21M. For how much bigger a star Michael is, he should have beat that handily. heck, even the copy of Rolling Stone that arrived in my mailbox today predicted that the film would open to $40M to $50M. Of course, Sony has all the time in the world to make up the difference now, since they quickly abandoned their "Limited Two Week Run" strategy, and announced that it would play for at least five weeks.

I still say, that for any fan of Michael Jackson, this movie is not to be missed. However, for the world at large, the movie changes nothing.

In short, I have to believe that the same people who are praising it to no end, are the people who started endlessly playing Jackson's music again, even though they hadn't touched his tracks in over a decade.

Review: THIS IS IT * * *

Once in a while, a movie comes along that defies convention. The world outside the cinema doors has aligned itself, and turned what unspools on the silver screen into something far bigger than just two hours traffic.

Make no mistake, these occasions are precious few, and truly far between. But the moment has arrived again for Michael Jackson's THIS IS IT.

In case you weren't paying attention, in the spring of this year, Michael Jackson announced a run of ten concerts to be performed at London's O2 Arena. All in one go, they were to be a return and a swan song. Demand for the show, titled "This Is It", swelled beyond anyone's expectations. The run was increased from 10 shows to 50. The design of the shows included everything from pyrotechnics to 3-D film clips. But of course, as we all well know by now, not a single show was ever performed.

THIS IS IT has been constructed from rehearsal footage. It documents the entire show number by number, and includes a peek into the way such a spectacle was assembled, and the people that assembled it.

The movie was an afterthought, with footage captured without any intent to be seen by the public at large. Making production matters more interesting, is the fact that the appetite for all things MJ in wake of his passing, meant that the timeline to get this film into theatres was a short one. Actually, "short" would be putting it kindly. One report had Sony wanting the film to be ready for an August 29th release date. Filmmakers understandably told Sony where to go.

What THIS IS IT does best, is capture a musical legend close to the top of his game. I've always considered Jackson to be a monstrous musical talent. He has given us nothing this decade to get excited about, but that doesn't mean he didn't have it in him. During THIS IS IT, we see just how gifted he is when he is focused. He blocks his way through moves other dancers have to give their all to keep up with. He feigns his way through vocals, and still fills every note with nothing but soul. And he breaks down a music director on tempo and chord progression that borders on fretting minutiae - except that when the minutiae is corrected, you can hear how right Michael is in wanting the change.

What holds THIS IS IT back, is that there are moments where you can tell that it was unintentional. This doc is not required viewing. The video quality is rough, and a few songs feel much more like rehearsal pieces than others. Becuase all of this footage comes from early rehearsals, there are many moments where Michael merely blocks his way through the dance moves. He gets his point across, even when he skips lyrics and feints a dance step...but had this film been able to document the show full-out, it would have made the difference between getting the point across and showing us something truly special.

THIS IS IT will never be mentioned with the all time best, nor will it even make many of this year's top ten's. Quite simply though, if you have any interest in Michael Jackson's music, this film is for you.

I haven't written about Michael Jackson's death on this blog, and I'm not about to start now. When his concert was announced, I had serious doubts as to whether or not he could complete a fifty show run. Now, having watched the footage of what the show would have been, my guess as to whether he could have performed fifty doesn't matter. All I am left with now, is a sadness that with a magnificent show such as this, he never even got to perform one.

What did you think? Feel free to leave comments with any thoughts or reactions on THIS IS IT