Two more sleeps until my festival going starts...and I thought I'd take a moment here to recalibrate my expectations.
See, you'd think that given the screening process, the endless programming, and the prestige involved, that film festivals would only bring in the best of the best. Well troops - if that's what you think, I'm sad to say that you're wrong. Of course film is art, and taste is subjective, but there have been moments in festivals past where I find myself sitting there wondering just what someone was thinking when they chose a particular title.
For starters there's ALL THE KING'S MEN from 2006. Remember it? Didn't think so. On paper, this sucker looks like a prestige picture with Oscar hopes written all over it. Heck, anytime you put Sean Penn front-and-centre these days, Oscar chances start to climb. However, as I endured this overwrought remake and valiantly fought off sleep deprivation, I couldn't help but wonder who watched this clunker and believed it was good. On the bright side, walking out fifteen minutes early meant I didn't have to run to my next film.
A few years earlier in 2003, I was actually surprised by a letdown. That time it was Jane Campion's IN THE CUT. Campion is a stellar director, but I think what we all learned that afternoon was just how much Meg Ryan should stick to doing cutesy rom-com's. It aimed for grit, but landed well wide of the target and landed in dull. Least I made it all the way through this one.
Back in '07 was a film called DEATH DEFYING ACTS - bet you've never even heard of this one! It's a bio-pic about Houdini starring Guy Pearce and Catherine Zeta-Jones. This one still leaves me puzzled because there is a lot of great talent involved, but the story is quite preposterous (it involves a conspiracy to kill Houdini leading up to his death). Unfortunately, its a film that I pretty much forgot about as soon as the screen went to black. This of course invites dual questions: how the heck did it make the cut, and why the heck did I put it on my schedule?
You'll notice that everything I've mentioned involves bigger talent. That is because I have a rule about not picking on the smaller guys. Indeed I've seen some indies and foreign films that don't seem to jive, but when it comes to indie cinema, I believe the effort is what's more important...as opposed to the big boys who have all the resources they need to create something great.
So keep that in mind if you're one of those who has mentioned to me "wish I was there". To put it bluntly - they ain't all winners.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Underwhelmed
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I hear you there about film festivals and somewhat 'underwhelming. aspects/features. I mostly do ok though, covering them for Film&Festivals magazine I only really go see the indie stuff, so like you said if it's pap, at least it has tried to do something. The most frustrating thing is that you have gone over the programme and had to make some really tough decisions when films that you wanna see clash, so when one is aweful, all you can do is think about the one that got away.
All the King's Men never appealed to me and I'm glad I didn't see it. Penn choose this for its political message and it bit him in the ass.
I just don’t get Jane Campion, sure her movies look nice and sound good but what the hell is going on? Its all a load of pompous esoteric drivel that we are supposed to like because its arty and people are afraid to criticise it for been dull through fear that they will look stupid. Although far from great I found In The Cut her most compelling and enjoyable movies and though Meg Ryan did okay in it.
I never did watch All the King's Men though I do want to see it to see if I like it. I didn't like the original though, so I'm interested to see how it help up since I heard the remake was more stringently adapted.
I never saw In the Cut either, though I do like Jane Campion generally. Meg Ryan irks me, though, so I'm not sure I'd jump into that one.
Personally I want to know who was the yutz who decided to remake a Best Picture winner.
I try to give every film a fair shake, but I agree that when a film involving popular stars is a mess, it becomes quite easy to trash it. Sometimes we might be prone to being forgiving towards the smaller indie efforts at festivals because we know making their film was probably more difficult than what, say, 20th Century Fox can release every Friday. That's why TIFF (based on what I know cause I've never been) is a bit different in my opinion. It really does feel like that one festival where one can start anticipate those big autumn release from the studios.
@ Michael... (Welcome to The Matinee) Indeed. Everytime I've seen something less-than-stellar my mind automatically starts to wander to the films I turned down. Here's hoping it doesn't happen often this time around.
@ Fitz... Not sure that I can blame this on Penn trying to be political. It's a big 'ol mess and he's just one small part of it.
@ Number Six... I'm only lukewarm on her, though I am very curious to give BRIGHT STAR a look. I remember IN THE CUT being visually interesting, but not very memorable beyond that.
@ Andrew... If you weren;t crazy about the original, then I wouldn't waste time on the remake.
@ Movienut... Probably seemed like a great idea at the time. I'd like to know which yutz decided to program it into a film festival.
@ Edgar... That's the thing - studio films have so many more resources available to them, that they should be able to put out better product. Thus, they get held up to the fire.
The cool thing about TIFF is that the public makes up a great deal of the audience, so reactions that come from it are rather genuine.
Post a Comment