Major League

Starring: Tom Berenger, Charlie Sheen, Rene Russo Directed by: David S. Ward

Baseball season has finally arrived!  The Reds kicked off their 2011 season by winning with a bottom-of-the 9th victory over the Brew Crew.

Speaking of other things that are associated with baseball, winning and the Brewers…your opening day movie review is Major League.  We have a film centered around a baseball team, a double dose of winning with Charlie Sheen as a pitcher who helps the team have an awesome season, and Brewers announcer Bob Uecker as the play-by-play announcer for a the miserable Cleveland Indians.

This gem from 1989 introduces the viewer to an Indians team on a 30+ year streak of pennant-less seasons.  When the team’s owner dies and leaves the team to his young ex-showgirl wife, she takes over with relish.  However, what she’s relishing is a clause in the ownership contract that allows her to move the team if attendance falls below a certain level.  So she does her best to invite pretty much only the ‘has beens and never wills’ to Spring Training.

A jumble of minor-leaguers, longshot rookies, a crusty coach, a prima donna contract player and an eccentric slugger make up the team.  Jake Taylor (Tom Berenger) is a catcher with questionable knees who is trying to make the most of what could be his last shot at the majors and at proving to his ex-girlfriend Lynn (Rene Russo) that he can act like an adult.  Their storyline is pretty much the only serious element in the film.

To carry the baseball metaphor further, humor in Major League is mostly ‘small ball’ – lots of little laughs, few fall-out-of-your-seat zingers.  Ricky “Wild Thing” Vaughn (Charlie Sheen) starts the movie in prison and throws the baseball hard, but not well.  His lack of accuracy is kind of funny, as is his temper tantrum after getting ejected from a game.  However, Carlos Zambrano makes him look like an amateur.  What’s really funny – Charlie Sheen wearing Rec Specs.   Just the accessory every warrior assassin should have, right?

The eccentric Cuban and Voodoo follower Pedro Serrano (Dennis Haysbert, aka the Allstate guy) crushes fastball pitches but has trouble hitting anything else.  His elaborate shrine with offerings (rum, cigars, fried chicken), rituals to ward off getting cut from the team and chants to make his bat less afraid of curveballs are pretty funny. If I recall correctly, the absurdity of his rituals get even funnier in Major League II

Wesley Snipes is the uninvited spring training crasher Willie Mays Hayes.  Though he’s fast, has tremendous base stealing potential and does a really humorous 80s-style dance after making them team, he really can’t hit well at first – which crusty coach Lou Brown (James Gammon) attempts to fix by having Hayes do 20 pushups every time he hits the ball anywhere but to the ground. He’s not the only one that has trouble with the game; in the first few outings their fielding is also in very sad shape.

The Indians radio announcer, Harry Doyle (Bob Uecker), does his play-by-play with the help of Jack Daniel and sometimes fakes crowd noise to make it seem like there are people at the games.

A few running gags with Cleveland citizens, the grounds crew and a die-hard contingent of drum-beating fans also provide the laughs.  (Also funny because there is actually some person who goes to a Cleveland Indians games and bangs a drum…at least he was there when I went to an Indians game at Progressive Field).

All in all a very enjoyable film if you:

  • Really need a baseball fix, regardless of the season
  • Get a kick out of goofy play-by-play-->whether it’s “He needs a hit like I need a ham sandwich and a cold one” or “He’s going to hit it right down broadway, and then I need two orders of funnel fries – some for night, and some for midnight.”
  • Are even a little bit obsessed with Charlie Sheen.

so put it in the queue!

However, if you:

  • Prefer the ridiculous and over-the-top modern approach to comedies
  • Don’t like baseball
  • Don’t have tiger blood

Don’t put it in the queue.

(Though Ryan assures me the Indians were good in the recent past, my perception of them will probably always be going to a game in Cleveland 2008, seeing Cliff Lee pitch extremely well (duh), then watching the relief pitching give up a lot of runs as the fans gave a collective groan of disgust and left the game early).

Written by Jennifer Venson

The Square

Starring: David Roberts, Claire van der Boom Directed by: Nash Edgerton

“The Square” is one of those movies where somebody gets an idea.  An unscrupulous idea.  In this case, Carla finds a sack of money her boyfriend, “Smithy” has been hiding from her and, subsequently, decides she would like to steal it.  In order to pull off said unscrupulous idea she needs a little help.  So she asks somebody she has a pretty good feeling will go along with the idea.  Ray, the man she is having an affair with.

Apprehensive at first, Ray eventually warms to the idea.  Afraid Smithy might become a bit suspicious of who stole the money if it simply disappears from the attic, the two hatch a plan to cover their tracks.  The plan involves kick-backs Ray has been taking illegally from his construction contract and a bit of arson.  What plan is complete without a little bit of arson?

“The Square” is reminiscent of “A Simple Plan” or any number of Coen Brothers’ films.  The plan doesn’t really seem too terribly complicated but one thing goes wrong immediately and everything promptly spirals out of control beyond reason.  There are misunderstandings between Ray, Carla and the hired arsonist.  There are attempted cover-ups, and cover-ups of cover-ups and, just for good measure, even a little bit of blackmail.

One particularly unusual aspect of “The Square” is its lack of detailed explanation.  “Smithy” appears to be some sort small town thug, but what, exactly, he does or where the money came from remains a mystery throughout the film.  Ray is married and there are a couple scenes indicating his wife might have an inclination her husband is cheating on her, but it is never explored.  Ray hires an arsonist, but how he finds an arsonist isn’t very clear.

This doesn’t take away from the film, however.  Too often films get bogged down with unnecessary details.  We don’t really need to know these elements.  This allows us to stay focused on the major players at hand in what is a pretty convoluted plot in the first place.  If you are looking for nice and tidy, this isn’t the film.  Even the end purposefully leaves unanswered questions.

The film, written by Joel Edgerton and directed by his brother, Nash, a former stuntman, is dark, edgy, tense, and well acted.  It hits every point as it should when it should.  It’s a surprisingly well made debut, heavily recommended if you are a fan of crime noir or thrillers.

One last thing.  Although it is never specifically addressed, the entire movie seems to take place in a small town in Australia and the accents in the film are fairly thick.  This could , conceivably, explain some of the missing details.  While you won’t miss any of the major plot points, I feel as though if I were going to watch the film again, subtitles might be of some help.

Written by Ryan Venson

Firefly and Serenity

Starring: Nathan Fillion Directed/Conceived by: Joss Whedon

I tend to like the works of Joss Whedon. I’ve seen all seven seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I’ve watched two and a half seasons of Angel.   Unfortunately, I also watched two episodes of Dollhouse...not his best stuff. I saw Serenity at the movies years ago, knowing it was based on a TV show but never having seen a single episode of Firefly.

I really missed out.  Fortunately, that was easily corrected.  Firefly is not only on Netflix, but you can also generally purchase the complete series for under 20 bucks.

Firefly exists in the world of science fiction – spaceships, laser guns, cities on far-flung planets – but acts like the wild, wild west.   The cast is very diverse: Captain Mal Reynolds (Nathan Fillion, currently better known as the title character from Castle) and his crew wander around the galaxy taking on random smuggling jobs and doing their best to avoid The Alliance government.  Mal and his first officer Zoe (Gina Torres) fought against The Alliance during the rebellion; Zoe’s husband Wash (Alan Tudyk) is the ship’s pilot.   To increase their income during a shortage of smuggling jobs, they take on some passengers.  In addition to the roving religious man Shepherd Book (Ron Glass), they also take on Dr. Simon Tam (Sean Maher) – who secretly brings aboard his sister River (Summer Glau).  Once a child prodigy, she became the subject of mysterious government tests that leave her with troubling nightmares, erratic behavior and some unexpected skills.  Of course, both are now fugitives from The Alliance.

Mal is like a *slightly* more gregarious version of Han Solo – focused and practical, somewhat mercenary, but still with a personal code of honor and a quick wit. He does his best to keep the crew – particularly Jayne (Adam Baldwin) – in check and Serenity in the sky.  He’s a captain that will go down with the ship if needed, defend a woman’s honor and turn down a job (or at least return the goods) that steals from the poor to benefit the rich.

Every character brings a unique skill or past that comes in handy – such as Jayne’s status as a folk hero on one world and the ability of Inara, renter of one  of the ship's shuttles and ‘paid companion’ (i.e. highly trained consort, played by Morena Baccarin) to bring an element of class and gain access to higher levels of society than most of the crew can.

My favorite episodes include:

  • “Shindig” –  In which the ship’s mechanic Kaylee (Jewel Staite) gets a chance to attend a ball in a fancy dress, is ridiculed by several bitchy aristocrats, and wins the attention of many men with her vast knowledge of spaceships and their engines.  Inara also receives an interesting proposition from a repeat client, and Mal inadvertently challenges a man to a duel (with swords) by punching him during an argument.
  • “Out of Gas” –  After an explosion disables key systems in Serenity, Mal sends the others off the ship while he fixes it and reminisces  about how he purchased the ship and assembled his crew.  This one is a rare example of a well-done ‘flashbacks’ episode (though, none of the flashbacks are made of clips from past episodes).
  • “Heart of Gold” – A friend of Inara’s requests help after a powerful local leader threatens one of her employees.  Similar to her recurring role as Lady Heather on CSI: Las Vegas, Melinda Clarke plays the tough, smart and sensual brothel owner (former companion) Nandi.

As Firefly met with an untimely cancellation, the storyline was carried on a little further in the 2005 movie Serenity.  After re-capping Simon’s rescue of River, the storyline picks up pretty much where the last episode of Firefly left off – same characters and all.  It’s not necessary to watch Firefly to understand or enjoy the movie, but the movie does close a lot of loops the series left open (but not all of them).

Serenity centers on River’s growing instability and decisions the crew is forced to make because of it.  The movie uncovers new powers or hers and the equally sharp dangers and benefits they can yield.  Understanding her swings between psychic clarity and apparent madness takes the crew into dangerous territory – with a government assassin on their tail –  and provides even more reasons to never trust The Alliance or move to an experimental community on the edge of the galaxy.

If you:

  • Can’t get enough of the Mutant Enemy mascot (grrr….arrr)
  • Like sci-fi and westerns
  • Like shows with multi-dimensional characters and shiny dialogue
  • Have ever wanted to roam free in the galaxy

Put them in the queue!

If you:

  • Will be disappointed by the lack of aliens (what, you were expecting the Mos Eisley Cantina?)
  • Don’t believe we will ever be zipping around the galaxy in spaceships in the future
  • Are expecting a cameo from Angel, Buffy or Spike

Don’t put them in the queue.

Written by Jennifer Venson

Boondock Saints I & II

Starring: Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, Willem Dafoe Directed by: Troy Duffy

Happy St. Patrick’s Day to ya!  Did you go to church this morning?  Or maybe just to the bar to kick back a few pints?

If you haven’t started celebrating yet, I suggest you celebrate by watching Boondock Saints.  There’s nothing like some vengeance wrought by a pair of Irish-American brothers in Boston to help you honor the patron saint of Ireland.

Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) MacManus are two churchgoing, sunglasses-wearing, constantly smoking brothers who also appear to be fun loving and somewhat immature, based on early scenes.    Some unfortunate repercussions from a fight at their favorite bar introduce them to the opera-listening, flaming and brilliant FBI agent Smecker (Willem Dafoe).

Their manic friend Rocco (David Della Rocco) is a part of the Italian mob, and together they go on an entertaining quest to rid the city of undesirable elements.    Great combinations of sheer luck, skill and exaggerated violence help the boys make progress toward their goal , all the while confounding the local police – who are constantly sent to go get coffee and/or bagels for Smecker as a punishment for cluelessness.

If you:

  • Prefer a more serious/dramatic vigilante film
  • Are unwilling to suspend your disbelief
  • Are disturbed by ridiculous violence
  • Don’t appreciate the beauty of prayer/ritual (especially in Latin)

Don’t put it in the queue.

If you:

  • Like CSI-styles shows where the cops have to figure out a homicide that has been carried out in an unusual manner
  • Like action films with a little gratuitous violence
  • Love the versatility of Willem Dafoe (in my opinion, he MAKES this movie excellent)
  • Hunger for Veritas and Aequitas
  • Like a cute Irish accent
  • Don’t expect a serious drama

Put it in the queue!

Then I watched Boondock Saints II:  All Saints Day.   I cannot, in good conscience, recommend this movie.  Aside from some of the confrontation scenes – the last shootout in particular – this movie was a waste of time.  Here are all the reasons I do not recommend putting this in the queue at all:

  • They tried too hard to make it have a plot.  And the plot is pretty terrible.
  • Their new ‘sidekick’ is kind of annoying.  Rocco was too, but in a different, more tolerable way.
  • The humor just isn’t there.  It seemed like if there was any lapse in dialogue, they just filled it with a gay joke or an f-bomb.  Not funny.
  • The cops aren’t humorously incompetent, they are painfully incompetent and falling all over themselves for FBI special agent Eunice Bloom (Julie Benz – who I find über annoying), who replaced Smecker.
  • It is too long – nearly two hours.  It probably would have been half an hour shorter if they hadn’t felt the need to include a boatload of flashbacks from the first film.
  • The ending includes a cheesy and blatantly obvious eye toward a third installation.  Blasphemous…

I almost recommended it for those who were really interested in the back story for Il Duce.  But really, it’s just a couple more flashbacks that aren’t all that enlightening.

Skip this one and go have a couple more green beers instead.  A hangover is more pleasant than this sequel.

Written by Jennifer Venson

Dead End

Starring: Ray Wise, Lin Shaye, Mick Cain, Alexandra Holden Directed by: Jean-Baptiste Andrea, Fabrice Canepa

Not too long ago I watched a movie titled “The House of the Devil.”  It was slow and dull, but critically adored.  I believe Drew lauded it as a film never to watch during out month long extravaganza of horror reviews in October.  If one compliment can be made about the film, it would be that it was painstakingly filmed to reflect the horror film genre of the early to mid-80s.

When I sat down to watch “Dead End” I had no expectations for it to take a similar route.  However, as the movie opened in a station wagon with hilarious, intentionally cheesy dialogue (“It’s the same damn thing every year.  Where are my shoes, or I can’t find my Marilyn Bronson CD,” “Uh, Marilyn Manson,” “Well, whatever her name is.”) followed by a fine metal riff to bridge the 30 second intro and the credits, I knew I was in for a treat.

Unlike “The House of the Devil,” the film is not necessarily set in the 80s, but it borrows the same tried and true formula from the genre.  A family of four - father, mother, son, and daughter, with daughter’s boyfriend along as well for good measure, are going to visit grandma on Christmas along a creepy, deserted road.  It isn’t the usual route, but this year dad has decided to take an alternate route to keep things fresh and interesting.

It’s not long before it is obvious they are lost.  The parents bicker, the daughter tries to decide how to tell the boyfriend they’re through, and the youngest, pot-smoking son provides comedy relief.

Along the way they see a woman on the side of the road carrying a baby and agree to take her to a nearby cabin to try and call the police.  Can’t be a good idea.  As the evening starts to spiral in to mysterious disappearances and gruesome deaths, not to mention a black, menacing hearse, the theories begin to swarm.  Ghosts?  Hallucinations?  Aliens?

The movie is fueled by the script, keeping the gore level low.  The casting is spot on and this, in particular, really helps pull the production together.  A majority of the film is spent inside the station wagon as the family starts to panic, and the entire show is filmed on one seemingly never ending road.  I’m always amazed when a film can take one extremely basic locale and make it intriguing for 90 minutes.  I’m not saying this film is “127 Hours” or “Buried, “ but for a low-budget niche horror picture, the dialogue and script are at times quite clever.  It is very successful at ratcheting up the suspense and includes a healthy dose of black comedy.

When the conclusion of the film is finally revealed, it feels almost a bit too tidy and reliable.  But in this way it also feels exactly like the genre it is giving a sly wink to all along, especially in the epilogue.

Even though the outline is familiar, I believe anyone interested in the horror genre would enjoy “Dead End.”  It is engrossing and original enough to interest moderate genre fans, and nostalgic enough for long time fans of horror tired of the current paint-by-the-number schlock being mass produced for theatres today.

Written by Ryan Venson

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer

Starring: Ben Whishaw, Dustin Hoffman, Alan Rickman Directed by: Tom Tykwer

Genius.  Talent.  Is it a blessing or a curse?  Perhaps that depends on the type of innate gift one has.  In Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille (Ben Whishaw) is born with an extraordinary sense of smell that brings him as much misfortune as it does pleasure.

Literally moments after he arrives in the world, his keen nose saves one life and leads to the end of another.  His intense fixation on exploring scents makes him somewhat of an outsider in the orphanage where he grows up; he sniffs everything (including sticks and a dead rat) and whiles away his free time parsing out the aromas of the dirt, rocks, water bubbling in a nearby brook, wet rocks…you get the idea.

Circumstances eventually take him to the olfactory smorgasbord of the Paris marketplace.  One new scent in particular bedevils him – that of a beautiful young redhead (Karoline Herfurth) wending her way through the streets selling golden plums.  His limited social skills make his desire to indulge in her scent a bit creepy – he follows her, sneaking up behind her to sniff her hair and skin.  Their interaction ends badly and leaves Jean-Baptiste with a new haunting obsession – how to preserve a woman's scent after life slips away from her body.

His keen nose earns him an apprenticeship with a struggling perfumier Giuseppe Baldini (Dustin Hoffman), who teaches him the art of distilling fragrances and the craft of creating fine perfume.  This method does not suit Jean-Baptiste's needs, so he travels to Grasse, Italy to learn other ways of preserving scent.  There, he experiments with new methods until he finally discovers one that delivers the essences he desires.

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer is a strange movie, but definitely worth the weird.  If you like:

  • A bit of the bizarre
  • A tale told well (the movie is based on the novel Das Parfum by Patrick Süskin and is narrated in some parts)
  • A light thriller – suspenseful, but not in a heavy-handed way; somewhat predictable yet still with surprises

Put it in the queue!

If you don't like:

  • Depictions of noisy, crowded, filthy 18th century Paris
  • Aberrant behavior involving nudity, violence, sexuality, and disturbing images (all of which contribute to the film's R rating)
  • 'Discreet' murder (i.e. not messy, noisy, scary etc.) in your movies

Don't put it in the queue.

Written by Jennifer Venson

Academy Awards -- The After Party!

83rd Annual Academy Awards - Press Room
83rd Annual Academy Awards - Press Room

Drew and I fall in to a deep depression after Fincher and the Social Network go down hard in the face of an "Academy" film.  Whatever the hell that means.  Seriously, Tom Hooper?  That guy directed Texas Chainsaw Massacre!  Wait a second.....maybe that was Tobe Hooper.  Eh, whatever.  Also we try and decipher just how high James Franco was.  Probably really high.

Night of the Comet

Global warming, increased occurrences of earthquakes, tsunamis, large numbers of birds randomly dropping dead mid-flight and falling out of the sky.  These all might be signs of the end of the world as we know it.  Zombie invasions always prove to be an interesting topic of apocalyptic speculation. Threats from outer space haven’t really been at the top of the list in terms of potential sources of doom lately though.   Enter Night of the Comet. This fine specimen from 1984 opens with the global population eagerly awaiting a meteor sighting with behavior akin to New Year’s Eve – crowds in Times Square, raucous parties, TVs tuned to live broadcasts to capture reactions from regions where the comet has already passed.

Reg (Catherine Mary Stewart) forgoes watching the comet live to spend the night with her co-worker Larry (Michael Bowen) in the windowless steel projection booth at the movie theater.  Though she won’t be able to see the glorious cosmic event or help shield her younger sister from their awful stepmother, ‘making it’ and avoiding being home during the stepmother’s comet party is a sufficient trade-off.

However, Reg emerges to a very different world.  Red dust and clothes litter the streets.  Larry leaves the theater, only to disappear.  Zombie-like creatures emerge from time to time.  Reg races home to find her sister Samantha (Kelli Maroney) dressed for cheerleading practice and trying unsuccessfully to get some of her friends to answer the phone.

It seems at first they are the only survivors, but then they encounter the handsome truck driver Hector (Robert Beltran).  The movie also departs from the main arc to reveal that a group of scientists have also tried to avoid the comet in an underground lair.  Will the scientists help the survivors navigate this post-comet world, or do they have a sinister agenda of their own?

Ryan thought the movie started off a little slow, but I enjoyed it far more than I expected.  If you:

  • Are intrigued by the idea of and having free reign to play with all the ‘toys’ you never could afford before (such as the furs/shoes/jewelry/makeup the girls try on at the local mall).
  • Would not mind a meteor or other natural disaster taking out the majority of the population.
  • Like a light dose of zombies in your sci-fi movies.

Put it in the queue!

However, if you

  • Prefer lots of action or exciting monsters in your nearly-deserted world (i.e.  I Am Legend).
  • Aren’t a fan of cheesy and/or low-budget 80s sci-fi

Don’t put it in the queue.

Written by Jennifer Venson

Cinema is Dead, Long Live the Sequel!

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. – Biblical Verse, Ecclesiastes 1:9 Recently I was sent to a link by a dear friend called “The Day the Movies Died.”  Reading the article filled me with a rage I have not felt since I walked out of The Phantom Menace.

You can find the article here: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day-the-movies-died-mark-harris?_r=true

I have been trying to write this article for a week now, and I have a number of problems.  The number one problem, first and foremost, above all else, happens to be; I don’t even know what the goddamned article is about!  Is it simply sequels are bad?  Or, rather, sequels and comic book movies and movies based on children’s and or young adult’s novels are bad?  Wow, that’s a slew of problematic cinema right there.

I have to segue off shortly here and ask; can somebody explain the difference between adapting a comic book or young adult book and a novel?  Why is this “unoriginal?”  There is an Oscar given out every single year since 1928, yes EIGHTY-TWO YEARS, for adapted screenplay.  These are movies taken from novels, short stories, play, poems, TV shows – not to mention other films -- so on and so forth.  Yet I have never in my life ever heard anybody say, “Geez, when is Hollywood going to stop making great films based on novels?  Enough already!”

Or, is the point of the article that too much money is going to these sequels and not enough to original ideas?

The gist of the article seems to be “Hollywood” is stale.  Nothing original, too many sequels, too many comics, blah blah, yadda yadda.  Nothing I haven’t heard some half-literate internet user complain about on the rottentomatoes forums.

When didn’t Hollywood play it safe?  The idea to make money, correct?  You mean “Hollywood” doesn’t want to spend $160 million for something that’s not going to show a return on investment?  How weird is that?  Guess what Mark Harris, for every Inception there’s a Waterworld!

Accrediting totally non-credible statements like “It's just a favor Warner Bros. is doing for Nolan because the studio needs him to make Batman 3” to nebulous organizations like “the industry” makes my blood boil.

You know what term can be used to describe a number of successful films accredited to your person?  A resume!  They sure in the hell aren’t giving Uwe Boll $160 million to film an original script.  Nor should they.

Memento was a really good film made for $5 million.  His very next film was a $46 million movie starring Al Pacino and Robin Williams.  And then Batman Begins.  $150 million.  All successful.  Isn’t this a resume?  The tone of the article makes it sound as if Nolan held Warner Bros. hostage like a spoiled pre-pubescent.  “Let me make Inception….or else!”  But isn’t it just as likely that Warner Bros. thought he had earned the right to make a big budget film starring a big named cast?  For all I know, it may have even been written in his contract somewhere.

But, hey, who needs information when you can just cite “industry buzz?”

The problem is this particular year the top 5 films were ALL sequels.  So now everybody wants to complain about the “END OF ORIGINALITY!”  So I decided to do some research.  Research I NEVER EVEN HAD TO LEAVE MY COUCH TO DO.

To make my point I only wanted to use every five years to keep from getting bogged down, but first feel the need to point out JUST LAST YEAR Avatar, a completely original idea, was filmed by Hollywoodians and became the largest grossing film of all time.  I guess Twentieth Century Fox was just doing Cameron a favor so he would direct Aliens 6 or Titanic 2.

Let’s go back a five years to 2005.  The top 5 films were Revenge of the Sith, the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, War of the Worlds, and King Kong.

Whoa, two sequels, two remakes, and an adaptation!  I thought THIS year was the death of movies?

10 years ago:

How the Grinch Stole Christmas, Cast Away, Mission Impossible II, Gladiator, and What Women Want.  Hey, a full decade ago and two of the top five films were either remakes or sequels.  I believe What Women Want was an original idea.  Now that’s film making!

15 years ago:

Toy Story, Batman Forever, Apollo 13, Pocahantas, Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.  Wait a second…..two more sequels.  Number 6 in the list, by the way, was Goldeneye, which I believe is James Bond #78.

20 years ago:

Well, 20 years ago none of the top 5 grossing films were sequels.

HOWEVER

These films were produced, and I can only assume by Hollywood, and I can only assume they were looking for some ROI:

Die Hard 2, Back to the Future 3, Another 48 Hours, Three Men and a Little Lady, Godfather 3, Look Who’s Talking Too, Robocop 2, Young Guns 2, Gremlins 2, Rocky 5, Jungle Book Reissue, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Predator 2, Child’s Play 2, The Rescers Down Under, The Exorcist 3, Fantasia Reissue.

I ask you, does that list seem any more or less original than what’s coming up this year?  That was two decades ago.  Two decades.  Twenty years.  What’s that?  Not good enough?  You want a quarter of a century.

Okay.

1985:

Rambo 2, Rocky 4 (both in the top 5 highest grossing films) Jewel of the Nile, Police Academy 2, View to a Kill, European Vacation, E.T. Reissue, Nightmare on Elm Street 2, Friday the 13th 5, Porky’s 3.

These lists are culled only from the top 50 grossing films for the year.  They don’t count sequels or adaptations that may have flopped or ones I may have overlooked due to an unfamiliar title.

So…..is Mark Harris trying to say that films have been dying since the 70S?!  He doesn’t say that expressly….he SEEMS to be saying, based on his proclivity to site the films coming out in the future, that 2010 was the year they “died” and the trend will continue in the foreseeable future.  But what about the glut of sequels I just mentioned for the past 25 years?!

Furthermore Mark Harris points out that there is no Inception this year.  What the?  It’s FEBRUARY!  How in the hell does he know there is no Inception?

Maybe what he’s trying to say is there will be no Inception in the crop of Summer Blockbusters.  But that’s a cop out.  Inception is an Oscar Nominated film.  How many Summer Blockbusters EVER get nominated for Best Picture?  I don’t know, because the article doesn’t bother to tell me.  It would rather pretend movies of the ilk of Inception used to come out, in some imaginary time of yore, EVERY summer.  It doesn’t parallel it to anything, no examples.

What do sentences like, “it has never been harder for an intelligent, moderately budgeted, original movie aimed at adults to get onto movie screens nationwide” mean?  If you are trying to make a point like that, don’t you have to quantify SOMETHING?

What does “harder” mean?  Who says it’s harder?  Why is it harder?  Harder than when?  Harder than 5 years ago?  10?  15?  20?

What is a “moderate” budget?  Is Inception, with a $160,000,000 price tag “moderate?”  If not, then why spend over half the article talking about it?  Because the article isn’t actually about moderately budgeted films but “original” film?  Or do we have to go one step further and claim “original” blockbusters?  I wish I knew…..

Just off the top of my head, I love the Coen brothers, Darren Aronofsky, Wes Anderson, Christopher Smith, and Neil Marshall, all of whom seem to me to make moderately budgeted original films with regularity.

Hollywood is spending more money on film now more than ever, so using the past makes for a tricky comparison.  Regardless, it is safe to say if you are spending $200 million on something, and you are looking for a return on that investment, you are probably going to spend it somewhere you know you can make some money.  It’s simple branding.

If you go to the store for a frozen pizza and you really like Tombstone, you are pretty glad Tombstone didn’t just make one pizza.  When you see the title “Die Hard” you more or less know what you are going to get and might be more apt to buy a ticket for it.  Does the title alone make it unoriginal?  I thought Die Hard 4 was a lot of fun, and better than 2 or 3.  If they had named it “Firesell” instead of Die Hard 4, would that have made it original?

So what if a movie takes more than one film to tell its story?  Harry Potter was a seven book series with an over arching plotline the author thought couldn’t be told in one book.  So what’s wrong with also making it seven films?  Oh, I forgot, it’s a young adult book, so my whole point is rendered moot.  Making it in to a film simply hastens the death of cinema for some reason I can’t conceivably understand.

I’m not saying sequelization and remakes aren’t becoming more pervasive, they certainly seem to be.  But how much more?  Enough that we are going to decry the death of cinema?  As far back as the 80s and 90s Hollywood was spending the most money on their sequels: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Rambo, James Bond, Star Trek, Terminator, Batman, Die Hard, Aliens.  These were all expensive films to make for their time.

Hollywood is a business.  A HUGE business.  Do businesses sometimes start trends?  Sure.  But do they more often follow trends in order to capitalize on a good idea?  Definitely.

Hollywood wants to make money, and right now there is money in sequels and nostalgia.  There were a lot of good movies this year, and I, personally, didn’t have to go out of my way to see them.  In fact, I saw Buried, which grossed a paltry $1 million and whose widest release was 107 screens, at an AMC.  If you don’t like sequels, don’t go see sequels, it’s simple.

I think it is only suitable for me to end this article with a quote from the Predators review I wrote nearly eight months ago, the very first review I wrote for www.comingoffthreels.com:

"Despite all the belly-aching about sequels and remakes and re-envisionings, people want to see these films, or they wouldn’t be getting made by the dozen.  Some are good, some are bad, just like any other film.  The complaint nothing original gets made anymore is a lazy/grouchy man’s argument.  The same guy will complain it’s too hot when the temperature is over 70, and too cold when it’s under 70.  There are plenty of original films being made, and only the most casual film-goer is unaware of this."

Written by Ryan Venson

The facts in this article come from www.boxofficemojo.com, www.the-numbers.com, and www.imdb.com.

I would like to thank them for making the interwebz an informative, accessible and useful tool.

Academy Awards- Part I

DSCN1881
DSCN1881
DSCN1883
DSCN1883

This was the show we recorded the afternoon before the Oscars. Listen as we predict that Fincher would win Best Director for The Social Network, and that Franco and Hathaway wouldn't do a good job. At least we weren't wrong about everything. Also, if the mere sound of Ryan and I talking drives you crazy, fear not, we have two guests with us for this show. Thanks to Courtney Felix and Matt Trueblood for joining us. Matt and Courtney don't really know much about movie, I mean they both thought King's Speech was going to win Best Picture. No way that happens, not when Ryan and I were voting for Social Network. All kinds of wrong in this show. Enjoy.

Tuvalu

Starring: Denis Lavant, Chulpan Khamatova Directed by: Veit Helmer

Reality can be frustrating, depressing, boring, irritating…in short, something from which we want to escape. Movies can help us do that, especially if they offer a departure from reality to a world that is whimsical, fantastic…in short, allows us to escape.  So when I read words like ‘delightful escape’ and ‘dream world’ in the description for themovie Tuvalu, I was all set to watch a happy film.

About 20 minutes into the movie, I had to pause it to make sure the black and white, mostly dialogue-less film I was watching was Tuvalu.  The dream world appeared to consist of a socially backwards middle-aged guy setting up an elaborate sham in the bathhouse his family runs to convince his blind father – the lifeguard, operating on hearing alone – business is going swimmingly.  His mother ensures the few ragtag patrons pay admission – either with coins or, bizarrely, buttons.  Although everything else in the bathhouse is falling apart or in ill repair, the boiler/hot water heater contraption is in excellent shape.

One day the guy sees a beautiful young girl at the bathhouse with her father and immediately becomes obsessed with her.  As she is completely preoccupied with other things – such as her home being destroyed, her father meeting an untimely demise and swimming naked with her goldfish at the bathhouse after hours – it takes a while for her to notice him.

Add to the mix:

  • an evil businessman who is determined to make the bathhouse fail an inspection so he can tear it down and build a casino
  • a posse of bums who come to the bathhouse every night to sleep
  • a mysterious boat bequeathed to the young girl after her father dies
  • constant rain whenever the guy leaves the bathhouse

…and I really felt like this more of a symbolic or artsy movie than a film to just sit back and enjoy.

Parts of it were still enjoyable – the second inspection of the bathhouse was pretty funny, and the blind lifeguard’s posturing is humorous.  But overall the movie emphasizes the pathetic rather than allowing the viewer to escape from it.

If you:

  • Like silent movies
  • Enjoy movies that are a departure from the Hollywood format
  • Find it exciting to analyze the movies you watch – particularly ones with a ‘little guy vs The Man’ theme

Put it in the queue.

However, if you want a movie that makes you forget:

  • the constant struggle of the proletariat vs. the bourgeois
  • bad guys don’t always give up after the good guy prevails
  • that your brain is on

Don’t put it in the queue.

Written by Jennifer Venson

2011 OSCAR CONTEST

The Academy Awards are one week away and Coming Off the Reels is holding an Oscar contest.  Simply type the category and who you think will win and send your picks to comingoffthereels@yahoo.com.  Get the most right and you will score a glorious movie package!  Will it contain a DVD of questionable value?  More than likely.  Will a fine piece of movie apparel be included?  Couldn’t say for sure.  Will it include a handful of Coming Off the Reels business cards for you to hand out to friends and/or throw away?  You can bank on it!

You, the Living

Starring: Jessika Lundberg, Elisabeth Helander, Björn Englund Directed by: Roy Andersson

Viewing a movie used to be based on seeing a trailer for the film and then, maybe, word of mouth.  A good written review.  Siskel and Ebert.  With the advent of the VCR one might see a film based on the synopsis written on the box.  Whatever the case you could probably give a reason as to why you saw a film.  Because the trailer looked good, or because the back of the box sounded interesting or, hell, maybe even just because Michael J. Fox was in it.

Eventually there came the internet, and the wealth of information it has left almost literally at our fingertips.  Now I see so many reviews and watch so many trailers and read so much information about film, some of which may or may not even be true, I sometimes forget why I saw a movie.

And so it is that I have no idea why I watched the Swedish Existentialist romanti-dramedy, “You, the Living.”  It’s probably because Netflix recommended it based on my “taste preferences.”  Or maybe I simply chose it based on the synopsis.  Maybe because it sounded difficult and mysterious.  Who knows.  Maybe those Bing search overload commercials are really on to something.

“You, the Living,” is like one of those films where there are seven or eight different vignettes and then, in the end, they are carefully woven together to show how everybody’s lives are amazingly, inexplicably intertwined to create the beautiful existence we call life.

Except, in “You, the Living,” there are somewhere in the range of 50 vignettes presented in a film lasting under 90 minutes.  Some of them are intertwined, and some of them aren’t.  Some of them are funny, some are sad and some….well, some simply exist.  So I guess, actually, it is nothing like those films.

There were times, during the viewing of “You, the Living,” when I found myself thoroughly enjoying a particular vignette.  Maybe because it was funny (my favorite scene is one in which a man recounts a dream where he tries to pull the tablecloth out from underneath a family meal to no avail.  Subsequently he is sentenced to death by electrocution) or insightful to the human condition.  Unfortunately that enjoyment crashed back down as I was forced to watch an entire bit revolving around a man on the telephone.  In its oversimplified style, you are greeted with a scene in which the camera is static and you only hear one side of the conversation.  The voice on the other end of the phone is inaudible.

So it goes and, as you would expect when you are trying to cram fifty-ish vignettes in to a 90 minute running time, there is plenty of hit and miss.

The one amazing thing about the film is director Roy Anderrson’s style choice.  Nearly every single vignette is shot with no camera movement, but the camera is placed so perfectly you hardly notice.  The depth given in a static shot of a room is astounding.  In almost every shot there is something going on in the background -- outside a door, or a window for example.  Inside the room may just be a reflection of everyday life.  In this way he creates something interesting to look at without having to compromise the style he has chosen for the rest of the film, and in that regard it works brilliantly.

That, I think, speaks a lot to the idea of the film.  Every minute of every second of our lives is not filled with snappy dialogue or explosions or dramatic decision making.  Unfortunately, exploring the banal minutiae of everyday life with no clarification, background or character development doesn’t necessarily make for very enthralling cinema.

Written by Ryan Venson

Revolutionary Road

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet Directed by: Sam Mendes

Many years ago, a male love interest of mine refused to get into a serious relationship with me because he thought we were too much alike.  He claimed we would 'destroy each other,' because we are both very stubborn, of a fiery Aries nature, and also sometimes prone to melancholy.  At the time, I thought it was just a lame excuse – and I kind of still do.  But after watching Revolutionary Road, I think there might be some truth to the idea.

Revolutionary Road paints a strong portrait of the 'whited sepulchre' of suburban life in the mid-1950s.  Frank (Leonardo DiCaprio) and April Wheeler (Kate Winslet) are two people extremely unhappy with their suburban lives.  They get into an uncomfortable-to-watch argument early in the film, Frank angry that April doesn't want to go out for drinks with friends after she performs in a sub-par local play.  Both perceive that they have given up on the exciting lives they meant to have to behave according to the (boring) constraints of the American Dream.  Frank is bored by his job and chafes at working in the same company his father once did.  April feels stifled and frustrated by Frank's inability to understand why she is unhappy.

For a while, they agree on an unconventional move to Paris where Frank can 'find himself' and April will support the family as a secretary. Domestic harmony – both in their delight of shocking everyone who thinks their plan is ridiculous, immature, etc. and in their excitement about having something to look forward to – reigns for a time.  The question is – will they actually carry through with it, or abandon their dreams again?  The movie takes a very hard look at fear of the unknown and unconventional and how we often let one opportunity slip away for fear of losing another.

Both characters, at times, emotionally punish each other in different ways while justifying their own behavior. Mostly, this resulted in overly dramatic arguments and some gratuitous infidelity. And in the end, they destroy each other.

I can't recommend putting this movie in the queue unless you really like to see people argue and do not prefer your movies to have at least a little flavor of hope that happily ever after is possible.

I also recommend that Leonardo DiCaprio take a break from roles where he is married to unpredictable and/or unbalanced women (similar to Shutter Island and Inception).

Written by Jennifer Venson

Amélie

Starring: Audrey Tautou, Mathieu Kassovitz, Dominique Pinon Directed by: Jean-Pierre Jeunet

When I decided that I was going to review movies about love for this site, the only thing that I knew for sure was that Amélie would definitely be on the list. Over the last ten years, Amélie has been one of the films by which all others have been compared, romantic or not. When my wife and I were married, it was the music from this film that proceeded “you may kiss the bride”. So when I tell you that Amélie means a lot to me, I promise I am being sincere.

The film revolves around Amélie Poulain who, after spending most of her childhood alone, has grown up to be a very solitary woman with an imagination that seems to be always dialed to eleven. One day Amélie discovers of hidden box full of a child’s odd and ends in her apartment.  When she realizes the box must have belonged to a previous tenant, Amélie decides to track the man down and return it to him. Upon seeing the reaction of the man when he opens his once treasure chest, Amélie decides that she will devote her life to helping people.

The above synopsis hardly does this film justice.  Beyond this story about a woman helping people, there are themes and ideas that will strike at the heart of most people. Almost every character in the movie is introduced with little vignettes in which we the viewer become privy to the most mundane things that each character hates, and the simple pleasures that bring them each unexplainable joy.  It is the idea of simple pleasures that not only introduces us to the cast of characters, but also connects them to each other and the world at large.

With several of our characters, we are also given brief insights into their childhoods. While this facet of the films may be minor, it is perhaps my favorite. It is weird what we remember from being a child. Moments that seem so inconsequential can stay with us longer than we can comprehend, and the rush of emotion that comes when remembered can be overwhelming. In watching these memories, we become sadly aware that the years have only served to magnify the characters hopes and fears, their personal tragedies, and their desires to find someone who understands them.

Amélie is a fairy-tale. You need to be aware of that notion before you begin your viewing. I always feel like most romantic films are extraordinary reflections of real life. Amélie on the other hand, is a story, not in the world we know, but in a world as we wish it could be. The colors are rich and velvety. The music is soft and sweet. No, Amélie is not something that could exist in the real world, but only in the amazing world of cinema. I cannot tell you how many times I have vehemently recommended this film to friends and strangers. It’s a movie about magic and mystery and garden gnomes and love…above all love. And after you watch it you will find that Amélie, like love, is meant to be shared with others.

Written By Drew Martin

Best/Worst of 2010

With the Academy Awards a mere two weeks away, we figure we had better go ahead and talk about what we thought were the best and worst films of 2010. Where will Unstoppable fall? It could go either way. There are also some honorable mentions for movies that might not be the best of the year, but are still a "must see". We also briefly discuss Winter's Bone...you may know it from all the nominations it has received lately. Proving once again that the Academy member feel compelled to nominate an indie film just so they can say they did. Enjoy.

Much Ado About Nothing

Starring: Kenneth Branagh,  Emma Thompson Directed by: Kenneth Branagh

Sigh no more, ladies (and gentlemen).  Valentine's Day is upon us, and truly it is a ridiculous and contrived holiday.  However, I do feel the need to bestow you, my loyal readers, with a token of my appreciation for your support.  In honor of my favorite comedy by Wm. Shakespeare and a statement of my true feelings on February 14th, I present you with my review of Much Ado About Nothing.

The plot specifics are relatively unimportant – if you know Shakespeare, you know what happens. Some sappy lovers and some comedic characters are introduced, a treacherous plot by a evil jerk emerges, an event that throws a monkey wrench into the whole works (in this film, it has to do with mistaken identity) occurs, the audience gets some comic relief from a buffoon, there is a faked death, a rift in a friendship and/or threats of violence happen, and then there is a happy resolution with marriage, music and dancing.

The beauty of this film is the casting.

  • Keanu Reeves is the villain; his first line is "I am a man of few words."  His acting style conforms well to a character who displays passive-aggressive unhappiness with stiff posture and a scowl.
  • Denzel Washington as the charming Don Pedro, striding through the film with presence and grace.  He is a natural and respected leader among the band of soldiers he commands, a sincere courtier to the ladies – yet not above schoolboy mischief.
  • Michael Keaton as the oddball and not-too-bright constable Dogberry who rides around on an invisible horse, is highly offended by a prisoner calling him an ass, and unwittingly saves the day.
  • Robert Sean Leonard and Kate Beckinsale as Claudio and Hero, the two innocent lovers.  Both are cutely earnest, very gullible and cry a lot (especially Claudio).  Yet, we can't help but hope these two kids can work things out.  What's a Shakesperian comedy without a wedding in Act V?
  • Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branagh as Beatrice and Benedick are the pair that truly make this a great comedy.  Both are fiercely stubborn, 'more mirth than matter,' and set against marriage. Whenever they meet they only speak to each other in humorous insults.  After Don Pedro and others decide it would be very merry indeed to convince Benedick that Beatrice is in love with him (and vice versa), the following scenes are absolutely hysterical.  While Benedick attempts to hide behind a shrubbery in the garden, Don Pedro and company spin yarns of a love-struck Beatrice with giggling glee.

As far as Shakespeare remakes go, I put it at the top of the list (closely followed by the Baz Luhrmann version of Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet with Mel Gibson, and 10 Things I Hate About You (which is loosely based on The Taming of the Shrew).

If you:

  • have an aversion to The Bard
  • prefer your movies in modern English rather than Ye Olde English
  • don't enjoy British humor (especially 16th century British humor)

Don't put it in the queue.

If you:

  • like a witty comedy
  • are willing to endure (or at least fast-forward) the mostly dull Act IV
  • enjoy a star-studded film that requires – and delivers – actual acting

Put it in the queue!

Written by Jennifer Venson

Dogtooth

Starring:  Christos Stergioglou, Aggeliki Papoulia, Mary Tsoni, Hristos Passalis Directed by:  Giorgos Lanthimos

I have seen some odd movies in my time.  I have seen movies about time-traveling midgets, clay-animated surgically-removed serial-killing Siamese twins, people eating dumplings made out of babies in order to stay young, a Japanese film where a man turns in to a machine after he accidentally kills a man who likes to stab himself with rebar, a Czech film about a woman who raises a log as a child where the log eventually comes to life and starts eating people.  Oh, and Eraserhead.

It would be hyperbole to say none of those hold a candle to Dogtooth.  The above mentioned films are weird.  Really weird.  The one thing that differentiates Dogtooth from those films is its complete lack of the fantastic.  The aforementioned films (Time Bandits, Basket Case, Dumplings, Tetsuo the Iron Man, Little Otik and, well, Eraserhead) all use dreamlike, abstract, incredible imagery to add to the storytelling.  Dogtooth is subdued and grounded in realism from the beginning.

Dogtooth takes place in Greece.  We are never given a lot of context as to where in Greece, as the plot revolves around a mother and father raising three early twenty-something children who they have never let off the property.  Never.  They are told the outside world is too dangerous but, someday, when they lose their “dogtooth,” they will be allowed to venture out in to the world.  In order to make this more tangible, the parents even create an older brother who lives on the outside.

Since there are no visitors, no friends, save a security guard at the father’s workplace whom he pays to have sex with his son once a week, we aren’t given any real insight in to why the parents have chosen this path.  There is never a plausible reason for the parents to reveal this to the audience, and the film doesn’t force a reason.  The reason seems to be that the mother and father really do think the exterior world is too corrupt.  They actually believe they are helping their children by giving them completely sheltered lives.  The father says something to this effect in the few seconds available for exposition in the entire film -- after he batters a woman with a VCR.

At the same time, however, they seem to have no problem taking advantage of their innocence by creating games for their own enjoyment.  They teach the children incorrect vocabulary -- “sea” is a leather arm chair, a “motorway” is a very strong wind, a “carbine” is a white bird.  They make them compete in feats of endurance and reward the winner with stickers.  Whoever wins the most stickers at the end of the week gets to decide the entertainment for the night.

The film is not an easy watch.  Its pacing is deliberate.  The relationship between the siblings is loving, but also awkward and, at times, unsettling.  Relationships and sexual desire and how they manifest in a household where no outside influences are ever allowed is a significant theme.  The father takes on the burden of antagonist in the film, insofar as there is one.  He goads his children in to, at the very least, abnormal activities and, at the very worst, out-and-out creepy activities.  In this you are left to decide whether the parents truly think they are acting in the best interest of their children, or simply out of sociological curiosity.

Written by Ryan Venson