Spider-Man 4: The Backroom Shenanigans of a Film Project

If you haven't heard, Spider-Man 4 is dead. Sam Raimi was returning as director, along with Toby Maguire and Kirsten Dunst to complete another film in the very successful series, set to be released next summer. It was to be a triumphant return to what made the film series so great, and was to have shamed the "ok" Spider-Man 3. But now it is dead and the studio, Sony, has decided to go reboot and start over with a new director and a new cast.

The inception, development, and death or life of film projects is fascinating stuff to me. As anybody in the film business will tell you, a film's journey from concept to completion is a long, hard fought, road that nine times out of ten will kill a project before it even goes in front of a camera. The thing that is so unusual in this Spider-Man 4 scenario is that usually when a property is rebooted it's because the series has gone stale. Rebooting is a great way to take an old property and to infuse it with new blood and talent to bring something fresh to the table.

Batman is probably the most well known successful rebooting of a series. There were four Batman films, which over the 8 years it was active, slowly became worse and worse. At the end of the run with the release of Batman and Robin, it had devolved into a loud, obnoxious, soul-less farce. Then along came Batman Begins which simultaneously told a story that hadn't been seen before, but also dramatically altered the tone of the series and lifted Batman out of the cinematic dumps. The release of the Dark Knight proved that the concept of rebooting was a viable solution to "fix" a series. More recently, Star Trek was rebooted with a new cast in a fresh take by J.J. Abrams.

But why is Spider-Man deemed to be primed for a reboot? The series is one of the most successful and much-loved comic-book film adaptations ever made. It baffles me that this material needs to be told again. The first Spider-Man was an excellent example of an origin story. Am I going to have to watch Peter Parker learn his spidey senses AGAIN?! WHY?! It was done so well the first time. It isn't like this series was made 40 years ago, it was only 8 years ago!

It is very clear to me why this happened, even though I think it is a bonehead move on Sony's part. I'm going to explain what I think the perspectives are from all parties and try to and analyze the fallout.

CAST:
The cast, it can be assumed, were locked down for a three-picture deal. Meaning, that for the 4th film, they were probably asking for a lot of money. And they are right to do so. They make up a huge chunk of what makes the films so successful. They were more or less obligated to make the others, and the fourth would have been them basically doing a favor to the property. The cast's return to the fourth outing, was also probably dependent on having Sam Raimi return as director. They know that in order for the newest film to be successful, with their involvement, they need the man who made the previous incarnations so good.

DIRECTOR:
Sam Raimi, the director on all the Spider-Man films, wanted absolute control on this new Spider-Man. He learned a very important lesson with Spider-Man 3, on how much negative influence a domineering studio can have on a property. Spider-Man 3 had too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. The film is all over the place, chock filled with tons of plot points, villains, and emotional crossroads. Unfortunately they barely gelled together to form a cohesive film. Raimi wanted to come back again, to right the wrong done on Spider-Man 3. He wanted to deliver a great Spider-Man film once again (like he did with the amazing Spider-Man 2). In order for him to do that, he'd have to butt heads with the studio again as he did on 3. But this time, he wouldn't give in so easily, and he would fight harder to make the film he wanted to make.

STUDIO:
Sony has a lucrative franchise with Spider-Man. The public loves all things Spidey. Another movie simply HAS to be made, they'd be idiots NOT to make another film. A fourth film in the current series seems the most obvious choice. They have a cast that wants to return and a director that wants to create the best film he can make. But here's the rub: The cast want a significant increase in pay, and the director has a very clear vision, which doesn't always line up with what the studio wants. Raimi wanted the Vulture as the villain, even going so far as to nearly cast John Malkovich in the role. The studio doesn't want an obscure villain like the Vulture, they want a villain more popular, that will appeal to the widest audience possible. It's understandable, they want to stack the deck in their favor; to make as much money as they can. But with a director that is now sticking to his guns, it makes it difficult for there to be any agreement between the two. Add to all this conflict, Sony will lose the rights to Spider-Man if they aren't actively making films. The rights would revert back to Marvel, now owned by Walt Disney.

So what will Sony decide? The best choice for them is to can Raimi, in doing so, losing the cast thus making any continuance of the current storyline impossible. Their answer: to reboot and start over from scratch. They save money on the cast because now they can negotiate new contracts with new talent, and they don't have to worry about a headstrong director. It is the smartest move from a fiscal perspective, but from a film-goer and fan's perspective, it is utterly baffling.

Spider-Man 4 would have been a guaranteed hit regardless of who the villain was. And although it would have cost them more money in the end to make THAT film, it still would have been a sound investment. But now, with a presumed lower budget, they'll be able to have larger returns, which in the end is the bottom line for a large studio like Sony.

I hope that this new path they are starting down, will end in failure. Not for Spider-Man, and certainly not for whoever moves in to try and direct it (good luck to them in following Raimi's footsteps). I want it to fail so that the rights can revert back to Marvel. I want Spider-Man to go home to its owners so they may use him in the Marvel universe films that they are currently cobbling together. Who knows, maybe Disney will fork over some of their cash to buy Spidey back. I have a feeling that the longer Spider-Man remains in Sony's hands, the worse off we will be.

The one bit of good news to come from this debacle is that Raimi will now be able to focus 100% on his next announced project: a live action Warcraft movie.

For the Horde!

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

My Movie Faves of 2009

Here follows a list of my 10 favorite films of the past year. Note these are not what I think are the best of the year. There is a huge difference between favorites and the best made films. That list is to be made by other people (with more 'qualified' experience reviewing films). The following are my favorite films of 2009:

10. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Yes it is somewhat retarded explosive Michael Bay Stupidity on film, but god I love it. I love films that stir my inner 7-year-old and make him stare at the screen in awe of 30 foot robots fist-fighting against buildings. It's just cool cinema.

9. The Road
I love this post apocalyptic film mostly because it is unapologetically bleak. The world is dying and mankind is clinging by it's fingernails struggling to survive. There is no hope in this world. A brave film.

8. Anti-Christ
This film polarized audiences, and upon viewing it does force you to contemplate about a wide variety of subjects; misogyny, origin of man, psychological impacts of loss, and the presence of extreme violence in film. It is a hard film to watch and the violence can be difficult to stomach, but the conversations it sparked and the incredible cinematography make this an unlikely favorite for me.

7. Watchmen
A mature comic hero film that raises some fascinating questions about vigilantism and the costs of maintaining peace. While I enjoyed the theatrical version, I think the best is the recently released Ultimate Cut, which includes the comic within the comic, increasing the depth of the material. Watchmen is a fantastic project filled with adoration to its source material, and it's a film executed to near perfection.

6. Zombieland
You have to love zombies. This movie was a love letter to all things zombie. Woody Harrelson chews scenes as the ultimate zombie slayer in the funniest movie of the genre since Shaun of the Dead.

5. Precious
A tough film to watch, filled with abuse, hate, and oppression, yet still manages to uplift and inspire with a genuine authenticity. Plus, it's chock full of outstanding performances. Look for it to win some in award season.

4. District 9
Great Science Fiction is able to present fantastical situations and infuse them into modern issues and themes. District 9 is as close to a modern Science Fiction classic as I could imagine. Tackling racial issues head on by utilizing an alien race is what makes this film important, but it's also a hell of an entertainment.

3. Inglorious Basterds
Only Tarantino could rewrite the history books and do it with such style. I don't know how he is able to tighten the screws using only words and a pair of characters at a table gabbing about milk. The man has a talent for words. Thinking back, it seems as if the film has only a handful of scenes (A handful of terrific scenes mind you). Tarantino squeezes every juicy character moment from the performers in these few scenes. It is a great performance piece, a bit of a black comedy, and a war film all wrapped up in a nice, tight, Tarantino bundle-of-joy. In other words: it's awesome!!

2. Avatar
The build up to this movie has been incredible over the past few years. But none of the game-changing talk lives up to how much this film knocked me on my ass. Seeing this movie in IMAX 3D was one of the greatest film-going experiences I have had. Cameron paints a classic, simple story with the most colorful, eye-poppingly gorgeous eye candy you will ever see. This film is the very definition of escapism. Taking you to a completely artificial world and telling a very relevant story, this is a movie you should not deprive yourself of seeing on as big a screen as you can find.

And my number 1 favorite film of 2009 is...



A TIE!!

1. Star Trek/Up
In compiling this list I couldn't decide which of these I enjoyed more.

Star Trek brings a much needed, incredible sense of adventure into a long stale series. After seeing this in the early summer, I netflixed every previous Star Trek film, and I have to say you ain't missing much (unless you are a hardcore Trekkie, in which case, God help you). This is a terrific entertainment that rarely slows down; a movie that will have you on the edge of your seat cheering. After enduring the tepid Star Wars Prequels, it's nice to see a return to great space adventure. I can't wait for the next in the series.

Up was a film I was not expecting to like. An old protagonist, a talking dog, and a flying house make up a few hurdles to this uncharacteristic animated film. I should have trusted Pixar. The opening 10 minutes is the best, emotionally packed bit of animation I have ever seen. Telling a life's time of story in 10 minutes is an incredibly feat of storytelling.

I love that the hero of this "cartoon" is an old man (even the elderly dream of adventures). I love the tenderness, the sadness, and the final triumph. Laced with gut-busting comedy, the film packs a sweet light-hearted tone, yet explores the fragility of life, and the impact of death on the living. This is an extraordinary creation from the best minds in animation and it sits comfortably on top of my list for 2009.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Not much going on, sooooo....

KITTEN!!

No seriously, I'm not quite sure what to write about, so I figured I'd give a little mini post on several things that my brain is all over today...

I finished playing Fable 2 on Xbox the other day. I still have a fair amount of quests to complete, and houses to buy, but I am for the most part done with it. It was fantastic, and I enjoyed every moment of it. The setting and art design were awesome. The description "Dickensian" has been used to describe the look of the towns and its inhabitants. Everything has a grim and grit to it, but it is altogether fanciful and often hilarious. I love British sensibilities, and this Game was a real Joy to play through.

I recently bought a juicer. Why you may ask? Spur of the moment, I wanted a juicer to make my own juices. There's a great fruit place between here and Bakersfield, and I picked up a whole flat of fresh strawberries and various sorts of berries. I already tried the juicer out earlier this week, and it was in a word; powerful. I thought the thing was going to take off, dragging my fruit in tow. But this weekend, I'm going to be making a whole pitcher of fresh juice. I don't want the fruit rotting in my fridge, so I'm just gonna juice it all at once, and save the juice for a little while. Hopefully that won't go bad nearly as fast as the fruit would, we'll see.

According to Guillermo del Toro, the director of the upcoming Hobbit films, we are within a couple of weeks to hearing an announcement on who will play Bilbo Baggins. Yes I am a nerd, and a devoted 'Ringer' (Lord of the Rings Superfan to the uninitiated), so this news of the possibility of news forthcoming, has got me so bloody pumped! I know it seems unexciting and not very interesting, but this is the stuff I live for. I can't wait to see what Guillermo has up his sleeves for the Hobbit. I loved Lord of the Rings, and have become quite the fan of Peter Jackson. Hopefully Hobbit won't disappoint, and the first clue as to what kind of movie they are making, comes from the casting.

And then...

Kittens!!

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Downfall (Der Untergang) Review

Nobody likes Hitler. We all want to see him dead. This movie depicts the last days of Hitler, hunkered down inside his Berlin bunker. And I have to say it was one of the most gut wrenching cinema experiences I've had in quite some time.

Let me be straight, I felt no pity for Hitler, no pity for that monstrosity of a man. Rather I feel extraordinary sympathy with the people caught in his terrible wake. The General who doesn't want his family captured, so he blows them up at dinner with two grenades. The young secretary who was there for every important moment, yet doesn't realize the implications. The lovers who only have a few more hours, and when the end is near, they commit suicide.

This powerful film shows you what happened to the closest friends and Military leaders caught with Hitler in his Führerbunker. Told primarily from the perspective of Hitler's personal Secretary, the film vividly portrays the final excruciating hours of the Third Reich. Hitler is at the forefront of the story, going from calm, collected, military tactician, to a screaming and maniacal lunatic in the next.

It's a very difficult film to watch. There are countless scenes towards the final act that just had me torn up. Children put to sleep with medicine only to have their mother systematically go around and pop cyanide capsules in their mouths. When one daughter doesn't want to take the medicine, the Mother must force her to. The anguish experienced watching this becomes amplified when you realize these people are completely misled into the Nazi agenda.

This is a difficult thing to come to grips with; it is one thing to be sympathetic to a Holocaust Jew, it is another to feel the same sympathy for the supposed bad guys. But you realize that they aren't evil. Misguided and lost, but not evil. Hitler's the evil one, and they give him more than a few moments to make you realize it. The others are doing what they think is the right thing. Everybody was so enraptured by Hitler's promise, they found themselves following his every word. To see them caught in an inescapable situation, and then forced to suicide, the sadness is compounded by their ignorance.

I cannot recommend this film enough. I love historical pieces, and even more so when they are told from an unconventional perspective. This film encapsulates this horrific moment in history so effectively, I feel it should be shown in every 20th century history lesson. Not only does it encompass the final days of Hitler so well, and serve as an excellent example of history, but it makes you conscious of the horror of undue fanaticism, and its deadly consequences on both the innocent and guilty.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Vanishing Point

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Vanishing Point
Released: January 15, 1971
Directed by: Richard C. Sarafian
Starring: Barry Newman

Plot in a Nutshell:
Kowalski (Newman) makes a bet to deliver a 1970 Dodge California from Colorado to San Francisco in 15 hours. However his excessive speeding draws the attention of every police precinct on his way, and a film-length chase ensues across the desert landscape.

What I thought:
When I say this a film-length chase, I mean it. From virtually the opening frame to the final explosive conclusion, Kowalski is running from cops across four states. It makes for a hell of a car flick, but is it a good film otherwise? I have to say that while I enjoyed the chase, the surrounding elements never fully gelled into anything spectacular, or even coherent.

You already know the basics: a man has to deliver car under a deadline, cops pursue him. And that's about it. This simplicity, I found to be refreshing to see in a film. The thing I gripe about, is everything else that has nothing to do with that basic setup and plot.

Threaded throughout the story is a Blind DJ character named Super Soul. He begins as a simple blind black man doing his DJ day job, but when he picks up on the chase through police scanners, he begins to communicate with Kowalski through the radio. And not just talking to Kowalski, but actually have dialogue through the AM/M radio. Yes, I know, it is crazy. The film gives a bit of mystery to this character; he is somehow able to communicate through other means. Some of the things I have read about this flick say it is a mystical element to the character; he is a special blind DJ. I however felt it was a simple stylistic choice, and shouldn't be taken as mysticism (however odd it may be).

As Kowalski goes along on his journey, he runs into several people that help to enrich the story and his character. The snake-catching desert wanderer, an over enthusiastic chopper rider, two flamboyant robbers, and a nude female motorcyclist. Yes, it is an odd assortment of kooky characters. But they help to paint a better picture of Kowalski.

The chase stuff is fantastic. When the Challenger is zipping up and down the median, crossing lanes of oncoming traffic, with the hotly pursuing cops right behind, it does create some exhilarating moments. Apparently to achieve some of the speed in the film they under cranked the camera by 50%, basically enabling the cars to look as though they are going twice the speed they really are. It works very well as the car action is some of the best I have ever seen.

My only grip is that the story seemed to meander to the DJ character way too often. When the film began, I latched onto the simple premise. I didn't need any explanation of why this guy is delivering vehicles, I didn't need to know details, I was perfectly happy with it being a chase movie designed to make gear-heads giddy. But adding in the strange DJ character did nothing and slowed what I think could have been a fantastic piece of cult cinema. Unfortunately I think it gets weighed down by its unnecessary last reel artsyness.

Bottom Line:
A fantastic chase movie that tries to reach beyond its simple premise, and fails.

C+

And here's the film-ruining DJ:

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

The epic battle of Nerdage

A battle has been ongoing for some 30 years. I am referring to the galactic showdown known as Star Trek vs. Star Wars. You are either a fan of one or a maniac for the other. It is impossible to be both a beloved Trekkie and a devoted Star Wars fan. The amount of geekdom nerdness contained within that one devoted person would be enough to destroy the world 15 times over with Mt. Dew and Funions.

So on this day with the premiere of the new Star Trek film, the battle lines will be drawn once again. The debates will begin again. Star Wars fanatics will stick up their noses at the latest incarnation of Kirk and Spock.

So amidst this magic time of fandom glory, I thought it'd be fun to post this pic I found on the web.

So where do you fall? Do you live long and prosper, or is the Force with you?

I am on the side of Star Wars. While I have enjoyed a Trek episode or two. And the one movie I watched, I am pretty much a Trekkie virgin. With Star Wars, While I am not quite a be all know all, I know the universe, the planets, the characters, and why George Lucas has ruined it in the past few years.

I sit on the edge. I have been tormented and torn by the Prequels, I long for a return to the high space adventure the first three achieved so well. While I love my Star Wars, this new film looks incredible, and it may just make me switch loyalties.

Nah, who am I kidding? Boba Fett would kick any Vulcan's ass six ways from Sunday, anywhere, anytime. BOOM! But then again, I have no doubt Captain Kirk would make Jar Jar squeal like a pig.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: All Quiet on the Western Front

Note: Yes I know this is late. My Bad. I am allowed to slip every now and again. But get ready, you're in for a long one...

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

All Quiet on the Western Front
Released: April 21, 1930
Directed by: Lewis Milestone
Starring: Louis Wolheim, Lew Ayres, & William Bakewell

Plot in a Nutshell:
A group of young Germans enlist in the Army to fight for the Fatherland during WWI Europe. What they thought was going to be a heroic and fun adventure, turns into a hard battle for both their country and for their very sanity.

What I thought:
What a strong, powerful, film this turned out to be. I walked into this not knowing quite what to expect. It is the earliest war film I have ever seen. It has the very interesting distinction of being made at a fragile time before WWII, so I find its themes to be incredibly fascinating.

The story is very simple. It is like a hundred other "boys go to war and become men on the battlefield." It is so effective, because it begins with a group of 20 or so young men, but throughout the film, not all of them make it. The impact on the survivors is just as real as it is on the dead and dying. War scars the hell out of you. This film is an attempt to show people the damage war can reek on the young men who fight them. I think it succeeds admirably as an anti war film. I can't imagine anybody watching this and thinking, "Man, that looks like fun!" Obviously people didn't get that out of this movie at the time, because shortly after it's release WWII began to churn up. An interesting note is that it was banned in Germany during the rise of the Nazis. And the book it was based on was one of the many that were burned during those awful years.

The absolute first thing I discovered about this film was that it is very unlike the traditional war films I am familiar with from the 50s and on. This film was made with the intent to show the gritty awfulness of combat. Every battle scene plays like a real battle could. Endless shells detonating across the battle field, men getting shot left and right, chaos erupting in the trenches when the enemy charges. It is done so well, and so effectively, that I wonder what the hell happened over the course of the next 30 years after this film's release.

Thankfully missing from All Quiet on the Western Front, are the selfless single entities of heroism The John Waynes; the character that is so above the real story that it ceases to become reality and becomes Hollywood fakery. The sugar-coated digestibility that many war films seemed to be about in the 50s and 60s, is completely gone here. I think a large part of that is that after WWII, people were more sensitive to violence. People wanted to see "Heroes." They wanted to see combat, but not be appalled, but be excited. This film is brave in that it doesn't hold your hand. Doesn't cover up the atrocities of war. It puts them out there. And it is made all the more impressive considering the film was made in 1930. Absolutely incredible filmmaking.

I want to single out the cinematography (I know I love to). Black and White films are a big bag of mix for me. Sometimes they are done so poorly. I think of the many dozen I have seen, very few have been what I would call impressive in cinematography. The lighting and the sets never seem to gel together, and instead you get a washy blended mess.

I love high contrast black and white imagery. I love it even more when a film captures Black and white the way I feel it should be done. All Quiet on the Western Front's black and white photography is astounding. But more than just the look, it is equally impressive in the camera placements and moves. Throughout the course of the film I saw many amazing shots and sequences that simply took my breath away.

Some shots were incredibly simple, a shot looking up to see the oncoming enemy silhouetted and jumping into the trench, bayonet at the ready. Others were more complex, a camera move through the battle field, following soldiers as they try to dodge incoming shells. The amazing thing about that shot was the shear amount of stuff going on in frame. It's the kind of stuff that inspired Spielberg to make his battle sequences in Saving Private Ryan so relentless, All Quiet on the Western Front did it 70 years prior.

At one point in the film, one of the characters gets pinned down in a shelled out hole. The enemy advances and dozens of troops jump over him not realizing he is there. One French man sees him, jumps down and attacks. The frightened German does what he can and manages to stab him with a bayonet. Unfortunately for the German the wound isn't enough to kill the Frenchman. What occurs over the next few minutes of screen time, was one of the most painful experiences I can imagine someone having during battle. The enemy is there, dying, incapacitated, only a few feet away. You feel absolute empathy for him. After all it is kill or be killed, as the German tries to explain to the dying man. He struggles to keep his grip, but can't. He begins to weep for the Frenchman, and he slowly dies. Afterward, the German is looking in his pockets for a note, and discovers a portrait of the man's family.

This moment I have just described has been done in countless movies since this, but never have I felt so intensely for this poor man's morality. Scenes like this elevate a film to a much higher plane than simply entertainment. The little moments of extraordinary simplicity but unimaginable depth of complexity are why I love film more than any other medium in existence.

This is an absolute tour de force of filmmaking mastery. Everything about it exudes grandeur. I was astonished at the techniques on display. And not only is it an achievement of filmmaking, but the themes it presents of futility in war, and death of innocence are incredibly powerful. This is an absolute must see film. Don't let the age fool you, this is one intense, grand, masterpiece of cinema that has to be seen.

Bottom Line:
An immensely impressive war film that stops at nothing to get the point across; War is hell.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Gallipoli

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Gallipoli
Released: August 13, 1981
Directed by: Peter Weir
Starring: Mel Gibson & Mark Lee

Plot in a Nutshell:
Two naive young Australian men decide to leave Australia and go to fight in the Great War. After being sent to Gallipoli in Turkey, they face the grim reality of battle.

What I thought:
Gallipoli is war film not centered on battles, tactics, victories, or defeats. It is at its center, about the loss of innocence. It seems a lot of war films try to explore this change of boy to man through warfare, Gallipoli pulls it off very well.


Told in several distinct acts, the film builds from one to the next very easily. It begins very intimately, focusing on a runner named Archy (Lee), training for cross country glory. He ends up meeting with Frank (Gibson) and they both join the Australian Army. Once they get into the War theater, they sit around and participate in training exercises, until at last they are sent to the trenches on the shores of Gallipoli. It is here that a tragedy in combat occurs, changing their lives.

The thing that is done so well is the buildup of these two fellas. How they are both eager to a degree, and wanting to go off and have an adventure. It is the same in a lot of films about the young getting old. Naive as they are, they make the transition into men very quickly when confronted with war.

This is a great story of coming of age for both the characters in the film, but also for the young nation of Australia. It had only been a mere decade and a half since they had become a country, before they were asked to send troops to a war n the other side of the globe. You get the sense that the Australians were very different than that of their British brethren.

I enjoyed this film. I kind of wish the score weren't dated 80s electric music. It does kind of pull me out of the film for the few scenes it is in. The film looks great. The scenes in the outback are incredibly harsh and well shot. The action towards the end is very light. Several sequences you only hear the explosions and charging. And while I enjoyed the flick, I have to say that it doesn't stray too far from being a simple loss-of-innocence story. That said, it is still a good one to watch. And you get to see Mel in his young, young days when he still spoke like an Australian.

Bottom Line:
A good coming-of-age tale, like almost every other that you've seen, told with interesting characters and featuring a little known point in history in WWI.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Moby Dick

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Moby Dick
Released: June 27, 1956
Directed by: John Huston
Starring: Gregory Peck

Plot in a Nutshell:
A Captain of a whaling ship stops at nothing in pursuit of the mythic white whale that took his leg.

What I thought:
There is one word to describe this film, stuffy. This is not so much an adaptation as it is a telling of the book. I know that sounds nearly identicle but let me explain. An adaptation will stretch and bend to fit a story to the medium it is trying to fill. An adaptation of a book will never contain everything. It has to be adapted to the screen. This film doen't feel as though it were changed to fit the medium of film, rather it is a strict telling of the tale of the obsessed captain and his crew in their relentless search for the whale Moby Dick.

Gregory Peck commands this role. With every word, every breath, you feel this captain's driven insanity, and that is largely due to his performance. It is simply magnificent when he is bellowing and thrusting his spear into the whale that haunts him. Tremendous.

The effects are not great, but that is to be expected (this is a 50 year old film after all). I don't dock it for trying. Utilizing models and scale replicas, the film manages to create a realistic illusion of terror at sea without becoming too hokey.

I really enjoyed this flick. I am discovering that I have a real affinity for classic sailing naval movies. I find it fascinating to look at the hundred of ropes in the rigging and realize that to somebody, that made sense. This film captures the look of a vessel at sea very well.

The thing I did not enjoy, or rather the thing I found distracting was the whole point I made about a telling of the tale. There are whole passages in the film that feel as though they were lifted straight out of the novel. It isn't a bad thing until the dialogue gets in the way of the story's comprehension. It is heavy. And it only gets heavier as the film wears on. But in the end I found it to be a small matter, and in some ways it helps elevate the piece out of being merely another monster movie.

Bottom Line:
With a fascinating central character, portrayed flawlessly by Peck, this classic story gets a just retelling in this fantastic if not heavy film.

A-

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: The Big Chill

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The Big Chill
Released: September 28, 1983
Directed by: Lawrence Kasdan
Starring: Kevin Kline, Glenn Close, Tom Berenger, Jeff Goldblum, & William Hurt

Plot in a Nutshell:
A group of college chums who have drifted apart over the years, come together again to attend a funeral of one of their friends.

What I thought:
What happens after a group of not-so-close-anymore friends are thrust back into the same house for a weekend? Drugs, hookups, and many conversations about the good ole days when we were young. The catalyst for these characters reuniting is a friend's suicide, which is never explained, nor does it need to be. The point of this movie is not about grieving or death, but rather what happens when the young grow old and find the world a bit harsher than they thought it would be.

The first thing that struck me about this film was the characters and how well they have been crafted. In a matter of scenes you know who everyone is. By simply showing them unpack a bag, you get an impression of each person. It is this minimalist character development that I found fascinating, and it ultimately drew me further into the story.

However, there isn't much of that story to be had. Much like what happens when you try to catch up with an old friend; you get just enough to know what has happened, but rarely do you get every detail since you last parted. That is what this movie feels like. The people in it make you feel that sense of connection, a sense of home, and the good times shared with friends. But it doesn't do much beyond that.

It meanders across every character, dipping in and out of their pasts and where they'd like to be going. Everything is intersting, but aside from tlking, their is no real action on their part. It is a bit frustrating when you get invested in characters and discover nothing is going to come of them, at least not in the 100 minutes you will be with them. But there are far more things to like than dislike in this flick.

One of the best things about the film is the music. Gathering together some great hits of the 60s, it incorporates incredibly well with the action onscreen as well as set a fantastic mood. "Joy to the World," "Heard it through the Grapevine," "My Girl," "Good Lovin'," and the list goes on and on. I have had the soundtrack on my iPod for years. My parents used to play it in the car and at home when i was a kid. I've listened to these songs over and over again. They fit into the film like a warm glove on a cold day.

I'm not disappointed, and I'm not elated. I find myself mildly satisfied. I enjoyed the film. It is a great example of how to do character right. But I don't think it is very strong in any aspect of explanation or purpose. But where else could it go? Sometimes an explanation is not needed. Simply to be, and to be with friends is enough. At its heart, it is a film about these relationships and how they impact each other.

Bottom Line:
A character-movie that serves them well. Getting bits and pieces of their torn stories, you are drawn into their lives, even if there isn't much of a plot.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: West Side Story

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

West Side Story
Released: October 18, 1961
Directed by: Robert Wise & Jerome Robbins
Starring: Natalie Wood & Richard Beymer

Plot in a Nutshell:
The classic tale of Romeo and Juliet is retold in Broadway musical form with a New York slum setting.

What I thought:
I have decided that musicals based on Shakespeare aren't my thing. I tried to enjoy this flick, but I can't. Maybe it's my modern sensibilities of what makes a good musical, or it could simply be that I don't think hoodlums dancing and singing make for a good story. In either case I wasn't very thrilled with West Side Story.

I think the problem is that this is a carbon copy of the Broadway musical that preceded it. With few exceptions, the film feels like it was filmed as the play was performed on stage. The sets resemble a stage in nearly every scene. Very little was done to make it seem bigger or grander.

As you are aware, this is Romeo and Juliet with different clothes. The story doesn't deviate very much at all, The big exception here is the musical numbers and the setting. Like I said before, this seems like the musical was merely filmed and put on a movie screen. But that aside, I still don't find the numbers compelling, nor the acting credible. Frankly, It feels antiquated and tired.

Everything is done larger than life, slightly on the opposite side of normality. The characters are cutout stereotypes that jump and twirl around, propelling a tired, copied story. I didn't find it enjoyable at all. Sorry, I know it's a classic and has even won Oscars, but I just can't like it.

On the bright side of this, there are a couple of tunes that I found enjoyable. And if I am to take anything from this flick it would have to be that. But it also is a big problem for me. I simply can't buy the idea of a bunch of street thugs singing and dancing. They lose all credibility as anything dangerous or menacing the moment they start snapping their fingers in unison. The moment they start jumping and twirling in unison was the moment I lost interest. I have no problem with a good musical number, but to see these supposed "bad boys" zipping around as though they were floating on the clouds, it became something to laugh at

Oh, And Maria doesn't even die with her Tony as Juliet did to her Romeo. It becomes another reason why I don't like this adaptation of a classic story. Lame.

Bottom Line:
A story cut out of Shakespeare, starring cut-out characters, in front of Broadway cut out sets, at least some of the tunes were catchy. Meh.

C-

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Released: September 23, 1969
Directed by: George Roy Hill
Starring: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Katharine Ross

Plot in a Nutshell:
Butch (Newman) and Sundance (Redford) are two robbers in old west America. The business of holding up banks and trains has been going well for the two, until the law comes after them.

What I thought:
Two stellar performers in their cinematic prime meet in this film that could be described as one of the best buddy pics ever made. I would have to agree. Newman and Redford make one of the best pairings in film that I have ever seen. This and the Sting have certainly cemented them among the legends of cinema history.

Even though their entire profession is made from robbing and stealing, the film makes light of the situations and their actions. This is a film where the heroes are thieves and the villains are the eyes and guns of the law. These kinds of films tend to be very entertaining, however as soon as you start applying logic and any sense of righteousness, the characters loose their luster swiftly.

I guess I was expecting the film to be a little heavier in tone. It does get there towards the end of the film, but even then they are still firing their buddy shtick on all cylinders. I'm not saying it was bad, but I was expecting it to be harder. But I guess coming from these two, I should have expected better.

Not enough can be said about Paul Newman and Robert Redford. These guys know how to work and act together as one cohesive unit. They play so much off of each other, that you find yourself wrapped up in their friendly chummy bantering far too often. These guys are awesome.

A big problem I had with the film was the music. Composed by Burt Bacharach, its jazzy nature detracts from the film on more than one occasion. I understand that the film was intended to be light, and the music certainly aids in this regard, however I found it to be very distracting when it shouldn't be. The film could have benefited from a more traditional and rousing score, but then it would be a different film, and I don't think that would be a good thing.

In the end I found that I really enjoyed the film. There was one sequence that I loved. It is the equivalent of a high speed chase in a western. A posse of lawmen are on the trail of Butch and Sundance after a failed robbery attempt. Taking place over several days and I don't know how many states/territories, they are slowly tracked and chased all the way up against a cliff drop off. It was the single best sequence I have seen put together in quite some time. Beginning with their confidence in an easy escape, they slowly realize they are in a run for their lives. I thought it was exhilarating to see unfold.

This is a must see film.

Bottom Line:
Strong performers in strong leads make strong movies, Newman and Redford make their characters and this film well worth a watch.

B+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: The Evil Dead

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The Evil Dead
Released: October 15, 1981
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: Bruce Campbell

Plot in a Nutshell:
Five friends go together out into the country to spend a weekend in a cabin. When they discover a ominous book and recording, they inadvertently awaken some body-possessing demons.

What I thought:
I'm going to let you know, this film is chock filled with violence, blood, and carnage. You have been forewarned.

Should horror films filled with gore be so funny? I think they almost become so funny simply because of the ridiculous amounts of carnage. But more so than simply being filled with gratuitous violence, this film works on a different, creepy, and altogether zany level. It is actually a bit screwed up, which oddly enough, makes it all the more enjoyable.

I'm going to say right off the bat that this film was made with very little money, so as far as production values go; it has none. Zilch. The makeup is overdone, the camera work is jilted, and the acting is, frankly, amateur. But for some reason it doesn't matter. Told with no budget, the film stretches hard to bring you some great low budget effects and good old fashioned blood and gore.

It takes some time, but eventually Bruce Campbell's Ash character becomes the center of the movie. In the beginning when he is sharing scenes with the other members of the cast, he doesn't stand out at all. But when hell literally breaks loose, the campy Bruce Campbell that I have grown to love so much, shines through. The rest of the cast is uninteresting (that is until they become demonized). After their transformations into hideous demons, they become a little annoying. Endlessly screaming and wailing does tend to hurt the ears.

The fun in all this disgusting blood and guts comes in the execution of the gore (pun intended). It is done with just enough over the top craze that it ceases to become terrifying, and instead becomes plain silly. When it opens, the film works its atmosphere. Wallowing in its eeriness, the first half feels very much like a traditional horror film. But when the demons are set loose, it completely transitions into full blown bloody revelry. Yet, it is overdone to such an extreme that it begins to border on comedy.

Playing on some real fears, the film works exceptionally at exploiting the terrors of the dark shadowy basement, the foreboding woods, and the howl of the wind. If you like campy overdone horror films, look no further than this classic. I greatly enjoyed watching this. Though it may be disturbing to some, disgusting to others, this kind of over-the-top horror holds a little warm place in my film-loving heart.

Bottom Line:
Despite its low-budget inception and limited production, this campy classic does the horror genre proud. And if you're like me, it is worth a good laugh.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content