The Golden Grouches

I can’t decide if this makes me a bad person, but after watching Logan’s Run, what stuck in my head was that Michael York is one of the least masculine leading men I’ve ever seen. Pictures don’t do it justice, but here’s one, and here’s another. And hey, more power to the 1970s for not forcing their leading men to be super macho.

Written by David Zelag Goodman in an adaptation of a book by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson, Logan’s Run takes The Who’s plea “I hope I die before I get old” quite seriously. Set in a future where the planet has been ravaged, humanity survives by living in a giant domed city. But the dome is only so big, thus there needs to be some sort of population control. Upon turning 30, citizens take place in a bizarre, trippy ceremony/spectacle ending in death. But people are OK with this, because, hey, that’s just how things are. The few who try to escape are known as “runners”. Logan (Michael York) is a “sandman”, a person charged with stopping said runners. Logan eventually ends up running (hence the title), and taking a chick along for the ride (Jenny Agutter).

Certainly an interesting idea. Like too many 70s movies, though, Logan’s Run rather quickly becomes tedious and stays that way. The film runs just under two hours and it really feels like a half hour could have been chopped off without losing anything. Alternatively, a stronger film would have used the time to flesh out this version of utopia. Instead, we are left with only a vague concept of the futuristic society and its workings. Which is sad, because things like the all-knowing computer, Box (the totally ridiculous evil robot), and the totally sweet service that teleports hot chicks (generally) willing to have no strings attached sex to your room at the push of a button just aren’t given the time they so richly deserve.

My opening point aside, I actually think Michael York works here. There’s pretty much no way he’d get cast in the role today. Jenny Agutter is your typical female co-star. She’s a surprisingly strong character, though, for those who care about such things. And she does win an award for least convincing reason to disrobe (non-porn division). That’s another nice thing about the 70s. Nudity was strongly encouraged. That’s the version of history I choose to believe, at any rate. Richard Jordan is decent as the friend/company man, but he’s apparently the grandson of Learned Hand, so that’s awesome. Peter Ustinov shows up. As does Farrah Fawcett, in a completely unnecessary role. And yet, it is Farrah Fawcett. Working her into a movie was never a bad call.

The movie was nominated for two Oscars, Best Art Direction and Best Cinematography (Ernest Laszlo). It also was given a special achievement award for visual effects. And yes, the special effects look about 30 years old, but they are pretty cool.

Logan’s Run may be worth a viewing for its place in the scifi canon, but I’m not really sure it stands on its own. It doesn’t have a sense of humor or a sense of urgency. It doesn’t seem to be a particularly meaningful parable, and it doesn’t have a particularly gripping ending.

Trailer after the jump. I love old trailers. Read the rest of this entry »

I’m aiming to get a list of some sort up on Mondays. Since I’ve finally watched ten movies released this year, here’s my first top ten movies of the year list. I could see the argument that The Counterfeiters should count as last year because of the Oscars, but let’s face it, it shouldn’t. Also, I really loved Rambo. I can’t help but think that those who didn’t don’t understand the core of what an action movie should be. Or, at the very least, have wildly different expectations about actions movies than I do.

Broadly speaking, the first four belong in a tier, then the next four, then then last two.

1. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
2. Rambo
3. In Bruges
4. Iron Man
5. Run Fatboy Run
6. The Promotion
7. The Counterfeiters
8. How She Move
9. The Bank Job
10. 21

So, I may have borne The Holiday some ill will because it screwed me a little in an early Fantasy Moguls league. What? A Nancy Meyers movie at the holidays with Kate Winslet. It should have been gold! But a year and a half later, I probably have that out of my system. Mostly.

Kate Winslet is a British newspaper reporter who still hasn’t gotten over a relationship she had with a co-worker (Rufus Sewell) three years ago. Upon finding he’s engaged, she decides needs to escape. Cameron Diaz plays an expert movie trailer designer (which, OK, is kinda cool) living in Hollywood who has a bad breakup with her boyfriend (Ed Burns) and decides she needs to escape. They go online and swap houses for two weeks. When Kate gets to Hollywood, she runs into an old screenwriter (Eli Wallach) who becomes her friend and meets a movie score composer (Jack Back) and his girlfriend (Shannyn Sossamon), who have a rocky relationship. When Cameron get to England, she meets Kate’s brother (Jude Law).

That’s more backstory than I like to give, but I do it to make a point. That right there is, basically, the entire movie. There’s the barest of tension or arc. There are maybe three critical moments in the movie, none of which feel gut-wrenching. Meyers’s script is otherwise fluid and generally moves along, but I suppose I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is clever. The problem wasn’t that the movie was predictable (not that I usually find that a problem), it was that there wasn’t even anything to predict, really. The trailer voiceovers that popped in every so often for Diaz’s character were a neat quirk. I might have liked to see the device mirrored for Winslet, or the playfulness permeate a bit more throughout, but that’s a very minor dispute.

The actors are generally solid. Kate Winslet can’t help but be awesome. I’m not opposed to Cameron Diaz. I think she does slapstick very well, for example. Not sure she adds much here. Jude Law is as devilishly handsome as always. Basically same as Alfie, only with no topless Sienna Miller (What? That’s an important fact!). I’m a fan of Jack Black taking on more serious roles. I don’t think this one is a perfect fit, but it definitely works. Shannyn Sossamon in the movie for long, but I’ve been swooning for her since 40 Days and 40 Nights, and nothing has changed on that front.

But the star, in my book, is Eli Wallach (The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, among a million different awesome things, including a guest shot on Studio 60). He’s always been a haunting character actor, and it is good to see nothing has changed in his old age. Wallach’s character is a refreshing take on comic relief and one of the movie’s few high points.

There are a few really awesome bit parts. John Krasinski has about 30 seconds of screen time as one of Diaz’s assistants. Dustin Hoffman gets kinda meta in a cameo. And James Franco and Lindsay Lohan show up as…well…I won’t ruin it, but it relates to Diaz’s job, and it is pretty hilarious.

I will say I have a friend whose opinion I generally trust, and who generally has a similar taste me in movies such as these did enjoy the movie. Which won’t get me to change my opinion, but perhaps those of the female ilk might find ways to appreciate the movie, ways that I just couldn’t. She made a really excellent point about the movie, something I didn’t catch (shocking, right?). But it only really makes sense to anyone who has seen the movie, and I can’t imagine anyone reading this has. I’ll share in the comments, if there is popular demand.

Trailer after the jump. And it reminds me that the movie has the goofiest IM chat since You’ve Got Mail. Read the rest of this entry »

I won’t give this one the full treatment. Just wanted to say that the references to Nintendo games are pretty much right in the sweet spot for my generation, so the movie is worth a look for that, if nothing else (Ninja Gaiden! Double Dragon!). In some ways, this is a perfect bridge from the 80s to 90s. The plot, in its barest form, is nothing short of ridiculous, but there’s an appealing blend of hokiness (Beau Bridges getting addicted to Nintendo, for example) and seriousness. The film is both a long-form commercial for Nintendo and a sparse, gripping, family drama. That may be the innate beauty of The Wizard, it is, ultimately, a serious movie that doesn’t take itself seriously. Yeah, there are plenty of cliches, like the bumbling evil guy or the nonsensical video game competition with an absurd host (and really, did the filmmakers think no one would notice the scoring announcements wouldn’t sync up with the visuals?) and bizarre scoring conventions. But that’s almost to be expected.

The cast is awesome. Christian Slater! Fred Savage! Beau Bridges! Luke Edwards plays the creepy kid who is a video game savant pretty well. Frank McRae is awesome. McRae, if you don’t know him by name, was the teacher in the opening of Red Dawn and Sharkey from License to Kill. So yeah, he rocks. And then there’s Jenny Lewis. Who is fantastic in the movie. One of the most striking things about the movie, to me, was how they dealt with her character’s sexuality, since Lewis was about twelve when the movie was filmed, and her character was probably meant to be right around that age. For the most part, she’s completely desexualized, assuming the role of mother figure to her little band, ostensibly partially in an effort to fill her own void from the mothering influence she never had in her own life. Not that mothers can’t be sexualized, they just aren’t in this sort of 80s movie, where the focus is on the kids and the parents are there to present some sort of obstacle for the kids. There is one scene, though, where in a last ditch effort to avoid the bad guy, she’s in a casino and screams out that he inappropriately touched her. And you can tell it is an 80s movie, because people immediately swarm around him, allowing Jenny Lewis to leave without anyone noticing. Now, I’m skeptical a movie today gets away with that (or even attempts it), just as I’m skeptical that the role wouldn’t be given to an eighteen year old (or someone playing eighteen, at least).

There’s also romantic tension between Fred Savage and Jenny Lewis, and I found their relationship rather poignant. They are two twelve year olds with no money or assets shepherding a nine year old on a road trip to California because “California” is the only thing he says (that and his frequent attempts to walk there alone have landed him in a home for mentally disturbed kids, from which Fred Savage springs him). Perhaps their struggle to persevere coupled with that age’s awkward method of courting isn’t anything new, though I might argue it is a particularly tender balance of puppy love and a marriage. But I think the evolution of their relationship on the journey contrasted their reversion to normal kids once everything has been set right, or at least as right as it can be, is very interesting. Just great bombastic 80s naivete, in my opinion, that these kids can grow so much as people, well beyond what kids their age “should” have to deal with, when facing these hardships; but once they’ve restored things to their natural order, they too are restored to the normal lives of twelve year olds.

I should probably stop talking about twelve year old girls before I become Brian. What? You really didn’t think that joke was coming? My point, or at least my intended point, is that The Wizard actually has some depth. Am I alone on that point? Would even David Chisolm, who wrote the screenplay, back me up? Beats me. Maybe. But I honestly think the movie is worth seeing on its own merits, not just because it introduced the world to Super Mario Bros. 3.

Presented without comment (to give the others their fair cracks at it), here are the summer blockbusters to which each of us is most looking forward:

Adam

• Dark Knight
• Indiana Jones 4
• Iron Man

Brian

• Indiana Jones 4
• Dark Knight
• Tropic Thunder

Jared

• Dark Knight
• Mamma Mia!
• Pineapple Express

John

• Wall-E
• Indiana Jones 4
• Tropic Thunder

I’m a bit of a Philip K. Dick nut. His ability to weave consistently fresh sci-fi tales (stories which really don’t belong to be pigeonholed as “merely science fiction”) is unparalleled. And any fans of twists have to credit him as one of the masters. I think his stories generally have transferred really well to the big screen (with any luck, they’ll continue to do so), for a variety of reasons, but ultimately because he always paints an intriguing landscape, but one sparse enough to allow the filmmaker to breathe.

A Scanner Darkly, though, I find to be one of his lesser works. Maybe it got too personal. Whatever the reason, the plot just doesn’t seem as crisp as some of his other novels and stories. Of course, his depiction of the future is as poignant as ever. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a Philip K. Dick work. So while I have all kinds of respect for the movie, it was hampered a bit by the source material. That said, I don’t think Richard Linklater helps his cause. The story he carves out is probably not how I would have interpreted the novel.

The story, really, isn’t worth getting into. Not too far into the future, a certain drug has devastated large portion of the country’s population, but no one can prove who is manufacturing the drug. A Scanner Darkly relates how one cop (Keanu Reeves) goes undercover, as a druggie, in an attempt to learn more. As Keanu starts using, his sense of reality becomes skewed.

A Scanner Darkly, as probably goes without saying, is notable for its use of rotoscoping. I have mixed feelings about it. It does end up looking really awesome. But it only really seemed useful for a few scenes. First and foremost was the scramble suit (here’s a description). I cannot fathom how they’d successfully pull off the scramble suit with a regular live action movie, so perhaps the scramble suit validates the technology.

Reeves, Woody Harrelson, and Robert Downey, Jr. acting together feels like some sort of dream. They could set up a traveling show consisting solely of them having a normal conversation and I’d go see it. And call me crazy, but I think Winona Ryder holds her own with the group.

So where does that leave us? A rather beautiful movie that seems unfulfilling. It may be worth seeing just for the rotoscoping, and the actors will keep you engaged. But I think the story may have been better adapted as a television series, with someone better fleshing out Dick’s ideas. Because there are some really interesting nuggets in there, but A Scanner Darkly doesn’t consistently capitalize on them.

Trailer after the jump.
Read the rest of this entry »

It is little late and I really hope no one will make a decision whether or not to see Iron Man based on my thoughts. But on the off chance, since I just came back from a 11 pm showing (and learned walking up 14th street at 1:30 in the morning is pretty safe) thanks to free tickets Gavin won on the radio (thanks Gavin!): it is a really solid movie. I’ll think about posting more later, but Robert Downey, Jr. and Jeff Bridges are pretty fantastic, and the movie is just all-around rock solid. Great special effects, and a decent story. I do recommend it.

AND PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD STAY FOR THE END OF THE CREDITS!!!

Sometimes my love of the ridiculous leads me to the sublime. And sometimes it leads me to Men at Work. “WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY EMILIO ESTEVEZ,” I surely shouted. “How could this not be amazing?” That it starred brothers Estevez and Sheen and featured a score by Stewart Copeland (drummer for the Police) only seemed to pave the way for success.

Though released in 1990, the movie has an unmistakable 80s feel. Emilio and Charlie play lovable garbage men who witness the murder of a politician, Rear Window style. Only much creepier. Of course, they don’t realize it was a hit until the dead politician turns up on their garbage route. Hilarity then ensues, with some Weekend at Bernie’s riffing. Well, except for the hilarity. Almost all of the movie misses, and misses badly. Part of the charm of this sort of wacky 80s escapade movie is the irreverence. It would take a whole lot of artfulness to wedge deft wordplay into such a script, so the fact that Estevez fails in that respect isn’t necessarily a knock against him. But where’s the wackiness? Indeed, the movie sometimes feels like it has a decent frame, as if the straight man is delivering his lines, but the comic partner is nowhere around to knock down the jokes.

The only parts of the movie that do work are the zany ones. The increasingly disgusting office pranks, for example. And primarily, Keith David. I link to his imdb profile because he might not be familiar by name, so you might be saying, “Who can it be now?” (like there was any chance I’d make it through this post without a bad reference to the Aussie band) but by face (and especially voice) he is. Arbiter from Halo, for crying out loud! So, yes, Mr. David rocks. And in Men at Work, it seems Emilio Estevez basically said, “OK, go crazy.” And crazy Keith David went. To some degree of mania I’ve never seen. Almost inexplicably, it references the truly amazing Better Off Dead, a point I verified through (also almost inexplicably) another blog post on this movie.

The bad guy, played by John Getz, is one of the lamest bad guys ever. He’s got your typical moronic henchman, but his evil plan is…to continue illegally dumping toxic waste? How nefarious! Mr. Getz plays the villain rather awkwardly. The female lead is Leslie Hope, who doesn’t do much for me, but who popped up a decade later to play Jack Bauer’s wife in 24. So that’s something.

I normally don’t notice these things, much less comment on them, but the homophobia in the movie goes way beyond latent. On multiple occasions, bad guys (or, at least, enemies of the brothers Sheen) end up tied together in sexually suggestive positions. And yes, the fact that they are tied together in sexually suggestive positions is overtly referenced in the movie.

Feel free to skip Men at Work. The laughs are few and far between. If you watch it with a friend, you very well might be men at sleep.

A pretty ridiculous trailer after the jump Read the rest of this entry »

If we ever recap 1981’s Oscar season, I have a pretty strong suspicion I’ll be railing against the inclusion of Reds in the discussion. Nominated for 12 Oscars, it won three (Best Supporting Actress, Best Cinematography, Best Director). Without having seen many of the other movies nominated or having the potential to be nominated, I suppose I can’t say anything too definitive, but I imagine the only Oscars I could have supported were the nominated performances of Diane Keaton (Best Actress) and Jack Nicholson (Best Supporting Actor). By the way, the last four years Jack’s been nominated for an Oscar? 1988, 1993, 1998, and 2003. Just saying.

Reds is based on the story of John Reed’s life. John Reed was a journalist from the U.S. who was in Russia when the Communists took over. He later wrote Ten Days That Shook The World about the experience. The book is still relatively well-known, and special to me because I somehow still remember seeing it in the University of Maryland library for some high school report I was writing.

The movie, written by Warren Beatty and Trevor Griffiths, is framed by the love story of Reed (Beatty) and Louise Bryant (Keaton), but also makes forays into intellectualism in the U.S. at the time and the Bolshevik Revolution and its immediate effects. Not succinctly either, the sucker clocks in at over three hours. And there’s the ultimate problem of the movie, in my opinion. The range of the movie is epic, and while it might be necessary to tell John Reed’s story, it also hinders enjoyment of the film. The way Reed and Bryant meet is cute (or “meet cute” as I may have learned from watching The Holiday recently (review to come)), but did we really need twenty minutes (or whatever) of Bryant’s ensuing ennui as Reed and his intellectual cronies including Eugene O’Neill (Nicholson) blabbered? And how is Emma Goldman (Maureen Stapleton in an Oscar-winning role) relevant to the story at all? In my mind, her nomination was Ruby Dee-esque. Finally, while the old people recounting stories of Reed and Bryant sometimes served to break things up (and did bring to mind When Harry Meant Sally), but the bits seemed jarring and out of place.

The movie does have much to applaud, especially for those who enjoy an intermission in films they watch. As I mentioned, I thought Nicholson and Keaton were great. And I’m a bit of a Warren Beatty fan. It is also fun to see Gene Hackman show up. Balancing a relatively standard love story with the events of 1917 and their fallout in the U.S.A. and Russia is obviously quite difficult, and the film ably straddles that line often. Beatty (as writer, director, and actor) does an admirable job displaying Reed’s determination in sticking to his convictions even as he becomes disillusioned with the Bolsheviks, and with the Communists in the United States. Especially considering the time when the movie was filmed, Beatty takes in the high road in largely not reducing the Bolsheviks to caricatures, but instead painting them in a relatively honest (historically-speaking) light.

Reds is a decent movie, though not great. While it certainly could have been a little shorter, I’m not sure that would have bumped it up a star for me. There are interesting stories within, but as a whole, Reds fails to congeal into a cohesive movie.

After the jump, one of the most misleading trailers I’ve ever seen: Read the rest of this entry »

I don’t know how much more there is to say about Juno. Through Oscar season we had the hype, the acclaim, the backlash, the backlash to the backlash… All I can say is that I loved the movie and that it was one of the few films I saw that I immediately wanted to see again.

Most of the controversy seems to revolve around the script. Is the dialogue too cutesy, are the characters too quirky? I don’t think so. The first five minutes smacked of trying too hard, but throughout I thought it adeptly walked the line to keep it from becoming too precious. Too much time has been spent complaining that Juno doesn’t speak realistically. Um, it’s a movie. No one in a movie talks realistically! Real people don’t have the coherence, dramatic touch, or comedic timing of movie characters. But, honestly, Juno doesn’t talk all that weirdly. Yes she doesn’t talk like a normal teenager, but she does talk like a self-absorbed, know-it-all, cocky, hip teen who thinks she’s awesome… which is exactly what Juno is! A viewing companion mentioned that he couldn’t believe that Juno would think Mark wouldn’t know Mott the Hoople. I think a sixteen-year-old who thinks she knows everything about music would definitely make that mistake. Teens think they’re bees knees and everyone else is lame. It’s a time honored tradition. I think sometimes Juno so frequently plays up how put-together she is that we forget she really isn’t.

The lingo-filled dialogue might have propelled Diablo Cody to a well-deserved Original Screenplay Oscar win, but it’s really the characters that make Juno special. I love how Juno’s layers are pulled back, revealing the self-sure dynamo’s insecurities. Ellen Page deftly lets the emotion peek out, never ever stooping to the melodramatic. Jason Bateman’s Mark and Jennifer Garner’s Vanessa start out looking like one type of couple and shift into something completely different. JK Simmons and Allison Janney as Juno’s father and step-mother are the caring and wise (and witty) parents that movie parents are rarely allowed to be. Read the rest of this entry »