Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Complaint of the day

From one of the all-time great comedies:


"I don't believe this. I'd like to see a movie but there's nothing out there. It's all this shoot-'em-up, action bulls--- ... "

F is for ...

Although the FCC can't stop the latest flu outbreak, the group apparently can save us from another f-based epidemic -- er, excuse me, pandemic -- that's threatening to kill us all:
The Supreme Court said yesterday that the Federal Communications Commission may penalize even the occasional use of certain expletives on the airwaves but left for another day the question of whether such a policy is constitutional.

The court's narrow ruling said the FCC -- prompted by Cher's use of the F-word during a 2002 live broadcast and similar remarks by what Justice Antonin Scalia called "foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood" -- was justified in changing its policy in 2004 to fine broadcasters up to $325,000 every time certain words are allowed on the air.

"The commission could reasonably conclude that the pervasiveness of foul language, and the coarsening of public entertainment in other media such as cable, justify more stringent regulation of broadcast programs so as to give conscientious parents a relatively safe haven for their children," Scalia wrote for the five-member conservative majority.
*Side note: Apparently the FCC isn't completely satisfied.

Now, if I were the ranting type, I could scream about the logical fallacy that is "profanity." But that's not how I roll. Instead, here's what I'm thinking:

Awesome!

I mean, if our society weren't so fearful of these words, we'd've missed out on all of these:






(I know I'm cheating here with TV, but these are too good...)



Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Overlooked: Sexy Beast

More from the ex-British gangster set, it's Sexy Beast:

(Photo from allmoviephoto.com)

The plot's pretty simple here: Gal (a strong Ray Winstone) is a retired hood living it up in Spain with his wife and their two friends. Don Logan (Ben Kingsley; words cannot describe how good he is) is still active, and wants Gal for one more London job.

Gal wants nothing of it. So it's easy -- Gal just says no, right? Except ... not with Don Logan, who is scarier than about 90 percent of all movie characters, and that includes slashers and monsters and zombies. Here, the two go back and forth for a while, and ... well, then the rest of it happens.

The film got some notice back in 2001 for Kingsley's performance, which earned him an Oscar nod (he was beaten by a fave of The Film Official's, Jim Broadbent, for Iris). But it's more than just a showcase for Kingsley's considerable talents. It's slick in the hands of director Jonathan Glazer, who creates some pretty memorable images and handles the script deftly. It clocks in at an extremely manageable 89 minutes, so it's never excessive -- but it doesn't feel slight, either.

Really, if you want a crime film that's a little out of the ordinary, you can't do much better than Sexy Beast ... and wouldn't you know it -- Fancast.com is showing the whole movie for free!

*Word(s) of warning: The dialogue is, well, it's rough. As in it's tough to understand. I needed subtitles the first time I watched it, and I'm not even kidding. But once you develop an ear for it, it's fine -- and all the better and more authentic for it.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Ugh.

From Variety ...
Universal Pictures will remake the 1983 David Cronenberg-directed thriller "Videodrome," with Ehren Kruger set to write the script and produce with partner Daniel Bobker.

The producers tracked down the rights to Canadian distribution vet Rene Malo, who will be exec producer. Universal distributed the original and had first refusal on a remake, and the studio snapped up the opportunity.

The original "Videodrome" starred James Woods as the head of Civic TV Channel 83, who makes his station relevant by programming "Videodrome," a series that depicts torture and murder that transfixes viewers.

The new picture will modernize the concept, infuse it with the possibilities of nano-technology and blow it up into a large-scale sci-fi action thriller.


Oh, goody. A "large-scale, sci-fi action thriller," written by the guy who did The Ring Two and this year's Transformers movie. Yeah, that's just what I had in mind when I pictured the remake of one of the greatest oddball mind trips of all time.

Ah, well. I'll just sit back and watch the following (oddly NSFW) scene, then the rest of the movie, then again and again, because it's that good (and weird)*.

*Oh, and don't forget about the ending -- itself among the strangest and most memorable.

Unintentional drama

You have unintentional comedy. Can't you have unintentional drama, too?

OK, so "unintentional" isn't exactly the right word, but here's what I mean: Say you're making a comedy. Not one of those intellectual Annie Hall comedies or dark Coen Bros. comedies, either. I'm talking Will Ferrell-esque. So you're making a comedy, and you set yourself up with a pretty ridiculous premise that, essentially, is little more than a backdrop for funny lines/situations/actions of hilarious actors/etc.

Now, if you're making a good comedy, you realize this. Sure, you might complete the plot, but you know the audience doesn't care if Ron Burgundy covers the big story, or if Miles Monroe assassinates The Leader('s nose), or if Billy graduates and inherits the Madison hotel fortune. They're there for funny. Period. As some guy once said, make 'em laugh.

So you treat the plot as such. It's just kinda there.

But if you're making a lesser comedy, you get the silly notion that your story actually matters.

Like in Semi-Pro, which I finally saw recently, prompting this whole rant.

(Pic found at Canada.com)

Semi-Pro shoulda been called Semi-Good (ho ho ho), because its opening third is hilarious. Just hilarious*.

*Best line, on whether a guy who sat on the bench for an NBA-championship team deserves credit for winning a title: "I mean, if you watch a porn movie, doesn't mean you got laid."

Then the story -- about an American Basketball Association franchise trying to earn its way into an NBA-ABA merger -- takes over, and nearly all the funny fizzles.

WHY?!?!?!?!?!

A message to you comedy-makers:

We. Don't. Care.

Yes, some ... films ... can fit a terrific plot with loads of laughs. But others seem destined for comedy-and-nothing-else glory, yet can't let go of the story. And if you're like me, you're standing up in the theater/your living room, throwing junk at the screen and screaming, "Why'd you take my funny away?!"

Some other offenders:

-Wedding Crashers: Maybe the absolute worst, just for how sickeningly schmaltzy it gets near the end. The final wedding scene is just gag-worthy. Ugh. I get mad even thinking about it.

-Old School: Needed more, um, "wrestling," and less "will they save their frat and show up a pre-Ari Jeremy Piven?"

-Knocked Up: Yes, I know Judd Apatow likes to say things in his movies, but the whole third-act "I'm gonna get my life together" turn is pure comedy killer. Plus, the ending itself is just eye-rollingly unreasonable. Here's hoping Funny People doesn't fall for the same things as it goes for "comedy with MEANING."

... and now for something completely different, the all-time greatest example of a comedy that just doesn't care about its plot and isn't afraid to let you know it:

-Monty Python and the Holy Grail: The end.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Score another one for 2007

Continuing my ongoing assertion that 2007 was one of the best film years ever -- if not the best ... When you look at this list and realize The Bourne Ultimatum isn't even in the top dozen or so, you know it was a good 12 months.

But my overall 2007 post will come later. This is about Bourne.

(Nice pic at DesktopNexus.com)

What's interesting about Ultimatum is it always seemed like such a yawner. The whole series did, really -- that's why I skipped the first two installments. The standard spy/CIA/government/black ops action stuff ... woo. And at its core, that's all Ultimatum is. That's why it could never be truly awesome -- straight-line actioners rarely (if ever) are, IMO. Action is just lost on me, mostly.

Still ...

Kudos to Ultimatum for not only working as a stand-alone (if you haven't seen the first two installments, it's no big deal), but also taking its premise -- brainwashed super-assassin Jason Bourne (Matt Damon*) tries to figure out who he really is and get back at the people who made him that way -- and just running with it. Not much setup or exposition. It gets right to it.

*Maaaatt Daaaamon!

It's rarely excessive in its straightforward, French Connection-type approach (although that chase through Tangiers is a bit much). Most notable, though, is its incredible craft. /Film, listing its 10 most influential films of the last 10 years, wrote this:

The Bourne Ultimatum is on the list for exemplifying and honing two different things: the ‘running man camera’ action scenes, which is now the norm; and the rapid-fire cross cutting between an alarming amount of different angles. Paul Greengrass and Christopher Rouse go down in history for finding a way to assemble a record-breaking variety of coverage in a way that is comprehensible to the audience. I would explain how it works, but it’s mighty geeky and a little bit technical.

Yes, it's an absolute clinic on film editing (speaking of geeky and technical), which is why Rouse (deservedly) won the Oscar. Also, the aforementioned Greengrass might be one of the most technically gifted directors working today*.

*More proof: United 93. If I were to make a list of the 10 greatest films -- and I mean of all-time -- that one would receive a ton of consideration.

Which is why, even if you're not an action lover, it's hard not to get something out of Ultimatum. And if you're one of those who eats up action films like I love comedy and horror, then -- well, then you've probably already seen Ultimatum like 100 times by now and are pre-purchasing tickets for Bourne No. 4.

And who could blame you?

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Raging Bull is overrated.

*Note: I wrote this a while back and held off on posting it, but with EW.com's release of the 25 Best Biopics Ever -- and subsequent placing of this film at No. 1 -- I couldn't stop myself.

(Pic found at this site)

JOEY: Psst. You know we got everybody fooled, right?
JAKE: Whatchutalkin' 'bout we got everybody fooled?

JOEY: Ya know, how everyone thinks we're in this all-time great movie?


Yeah, that's right. Raging Bull -- a.k.a. the American Film Institute's fourth-best movie ever made, a.k.a. one of Time's 100 greatest, a.k.a. the No. 6 movie in the Sight & Sound Directors' Top Ten, a.k.a that top-ranked biopic, etc., etc. -- ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Now, there's a saying about Shakespeare that he has to be overrated because he can't possibly underrated -- and that kind of applies here. Seriously, Google "raging bull" and overrated and read the comment under the link with "DVD Talk Forum."

(Waiting ...)

Ouch.

Yeah, so treading on Raging Bull is trampling sacred ground.

But that doesn't mean we're dubbing Martin Scorsese's legendary film "bad." Its craft -- especially the editing of those boxing scenes -- is, of course, impeccable. Robert De Niro's performance as enraged boxer Jake LaMotta ... well, I wouldn't be the first to say it's very, very good. Joe Pesci (as LaMotta's long-suffering brother) and Cathy Moriarty (LaMotta's long-suffering wife) are fine, too.

Still ... exceptional filmmaking/acting don't make for an exceptional film. There's the little issue of story, and Raging Bull's goes something like this:

-LaMotta starts out an a-hole.

-He surrounds himself with a-holes.

-He becomes a successful boxer ... but an even bigger a-hole.

-His a-holeness catches up with him, so he ends up a fat, outcast a-hole.

Now, it's a character study, meaning plot is secondary. Fine. But character studies need arcs to make them compelling*. Not every protagonist must be a saint, or even likable. But there's gotta be something there, some sort of conflict -- and endlessly running around saying "Did you [bleep] my wife?" doesn't count.

*Even the dull Capote had a considerable character arc.

That's what keeps Raging Bull from reaching the heights of another character-driven Scorsese flick, Taxi Driver. Neither features lovable protagonists, but Travis Bickle's slip into insanity is far more gripping, IMO, than the simple tale of a jerk staying a jerk.