There are lots of lists of the films that people are most anticipating to see in 2011. I have my own. But I figure, I'm going to be writing about those anyway in the future. Why not get the bad stuff out of the way first? What follows is a non-comprehensive list of the 2011 films that I currently have no desire to see, that it would take cash payment, personal relationship status, or heavy intoxication to make me lie through my teeth and say I want to see them. I have a feeling I'm going to end up watching a lot of them anyway, but I don't have to like it. Included below are some additional thoughts for the borderline cases, or where I just feel like driving the point home. And a final caveat - I really hope I'm wrong about all of these titles. Much as I enjoy schadenfreude, I know nobody sets out to make a bad movie.
"Just Go With It" - I like Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler is decent on occasion, but I can't help thinking that all the best jokes are in the trailer. And they're not very good ones to begin with. This year's crop of romantic comedies look just as bad as last year's. The biggest potential landmines include "One for the Money" with Katherine Heigl, "Something Borrowed" with Kate Hudson, and "New Year's Eve," the sequel to last year's "Valentine's Day." Oh, and Judd Apatow is making a movie about bridesmaids called "Bridesmaids." Gee, that's memorable.
"X-Men: First Class" - Have you seen the new stills that have been released for this thing? They're hideous. I like James McAvoy, Rose Byrne, Michael Fassbender, and director Matthew Vaughn, but this is a franchise that has been grasping at straws since "X-Men 3," and in a year crowded with eager new superhero movies, another campy prequel is not going to cut it. FOX should just give the whole sorry series a few years off and then reboot the whole "X-Men" universe. Or do something really risky and make that "Magneto" movie.
"The Smurfs" - This year's "Yogi Bear." As a kid I loved "The Smurfs," and I would have welcomed a new "Smurfs" movie if it had gone back to the original Peyo comics for inspiration or its ad campaign was showing us images of the Smurf village or the woods or something familiar. But no, Papa Smurf and Brainy and Smurfette and all the rest are being converted into CGI and sent off to the real world, under the guidance of the director responsible for the live-action "Scooby-Doo" movies. Hank Azaria is playing Gargamel. It hurts just to type this synopsis.
"Your Highness" - I've already shared my reactions to the trailer for "Your Highness." Would I have gone to see a medieval fantasy adventure film starring James Franco, Natalie Portman, and Zooey Deschanel? In a heartbeat. Do I want to see a crass, lunkheaded spoof of one with Danny McBride schlumping around for two hours in search of a pot joke I haven't heard before? No. I'm really getting sick of the imbecilic, immature, man-child heroes that have taken over our comedies. At first they were kinda cute, but now they're just boring.
"Puss in Boots," "Happy Feet 2" and "Cars 2" - None of the films these sequels are following were good enough to warrant sequels. I feel a little bad for having a PIXAR film in here, though. Surely after their unparalleled run of successes, they're entitled to one obvious cash-grab sequel? Sorry, but no. I can't work up a shred excitement for the further adventures of Lightning McQueen and Mater the Tow Truck. "Puss in Boots" and "Happy Feet 2" actually get more benefit of the doubt right now because I haven't seen a frame of either one yet, but I'm sure they'll make up for that in no time.
And then there's "Fast Five" (That's the fifth "Fast and the Furious" movie), "Mars Needs Moms" (leftovers from the defunct ImageMovers Digital) "Scream 4" (inevitably to be followed by "Scary Movie 5"), "Big Momma: Like Father Like Son" (Yes, really), "Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World" (eight years after the last one), "5nal Destination" (Gesundheit), "Justin Bieber: Never Say Never," (insert obvious pun here) "Gnomeo and Juliet," "Johnny English Reborn," "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1," "Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chip-Wrecked," and of course, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon."
Sigh... It's going to be another long year.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Who is This Laurence Olivier Guy?
Sir Laurence Olivier. The name still conjures images of theater acting at its most erudite and unapproachable. This was the man responsible for making Shakespeare a mainstay of the silver screen as well as the stage, undeniably one of the most important figures in the history of Western cinema. And up until recently, I had no clue who he was.
Sure, I'd seen him in films before, usually as the villain. There he was in "Spartacus" as the evil Roman general, and in "Marathon Man" as a nazi dentist. He was one of the leads in the original "Sleuth," one of my favorite crime films, and a strong supporting presence in Alfred Hitchcock's spectacular "Rebecca." I'd come across plenty of references to Olivier when reading up on the lives of Vivien Leigh and David Niven. And his influence, of course, is inescapable. Kenneth Branaugh's career, for instance, often seems to be patterned directly after Olivier's. Yet I'd never seen the films that Olivier was best known for, the Shakespeare adaptations.
I decided to fix that. I recently sat down with "Henry V" (1944), "Hamlet" (1948), and "Richard III" (1955), the famous Shakespeare trilogy that Olivier directed and starred in. All three films are currently available on Netflix Instant Watch. I know I'd seen "Hamlet" a long time ago in an English class, but didn't remember much, and I've seen several other versions of "Hamlet" since then. Better to start over from the beginning. I spaced the films out over a couple of days - they don't run much longer than two and a half hours apiece, and significantly abridge the original plays, but the text is dense and I'm not as familiar with Shakespeare's "War of the Roses" tetralogies as I should be.
So, what do I think of Laurence Olivier now? As Bette Davis is rumored to have said of Errol Flynn, "Damn, he's good."
My biggest surprise was that Olivier turned out to be a tremendous director. His "Hamlet" is a moody, gothic piece, where the camera skulks around a chilly Elsinore Castle with the tormented Danish prince. "Richard III" makes the viewers complicit in the machinations of the murderous hunchback, as he has a habit of addressing the audience directly. And then there's "Henry V," which starts in the famous Globe theater with a lively period performance of the play, that slowly transitions into a full-scale epic cinematic retelling. Far from being the stuffy, formal, overly faithul adaptations I was expecting, the films livened up the material with plenty of action and a few gory killings here and there. I can see why they were so popular when they first hit theater screens in the 40s and 50s.
As an actor, Olivier lives up to his reputation. His performances as Hamlet and Henry are big and exciting. His thunderous Saint Crispin's Day speech in "Henry V" is the best one I've ever heard. And he doesn't just stab Claudius at the end of "Hamlet," but leaps off a platform and tackles the evil king to floor before running him through. I preferred his quieter moments though, getting existential with Yorick's skull as Hamlet, and delicately wooing the French princess as Henry. This is where he gets to be funny and subtle and charming, and he's terribly good at all of it. There isn't a moment where Olivier doesn't seem to be giving these roles everything he's got.
But far exceeding either of those previous outings is Olivier's transformation into Richard of Gloucester, one of Shakespeare's great misanthropic bastards. With a fake nose, affected limp, and some good costuming, suddenly he's unrecognizable. And oh, the odious ambition and the twisted jealousy and the seething self-loathing coming off of this man! Sometimes Olivier goes well over the top, but he is so much fun to watch as Richard. It's no wonder that everyone wanted Olivier for villain roles in his later career. "Richard III" was the hardest of his films to get through, but it was worth it for the finale, where all of Richard's bad deeds finally catch up to him on the battlefield, and Olivier gives him a really great death scene.
And now I want to see his King Lear and his Othello and his Shylock. I want to see his Mr. Darcy in the 1940 "Pride and Prejudice," and his Heathcliff in the 1939 "Wuthering Heights." Because now I know what Laurence Olivier is capable of. Now I know what Kenneth Branagh and every other Shakespeare-loving actor out there has been trying to live up to for the last six decades, with varying degrees of success. I've seen better Hamlets. I've seen better Henrys. But there's no question that it was Olivier who set the bar, who was the touchstone and the starting point for so much of Shakespeare on film. That's why he's important. That's why he's remembered.
I'm so glad I finally got to know him.
Sure, I'd seen him in films before, usually as the villain. There he was in "Spartacus" as the evil Roman general, and in "Marathon Man" as a nazi dentist. He was one of the leads in the original "Sleuth," one of my favorite crime films, and a strong supporting presence in Alfred Hitchcock's spectacular "Rebecca." I'd come across plenty of references to Olivier when reading up on the lives of Vivien Leigh and David Niven. And his influence, of course, is inescapable. Kenneth Branaugh's career, for instance, often seems to be patterned directly after Olivier's. Yet I'd never seen the films that Olivier was best known for, the Shakespeare adaptations.
I decided to fix that. I recently sat down with "Henry V" (1944), "Hamlet" (1948), and "Richard III" (1955), the famous Shakespeare trilogy that Olivier directed and starred in. All three films are currently available on Netflix Instant Watch. I know I'd seen "Hamlet" a long time ago in an English class, but didn't remember much, and I've seen several other versions of "Hamlet" since then. Better to start over from the beginning. I spaced the films out over a couple of days - they don't run much longer than two and a half hours apiece, and significantly abridge the original plays, but the text is dense and I'm not as familiar with Shakespeare's "War of the Roses" tetralogies as I should be.
So, what do I think of Laurence Olivier now? As Bette Davis is rumored to have said of Errol Flynn, "Damn, he's good."
My biggest surprise was that Olivier turned out to be a tremendous director. His "Hamlet" is a moody, gothic piece, where the camera skulks around a chilly Elsinore Castle with the tormented Danish prince. "Richard III" makes the viewers complicit in the machinations of the murderous hunchback, as he has a habit of addressing the audience directly. And then there's "Henry V," which starts in the famous Globe theater with a lively period performance of the play, that slowly transitions into a full-scale epic cinematic retelling. Far from being the stuffy, formal, overly faithul adaptations I was expecting, the films livened up the material with plenty of action and a few gory killings here and there. I can see why they were so popular when they first hit theater screens in the 40s and 50s.
As an actor, Olivier lives up to his reputation. His performances as Hamlet and Henry are big and exciting. His thunderous Saint Crispin's Day speech in "Henry V" is the best one I've ever heard. And he doesn't just stab Claudius at the end of "Hamlet," but leaps off a platform and tackles the evil king to floor before running him through. I preferred his quieter moments though, getting existential with Yorick's skull as Hamlet, and delicately wooing the French princess as Henry. This is where he gets to be funny and subtle and charming, and he's terribly good at all of it. There isn't a moment where Olivier doesn't seem to be giving these roles everything he's got.
But far exceeding either of those previous outings is Olivier's transformation into Richard of Gloucester, one of Shakespeare's great misanthropic bastards. With a fake nose, affected limp, and some good costuming, suddenly he's unrecognizable. And oh, the odious ambition and the twisted jealousy and the seething self-loathing coming off of this man! Sometimes Olivier goes well over the top, but he is so much fun to watch as Richard. It's no wonder that everyone wanted Olivier for villain roles in his later career. "Richard III" was the hardest of his films to get through, but it was worth it for the finale, where all of Richard's bad deeds finally catch up to him on the battlefield, and Olivier gives him a really great death scene.
And now I want to see his King Lear and his Othello and his Shylock. I want to see his Mr. Darcy in the 1940 "Pride and Prejudice," and his Heathcliff in the 1939 "Wuthering Heights." Because now I know what Laurence Olivier is capable of. Now I know what Kenneth Branagh and every other Shakespeare-loving actor out there has been trying to live up to for the last six decades, with varying degrees of success. I've seen better Hamlets. I've seen better Henrys. But there's no question that it was Olivier who set the bar, who was the touchstone and the starting point for so much of Shakespeare on film. That's why he's important. That's why he's remembered.
I'm so glad I finally got to know him.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Getting Stung by "The Green Hornet"
I feel sorry for any fan of "The Green Hornet" who went to the new Seth Rogen reboot hoping to see a faithful take on the character, who originated in a radio program and then went on to star in movie serials, comic books, and a television show in the 60s with Van Williams and Bruce Lee. Oh, the general premise and the fine details are the same. A newspaper man named Britt Reid gets the bright idea to fight crime as a superhero, with the help of his trusty manservant Kato. However, this isn't a straight adaptation but a merciless skewering of the original "Green Hornet" and certain elements of the whole superhero genre. It's very, very funny, but I'm sure many of the Hornet's existing fans were wincing.
The primary difference here is that Britt Reid is a buffoon. Played by Seth Rogen, who also had scripting duties with Evan Goldberg, Britt is an immature, egomaniacal, self-aggrandizing, slacker frat-boy who inherits a media empire from his departed father James Reid (Tom Wilkinson) and resents him for it. His intentions are pure and he tries to make good by becoming a crimefighter, but Britt can barely go five minutes in the movie without making an ass of himself. Chief among his bad habits is constantly taking credit for the work of Kato (Jay Chou), who does the bulk of the fighting, builds the cool cars, and invents all the neat gadgets for the Green Hornet. All of Britt's insights into criminology come from from his extremely overqualified secretary - does anyone still call them secretaries? - Lenore (Cameron Diaz), who Britt obliviously insults and sexually harasses during their interview.
In such fashion, Rogen and company none-too-gently poke fun at all the problematic elements of "The Green Hornet" lore. As a comedy, the movie works gangbusters. It's a lot of fun, has wonderful energy, and the visual gags and action sequences are a blast. But as a superhero film, even a comedic superhero film, "The Green Hornet" is hard to swallow. The biggest problem is Rogen. As hard as he tries, he's never credible as a heroic person, but merely someone who's posing in the role. Rogen's inherent likability kept me rooting for him to make this character work, but I think Britt Reid was changed too much. Making him ineffectual, insensitive, and oblivious to the contributions of the people around him is one thing, but this Britt is such a crass, mean-spirited, petty guy, with a bizarrely R-rated vocabulary for a PG-13 film (how did they get this past the MPAA?!), you seriously start to wonder why Kato and Lenore put all this effort toward helping him and don't get fed up with his antics a lot earlier.
To their credit, they do get fed up. All the characters around Britt work just fine. Jay Chou and Cameron Diaz put in good performances here. Chou is especially good as Kato, though in some of the action scenes I think his role bears more resemblance to the "Pink Panther" Cato as opposed to the "Green Hornet" Kato. And I'd be remiss if I neglected to mention the villain of the piece, Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz), a traditional black-suited baddie confounded by a sudden proliferation of image-conscious, gimmick-happy rivals. His resulting midlife crisis and awkward attempts to turn himself into a supervillain are hysterical. I wish they'd done more with the idea and more with Waltz.
Finally, my pretentious movie fan credentials require me to talk about the director, Michel Gondry, whose wildly inventive visual style was a hallmark of his past pictures like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Be Kind Rewind." Here, we get Gondry-lite. There are a few scenes that are recognizably his work, and I'm guessing a lot of the neat gadget ideas and action sequences came from him, but most of the movie doesn't feel like Gondry. While this proves that the director is capable of churning out mass-market entertainments like everyone else, which should be good for the budgets of his future projects, I can't help wishing I could have seen a version of "The Green Hornet" where Gondry really let loose and did it his way with all the cardboard and toilet paper and oversized puppets.
But there's no use in reviewing the film that wasn't made, especially when the film that was made was a perfectly good watch. Ultimately, I don't think there's all that much wrong with "The Green Hornet" except the title. The film was a good satirical takedown of the concept of "The Green Hornet," and might have been even better if they'd taken the joke farther, but it didn't really work as a reboot of the franchise. There was too much smirking for that, and not enough heart. And that's the thing about superheroes - brains and brawn can be compensated for, but they gotta have heart.
The primary difference here is that Britt Reid is a buffoon. Played by Seth Rogen, who also had scripting duties with Evan Goldberg, Britt is an immature, egomaniacal, self-aggrandizing, slacker frat-boy who inherits a media empire from his departed father James Reid (Tom Wilkinson) and resents him for it. His intentions are pure and he tries to make good by becoming a crimefighter, but Britt can barely go five minutes in the movie without making an ass of himself. Chief among his bad habits is constantly taking credit for the work of Kato (Jay Chou), who does the bulk of the fighting, builds the cool cars, and invents all the neat gadgets for the Green Hornet. All of Britt's insights into criminology come from from his extremely overqualified secretary - does anyone still call them secretaries? - Lenore (Cameron Diaz), who Britt obliviously insults and sexually harasses during their interview.
In such fashion, Rogen and company none-too-gently poke fun at all the problematic elements of "The Green Hornet" lore. As a comedy, the movie works gangbusters. It's a lot of fun, has wonderful energy, and the visual gags and action sequences are a blast. But as a superhero film, even a comedic superhero film, "The Green Hornet" is hard to swallow. The biggest problem is Rogen. As hard as he tries, he's never credible as a heroic person, but merely someone who's posing in the role. Rogen's inherent likability kept me rooting for him to make this character work, but I think Britt Reid was changed too much. Making him ineffectual, insensitive, and oblivious to the contributions of the people around him is one thing, but this Britt is such a crass, mean-spirited, petty guy, with a bizarrely R-rated vocabulary for a PG-13 film (how did they get this past the MPAA?!), you seriously start to wonder why Kato and Lenore put all this effort toward helping him and don't get fed up with his antics a lot earlier.
To their credit, they do get fed up. All the characters around Britt work just fine. Jay Chou and Cameron Diaz put in good performances here. Chou is especially good as Kato, though in some of the action scenes I think his role bears more resemblance to the "Pink Panther" Cato as opposed to the "Green Hornet" Kato. And I'd be remiss if I neglected to mention the villain of the piece, Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz), a traditional black-suited baddie confounded by a sudden proliferation of image-conscious, gimmick-happy rivals. His resulting midlife crisis and awkward attempts to turn himself into a supervillain are hysterical. I wish they'd done more with the idea and more with Waltz.
Finally, my pretentious movie fan credentials require me to talk about the director, Michel Gondry, whose wildly inventive visual style was a hallmark of his past pictures like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Be Kind Rewind." Here, we get Gondry-lite. There are a few scenes that are recognizably his work, and I'm guessing a lot of the neat gadget ideas and action sequences came from him, but most of the movie doesn't feel like Gondry. While this proves that the director is capable of churning out mass-market entertainments like everyone else, which should be good for the budgets of his future projects, I can't help wishing I could have seen a version of "The Green Hornet" where Gondry really let loose and did it his way with all the cardboard and toilet paper and oversized puppets.
But there's no use in reviewing the film that wasn't made, especially when the film that was made was a perfectly good watch. Ultimately, I don't think there's all that much wrong with "The Green Hornet" except the title. The film was a good satirical takedown of the concept of "The Green Hornet," and might have been even better if they'd taken the joke farther, but it didn't really work as a reboot of the franchise. There was too much smirking for that, and not enough heart. And that's the thing about superheroes - brains and brawn can be compensated for, but they gotta have heart.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Why the Rebuild of "Evangelion" Isn't a Reboot
I saw "The Green Hornet" over the weekend, but that's not the franchise title I want to talk about today. Instead, I have a slightly older title in mind, one that I had written off sight unseen a few years ago - the feature film remake of the "Neon Genesis Evangelion" anime series, titled "Evangelion: 1.11 You Are (Not) Alone." For the record, I saw "1.11," the DVD release with a few extra minutes of footage, not the "1.01" theatrical release.
"Evangelion" was one of the major anime titles of the 90s, a massively popular, influential, and controversial story of giant robots, teen angst, and sinister Christian theology. It was produced by Studio GAINAX, famous for being founded by a pack of dedicated anime fanboys aiming to revolutionize the industry. And to an extent, they did. "Evangelion" was considered a watershed title that defined an era and introduced anime to many Western viewers. Anime fans of a certain age all know the characters on sight, even if they never watched a frame of the twenty-six episode television series or the two follow-up films.
When I heard that GAINAX, was planning to remake the series, I wasn't expecting much. At the time the "Rebuild of Evangelion" project was announced in 2002, GAINAX hadn't had a hit in a while. The studio had always leaned heavily on "Evangelion" merchandise, and there were other "Evangelion" projects like video games and manga trotted out every few years, aimed at milking the franchise for all it was worth. In the interim, I'm happy to report that "Tengan Toppa Gurren Lagaan," a thoroughly enjoyable new giant robot show, became a smash in 2007, giving the studio something else to fiddle with.
But on to the reboot. "You Are (Not) Alone" is the first of four planned "Rebuild" films and covers the material found in the first six episodes of "Neon Genesis Evangelion." What surprised me about the new feature was not the changes from the original, but the relative lack of changes. The series is essentially recreated, practically scene for scene, and largely using repurposed or painstakingly copied character animation from the original show. I knew "Evangelion" well enough to spot new animation and any deviations from the original script, but there weren't many instances of either.
This is not to say that the new "Evangelion" is a simple re-edit of the existing material. Nearly every frame has been heavily retouched or enhanced. Backgrounds have been replaced, details added, and CGI used to add more interesting dimensions to the fight scenes. All the enemy "Angels" have been redesigned for greatly pumped-up battle scenes. What's really impressive is how seamlessly the old and new elements have been combined. If this was the first time I'd seen "Evangelion," I wouldn't have been able to tell which bits were from the original and which were not.
After sitting through "You Are (Not) Alone," I'm not sure the film can really be called a reboot since so much of it really is taken directly from the original source. Yet at the same time so much has also been changed, it felt like I was seeing certain familiar events for the first time. The film's climactic battle with the Sixth Angel had the most new material and was a huge improvement on the original. The closest thing I can think to compare the effect to is the "Special Edition" versions of the "Star Wars" trilogy, if George Lucas had added twice as many new scenes, ten times as many new effects to existing scenes, and then re-edited half the film.
Using a new term, "rebuild," feels appropriate for "You Are (Not) Alone," and I can't help wondering if this approach could work for other films. Since "Evangelion" is purely animation and so much of it centers around these big, wild fight sequences, obviously the techniques it employs wouldn't be as effective for something like "Star Wars" or even "Beauty and the Beast." Still, this could be a good example for filmmakers currently trying to revamp classic films by converting them for 3D or enhancing them with new CGI effects. I don't think the "Evangelion" rebuilds or any of these other reboots and reissues are necessary, but if the studios demand them, something like "You Are (Not) Alone" seems to do the least amount of damage by preserving the old while indulging the new.
Is the new "Evangelion" better than the original? It's a different beast, with a narrative that emphasizes different things but doesn't shed as much of its episodic nature as it probably should have for a feature. I certainly liked the new film and I'm anticipating the future ones, though I have to wonder how much of this is due to my nostalgia for the series. On the other hand, no reboot ever managed to evoke so much nostalgia from me for its original source material - because so much of the rebuild IS the original source material!
We've certainly entered an interesting new age in cinema. If this catches on, I wonder what they'll rebuild next?
"Evangelion" was one of the major anime titles of the 90s, a massively popular, influential, and controversial story of giant robots, teen angst, and sinister Christian theology. It was produced by Studio GAINAX, famous for being founded by a pack of dedicated anime fanboys aiming to revolutionize the industry. And to an extent, they did. "Evangelion" was considered a watershed title that defined an era and introduced anime to many Western viewers. Anime fans of a certain age all know the characters on sight, even if they never watched a frame of the twenty-six episode television series or the two follow-up films.
When I heard that GAINAX, was planning to remake the series, I wasn't expecting much. At the time the "Rebuild of Evangelion" project was announced in 2002, GAINAX hadn't had a hit in a while. The studio had always leaned heavily on "Evangelion" merchandise, and there were other "Evangelion" projects like video games and manga trotted out every few years, aimed at milking the franchise for all it was worth. In the interim, I'm happy to report that "Tengan Toppa Gurren Lagaan," a thoroughly enjoyable new giant robot show, became a smash in 2007, giving the studio something else to fiddle with.
But on to the reboot. "You Are (Not) Alone" is the first of four planned "Rebuild" films and covers the material found in the first six episodes of "Neon Genesis Evangelion." What surprised me about the new feature was not the changes from the original, but the relative lack of changes. The series is essentially recreated, practically scene for scene, and largely using repurposed or painstakingly copied character animation from the original show. I knew "Evangelion" well enough to spot new animation and any deviations from the original script, but there weren't many instances of either.
This is not to say that the new "Evangelion" is a simple re-edit of the existing material. Nearly every frame has been heavily retouched or enhanced. Backgrounds have been replaced, details added, and CGI used to add more interesting dimensions to the fight scenes. All the enemy "Angels" have been redesigned for greatly pumped-up battle scenes. What's really impressive is how seamlessly the old and new elements have been combined. If this was the first time I'd seen "Evangelion," I wouldn't have been able to tell which bits were from the original and which were not.
After sitting through "You Are (Not) Alone," I'm not sure the film can really be called a reboot since so much of it really is taken directly from the original source. Yet at the same time so much has also been changed, it felt like I was seeing certain familiar events for the first time. The film's climactic battle with the Sixth Angel had the most new material and was a huge improvement on the original. The closest thing I can think to compare the effect to is the "Special Edition" versions of the "Star Wars" trilogy, if George Lucas had added twice as many new scenes, ten times as many new effects to existing scenes, and then re-edited half the film.
Using a new term, "rebuild," feels appropriate for "You Are (Not) Alone," and I can't help wondering if this approach could work for other films. Since "Evangelion" is purely animation and so much of it centers around these big, wild fight sequences, obviously the techniques it employs wouldn't be as effective for something like "Star Wars" or even "Beauty and the Beast." Still, this could be a good example for filmmakers currently trying to revamp classic films by converting them for 3D or enhancing them with new CGI effects. I don't think the "Evangelion" rebuilds or any of these other reboots and reissues are necessary, but if the studios demand them, something like "You Are (Not) Alone" seems to do the least amount of damage by preserving the old while indulging the new.
Is the new "Evangelion" better than the original? It's a different beast, with a narrative that emphasizes different things but doesn't shed as much of its episodic nature as it probably should have for a feature. I certainly liked the new film and I'm anticipating the future ones, though I have to wonder how much of this is due to my nostalgia for the series. On the other hand, no reboot ever managed to evoke so much nostalgia from me for its original source material - because so much of the rebuild IS the original source material!
We've certainly entered an interesting new age in cinema. If this catches on, I wonder what they'll rebuild next?
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Golden Globes Liveblog Part 2
Continued from the previous post...
6:36 PM - Gervais intros the presenters for Best Foreign Language films as only he can. Olivia Wilde shows up wearing an observatory. "In a Better World" from Denmark takes the prize. Haven't heard of this one.
6:38 PM - Helen Mirren presents "The King's Speech" nomination clip. Now this is a proper introduction.
6:40 PM - Best Actress in a TV Series Comedy/Musical goes to... Laura Linney! Yay! But she's not here. Awww.
6:46 PM - Ooh, Jane Fonda is here. To present the "Burlesque" nomination clip. Eeesh.
6:48 PM - Best Actor in a TV Series Comedy/Musical. Go Jim Parsons! Sheldon is triumphant!
6:50 PM - Jeremy Irons, sounding deathly ill, presents Best Supporting Actress - and it goes to Melissa Leo for "The Fighter." This speech should win her points come Oscar time.
7:01 PM - Matt Damon is presenting the Cecil B. DeMille award to Robert DeNiro. This should be fun. Damon does a terrible Pesci, and I'm glad he didn't try to do Jodie Foster. On with the clip package!
Man, DeNiro was great in "Raging Bull." I love that they're including some of the more obscure titles - "Awakenings," "This Boy's Life," "Midnight Run." The plug for "Limitless" was pretty sad though. And only two seconds for "Mean Streets"?
And DeNiro speaks. He gets in digs about "Little Fockers," the HFPS, 3D conversions, and Homeland Security. Heh. One of his laugh lines got bleeped, which makes me twitch. And DeNiro points out more missing obscurities that I am now obligated to watch.
7:11 PM - "Gnomeo and Juliet" looks terrible.
7:13 PM - "The Tourist" has its clip presented by Megan Fox? I thought she was persona non grata after "Jonah Hex."
7:14 PM - Here come the big guns. Best Director time. David Fincher wins for "The Social Network"! Looks like this is finally his year. Easily the most well-written speech of the evening. The camera-people at this show really need to pick their reaction shots better. Why are we looking at the cast of "Glee"?
7:18 PM - Best TV Show Comedy/Musical goes to... "Glee." No surprise considering the earlier wins. As with all the other TV awards, this would have been for the 2009-2010 season, not the current one. And the acceptance speech was cut off to go to commercial. Oh well.
7:25 PM - Alicia Keyes? Oh, she's here to present the clip for "Black Swan."
7:26 PM - Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical Film, aka the Johnny Depp category. Paul Giamatti wins for "Barney's Version," probably the most dignified choice and it'll get an underseen film some attention. So, best possible result. Giamatti's giving the five-second-delay a workout here. Someone get this man some more Godiva chocolates!
7:32 PM - Joseph Gordon Levitt presents the "Inception" clip. Is it just me or is he a little wired?
7:34 PM - Best Actress in a Drama Film. Portman takes it! She and Bening will be battling it out for the Oscar. Portman's got the better speech, and the whole drama of the baby bump on her side. And "Sweet Lips" Kunis, huh?
7:37 PM - Gervais is back to introduce Tom Hanks and Tim Allen. I think this is the first time I've seen these two together in real life before. Best Film, Comedy or Musical, goes to "The Kids Are All Right." Not a shock, since it had no competition whatsoever.
7:46 PM - We're getting down to the end and the room is getting restless. Gervais is still going strong though. Here's Sandra Bullock to hand out the Best Actor award for Drama Film. This is Firth's to lose - he wins! Great performance, and Firth is due for a statue. Good for him for thanking David Seidler, the screenwriter enjoying a major career comeback with this film.
7:54 PM - The resurrected Michael Douglas is here and has the room on its feet. Best Motion Picture, Drama, goes to - "The Social Network." Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield have to be verbally prodded to go onstage. The Facebook film juggernaut rolls on.
7:59 PM - Ricky Gervais gets the final word. "And thank you to God, for making me an atheist." Oscar nominations are announced next week and the fun will really start.
Goodnight everybody!
6:36 PM - Gervais intros the presenters for Best Foreign Language films as only he can. Olivia Wilde shows up wearing an observatory. "In a Better World" from Denmark takes the prize. Haven't heard of this one.
6:38 PM - Helen Mirren presents "The King's Speech" nomination clip. Now this is a proper introduction.
6:40 PM - Best Actress in a TV Series Comedy/Musical goes to... Laura Linney! Yay! But she's not here. Awww.
6:46 PM - Ooh, Jane Fonda is here. To present the "Burlesque" nomination clip. Eeesh.
6:48 PM - Best Actor in a TV Series Comedy/Musical. Go Jim Parsons! Sheldon is triumphant!
6:50 PM - Jeremy Irons, sounding deathly ill, presents Best Supporting Actress - and it goes to Melissa Leo for "The Fighter." This speech should win her points come Oscar time.
7:01 PM - Matt Damon is presenting the Cecil B. DeMille award to Robert DeNiro. This should be fun. Damon does a terrible Pesci, and I'm glad he didn't try to do Jodie Foster. On with the clip package!
Man, DeNiro was great in "Raging Bull." I love that they're including some of the more obscure titles - "Awakenings," "This Boy's Life," "Midnight Run." The plug for "Limitless" was pretty sad though. And only two seconds for "Mean Streets"?
And DeNiro speaks. He gets in digs about "Little Fockers," the HFPS, 3D conversions, and Homeland Security. Heh. One of his laugh lines got bleeped, which makes me twitch. And DeNiro points out more missing obscurities that I am now obligated to watch.
7:11 PM - "Gnomeo and Juliet" looks terrible.
7:13 PM - "The Tourist" has its clip presented by Megan Fox? I thought she was persona non grata after "Jonah Hex."
7:14 PM - Here come the big guns. Best Director time. David Fincher wins for "The Social Network"! Looks like this is finally his year. Easily the most well-written speech of the evening. The camera-people at this show really need to pick their reaction shots better. Why are we looking at the cast of "Glee"?
7:18 PM - Best TV Show Comedy/Musical goes to... "Glee." No surprise considering the earlier wins. As with all the other TV awards, this would have been for the 2009-2010 season, not the current one. And the acceptance speech was cut off to go to commercial. Oh well.
7:25 PM - Alicia Keyes? Oh, she's here to present the clip for "Black Swan."
7:26 PM - Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical Film, aka the Johnny Depp category. Paul Giamatti wins for "Barney's Version," probably the most dignified choice and it'll get an underseen film some attention. So, best possible result. Giamatti's giving the five-second-delay a workout here. Someone get this man some more Godiva chocolates!
7:32 PM - Joseph Gordon Levitt presents the "Inception" clip. Is it just me or is he a little wired?
7:34 PM - Best Actress in a Drama Film. Portman takes it! She and Bening will be battling it out for the Oscar. Portman's got the better speech, and the whole drama of the baby bump on her side. And "Sweet Lips" Kunis, huh?
7:37 PM - Gervais is back to introduce Tom Hanks and Tim Allen. I think this is the first time I've seen these two together in real life before. Best Film, Comedy or Musical, goes to "The Kids Are All Right." Not a shock, since it had no competition whatsoever.
7:46 PM - We're getting down to the end and the room is getting restless. Gervais is still going strong though. Here's Sandra Bullock to hand out the Best Actor award for Drama Film. This is Firth's to lose - he wins! Great performance, and Firth is due for a statue. Good for him for thanking David Seidler, the screenwriter enjoying a major career comeback with this film.
7:54 PM - The resurrected Michael Douglas is here and has the room on its feet. Best Motion Picture, Drama, goes to - "The Social Network." Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield have to be verbally prodded to go onstage. The Facebook film juggernaut rolls on.
7:59 PM - Ricky Gervais gets the final word. "And thank you to God, for making me an atheist." Oscar nominations are announced next week and the fun will really start.
Goodnight everybody!
Golden Globes Liveblog Part 1
It's time again for those Golden Globes, the award show that means exactly as much as you want them to. I'll be liveblogging this evening. Here we go -
5:00 PM - Really, you're going to go with that same musical sting again? Here comes Ricky Gervais!
5:02 PM - Ooh, I don't know if he's going to be invited back next year. We all expected jabs at "The Tourist" and the HFPA, but Tom Cruise may sic the Scientologists on him for that "Phillip Morris" joke.
5:05 PM - Mel Gibson joke #1.
5:08 PM - Scar Jo fresh off her recent split is looking lovely. Best Supporting Actor - Bale wins. Haven't seen "The Fighter" yet. Is Bale's Welsh accent getting thicker, or is it just me?
5:09 PM - Bale's shout-out to Robert DeNiro was just cut off. Second time the delay's been used already. It's going to be an interesting evening.
5:10 PM - Best Actress in a TV drama. I haven't been watching any of these shows. Katey Sagal wins! Yay for Leela!
5:17 PM - Best TV Miniseries or Movie. Wow, "Carlos" ended up in this category? "Temple Grandin" may actually have competition - yep. "Carlos" takes it for Assayas.
5:21 PM - Gervais skewers Bruce Willis, who comes out to present "RED" as a Best Picture nominee. I'm still not sure how this happened.
5:23 PM - Best Supporting Actor in a TV Series. David Strathairn's in here, so it looks like miniseries and movies have been lumped in too. Whoa, the kid from "Glee" wins! That's a nice surprise. And a great speech.
5:30 PM - "Alice in Wonderland" nomination clip is presented by Michelle Pfeiffer. Helena Bonham Carter's shrug really says it all.
5:31 PM - Gervais, what would we do without you? Eva Longoria is stuck with introducing the HFPA prez.
5:35 PM - Best Actor in a TV Drama. Come on, Steve Buscemi! Woooooo! And the classiest speech of the evening.
5:37 PM - Best TV Drama goes to... "Boardwalk Empire." I would have been tickled if "The Walking Dead" took it, but "Boardwalk" will do.
5:44 PM - Andrew Garfield trips over a very badly written "Social Network" nomination clip intro. Poor guy.
5:46 PM - Alec Baldwin and Jennifer Lopez present Best Original Song. Baldwin is shameless, but he can get away with it. Er, didn't "Country Song" just come out last week? Not in this country, apparently. And the Cher song wins. Diane Warren dedicates the award to Ronnie Chasen. Sweet.
5:49 PM - Best Original Score goes to... Trent Reznor for "The Social Network"! Awesome!
5:55 PM - Here comes Best Animated film. Mixed messages about animated films being kid stuff, as usual. To nobody's surprise, "Toy Story 3" wins. Lee Unkrich gets in a good dig at Bieber and Stanfield being presenters. I'm still kinda ticked off the Golden Globes barred animated films from Best Picture consideration.
5:59 PM - Gervais has fun with Robert Downey Jr's intro. And Downey is hitting on Julianne Moore. And Angelina Jolie. And Annette Bening. I love this man. Every male in the room is now imagining a six-way with the Best Actress in a Comedy/Musical nominees. (Er, how is "Blue Valentine" a comedy?) Annette Bening wins! Too bad she's in a different category than Natalie Portman, so this is really indicative of nothing about the Oscar race. Not a great speech, but she got in a good laugh line thanking Beatty.
6:10 PM - Here comes Stallone to present the nomination clip for "The Fighter." Good to see him here to cap off another good comeback year.
6:11 PM - Best Actor in a TV Miniseries or Movie. Swinton and Pacino deliver it to Al Pacino. I have no idea if he deserves it or not, but it's always great to hear Pacino speak.
6:15 PM - Best Actress in a TV Miniseries or Movie. Yay for Claire Danes! And Temple Grandin came with her to this show too. This is the end of the line for the picture's contention for major awards, so I hope they enjoy it. Danes had a great speech. I hope this gets her more work.
6:23 PM - Zac Efron presents "The Kids Are All Right" clip. Why Zac Efron?
6:24 PM - Gervais is never going to stop ribbing on Steve Carrell over "The Office." And Carrell is milking it for all it's worth. Carrell and Tina Fey work so well together. Why was "Date Night" so awful?
6:26 PM - Okay, Best Writing goes to - Aaron Sorkin for "The Social Network." Yes, David Fincher is a national treasure. And Sorkin gives Zuckerberg his props and references the criticisms of hostility toward women in his script. Hmmm.
6:29 PM - Oh look, it's Thor and Captain America for some corporate synergy. Best Supporting Actress for anything on TV goes to - Jane Lynch for "Glee." This is leading up to something, I bet. Lynch is so awesome.
6:30 PM - Starting a new post. Stay tuned.
5:00 PM - Really, you're going to go with that same musical sting again? Here comes Ricky Gervais!
5:02 PM - Ooh, I don't know if he's going to be invited back next year. We all expected jabs at "The Tourist" and the HFPA, but Tom Cruise may sic the Scientologists on him for that "Phillip Morris" joke.
5:05 PM - Mel Gibson joke #1.
5:08 PM - Scar Jo fresh off her recent split is looking lovely. Best Supporting Actor - Bale wins. Haven't seen "The Fighter" yet. Is Bale's Welsh accent getting thicker, or is it just me?
5:09 PM - Bale's shout-out to Robert DeNiro was just cut off. Second time the delay's been used already. It's going to be an interesting evening.
5:10 PM - Best Actress in a TV drama. I haven't been watching any of these shows. Katey Sagal wins! Yay for Leela!
5:17 PM - Best TV Miniseries or Movie. Wow, "Carlos" ended up in this category? "Temple Grandin" may actually have competition - yep. "Carlos" takes it for Assayas.
5:21 PM - Gervais skewers Bruce Willis, who comes out to present "RED" as a Best Picture nominee. I'm still not sure how this happened.
5:23 PM - Best Supporting Actor in a TV Series. David Strathairn's in here, so it looks like miniseries and movies have been lumped in too. Whoa, the kid from "Glee" wins! That's a nice surprise. And a great speech.
5:30 PM - "Alice in Wonderland" nomination clip is presented by Michelle Pfeiffer. Helena Bonham Carter's shrug really says it all.
5:31 PM - Gervais, what would we do without you? Eva Longoria is stuck with introducing the HFPA prez.
5:35 PM - Best Actor in a TV Drama. Come on, Steve Buscemi! Woooooo! And the classiest speech of the evening.
5:37 PM - Best TV Drama goes to... "Boardwalk Empire." I would have been tickled if "The Walking Dead" took it, but "Boardwalk" will do.
5:44 PM - Andrew Garfield trips over a very badly written "Social Network" nomination clip intro. Poor guy.
5:46 PM - Alec Baldwin and Jennifer Lopez present Best Original Song. Baldwin is shameless, but he can get away with it. Er, didn't "Country Song" just come out last week? Not in this country, apparently. And the Cher song wins. Diane Warren dedicates the award to Ronnie Chasen. Sweet.
5:49 PM - Best Original Score goes to... Trent Reznor for "The Social Network"! Awesome!
5:55 PM - Here comes Best Animated film. Mixed messages about animated films being kid stuff, as usual. To nobody's surprise, "Toy Story 3" wins. Lee Unkrich gets in a good dig at Bieber and Stanfield being presenters. I'm still kinda ticked off the Golden Globes barred animated films from Best Picture consideration.
5:59 PM - Gervais has fun with Robert Downey Jr's intro. And Downey is hitting on Julianne Moore. And Angelina Jolie. And Annette Bening. I love this man. Every male in the room is now imagining a six-way with the Best Actress in a Comedy/Musical nominees. (Er, how is "Blue Valentine" a comedy?) Annette Bening wins! Too bad she's in a different category than Natalie Portman, so this is really indicative of nothing about the Oscar race. Not a great speech, but she got in a good laugh line thanking Beatty.
6:10 PM - Here comes Stallone to present the nomination clip for "The Fighter." Good to see him here to cap off another good comeback year.
6:11 PM - Best Actor in a TV Miniseries or Movie. Swinton and Pacino deliver it to Al Pacino. I have no idea if he deserves it or not, but it's always great to hear Pacino speak.
6:15 PM - Best Actress in a TV Miniseries or Movie. Yay for Claire Danes! And Temple Grandin came with her to this show too. This is the end of the line for the picture's contention for major awards, so I hope they enjoy it. Danes had a great speech. I hope this gets her more work.
6:23 PM - Zac Efron presents "The Kids Are All Right" clip. Why Zac Efron?
6:24 PM - Gervais is never going to stop ribbing on Steve Carrell over "The Office." And Carrell is milking it for all it's worth. Carrell and Tina Fey work so well together. Why was "Date Night" so awful?
6:26 PM - Okay, Best Writing goes to - Aaron Sorkin for "The Social Network." Yes, David Fincher is a national treasure. And Sorkin gives Zuckerberg his props and references the criticisms of hostility toward women in his script. Hmmm.
6:29 PM - Oh look, it's Thor and Captain America for some corporate synergy. Best Supporting Actress for anything on TV goes to - Jane Lynch for "Glee." This is leading up to something, I bet. Lynch is so awesome.
6:30 PM - Starting a new post. Stay tuned.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Have Rossio and Elliot Split?
You've probably seen a film written by Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot even if you've never heard of the pair. Rossio and Elliot are the screenwriters responsible for all the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films. Their first big hit was "Aladdin" in 1992, followed by two other films for Disney animation, "Hercules" and "Treasure Planet." They also wrote "The Mask of Zorro" for TriStar in 1998, the first "Shrek" film for Dreamworks, and had a hand in both "National Treasure" films. The duo has been one the most consistent writing teams in Hollywood for the past twenty years, give or take a "Godzilla" reboot. Now comes the news that Terry Rossio will be writing the fifth "Pirates of the Caribbean" film by himself. Ted Elliot, to use the obvious pun, has jumped ship.
I try my best not to get caught up in the endless cycles of Hollywood gossip over breakups and relationship troubles among movie stars, but this is different. Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot have a creative partnership has been very good to us over the years and left its mark on the popular culture. Of course this isn't the first time the two have tackled projects separately, and there's no sign of any permanent break here - they're still producing another project together, "Jingle," over at Nickelodeon films with Sandra Bullock. Elliot passing up the next "Pirates" might mean nothing. However, this is definitely the highest profile film where either of them are going solo, and in image-conscious Hollywood, that sends a certain message. And I do not have the self-restraint to keep myself from speculating as to whether this means something else is up.
It's perfectly understandable why Ted Elliot wouldn't want to write a fifth "Pirates of the Caribbean" film, since he and Rossio have devoted the better part of a decade to this franchise and there has to be a sense of creative stagnation setting in by now. Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparow is great fun, but by the third "Pirates" film I got the sense that the filmmakers were running out of things for him to do. Hopefully having a new set of characters to play off of will help breathe some new life into the fourth "Pirates" film. Then again, Eliot's exit may have nothing to do with creative boredom. It could be the money. Or it could be studio politics, or personal reasons, or needing a break from writing, or "creative differences," or any other number of possibilities.
I've really enjoyed Rossio and Elliot films over the years, so much so that they were the first screenwriters who I could recognize as being screenwriters, who were not also directors or actors or whatnot. I've kept an eye out for their work, especially after their involvement in one of the many failed attempts at a "Sandman" movie back in the mid-90s. Their draft is still online over here. Having sat through more than my share of bad mainstream movies, I appreciate what they do. There's an art to putting together a piece of major studio spectacle, that can be just as difficult as putting out a serious prestige piece. I won't name names, but there are some great writers out there who should never be let within a hundred miles of another genre film.
Yet, I also can't help but wonder what would happen if Rossio and Elliot did branch out beyond big budget action and kids' films. What would happen if they tacked a historical drama? Or a comedic farce? Or one of those little indie films about miserable families? Terry Rossio wrote an original script with Bill Marsilii a couple of years ago for "Deja Vu," a Denzel Washington science fiction thriller I haven't seen. Maybe now it's Elliot's turn to get a pet project off the ground. That's the best case scenario I can think of.
In the short term, Terry Rossio handling scripting duties solo is unlikely to change much. Ted Elliot's name is still going to be all over the fifth "Pirates" film because he's contributed so much to the existing universe of the "Pirates" franchise already. And after four films, I don't think it's going to impact the quality of any future installments if only one of the pair is onboard. Heck, I don't know if either of them need to be there - maybe Captain Jack Sparrow would benefit from a new writer or two on his crew.
Okay, I'll stop with the nautical puns now, but it's just too easy, dammit!
I try my best not to get caught up in the endless cycles of Hollywood gossip over breakups and relationship troubles among movie stars, but this is different. Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot have a creative partnership has been very good to us over the years and left its mark on the popular culture. Of course this isn't the first time the two have tackled projects separately, and there's no sign of any permanent break here - they're still producing another project together, "Jingle," over at Nickelodeon films with Sandra Bullock. Elliot passing up the next "Pirates" might mean nothing. However, this is definitely the highest profile film where either of them are going solo, and in image-conscious Hollywood, that sends a certain message. And I do not have the self-restraint to keep myself from speculating as to whether this means something else is up.
It's perfectly understandable why Ted Elliot wouldn't want to write a fifth "Pirates of the Caribbean" film, since he and Rossio have devoted the better part of a decade to this franchise and there has to be a sense of creative stagnation setting in by now. Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparow is great fun, but by the third "Pirates" film I got the sense that the filmmakers were running out of things for him to do. Hopefully having a new set of characters to play off of will help breathe some new life into the fourth "Pirates" film. Then again, Eliot's exit may have nothing to do with creative boredom. It could be the money. Or it could be studio politics, or personal reasons, or needing a break from writing, or "creative differences," or any other number of possibilities.
I've really enjoyed Rossio and Elliot films over the years, so much so that they were the first screenwriters who I could recognize as being screenwriters, who were not also directors or actors or whatnot. I've kept an eye out for their work, especially after their involvement in one of the many failed attempts at a "Sandman" movie back in the mid-90s. Their draft is still online over here. Having sat through more than my share of bad mainstream movies, I appreciate what they do. There's an art to putting together a piece of major studio spectacle, that can be just as difficult as putting out a serious prestige piece. I won't name names, but there are some great writers out there who should never be let within a hundred miles of another genre film.
Yet, I also can't help but wonder what would happen if Rossio and Elliot did branch out beyond big budget action and kids' films. What would happen if they tacked a historical drama? Or a comedic farce? Or one of those little indie films about miserable families? Terry Rossio wrote an original script with Bill Marsilii a couple of years ago for "Deja Vu," a Denzel Washington science fiction thriller I haven't seen. Maybe now it's Elliot's turn to get a pet project off the ground. That's the best case scenario I can think of.
In the short term, Terry Rossio handling scripting duties solo is unlikely to change much. Ted Elliot's name is still going to be all over the fifth "Pirates" film because he's contributed so much to the existing universe of the "Pirates" franchise already. And after four films, I don't think it's going to impact the quality of any future installments if only one of the pair is onboard. Heck, I don't know if either of them need to be there - maybe Captain Jack Sparrow would benefit from a new writer or two on his crew.
Okay, I'll stop with the nautical puns now, but it's just too easy, dammit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
