I knew I had this backed up somewhere. Pretend it's early January.
Disney's marketing campaign for "Tangled" has been so adamant that the film is not one of their typical "princess" films, that it came as a surprise to discover that was exactly what it was - an animated musical about a princess that follows the old Disney formula to the letter. You have the sheltered young girl yearning for for adventure, in this case Rapunzel (Mandy Moore), who has spent her whole life locked away in her famous tower. You have the witchy Gothel (Donna Murphy), who stole Rapunzel from her royal parents for her magical, youth-giving hair, and has become a manipulative surrogate mother. A thief named Flynn (Zachary Levi) breaks from formula slightly, as a dashing rogue who thinks Rapunzel's tower would make a great hiding spot while he's on the lam, but ends up getting more than he bargained for. And what Disney movie would be complete with out the cute animal sidekicks? Rapunzel has a pet chameleon, Pascal, and Flynn finds himself on the wrong side of an antagonistic horse named Maximus.
And the real surprise is that it works. All of it. "Tangled" does a great job of reminding us why the Disney formula was so successful and has endured for as long as it has. For the most part "Tangled" plays it straight, with very little cynical humor, no major stars lending their vocal talents, and not a pop culture reference in sight. And yet it doesn't feel out of date in the slightest. Instead, it's kind of a relief to find an animated film that knows how to get laughs with good characters, solid visual gags, and squash-and-stretch caricature. Even the songs are catchy, with the exception of a syrupy love ballad you'll hardly even notice, because it's paired with some absolutely jaw-dropping eye candy. The only major difference between "Tangled" and the Disney Renaissance films of the early 90s is the fact that "Tangled" is CGI animation, and some of the best I've ever seen. There's a wonderful painterly look to the backgrounds, and something about the floral motifs and the brightness of the colors that pings as ineffably Disney.
There was a lot of press about the studio making changes during production so the film would be more appealing to boys. The changes boil down to the character of Flynn, who narrates the film and shares the spotlight about equally with Rapunzel. He introduces a more worldly, cynical view on the fairy-tale romance, but not nearly to the degree of something like "Shrek." Eventually he has to soften up enough to become a romantic hero. Rapunzel herself is naive but no pushover, and a fun heroine to root for. Her yards and yards of golden hair are fully exploited for their comic potential, and her complicated relationship with Gothel introduces some real tensions of a kind we haven't seen in Disney films before. When Flynn convinces Rapunzel to leave the tower for a quick trip to the neighboring kingdom, she's estatic to be outside, but also wracked with guilt at the thought of deceiving her mother, resulting in severe teenage mood swings.
However, of all the characters, I think the villain of the piece is the most memorable. Gothel is a unique villain in the Disney universe, as there's evidence to suggest that she may really care about Rapunzel, and initially it's not clear how evil she really is. Gothel is bullying and critical, but in that way that mothers sometimes are as their children get older, and they become overprotective or scared of letting go. Donna Murphy, a Broadway vet, does a great job of playing up this ambiguity. Sure, she could be genuinely worried for Rapunzel when the girl sneaks off with a wanted thief, but then Gothel's the one who kidnapped her in the first place. Murphy also supplies Gothel with the sultry pipes for a showstopper of a villain song.
It's a relief to find that Disney resisted the temptation to turn out more CGI films following the Dreamworks model, like the disastrous "Chicken Little," and didn't recoil from fairy-tale romances after the underperformance of "The Princess and the Frog." There are some concession to a 21st century audience in "Tangled," in the form of more lively humor and action sequences, but they're done in very Disney style, and don't overwhelm the rest of the story. Instead, everything we loved and hated about the classic Disney films, from the Broadway-style musical numbers to the wide-eyed heroines to the heartfelt sentiment to the moments of heartbreak are all still here.
Thank goodness.
--
Monday, May 9, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
About That God of Thunder Movie
Marvel's new superhero film "Thor" isn't particularly well written. The acting is decent, but unspectacular, and the action is only so-so. However, "Thor" has a few things in its favor. The first is that it is a beautifully designed film, full of so many stunning CGI environments, ornate costuming, and special effects fireworks that the eye never runs short of things to look at. Like last year's "Alice in Wonderland," "Thor" features the kind of beautiful visuals that would seem to result in a much better making-of art book than a full-length motion picture. Sometimes you just want the camera to hold still for a little while so you can appreciate the craft and care that went into all the props.
Another plus is that "Thor" is very well cast and has the right director. The success of the film rests almost solely on the performances of Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Anthony Hopkins as Odin Allfather, and Tom Hiddleston as Loki. Based on the Marvel comic book series that adapted the original Norse myths, the film begins with the premise that the Nordic gods are actually beings that come from a different world called Asgard, and Earth is one of the Nine Realms that they protect and safeguard. Odin reigns as king, and his two sons, mighty Thor and trickster Loki, vie for his favor and attention. All of these characters are larger than life and interact with a self-seriousness that could so easily have become campy and ridiculous. However, this is where the involvement Kenneth Branagh is vital. His action scenes might be rough, but where there's a family drama being played out with florid, quasi-archaic dialogue, he's in his element. And not only do Hopkins and Hiddleston deliver their lines with straight faces, but do so with enough sincerity and conviction that the viewer really has no choice but to accept that they are godlike beings who go out and do battle with all the nasties of the universe on a daily basis.
And then there's Chris Hemsworth as Thor, who is as genial and likable a god of thunder as anyone could hope for. After troublemaking Frost Giants from the icy realm of Jotunheim infiltrate Asgard, Thor takes this as an excuse to travel to Jotunheim with a band of friends to raise some hell. Arrogant and conceited, Thor breaks the peace between the two realms, and Odin banishes him to the human world, powerless, as punishment. With a massive, impressive physique, Hemsworth visually sells the idea of a god who has descended to earth. And he's got such charisma, he can get away with initially being a jerk to the puny mortals he meets after crashing intp the New Mexico desert. Three of these mortals are played by Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, and Kat Dennings. I initially mistook them for a family unit, because they act like a pair of squabbling sisters and their long-suffering father. But in fact, Jane Foster, played by Portman, is an astrophysicist who is tracking weather phenomena related to the happenings in Asgard. Erik and Darcy, Skarsgard and Dennings respectively, are her co-workers who come along for the ride, and mostly serve as tongue-in-cheek comic relief.
"Thor" is about the god of thunder becoming a true hero on Earth, and regaining his powers at a critical moment to defend Asgard and the human world against evil. Well, that's the plan anyway. What "Thor" is really about is giving us one action set-piece after another, spaced out among scenes of family conflict, a lot of humor to downplay the silliness of premise, and the introduction of elements that will be important to next year's "Avengers." The scenes on Earth are the weakest part of the film, because they should be about Thor learning to take his ego down a few notches and becoming closer to Jane. Instead, Thor is preoccupied with recovering his beloved weapon, the hammer Mjolnir, that Odin tossed down to Earth after him. After enough time has passed, Thor simply starts being more altruistic to others and more chivalrous with Jane. I like action as much as the next fangirl, but not when it comes at the expense of necessary character development. Is Thor a fish out of water in the human world? In theory, but he doesn't seem to have much trouble adjusting to life as a mortal, or much time to adjust anyway.
Another example of the film's structural problems is Thor's band of warrior friends in Asgard. These are the Warriors Three, Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), Hogun (Tadanobu Asano), and Fandral (Joshua Dallas), plus Sif (Jamie Alexander). The four of them eat up a good chunk of screen time, but are completely extraneous to the story. They serve as extra bodies to follow in the fight sequences, and will no doubt make for great action figures, but they don't do anything that a character like Frigga (Rene Russo), Thor and Loki's mother, or Asgard's towering gatekeeper Heimdall (Idris Elba) couldn't have. And they get so little development, their screen time easily could have gone to benefit Thor or Jane or Loki.
In the end I did enjoy "Thor." The spectacle is grand and the humor keeps things light. Branagh and his crew managed to translate a lot from the comic book to the screen that didn't seem possible, and they deserve full credit for it. The actors did a good job with some pretty flat characters, especially Tom Hiddleston, Stellan Skarsgard, and Chris Hemsworth. The obligatory "Avengers" tie-ins aren't nearly as obnoxious as the ones in "Iron Man 2," and even the unannounced cameos aren't too distracting. But so much feels compromised, watered down, and overly calculated, it only gets middling marks.
Fortunately, all the right components are here for a much better sequel. Better luck next time, Marvel.
---
Another plus is that "Thor" is very well cast and has the right director. The success of the film rests almost solely on the performances of Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Anthony Hopkins as Odin Allfather, and Tom Hiddleston as Loki. Based on the Marvel comic book series that adapted the original Norse myths, the film begins with the premise that the Nordic gods are actually beings that come from a different world called Asgard, and Earth is one of the Nine Realms that they protect and safeguard. Odin reigns as king, and his two sons, mighty Thor and trickster Loki, vie for his favor and attention. All of these characters are larger than life and interact with a self-seriousness that could so easily have become campy and ridiculous. However, this is where the involvement Kenneth Branagh is vital. His action scenes might be rough, but where there's a family drama being played out with florid, quasi-archaic dialogue, he's in his element. And not only do Hopkins and Hiddleston deliver their lines with straight faces, but do so with enough sincerity and conviction that the viewer really has no choice but to accept that they are godlike beings who go out and do battle with all the nasties of the universe on a daily basis.
And then there's Chris Hemsworth as Thor, who is as genial and likable a god of thunder as anyone could hope for. After troublemaking Frost Giants from the icy realm of Jotunheim infiltrate Asgard, Thor takes this as an excuse to travel to Jotunheim with a band of friends to raise some hell. Arrogant and conceited, Thor breaks the peace between the two realms, and Odin banishes him to the human world, powerless, as punishment. With a massive, impressive physique, Hemsworth visually sells the idea of a god who has descended to earth. And he's got such charisma, he can get away with initially being a jerk to the puny mortals he meets after crashing intp the New Mexico desert. Three of these mortals are played by Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, and Kat Dennings. I initially mistook them for a family unit, because they act like a pair of squabbling sisters and their long-suffering father. But in fact, Jane Foster, played by Portman, is an astrophysicist who is tracking weather phenomena related to the happenings in Asgard. Erik and Darcy, Skarsgard and Dennings respectively, are her co-workers who come along for the ride, and mostly serve as tongue-in-cheek comic relief.
"Thor" is about the god of thunder becoming a true hero on Earth, and regaining his powers at a critical moment to defend Asgard and the human world against evil. Well, that's the plan anyway. What "Thor" is really about is giving us one action set-piece after another, spaced out among scenes of family conflict, a lot of humor to downplay the silliness of premise, and the introduction of elements that will be important to next year's "Avengers." The scenes on Earth are the weakest part of the film, because they should be about Thor learning to take his ego down a few notches and becoming closer to Jane. Instead, Thor is preoccupied with recovering his beloved weapon, the hammer Mjolnir, that Odin tossed down to Earth after him. After enough time has passed, Thor simply starts being more altruistic to others and more chivalrous with Jane. I like action as much as the next fangirl, but not when it comes at the expense of necessary character development. Is Thor a fish out of water in the human world? In theory, but he doesn't seem to have much trouble adjusting to life as a mortal, or much time to adjust anyway.
Another example of the film's structural problems is Thor's band of warrior friends in Asgard. These are the Warriors Three, Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), Hogun (Tadanobu Asano), and Fandral (Joshua Dallas), plus Sif (Jamie Alexander). The four of them eat up a good chunk of screen time, but are completely extraneous to the story. They serve as extra bodies to follow in the fight sequences, and will no doubt make for great action figures, but they don't do anything that a character like Frigga (Rene Russo), Thor and Loki's mother, or Asgard's towering gatekeeper Heimdall (Idris Elba) couldn't have. And they get so little development, their screen time easily could have gone to benefit Thor or Jane or Loki.
In the end I did enjoy "Thor." The spectacle is grand and the humor keeps things light. Branagh and his crew managed to translate a lot from the comic book to the screen that didn't seem possible, and they deserve full credit for it. The actors did a good job with some pretty flat characters, especially Tom Hiddleston, Stellan Skarsgard, and Chris Hemsworth. The obligatory "Avengers" tie-ins aren't nearly as obnoxious as the ones in "Iron Man 2," and even the unannounced cameos aren't too distracting. But so much feels compromised, watered down, and overly calculated, it only gets middling marks.
Fortunately, all the right components are here for a much better sequel. Better luck next time, Marvel.
---
Friday, May 6, 2011
What Could "Community" Do Next Year?
I intended to liveblog the season finale of "Community" last night, but since they only showed the first half of the epic paintball war, I knew it wasn't going to be enough to fill up a whole post. "A Fistful of Paintballs" was pretty great, and I started thinking about what kind of episodes I'd like to see next year. Ratings have held steady and the show has been renewed for a third season, so it's high time for some speculation. Like Abed, I'm a pretty meta media nerd and I've successfully fought my way out of the wilds of TV Tropes many times (I am not responsible for what may happen to you if you click on any of the links in this post). Let's see what we can come up with here.
A Lower Deck Episode - Give the main cast members a break and devote an episode to the collection of minor characters that have appeared on "Community" like Fat Neil, Magnitude, Starburns, Leonard, and Vicky. And maybe have Chang or John Oliver along, just for fun. We know that Neil has been depressed from the "Dungeons and Dragons" episode, but he's been getting very close to Vicky lately. There has to have been some fallout from the election rivalry of Leonard and Magnitude. And what of the sequel to "Star Burns: El Star Prince"?
Welcome to the Real World - Troy wakes up to discover that - ohmigod - "Community" is really a TV show! All his friends are really actors, and their personalities are all different! People who work behind the scenes on the production appear on camera, Dan Harmon reveals himself to be a secret awesome evil mastermind, and all the meta threatens to hit the saturation point. Bonus points if this is somehow a "30 Rock" parody. Double bonus points if Richard Ayoade (who directed the "My Dinner With Andre"/"Pulp Fiction" episode) shows up in character as Moss from "The IT Crowd."
Rashomon - I'm a little surprised this hasn't been tackled yet. "Rashomon" episodes, also known as the "That's not how I remember it!" episodes are popular because they can be done easy and cheap, and be used to underline certain character traits. Of course, this means "Community" would probably want to subvert the whole idea. Maybe have the Dean interrogate the study group members over some incident, and grow increasingly frustrated as he gets the exact same story every time. So he starts making up what he thinks each person should be saying.
The Magnificent Seven Samurai - Okay, no more Kurosawa after this one, but the Weinsteins just announced that they're trying to remake the movie, so as far as I'm concerned it's fair game for "Community." And come on, they have Chevy Chase, who has already done "Three Amigos," the best "Seven Samurai" homage ever. Instead of protecting a village of peasants the study group could be hired to lead around clueless Japanese tourists or coach spelling bee participants, and then unwittingly turn them into monsters through a Training the Peaceful Villagers sequence gone horribly wrong.
Vampires - Yes, I remember Abed the vampire from "Physical Education," but that was only one scene. Last year they did Zombies for Halloween. Maybe for next Valentine's Day, we could have a creepy, emotionally manipulative lothario put half the study group under his thrall - not necessarily just the ladies - thus requiring Jeff or Troy to go Van Helsing on his ass. Now what could stand in for the vampire? A beet juice sucking diet guru? A studly philanthropist allergic to sunlight? I've been looking for a good smackdown of all the vampire properties that have been popping up lately.
More Paintball? - Next week's big season finale is still to come, but is there any doubt that we'll get another paintball episode in the future? We've now seen paintball wars in the vein of big summer action movies and Westerns. What's left? Logically, WWII war films like "Patton," "The Great Escape," and "The Dirty Dozen." Having successfully defended their own campus from invaders, maybe next year they can go infiltrate City College. Get Dean Pelton in the most fabulous military outfit he can find to lead the charge, and they'll never know what hit them. Or if WWII is too obscure, roll out the shakeycam and do "Battle: Los Angeles"/"Black Hawk Down."
And I'm still trying to figure out how they could work pirates into the show somehow. Stay tuned.
--
A Lower Deck Episode - Give the main cast members a break and devote an episode to the collection of minor characters that have appeared on "Community" like Fat Neil, Magnitude, Starburns, Leonard, and Vicky. And maybe have Chang or John Oliver along, just for fun. We know that Neil has been depressed from the "Dungeons and Dragons" episode, but he's been getting very close to Vicky lately. There has to have been some fallout from the election rivalry of Leonard and Magnitude. And what of the sequel to "Star Burns: El Star Prince"?
Welcome to the Real World - Troy wakes up to discover that - ohmigod - "Community" is really a TV show! All his friends are really actors, and their personalities are all different! People who work behind the scenes on the production appear on camera, Dan Harmon reveals himself to be a secret awesome evil mastermind, and all the meta threatens to hit the saturation point. Bonus points if this is somehow a "30 Rock" parody. Double bonus points if Richard Ayoade (who directed the "My Dinner With Andre"/"Pulp Fiction" episode) shows up in character as Moss from "The IT Crowd."
Rashomon - I'm a little surprised this hasn't been tackled yet. "Rashomon" episodes, also known as the "That's not how I remember it!" episodes are popular because they can be done easy and cheap, and be used to underline certain character traits. Of course, this means "Community" would probably want to subvert the whole idea. Maybe have the Dean interrogate the study group members over some incident, and grow increasingly frustrated as he gets the exact same story every time. So he starts making up what he thinks each person should be saying.
The Magnificent Seven Samurai - Okay, no more Kurosawa after this one, but the Weinsteins just announced that they're trying to remake the movie, so as far as I'm concerned it's fair game for "Community." And come on, they have Chevy Chase, who has already done "Three Amigos," the best "Seven Samurai" homage ever. Instead of protecting a village of peasants the study group could be hired to lead around clueless Japanese tourists or coach spelling bee participants, and then unwittingly turn them into monsters through a Training the Peaceful Villagers sequence gone horribly wrong.
Vampires - Yes, I remember Abed the vampire from "Physical Education," but that was only one scene. Last year they did Zombies for Halloween. Maybe for next Valentine's Day, we could have a creepy, emotionally manipulative lothario put half the study group under his thrall - not necessarily just the ladies - thus requiring Jeff or Troy to go Van Helsing on his ass. Now what could stand in for the vampire? A beet juice sucking diet guru? A studly philanthropist allergic to sunlight? I've been looking for a good smackdown of all the vampire properties that have been popping up lately.
More Paintball? - Next week's big season finale is still to come, but is there any doubt that we'll get another paintball episode in the future? We've now seen paintball wars in the vein of big summer action movies and Westerns. What's left? Logically, WWII war films like "Patton," "The Great Escape," and "The Dirty Dozen." Having successfully defended their own campus from invaders, maybe next year they can go infiltrate City College. Get Dean Pelton in the most fabulous military outfit he can find to lead the charge, and they'll never know what hit them. Or if WWII is too obscure, roll out the shakeycam and do "Battle: Los Angeles"/"Black Hawk Down."
And I'm still trying to figure out how they could work pirates into the show somehow. Stay tuned.
--
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The Movie Blog Shuffle
So it's been a few weeks since Cinematical got axed, and I've been looking into other movie blogs to fill the void. I thought I'd put down a few thoughts on the ones I've tried so far. This is not anything near a comprehensive list, and I welcome all suggestions for other blogs.
CinemaBlend - They do a great job on the news feed, and often have links to neat marketing material and oddball stories that other sites overlook. However, there only seems to be one regular columnist, Kino Katey, who runs a podcast and blogs. I can't find any other feature stories on the site aside from reviews. While news coverage is important, what I primarily want from a blog is commentary and articles, so it looks like no dice here. The site architecture is also a little wonky, with rollover buttons that are not behaving as I think anyone intended them to. And they have a "Celebrity" section. That is never a good sign.
Slash Film (/Film) - I like the fact that there's a pretty lively community here. Nearly every article has a couple of comments that show signs of moderate intelligence and rampant geekery. And of course, Slash Film is the home of the Slash Filmcast with David Chen, Adam Quigley, and Devindra Hardawar, which is a lot of fun. But just looking at the blog, the layout is geared toward mobile devices with massive graphics that often dwarf the text. The place really gives my scroll button a workout, and the load time is... not great. And then there's "Page 2," the post where they aggregate all the smaller stories and tidbits that were deemed not important enough to get a post all to themselves. The thing is, "Page 2" is usually at least four pages long and a total mess, crammed full of fanart, merchandise graphics, and marketing images. These guys never heard of links? And again, no regular features or columns that I could find.
Movieline - This one is a former print magazine that was converted into a website in 2009. First off, they have Jen Yamato and Stephanie Zacharek, who are awesome. The site layout is much cleaner, simpler to navigate, and easier on the eyes. I appreciate that all their stories, including all the news, reviews, and features, are in the same feed so I don't have to bounce around checking multiple pages. Still no columns, but there is more original content in the form of editorials, lists, retrospectives, and festival coverage. And if you like interviews, Movieline averages about one per day. They even put all their best content together each month for a "Virtual Newstand" e-zine edition.
Movies.Com - The navigation on the site is a pain, but the blog is nicely minimalist, with only the headlines in the feed, and a separate blog solely for links to stories on other websites. There are lots of features and editorials, including a few regular columns. No surprise, since this is where several former Cinematical writers are still alive and kicking, notably Erik Davis, Todd Gilchrist, and Peter Hall. However, it's really not the same. Both Movies.Com and Movieline are aimed at a more general audience than Cinematical was. The content they have is fine, but there's not much about older movies, indies, foreign films, and all the pretentious hoity-toity stuff that I love. Well, a few "Tree of Life" nods not withstanding.
Film School Rejects - Now we're talking. In addition to a good Hollywood news feed, with an excellent "After Dark" wrap-up post for smaller stories and wacky geekbait, Film School Rejects has weekly columns with names like "Old Ass Movies," "Culture Warrior," "Foreign Objects," and "Criterion Files." They have daily links to different short films and vintage trailers. And there's a guy who just posts rants every Monday. I think there's even a decent podcast in here somewhere, which I need to add to the endless list of shows I should make time to listen to. The quality is iffy at times but I'm hopeful it will improve. The collective power of so many utter film nerds must prevail.
And finally, some miscellanea - I didn't get past the first pages of Screenjunkies or MovieWeb due to their hellacious site designs and shameless pandering to social media. Firstshowing is clearly run by some passionate movie fans, but tends to focus too heavily on the fanboy niche films for me, and a glance and their reviews tells me I'm not the target audience at all. Film Junk is great, but the features and articles are a rarity. I know the distinction is not very clear, but I think of The Wrap, The Vulture, AICN, Collider, and a bunch of others as primarily news sites. Cartoonbrew is still tops for all things animated. And uh, I think GordonandtheWhale broke my browser.
--
CinemaBlend - They do a great job on the news feed, and often have links to neat marketing material and oddball stories that other sites overlook. However, there only seems to be one regular columnist, Kino Katey, who runs a podcast and blogs. I can't find any other feature stories on the site aside from reviews. While news coverage is important, what I primarily want from a blog is commentary and articles, so it looks like no dice here. The site architecture is also a little wonky, with rollover buttons that are not behaving as I think anyone intended them to. And they have a "Celebrity" section. That is never a good sign.
Slash Film (/Film) - I like the fact that there's a pretty lively community here. Nearly every article has a couple of comments that show signs of moderate intelligence and rampant geekery. And of course, Slash Film is the home of the Slash Filmcast with David Chen, Adam Quigley, and Devindra Hardawar, which is a lot of fun. But just looking at the blog, the layout is geared toward mobile devices with massive graphics that often dwarf the text. The place really gives my scroll button a workout, and the load time is... not great. And then there's "Page 2," the post where they aggregate all the smaller stories and tidbits that were deemed not important enough to get a post all to themselves. The thing is, "Page 2" is usually at least four pages long and a total mess, crammed full of fanart, merchandise graphics, and marketing images. These guys never heard of links? And again, no regular features or columns that I could find.
Movieline - This one is a former print magazine that was converted into a website in 2009. First off, they have Jen Yamato and Stephanie Zacharek, who are awesome. The site layout is much cleaner, simpler to navigate, and easier on the eyes. I appreciate that all their stories, including all the news, reviews, and features, are in the same feed so I don't have to bounce around checking multiple pages. Still no columns, but there is more original content in the form of editorials, lists, retrospectives, and festival coverage. And if you like interviews, Movieline averages about one per day. They even put all their best content together each month for a "Virtual Newstand" e-zine edition.
Movies.Com - The navigation on the site is a pain, but the blog is nicely minimalist, with only the headlines in the feed, and a separate blog solely for links to stories on other websites. There are lots of features and editorials, including a few regular columns. No surprise, since this is where several former Cinematical writers are still alive and kicking, notably Erik Davis, Todd Gilchrist, and Peter Hall. However, it's really not the same. Both Movies.Com and Movieline are aimed at a more general audience than Cinematical was. The content they have is fine, but there's not much about older movies, indies, foreign films, and all the pretentious hoity-toity stuff that I love. Well, a few "Tree of Life" nods not withstanding.
Film School Rejects - Now we're talking. In addition to a good Hollywood news feed, with an excellent "After Dark" wrap-up post for smaller stories and wacky geekbait, Film School Rejects has weekly columns with names like "Old Ass Movies," "Culture Warrior," "Foreign Objects," and "Criterion Files." They have daily links to different short films and vintage trailers. And there's a guy who just posts rants every Monday. I think there's even a decent podcast in here somewhere, which I need to add to the endless list of shows I should make time to listen to. The quality is iffy at times but I'm hopeful it will improve. The collective power of so many utter film nerds must prevail.
And finally, some miscellanea - I didn't get past the first pages of Screenjunkies or MovieWeb due to their hellacious site designs and shameless pandering to social media. Firstshowing is clearly run by some passionate movie fans, but tends to focus too heavily on the fanboy niche films for me, and a glance and their reviews tells me I'm not the target audience at all. Film Junk is great, but the features and articles are a rarity. I know the distinction is not very clear, but I think of The Wrap, The Vulture, AICN, Collider, and a bunch of others as primarily news sites. Cartoonbrew is still tops for all things animated. And uh, I think GordonandtheWhale broke my browser.
--
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The "Please Give" Guilt Trip
We all know somebody like Kate (Catherine Keener), who leads a life of privilege but feels uncomfortable and self-conscious about it, and so overcompensates in other ways. She and her husband Alex (Oliver Platt) run a vintage furniture store in Manhattan and acquire their best pieces by buying items from the clueless children of the recently deceased on the cheap. They've also bought the apartment adjacent to their own, currently occupied by a mean, fusty old grump named Andra (Ann Guilbert), with the intent to remodel and merge the two apartments after she dies. Kate feels terribly guilty about these tactics, and so commits spontaneous, awkward acts of charity like giving too generously to homeless panhandlers and offering her leftovers to a man on the street, who it turns out is only waiting for a table at a restaurant. When her teenage daughter Abby (Sarah Steele) asks for a pair of $200 jeans, Kate is aghast. Doesn't her daughter know how many poor, needy unfortunates are out there, and that such extravagance would be disrespectful to them?
And then we have Andra's two granddaughters, Rebecca (Rebecca Hall) and Mary (Amanda Peet). Rebecca is the sweet one, an X-ray technician who spends her work days giving women mammograms, as seen in a very funny opening sequence that entirely consists of exposed breasts being plopped on the mammography machine. In the evenings, she frequently looks after her grandmother - running errands, cleaning, and doing other chores for her. Mary, the mean one, only comes around out of obligation, and has a lousy attitude. She frequently fights with Rebecca and throws Andra's crotchety insults right back in her face. Mary's also the pretty one, who works in a spa as a cosmetologist. All three are invited over to Kate and Alex's to help celebrate Andra's birthday, which results in one of the most uncomfortable parties ever conceived for film, but also leads to more meaningful interactions among the neighbors.
Nicole Holofcener is yet another director whose other work I'm not familiar with, but I wish I was. She creates such interesting, well-rounded female characters. They reflect a certain breed of modern New Yorker, perpetual apartment dwellers who are always mindful of what they're eating or buying. The characters' worries may seem trivial at first, but they bring up some interesting questions about how we go about our daily lives, and all the fictions that we perpetuate in the normal course of interacting with one another. Weighed down by social expectations, Kate's inability to reconcile how she lives with the way she thinks she ought to live leaves her frustrated and depressed. She wants to be a good person, but doesn't know how. Catherine Keener is great at playing up those moments where Kate's attempts at charity inevitably backfire on her. She always ends up forlornly repeating apologies, and never seems to run out of things to be sorry for.
The whole cast is very strong, but I especially loved Amanda Peet in this. Her Mary, the mean sister, takes an approach to life that's the complete opposite of Kate. She refuses to be polite and diplomatic just because it's expected of her, and seems to enjoy negativity. When Rebecca chides her for provoking Andra, Mary retorts that Andra is a horrible person and deserves it. And it's true that Andra is pretty horrible, but only because she acts like Mary to a greater extreme. Guilbert and Peet are so sincere in their awfulness, I ended up liking both of their characters anyway. Rebecca Hall does a nice job as the good girl of the bunch, never as easy as it looks. Also, I prefer Oliver Platt in his schlubbier roles, and here he's at his schlubbiest. In fact, everyone in "Please Give" looks refreshingly average, though all the female leads are proven knockouts.
The film's themes were sometimes underlined too heavily. Yes, we all step on each others' toes in order to get ahead. And yes, sometimes it's really the thought that counts. The more awkward situational humor is fine, but there are some scenes that go for bigger laughs and fell flat. Otherwise the script is a lot of fun, full of characters dissecting bits of conventional wisdom and arguing over social protocol. Do sympathy and generosity really mean anything when they come from guilt? Does having money automatically make you more responsible for everyone with less? Why try to force kindness on someone who doesn't want or appreciate it? And is it okay to laugh at the miseries and misfortunes of others?
In this case, sure. "Please Give" is a comedy, a very mild, low key, and well observed one that gives the viewer a lot to chew over. Most of the characters are terrible people, but well meaning and likable nonetheless. Despite the heaviness of some of the issues, the tone is never glum, and the dialogue is never didactic or patronizing. There's even a happy ending. And though the title may seem to indicate otherwise, I promise you won't come out of this film feeling obligated to commit any acts of charity. But you might feel a little differently about those that do.
--
And then we have Andra's two granddaughters, Rebecca (Rebecca Hall) and Mary (Amanda Peet). Rebecca is the sweet one, an X-ray technician who spends her work days giving women mammograms, as seen in a very funny opening sequence that entirely consists of exposed breasts being plopped on the mammography machine. In the evenings, she frequently looks after her grandmother - running errands, cleaning, and doing other chores for her. Mary, the mean one, only comes around out of obligation, and has a lousy attitude. She frequently fights with Rebecca and throws Andra's crotchety insults right back in her face. Mary's also the pretty one, who works in a spa as a cosmetologist. All three are invited over to Kate and Alex's to help celebrate Andra's birthday, which results in one of the most uncomfortable parties ever conceived for film, but also leads to more meaningful interactions among the neighbors.
Nicole Holofcener is yet another director whose other work I'm not familiar with, but I wish I was. She creates such interesting, well-rounded female characters. They reflect a certain breed of modern New Yorker, perpetual apartment dwellers who are always mindful of what they're eating or buying. The characters' worries may seem trivial at first, but they bring up some interesting questions about how we go about our daily lives, and all the fictions that we perpetuate in the normal course of interacting with one another. Weighed down by social expectations, Kate's inability to reconcile how she lives with the way she thinks she ought to live leaves her frustrated and depressed. She wants to be a good person, but doesn't know how. Catherine Keener is great at playing up those moments where Kate's attempts at charity inevitably backfire on her. She always ends up forlornly repeating apologies, and never seems to run out of things to be sorry for.
The whole cast is very strong, but I especially loved Amanda Peet in this. Her Mary, the mean sister, takes an approach to life that's the complete opposite of Kate. She refuses to be polite and diplomatic just because it's expected of her, and seems to enjoy negativity. When Rebecca chides her for provoking Andra, Mary retorts that Andra is a horrible person and deserves it. And it's true that Andra is pretty horrible, but only because she acts like Mary to a greater extreme. Guilbert and Peet are so sincere in their awfulness, I ended up liking both of their characters anyway. Rebecca Hall does a nice job as the good girl of the bunch, never as easy as it looks. Also, I prefer Oliver Platt in his schlubbier roles, and here he's at his schlubbiest. In fact, everyone in "Please Give" looks refreshingly average, though all the female leads are proven knockouts.
The film's themes were sometimes underlined too heavily. Yes, we all step on each others' toes in order to get ahead. And yes, sometimes it's really the thought that counts. The more awkward situational humor is fine, but there are some scenes that go for bigger laughs and fell flat. Otherwise the script is a lot of fun, full of characters dissecting bits of conventional wisdom and arguing over social protocol. Do sympathy and generosity really mean anything when they come from guilt? Does having money automatically make you more responsible for everyone with less? Why try to force kindness on someone who doesn't want or appreciate it? And is it okay to laugh at the miseries and misfortunes of others?
In this case, sure. "Please Give" is a comedy, a very mild, low key, and well observed one that gives the viewer a lot to chew over. Most of the characters are terrible people, but well meaning and likable nonetheless. Despite the heaviness of some of the issues, the tone is never glum, and the dialogue is never didactic or patronizing. There's even a happy ending. And though the title may seem to indicate otherwise, I promise you won't come out of this film feeling obligated to commit any acts of charity. But you might feel a little differently about those that do.
--
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Day I Killed the TV
A lot happened over the weekend. A couple of kids in England got married (awwww), the White House Correspondents' Association dinner turned into a Donald Trump roast (hehheh), and Osama bin Laden finally got what was coming to him. (yeeehaw!) And after much debate, I finally cut the cord on my cable television yesterday. This isn't the first time I've tried. I never got a converter box when all the TV signals when to digital, so I always kept the limited basic Comcast package when I downgraded from their regular basic cable. When I decided to stop getting cable television completely, I found out that it was actually cheaper to keep the limited basic cable than it was to only pay for the Comcast internet service, because of bundling discounts. This is no longer the case. I'll only be saving about five bucks a month by booting my cable service, but that's two weeks of Netflix right there. Or a sixth of a tank of gas (grumble).
No cable and no converter box means I've pretty much cut all ties with live television. The only thing I feel I'm really giving up is programming from CBS, which is the last major network that doesn't offer its content online free in some format. Sure, FOX makes you wait two weeks for a new episode of "House" on Hulu, but it's there. I do still watch a significant amount of CBS programming, including "The Big Bang Theory," "Criminal Minds," "60 Minutes," and David Letterman and Craig Ferguson on late night. Are they worth an extra $5 a month to keep? Not really, especially when you weigh them against all the online content that's available, that technically I'm already paying for. I need to finish "The IT Crowd" before the American version lands, and I've got a ton of "Frontline" to catch up on, and I've been meaning to check out the Slash Film podcast. See what I mean?
My viewing habits have already changed so much, that the once deeply ingrained urge to watch live television has starting going away. I was watching "60 Minutes" on Sunday night when the news broke about Osama bin Laden, or rather the news about the impending presidential announcement about Osama bin Laden broke. For a moment there was a surge of the old excitement I felt whenever anything big and important had happened in the past, and I flipped around the dial (remember TVs with physical dials?) to peek in on the various networks' news coverage. Finding nothing but stonewalling from news anchors who were not allowed to say anything substantive yet, I gave up and hit the internet for more coherent information while waiting for the president to appear. The same thing happened on Friday morning with the royal wedding. I didn't see it live, but did get up earlier than usual so I could watch clips of the festivities before going to work. After about twenty minutes of network morning show prattle, I fired up my laptop and hit Youtube to get to the good stuff.
There have been other signs. Recently, I realized that after so many months of instant gratification from Netflix, I can't stand watching movies on broadcast television with all the commercial breaks and time edits anymore. Regular television shows are designed to have breaks, so the interruptions don't seem as jarring, but watching movies on television in pan-and-scan format, chopped up into six-minute chunks just feels wrong now. Even Hulu's relatively limited commercials during feature films get on my nerves. The thing is, weekend afternoon broadcasts of older library titles used to be my primary means of watching movies as a kid. I only went to see movies in theaters about once or twice a year, and my family didn't get into the habit of renting films until I was nearly in high school. Now I don't think I could sit through a whole broadcast of some of my old favorites without wanting to check Twitter during the ad breaks.
In general, streaming video on the internet is so much more convenient. I can watch a program whenever I want, I can instantly rewind or skip ahead, there's never any question about what I'm watching or where it came from. What channel a program is airing on doesn't affect its playback quality - yes, even with cable some stations attracted more static than others. Moreover, no more lousy station idents, no more giant pop-up ads covering the bottom third of the screen, no more delays due to basketball or football games running long, and no more floundering over sudden timeslot changes. I watch "Community" on Sunday nights at 8PM, because I feel like it, and I'm never going back!
I don't think that I'll go without live television permanently. I'll probably replace my trusty Magnavox CRT with a new flatscreen at some point, which will be able to handle digital broadcasts from the local stations. There are still some events like the Oscars and the Olympics that I think it would be better to see live. But for now, during the summer months, there's nothing but reruns on the air, and it's the perfect time to take a break from the tube and save a few bucks.
Now I just have to pry myself away from the Internet.
--
No cable and no converter box means I've pretty much cut all ties with live television. The only thing I feel I'm really giving up is programming from CBS, which is the last major network that doesn't offer its content online free in some format. Sure, FOX makes you wait two weeks for a new episode of "House" on Hulu, but it's there. I do still watch a significant amount of CBS programming, including "The Big Bang Theory," "Criminal Minds," "60 Minutes," and David Letterman and Craig Ferguson on late night. Are they worth an extra $5 a month to keep? Not really, especially when you weigh them against all the online content that's available, that technically I'm already paying for. I need to finish "The IT Crowd" before the American version lands, and I've got a ton of "Frontline" to catch up on, and I've been meaning to check out the Slash Film podcast. See what I mean?
My viewing habits have already changed so much, that the once deeply ingrained urge to watch live television has starting going away. I was watching "60 Minutes" on Sunday night when the news broke about Osama bin Laden, or rather the news about the impending presidential announcement about Osama bin Laden broke. For a moment there was a surge of the old excitement I felt whenever anything big and important had happened in the past, and I flipped around the dial (remember TVs with physical dials?) to peek in on the various networks' news coverage. Finding nothing but stonewalling from news anchors who were not allowed to say anything substantive yet, I gave up and hit the internet for more coherent information while waiting for the president to appear. The same thing happened on Friday morning with the royal wedding. I didn't see it live, but did get up earlier than usual so I could watch clips of the festivities before going to work. After about twenty minutes of network morning show prattle, I fired up my laptop and hit Youtube to get to the good stuff.
There have been other signs. Recently, I realized that after so many months of instant gratification from Netflix, I can't stand watching movies on broadcast television with all the commercial breaks and time edits anymore. Regular television shows are designed to have breaks, so the interruptions don't seem as jarring, but watching movies on television in pan-and-scan format, chopped up into six-minute chunks just feels wrong now. Even Hulu's relatively limited commercials during feature films get on my nerves. The thing is, weekend afternoon broadcasts of older library titles used to be my primary means of watching movies as a kid. I only went to see movies in theaters about once or twice a year, and my family didn't get into the habit of renting films until I was nearly in high school. Now I don't think I could sit through a whole broadcast of some of my old favorites without wanting to check Twitter during the ad breaks.
In general, streaming video on the internet is so much more convenient. I can watch a program whenever I want, I can instantly rewind or skip ahead, there's never any question about what I'm watching or where it came from. What channel a program is airing on doesn't affect its playback quality - yes, even with cable some stations attracted more static than others. Moreover, no more lousy station idents, no more giant pop-up ads covering the bottom third of the screen, no more delays due to basketball or football games running long, and no more floundering over sudden timeslot changes. I watch "Community" on Sunday nights at 8PM, because I feel like it, and I'm never going back!
I don't think that I'll go without live television permanently. I'll probably replace my trusty Magnavox CRT with a new flatscreen at some point, which will be able to handle digital broadcasts from the local stations. There are still some events like the Oscars and the Olympics that I think it would be better to see live. But for now, during the summer months, there's nothing but reruns on the air, and it's the perfect time to take a break from the tube and save a few bucks.
Now I just have to pry myself away from the Internet.
--
Monday, May 2, 2011
Foreign Box Office Takeover
Hollywood is currently celebrating the performance of "Fast Five," which had the year's biggest opening weekend box office take with an estimated $83.6 million. It's been a slow year so far, with no big hits on the level of last year's "Avatar" or "Alice in Wonderland," but the success of "Fast Five" may signal that we're in for a stronger summer. What's really interesting about "Fast Five," though, is that it made $35 million dollars in various markets overseas before it opened in the US on Friday, and the international total has since gone up to over $80 million. "Thor" is already up to over $90 million in international box office, and the US will actually be one of the last countries where it will open in theaters, on May 6th. Major Hollywood films opening overseas before or even roughly simultaneously to their premieres in the U.S. used to be very rare. However, for various reasons, we may see more release patterns like this in the future.
The growth of the global box office and piracy concerns have pushed the studios to decrease the delay between release dates in different markets. The US is still the most lucrative market for filmgoing in the world, but for many films the domestic box office now makes up a smaller percentage of the overall gross receipts than it used to. 67% of the billion dollar "Alice and Wonderland" box office came from foreign audiences. Several of the holiday season's underperformers, like "Gulliver's Travels" and "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader," were hits overseas, with a whopping 80% of "Gulliver's" gross coming from outside the US. There are even some rumors that we'll be getting a fourth "Narnia" film, based on the foreign performance of "Dawn Treader," which was triple its domestic take. More and more often, we hear studio executives defending their expensive domestic flops with impressive foreign box office numbers.
This may signal a further shift in the focus of Hollywood moviemaking towards the tastes of the global market. For years, we've been seeing studios favor more action and fantasy films that are easier sells overseas, though dramas like "The Black Swan" and "The King's Speech" have also made the bulk of their profits in foreign markets. Recently Dreamworks Animation announced that they would move away from their more satirical films, like "Monsters vs. Aliens" and "Megamind," because that brand of humor doesn't translate so well in other countries. Should we be worried that American comedies are going to take a hit? Probably not, since most comedies cost far less than big CGI-heavy action extravaganzas, and they're usually profitable no matter what the foreign markets do. Ditto the romance and horror films that generate less interest overseas. However, animation, action, fantasy, and science-fiction films will continue to get more attention and see their budgets expand.
I doubt the earlier foreign premiere dates will have much impact on most US audiences, who rarely pay attention to what's going on in the film world outside Hollywood, but I can see some additional benefits for the studios to this approach. They can test out and refine their ad campaigns in other markets, and build up buzz from early successes. "Fast Five" came out on top in a head to head with "Thor" in Australia over Easter weekend, which generated a lot of press and a lot of attention. Being at the end of a big film's release schedule might also be helpful to pickier American moviegoers, because we might get to hear some actual audience reaction along with all the hype. Early reviews for "Fast Five" and "Thor" were pretty strong, but the real test will be what happens when a film garners tepid or negative responses in other countries. Traditionally the different international film markets don't have much impact on each other, but in the age of the internet that's no longer a certainty.
In the end, the biggest impact may be on the entertainment reporters and number crunchers, who are always looking for something new to write about, and love being the first to declare a new film a hit or a flop. "Rio" did especially well in Russia and China the week before it premiered in the US, leading to early prognostications that it would be a hit here as well. It was, but not to nearly the extent that it was in the rest of the world. To date, "Rio" has made about $100 million domestic, and about $250 million foreign. But still, those foreign numbers might be what get "Rio" a sequel, where titles with similar domestic numbers like "Hop" and "Rango" probably won't. "Hop," that cuddly Easter bunny film, notably tanked in most other countries because, of course, most of the rest of the world doesn't celebrate Easter.
--
The growth of the global box office and piracy concerns have pushed the studios to decrease the delay between release dates in different markets. The US is still the most lucrative market for filmgoing in the world, but for many films the domestic box office now makes up a smaller percentage of the overall gross receipts than it used to. 67% of the billion dollar "Alice and Wonderland" box office came from foreign audiences. Several of the holiday season's underperformers, like "Gulliver's Travels" and "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader," were hits overseas, with a whopping 80% of "Gulliver's" gross coming from outside the US. There are even some rumors that we'll be getting a fourth "Narnia" film, based on the foreign performance of "Dawn Treader," which was triple its domestic take. More and more often, we hear studio executives defending their expensive domestic flops with impressive foreign box office numbers.
This may signal a further shift in the focus of Hollywood moviemaking towards the tastes of the global market. For years, we've been seeing studios favor more action and fantasy films that are easier sells overseas, though dramas like "The Black Swan" and "The King's Speech" have also made the bulk of their profits in foreign markets. Recently Dreamworks Animation announced that they would move away from their more satirical films, like "Monsters vs. Aliens" and "Megamind," because that brand of humor doesn't translate so well in other countries. Should we be worried that American comedies are going to take a hit? Probably not, since most comedies cost far less than big CGI-heavy action extravaganzas, and they're usually profitable no matter what the foreign markets do. Ditto the romance and horror films that generate less interest overseas. However, animation, action, fantasy, and science-fiction films will continue to get more attention and see their budgets expand.
I doubt the earlier foreign premiere dates will have much impact on most US audiences, who rarely pay attention to what's going on in the film world outside Hollywood, but I can see some additional benefits for the studios to this approach. They can test out and refine their ad campaigns in other markets, and build up buzz from early successes. "Fast Five" came out on top in a head to head with "Thor" in Australia over Easter weekend, which generated a lot of press and a lot of attention. Being at the end of a big film's release schedule might also be helpful to pickier American moviegoers, because we might get to hear some actual audience reaction along with all the hype. Early reviews for "Fast Five" and "Thor" were pretty strong, but the real test will be what happens when a film garners tepid or negative responses in other countries. Traditionally the different international film markets don't have much impact on each other, but in the age of the internet that's no longer a certainty.
In the end, the biggest impact may be on the entertainment reporters and number crunchers, who are always looking for something new to write about, and love being the first to declare a new film a hit or a flop. "Rio" did especially well in Russia and China the week before it premiered in the US, leading to early prognostications that it would be a hit here as well. It was, but not to nearly the extent that it was in the rest of the world. To date, "Rio" has made about $100 million domestic, and about $250 million foreign. But still, those foreign numbers might be what get "Rio" a sequel, where titles with similar domestic numbers like "Hop" and "Rango" probably won't. "Hop," that cuddly Easter bunny film, notably tanked in most other countries because, of course, most of the rest of the world doesn't celebrate Easter.
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
