Blog@Case Topics: movieshttp://blog.case.edu/topics/moviesJoseph Caldwelljoseph.caldwell@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/joecaldwellNicholas Kosareonicholas.kosareo@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/kosareoErin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cereal2007-05-13T21:04:11ZUncharted 2: Among Thieveshttp://blog.case.edu/joecaldwell/2009/11/17/uncharted_2_among_thieves2009-11-17T14:25:57Z2009-11-17T14:25:56Z
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves does everything a sequel to an already good game should do. From the story and graphics, to the stunning level design, Uncharted 2 nails the action-adventure genre. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune was a solid game but I wasn't blown away by the experience. Uncharted 2, however, packs in so many great story and gameplay moments that it is impossible not to be wowed. Everything that worked best in the original is refined and expanded in the sequel. Platforming, which at times took a backseat to gunplay, is used more frequently and to better effect. The shooting controls and difficulty have been improved for a much more even gaming experience and the production values are top notch featuring graphics that are not only technically, but artistically fantastic. The level design is another highlight with more diverse environments and the best train level I have ever played. Uncharted 2 also deserves a lot of credit for having what is easily one of the best written and produced stories in gaming history. The story is intimately integrated into the game, presenting the player with well rounded characters living in a real world. This is one of the few games where I wanted to finish the game as much to see how the story would be resolved as the gameplay experience. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is a must own title for the PS3.
Joseph Caldwelljoseph.caldwell@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/joecaldwellMovie Reviews: Stuff I've Seen Latelyhttp://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/11/09/movie_reviews_stuff_ive_seen_lately2009-11-09T16:25:10Z2009-11-09T16:44:55Z
The Parallax View (1974) This movie was a real strut for Warren Beatty—throughout he’s the smartest, craftiest, stealthiest, studliest guy around. When his character— a journalist—literally won a barfight, I gave up expecting anything else. That made the movie sort of silly, in addition to the narrative, which was quite obscure and impenetrable for an action-thriller. Also, the last section went on for ages. There are some really great suspense movies from the 70s, but this isn’t one of them. Alfie (1966) I saw the remake, with Jude Law, way back when, and thought at the time that it felt old-fashioned. The refrain of, “What does it all mean?†was, I think, by 2004, a question that people born in the era of self-help were a little more used to asking themselves. I was interested, then, in seeing the original, with a youthful Michael Caine, to see if it made more sense in a historical context. The answer is, yes, it does. The incredibly shallow journey to selfhood really should belong to a guy with sideburns, who calls women “birds.†I could quibble with the sexism in the movie, but it was positively quaint, with Alfie having a moment of realization that his victimized girlfriend “has feelings! Just like me!†As a period piece, it was fun. (It seemed weird, though, to have Shelley Winters in a glamorous role—could Roseanne’s Nana Mary really ever have been a sex symbol?) Click ahead for five more films (but only two produced in my lifetime!)
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealTonight's Mad Men: "The Gypsy and the Hobo"http://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/10/25/tonights_mad_men_the_gypsy_and_the_hobo2009-10-26T04:34:30Z2009-10-26T21:10:51Z
I just watched tonight's episode of Mad Men twice in a row. In the words of Groundhog Day's Ned Ryerson, "it was a doo-hoo-hoozy!" SPOILER ALERT for those of you not keeping up with the show (i.e., Mom) but Don Draper 'came out' to Betty about his true identity, telling more truths in a row than I believe he has ever done before. This all occurred while his most recent dish-on-the-side waited for him in the car so they could go away for the weekend. He never made it back to the car--did he forget that she was there, or, did he, cool-as-a-cucumber, just let her figure out that he wasn't coming back? Oh, Don. But forget all that, because none of it was as awesome as the moment Joan clocked her husband over the head with a vase. joan and hubby.jpg This guy's a real jerk, not in the least because when she married him, Joan quit working at Sterling Cooper and is thus in the show less than she used to be. Less Joan = bad. But also, he's a bastard who failed out of his surgery rotation (or...whatever) and can't get himself back on track. Also he's a jerk, he doesn't talk to her, he belittles what's important to her, he fails to recognize the real contributions she could make as a wife, because he thinks women are useless and just bred to sit around, when Joan's smart and super-capable. He's been nothing but trouble for her, dashing all her dreams for her marriage. Well, in this episode, after another bad interview, which all of her helpful preparation couldn't keep him from screwing up, he snapped at her that she couldn't tell him anything, that she didn't know what it was like to want something your whole life and have it not work out. Which of course she does--it was marriage she planned for, and that he has single-handedly ruined. And then she clocked him over the head with a vase. Oh, Joan. Note: this weekend I put together preparation for my Halloween costume. It is Mad Men-inspired (think sassy Sixties secretary!) and I am incredibly excited. I have cat's-eye glasses! Woo. Too much excitement for a Sunday night. Edited to add: Joan SMASH!
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealAbandon Familiarity!http://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/10/16/abandon_familiarity2009-10-17T02:11:41Z2009-10-17T02:33:26Z
Old movies are always great opportunities for analysis--seeing what’s different, but also seeing what’s the same. It’s fascinating to me, and yet some people, especially those my age, really resist that opportunity. You’d think a roomful of college students, like the ones taking the film class I'm taking now--and it’s not an intro film class either, they’ve all made it through at least one full class already--would be willing explorers. I’m surprised at how often they react negatively to black and white, to subtitles, just to differentness. ( The 400 Blows is not boring, twerps! You're boring.) Let me describe an old movie experience: several years ago, when I still worked an office job, I saw a portion of a movie. I used to watch TV while I got ready for work, from about 7am to about 7:35, and what I watched varied, but if there was an interesting movie on at the time it usually won. So, this particular morning, I saw a bit of this movie in which a bunch of characters were trapped on a raft after a shipwreck. Tyrone Power was among them, and in the bit that I saw, the characters were discussing whether or not the sick and doomed among them should be thrown overboard, because they were running out of food, water and supplies. The concept of sacrificing a few people to save a few people was, I thought, an intriguing one for a movie. I love when movies address hard questions, when there’s a little ambiguity about the proceedings, so this was right up my alley. I didn’t get to see the end, because I had to go to work, but the first thing I did when I got there was put Alfred Hitchcock’s Lifeboat , which is what I assumed I had watched, into my Netflix queue. Some time later, Lifeboat appeared in my mailbox and I sat down to watch it. Imagine my surprise when Tyrone Power wasn’t in it. And it was about Nazis. And they were in a lifeboat, but it was a different boat and different people. It was a damn different movie. We live in the age of Google, so I found the movie I’d seen relatively quickly. In fact, it didn’t take me longer than the time it took to hit Tyrone Power’s IMDB page. I realized I had watched what was probably a B-movie from the 50s, released under both the title Seven Waves Away, and the far greater title, Abandon Ship! Yes, the exclamation point is theirs. abandon ship.jpg Well, Abandon Ship! is out of print, never been transferred to DVD, so I had no way to view it again until it played last week, incredibly, on Turner Classic Movies at like four in the morning. I DVR’d it and watched it today. Abandon Ship!, especially compared to Lifeboat, is pleasantly sensational. Tyrone Power is strutting around (you know, on the raft) from the beginning, salvaging clothes off dead bodies and rolling them into the sea. People are all, “No! We need to give that man a funeral when we get to shore!†They’re menaced by sharks, they have no hope of rescue. Eventually they get to the point where they decide to control their rations by throwing the sick overboard. From the film class I’m taking right now, I know that the 1950s were a turning point in the movie business; it was when “art movies†and “popular movies†began to take really different paths and the gap between culture and entertainment got wider. Old movies, especially from the 30s and 40s (probably my favorite old-movie era) are wonderful, but watching them is like visiting foreign countries. They just have moments that feel strange, and you take that into consideration as you watch and evaluate. Abandon Ship! (I can’t stop putting in that title, it cracks me up) was obviously popcorn fare, slick and cheesy and dark and fun, and for that reason, it felt really quite close to the movies we have in the theater today. The rhythms we’re familiar with now—like “We’re out of water,†DUN DUN DUN—were beginning to be developed. It's not exactly the same, of course--there's a little more melodrama in older movies--but the gap is just not as wide as people think. For my part, I’m glad I learned to trek around in that foreign territory, and to feel comfortable doing so, because it’s brought me endless enjoyment.
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealFreudian slips, or Joke of the day for graduate studentshttp://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/10/06/freudian_slips_or_joke_of_the_day_for_graduate_students2009-10-06T16:42:45Z2009-10-06T16:50:57Z
freud.jpg ( Freud says a cigar is not just a cigar) This morning in film class, discussing Laura Mulvey's " Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," my prof commented that the essay was, "dense but penetrable." HA HA! Cliff notes version: Mulvey applies Freudian psychoanalysis to film, explaining that classic Hollywood cinema (c.f. Hitchcock) serves men who experience movies as symbolic opportunities to touch a beautiful woman. Imagine the filming camera as caressing the Hollywood beauty, the camera as eyes, as hands, as phallus or penetrating object. I know, riotous! OK, you had to be there, but the class was in stitches. I think my prof made the joke on purpose, because the next thing he said was, "You DID read it!"
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cereal9http://blog.case.edu/joecaldwell/2009/09/14/92009-09-14T16:20:42Z2009-09-14T16:38:34Z
9 is the type of animated film that needs to be made more often. It doesn't pander to children and go directly for the family film market. Instead it presents a dark, interesting world that doesn't shy away from grit or death. I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic fare and 9 fits the bill perfectly. Set in a ruined world where nine automatons have to survive while attempting to discover what caused the disaster and who or what created them, 9 has a fantastic premise. The visuals are also stunning, featuring some of the best art direction of any animated film I have ever seen. The main flaw with 9 is that the story and consequently the characters are a little thin. At under 90 minutes this film has a short run time and I think another 15 minutes could have added some much needed depth to the story. That said this is still a great entry in the animated science fiction genre. 4/5
Joseph Caldwelljoseph.caldwell@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/joecaldwellMASH, Cuckoo’s Nest, and Internalized Sexism in American Culturehttp://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/09/12/mash_cuckooas_nest_and_internalized_sexism_in_american_culture2009-09-13T01:02:56Z2009-09-13T01:17:15Z
Mash.jpg Cuckoo's Nest.jpg MASH One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest I promised earlier that I would elaborate on why both of these classic films made my AFI hate list and why I pegged them as being sexist. Here I am. Let me first note, for the record, that I have not read Ken Kesey’s book, on which one film is based, nor have I seen any episodes of the TV show spawned by the other film. All my criticisms are restricted entirely to the two movies. It’s like this; both of these movies were all about that seventies-era rebellion ( Easy Riders and Raging Bulls ) in which any kind of institution is bad, and rocking the boat is good, even if it makes you an ass. The characters played by Elliott Gould and Donald Sutherland in MASH were, frankly, jerks. Not just to the nurses, not just to their nemesis “Hot-Lips†O’Houlihan (I report that nickname with the same distaste I would have holding a dirty diaper between two fingers). They are jerks to each other, to their superiors, to everybody. Being a jerk was apparently very edgy and cool in the 70s, or so this movie would have you believe. Jack Nicholson in Cuckoo’s Nest was also a jerk. It seemed that he was put into the mental institution because he had played crazy to get out of work duty while in jail, and that he thought this was a pretty awesome plot. Forgive me if I don’t think the same. Click ahead for more.
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealMovie Review: Western Round-Uphttp://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/09/07/movie_review_western_roundup2009-09-07T05:46:21Z2009-09-07T15:36:32Z
westerns0.jpg I watched four westerns in one day during my Summer Movie Watch, and a fifth before it was over. Recently, I watched a sixth western just for the hell of it, during TCM’s Summer of the Stars. (It was Glenn Ford day, which was also the first time I saw the amazing Gilda .) Anyway, that’s a lot of movies to juggle for a single review; also, my recall is not so strong that I can devote tons and tons of words to all of those movies. Still, I have westerns on the brain because I've been researching Tarantino movies for my film class and his work is heavily inspired by classic westerns (including his recent WWII epic, Inglourious Basterds ). So, instead of writing standard reviews, I have commented on a few interesting aspects of the individual films I watched and will allow my readers to draw their own comparisons. Please note: Spoilers ahead, though the majority of them are 40 years or older.
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealShameful Movie Clicheshttp://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/09/01/shameful_movie_cliches2009-09-01T20:35:39Z2009-09-01T20:49:46Z
Seen yesterday at The AV Club: Which movie clichés would you like to see abolished from culture? They hit a lot of my favorite bad clichés—even “Cool guys don’t look at explosions!â€â€”and Tasha Robinson’s inclusion of the suddenly whiny wife is one of my favorites. Gone Baby Gone had a pretty terrible one—I remember commenting to Jeremy after that movie, “Hey, you know why Michelle Monaghan left Casey Affleck at the end of the movie?†“Why?†“So we would know how completely the case destroyed his life. You know, in case we weren’t getting that.†Here are some other clichés that make me groan, roll my eyes, slap my forehead comically, or sometimes just say, “Oh, hell noâ€:
  • characters explaining who they are to each other so that the viewers at home understand the relationships: “Jennifer, we’ve been best friends since we were 5! We shouldn’t have any secrets from each otherâ€
  • revealing that a character is pregnant by having her faint or vomit in one scene and facing the positive pregnancy test (and/or doctor) in the next
  • guys who jog on sandy beaches at sunrise live charmed lives, but if they are running on a treadmill, they are soulless, bourgeois go-getters
  • the hero is a crack shot who can take out the villain with one bullet between the eyes; the villain's forty-seven henchmen were unable to so much as wound the hero, instead sending bullets whizzing past his head, where they lodge themselves in the drywall
  • crime thrillers in which detectives input evidence into ADVANCED HIGH TECH MACHINERY and get all the answers they needed, and/or seek the assistance of psychics or otherwise spiritual people who can “envision†the crime, all so the detective may avoid any type of critical thinking or, you know, investigation
  • the mom bustling around the kitchen in the morning serving eggs and bacon and orange juice; while the dad and the kids race through, on their way to somewhere, mom idles away, as though she has nothing to do until 6pm when it’s time for her to serve everyone another meal
  • the morbidly obese person as un-self-conscious sex maniac
  • the girl who was a nerd in high school who (for some reason) wanted to date the dumb, sadistic captain of the football time
  • superhumanly attractive actresses who are thought to be more relatable if they have boy’s names like Alex, and/or fall down a lot
  • montages where an actress tries on a bunch of outfits or different pairs of shoes
  • romantic comedies where the couple's fights are about the guy leaving the toilet seat up or the cap off the toothpaste (get better things to fight about!)
  • romantic comedies where the protagonist whines that they “just want to grow old with somebody!â€
  • romantic comedies where the couple’s relationship is established through a series of still photos of the two of them gazing into each other’s eyes and/or kissing—who continually takes pictures of themselves nuzzling each other?
  • romantic comedies in general
There's room for more hated cliches in the comments!
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealJulie and Julia, and the Lure of the Self-Imposed Challengehttp://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/08/26/julie_and_julia_and_the_lure_of_the_selfimposed_challenge2009-08-27T04:34:11Z2009-08-27T05:01:30Z
Julie.jpg Just recently I saw the movie Julie and Julia , and the similarity of Julie’s self-challenge to my own (recently, my Summer Movie Watch and more broadly, my 30 before 30 list) prompted me to think about the impulse towards self-improvement. I think age—Julie was in her late twenties when she embarked on her project, just as I am now—was a crucial component of both projects. There’s a certain amount of stasis associated with being a grown-up. At 14, I thought I might grow up to be a travel writer—why not? At 14, you can do anything. At 18, I effectively crossed that off the possibility list by being too chicken to major in writing, choosing instead to major in literature and spending the next four years passively reading instead of actively writing. No idea at that point what I thought I would do when I graduated—that’s part of the dodge of college, that you have four years to put off thinking about that. Fast forwarding a bit, I’m in the waning days of my 20s and on what might be called a career track. (Early on the track, way early. But on it.) I’m in a stable relationship. Conceivably, my life will not change except by small margins over the next five to ten years. It would be easy in that case for me not to change for the next five to ten years. For a compulsive self-improver, that is not OK. Julie and Julia, and my summer of movies, after the jump.
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealInglourious Basterdshttp://blog.case.edu/joecaldwell/2009/08/22/inglourious_basterds2009-08-22T18:39:43Z2009-08-22T19:34:04Z
I wasn't sure what to expect when I went to see Inglourious Basterds yesterday. The trailer for the movie was awful, just a lot of shouting and violence. Fortunately Inglourious Basterds is nothing like its trailer. This is throwback movie in a lot of ways, with fantastic location shooting, an incredibly talented international cast and plenty of Quentin Tarantino trade marks. Despite what the name of the film would have you believe, Inglourious Basterds features relatively little of the basterds (Brad Pitt and his band of Jewish soldiers). Instead this film is a true ensemble piece with many different characters who converge for the climactic final scenes. This allows some of the lesser known cast members who make up the majority of the cast to really shine. Christoph Waltz who plays the main villain and Mélanie Laurent who plays a Jew in hiding were particularly good. The film making on display here is also impeccable. The cinematography was great, featuring some very long takes as well as some beautiful exteriors. Tarantino does an amazing job milking every bit of suspense from a series of tense, yet entertaining, dialogue heavy scenes. Some of the sequences are hard to watch simply because the buildup is so strong. I can't say enough good things about this movie. Any problems I had with a few characters or it feeling a little long are vastly overshadowed by how good the rest of the film is. If you are a Tarantino fan, or even if you aren't, give this movie a chance and you might be surprised at what you find. 4.5/5
Joseph Caldwelljoseph.caldwell@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/joecaldwell"Future events such as these will affect you...in the future!"http://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/08/20/future_events_such_as_these_will_affect_youin_the_future2009-08-21T04:52:38Z2009-08-21T05:11:32Z
plan9.jpg Tonight I saw Ed Wood’s Plan 9 from Outer Space in a live Rifftrax event. (Once upon a time, I wrote about Rifftrax here.) The famous riffers were in Nashville commenting on a live viewing of the film, and it was aired via satellite in hundreds of movie theaters nationwide. In addition to the famously awful Plan 9, the show included a 60s-era short about the glamorous life of air stewardesses, and a live performance from a guy who did novelty songs about zombies (which zombie aficionado Jeremy really liked). All I can say is, I hope the event makes money so that they can do it again and again. The entire show was hilarious, but the movie (plus riffs) really delivered. The MST3K guys poked fun not just at Wood’s indifferent production values, not just at the amateur actors with whom he populated his films (although a great deal of hilarity was generated over the actor who played the police chief and his obvious unfamiliarity with how people handle guns—seriously, he scratched his face with it at one point) but also over the sloppiness of the narrative itself. “Do any of these characters have any connection with each other?†the riffers asked at one point. “Where are they in relation to one another?†Wood’s notions of night and day were clearly fluid as well, not tending to remain consistent throughout the longer scenes. (For example, a chase scene would begin at night, the characters would race through a sunlit glade, and then inexplicably stumble back into nighttime.) I loved the movie Ed Wood, which I watched as part of my Summer Movie Watch, and I will admit that the obvious affection Tim Burton showed Wood, Bela Lugosi and Plan 9 itself sort of colored my viewing of the film. It wasn’t hard to laugh at, thanks to the MST3K guys, but I found myself trying to ferret out what was good about Plan 9, as though I could have a psychic conversation with Wood and say reassuringly, “I can see what you were trying to do. That line might have been really chilling delivered by a gifted actor. And I bet those costumes were way scarier in your sketches!†Regardless of this minor guilt factor, it was supremely entertaining. Jeremy and I quoted lines to each other all the way home.
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealDistrict 9http://blog.case.edu/joecaldwell/2009/08/17/district_92009-08-17T13:38:58Z2009-08-26T14:54:12Z
District 9 is the kind of movie that needs to be made more often. Unfortunately creative and entertaining science fiction films are few and far between these days. Like the best science fiction it doesn't dwell on the wow factor of its alternate reality, it lives in it and treats it with respect. Instead of trying to blow your mind with visuals, it does what is necessary to get the job done. Dropping you straight into the story makes for an abrupt start but once you get used to the aliens and the South African accents, District 9 just clicks. It's like a combination of 28 Days Later, Black Hawk Down, and The Fly, but with aliens. I really appreciated that the filmmakers trusted their storytelling and didn't spoon feed the audience the back story, instead dolling it out gradually throughout the film. They also handled the social satire aspects of the film very well. The few times I was afraid the movie was about to get heavy handed, it pulled back and gave some perspective on the situation at hand. The only issue I had with District 9 was that some of the plot was a bit cliche. Despite the unique circumstances, the film devolves into a standard buddy movie at the end. Even so, this film shows just how much you can do with a relatively low budget. The effects are generally very strong and the acting is solid. Overall a great experience. 4/5
Joseph Caldwelljoseph.caldwell@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/joecaldwellMovie Reviews: Epic Wednesday Ghetto Lifehttp://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/08/13/movie_reviews_epic_wednesday_ghetto_life2009-08-14T04:09:48Z2009-08-14T04:30:35Z
5800_menace_2_society.jpg Menace II Society I’m more Gilmore Girls than ghetto, of course, and so I can’t say that the realism of the movie really struck me or that I felt a spiritual connection with the characters or anything like that. Yeah, good stories are universal, but there’s a certain wall between me and this kind of life that sort of absents me from having anything real to say about it. I know narratives, though, and this was a good one. The threads of the story were woven quite skillfully together, what seemed to be isolated incidences reverberating later, until they all came together in one explosive tangle. (Does that work?) There was also a nice parallelism with Caine’s childhood and Anthony’s, including the nearly-identical scenes on the stoops. The guy who will eventually be Anthony’s father teaches Caine how to be a thug; years later he finds himself in the same situation in the opposite role, with a kid at his feet. I don’t know what to make of the fact that he didn’t speak at all, and waited for Ronnie, Anthony’s mom, to come out and rescue him. It is a bit puzzling—though moments in the film were clearly telegraphed from the get-go (I’m at home saying, “Someone’s gonna die right about now, I don’t know who, but…â€), other moments were more careful and ambiguous. The character of Ronnie ( Jada Pinkett later Smith) was the biggest puzzle, for me. In fact, she seemed to exist in a different movie altogether. She complained that Caine had become hardened, but how was she living in this environment without being hardened herself? How was she not filled with the rage that was fueling everybody else? “Do cops hate us?†her kid asks her and she says, “no, of course not, it was a misunderstanding.†That’s an extremely generous view to take of things—where is she drawing that strength from? Caine’s grandparents are explicitly drawing their optimism from their religious faith; Ronnie didn’t seem to have devoted herself to anything in that way. Maybe we were supposed to understand that she had devoted her energy to Caine himself, who was a pretty questionable idol, seeing as he became more and more of an ass throughout the film. Was it for his benefit that she invited all those thug guys to her house for her going-away party? She couldn’t be friends with them if all she does is hassle them about their lifestyles and what they’re smoking and the kind of role models they are for her son. Just don’t invite them, Ronnie. Spike Lee, and Michael Jordan wannabes, after the jump.
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealLonesome Dove Blurayhttp://blog.case.edu/joecaldwell/2009/08/13/lonesome_dove_bluray2009-08-13T21:15:10Z2009-08-13T21:29:55Z
I have written before about the benefits of old movies that have been remastered in high definition for bluray. After watching Lonesome Dove for the third time, my first in high-def, I cannot complement this title more. While it doesn't look as sharp as a new title would, for a TV miniseries from the late 80's it looks fantastic. In comparison to the DVD version it is amazing how much detail and texture can now be seen where before there was only low resolution video noise. Some of the night scenes still contain a few rough moments, but that can easily be forgiven when the rest of this six hour masterpiece looks so good. If you are a fan of westerns and you haven't seen Lonesome Dove before you owe it to yourself to check it out in high-def. Treat yourself to one of the best and most brutally realistic portrayals of the American west featuring what is arguably Robert Duvall's best performance.
Joseph Caldwelljoseph.caldwell@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/joecaldwellMovie Review: The Westing Gamehttp://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/08/09/movie_review_the_westing_game2009-08-09T05:13:13Z2009-08-09T15:57:51Z
A made-for-TV movie based on one of the best children’s books ever written. I saw it playing on Showtime and decided to watch. A mistake, always. Very few movies retain the charm of the books on which they are based—and even fewer manage this feat when they are packaged to be ultra-palatable for even the dumbest of children. Just look at the DVD cover art for this movie. westing game.jpg I know, yuck. The book, in comparison, does not pull its punches; I read it for the first time in the third grade, and damn if I understood what had happened when it was finished. I had to read it another time or two to grasp how the mystery came together, but eventually I did, admiring its cleverness along with its indelible characters, its funny non sequiturs and its strange, disaffected tone. I probably would not have watched this if I had seen that DVD cover art first (and known what kind of movie this was going to be), but I did, so, with all apologies for bashing something too pathetic to defend itself, here are my complaints. The trimming of the potential heirs down to ten (or was it twelve?) from sixteen was probably done for character economy. However, it laid waste to the thematic tie-in to chess, and the way Sam Westing plays the characters as pawns against each other. Presumably Flora Baumbach, Theo Theodorakis, and Mrs. Hoo were considered too boring to be included. The actor who played high school track star Doug Hoo had the worst running form I have ever seen (all plodding and floppy) and I’m convinced it was because he was disappointed that Doug was written out of the inheritance plot and thus served little to no purpose in the movie at all. The one character I wish had been excised was our fair protagonist, Tabitha Ruth “Turtle†Wexler. The character is a preteen oddball with a prickly temper, a curious nature and a gift for playing the stock market. The girl in the movie was a full-fledged movie moppet, all perky enunciations and side ponytail. When she got emotional her voice quavered unconvincingly. The actress grew up to be a scenester who gets made fun of regularly on Go Fug Yourself, which seems about right. Turtle’s sister Angela occupied a strange position in the movie, too. There is a bunch of invented BS about the girls’ father having lost their house to gambling debts and needing to regain his position in the finance world (in the book he’s a podiatrist). This is all meant to explain why her fiance from the book was relegated to a tertiary character and a tertiary character from the book was promoted to fiance status. This actress was not terrible, incidentally, but the character was pitched so bitterly she was unrecognizable from the Angela of the book, who is described as being too timid to have ever learned how to drive. How about Chris Theodorakis? Well, besides handling the struggle of being a combination of himself and his brother Theo from the book, the character dealt with a completely nonsensical medical condition. The character in the book has an unnamed illness which was probably supposed to be cerebral palsy. The actor in the movie was in a wheelchair and spoke haltingly. When asked about his condition, he replied that he “thinks fast but speaks slow,†and that was that. For some reason, the character to whom he gave this response did not say, “…and the wheelchair is for what?†They kept the chess game that Chris Theodorakis (actually Theo) plays with a mystery opponent, but wedged it uncomfortably into the 90s by making it an Internet chess game (like octogenarian Westing would hop onto Pogo to play a game—whatever). Turtle and Chris also figured out the key to the clues by plugging them all into a search engine and seeing what came up. WEAK! But I guess in ’97 the Internet was still exotic. Ray Walston plays Sam Westing as well as his various alter egos in bad wigs. Diane Ladd, too good for this movie, plays Mrs. Crow. The settings and locations were actually the only thing I really liked about it; the city as well as the apartment building where the majority of the action takes place seemed old, musty, bleached-out and run-down, which is the perfect atmosphere for the story. I wish as much thought as went into picking those locations had been expended adapting the script. And that the little girl who played Turtle had been unceremoniously fired. The movie predates the Harry Potter movies and all of the Pixar films except for the first Toy Story, a time when standards for kids' movies were a little lower. Even keeping that in mind, this was still a weak effort.
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealAnd so it ends...http://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/08/05/and_so_it_ends2009-08-06T03:29:00Z2009-08-06T03:42:31Z
It's over! The Summer Movie Watch has been completed! The celebration was marked by cake. (Yes, it was store-bought.) Cake.JPG Here's the moment of triumph: the end credits on the last movie of the day, and the last movie of the list, which was One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest . Squint really hard and you'll see Jack Nicholson's name in there. Me with credits.JPG I guess tomorrow I go back to books? Who knows? I'm not yet used to my freedom.
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealEpic Wednesday: Here Comes the Counterculturehttp://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/08/04/epic_wednesday_here_comes_the_counterculture2009-08-05T02:04:16Z2009-08-05T02:14:31Z
Tomorrow's Epic Wednesday viewing looks at hippies, sleazebags and antiheroes: 9am: Easy Rider 11am: Midnight Cowboy 1pm: Taxi Driver 4pm: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest And that's the end of the road! I'm looking forward to getting the privilege of movie choice back (returning to the Netflix queue already in progress) but I couldn't be happier to have finally seen for myself all these old classics that I've been hearing about my whole life. I recommend the experience to anyone.
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealMovie Review: Funny Peoplehttp://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/08/03/movie_review_funny_people2009-08-04T01:35:43Z2009-08-09T02:39:25Z
funny people pic 2.jpg Being major Judd Apatow fans, Jeremy and I saw this Friday night. We were pretty shocked at how empty the theater was, actually (it was maybe a third full) and wondered if maybe the "Adam Sandler plays serious, has cancer" thing was scaring off comedy fans. The film ended up pulling off a paradox, hitting number one at the box office this weekend, but still playing way below expectations. More on that from the Los Angeles Times here. The paradox is sort of apt, because the movie in general was both brilliant and disappointing. It doesn’t have the same ring as The 40-Year-Old Virgin or Knocked Up , the sort of guys-sitting-around-talking-about-ridiculous-things-foul-mouthedly-and-hilariously thing. It’s really quite different; it’s a more mature film, and I don’t say that just because it’s more serious, which it also is. Those movies were like specific gags revolving around a premise; this movie puts more of the focus on the premise, and the gags that do appear are only incidental. What I mean is, how do you make a movie about a handful of people (and cancer) funny? Well, make the lot of them comedians, and then you’ll have to show them doing their acts from time to time, and it will lighten the mood. This seemed to be the thought process, and it somewhat works. For the first hour and a half, though, I wasn’t really concerned that it wasn’t that funny because it was so good. The movie settles itself amongst the inner tensions of these three roommates who are aspiring comedians and actors (Seth Rogen, Jason Schwartzman, and Jonah Hill), how they pretend to support each other but secretly compete with each other, and how the dynamic shifts when one guy (Rogen) becomes apprenticed to the most famous funny guy in the movies, played by Adam Sandler. Also, the famous guy has terminal cancer. Let’s get it out of the way right here: Adam Sandler is actually terrific in the role; he’s both playing himself and not playing himself. (Several reviewers have felt the need to point out in their reviews that Sandler is, in fact, married with children. I guess because they were afraid that people at home would be worrying about him.) He has the career of Sandler (he’s a huge star who can’t even walk through the vestibule of the hospital where he’s received his diagnosis of untreatable cancer without being asked to pose for pictures taken via iPhone) but his personal life is in shambles because he’s a huge jerk who has alienated everyone. David Denby at The New Yorker described Sandler’s character as “frighteningly intelligent,†and yeah, it seems right, only in the sense that the character zeroes in on people’s weaknesses and exploits them. It’s this quality that made him a great comedian and a terrible friend, and the movie shows all that without having to say it explicitly, and it’s really quite wonderful. And then… well, the movie takes a turn about halfway through, when Sandler’s situation changes. He picks up the movie and takes it with him on a journey that is not nearly as fun as the stuff that came before it. Seth Rogen had a very important role in the first half--he bridges the gap between Sandler’s world of fame and paying gigs and his friends’ world of amateur night and good faith loans, as well as playing the guy on the precipice, the guy who could sell out if he wanted to, but isn’t yet sure that he wants to. Again, bridging a gap, this one between cool Hollywood ruthlessness and old-fashioned affability. Unfortunately, Rogen becomes a pointless hanger-on in the second half. The movie coasts to what seems like it will be a very bleak, cynical ending, and then it chickens out and closes on a scene that is both hackneyed and implausible. And we walk out of the theater, Sad People. A writer I really like, Linda Holmes at NPR’s Monkey See blog, had a really different perspective on the movie: she connects the first half and the second thematically and declares the film a success. I think she’s right about theme, but I think that the changes of both tone and focus are too egregious to declare the movie a success. Still, as they say on the Internet, your mileage may vary. For what it's worth, I will watch Funny People again for that first movie; I will probably turn it off when it hits the second. Overall, it’s worth seeing, provided you can deal with major tonal shifts, the two-and-a-half hour running time, and newfound respect for Adam Sandler. Edited to add: see also Sling Blog's Editors' Recap of Funny People
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cerealEntertainment Weekly's 100 New Classics: Summed Uphttp://blog.case.edu/cereal/2009/08/03/entertainment_weeklys_100_new_classics_summed_up2009-08-03T22:02:52Z2009-08-04T04:04:11Z
EW new classics.jpg I’m coming closer and closer to finishing up the AFI lists—with the most minimal effort it will happen this week—but before that happens I thought I would sum up the EW list with my two favorite things, opinions and statistics. Here’s how I felt about the list: Least enjoyed: Blue Velvet , Drugstore Cowboy , Evil Dead 2 , Fatal Attraction , Natural Born Killers Most enjoyed: A Room with a View , Brokeback Mountain , Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon , Ed Wood , Glory , Hannah and Her Sisters , In the Mood for Love , Schindler’s List , The Incredibles , The Lives of Others Most enjoyed (pre-list favorites): Back to the Future , Clueless , Donnie Brasco , Edward Scissorhands , Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind , Fargo , Ghostbusters , L.A. Confidential , Lost in Translation , Memento , Men in Black , Moulin Rouge , Office Space , Rushmore , The 40-Year-Old Virgin , The Naked Gun , The Silence of the Lambs , The Truman Show , Thelma and Louise , Witness Additionally, I’ve been compiling a list of Notable Omissions--movies which were released between ’83 and ’07, and thus eligible for the list, but which are unaccountably absent. The list will appear in a future entry (or, if it keeps expanding, in two of them). Here’s some stats that interested me: The breakdown of the list by decade is 30 films from the 1980s, 45 from the 1990s and 25 from the 2000s. Even so, the majority of the films I watched were from the 1980s, which is easily enough explained: while my movie coverage has been adequate in the ‘90s and ‘00s, I’m still playing catch-up to movies that came out when I was a child. The directors whose films I watched the most of were Steven Spielberg, Ang Lee, Alfonso Cuaron, Sam Raimi and James Cameron, at 2 films each. Cameron actually had 3 films on the list, but I had already seen Titanic (January 1997, the afternoon after I took my SATs, in case anyone cares). Other twice-appearing directors were Tim Burton, Rob Reiner, and Paul Thomas Anderson--each of whom had one movie I had seen previously and one movie which I watched this summer for the list--and Martin Scorsese, Peter Weir, Ridley Scott and the Coen brothers, each of whom had two films I had already seen. One benefit of the EW list which I have mentioned previously is that its horizons extended beyond American-made movies. Another feature of the list, which I didn’t notice until I began compiling these stats yesterday, is that the EW list includes female directors--only five of them, but that still trounces either AFI list at zero and zero, respectively. Three of the female-helmed movies were massive hits: Shrek (co-directed by Vicky Jenson and Andrew Adamson), Clueless ( Amy Heckerling) and Big ( Penny Marshall). I had seen all of those movies, multiple times on multiple occasions. The other two were critical darlings, and represent the only two Oscar nominations for Best Director that have ever happened to women. Ever. [ Edited to add: I have since checked IMDb and realized that I misread Jane Campion's biography. One other woman received a Best Director Oscar nomination, Lina Wertmuller in 1975. My indignance is, I think, still warranted.] Those movies are The Piano ( Jane Campion, in 1994—this was a list movie) and Lost in Translation ( Sofia Coppola, in 2004, already seen). Though neither woman won the directing award, both took home the same consolation prize: Best Original Screenplay. At this rate, another woman should be due to lose Best Director in another five years. That’s not a fault of the list, of course, but of Hollywood standards in general. One final observation: the Entertainment Weekly list feels, in general, darker and more gothic than the AFI lists. It seems densely populated with drug movies, mob movies, serial killer movies, sci-fi creature-on-the-loose movies. I don’t think this is necessarily because those darker genres are being made more of today. Look again at my Ed Wood entry and all those movies Bela Lugosi made. The difference is that genre movies are becoming increasingly more respected; probably Francis Ford Coppola started things off by making operatic mob movies ( popular since the 1930s) which so effectively utilized the concept of the American dream that the Corleones became a part of our cultural fabric. These days, any serious director can make a critically-acclaimed crime movie (see last summer’s The Dark Knight , or, from two summers ago, Zodiac ). On the flip side, so-called “feelgood†movies are losing respect. Too many brainless romantic comedies which force two patently unlikeable characters to kiss in the rain and get married as the end credits roll, too many of those disposable kids’ movies where the kid discovers his dog can fly and that helps him stand up against a bully, or whatever. Basically, it’s hard to scrounge up the sincerity that elevates a movie like It’s a Wonderful Life above its Hallmark-y premise, and they just don’t do it that much anymore.
Erin Wolvertonerin.wolverton@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/cereal