It’s Jim’s birthday so we (well, he) decided that it was time to take a look at his favorite director, and one of his favorite films.

This is an honest to God attempt to analyze and discuss one of the few near perfect films ever made.

We take a look at a few films, actors, directors, and genres that we just don’t love anymore. We don’t hate them, well, not all of them. Sure, we can still be friends, but with these…. It’s time for us to start seeing other movies.

You know what it’s like when you find a movie that has a great cast, great direction and dialogue that you think should have been a classic adored by everyone? Well, we do and so we decided to make a show about those. These movies didn’t necessarily flop, they just didn’t go over as big as we feel they should.

Sports movies are best served by either fandom or some form of indifference, but indifference is preferable. You see, if you are a fan the events of the film become colored to suit your particular fandom, which is great if your team is on the winning side of things, and terrible if it isn’t. That being said, I suffered greatly during this film.

“The Express,”which chronicles the career of Ernie Davis, the first African American to ever win The Heisman Memorial Trophy is a tragic film. It begins with a culture of racism, takes you through segregation, forces you to endure The Texas Longhorns losing of a national championship, follow that up with a Longhorn losing the Heisman trophy, and then ends with the protagonist dying at 23 from leukemia.

I know that the UT losses are not supposed to be tragic, but from my point of view, they were devastating. This is the first sports biopic that found me wanting the protagonist to lose. I didn’t have anything against Davis, he was an amazing guy by all accounts, but if Jesus himself were quarterback of a team playing UT, I would be praying for him to get benched with a pulled hamstring.

My bias aside, this is a good film. It hits all the notes you want a rousing sports flick to hit. I know that it is about more than football, that the racial issues in the film are really at center stage, but in this kind of film if the action on the field doesn’t work it is difficult to really get into what is happening off the field. For any sports film to work, even if sports aren’t really the thematic focus, it is necessary to balance between the two.

I was reminded of “Invictus.” A fine film, but as I know as much about rugby as I do about cricket, it was difficult to get into the drama of it all. That wasn’t a problem with The Express.

Even though I was rooting squarely against Syracuse, and by default squarely against civil justice, in the title game, I still found myself pulled into what was going on. It is a powerful story that is told rather well. Is it clichéd at times? Yes. Of course it is, it’s a sports movie. No matter what you do in this arena, you are going to hit some clichés, that’s just how these movies work. Are the clichés enough to take you out of it? Not really. Davis is an interesting enough guy and someone that I knew so little about that his story really got my attention.

Even if you aren’t really into sports films there is something to enjoy here. This is a moving story that is fairly well told and worth the two hours.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to watch a bad movie with Clarkson and a vicodin addled Jim? Well, wonder no further.

Are we the meanest? Sho’nuff! Are we the prettiest? Sho’nuff! Are we the baddest mofos low down around this town? Sho’nuff! Well who are we?

These films range from the slightly obscure to the bizarrely hard to find. They are the movies that a lot of people have never heard of, but should be part of everyone’s film lexicon.

Some are awesome, some are terrible, but all of these are worth the time it takes to watch them.

In the 1960’s the island of Great Britain was in grave peril. It was, apparently, impossible for the most upstanding British Subject to walk down the street without being subject to the distressing sounds of rock and roll music. Evidently the only sound louder than the musical nuisance were the cries of “Good GOD!” and the crack of countless monocles as they crashed to the once peaceful streets.

“I really must stop being QUITE so horrified!”

As a result, at a time when Britain was shaping the musical landscape in a way that the rest of the world would be following for years rock and roll music was nowhere to be found on the British airwaves. The only avenue for this genre defining music was through pirate stations that operated on ships off the coast of the island.

This is the world presented in “Pirate Radio.”

What you have here is a great idea, a great cast, and an amazing soundtrack that all spend a great deal of time spinning their respective wheels in an effort to find direction. This isn’t a bad movie, it’s just a confused one. You are presented with some great ideas that are underdeveloped and abandoned, scattershot plotlines, and character relationships that are not defined or developed. In short, I left this movie not really caring about what happened.

The movie begins with flashy title cards that catch us up with the basics. No rock and roll on the radio, and pirate stations operation to the dismay of the government. So the powers that be do the only thing they can do. Hell, they do what any sane and logical person would do in the same situation. They bring in Kenneth Branagh, whose shock with the abomination that is rock and roll is so intense he switched to glasses to avoid the mounting cost of monocle replacement.

His character is so British, he literally SHITS THE QUEEN.

What I expected, rightfully so based on the previews, was the story of the station fighting government oppression to give the people the music they loved in the name of freedom. And I kind of got that. The problem here is that there isn’t any direct mention of the government action until just about the one hour point. So what you do get is two stories that are kept almost completely separate. Branagh fumes and tries to intact laws, because as he says, “That’s the beauty of government. If you don’t like something you just make it illegal.” The people on Radio Rock play music, party, and form a dysfunctional family. There is no direct interaction between those stories so there really isn’t any tension throughout.

The direction is very slick and there are some really good visual touches. All of the boat scenes feel much warmer than the sterile, washed out Branagh scenes. The director finds a way to move the camera ever so slightly on the boat to give the feeling of the tide. The editing is tight from a visual standpoint, but the story could have used a bit of tightening for this to really work.

The Branagh story is the most direct and formed. He has a purpose and a goal. You see him work around setbacks, connive, and push until he is able to achieve is goal. His relationships and interactions all make sense and work towards that goal and he is set up as the perfect foil for the shenanigans aboard the Radio Rock ship.

Saying that Kenneth Branagh delivers a good performance is not only unnecessary, it is a bit stupid. He’s Kenneth FUCKING Branagh for Christ’s sake! When he orders a pint the barkeeper tears up. That’s what the man does. This is, however, an interesting performance as it allows him to do some very difficult comedy. There are a few very obvious jokes, his assistant is a man named Dominic Twatt, and for some reason hearing one of the greatest Shakespearean actors of our time say the word “twat” never becomes unfunny. The impressive bits are the “stiff British upper lip” emotionless scenes that he plays to perfection. It’s nice to get some different shades from Kenneth.

The rest of the cast acquits itself well, but you don’t really get much new from them. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is great as usual, but his performance feels like a cooler version of Lester Bangs from “Almost Famous.” Bill Nighy does a great mix of his characters from “Shawn of the Dead,” and “Still Crazy.” He stands out because he is the only person who could play this part, and he somehow pulls off feeling completely fresh, and a little bit of retread at the same time. I enjoyed Rhys Ifans’ performance as the wildly popular enigmatic Gavin Canavagh, the greatest pirate DJ who ever lived. Nick Frost does a good job at creating a character removed from his brilliant turns in “Spaced,” “Shawn of the Dead,” and “Hot Fuzz.”

I call this film frustrating because you have these, and other, solid performances floating without a rudder. Things move in one direction and you think that is where the story will go, then the director seems to get tired and moves it in another without tying that story up. I’m not saying that every move needs to fit a formula or that there is only one way to tell a story, but if you have a bunch of threads that you create well enough to get people interested in, and then don’t go anywhere with them it will piss your audience off.

There are about three different movies in here. There is Young Carl, who seems like the protagonist, sent to the ship by his legendary rock chick mother (played brilliantly by Emma Thompson), you have the government vs. rock and roll story, and you have a DJ rivalry story (there is a kind of heartbreaking plot involving a marriage that takes up a bit of time, but doesn’t really go anywhere). Had these episodes been treated as full stories instead of just fragments you could have had a really outstanding film. Instead, what you are left with is a bunch of decent set ups that don’t really go anywhere set to a really kick ass soundtrack.

]]> http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/29/its-only-rock-and-roll/feed/ http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/27/the-lizard-king-has-no-clothes/ http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/27/the-lizard-king-has-no-clothes/#comments Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:01:54 +0000 thefilmthugs Reviews http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/27/the-lizard-king-has-no-clothes/

There is no such thing as a movie about “The Doors.” There just isn’t. Oh, there are many that purport to be, but they aren’t. What do exist are several documentary films and TV shows, and one feature length film about Jim Morrison and the guys who were in his band.

This isn’t really much of a surprise. Morrison was one of the most charismatic figures the American music industry ever produced, and the rest of the band aren’t exactly raconteurs. In any film about the band you get a shitload of information about Jim and a few talking head interviews with Robbie Krieger, John Densmore, and Ray Manzarek that last just long enough to remind you why the film doesn’t focus on them more.

However, as Morrison died at 27, there isn’t a whole lot of material there that hasn’t been explored multiple times. “When You’re Strange,” attempts to mine further into the shallow pit that is Morrison.

For starters, I had some high hopes for this film. Tom DiCillo is a filmmaker who can do interesting things with minimal material. I remember watching “Living in Oblivion,” at The Dobie theater in Austin many times when it came out, and being struck at how much it did with so little. It was a small film about small filmmakers that showed the insanity involved in shooting a few minutes of a film. The characters were well drawn, the dialogue was outstanding, and the situations were hilarious. This was a guy who could make a film.

Now, documentaries are a tricky area. Their success depends almost as much on the subject matter as it does on the delivery. The proper handling and set up of a documentary can make the most pedestrian of events fascinating. “Hands on a Hard Body,” has no right to be as good as it is, but somehow S.R. Binder was able to take a group of people touching a pickup truck and pull a riveting story out of it. However, if there isn’t a new or interesting angle in what you present your audience will have nothing to latch onto. This where “When You’re Strange” runs into a problem. No matter how interesting you personally think the story of Jim Morrison is, there is nothing new or surprising here. It is a repackaging of a lot of well worn information and no matter how nice the new package is it’s all stuff you’ve seen before.

This movie lives or dies depending on your feelings towards Jim Morrison. Here is a simple test that will tell you how you will react to this movie.

Finish the following sentence:

I think Jim Morrison is…

If your sentence contains either praise or total ignorance of the man then you will most likely dig this film. If you are critical, apathetic, or dismissive… maybe you should check out “King of Kong.”

If you answered a or b you will probably really dig this. If you answered c or d…

I’ve been through a journey with the man that ranges from curiosity to fascination to adoration until I landed firmly on amusement. Put simply, he was a decent lyricist and a shitty poet who became a cultural icon before his excessive indulgences reduced him to a self parody. He is not some Bacchanalian poet warrior shaman; he was a good looking kid who could write some ok songs and crafted a public persona that was perfect for the time in which he lived. He was a kid who didn’t know how to say no to anything and was able to portray himself as far deeper than he was because that’s what a lot of young people needed at the time. “Break on Through” is a pretty awesome song though.

The only thing that stands out about this film is the new and interesting footage they used in it. There is some very up close and natural footage that makes “The Doors” in concert seemed a step away from a full blown riot. Johnny Depp acquits himself nicely as narrator, but there is a seriousness that permeates the film that makes it hard for me to take seriously. Morrison was a songwriter who drank a lot, HE WASN’T NELSON FUCKING MANDELLA. This film, like almost every other on the subject makes him look like some spirit guide for a generation who represented freedom and enlightenment while disguising every interview that makes it very clear that he was a rather selfish egotist who represented escape and irresponsibility.

This is a well made film that kept me wishing the director had chosen another subject, a different band. It is very well made, moves along nicely, and displays an incredible amount of talent for documentary film. It’s just that we’ve heard enough about Morrison and this didn’t teach us anything new. The filmmaking deserved better.

I think my feelings can be summed up this way. I watched this late at night, trying to fall asleep. At about 3:30 in the morning, after 81 minutes of hearing about a man whose drug problems were so intense, and had such a negative impact on his personality that band mates refer to him as two different people depending on his sobriety, a man who missed recording sessions, and collapsed during shows Depp leaves us with the thought, “you can’t burn out…if you were never on fire,” and I almost passed out from laughing. That about sums it up for me.

]]> http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/27/the-lizard-king-has-no-clothes/feed/ http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/26/big-jim-did-not-enjoy/ http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/26/big-jim-did-not-enjoy/#comments Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:06:17 +0000 thefilmthugs Reviews http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/26/big-jim-did-not-enjoy-the-good-night/ The Onion recently ran a feature entitled “Inception’s inception? 38 stories that take place largely within dreams”

http://www.avclub.com/articles/inceptions-inception-38-stories-that-take-place-la,42967/

Partly out of my love of Nolan’s most recent film, and partly out of my total fascination with dreams I decided to check some of these out. When I say “fascination” with dreams, I don’t mean that in the way most people do. I have fairly severe sleep apnea. For those who don’t know that means that I stop breathing when I fall asleep. Mine is fairly severe and, if untreated, I have what is called an “episode” every 15-30 seconds. That means that I fall asleep, in less than half a minute I stop breathing and wake up. Now, I don’t fully wake up, but I am pulled back from the deeper, important levels of sleep. Because of that I never entered REM or delta sleep, so dreams seem like some type of urban myth to me.

Last October I got a CPAP machine so that I can keep breathing while asleep and get the important, restful, dream filled sleep all you bastards take for granted. So I am just now becoming exposed to the phenomena. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have really vivid dreams with all that Freudian imagery people talk about, I still think that is bullshit. But, because I have never really experienced them, I find the very idea of dreaming to be an odd concept.

With this in mind, I decided to check out some of the movies from this list just for the hell of it. There were several of these that I was very familiar with. I know “The Prisoner” episode, “A,B,&C,” “The Cell (wow, a serial killers mind looks like a mix between a Tool video and the video to “Losing My Religion,” by REM!!)”, “Dreamscape,” “Nightmare on Elm Street,” but there were some of the less mainstream ones that I was interested in.

I started with Jake Paltrow’s, “The Good Night,” and am a little pissed that I did. What you have here is a movie, presented as a comedy, that has no likeable or sympathetic characters, no real motivation for any of the action, no catharsis, no interesting action, no character development, and almost no funny moments. It’s the story of Gary, (played by Martin Freeman, an actor I discovered on the original Office and have liked over the years) a musician from a one hit wonder 80’s band who is reduced to writing jingles for the company run by former band mate Paul(Simon Pegg, you know how I feel about his past work). He is in a dying relationship with Dora (Gwyneth Paltrow, doing her brother a favor I believe) who has apparently had it with him. Not only does she not appear to love him, but she doesn’t even seem to be able to stand him. There is no part of this man’s life that does not suck.

Then he starts having repeating dreams about a beautiful woman, Penelope Cruz, and starts studying lucid dreaming in an attempt to be able to live fully in this dream world. He later discovers that Cruz is actually a model he has seen in countless advertisements. Paul, as a favor to Gary, hires he for a campaign. This, I believe, was meant to lead to some climactic moment where Gary realizes something about his love for Dora and his need to create his own music again and learns to really live life. I don’t know what the intention was, all I can say is that if the intent of this film was to do anything other than run for 93 minutes and make you laugh about 4 times, it was a total failure.

This is a mess of a movie. The performances are fine, the cinematography is nice (it has a very gritty feel to it), but it felt empty. I think I was supposed to see a person trapped in an unhappy life who finds a wonderful escape in his dreams, but I didn’t really see this. What I did see was a kind of unlikable guy who has given up on himself, accepted a loveless relationship, sold out his music while bemoaning being unable to create the music he wants, who makes a dream world made up of leftover pop culture images and attempts to use lucid dreaming to have sex with an idealized woman. He doesn’t try to better either his real or his dream world, he just wants to cheat on his girlfriend without any physical evidence.

Almost everyone goes through “rebuilding years,” where their life comes off the tracks, everything sucks, and to quote Kipling, you,”watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools.” Most people have these periods which are punctuated by the desperation to start again and the actions towards starting again. That passion was absent from this film. Paltrow simply asks too much of the audience by presenting a character like this and then expecting us to care about the quality of his sex dreams.

We finish out our look at summer films by charting the downward trajectory of “The Summer Tentpole Blockbuster,” during the 2000’s.

Things get ugly.

Biopics are a tricky species because a person with an interesting background or story doesn’t necessarily have a cinematically interesting one. Life doesn’t exactly play out like a movie and interesting events rarely have a three act structure. That isn’t to say that they are all bad or lacking, just difficult. What normally happens is either compositing of characters, combining different events into one more dramatic event, or creating scenes that never happened in order to make that story to work better as a screen story.

Like all other types of movies some of these work beautifully, others don’t work at all, and the vast majority fall somewhere in the middle. That middle ground is where you find “The Runaways,” Floria Sigismund’s feature debut film about the 1970’s all girl punk/rock band of the same name. What you have here is a fantastic looking, well acted film that ultimately feels hollow and somewhat superficial.

This film presents a particularly difficult challenge as The Runaways were only a band for four years and when they disbanded the oldest member was 21. But the possibilities are equal to that challenge. The music business is brutal even for the most seasoned professionals, but for a group of children with essentially no parental guidance that brutality is amplified to disastrous levels.

At the end of this film I found myself not knowing much more about these people than I did beforehand, and I didn’t know much. Basically, this movie is as much about The Runaways as Oliver Stone’s film “The Doors,” was about The Doors. Yeah, the other members are there, but that was The Jim Morrison story.

This film, in reality, about the relationship between Cherie Currie (the vocalist and front woman), and Joan Jett (guitarist and singer). Drummer Sandy West, played by Stella Maeve in a strong performance, initially looks like she will be a major part of the show ends up sidelined quickly. Bassist “Robin,” played by Alia Shawkat (who played Maeby on “Arrested Development”) not only doesn’t exist (she is somewhat based on Jackie Fox), but doesn’t speak, but her performance isn’t bad, as she does appear to know how to play bass. Even Lita Ford, who went on to a major recording career (I mean, she recorded a song with Ozzy and got equal billing for God’s sake!) is relegated to the “member of the band most pissed at the lead singer for all the attention she’s getting” role, which is unfortunate, not only because of how important Lita would be as a female figure in rock for years to come, but because Scout Taylor-Compton is pretty good at what she does get to do and it would have been nice to see her do more.

Basically, this is the Joan and Cherie show, which causes a lot of the weakness. By focusing on these two instead of the band as a unit you never really get a sense of closeness, of how the music brought these lost young women together and made a family out of them. Because of this most of the interactions felt very hollow and lacking.

There was no punch to the goings on because I didn’t feel any real connection between the characters. Joan and Cherie come together both emotionally and physically, but their relationship doesn’t have any weight or gravity. You know their families are screwed up, but you don’t get the feeling that they are using each other to replace that family. I wanted more depth.

The family dynamics, such as they are, are portrayed through Cherie and her sister Marie, but even that has some confusion. The two are twin sisters in real life, but are played by actresses who are 5 years apart in age, and that makes the beginning scenes between them feel strange and out of place.

There are some real strengths here. There was a flow, and it looked fantastic. I didn’t have as much of a problem with what was on the screen as I did with what was left off. The development of the characters and their relationships was almost non existent and played more like watching caricatures than real characters.

Sigismondi is a highly accomplished music video director and it shows. The aesthetics of this film are amazing. Her camera work is incredible and her choice of soundtrack are brilliant. She is also able to get outstanding performances from her actors.

Dakota Fanning’s turn as lead singer Cherie Carrie is, as we have come to expect from Fanning, exceptional. She does an outstanding job of capturing a young woman lost in transition with no mooring. Kristen Stewart gives one of the best performances in the film. She is kind of like a guitarist who only knows two chords, not great unless the song you’re playing only requires those two chords. Not that Joan Jett is a two dimensional character, but Stewart’s presence is perfect for the young punk rock icon who doesn’t just love the music, she NEEDS the music and nothing else.

Michael Shannon steals the show as Kim Fowley. I haven’t seen him in much else that I am aware of, but now I want to. The creepy sexuality, while not really being sexual being that he creates is fully realized and completely natural and believable. He somehow is able to pull off very graphic sexual talk with a group of 15 year old girls without coming off as a deviant. He realizes that the business of rock and roll is the business of sexuality and even though it is a group of 15 year old girls, he never really comes off as a pedophile because to him sex is business. He isn’t a mentor in the classic sense. His concern is purely selfish, he wants money. He isn’t there to help the girls find themselves so they can live better lives, he sees them as a paycheck and is up front about it.

In the end, what you have here is a movie that could and should have been a lot better. It’s a little girl lost tale that could have been more. I guess I wanted to see the girls find each other, only to be pulled apart by the gravity of their own lives, and how difficult it is to control that when you have no foundation to build on.

]]> http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/22/big-jim-reviews-the-runaways/feed/ http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/21/appaloosa-is-a-very-good-western-a-film-like-this-deserves-a-direct-title/ http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/21/appaloosa-is-a-very-good-western-a-film-like-this-deserves-a-direct-title/#comments Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:39:19 +0000 thefilmthugs Reviews http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/21/appaloosa-is-a-very-good-western-a-film-like-this-deserves-a-direct-title/ Westerns have become an interesting breed of film lately. There seems to be this desire to reinvent them by going back to what they once were. The few attempts to do “commercially cool” takes on the genre have met with critical as well as commercial failure (Wild Wild West, Jonah Hex, Posse, that one with Madelyn Stowe about the women, I am not even going to bother looking up the name). The Western is a simple genre to do well, but a difficult genre to do great because of that.

Now, there are two different types of people. Those who like Westerns, and those who don’t. The former being known, colloquially, as “men.” Am I saying that only men like Westerns? No, there are some bad ass women out there who are fans as well. I am saying that if you don’t like Westerns you are not a man. It’s not a nice thing to say, but sometimes the truth hurts.

You don’t have to love them, and you don’t have to like all of them. But if there isn’t one Western out there that gets your attention…. Well, you get what I’m saying.

The Western is the foundation of American film. As soon as someone figured out that moving pictures could be used to convey a narrative Edwin S. Porter gave us, “The Great Train Robbery.” If you look at it, America’s first great contribution to the arts is the Western. We created it, and the rest of the world went nuts for it. Yes it is uniquely American, but it is also completely universal. Every country that is worth a shit has taken a shot at this genre. In some instances they showed us what could be done with it, I’m looking at you Italy. But with that exception no matter how international they became, the Western has always been an American story.

What is fascinating about this type of film is how no matter where they are made, no matter the slant taken on the genre, they are always rooted firmly in one theme, “a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.” Think about it. The ideas of honor, having a code, right and wrong as absolute black and white concepts permeate every one of them. Even when the good guy is a bad guy he will always be the most morally centered character with the clearest code of what makes right and what makes wrong.

Basically, the simpler the story, the better the Western. It usually goes something like this, a guy comes to an area that needs help with x, he takes care of x, he rides off.

With that in mind, I watched “Appaloosa,” co-written, directed by, and starring Ed Harris as a hired gun who, along with his partner Viggo Mortensen comes to the small town of Appaloosa to help with a problem. The problem is that Jeremy Irons’ character is a bit of a prick who has a bit of power and a group of men who think they can do as they please, when they please and suffer no consequences. When Irons shoots down a Marshall, things turn desperate.

This is, in many ways a very typical Western. It is slow, that is to say measured. The difference here is that “slow” means the director has no idea how to pace the thing and it feels like it takes forever, and “measured” means the director knows exactly what they’re doing and want to draw the tension and mood out. This film builds and takes its time doing so. That is what makes it, and the other films of this genre work.

The landscape of the west is always a bit part of these films and Harris uses the natural background beautifully, especially the wind. For anyone who has ever been to a flat area without much in the way of buildings to slow it down, you know how the wind kind of wreaks havoc on everything, and Harris allows that to happen to amazing visual affect.

Ultimately, all I can say about “Appaloosa,” is that if you like Westerns you will like this film. If you don’t you probably won’t. It is a classically styled, classically paced, and classically crafted movie that plays on the classic themes of justice, loyalty, and a man doing what he has to do in order to do what is right.

On May 15th, 1941 Joe DiMaggio hit a single off pitcher Eddie Smith. Nothing spectacular about it, just a single in a game where “Joltin’ Joe” went 1 for 4. What is spectacular is that he got a hit in the next 55 games. That’s right he recorded a hit in every game until July 16th.

How big a deal is this? Well, in the 69 years that have followed nobody has even come close. In fact, the only person to even break the 40 game mark was in 1978, and that person was Pete Rose (who technically cannot hold any records at all, what with the lifetime ban and all). There have been a handful who hit into the 30’s, but nobody has come within spitting distance of it.

What does this have to do with “Toy Story 3?” Think about it. Pixar has made 11 movies, none of which could honestly be considered bad. Look at the list.

Toy Story

A Bus’s Life

Toy Story 2

Monsters, Inc.

Finding Nemo

The Incredibles

Cars

Ratatouille

WALL-E

Up

Toy Story 3

Now, not every one of these has been a home run, but they definitely reached base with all of them. And I am just listing the features here. This says nothing of the litany of brilliant short films they have produced. John Lassiter has put together a company that seems incapable of making a bad movie.

I am curious if anyone can name one other director, producer, actor, or studio that has ever put together a streak like this. This is an honest request. I have been trying to think of one, but have drawn a blank. The closest I can come up with is Nolan, who is at 6, just past the halfway point. Even Hitchcock had occasional misses with movies like “Under Capricorn,” “Marnie,” and “Family Plot.”

Getting 11 films in a row, let alone the first 11 films your company made, right is almost a statistical anomaly. There is only one explanation for it. Unflinching belief in the story you are telling, unwavering support and a single minded dedication to excellence from all levels of the company. That dedication to the quality of the story is what makes John Lasseter the most best thing to happen to animated film since Walt Disney.

When I heard about “Toy Story 3,” let alone “Toy Story 3-D,” I cringed a little. Going back to the well a third time has been disastrous of late. Seeing “Spider Man,” “The X-Men,” “The Matrix,” “Alien,” “Terminator,” “Pirates of the Caribbean,” even “The Godfather,” all fell apart with ill advised third chapters. Why should “Toy Story 3,” be any different?

John Fucking Lasseter, that’s why.

All of the above failed because they were unnecessary. Not that there are some movies that are needed, but there was nothing in their stories that really wanted to be told. Some were bullshit third chapters following up pointless cliffhangers, but the information in them had no real weight or baring.

I imagine Lasseter staring into the face of such weak and cliché story telling and growling, “Not on my watch!”

“Toy Story 3″ answers the inevitable question that faces every person growing up. You all know The Bible verse, “When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things.” How does one do that? Everyone has one childhood toy that meant every bit of the world to them. You had one, don’t try and say you didn’t. You slept with it, you talked to it, you anthropomorphized it, and then one day, you had to put it away. But how does one do that? This was a story that, at least in the world of the films NEEDED to be told. That necessity is what makes it such an outstanding work.

The toys in the “Toy Story” movies have become like that one cherished item from our childhood. They aren’t just plastic or cloth, they are friends with personalities who love us.

For 11 straight films Pixar has been able to combine comedy for kids, comedy for adults, and amazing emotional depth into films that don’t just manipulate your emotions for 100 minutes, but stay with you long after. In that sense, this movie is squarely in their wheelhouse.

We begin with a montage of the toys growing up with Andy and fade to the now grown up boy preparing to go to college. There are only three real possibilities. Attic storage, donation to a day care, or being thrown out.

When they end up in the day care center by mistake Woody is determined to get back to Andy. His only aim, as it was for the other two was to get back to their owner, because his job is to be there for him. Now, I won’t spoil anything more, but this movie has some incredible depth to it. The theme of abandonment and staying true to your friends runs to the bone in this film and it is handled with more depth and emotion than I have ever seen in a film.

This might just be the freshness of it, but this stands out as, if not the best thing Pixar has done, than at the very least the best of the “Toy Story” movies.

There are times when it is difficult to watch, but in the end it does what all good movies of this sort do. It awakens that part of you that wishes it never had to put those childish things away.

]]> http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/21/joltin-john-lasseter/feed/ http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/20/a-short-but-slightly-drunk-review-of-two-movies-whose-stars-i-have-a-complex-history-with/ http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/20/a-short-but-slightly-drunk-review-of-two-movies-whose-stars-i-have-a-complex-history-with/#comments Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:22:50 +0000 thefilmthugs Reviews http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/07/20/a-short-but-slightly-drunk-review-of-two-movies-whose-stars-i-have-a-complex-history-with/ Ok, I watched two movies tonight starring actors I have a troubled history with. I really, really want to like John Travolta, and I really do like Jodie Foster and am tired of seeing terrible things happen to her for my entertainment. Neither of those issues were resolved tonight.

For starters I saw “From Paris With Love,” which features not only a baffling title and a strangely unnecessary “Pulp Fiction,” Royale with Cheese reference (by the by in Paris it is called a Royal Cheese, not a Royale with Cheese, come on DAMN IT!), but John Rhys Meyers doing the impossible by sporting worse facial hair than me.

I kind of pull for Travolta because he kind of reminds me of Burt Reynolds, only less creepy and unlikeable. You see Travolta remains famous despite the fact that (to paraphrase Robert Wuhl, God help me) that he has appeared in so many bad movies that if someone else makes a bad movie they have to pay him a royalty. He seems like a good guy who can’t say no to his agent, and his agent is a very dumb child.

This movie wasn’t terrible, it just wasn’t very good. Travolta plays a bad ass special forces type agent who has a short amount of time to… Well, he shoots some Chinese people, and some guys who have cocaine, and somehow stumbles on a plot to bomb a… it really doesn’t matter, does it?

The problem I had was that I just didn’t really buy Travolta in the role. It was interesting and all that, put together well, and there was a lot of stuff going on, but it really felt like John saw a big paycheck and that was it. It’s not bad if you’re looking for something to have on while you drink yourself stupid, like I did tonight.

Oh, and on the subject of Rhys Meyers, whenever I see him all I can think of is the time my friend Ken tried to describe a movie he was in where, “Clive Owen plays this guy, and someone boofs his brother and he comes to town and kills them. I think it was called, ‘Don’t Boof My Brother Or I’ll Kill you.’” The movie was actually, “I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead,” but Rhys Meyers does get Boofed, and that is all I see him as.

(Apologies to anyone who has been Boofed and doesn’t appreciate that comment.)

The second was “The Brave One.” As I’ve said, I like Jodie Foster quite a bit, and somewhere between “Taxi Driver,” and “The Accused,” I kind of had my fill of bad things happening to her. I was told that in this movie she does all the killing, and it’s awesome and all that.

Something bad does happen to her in this though, she appeared in it. This is a very typical Hollywood revenge film. Someone has something bad happen to them and they decide to arm themselves for defense. From that point on everywhere that person goes a terrible crime occurs that leaves them no choice but to start throwing lead and dropping fools.

This felt like “Death Wish,” but more PC. I really wanted to like it, I just didn’t.

I would have though that all the beer I had tonight would have made these films more bearable. It did not.

For starters:

1) Yes that is a tattoo of Alfred Hitchcock on my arm.

2) It is real.

3) I got it free because I got another tattoo on Hitchcock’s birthday, and I mentioned wanting this. When we looked it up online we discovered it was his birthday and the artist threw it in for free.

After placing the movie “Disturbia” on my worst remakes list I began to feel a bit hypocritical because I hadn’t actually seen it. I know that my reason was valid and I stand by it. You simply cannot place Hitchcock in a flashy packaged throwaway popcorn film. Many of the stories he told could be remade today and fare quite well depending entirely on who wrote and directed them, who starred in them, and how they were handled.

The problem is matching all the components together and making a film that is intended to reframe a story in a similar modern world. Sadly, there are very few directors I could think of being able to pull this off. Actually, I could only think of one. I know I’ve been harping on this film a bit lately, but after watching “Inception,” the idea of Nolan directing DiCaprio in a reworking of North By Northwest doesn’t sound terrible. If not Leo then someone like Clooney, maybe Clive Owen. The important question is director.

In this particular instance, where the themes of deception, shifting reality, distrust, a hero choosing to become a hero, mistaken identities, and moral relativism I can think of no director better suited to handle it.

As he made a billion dollars on one film, he is one of three who could pull it off. The other two being Sam Rami (Sony owes him some creative license for what he made them off Spiderman), and Spielberg (because he could tell a studio he wanted to release his home movies and they would let him). These men not only have the talent, because there are many other equally talented filmmakers out there, but they have the license to make something that is risky and have a studio back them. Sadly, there are not many directors who have this clout. And that is what it takes, clout.

Now, let us talk “Disturbia.”

D.J. Caruso is a talented director. His work on “The Salton Sea,” and “The Shield,” show that he has the ability to handle intense subject matter and suspenseful scenes. The writers were fairly untested, having done mostly TV and some small features before. These were men that were lucky to have this opportunity and could be pushed around by the studio a bit. This isn’t about their talent, but rather what games they had to play to get the film released.

Before I get into plot and mechanics let’s talk cast. I hate to say it, but I like Shia LaBeouf more than I want to admit. He seems like a cool kid who got lucky with his career. Watch season two of “Project Greenlight,” and you will see that he is a funny and enthusiastic young actor who really enjoys what he’s doing and does what he can to make the movie the best it can be. This is a guy who skipped meals on an overnight shoot to work on his scene and had to be forced to take a break by the director, so I have no problem with him. Nor do I have a problem with Sarah Roemer. She is attractive and does a good job. So does the rest of the cast, even Aron Yoo gave a decent performance as the annoying as hell Asian sidekick.

The problem with the main cast is that they are stepping into huge, iconic shoes. Shia, no matter how likeable, fades into nothing in the shadow of Jimmy Stewart, at least not at this point in his career. And Sarah, though talented and hot, cannot compare to Grace Kelly. It’s too much to ask for someone like me to not draw unfavorable comparisons here. I know that I often stress that films have to be viewed on their own, but we’re talking Stewart and Kelly! I just can’t do it.

Now, the basic story is the same. A guy is stuck at home for a long period and goes a bit stir crazy. One night he thinks he hears something and begins to suspect a strange, solitary neighbor of being a murderer (in this case a serial killer who fled Texas years earlier).

In one movie we have Jimmy Stewart as L.B. “Jeff” Jefferies, a globe trekking photographer who badly broke his leg while photographing an accident at a car race, and is stuck in his apartment while it heals.

In the other we have Kale, a troubled young man who recently lost his father and is under house arrest after striking a teacher and can’t go more than 100 feet from his monitoring station without the police coming.

This fundamental difference changes a lot of things between the two. In “Rear Window,” Jeff cannot get away, at all. He can’t even get up the three steps to his apartment door to lock it if the need arises and he has to sleep in the living room because he can’t get through to his bedroom for the same reason. Imagine what that would do to you. Months of three walls and a row of windows. No television, just the world inside his apartment building set to whatever soundtrack he has on hand, or is played by one of his neighbors.

In “Disturbia,” Kale is restricted to a rather large house and into his yard. He can move about freely and if there is any trouble, all he has to do is set foot into the street and the police will come in a matter of minutes. I know that being stuck at home sucks, but this is a guy who has cable television, an X-Box, friends who can come over. There isn’t a complete obstruction of movement, just the inconvenience of living his normal life in a rather nice house and a beautiful front patio.

This leads to problem number two. Jefferies was suffering from insane cabin fever. He is a man accustomed to living out of a suitcase and going to wildly exotic locations as part of his daily life. We meet him at the end of his cast wearing time, so we know that he has been stuck in that room for a long time and all he can do is look out of the rear window into the courtyard. All of this is set up in less than one minute and about four lines of dialogue. Everything is communicated. His adventurist life is shown through photographs, the people he watches are shown in a quick panning shot, and we know about the cast when a friend congratulates him on getting it removed and he comments that he still has one week before he can, “emerge from his plaster cocoon.”

On the other hand, it takes “Disturbia’ over half an hour before we get to Kale’s house arrest, and only a few minutes past that before he is spying on his neighbors and going nuts. The set up is very long and completely unnecessary. We get his close relationship with his father, and his fathers death in a car accident Kale blames himself for. The odd thing about this is that as important as his father is made out to be in the opening, he is not mentioned at all after about the one hour point. He is just dropped like a convenient plot device that lost his usefulness. Oh, and as for cabin fever, we don’t really get much of this and it could have been done so easily.

How? Well, all mom does is cancel his X-Box live and his iTunes account, leaving him with just his computer and the big TV downstairs, and just playing X-Box with friends or by himself. His behavior doesn’t change. This could be fixed by one simple move. It is set up that he is a bit of a messy kid whose room is always a mess. If they had implied some time passage and shown his room, and the entire house, to be spotlessly, obsessive compulsively organized this would show a change. It’s out of character, yes, but it show just how bored he is and the obsessive nature of it would communicate how it’s impacting his emotional state. All he wants is something, anything to keep him busy.

Oh, and the camera leaving the house kills the claustrophobic feel the film needs to work right. That’s the beauty of “Rear Window.” Not only does Jeff feel isolated and twitchy, we start to feel that and suddenly his insanity seems reasonable because we know how he feels so much that we become just like him, sitting there, watching everything, and hoping that a man murdered his wife just for the change of pace that would bring.

That is the essence of how this film doesn’t work. The most brilliant idea “Rear Window” puts forward is that we, the viewers, are the biggest voyeurs in the relationship. We are no better than Jeff. We sit there peering into his world of peering into the worlds of others and find ourselves wanting more of them for our own entertainment. He, like us, doesn’t even know the names of his neighbors. They are simply a collection of characteristics that he can observe.

We are never invited into that position in “Disturbia.” Kale knows his neighbors by name, and instead of the curious involvement of Jeff he is completely detached from these actual people he knows. It lowers an already questionable act to the level of Peeping Tomery.

The biggest flaw with “Disturbia” is the lack of mystery about the suspected killer. In “Rear Window,” we become part of Jeff’s world for the simple fact that we have no idea if a crime actually took place. We are spying into a world that we don’t really know anything about, and because of that we are seeing actions from his somewhat skewed point of view. We interpret what is happening in the most exciting way possible because that is what Jeff does, and we don’t know any better. “Disturbia,” however, takes that away from us. We know without question that the neighbor is a killer. Us knowing more than Kale, in this instance, is a hindrance. There is no building of suspense or tension, we know that he has to be proven right. In “Rear Window” it was completely possible that Thorwald, the neighbor, did nothing wrong and Jeff was just reading into things out of boredom. The simple possibility of that made the film a thousand times more intense.

In the end, “Disturbia” becomes a victim of the studio system that made it happen. What could have been a very fresh and intense retelling of a classic became a watered down, flashy, and predictably disappointing fast food product. It’s like the new Burger King ribs. Yeah, they’re technically the same “meat” you would get at The County Line, but really, all you’re eating is processed crap pressed into a shape that reminds you of something much, much better.

We look at the building of trends and franchises between the summers of 1990-1999.

Jim and Clarkson look at the summer movie phenomena through the 90’s.

Also, we discuss Chris Nolan’s MASTERPIECE “Inception.”

I am challenged right now. How do I write a spoiler free movie that is almost impossible to spoil? By that I mean a film whose outcome is less important than how that outcome is reached.

For years I have bemoaned the lack of challenging films that are entertaining. Most films are either entertaining and require no mental effort aside from our automatic breathing function and consciousness, or require a tremendous amount of thought and concentration while lacking much in the way of entertainment or spectacle.

Orson Welles use to say that if he were given total artistic freedom he could make a better movie than “Citizen Kane.” Think about that. A movie that is considered. by many, the finest film ever made wasn’t enough. He knew he could grow. So, what happens when a director makes enough money for a studio that the studio gives them an almost unlimited budget to do with as he pleases. Well, you get James Cameron and “Avatar.” That was all we had…. until now.

Thank God for Chris Nolan. His career has been spent fusing these two things. From his early work in “Following ,”and “Memento,” through some transitional things like “Insomnia” and “The Prestige,” and into his blockbuster defining turns with “Batman Begins,” and “The Dark Knight,” Nolan has been a man on a mission. That mission simply being to entertain people who are smart. Don’t get me wrong, he isn’t a “think piece” director, his films hold almost as much enjoyment for the passive viewer as the active, but you really have to be on your game to “get it.”

This is a script 10 years in the writing, and it shows. The story is a complex maze where even the concept of time is subjective, but at no point does he go for a cheap fix. There is no Shamalaning (replacing genuine intrigue with twists for the sake of twists), Smithing (long expository dialogue scenes), or Baying (slick, over the top action scenes that provide little risk and less reward as they have no real baring on the story). What you do have is a lot of Hitchcockesque use of visuals to aid in the story and a plot that you have to pay attention to.

Since his debut film “Following” he has continued to evolve as a filmmaker and “Inception” is possibly the biggest jump forward I could imagine. That’s right, this thing is not only the best think Nolan has made, it is one of the best films I have ever seen. The story and direction are superb, the performances are outstanding, and the music is perfect. Every aspect of this film is dead on and I couldn’t be happier with the results. My expectations could not have been higher nor could they have been better met by this film.

I use the word film consciously. When I say “film” I mean a work of art that is also entertaining and thought provoking that uses film as a means to convey an amazing story that is as emotionally involving as it is intellectually stimulating. This isn’t a movie, a way to pass two hours in the air conditioning while being distracted. It could be viewed that way if you want to, but you would be missing out.

This film is a labyrinth, not just a maze. Yeah, there are twists and turns, but there are also layers, many layers. Something this ambitious and complex could have been a disappointing mess in the hands of a lesser storyteller, but Nolan has the ability to lead you through it with ease, leaving you almost breathless at the end, but wanting to take the ride again.

I am hard pressed to write much more. If you’ve seen trailers then you know the basics, it involves dreams. That’s all I want you to know going in. That’s all I knew, and I am happy for that. Before seeing it I read no reviews, I saw no interviews, and I avoided all trailers after the first one.

Do yourself a favor. Go see this movie. Go now. Don’t read any reviews that tell you anything about it, don’t watch previews that show you cool stuff. Just go and be surprised. Pay attention and see how entertaining it can be to have a film challenge you intellectually. You will not be disappointed.

More on this on the podcast tomorrow.

Jim

12 Suggestions for the Screenplay You Are About To Submit To A Contest

By Jim Dirkes

I am currently nearing the end of my second year as a first round script reader for the Austin Film Festival’s Screenplay competition. There are a huge number of entries each year and in order to make the number a little more manageable a group of qualified people read around 100 each, judge them on a few criteria, and decide which, if any, are good enough to advance to the second round and possibly win the competition. Of this massive number a few are good, even fewer are excellent. There are many that are outright awful, but the vast majority fall into the middle area of being just plain bad.

As I near my 220th script some patterns have become startlingly clear. While there isn’t much I can do for the awful ones there are some issues that keep popping up in the mid range, bad almost good ones that I would like to point out in an effort to help.

There are a few things I should tell you up front. I am not a self proclaimed (or in any other way proclaimed) screenwriting guru. Actually, I find “script gurus” in general to be an equal mix of common sense and bullshit. Of course there are basic structural rules to which most stories conform. Even writers who swear against these formulas write scripts that fit these formulas most of the time. Most, not all. These are not 100%, and in many cases the stories that break these rules are the best. I do find some of these ideas and techniques to be helpful and they will by no means make your story bad. In many cases they will help solve most of the problems I outline below.

What, then, does make me qualified? I have studied film extensively in both academic (I have a BS in Radio, Television, and Film from The University of Texas), and practical (I have spent more hours watching movies than I have in the sunlight, it was close, then TBS showed “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,” and the balance was tipped) settings. Between these two avenues, I have gained a decent knowledge of what makes movies and screenplays work.

Let me clarify, those are very different things. Reading a screenplay is different from watching a movie. It’s even different from reading a book. There are some similarities, but there are a number of specific things that you have to be aware of to be able to spot a screenplay that is outstanding. It is a combination of economy of words, solid style, airtight pacing, and looseness that is impossible to describe. As much as a copout as this sounds, you have to do it for a while to understand.

Last year I read 92 scripts and approved 8 of them to the second round. This is fairly typical, but I am also a fairly hard judge. Of those 8, 4 made it to the finals, so I feel justified in my harshness.

This year I am currently 115 scripts in and have approved 8. So far, I am finding myself face to face with several of the exact same problems I came across last year.

To preserve my own sanity, I have decided to address these issues.

That being said, here are a few pieces of advice I offer to anyone looking to enter a competition. Take it or leave it, I am just someone who has read a metric shit ton of bad screenplays and have a few words of advice to offer.

DISCLAMER- Before I start, at no point will I be referencing specific, identifiable things from scripts I have read. That would be both a violation of my agreement with The Austin Film Festival, and a total dick move. The only specifics I will give are from existing films that illustrate the points I am trying to make. That being said, I will be speaking in general about trends that I have noticed that shouldn’t need to be mentioned to someone who has spent the time and effort to write and rewrite (hopefully rewrite, this will be addressed later) a 90+ page script. I shouldn’t have to point them out, but…

Format and Spelling.

This is not something that is a conscious judging criterion, but it can hurt you. Screenplays have a VERY strict and rigid format and that format exists for a reason. The format exists so that you can organize and communicate the visual aspects of the movie as well as the dialogue in a simple and universal way that can be easily understood by anyone who knows what a screenplay is. If you cannot write in that format it makes it appear as though you do not know how to write very well. This may not be the case, but it does take some of the benefit of the doubt away.

Simply put, anything that makes it harder for the reader to understand your story, or confuses the reader when they need to double check something hurts you. Did this character enter before, after, or with the other person, or were they there the whole time. Oh, you haven’t separated your stage directions so I have to dig to find it. Even simpler, unless it is a story device, I should know if “Chris” is male or female IMMEDIATELY! This should not be a surprise. Do yourself a favor here.

Oh, and on this point, movies are a visual art form. If you do not see or hear it, it doesn’t exist. Chris the boygirl doesn’t “Look at the bus driver and wonder if he is same guy heshe went to high school with.”

What happens is:

There is a significant difference here. One clearly communicates a visual sequence, the other does not.

Oh, and since we’re talking technical shit: spelling, spelling, and spelling. I know that this article is most likely going to be riddled with spelling and grammar errors, but I am not submitting it for a contest. By entering a writing contest you are asking for your writing to be judged, so don’t be surprised when someone judges your writing. Spell check, read it, have someone else read it. Then fix it.

Now, I have read the original script for Inglourious Basterds and that shit reads like it was spelled by a second grader. But when you are Quentin Tarantino you can spell things however the fuck you want.

I have never rejected a script for these reasons, but they are things you should keep in mind. I have, however, rejected a few scripts for all of the following.

Have some form of “purpose” or “theme”

you want to explore with your script.

No shit? Really!? Wow, thank you so much for the advice. Wherever would I be without your cutting insight? Well, you would be among the 30 or so scripts I reject for this very reason. What is the story really about? What are you trying to say with this? What do I want my audience to take away from this film? If you cannot answer these questions, then ask this one, “WHY THE FUCK AM I WRITING THIS?”

That last question comes into play because if you cannot answer the first three questions you really need to consider stopping. If you cannot answer those three questions you are wasting your, my, and everyone else’s time by putting a group of people on screen and moving them around from one place to another, having them do shit that doesn’t matter. Let me be clear, without purpose there is no meaning, without meaning there is no tension, without tension there is no reason to care about anything that is happening on screen at all.

Think of it from this point of view, imagine watching a movie where nothing that happened mattered, you didn’t care what happened to any of the characters, and there was no real growth or resolution at the end. Is this a movie you want to watch again? Any good movie, even the most seemingly brainless comedy, has this center. Look at Happy Gilmore. Yes, it is stupid, but you see the growth of Happy and come to really, truly care if he is able to save his grandmother’s house. The, “no, you’re a golfer” scene is cathartic because it brings a character you care about to a realization that will make him a better person. Without that, it is just a bunch of jokes about abusing the elderly. As it stands, it is a bunch of jokes about abusing the elderly WITH A HEART.

Know your characters.

Another “no shit” moment you say?

If I had a dollar for every script that seemed perfect, the dialogue was tight, the scenes flowed, the theme was solid and all of a sudden the characters start acting… weird, I could afford to purchase something moderately priced.

Suddenly a formerly intelligent character becomes rather stupid, independent characters suddenly become codependent, a cautious character becomes reckless and begins trusting characters they never would. These aren’t character arc changes, they are plot driven necessities. I am not saying that characters shouldn’t change. Every protagonist needs an arc. That arc is what makes the hero a hero.

I am not talking about Han Solo coming back to help Luke destroy the Death Star in Star Wars (spoiler). That is a character motivated decision. What I am talking about is Han not leaving. Had they been mounting the offensive and Han had said, “Leah, I don’t need this money. Forget Jabba. My place is here, helping the rebels because you NEED ME.” Both of these paths would lead to Han being there at the battle in the end. But him not leaving would not fit or make sense with his character at all.

You need Han flying off, you need to picture him talking to himself, beating himself up until he finally gets to that place where he realizes the right thing to do. That is a definite arc that allows him to be true to himself while still choosing to become the hero. His character drives the plot forward, plot necessities don’t drive his character.

Otherwise it isn’t a person doing what they would do, it is a puppet doing what you want them to do. You can allow the change, but you have to let the change come naturally. If it does come naturally, then it is a motivated character decision, if it doesn’t, it is bad writing.

Don’t try to be funny or force the humor.

Ok, so now I’m just fucking with you, right? Well…

You know all those lines you have in your head that you think are so funny? Well, they aren’t. Sure, some of them are humorous and witty, but not as much as you think.

Real humor is natural and tied to something more than the words. A characters reaction, a situation, the interplay between two characters creates humor. Cramming “witty” and “hilarious” dialogue into scenes might work at first but it wears thin very, very fast. I dislike the film Juno for this very reason. The dialogue is interchangeable because it is nothing but quips and bullshit hipster slang masquerading as funny dialogue.

Movies like Harold and Maude, and Little Miss Sunshine create brilliant humor with relationships. If those character dynamics shifted at all the humor dies. El Matador and Fletch create their humor with character. Those people are funny without being forced. The way they react to situations creates the humor. Change your characters or shift the dialogue and the humor dies I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Also, you know all those really funny inside jokes you and your friends share? Well, they aren’t funny to anyone else. So, while you might be getting a laugh from your buddy, your script evaluator is going to be wondering what the hell is going on.

Good comedy, on a scale as large as a feature film, is a delicate balance, like making a really good gin and tonic. Too much of any one thing and it just tastes strange or fails to get you drunk.

Would a human being actually say this?

Dialogue is tricky. Making multiple people talk in a realistic, believable, and unique way is not something you do by accident. It takes a good ear and a lot of practice. That being said, its inherent difficult is not permission to write bad dialogue. The fact that it is difficult simply means that you, the writer, will have to work twice as hard at it.

Many of these scripts have dialogue that feels as if the writer has never spoken it or even imagined it being spoken. That or it is clumsy and overwritten to the point of painful contrivance. My old theatre teacher called it “table written.” That meaning written seated at a desk without ever hearing it out loud.

Take a second and at least mutter the dialogue to yourself out loud, then ask that question, “Would a human being actually say this?” If you have to qualify it then you need to rewrite it.

Do I mean that all characters should sound the same, they should all say the right thing at the right time and have everything come out perfect? No, I am not saying that. After you decide if a human being would say this, you have to figure out if that particular human being would say it. You’re creating a character that should feel like an actual real person. So, take what you want them to say and make it sound like they said it.

This is difficult, but it means the difference between a real character and a puppet reciting words.

Show me, don’t tell me.

Movies are a visual art. I know I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. MOVIES ARE VISUAL! Yes there is dialogue, but it is a visual medium.

Long, unbroken dialogue scenes are normally fairly dull. Just because it works for Kevin Smith does not mean it will work for you. Remember, long talky scenes are very hard to write if you don’t want them to be booring.

If you had to choose between a movie where someone talks about a bunch of cool shit that happened and one where you see the cool shit that happened, which would you choose?

If you have ever read “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe,” the climactic scene where Edmund breaks the White Witch’s wand is presented rather anticlimactically. You get it in dialogue, after the fact. “Oh, shit! You should have been here! Edmund snuck up on her and before she knew it, he smashed the shit out of her wand (I’m paraphrasing here.).” Had the movie handled it that way, would you have been interested? Seeing is better.

Oh, and while I’m on the subject of telling things, do not use voice over unless there is an actual purpose to it. I do not need five pages of expository voice over that is essentially describing what is happening on screen to understand what is going on. If you cannot communicate a person walking down the road hitchhiking without a voice over telling me, “I walked down the road with my thumb out, trying to get a ride,” then perhaps screenwriting isn’t for you.

God resides in the details, so be sure you chose the right ones to give.

There is a difference between “important” and “unimportant” details. Example, if we enter a diner do not tell me that “a song is playing,” and then give details like the color the vinyl seats and Formica table are, the fact that I know what material they are made of seems extraneous. Tell me what song, or type of music, is playing. Is it on a jukebox, or will there be a DJ breaking in at some point. Think of it this way, how important are things like table color and material to you when you enter a restauraunt. When was the last time you went to eat and thought, “my, what a charming Formica table!” However, if you enter that restaurant and death metal is playing, you might take notice. Unless the appearance of the room plays some thematic function (this diner represents the fifth circle of Hell) it isn’t important.

I also don’t need to know what color the waitress’ uniform is. What I do need to know is what the waitress looks like. Is she young, is she old? Does she look tired, like she is just finishing her shift, or is she more awake, like she’s just starting. Is she smiley and friendly, or distracted and going through the motions. Her appearance and demeanor are “important,” her uniform color is not. You don’t care what your waitress is wearing when you go out to eat, do you? No, you do not. However, you might notice if she is old and tired, or young and hot. Think of it this way, if it matters in every day life then it matters on screen.

If you are writing a TV spec script, make sure you know the show.

A lot of people who are trying to get jobs writing for TV start by writing spec scripts for existing TV shows. This is a tricky proposition. If you do a really good job it could help you get a foot in the door, if you don’t do a really good job you get to look like a damned idiot.

The key here is to realize that the people judging your script, at least at the first round, will be very familiar with the show you are writing. If you area not equally familiar it will show and you script is dead in the water.

Normally characters are what screw these scripts up because they are the easiest thing to screw up. A show like The Office has been on the air for years and fans of the show have spent hours watching those characters, so screwing up Michael or Dwight stands out. The number of 30 Rock scripts that think Jack acts like Tracy, or that Tracy acts like Jenna, or Liz acts like a character who is not, and has never been on the show are staggering. Sometimes it’s not doing something totally out of character, but just having them go too far with something the character does and making a caricature out of them. Yes, Michael Scott is an idiot and having him quote a movie at an inappropriate time works and is funny. Having every line he says be a quote from the same movie doesn’t work, it isn’t funny, and it shows a lack of understanding of the character. One significant character mistake can turn a sure thing into a no in the span of one page.

There are other things. People repeat plotlines, introduce major character changes and details that have been contradicted by earlier episodes, and alter existing storyline. This doesn’t necessarily disqualify the script, but it does show a lack of understanding of what you are writing that makes the writing seem lacking.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some fantastic TV spec scripts out there, but they are by people who know those shows cold. Just remember, if you think there is no way the reader knows the one fact that kills your entire story, there is a way, and it is more likely than you think.

Make it shorter.

I am going to butcher my favorite quote about writing as sadly I neither know it verbatim nor know who said it. “You are not finished writing when you can no longer add anything to your piece; you are finished writing when you can no longer take anything out.” Or, to put it more succinctly, as Elmore Leonard said, “I try to leave out the parts that people skip.” Both of these are sound and logical pieces of advice that are consistently ignored.

As scripts average about a minute per page you want to aim for 90-100 pages. If you need more than 100 pages you had damned well better be David Lean. It’s not that scripts have to be short. It’s that most don’t have to be that long.

I have read so many scripts that would be fantastic if they were shorter. Last year I read a 162 page script that I would have all but guaranteed winning the contest, or at the very least making the finals… if it had been 100 pages.

Let me be clear, it was not the fact that it was 162 pages; it’s the fact that it was a 100 page story told in 162 pages. This tight, gripping narrative suddenly began to wander, then it wandered some more, then it wandered some more. In the end, I had to write the one rejection critique that pissed me off to write. I wanted to give it a yes to the second round, but I could not.

Normally, I advise people to write a draft of the script that is half as long as their first draft. This is not meant to be a final draft at all, it is meant to force you to focus on what is necessary for your story. This gives you the freedom to explore themes and scenes and ideas inside that essential framework and strengthen your story.

The worst, and at times best, thing we do as writers is to fall in love with our own words and characters, and there is nothing harder than having to eliminate something you really love from a script, no matter how unnecessary it is.

Is this scene necessary?

Does every scene in a movie have to be absolutely vital to the plot? No. Does every scene in a movie need to be vital to the development of a character? No. Does every scene in a movie have to move the plot or advance the characters in some way? No. Does every scene need to do at least one of these things? Absolutely.

Many writers will throw scenes in for no discernable reason. It’s as if they think a single joke, a cool conversation, or an awesome chase scene is enough reason to have the characters do something. For the most part those are what you would call “bad” reasons for putting a scene in your script.

As David Mamet, who is a better writer than you are, said in his letter to the writing staff of “The Unit,”

Someone has to make the scene dramatic. It is not the actors job (the actors job is to be truthful). It is not the director’s job. His or her job is to film it straightforwardly and remind the actors to talk fast. It is *YOUR* job.

Every scene must be dramatic. That means: the main character must have a simple, straightforward, pressing need which impels him or her to show up in the scene.

This need is why they *CAME*. It is what the scene is about. Their attempt to get this need met *WILL* lead, at the end of the scene, to *FAILURE* – This is how the scene is *OVER*. It, this failure, will, then, of necessity, propel us into the *NEXT* scene.

All these attempts, taken together, will, over the course of the episode, constitute the *PLOT*.

Any scene, thus, which does not both advance the plot, and standalone (That is, dramatically, by itself, on its own merits) is either superfluous, or incorrectly written.

Read more: A Letter from David Mamet to the Writers of The Unit | /Film http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/23/a-letter-from-david-mamet-to-the-writers-of-the-unit/#ixzz0qVFv3o4A

So, there you have it. If the scene seems unnecessary, then it is. If it isn’t moving the story or developing a character it is boring the audience and needs to be gone.

Have an actual reason for every character.

Sound familiar, it should.

What do I mean by “actual reason?” Well… You know all those hilarious lines that you just need a place for? Some people think, “Hey, I’ll just throw in a ‘wacky’ best friend and let him/her say all of these awesome things!” There are people who think this is a good idea, and those people are idiots.

I am not saying there is no place for a comic relief character, or a “wacky” best friend or neighbor saying brilliantly funny things. Those characters are often some of the best and most memorable ones. What I am saying is they have to serve a purpose beyond being funny. They need to have a reason to be there. If the character isn’t assisting, challenging, sabotaging, guiding, blocking, hunting, or running from something or someone then they shouldn’t be there. Unnecessary characters feel unnecessary, and in turn make their scenes feel unnecessary, which can be problematic if the scene actually is necessary.

Characters that exist to give information, or just say funny things are annoying. They have to serve a purpose. Randall in “Clerks,” is the “wacky” friend who says all the funny, shocking, and interesting things, but he is also, in an odd way, the moral center of the film. He knows who, and what, he is and accepts it and shows how fully Dante doesn’t know these things. In a very profound way Randall is the main force pushing Dante towards growing up. Not “growing up” and going to college and getting married, but growing up by accepting who he is and deciding if he wants to do anything about it.

A better example of the nonsense character that has a major purpose is “Johnny” in “Airplane!” “Who’s Johnny?” you say (I am not going to make a fucking De Barge reference here)? ” And Leon is getting laaaaarrrrrger.” ” Oh, it’s a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol.” Remember him?

That character seems unnecessary, and in some ways he is, but he does serve a purpose. “Airplane!” draws its humor from the absurdity of the situation, and how deathly serious every character is. Johnny exists as a hurricane of chaos in a calm ocean of earnestness (that’s right, extended metaphor!) who highlights just how serious everyone is else, and how ridiculous that seriousness is. He is the only character who realizes that the move is a comedy. Everyone else is in a heavy drama, and everything they do has dire consequences. Throw in a character who is the embodiment of chaos, who is in on the joke, and whose behavior is not just tolerated, but somehow accepted, because the only person who realizes Johnny is funny is Johnny, and suddenly that character becomes more than a wacky diversion and this life or death situation is made totally absurd. As ridiculous as he is his character serves a purpose. He is comic relief IN A COMEDY! He is the movie. He embodies the chaos the film is trying to create and removing him weakens the film.

Put simply, every character does not have to be vital, but they have to be necessary.

Outline.

How long does it take to realize that a script was written without the writer outlining it first? On average, it takes about 40-50 pages. How can you tell this? It’s quite simple.

The first 40 or so pages of a script are the exposition and rising action. This is the easiest part to write because all you need is a situation. A guy does X it causes problems with Y. Spend some time setting up the guy, give me some lead up to X, and show how Y is effected and you are good.

Now it becomes a problem. What happens next? There is a difference between a situation and a story. A story needs some things. It needs a theme, it needs character arc, it needs a climax, it needs some form of resolution, and it has to happen in a clearly thought out and balanced way. I use “The Karate Kid,” as an example of what not to do. That is a long, long, movie. It is over two hours long and of those two hours, less than 40 seconds are spent on falling action and dénouement. He wins the tournament and that is it. Does this fit the theme of the film? No, it does not. The central idea of the film is that winning the tournament is not as important as finding balance in life. However, once he wins, it’s over.

People tend to do this a lot. They front load their script with a lot of information early on and then rush at the end.

If only there was some way to, I don’t know, organize your ideas before hand and then flesh those ideas out during the writing process. Oh, wait…

James Ellroy the novelist regularly writes 80+ page outlines for his books. He says he doesn’t believe in improvisation in writing. These outlines allow him to manage multiple first person story lines and a massive amount of characters (the book “LA Confidential has over 100 named characters in it) and still balance the narrative.

Outlining allows you to see how your pacing, characters, action, arcs, and themes fit together, so you know if you are rushing something important, or spending too much time on something that is ultimately pointless.

So….

Now, after all of this, are my suggestions a fool proof way to write a winning screenplay? No. Not in the slightest. Sadly, there is no formula. Oh, there are formulas and guides and strategies that work more often than most people want to admit, but in the end there is nothing that guarantees a good script.

No matter what anyone says, it comes down to one rule and one rule only.

Have a good story that you really want to tell

and tell it well.

That’s easy, right? You can totally do that in an afternoon.

Sadly, this is where shit gets complicated. There are so many stories out there and so many ways to tell them that ultimately it is up to you to have the love, the dedication, and to do the work. Because people forget that writing is work. It is hard, solitary, often thankless work. If you don’t love doing it, I mean absolutely LOVE doing it, you aren’t going to get very far. Every script I approved shared this trait. I could see the love and excitement of the writer on every page. Right now it is almost 3 am and I should be finishing up and going to bed, but I love what I am writing enough to sit here and do it as best I can, and even then I realize I am going to rewrite this a few times before you lay eyes on it. That is the beauty of writing. I love it enough that if nobody else ever reads this, I am ok with that and that is what you have to do to be able to write well.

Find the story that makes you want to stay up all night writing, then write it. Then rewrite that. Then cut it in half and write it again. Then rewrite that. Michael Arndt had over 100 drafts of “Little Miss Sunshine” on his computer. That does not mean 100 page one rewrites, but he did go back and change, tweak, add, remove, and tighten it 100 times. If you are like me and the idea of doing this excites you, then you have your story. If the idea of doing that scares or turns you off, maybe you need to rethink what you are writing.

What it really boils down to is if you love what you are doing and are excited about your story that love and excitement will come across. So find your love, and then get to writing. Maybe I’ll be judging your work soon.

Finally, Jim and Clarkson watch a movie they LIKE!

From the dawn of time we came; moving silently down through the centuries, living many secret lives, struggling to reach the time of the Gathering; when the few who remain will battle to the last. No one has ever known we were among you… until now.

That’s right (500) Days of Summer. I know. I am as surprised as you are by this one, in many ways. For starters I decided I wasn’t going to see or enjoy this film a long time ago. There are a few things about it that hit the “NO” switch for me. Something about the parentheses in the title, the clever double entendre of the name, the genre, and the inclusion of Zooey Deschanel put this on my no fly. Oh, and it was billed as a romantic comedy, so that kind of put two in the back of its head.

Granted, I have many friends, many of whom I trust implicitly (that would be you Nancy) who told me how good it was. I just couldn’t give in. At a point I started wanting to but had made such a massive prick out of myself screaming, “No, NO, NOOOO!!” that I couldn’t really backtrack and save face. Then the fine folk at Sony Pictures gave me an out.

I had to see the only feature directed by the man Sony thought was the right choice to replace Sam Raimi to direct the next Spider Man. It was perfect. Here we are talking about one of the biggest film franchises EVER, directed by a man who has been a cult sensation from his first film. I was clean off the hook.

Don’t get me wrong. I realize how empty this excuse is. The director of the next Spider Man is about as important as who’ll be catering it. Not that the director isn’t important, but come on! This is Spider Man and Sony just cut loose the guy who built the franchise out of a giant pile of money. They need a guy who has a taste of success and some amount of skill who will do what he is told.

So, that aside I watched (500) Days of Summer and was completely blown away. Now, this isn’t a piece of genre defining, paradigm shifting filmmaking. What it is, is a very impressive piece of filmmaking that is both visually impressive, but also stylistically and narratively inventive, engaging, and ballsy. That’s right, ballsy. They tell you up front that you are not watching a love story. They invite you along and tell you that what you are seeing is doomed and you stay right there with them.

On it’s most basic level this is the story of Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a greeting card writer who enters into a relationship with Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel). We see them come together and fall apart. Now, were this a standard narrative it wouldn’t have much impact. However it shifts back and forth throughout the 500 days of the relationship, many times not giving you the context for what you are seeing until much later, thrusting you back and forth through the upheaval of a relationship with someone who isn’t really as into it as you are. So the whole “romantic comedy” thing was basically just bullshit.

This film takes HUGE chances and they pay off. It plays not only with non linear, but shifting perspective on scenes, and very inventive split screen. While it is all told from Tom’s point of view the use of non linear allows his perspective to change and gives us a new way of seeing something we thought we understood.

There are some parts of this movie that are painful, especially if you’ve ever been in a relationship with someone who has checked out while you were still fully invested. But that makes it all the more powerful.

I can see how this appears to be one of those “free spirited woman shows the up tight guy how to really live” type movies like “Garden State.” That is something else I held against it. It isn’t that kind of movie.

One of the reasons I thought this is the presence of the female lead. Zooey Deschanel is not one of my favorite actresses. I don’t know if it’s her style or just the parts but she always seems disconnected, ambivalent, and almost apathetic. For some reason that puts her in the “free spirit” role. She’s always seemed kind of blank to me. Strange thing, that works perfectly in this part. There is a distance she communicates that is integral to the film as a hole.

The real stand out performance to me was Chloe Moretz (Hit Girl from Kick Ass, and star of the upcoming remake of “Let the Right One In.”) as Tom’s little sister who is not only his advisor and confidant, but the crisis intervention specialist his friends call in. She was 12 at the time this came out, but I honestly think she is just a short 30 year old. There is a maturity to the way she talks and carries herself that really makes it hard to believe she is that young. This isn’t some kid saying grown up lines getting an “awww! Ain’t that cute?” from the audience. It feels more like you’re watching one of those parent/kid switch bodies movies from a different point of view. She is remarkable and I look forward to seeing more from her.

The other performances are fantastic. Gordon-Levitt is great, as usual. Geoffrey Arned of Super Troopers and being married to Christine Hendricks fame stands out particularly well as Tom’s best friend. There are others, but that shit would get repetitive fast. Let me just throw out a blanket the supporting cast was superb line and be done with it.

In short, I really liked this movie. I liked it more than I though I would and I wish I had seen it sooner. I think you will like it if you let yourself. There are some cutesy things but they work with the style and aren’t annoyingly so. More than anything, I think this is a movie most people can relate to on a very real level and that is a very hard thing to achieve.

Double Downer Documentary Review

School is out and I am living the film lovers dream. I stay up late, sleep as much as I want and watch whatever movies I feel like watching whenever I feel like watching them. So I thought, what better way to kick this season off than two thoroughly depressing documentaries? In less than 24 hours I watched “The Cove,” and “The Bridge,” and I figured that instead of throwing two different piles of depression at your feet I might as well rip off the band aid and get it all out of the way in one painful shot.

“The Cove”

Two things. First this is a very, VERY one sided movie that borders on propaganda. Second, it is a very good movie that is very one sided and borders on propaganda. For those unaware, this is a movie about the city of Taiji, Japan where every year dolphins are driven from their natural migratory route into a cove where they are made available for purchase to different water parks around the world. This part is public knowledge and people from all over the world got o see the adorable bottle nosed dolphins go through the selection process. What is less than public is how the remaining dolphins are then moved to a hidden cove to the side and slaughtered, and I do mean slaughtered.

This is a fascinating documentary in many ways, mostly because of how most of the footage is obtained. We are not talking Michael Moore ambush tactics, we are talking James Bond style shit. They work with free divers, military grade night vision and thermal cameras, custom designed fake rock camera enclosures and get some of the most striking and disturbing footage I have ever seen.

“The Cove” is also very unique in how it is structured. This is more of a thriller than a conventional documentary. The level of clandestine operating that goes into it is outright stunning. There are moments of absolute dread in it as people are sneaking into highly restricted areas to plant cameras so that they might expose this horror to the world. It is very powerful and affecting. By and large this cloak and dagger angle is played up considerably and kind of leaves the other aspects of their message behind.

I did like this movie but I do have some problems with it. My problems are summed up this way. Imagine a group of foreigners, lets go with Italians, snuck into the US, broke US laws, and made a move about the cattle industry for release outside of the US saying “look at how horrible you are! YOU NEED TO STOP!” Would that bother you? The reaction here would be similar to how the Japanese react to it. First, it’s not in my language and therefore not made for me. Second, that is kind of a rude thing to do. Third, the Japanese don’t really care about what the world thinks when it comes to whaling and killing dolphins. If this were made to really get the attention of the Japanese it would probably be in Japanese and try to get the people to change how they approach these things. Approach them gently and respectfully and appeal to their decency. This was made to get people outside of Japan upset and try to force change from the outside. I am not trying to start any shit here, I am just throwing this out there for though.

There is an agenda here but it kind of gets lost in the flash of the production. They shift from how wrong it is to kill dolphins this way to how wrong it is to kill whales to the danger of mercury in dolphins that is somehow not present in whales to the corruption of Japan in getting countries to side with them on the international whaling commission. Were this a movie solely about “The Cove,” as the title might lead one to believe, then it should focus entirely on what happens there.

That is the problem I have with this film. I liked it and was incredibly moved by it, but the impact it had was purely visceral. Even now it is difficult to focus on what the message was other than “Japan is bad for doing this.” It is pretty scattershot and very one sided.

In the end what you have is a movie that will evoke strong emotions and reinforce opinions you already had. I think a more focused approach might give the film’s impact more staying power.

This is very much the way of modern documentary. The filmmakers become the subject, you are fed their opinions, and the audience gets taken in by a slickly packaged piece of propaganda (I am not using this term in a derogatory way, it is a simple statement of fact).

But I did find it very entertaining and affecting.

“The Bridge”

My mother is from the Bay Area and as a result I have grown up with a very romanticized and poetic view of San Francisco and areas outlying. My grandfather actually owned a construction company there and was responsible for much of the beautiful skyline. That beauty is a big part of what makes this movie so powerful.

Put simply, this is a movie about the people who choose The Golden Gate Bridge to commit suicide. The question that permeates the film is why is such a beautiful, idyllic location the most popular suicide spot in the world. There is an average of one suicide there every two weeks, and over 1200 have been recorded.

The filmmakers set up cameras in areas around the bridge and using telephoto lenses watched people on the bridge for a year. In the end they recorded 23 of the 24 known suicides committed that year. I know this might seem ghoulish, I know you are thinking why didn’t they do something to stop them. Well, yes it is a bit ghoulish, but these are people who are choosing a very public, very tourist and family popular spot to do this. In many ways they are consenting to be filmed when they decide to jump. The reason they don’t do anything to stop them is that until they jump, all they are doing is walking across the bridge by themselves.

Somehow this film pulls off the amazing feat of dancing the fine line between being tactlessly morbid and remarkably sensitive, between being deeply disturbing and viscerally fascinating.

There are interviews with the friends and family members of the jumpers caught on film. There are interviews with people who witnessed the jumpers and one man who pulled someone back from the edge. This movie quietly stays with you. This might seem an odd statement, but it is fitting. This won’t cause a breakdown or shatter your view of the world, but the awareness of how present the darkness felt by some people is cannot be denied. You are forced to reconcile the image of this stunningly gorgeous monument to human endeavor sitting above one of the most strikingly beautiful areas on the planet with the sadness of people choosing to end their lives.

I did speak with my mother about this film and she told me that she knew someone who had a parent end their life there when she was younger. Her history, however, did not shut her off to the film, rather it made her more interested in seeing it.

Before this movie The Golden Gate Bridge always brought images of family and cold breezes in the middle of summer and cable car rides and Ghirardelli chocolate. I guess what this movie does is make you realize that there is more than one way to look at anything, and that sometimes we are blind to the pain felt by those walking right beside us.

Jim and Clarkson take a look at the summer movie phenomenon starting at its beginning in 1975.

Judd Apatow is getting serious in the oddest way. Last year around this time he released “Funny People,” a movie I wish that I would have written. Not because of the money or anything, but because it hit a chord with me that I would love to hit with others. It was this blending of comedy, drama, and tragedy that I found fascinating. The balance he struck between the performance world of comedians and the struggles that occur offstage was extremely moving. There was a humanity he revealed behind that curtain that has not really been captured before. This isn’t the world of the “sad clown,” this is the world of the fucked up, self loathing man who gets just about anything he wants when he wants it and how empty that leaves him.

Almost a year later he delivers, “Get Him To The Greek.” Now, this is an Apatow production, but he didn’t direct it, and that might be to its detriment. Instead we get Nick Stoller of “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” fame in a spin off of that film that shares many similarities with Apatow’s “Funny People.

How? Well, it is the story of a young man in a certain industry who is struggling to get a foothold who stumbles on a once in a lifetime opportunity to spend time with a seasoned vet and ends up getting closer to that person while learning about life and how to really succeed.

In “Greek,” we get Jonah Hill playing Aaron Green, a young record exec who is struggling to get ahead while maintaining his relationship with his doctor girlfriend. He stumbles onto an opportunity to escort his musical idol from London to New York and on to Los Angeles for a much hyped concert. That’s the basic outline. Throw in the hard partying, drug using, manipulative nature of Aldus Snow, the rock star in question, and things quickly go to hell from there.

But there is a bit more going on here than that. This movie, in a word, is schizophrenic. It starts out as a straight comedy and takes a hard turn into serious, then back to comedy, then back to serious. From an emotional standpoint, this is a tough movie to follow. The drama and comedy are so different from each other and switch back and forth so quickly that it is a bit jarring.

Don’t get me wrong. I like this movie, not as much as I liked “Funny People,” but I did like it. Apatow has a much subtler touch and might have guided things a little more smoothly. Stoller is a much more frenetic style and things just slam into each other instead of flowing. Don’t get me wrong, it is a difficult thing to accomplish, but in a movie like this that balance is necessary.

Now, the performances are outstanding. Russell Brand as rock star Aldus Snow is dead on. He embodies the old school rock and roll lifestyle to absolute perfection. The absolute seriousness with which he takes himself, the cluelessness about the real world, the inability to relate to anyone who is anything but a sycophant is brilliantly played. He is rock and roll. Jonah Hill plays the same part he always plays and plays it well.

The real problem is that it seemed like this film was stuck between two possible scenarios. Most of what happens in the trailer is not in the film which leads me to the conclusion that, like Anchorman, there were a few different story ideas played with during the filming and what we got was put together after the fact. There is a balancing act between a “stuffy guy meets free spirit who teaches him how to live,” and a “successful man with demons is missing the woman who could make him happy,” line. The jumping back and forth shows some weakness.

Again, the parts that work, work really well. The parts that don’t feel slightly unnecassary but don’t ruin the film, the just kind of weigh it down. It just feels like there is too much going on. Had they not done as much with the wife and kid angle they could have focused more on the relationship between Aldus and Aaron there could have been a much tighter and altogether stronger film.

Basically I liked it, but I felt as though there was a movie in there somewhere I would have liked more.

It’s too early to be a review, too late to be a preview. Whatever you call it, we look at the summer 2010 glut… I mean run of movies.

Clarkson and Jim go slightly more obscure in their assault on “The Last American Virgin.”

So, I’m going to skip the clever images and extensive, exhaustive background here and get right to it.

I saw the new “Karate Kid” tonight, and to be blunt, I think it is far superior to the original. I was flat out opposed to this when I first heard about it, and am willing to admit that I was wrong. Very wrong. There are many people who hold the original up to an unrealistic standard that it outright does not deserve. Yes it is a classic of my childhood and I have many fond memories of it throughout my life. It was not a perfect, or for that matter particularly good movie. If you don’t believe me try watching it again divorced from your childhood. If you remove the nostalgia you are left with a fairly mediocre film.

This is not to say that the new one is a masterpiece, but there are SEVERAL flaws in the original film that are corrected in this one. In his rather positive review, Roger Ebert observes, ” The original was one of its year’s best movies. The new one lacks the perfect freshness of that one; there aren’t many surprises, as it follows the 1984 version almost point by point.”

I am going to disagree with the “one of its year’s best movies,” line, but more on that at another time. What I am going with is “it follows the 1984 version almost point by point.” What makes this film superior is when and how it deviates from the original. There are some things I have always had a problem with in the original and I am going to discuss each one of them alongside how the remake fixed them.

What happened to dad?

In the original series Daniel’s father is not mentioned until almost half way through part two. You don’t know if mom is divorced, you don’t know if dad died, you don’t know if he ran off before Daniel was born, you don’t know if he was some magic virgin birth spawned by midi-chlorians. You don’t know anything about him. That is a HUGE sticking point for me. How do you not mention dad? He had to go somewhere and what happened to him is going to have a huge impact on how Daniel develops as a character.

In the remake you get one shot, just one, that explains the entire thing with subtle beauty. Before a single line of dialogue is spoken we are given a shot of the door jamb in Dre’s room. On it you have lines marking his height at different dates and the respective significant events. It goes from “got first tooth,” to, “hit first home run,” then abruptly stops at, “dad died.” That might seem morbid to list, but it is obvious that this is Dre cataloging his life in the only way he knows how, and when his father dies that suddenly stops because part of his life is over. Before he leaves, he takes a pencil and marks the wall at his height, far above the last mark and writes, “Moved to China,” as his last action before leaving the only home he’s ever known.

The move.

This is one of my biggest problems with the original. You are given no real reason for the move. Yes, there is mention of a job with “Rocket Computers,” but that seems to vanish almost immediately as she becomes a waitress/manager in training for “The Orient Express Restaurant.” This makes the move feel less like a character situation and more like a plot device. We don’t see anything that Daniel is leaving behind, we don’t see any gain to the move, all we do see is a situational necessity that creates a fish out of water scenario which doesn’t play very true.

In the new one mom has a job that relocates her. There is a solid, actual reason for it. We not only see the room where Dre spent his life but we also see him saying goodbye to his best friend. This adds weight. Here he is moving for a definite reason that is beyond his control and leaving an actual life behind. His last moments in his room were especially moving for me because I’ve been in that situation before. When I was 8 my dad was stationed in Panama for 3 years and I had to pack the only room I’d ever known to move to a country where I didn’t know anybody, didn’t speak the language, and seemed like it was on the other side of the world. I remember sitting in my packed up room and feeling so overwhelmed, and that feeling was captured perfectly in this movie.

Mom

Mrs. LaRusso exists because Daniel needs at least one parent to keep it from being a movie about a homeless kid learning how to stand up to the rich kids who keep him from eating from their dumpsters. She isn’t developed beyond, “grinning and optimistic.” She might have more going on, but we never see it. With the exception of her making breakfast once and driving her son on the most awkward first date in movie history that doesn’t end with Ben Stiller’s dick caught in a zipper, she is a non entity in his life. In fact, Daniels entire homelike is left out of it. This makes his character less real. Instead of being someone we can relate to he becomes someone who moves from necessary situation to necessary situation. He is a function of the plot, instead of the plot being a function of his actions.

Dre’s mother is an actual, believable parent figure. She takes him to his first day of school, goes out and does things with him, and notices when he is out late with the stranger who is teaching him how to fight. Basically, she serves a purpose.

Fish out of water.

The original was pushing this point. Yeah, moving from New Jersey to California is a culture shock. People have natural tans, it doesn’t look like Bosnia, and everything doesn’t smell like garlic and sewage. But it’s still basically the same culture.

Moving to China, on the other hand. Not only does he not know the language, he doesn’t understand the customs, the culture, etiquette, anything. He is literally as far away from everything he knows as he can get.

Daniel/Dre.

The problem with Daniel stems from many of the other problems in the film. He is a stereotypical teenage geek we know very little about. He gets stuck in this situation that has no real gravity (the move), and ends up in a fight with some guy because he doesn’t know when to mind his own business and gets in over his head. I want to like him more but the movie gives me no real reason to.

Part of how they fix this is by making Dre much younger and smaller. You feel for him. He is not only a fish out of water, he is a fish out of his depth. He is the new kid who talks to a girl and ends up getting his ass kicked, hard. You feel for the kid because not only is there nothing in his new world he can relate to, there is nothing we can relate to. With him as our only guide we see everything as he does, so his triumphs and defeats hit us especially hard.

The bully/girl situation.

The 80’s were an interesting time in American movies. There was this phenomena of the preppy bad guy that was embodied by Bill Zabka. Now, if you read any interview with Zabka he comes off as one of the nicest guys out there. But in the 80’s we fell in love with the outsider and Zabka was the antithesis of this. So we get this guy who has money, confidence, and popularity which in the world of the 80’s means ASSHOLE before he can even open his mouth to prove or disprove it. In the original we meet Johnny and are immediately programmed to dislike him. They make him pushy and a bit of a jerk, but not some completely evil prick, all we know is that he is the opposite of Daniel and therefore is bad. But really there is no reason to see him as the bad guy. Not because he is a good guy, but because they spend so little time setting him up that you are forced to make assumptions with no grounds.

The girl situation makes me a bit nuts too. We are not given any reason to really think Ally would be attracted to Daniel. During the 80’s all you needed was the girl talking to him and that becomes the motivation. You aren’t given a reason, it’s happening so that is the reason.

The bullies in the remake are hard, mean little bastards who just plain don’t like Dre. There is no real reason given, but as he is the foreigner and is talking to a girl who is a close family friend of one of them there is some motivation to be found. This is where the fish out of water strengthens things. He has no idea what is going on and neither do we, all that we know is this guy thinks a line has been crossed. Not only is this guy hyper aggressive, the whole unknown aspect of it makes him the situation that much harder.

Also, the girl is more believable because she is in a very strict culture and is fascinated by the new guy. He is different and doesn’t try and force her to be anything, so her interest is easier to buy.

Miyagi/Han

I am not going to disparage Miyagi at all. He is iconic and all that but there are some very big gaps with him. First off, Pat Morita wasn’t a martial artist. It is hard to believe that an old man who can barely kick above his knee is an ass kicking machine. There are some interesting avenues that are left unexplored. He is a Medal of Honor winner who lost his family 40 year earlier. This is heartbreaking but they don’t really go much further with it. He is more of a sketch than a fully drawn character. Also, we are not given any reason to buy his relationship with Daniel. It happened, so we are supposed to accept it. Think what you want about this, but I have watched that movie closer than I should have and there is no development there. We go from him not talking, to suddenly they are hanging out, to he is training him. We don’t see any bonding happen.

First off, Jackie Chan can kick the world’s ass. This is fact. So right off the bat it is easy to buy him as a martial arts coach. I am not going to spoil this but you are given quite a bit of believable bonding between him and Dre. You see it happen, you see him grow attached and you see Dre help him as much as he is helping Dre. It is a very strong and fully developed relationship that is moving.

Sensei Kreese/Master Li

We are given little information about Kreese other than he is a hard assed ex-soldier who teaches hyper aggressive karate to a group of impressionable teenagers. He does go way overboard at the end, and it is a little bit of a surprise. He struck me as someone who would want Daniel beaten in public. Not taken out, but defeated to show how bad ass he is. His change is a bit too much for me and it happens too quickly.

Master Li, on the other hand, comes off as a dangerous egomaniac. His school is adorned with massive pictures of him and he teaches a bit beyond the, “Strike hard, strike first, no mercy,” ideals of Kreese. The first time we see him he slaps a child for not striking another child who is on the ground. “We do not stop when our enemy is on the ground,” he tells him. “Our enemies deserve pain.” He is not about victory, he is about total destruction of your opponent. The scenes with Kreese upset me, the scenes with Li sicken me. You believe that Li wants to see Dre injured, not to show the superiority of his school, but to show what happens when you question him.

Training

The original is famous for the wax on/wax off, sand the floor, paint the fence, side to side training scenes. Yes, they are iconic, but they leave quite a bit to be desired when it comes to actual martial arts training. He never spars with Daniel, you never see LaRusso throw a punch in an actual combat setting. You get one scene of blocking, one scene of punching, then a bunch of balance training. Think about this, the first time you see Daniel kick is in the tournament. He would not have made it past the first match.

Now the training here does not have the same iconic feel, but it does have a more realistic vibe to it. Dre is taught how to combine blocks with punches, kicks, sweeps, and grapples. He learns how to use the moves together and actually fight. When he starts winning it is believable. You see what he actually learned come into practice so it feels like what’s happening should be happening. He learned a style that works, he isn’t winning because the script needed him to.

The two tournaments build in a very similar way, but the remake builds the tension better. You see him challenged, you see him struggle, but you also see his training kick in so you believe it. They also replace Joe “Bean” Esposito’s “You’re the Best,” with “Higher Ground,” by The Red Hot Chili Peppers. As a kid of the 80’s I love, “You’re the Best,” but as a fan of punk and hard rock, “Higher Ground,” got me more into it.

Li’s character makes more sense in the tournament, partly because of the addition of one line. Where Kreese says, “I don’t want him beat,” Li says, “I don’t want him beat, I want him broken.” This ups the ante. You know this man has no problem with kids getting hurt, so the idea of him taking pride in the dismantling of a 12 year old isn’t surprising. This kid challenged him, so he deserves to be hurt. Oh, and the way he is taken out of commission is brutal and very deliberate, there is no question.

Dénouement

I have always had a problem with the denouement in the original film. From the landing of the crane kick to credits roll is less than 30 seconds. All you get is, “You’re all right LaRusso,” and that’s it. For a movie that clocks in at 2 hours and 6 minutes to spend that little time untying the knot is unacceptable. It just yanks the rug out.

The new version doesn’t add much in the way of time, maybe a few minutes, but it is what they do with that time that makes it great. I’m not going to give anything away, but there is a lot that happens here and it is very moving.

All in all the new version does a better job with the story than the original. It is better paced, more believable, more emotional, and delivers the message better. The original is still a classic of my childhood, but the new one is something that took that frame and painted a better picture.

Oh, and for those who complain about movie companies, “ruining your childhood,” by doing movies like this, invest in some therapy. If your childhood rests on the sanctity of “The Karate Kid,” you may need to get out more.

Movie adaptations of old TV shows have become the norm these days. This isn’t due to some creative drought in Hollywood. It’s simple economics. People go see them, so they keep making them. It really is that simple. The fact that almost every one of them sucks doesn’t stop the studios from making them because it doesn’t stop us from seeing them.

How do they keep this many people coming back to the theatre over and over again to see movies that most people know up front are going to suck. Because while the movie machine was getting worse at making movies they were getting much better at making trailers. Most of the truly awful films that have come out lately have had outstanding previews.

Granted, it has become a cliché to say, “Well, all the best parts were in the trailer,” but people still go to the movie. Why is that?

Personally, I am no longer effected by trailers. The only previews that excite me are for the smaller movies that are by directors or writers I know well. Those pull me in. Well, that is about half true. For the big budget movies, the first time I see a really awesome preview I do get excited. I can’t wait to see the movie. For about five minutes. Then my memory allows reality to set in and I’m over it. Those are for the good ones. The bad ones, the cheesy, recycled, formulaic pause at the end before the big flash of action and sound scare the crap out of you previews get a nice, loud laugh out of me. But the ones that at least try to be different hold me for a minute.

But lets be honest, you can tell most of those are going to suck.

It is because of this that I no longer go to the theatre that much. This year I’ve gone about as many times as I use to go in a month. I’ve gotten over the experience and the spectacle and want something more.

But there are a few things that I cannot resist the pull of. Being born in 1975 I am in the nostalgia wheelhouse for what is happening right now. Thankfully most of these proprieties mean nothing to me.

Dallas? Don’t care.

Scooby Doo? Couldn’t give a shit.

Inspector Gadget? Fuck off.

You see, I spent part of my childhood on a military base overseas, so my version of childhood, with a few exceptions, were crap shows that the networks gave to the military to show for free. So I got a few episodes of half season cop shows, soap operas and game shows.

Basically, you do a Hawaiian Heat movie and I’m there. I know, you’ve never heard of it, I know the theme song.

There are a few exceptions, and two of those have recently been taken out back and shot in the head. But the third, I still had hope for.

The first two are Knight Rider. I had the talking KITT car with Michael Knight action figure, “I shall activate the Turbo Boost,” as well as the hot wheels set that let you bust through an 18 wheeler. Yeah, that was how I rolled. And The Dukes of Hazzard. I still remember going to McDonalds to get the car shaped happy meals and being pissed because I kept getting Daisy’s Jeep and Uncle Jessie’s Truck. Granted, they were cheap, paper thin plastic, but getting the General Lee was like dying and going to heaven.

Then the remake/reissue what the fuck ever you want to call them. First, Broken Lizard made a…. Well, it looked like the General and had a blonde and a dark haired fellow who went by Bo and Luke, but the rest. Let’s just say I preferred Coy and Vance (look it up). Too much was way, way wrong.

Well, I though that was as bad as it could get until I saw the Knight Rider series. I just… I would rather not say anything about that.

The third was most likely my most treasured.

In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn’t commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.

I had the complete collection of figures, I ate Mr. T cereal, if I could get hold of it, I owned it.

Why do I tell you all this? So you can understand where I come from with this review. Because if I can like this movie, you most likely will too.

If on 6/14/2010 around mid afternoon you heard a strange sound, it was the sound of my childhood screaming this:

Is this a perfect movie? No. Is it a solid action film? Yes.

Granted this does fall victim to the choppy editing that has come to dominate action films today, but by and large I don’t mind too much. Yes, it is kinetic and could be slowed down, but it does not ruin the impact of the action scenes.

Let’s go point by point here and see how the movie stacks up.

1) Plot.

Series: Well, the plots of the series are a bit repetitive. Someone has a problem, no one else can help, and they are able to find and hire The A-Team. Typically episodes were feel good social issue things. There area gangs in our area, there is a corrupt businessman doing corrupt things.

Movie: The movie is basically the back story, it is the story of the credits. There is a lot going on. The team is sent on an off the books mission, framed, and face court martial. The escape from prison and go about clearing their names. It gets more confusing. Much, much more confusing, but it’s still entertaining.

Advantage- Draw. I love back story, but I also love commandos helping a neighborhood because a mobster slapped a shoeshine boy (actually happened).

2) The cast.

Lets go one by one here.

Hannibal- I love Liam Neeson, but he is no George Pappard. These are very different performances. In the series they are already established on the run, so Hannibal is a bit less restrained. In the movie he is in full military mode. You do understand what makes him such a great leader more here than in the show. This is where there is the greatest difference. Neeson is the commanding officer, no question and there is a bit more of a military vibe among them.

Advantage- Draw. Peppard was the original choice for McQueen’s part in Magnificent Seven, but I cannot vote against an Irishman.

Face- Bradley Cooper surprises me. Not that long ago he was the awkward guy in Alias that was not in Jennifer Garners league. Now he is the suave cool guy in his movies. This vexes me greatly. Templeton “Faceman” Peck is the scrounger of the group, the James Garner from The Great Escape if you will. And both men played that part believably. There is a subplot with Face in the movie that is a bit much for me, but I didn’t hate it. Dirk Benedict was born for that part though and everything he ever did as an actor made him the logical choice for it, so there were no, “Jennifer Garner wouldn’t make sex with him (even though she did) on Alias,” moments with him.

Advantage- Series. To quote Cooper himself, “If you look up handsome in the dictionary there’s a picture of Dirk. I don’t know what word I’m next to.” Plus, I am biased toward the name Dirk for some reason.

BA- This is an interesting one. As much screen time as T got with this character, there wasn’t much development beyond, he likes kids, hates flying, can drive and build shit. But he was Mr. T. “Rampage” Jackson is an interesting choice and they do a bit more with him. Some of it feels a bit much, but it doesn’t feel forced. Plus they make his relationship with the team, particularly Murdock stronger. Oh, you also see why the former airborne ranger is afraid of flying, which is pretty cool.

Advantage- Draw. Hard to call this. If I take nostalgia out, I go Jackson. But damn, nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

Murdock- This one surprises the hell out of me. Dwight Schultz played Murdock in a very busy, kinetic, showy crazy way. It was never 100% if his insanity was an act or not. As a kid I loved him, as an adult, not so much. Then comes Sharlto Copley. DAMN! He destroys it. His Murdock is insane. Very insane. But that insanity is what makes him good at what he does. He is the best because he is to crazy to be afraid of death. It seems like genuine quirky insanity and he is outstanding.

Advantage- Movie. This one surprises the hell out of me, not that I went with Shartlo, but because it wasn’t even close.

3) The Plans.

In the series the plans were never discussed, they just happened. The van was always involved, and there were always, ALWAYS hubcaps with dynamite in them. There was a ton of gunfire, but the only time anyone ever got shot was when Face got shot during a robbery at a Chinese restaurant. Basically, a bunch of shit happened, gunfire, the van comes flying through a fence or wall, Frisbee hubcap explosions, “I love it when a plan comes together,” and scene.

The movie you get the actual planning. You get Hannibal’s, “Being one step ahead isn’t a plan,” philosophy. There is a definite sense of military strategy and planning going on, so you get to be part of the club when that plan comes together. Oh, and the plans are quite a bit cooler. Oh, and people die in their plans. A lot of people die.

Advantage- Show. Yeah, the movie had cooler shit, but they didn’t have EXPLODING FRIZBEE HUBCAPS!

4) The team.

In the series the team dynamics were more implied than anything and you didn’t really get the strength of their bond as a combat unit. Granted, it was there, but it was done in a more “made for TV” fashion. In the movie, there is a real sense of these guys as a unit that is a family. Most of this is done by showing how they functioned in the military, which the show really couldn’t do. Yes the show was great, but there was a kind of, “just accept it,” vibe to the whole affair. Also, the relationship between BA and Murdock seems more real. Murdock calling him Bosco, his real name, was a nice touch.

Advantage- Movie. They spent a bit more time developing it, and it worked for me.

This puts us at a dead tie.

So, what am I saying here. If you like the series you will probably like the movie. If you want to see a fun action movie, you will like it.

Remember, this is a remake of a TV show from the 80’s manage your own expectations.

There is a possibility my parents were forced to endure this, I don’t remember. The few things I do remember are:

My friend and I feeling like bad asses because we got to sit away from whatever parents brought us.

A plot that 34 year old Jim calls laughably ridiculous, but that 11 year old Jim called the greatest movie ever made.

An overacting, big eyed martial artists who sat by doing the splits between the ropes in his corner.

(pictured- “acting Russian,” and dudes staring at Van Damme’s ass)

I am going to be honest. The first of these seems like a particular dick move on my part. Dragging your parents to something of this magnitude is one thing, abandoning them to enjoy it on your own kicks that up a notch.

The plot… In this case, Wikipedia has done a fine job outlining this, and I will let it speak for me.

Jason Stillwell is a young karate student who trains in his father’s Los Angeles dojo. One night after training has finished, the dojo is visited by members of an organized crime syndicate. Jason’s father is attacked and has his leg broken by Ivan Krushensky, the hired thug of the boss.

The family moves to start a new life in Seattle. Jason has a hard time adjusting and is picked on by the local bullies. One night after being beaten, he is visited by the ghost of Bruce Lee. After being trained by the ghost, Jason goes from a below average fighter to near invincibility. Local fighters organize a fight in an arena between themselves and fighters from the crime syndicate, setting the scene for Jason to meet up with Ivan and settle the score once and for all.

I really wish I could call this synopsis a base exaggeration or an egregious lie, but it is not. This is the actual, factual plot of this film. Someone watched “The Karate Kid,” and thought, “You know what this movie is missing? A Russian bad guy! We hate Russia! This is a slam DUNK!! Also, ghosts. Why weren’t there any ghosts in it? What? Did people stop liking ghosts all of a sudden? Bruce Lee, he did karate, right? He did karate good and people liked him for it. SOMEONE FIND ME A TYPEWRITER AND SOME MONEY! Looks like I’m in the movie bid-ness!”

Bruce Lee has my favorite bullshit ghost sensei martial arts training lines in film history in this film. That is a very specific category, I know, but I created it SPECIFICALLY for this line.

Using a glass of water and a glass of Diet Coke he passes this pearl of ghostly kung f… I mean karate wisdom on. “This is the cup of your knowledge (lifts the water), this is the cup of my knowledge (lifts the Diet Coke).” He then proceeds to dump the water out and fill the cup of Jason’s knowledge with is carbonated karate wisdom. It blew the ass off my 11 year old mind.

Why am I mentioning a film so bad that it doesn’t have a DVD release (for perspective, The Garbage Pail Kids Movie is out on DVD, this isn’t)?

I am mentioning it because of reason number 3. This movie came out in the 80’s when the prevailing attitude toward multiculturalism was, “an accent’s an accent, foreign people are interchangeable!” So when casting a Russian martial artist, the criteria were apparently, in order of importance,

1) Martial arts ability.

2) Muscular physique.

3) Ability to so cool splits.

4) Over the top facial expressions.

…..

100) Cooking ability

101) Actually being Russian, having visiting Russia, having met a Russian, having heard a recording of a Russian, or being able to locate Russia on a globe (in the 80’s this last one would have been MUCH easier).

Given these exacting standards the choice seems to make itself, and the world was introduced to Jean-Claude van Damme. This film would lead to a string of very popular martial arts movies, a startling number of which required him to dance, and an even startling-er number required us to see his ass.

Surprisingly, he became very popular in the mid to late 80s/early 90’s Hollywood martial arts renaissance. Unsurprisingly, that popularity didn’t last very long. By that I mean it didn’t even last into the mid 90’s. Not to say he didn’t continue making movies, oh, God did he ever keep making movies. Those movies just never really found their way into theatres. This isn’t to disparage the man. Fame is a tricky bitch, just ask Leif Garrett, who I am trying to disparage.

He retained enough global fame to keep making movies, just not enough for them to be any good. This wasn’t something that just happened to him. Steven Segal, Jeff Speakman, Don “The Dragon Wilson,” and others were victims of the Hong Kong invasion. Suddenly, they were competing with Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Yung Biao, and Sammo Hung. When you are competing with fast, kinetic action done by people who literally risked their lives doing their own INSANE stunts, and who are being pushed on the public by Quentin Tarantino at the height of his popularity, you are going to lose your audience.

So, Jean-Claude and the others vanished into the world of direct to video. Then something interesting happened. Van Damme and Segal returned. Not in the way one would necessarily expect, but they came back.

Segal returned in his own reality show, “Steven Segal: Lawman,” where he attempts to slap the crime out of New Orleans and brings the idea of “delusions of grandeur,” to almost UNIMAGINABLE heights.

Van Damme returned in JCVD, a critically acclaimed, post modern take on fading celebrity and the idea of “the hero” influenced by the works of Jean-Luc Goddard.

That’s right, this is an honest to GOD Goddard inspired Van Damme film! I know what you’re thinking. 15 years ago, hell 2 years ago, if I had told you that Van Damme would be in a modern French New Wave film about identity, you would have rightfully laughed in my face. You can still do this, but I can back my shit up now.

JCVD is, first and foremost, an entertaining film. But to say that is to undermine what it really is.

Returning to Brussels from America, where he just lost custody of his daughter, Jean-Claude is forced to stop at a post office to get a money transfer because his bank account is empty, he has no cash, and his credit cards aren’t being accepted. He is also about to be released by his attorney because his check bounced. This isn’t some comedic approach to show you how down and out this guy is, it is a very realistic portrayal of a man who is as down on his luck as a man can be. While at the post office he stumbles onto a robbery, is taken hostage but the police think he is actually pulling the robbery.

I was surprised at many things in this film. Firstly, Van Damme can act. I don’t mean that in a, “he can get by on screen,” way, but in a, “holy crap, might he be a good actor,” way. The most impressive moment is a monologue, delivered directly to the camera that is riveting. The monologue brings the second big surprised. Van Damme appears to be completely devoid of ego in this film.

Would Segal deliver a monologue in any film where he states, “It makes me sick to see people… who don’t have what I’ve got. Knowing that they have qualities, too. Much more than I do,” or that shows him begging his agent to get him a part in a studio film at scale (actor minimum wage) just so he could be in a studio picture, or taking a part in a bad sequel to a bad movie, just so he could have some money to pay his lawyer so he might get his daughter back? Would he put a scene where his child talks about the embarrassment and harassment he caused them? “Lawman proves that he lacks the self awareness to do this.

So, what does this film tell us about Van Damme? Well, he might be silly, but he understands that he is silly. He isn’t the star he once was and he has accepted that. In other words, he has grown up and actually has something akin to perspective about his life and fame.

(pictured- grown up perspective)

Yes, this is a movie and not real life, but for an actor to take a role as themselves that puts this much on the table is remarkable. He humbles himself in this film. Not in any grand way, but in a very simple and powerful way. In laying himself bare as being a flawed human being. This is a ballsy movie that ultimately delivers.

That being said, this is a very stylized film. It uses many different narrative tricks and gimmicks and I have seen it criticized for that. Those criticism are bullshit. Every director uses these tricks and gimmicks, many very good directors use quite a few of them in their films. That is what directors do.

I chalk a great deal of the criticism of this film (there isn’t much, but there is some) to cinematic snobbery. There are people who simply won’t get past the fact that it is a Van Damme movie, even though it isn’t a “Van Damme movie,” if that makes any sense. This is a very honest and moving piece of film if you allow it to be.

Let me be clear. You need to check your Jean-Claude baggage for this movie. If you bring it in you will be disappointed and miss a very good film. If you leave it at the door you will see something different, something unique and fresh, something risky and honest. And isn’t that something we have been lacking lately?

]]> http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/06/15/big-jim-newish-review-jcvd/feed/ http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/06/13/remakes-sometimes-they-dont-suck/ http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/06/13/remakes-sometimes-they-dont-suck/#comments Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:32:53 +0000 thefilmthugs Shows http://thefilmthugs.podbean.com/2010/06/13/remakes-sometimes-they-dont-suck/

Jim and Clarkson take a look at remakes that don’t utterly fail.

So…

Turns out I use to have a Xanga. For those who don’t know, Xanga is like MySpace, only just for blogging. And like MySpace it still “kind of” exists.

I recently logged on and checked out some of my older writing. By older I simply mean writing from early 2005. Most of these writings are movie reviews. Since this site now exists I have decided to repost some of them here. There will be some things that are repetitive from the show, but these are the early drafts of those thoughts.

Each time I post one I will refer to it as “A Big Jim Classic,” because I am a bit egotistical and self deprecating at the same time. Here is my first installment.

5/24/05

If “Sith” means “Shitty Movie” then the “Sith” truly had their revenge.

So, a guy walks into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender goes to the end of the bar, audibly opens his zipper and a few moments later returns to the man with a tall glass of warm yellow liquid. The man, wanting a beer, fails to notice it and drinks the fluid. He quickly spits the mouthful of piss he just drank across the room. Wounded he goes home.

A few years later the same man walks into the same bar. He orders a beer from the same bartender. The bartender goes to the end of the bar, you hear the zipper and a glass of warm yellow liquid is placed in front of the man. The man, not wanting to believe that the same thing could happen twice, decides to drink it again. The piss goes flying and the man goes home rejected.

Yet another few years pass and the man returns to the bar. He orders a beer from the same bartender and the zipper ritual is repeated. The glass is set down and the man. Well, let’s just say if that third glass of piss was a movie it would be called “Revenge of the Sith”.

Congratulations George, you got me to guzzle piss once again. Another $8.00 for you, you fucking scumbag.

I am only looking for three things when I go to a movie.

1. A good story that is told well.

2. Interesting characters that are compelling and believable in the world they inhabit.

3. Dialogue that is in some way plausible or at the very least believable.

What did I get?

1.Interesting story told badly (contact was made, long fly ball, goes foul for strike one.)

2.Horrible characters with no development (strike two)

3.Dialogue that sounds like it came from a 15 year olds piece of fan fiction (strike three)

George Lucas, strike out king. Right on, shitbag.

I am going to try and do this with minimal spoilers, but fuck, we all know where the story is going.

Main problem, the action in this movie did nothing but facilitate the original trilogy. There was no development of characters, no (plausible) motives given. It was just an exercise in getting from point A to point B. There was no dramatic tension, the action didn’t flow from one scene to the next building to the climax. Every scene existed to set up what came next.

Second problem, too much shit that didn’t matter at all.

General Grievous, totally unnecessary. There was no point to him at all, none, do not argue this with me.

With the exception of the Dukoo/Anakin fight and the Anakin/Obi Juan duel, none of the actions scenes had any meaning other than to show off ILM’s fancy new tricks. Nothing advanced the plot.

The dialogue, Jesus Christ on a crutch, just thinking about it almost gives me apoplexy. Lucas doesn’t seem to realize that expository dialogue (dialogue that just tells the story) is boring and it is better to try and show things than have the characters tell them.

I got a nice earful about why Anakin becomes Vader but didn’t see why he did it. Lucas had the chance to work a brilliant string of Machiavellian influencing of Anakin to lead him into the trap of his emotions, but no. We get to see the most powerful Jedi ever subjugate himself as the bitch of a man he could easily defeat. Let me repeat that. ANIKIN COULD HAVE BEATEN PALPINTINE WITOUT BREAKING A FUCKING SWEAT. But no, he immediately hits his knees and is tonsil deep on the man before you can say “What the fuck?”

Basically this movie was fucked before one frame was shot. The screenplay sucked and wasted a ton of time developing ideas and story threads that were unimportant and left the most vital story twisting in the wind.

In short, I have seen better film on teeth. I hate you George Lucas, not because I feel you betrayed some movies that I loved as a kid, but because you are a lazy storyteller who pissed away the opportunity to create a masterpiece.

Jim and Clarkson go highbrow and take a look at their favorite documentaries.

Jim and Clarkson look at movies that were improved by having a shitty remake to compare them with.

Clarkson and Jim record their musings while watching “The Karate Kid.” It’s like watching the movie with them, except you’ll still have some beer left when it’s over.

Jim and Clarkson take a look at their favorite time travel films and Clarkson exposes the world to a new breed of animal.

The guys talk Wes Anderson and Jim keeps referring to “Bottle Rocket” as “Rushmore,” because he is dumb.

Jim and Clarkson take a look at their favorite films on their favorite subject.

Dirkes and Campbell evidently talk Science Fiction.

Time to take a look at everybody’s favorite writer/director/producer/editor/brother film making duo.

Jim and Clarkson are back to discuss their favorite heist films.

So, I watched “The Informant!”

At first I was unclear as to why they had the “!” in the title. By then end it made sense.

“The Informant!” is about Mark Whitacre, a vice president with Archer, Daniel, Midland who begins working with the FBI (through an oddly fascinating turn of events) to expose price fixing in his companies agriculture business, specifically in lysine production.

Sounds exciting, right? Strangely, it is.

What makes this movie work is a combination of writing, directing, and acting (I know, I know. No shit? Good writing, good directing, and good acting make the movie work? Such insight.) Perhaps I should say a balance between the three. Scott Burn’s script (based on Kurt Eichenwald’s book) has a very manic and slightly insane feel, which you really need in a movie that focuses on a man trying to tape record meetings about a company limiting production levels of lysine to set market value at an inflated rate. It’s a hefty task that is pulled off spectacularly.

Soderberg shows the restraint that is his trademark. It doesn’t play like a comedy, which is what makes it work. He never allows the characters to know that they are being funny because they don’t think they are being funny. If Whitacre thought, for a minute, that he was funny, this movie would be painfully awful. The oddly out of place, almost manic music plays against the very calm and almost serious editing tone to create a feeling that is just slightly off, and that fits the world these people inhabit.

Matt Damon is fan-f’ing-tastic. Looking at his work, I don’t think this man can make a bad movie. Yeah, he made some less than great ones, but since becoming a name he has chosen carefully and done some great work. Damon is my favorite type of actor. He does good work in good movies and he keeps his private life and private views private. To me, he is nothing more than what ever character he is playing, and I have absolutely no interest in him outside of that.

This movie is very much the Matt Damon show. Don’t get me wrong, Count Bakula (my little nickname for Scott, but don’t you try and call him that, you aren’t as close as we are) is outstanding as always, and Joel McHale has one of the greatest facial reaction scenes ever (pay attention to him in the Chinese restaurant). But this is ALL Damon.

The three main elements (writing, directing, and acting) come together perfectly in the film’s voice over scenes. At first they are adult ADD ramblings that show just how out of it Whitacre is. He’s in an important business meeting and his thoughts ramble off to his mispronunciation of the word centimeter throughout his early school days, or he obsesses on the German word for pen. Slowly these devolve to show just how unstable his character is. They are brilliantly written and show the progression of this character brilliantly, they are transitioned into and out of skillfully and you feel like you are in the mind of the character as he just gets bored, and the acting on them is outstanding as Damon makes it believable that this guy would be thinking this at this time.

While the movie does drag at times it is a satisfying comedy that I enjoyed very much. It is most definitely worth your time. Now watch it and tell me the ! doesn’t make sense.

As a film lover I came of age in Austin, Texas (specifically The University of Texas School of Radio, Television, and Film) in the mid/late 1990s. For those of you in the know you recognize that I was at one of the epicenters of the “indie” movement. Granted, there had been very similar movements before, but this was the first one ever market as such. In truth, it was the birth of the studio indie era. Say what you will, but a film with a 20 million dollar budget, produced by Fox is a studio film even if they call themselves Fox Searchlight.

Now, being in such an indie heaven, and a guy, there were two things that would come to dominate my film world; the first being Quentin Tarantino (he was UNESCAPABLE in the mid 90’s), and the second being Hong Kong action cinema. As I lived about two miles from “I Love Video,” (one of the best indie video stores in the nation) I found myself able to worship freely at the altar of Chow Yun Fat, Ringo Lam, Jackie Chan, Tony Leung, Yeun Biao, and Sammo Hung with regularity (thanks to a large selection of HK action films of questionable origin, and by questionable I mean ones that had blue screens at the beginning with the words “REC” and “PLAY” in the corners.).

Since those days I have soured on the HK a bit. I don’t know if it’s maturity as a person (the action isn’t all I need anymore), sophistication as a film lover (smaller, more subtle things move me more these days), or burnout (I watch A LOT of these movies), but they just don’t really do it for me anymore. This mostly goes for the director of this film, Mr. John Woo.

Once upon a time I walked into a Blockbuster Video and picked up one of the three John Woo movies they carried (Hard Boiled, A Better Tomorrow, and The Killer), having some experience with Asian cinema (I’d watched some Kurosawa in High School), I decided to go with the most accessible looking of the three, A Better Tomorrow. Thinking, “a family melodrama is a family melodrama.”

Little did I know. Little did I know.

I quickly owned copies of all three and watched them repeatedly. Then, I discovered “I Love,” and my life was over.

At this time, something wonderful happened, John Woo came to America! All I could see were bigger budgets, bigger explosions, and bigger gunfights, if anyone could figure a way to have a guy shooting 3 guns at the same time, it was Woo.

Then, something less than wonderful happened. I watched his American films. How the hell do you go from “Hard Boiled,” to “Hard Target?” From there, my worst nightmare began to unfold. Could my favorite action director really… suck?

Well, I won’t say yes, I won’t say no. What I will say is, “Hard Target,” “Broken Arrow,” “Face/Off,” “Mi:2,” “Paycheck,” and “Windtalkers.”

Something was wrong. He hadn’t grown. He wasn’t doing anything new, different, or exciting. He was spinning his wheels and basically parodying himself.

It was with that in mind that I sat down to watch “Red Cliff.”

How was it?

It was good, really good.

This movie is EPIC. It is epic in scope, epic in story, epic in visual style. Everything about it is big. I am a fan of epic films. “Lawrence of Arabia” is possibly my favorite movie of all time. This isn’t “Lawrence,” but it definitely took some notes.

It is the story of the Battle of Red Cliffs, one of the most important moments in Chinese history. Now, it is hard to follow at times. I admit that has more to do with my total ignorance of Chinese history. These are legendary figures, and I figure most Chinese people have some frame of reference for.

Basically, it is the attempt of The Han Dynasty to take over the southlands of China and gain control of the territory controlled by warlords and unify the country. In addition to being vastly outnumbered, the southerners have to contend with years old feuding between their factions. The only advantage they have is superior strategy, and a more versatile group of warriors.

This is as simple a synopsis as I can provide. The story is very involved and to attempt any further summary would only add confusion.

What I will say is, this is a very good movie. Yes, the old John Woo conventions are there. There are doves (thankfully they are not fire, bullet, and explosion proof this time), slow motion, and repetition of shots. But the overall production is so much bigger, more expansive, and more advanced than anything he has done before.

John Woo has grown up. The visuals are stunning. The camera work is complex, and moving. The character development is subtle and effective.

This is the John Woo I always knew was out there.

In the past what has really made Woo stand out was the complex relationships between his characters. In “The Killer,” it’s the camaraderie between the cop and the professional killer, in “Hard Boiled,” it’s the interplay between the deep undercover cop and the hard boiled detective obsessed with his capture, and in “A Better Tomorrow,” it’s a man trying to help a younger brother who hates and doesn’t trust him,

“Red Cliff” focuses on a group of warlords (two in particular) who form a team and use their cunning and intellect to take on a much larger army. The development of these relationships make the film.

The interactions between Zho Yu (Tony Leung), San Quan (Chang Chen) are particularly strong. Both men are powerful charismatic leaders, both men are extremely intelligent and cunning, and both men realize the strengths brought to the table by the other.

This is a long movie, but by no means a dull one. At times you do feel the length, but there isn’t anything in it than can be removed without losing something vital from the script. If you want to see an action director grow up and do something really spectacular than I strongly recommend this film. This isn’t a passing, “hey, it’s Saturday afternoon, let’s watch “Red Cliff,” so bear that in mind going into it. This film is an investment, but one that is well worth it. It’s not your typical John Woo but, in this case, that is a good thing

So, I watched “Gentlemen Broncos.”

One of the things I love the most about movies is getting to watch a young director develop. Seeing a style go from very basic to sophisticated, while still retaining the sensibility that made it so energizing in the first place is an amazing thing. Being a music fan and hearing the changes in Clapton’s style, while realizing that it is still very similar to what he was doing as a young man is the same to me as watching The Departed and seeing how Scorsese has developed over the years.

Then you have the ones who don’t change. Sometimes this is great. BB King hasn’t really gone through much transformation in the past 30 years but is there anyone out there who can find fault with what he does? Sometimes it’s not so great. Who really wants to hear the same album over and over again.

This is the case with Gentlemen Broncos. Jared Hess made his name with “Napoleon Dynamite” and I dare say has not lived up to that name since. His follow up “Nacho Libre” wasn’t exactly received as warmly, and his latest “Gentlemen Broncos” doesn’t quite live up either.

Hess revels in the world of the outcast and the underdog and has kind of fallen into a trap. What once seemed fresh, interesting, and grotesquely fascinating has become stale, forced, and off-putting. That isn’t to say it isn’t a good movie. It is just that. Good. Not great. Not particularly entertaining or memorable. Just good.

“Broncos” is the story of Ben, a young aspiring sci-fi writer who uses his writing as a way to deal with his father’s death. We don’t get much more development on him. He’s like Napoleon, we know he’s an outcast and that seems to be all we need to know.

Ben (the wonderful Michael Angarano, whose work I have loved since discovering him as Young William Miller in Almost Famous) has written story called “The Yeast Lords: The Bronco Years,” which he enters in a workshop contest judged by his idol Doctor Ronald Chevalier (Flight of the Conchord’s Jermaine Clement in a show stealing, star making, fucking BRILLIANT performance) , more on him in a bit. Ben hopes to win the contest and get published. However, Chevalier, suffering a years long slump, steals his book, makes a few changes (most notably changing his hero into a tranny and publishes the book as, “The Chronicles of Brutus and Balzaak.”

There is some wonderfully absurdist humor in this film, but then absurdist humor is Hess’ wheelhouse. But therein lies the problem. Absurdist humor works, but only to a certain point. At that point if you are not completely with it, you are left way, way behind. That is how I felt for most of this film. He took things that were charming and funny in his earlier work and made them too much. Instead of Pedro we get Lonnie, who was creepy and a little gross. Instead of Deb we get Tabitha, who is a little bit more aggressive and a lot more a major pain in the balls. Instead of grandma with her llama, we get Ben’s mother’s obliviousness and hideous clothing designs.

All in all this film does not work. But, there are a number of good things to offset the bad and keep this film from a tailspin.

The good-

Mike White as Dusty. This is yet another grotesquery of a character, but he works. There is a quiet sleaziness to him that is fascinating. He also has the funniest snake moment I have ever seen. You may not like it, it’s rather low brow, but I have ophidophobia (a terrible snake phobia) and it made me laugh out loud and rewind three times.

All of Sam Rockwell’s scenes. Saying that Sam Rockwell is good in something carries about as much weight as saying Ben Kingsley is good in something. Really? Sam Rockwell was GOOD! No shit? What else can you tell me? Is water still wet? Is the sky still blue? Rockwell is outstanding as both Bronco and Brutus. The flashes to the book are outstanding. It is cheap sci-fi, but good cheap sci-fi. Every time they go into a passage from the book it is solidly engaging and entertaining. And the different performances given by Rockwell just reinforce him as an acting powerhouse who is counting the days until he gets his first Oscar.

Jermaine Clement. I have no limit of good things to say about him in this. It is possibly the greatest comic performance in a movie this century. He is Cristof Waltz good. And if you know me, you know how massive a statement this is. The few scenes he is in make the film. He is an arrogant man who truly does not see his arrogance. His scenes range from in depth descriptions of the art he created for his “Cyborg Harpies” trilogy of books, to furiously deriding a woman for wanting to name a troll “Teacup,” to advising adding the suffix -anous to any name to create an acceptable sci-fi name. (I am a bit half on half over being known as Jimanous).

The problem with “Gentlemen Broncos” is that, with the exception of a few well written characters, brilliant performances, and interesting scenes, feels stale. I feel as though I am seeing someone trying to recreate and make me care about a time when they were doing new and exciting things. I enjoyed it some, but it is something I don’t ever intend on rewaching.

Check it out.

Jim here.

I finally watched Gran Torino, and it really was as good as everybody says it is.

Gran Torino is the story of a recently widowed Korean war vet/retired auto plant worker living in a rapidly changing area of Detroit. He is, to put it mildly, a bit “cantankerous.”  His time is spent maintaining his house, drinking at the local lodge, and drinking beers on his front porch while he looks out and grumbles about how his neighborhood is changing.

It may seem odd that I would describe a character who gives a young Asian man advice like, “You’re wrong, eggroll, I know exactly what I’m talking about. I may not be the most pleasant person to be around, but I got the best woman who was ever on this planet to marry me. I worked at it, it was the best thing ever happened to me. Hands down. But you, you know, you’re letting Click-Clack, Ding-Dong and Charlie Chan just walk out with Miss What’s-her-face. She likes you, you know? Though I don’t know why! Nice girl… nice girl, very charming girl… I talked with her… yeah. But you, you just let her walk out right out with the Three Stooges. And you know why? ‘Cause you’re a big fat pussy. Well, I gotta go. Good day, pussycake,” as not being racist, but I think it makes perfect sense.

How is it changing? Over the years a group of Hmong(Asian ethnic group from the mountainous regions of Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Burma) families have moved in as all his old friends and neighbors have moved out and died. When one of his neighbors sons attempts to steal his mint condition 1972 Gran Torino (as a gang initiation) he takes it upon himself to help reform the kid (unwillingly at first).

At first it is easy to simply disregard Eastwood’s character as a racist old man. But if you really look at him, he isn’t. Yeah, he has some bigoted attitudes, but the only characters he shows any real affection towards are his Hmong neighbors. He thinks his priest is “an overeducated 27-year-old virgin who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies and promise them everlasting life.” He doesn’t get along with his kids or grandchildren (more on this later). He likes the people he knows, and everyone else pisses him off.

Basically, he is a mean old man who doesn’t suffer fools or tolerate bullshit for a second.

Why do I say he isn’t racist? Well, he does have some racist tendencies, but he does too much for his Hmong neighbors to be dismissed that way. He puts himself at risk to help out the sister of the boy who tried to steal his car, he vouches for the boy to get him a job, he helps get him the tools he needs to get a job. In short, he becomes a father to the fatherless kids next door. Yeah, they are Hmong, but they are also his neighbors, and once he gets to know them he begins to care for them. They become like his children, except that their relationship is stronger than the one with his actual kids (more on this later).

He bonds individually with each of them. The daughter, Sue, is bold and basically forces friendship on him. He connects strongly with her because he sees a similar personality, a strength and stubbornness that he respects. The son, Thao, is forced to work for Walt (Eastwood) by his mother in order to make amends for trying to steal the car. During that week he becomes a more active member of his neighborhood and sees a good kid who just needs some guidance. It is strong and believable.

Now, on to his family. The first five minutes made me want to punch his entire family in the fucking jaw. I don’t care how little you get along with your dad, you do not let your son wear  A FUCKING FOOTBALL JERSEY to your mothers funeral. You just don’t! Also, don’t let your daughter expose her midriff and text during the service, it’s bad form. After the funeral, don’t ask your grandfather to give you his “cool, retro” furniture or his car. It makes you look crass (I know you just buried your wife, but that couch would look sooooooo cute in my dorm room!), The relationship is strained, that’s told but never shown. Yeah, Walt is a hard ass, but he was a hard ass to Thao and they became strong friends. He may have been an asshole, but at some point you have to get past that shit.

In this movie Eastwood does what Eastwood does best. He tells a moving story, has outstanding performances, and shows what has made him one of the best directors working in the past few decades.

So, tonight, on the advice of The A.M.P., I watched “The Time Travelers Wife.”

The only conversation I’ve had involving this film was an argument with a coworker about what constitutes a “gay” act. Apparently, the book this movie is based on has a scene where the time traveler in question runs into a younger version of himself and an act of oral sex occurs. It was my contention that performing this act on a man, even if that man was you was a gay act. My friend considered it the same as masturbation. I disagree. That is a loophole that someone was using to justify his desire to experiment. Hey, man, just go for it.

But I digress.

The film in question is one I avoided for a while thinking it was just a chick flick, and in my defense it was, to a degree, advertised that way. To classify it that way is to do a rather great disservice to a really good film.

This is the story of Henry, a man who, like Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five, is “unstuck” in time. He travels back and forth to different points in his lifetime. Unlike Pilgrim he doesn’t just end up in his body at that time. No, he arrives naked and confused. This leads to all manner of problems as he is unable to control when he goes and when it happens.

The story mostly involves his relationship with a woman he met after he met her when she was years younger than when he first saw her. This will make sense.

Getting into the main plot is where this film takes a rather significant jump from the typical time travel piece. While a good deal of time is spent on him, and how he deals with the situation, an equal or greater amount of time is spent on her. How does this sort of thing impact the people he loves and is closest to. The way these themes are handled is what sets this apart from the typical romantic comedy. it doesn’t feel cheap or forced.

As I feel with horror films, sci fi films are only as good as they could be without the sci fi element, and there are real world parallels that can be drawn from this. The issues are no different than if the relationship were with someone who is completely distant emotionally, who has a drinking or drug problem, or for any reason keeps people at a distance. This is, at its heart, a film about relationships and what happens when two people who truly love each other have a major obstacle to overcome.

This might not be for you, but I found it to be an enjoyable and touching film that was well worth the time.

Jim here.

There is something I find frustrating. You’ve seen those Netflix commercials where the happy customers talk about how wonderful the service is, right? It’s a great idea and a decent ad campaign.

So, you ask, what is my frustration? If you look closely you will notice that the customers shown aren’t exactly long time users. In fact, the old timer of the group appears to have been there for just about a year.

One. Year.

I opened my subscription to Netflix in 2002. Just to be clear, I have been with them for 8 years and have yet to make it past first base, yet they are picking out china patterns and calling a priest for some guy who just showed up.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love Netflix. In fact I think it might be one of the best services around. Not one of the best video services, but one of the best services PERIOD.

There is one thing that I would love to see added that, I think, would make the service better. It’s something I call “Netflix Roulette.”

“What is Netflix Roulette?” you ask.

Simply put, you give up control of one of your rentals. You don’t lose it, but if you choose, you abdicate control to the forces of fate. For example, I have a four at a time plan. Were I to adopt the “Roulette” feature I would only be able to see 3 of my rentals on the website. The fourth would only tell me if it was received or out. I would not know what movie it was until I open the red envelope.

“Why would you do that?” you ask again.

Well, as I said before, I have been a Netflix member for 8 years and am obsessive aobut adding movies to my queue. In fact I have, on two separate occasions, reached the limit of movies allowed in your queue at one time.

“There’s a LIMIT?!?!”

Yep. It’s 500.

That’s right. More than once in the past 8 years there have been more than 500 movies I have felt the need to add to my queue. How does this happen? Well, in essence you have to have a certain level of fanatic detachment. You have to be fanatic enough to want to see everything, and detached enough to add anything without thinking. View it now has exacerbated this problem significantly. But, so far as your at home queue exploding like this, there are three ways.

1) It is a movie I genuinely want to see, or see again. These are classics, new releases, hard to find, and otherwise essential films that I feel I must see for one reason or another.

2) Curiosities I add because I have heard something, or liked the poster, or the writer, or the director, or the actor. These are things that I know nothing about other than some superficial reason for possible enjoyment.

3) I got really drunk and started adding shit at random for no discernable reason and have no recollection of them being in my queue.

Now, I try to play queue roulette by only paying attention to my top 10, that way I get the occasional surprise. But, if you knew that one of your movies would be one of these totally random films that you may or may not have added in a drunken stupor, wouldn’t that add a bit of excitement to the whole affair?

This game leads to many surprises, some of them pleasant. But I’m not going to lie. For every good/great movie you get, there will be 4-5 awful/perplexing films.

My first review is for one of the latter.

Now, for each of my reviews I am going to try and include a poster or other image that I have modified to show my true feelings about the film.

That being said, my first roulette movie is…..

That’s right. “The Hammer,” starring Adam Carolla and directed by Charles “Legally Blonde 1&2” Herman-Wurmfeld found it’s way to my home. Now, I think this was a combination of 2&3. I think I was drunk and thought, “Man, you know who was occasionally funny on that radio sex show? Adam Carolla, that’s who! I’m gonna watch the hell out of this movie!”

That is the only explanation I can give.

This movie doesn’t make sense. By that I do not mean that the plot is convoluted (it’s about as straightforward as you can get), or the narrative style was over the top (it isn’t). What I mean is, this movie was a terrible comedy, and a somewhat terrible drama.

Look at the poster. You can tell what they are going for. The problem is, what they think is a funny image is actually kind of tragic and disturbing. It almost looks like someone getting sucker punched, but not in a funny, slapstick way. Therein lies the rub.

This story doesn’t work as a comedy. It is a drama with a few (very few) funny moments in it, but by no means is it a comedy.

It is the story of a former boxer turned construction worker who, after sparring with an up and comer (a younger, faster, stronger fighter that he somehow knocks out) at the gym where he teaches a beginner boxing class is offered a chance to train for a shot at the Olympic boxing team. In truth, the coach is just using him as a free left handed sparing partner for his true prodigy. From here it is a collection of the typical sports movie clichés. He doubts himself, everyone else doubts him, he meets a woman who believes in him, he believes in himself and pulls his shit together and begins to fulfill his potential.

The problems are many.

1) Carolla’s character is a total loser. Yes, he is somewhat loveable, but it is revealed that they only reason he stopped boxing was because he wanted to sit on the couch, get high, and watch cartoons. I know what they are going for, but it is not a sympathetic lead. Also, at no point does he physically look like he would last 10 seconds in the ring against the other fighters.

2) The antagonistic characters (there are two of them) seem to serve no purpose other than to make Carolla look sympathetic. It’s obvious and feels a bit forced.

3) The romance doesn’t make much sense. Carolla is set up as such a loser that when he gets this young, attractive lawyer to go out with him the audience is asked to take WAY to big a leap of faith. You know he is a nice guy, but he is basically an overgrown teenager who is jumping a bit to far into the deep end of the adult pool.

4) All the other characters feel programmed. By shoehorning comedy in the motivations for their actions feel forced and disingenuous.

Here’s my biggest problem. Had this been framed as a drama, none of these would have been issues. If he had quit because he lacked the confidence and the entire movie was about him reclaiming that, you would have empathized or sympathized with him. As a comedy, you are too often invited to laugh at him.

This movie could have been like big fan. It could have presented a comedian in a dramatic light, using sports as a way to show how a misfit tries to fit in. Instead, we get a cheap feeling cartoon that lacks the fortitude to go all out.

Hell, had they gone all out with the comedy that might have worked. The problem with the film is the same as the problem with the character, it is unwilling to commit to being something. It just sits on the couch, getting high and watching cartoons instead of using its potential.

Should you see this film? No.

Should I have reviewed it? Maybe not.

The odds were you had no intention of watching this, and I can’t even pretend to dissuade you of that. But, I promised myself I would review the next thing that came from Netflix, so here it is. Look at it this way, I saw it so you don’t have to.

I should be posting something again tomorrow, hopefully it will be a bit more serious.

Tip your 40 to the memory of “The Swaze” and enjoy as your hosts recollect the decade which fostered their love of film.

We just plain don’t get these fucking movies. It’s not their fault, not in the slightest.

On this one we go into the movies we hate or just don’t get, but admit that we are off base here.

We promise, it’s not you, it’s me.

Erin go Bragh!

That’s right, a very special St. Patrick’s Day show.

Not exactly what was promised, but still a damned fine show.

Love him or hate him, this is the guy who got many, many people really into film.

He is the reason for many a parent’s disappointment at their child leaving pre-law to go to film school.

He is the reason for many, many cheap, slick, stylized pseudo gangster films.

He is the reason many people wear Kangol hats.

He is Quentin Tarantino.

Get the reactions to the good, the bad, and the purple lagoon beast from this years Oscars.

This is where film love gets complicated. These are not particularly good movies. In many cases they are bad. In other cases they are ones that simply don’t make sense for you to like, but they are out there none the less.

Call them caveat/explanation films, call them fool’s gold, call them guilty pleasure films. Whatever you call them, you love them even if nobody in the world understands that love.

Have you ever been at a party or other social gathering and found a particularly attractive woman/man/some mix therein that you were getting along with swimmingly. Things are looking really good, REALLY good.

Now, imagine there is a movie you hate so, so very much that, were this person to admit loving/owning it, would cause you to walk away from that individual?

Well, we have a few, and we want to share them with you.

The dog and pony show is right around the corner! That’s right! It’s gonna happen. We asked for it, now we have to deal with it.

Let’s see how accurate Jim and Clarkson are as they list their pics for this years show.

You love movies. We love movies. Sometimes that love gets a bit… much.

In our first episode Clarkson and look at the movies they have such great love and affection for that hatred is tantamount to blasphemy. Listen, enjoy, let these two lovable scamps into your lives and your hearts.