ReelThoughts
Choose the month you would like to access:
ReelThoughts
Predictable as Ever?
From my review of Aeon Flux: "I'll never understand why studios sometimes choose to withhold films from critics. The lack of advance screenings of Aeon Flux establishes an expectation that the film is likely to be tough to sit through. It's the studio's way of throwing in the towel. It's a declaration of 'no confidence.'" One wonders whether Paramount, by "hiding" the movie from critics, created a self-fulfilling prophesy. Aeon Flux has been receiving some savage reviews, but I have to question whether the critics are really reviewing the film, or whether they're making a determination based on the simple mantra: If there are no advance screenings, it sucks. Call it the Gigli factor. That movie was mediocre, but it achieved a reputation of such badness that many critics felt duty-bound to eviscerate it.
Aeon Flux is flawed, but I had a better time sitting through it than I did a couple of recent, high-profile movies headed to multiplexes for the Christmas season. (Those titles will be revealed in due time.) One reviewer stated that he couldn't figure out what was going on. Huh? Had he fallen asleep? Aeon Flux isn't all that complicated, although it requires a little bit of thought. A complete brain shut-down is not a requisite. If someone was unable to figure out what was going on, that says more about the reviewer than it does about the film.
Something else may be at work here. Critics are human. We have good moods and bad moods. This can color our impression of a film. Any critic who denies this is a liar. This isn't a secret; it's one reason why a good publicist will go out of his/her way to make a critic feel welcome and comfortable. Critics do not like having to venture into a theater on opening day, pay their own money (regardless of wheter it's later reimbursed), and endure the usual indignities of the multiplex experience. I happened to be in a reasonably good mood yesterday; it didn't bother me. But it appears that some who saw Aeon Flux may not have been as upbeat.
Anyway, this is just food for thought. Is Aeon Flux really that bad, or is it getting slammed in some quarters because of marketing and release strategies selected by Paramount? I think it's the latter, but that's just one man's opinion, and I stand by my **1/2 rating.
One thing to be aware of as we go into the winter season is that weather concerns will occasionally impact my ability to deliver a review "on time." Generally speaking, I miss three to four screenings per year because of snow. So if you see a review indication of "COMING TUESDAY" change to "COMING SATURDAY," it likely means I wasn't able to make a screening. Check the weather reports to see if it snowed in New Jersey.
Once upon a time, I would brave high snow drifts and unplowed streets to get to a movie. (During an 18" snowfall in January 1993, I walked a mile to get to a theater only to find out it was closed.) Now, if there's any consideration of danger or a substantially longer commute, I choose to stay home. There isn't a film out there worth losing 30 minutes for in snarled traffic or gaining a $1000 bill for body work.
So there's an advance explanation for why every review in the next four months may not be on time.
The 12 (Actually, 13) Movies of Christmas
Let's face it... most Christmas movies are bad. They're enough to keep any self-respecting movie-lover up all night with visions of The Santa Clause and Jingle All the Way dancing in his/her head. To counter the charge that Christmas movies are all like fruit cakes, I have put together a short list of Christmas-themed movies that are entirely watchable, and many of these titles (although not all) will appeal to those who don't celebrate the holiday.
For those who appreciate sentimental movies, where else to start but It's a Wonderful Life? Personally, I don't consider this to be a Christmas movie, but I can understand why it has been pigeonholed into the category. No matter what you call it, it's worth watching again and again and again. Then there's A Miracle on 34th Street (the original is better, but the remake isn't bad). This film works best when viewed with children who are still of a certain age. It speaks more to kids than cynical adults. The best adaptation of Charles Dickens'A Christmas Carol is arguably the 1951 Alistair Sim Scrooge. The words "timeless classic" are overused, but apply in this case. (If you're looking for something more recent, try the George C. Scott made-for-TV version. It's also quite good.)
There are plenty of Christmas love stories. At the top of my list is When Harry Met Sally. I know, this is a year-round drama, but a few key scenes happen at Christmas, and the climax is on New Year's Eve. So it counts. Similar comments can be made about Love Actually, but the highlight of the film, with Bill Nighy crooning a Christmas song, makes it a movie more for one season than for others.
When mentioning Christmas comedies, it's mandatory to start with A Christmas Story which is, hands down, the best pure Christmas movie ever made. If the words "You'll put your eye out" don't mean anything to you, then it's time to contact NetFlix and make a reservation. (I have to get around to writing a review of the film some time.) National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is the pinnacle of silliness, and it's not all that good, but when it's funny, it's very funny. Some of the material is borderline unwatchable (anything with Randy Quaid), but that's what the fast-forward button is for. Once you've seen the whole thing, you'll know what to skip next time. Home Alone may suffer from overexposure but, at least when it was first released, it was a breath of fresh air. Now, nearly a decade-and-a-half later, it's worth revisiting. Parts of it are hilarious, and it has a heart.
Most animated Christmas stories are to be found on TV. Rankin-Bass produced the bulk of them something like 30-40 years ago, but they're still fun today. Kids enjoy them, and parents suffer through them because they create a powerful sense of nostalgia. The only animated Christmas film I can recommend is last year's The Polar Express, which weaves its own brand of magic. The animation alone is worth giving up 90 minutes for.
Finally, there are those films that highlight the dark side of Christmas and, as such, may not be for younger viewers. The first of these is Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas, which could be considered more appropriate for Halloween than Christmas. But "Sandy Claws" does feature prominently in the storyline. How the Grinch Stole Christmas expands upon the Dr. Seuss short story. I like the cartoon better; after seeing the live-action edition a few times, it loses some of its charm. Those two movies could be seen by children; the next two should not be. First, there's Reckless, a little-seen black comedy about what happens when Murphy's Law takes over Christmas. This forgotten gem is not available on DVD (at least to my knoweledge) but, at one time, could be found on VHS and laserdisc. It's not worth exerting too much effort for, but if you can find a copy, don't pass it by. Finally, there's Bad Santa, which pushes the envelope about as far as it can go without straying into Silent Night, Deadly Night (which I do not recommend) territory.
So there you have it - a baker's dozen of Christmas movies. And I didn't even mention two so-so possibilites: Elf and The Ref.
Self-Defense
There are two philosophies of how a public (or semi-public) figure should react to an attack. The first states that ignoring it is the best approach. The attacker is looking for attention and validation and to give it to him/her is to satisfy a desire. The second approach advocates a response, urging that silence equates to weakness and, in some cases, may corroborate the charges. Usually, I opt for the former but, this time, the latter may be the more appropriate way to handle things.
Yesterday, my wife pointed out a particularly nasty "review" of my latest book at amazon.com (use this link, and scroll down to find the musings of John "Movie Addict.") If this was just a bad review, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My first book got some of those, and I did what I could to learn from the criticism. Bad reviews don't bother me; they come with the territory. If you can dish it out, you'd better be able to take it. But Mr. Movie Addict barely mentions the book. And his two sentences about it hardly qualify as review material: "This 'updated' version of his book...has such a low sales rank because his previous book was a total flop and his 'fans' hated it... I found it at a bookstore and tried to read some of it and found it totally irritating and insulting, as usual." The rest of what he wrote comes across as a personal attack.
Will he read this? Probably not, although he has spent some time perusing ReelViews. But I want to be on record as addressing his comments. I'm not going to insult Mr. Movie Addict. I don't know him. For all I know, he's a nice, reasonable individual. There are times when the anonymity of the Internet causes otherwise pleasant people to do unpleasant things.
He starts by saying: "I originally had the displeasure of speaking to James Berardinelli about two years ago via e-mail. He struck me as a very rude, ignorant man. Reading some of his further writing, I noticed he was also very arrogant." I don't remember the e-mail, although I find the expression of "speaking" to someone via e-mail to be odd. If my response was dismissive (which is implied), it's probably because the original e-mail was written in an obnoxious tone. I tend to respond in kind. As for arrogance, at least an appearance of it is necessary to be a film critic. I prefer to think of it as "confidence," but that can easily be mis-interpreted. And who wants to read a wishy-washy review? Those who put their opinions out there had better be ready to stand by them.
Now comes the misinformation. "He admitted he didn't even like films until he was a college student and saw Jaws. In his reviews, he often grudgingly complains about how far he must travel to attend screenings, and how he's 'just doing it for us,' and so on and so forth." Very little in this paragraph is accurate. Yes, Jaws is the first movie I saw, but I was seven years old at the time - not quite college-ready. I developed a taste for films during my sophomore year of college (1986-87), but it had nothing to do with Jaws. I can't recall every making a comment in a review related to how far I have to travel for an advance screening (although I have written this in ReelThoughts), and I certainly haven't used condescending language like "just doing this for us." I do it for myself. Reviewing is a personal experience. The critic's primary audience is first and foremost himself/herself.
Later, he says: "All of James' work is written in first-person perspective - a big no-no in film criticism, unless you're Roger Ebert and can get away with it." Actually, inserting the "I" into film criticism has become the accepted norm over the past 10 years. Reviews are op-ed pieces, and the first-person is not only encouraged in such situations, but madatory. Nevertheless, my reviews are primarily third-person, with occasional forays into the first and second-person point-of-view, when appropriate.
"James is a low-grade Ebert rip-off with no real insight into film - most of his 'favorite films' he admits he doesn't have a passion for but only added to the list because he considers himself a film critic and feels a need to include films such as Vertigo - yet all he does is regurgitate recycled facts all film fans already know." When I started in this business 14 years ago, Roger Ebert was one of the most respected critics, so who better to emulate? Bbut I'd like to think that, over the years, I have developed my own voice. The rest of what's written here is inaccurate. I never "admitted" not having a passion for any of the films in my Top 100. On the contary, this is a personal list of favorite films, not an attempt to impress readers with scholarly titles. The Vertigo comment is confusing. Apparently, he's saying that only a film critic trying to sound pompous would include the film in a "favorites" list, because no one could actually like it.
In closing, all I can say is that I would welcome Mr. Movie Addict's input if he had something to offer other than insults. Spending several paragraphs bashing me and the website, then throwing in an offhand comment about the book doesn't constitute a review. Serious comments about the book, whether positive, negative, or in between are taken seriously. If Mr. Movie Addict would like to contact me via e-mail, I'll be more than happy to re-open the e-mail dialogue we apparently engaged in several years ago.
Now, on to something more fun...
December 11 Update: Apparently as the result of requests made by several readers, Amazon has removed Mr. Movie Addict's review. I did not make the request myself. However, since it's no longer on-line, you'll have to rely on my quotes (above) to provide a flavor of what was written.
Love Affair with a Giant Ape
I know where Peter Jackson is coming from, because I have walked down a similar road. Admittedly, King Kong hasn't become the lifelong obsession for me that it has been for him but, when it comes to love of a movie, King Kong was my first. And, as they say, you never forget your first. So, although I ultimately became unfaithful to Kong, jilting it for Star Wars and Star Trek and other things, it has always occupied a special place in my heart. So here's a trip down memory lane. (Those who don't like these self indulgent pieces can stop reading now.)
I can't say definitively how old I was when I first saw King Kong on television. At a guess, I was probably seven years old. I know it was in the spring, because I had just come home from Little League practice. That would most likely make it early 1975. This was during my monster movie phase, which lasted about three years. During that period, every Saturday afternoon, I would be glued to my television set, watching "Creature Double Feature." This offered everything from B-grade schlock to the classics of the genre. It was through "Creature Double Feature" that I was first exposed to Dracula, Frankenstein, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, Godzilla, and, of course, King Kong. Of all these movies, none struck me as forcefully as Merian C. Cooper's Beauty & the Beast tale. Before I saw it, I had read about it in various monster movie magazines and books, so my level of anticipation was high when I looked in the TV guide and noticed that, next Saturday, there would be a double-feature of King Kong and Son of Kong.
Children are, by their nature, less critical than adults. At the time, I couldn't think of a more perfect movie. King Kong did everything right. Even the fact that it was in black-and-white didn't bother me. By then, I had gotten used to the fact that most monster movies weren't in color. As soon as it was over, I wanted to watch King Kong again. But, in this pre-VCR era, I had no choice but to wait for the next time it aired on Channel 9.
The wait was approximately 18 months. Beginning on Thanksgiving Day, 1976, Channel 9 started a short-lived tradition of having "King Kong Afternoon." (I didn't realize it at the time, but the inaguration was designed to tie-in with the much-hyped release of the 1976 re-make, which arrived in theaters during mid-December.) That year, Channel 9 showed three Kong movies: the original King Kong, the Son of Kong sequel, and one I had somehow missed: King Kong Versus Godzilla. The latter is a movie only a child could love. I did, although at the time I wondered why Kong looked like he had been put through the washing machine and dryer.
Another thing I remember about Thanksgiving 1976 was that, as I lay on the floor in my grandparents' house from 2:00 until 8:00, it was the first time I became aware that a re-make was coming out. During "King Kong Afternoon," a preview must have been shown a dozen times. I had never before been to an indoor movie theater, but I became so enraptured by the images of this new Kong that I extracted a promise from my father that day that he would take me when the movie opened.
I saw the new King Kong on December 19, 1976, the third day of its opening. It was an early Christmas present. It was the first movie-day out for my family. My father took me to King Kong while my mother took my sisters to a Disney film. At nine years of age, I was a little on the old side to be attending my first movie, but that didn't bother me. King Kong was the first film I had wanted to see. Within the next year, it would be followed by Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. And once I saw Star Wars, my allegience shifted from the big ape, although not entirely. I still watched "King Kong Afternoon" on Thanksgiving, and when the 1976 version debuted on TV as a two-part NBC mini-series in 1979, I stayed up late. (Part two, which was interrupted by a newsbreak to announce the signing of the Israel/Egypt peace treaty by Begin and Sadat, didn't end until after midnight.)
When I saw Dino De Laurentiis' vision of King Kong, I was enthralled. Viewing it in color on the big screen enraptured me in a way the original had never managed. (How is something on a 28" TV going to compare to something on a 40' screen?) I didn't notice all the camp at the time. I recognized that Jessica Lange wasn't the best actress in the world, but she was pretty, and that was all that mattered. She became my first movie-star crush. (Second, if you count Carol Wayne.) In retrospect, I suppose this version of King Kong was made for nine-year old boys, and I fell into the demographic. The movie was successful, grossing about $50 million (converted to today's movie ticket prices, that's about $200 million, which is blockbuster status) and earning a Special Effects Oscar.
Today, I own both versions of King Kong on DVD - a widescreen version of the 1976 edition from several years back and the new two-disc treatment of the 1933 original. I am a stout defender of the 1976 King Kong, arguing that it does what it sets out to do. It's silly and campy but, even 30 years later, I enjoy watching it (although Jessica Lange's first scene makes me cringe). A special edition of the De Laurentiis film is on my "wish list." I would love to see the 45 minutes of outtakes that were broadcast during the NBC two-parter. A few of them live on in my memory.
Now, Peter Jackson is about to add a third King Kong to the library. And, although it may be the best of the three, it will never replace either of them in the vault of my memories. The best it can do is stand alongside them.
How Big Is He?
Every time you turn around, King Kong is another height. In the 1933 version, he started out about 18 feet tall, then grew seven feet for the New York scenes. In the 1976 re-make, he was between 40 and 50 feet tall. The Japanese Kong movies elevated him to between 150 and 200 feet (I think), since he had to be big enough to go toe-to-toe with Godzilla. Finally, there was a cartoon that claimed he was "ten times as big as a man." I guess that means about 50 feet tall. According to published reports, Peter Jackson has placed him in the 25 to 30 foot range.
It all goes to show, there's no such thing as Kongtinuity.
But the main purpose of today's column is not to talk about how tall Kong is. Instead, it's to compare the two existing versions of King Kong and explain why both are enjoyable by an audience today. The general perception is that the 1933 version is dated and only of interest to film historians and those who like old movies. The 1976 version is viewed as a silly failure that no one in his/her right mind would expose himself/herself to. I would like to argue against those perceptions. After that, I'll move on from Kong to something else and let my review of Peter Jackson's latest version stand on its own. (Barring weather or other difficulties, that review should be available during the day tomorrow.) Considering my lasting affection for Kong, it will be interesting to see where I come down on the new film. Paradoxically, perhaps, I may be more critical and more accepting.
I suppose it's possible to view the original King Kong from the detached perspective of a film scholar, but every time I watch it, I find myself becoming involved. So I forget about the hammy acting, the cheesy sets, and the fact that the special effects are obviously special effects. (Although ground-breaking in their time, they seem clunky by today's standards.) It doesn't take much suspension of disbelief before you're there with the chracters on Skull Island or climbing the Empire State Building. The black-and-white is an asset, because it enhances the unreality of the situation. This is a fantasy, and it's presented as a fantasy. The over-the-top acting also works in this context (although it's more a result of Hollywood's uneven and uncertain change-over from silent movies to talkies). Like Kong's changing height, many of the film's flaws fall away if you allow the movie to work its magic. Who could imagine one would end up caring so much for a clay figurine?
Or a man in a monkey suit, when it comes to the 1976 version... There are three primary reasons why this film gets blasted in most reviews. (1) The screenplay is campy. (2) The acting is cheesy. (3) The special effects stink. There's merit to all three complaints, but each is overblown. Lorenzo Semple Jr.'s screenplay never takes itself seriously, but there's plenty of wit, satire, and social commentary to be found within. (Kong arriving in the guise of a giant gas pump - can the slam on big business get any more obvious?) Jessica Lange's performance surely has its hiccups, but she gets better as the movie goes on, and she's damn cute from start to finish. Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin are actually quite good. Finally, the effects work leaves something to be desired, but I'm not a detractor of Rick Baker's contributions. I think the man in the monkey suit approach is mostly effective. I feel for Kong, and I attribute that as much to Baker as to anything else.
There are two unique aspects of the 1976 King Kong that are worth noting. First, this film takes the unusual step of having the girl reciprocate a portion of the ape's feelings. In 1933, it was a one-way street. Kong was smitten with the blonde, but she hated him. He died unloved, mourned only by movie audiences. In 1976, Dwan is connected to Kong. She cares for him. She doesn't want him to die, and is horrified when he does. For her, Kong's death gives her stardom, but it also robs her of personal happiness. One can imagine the character ten years later as an alcoholic pill-popper appearing on Hollywood Squares.
Secondly, there's the World Trade Center aspect. The 1933 movie practically put the Empire State Building on the map. For his edition, Dino De Laurentiis wanted something bigger, so he chose the newly-minted Twin Towers. 30 years later, this choice has made King Kong a strange movie to watch. It's impossible not to view the movie and think of 9/11. The World Trade Center is wedded to that date. It subtly transforms the film's final 20 minutes. Instead of watching Kong's tragic last stand, our attention is captured by glimpses of a location that no longer exists. The ending of King Kong is now as much about the Trade Center as it is about the ape. I can't say whether that's good or bad, but it is unique.
So there we have it - defenses of a sort of both movies. Irrespective of how good Peter Jackson's is, I can't envision giving either of these up. Each conjures its own brand of movie magic, even if everyone doesn't see it.
The Lead Globes
Every year, I receive a few e-mails asking why I don't provide coverage of The Golden Globes. This year, the nominees answer that question. How is it possible to take seriously an awards show that fails to nominate Munich, while acknowledging both the director and screenwriter? Even the Academy isn't (usually) that inconsistent. In my corner of the world, the Golden Globes don't exist. Nor does any award show other than the Oscars, and the only reason I don't ingore them is because no one would take me seriously if I did. Once upon a time, I provided "live" Academy Awards coverage, but I now give that up for Lent. It's much better to curl up on the couch with my wife, watch the first hour, fall asleep, wake up six hours later in time to see the final 30 minutes, then check on-line to find out what I missed.
I think the first time I can recall hearing about The Golden Globes was in the early '80s. My initial impression was that it was a porn awards show. After all, who in their right mind would name a non-porn award a "Golden Globe?" The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, that's who. Who? As impressive as the name might sound, this is an obscure organization. I'm sure real people belong to it, but finding someone with a membership card is nearly impossible. Questions of credibility aside, however, no one can deny that these people have a great marketing department. The Golden Globes have developed from just another end-of-the-year awards show into the #2 on the totem pole (right under the Oscars). No one seems to remember that they once gave an award to Pia Zadora. That, in my book, makes them worthy of perpetual ridicule. That's the kind of citation that can never be redeemed.
All movie awards show are about politics, friendship, and payback. The belief that artistic achievement or talent has more than a peripheral impact on who is nominated or who wins is an illusion. Even more so than the Oscars, the Golden Globes are a popularity contest. The fact that they are viewed as a "predictor" of Academy Award nominations shows how far the Oscars have strayed from their roots. Awards are marketing tools, nothing more. Frankly, the MTV Awards have as much credibility as the Golden Globes.
I won't discuss specific nominations, because I don't think they're worth the ink. Once I saw that Munich had been overlooked, I shook my head. Spielberg, it is said, will not be stumping for awards nominations - including the Academy Awards. He has won his share of statues and now can take the high road. Would that Martin Scorsese could do the same. It gets sad, year after year, watching his face when someone else is announced as Best Director. Granted, his recent work hasn't deserved a win but, as I wrote above, "deservedness" has nothing to do with who takes home the statue. Maybe if Scorsese went out of his way to shake a few more hands and kiss a few more asses, he might win something. You're got to admire someone who doesn't do that, but it's still sad to see the losing expression.
I have never watched a Golden Globes telecast, and don't plan to start any time soon. If something outrageous happens, I'm sure the clip will show up on-line. But outrageousness and spontaneity have been removed from mainstream awards shows. The evening's events are so scripted that they can be painful to watch. If The Golden Globes meant something, I might care about the nominees or the winners. But they're just another publicist's success story, and that's not worth my attention.
In the Gut of the Beholder
Whoever came up with the cliche "comedy is subjective" knew what he/she was talking about. Few things are more individual than humor. One person's Monty Python is another person's Freddy Got Fingered. This makes reviewing comedies especially hard. If you have read enough of my reviews and know where I'm coming from, you can assess how closely my feeling about a comedy is going to match yours. But for those not as familiar with my work, it's a crapshoot. I try to include explanations about the nature of the humor but, when it comes to comedies, I have to admit that word-of-mouth may be more reliable.
This may seem like a change-of-subject, but bear with me.
A few days ago, I defended myself against charges made in a nasty amazon.com "review" of my second book (it was actually more of a personal attack). To show that I'm not thin-skinned, let me post the entirety of another one-star review. (I'm re-printing it here rather than linking to it in case it gets pulled, like the other one did.) It's by M. Richardson "Film Genius" (reminds me of Wiley Coyote "Super Genius"). "This is probably the worst book i have ever read. I have read such classics as the Hatchet, A Lesson Before Dying, Final Fantasy fan fiction, and Chicken Soup for the Soul. That being said, i think i have the right literary degree to say that this book is AWFUL. Mr. Berdiarninelli cannot right for his life. His film reviews are laughable (2.5 stars for Matrix Revolutions, anyone in there write mind would give it 4) and he can't right why he liks or dislikes a film. I suggest you peopl dont buy this awful book, i douwt berardinelli even has an education. He gave BASEketball 2 stars, wtf? any critic =who knows good film would give this film at least a 3. DOWN IWTH BERDADININELLI! He's a racist and a terible critic."
Now this is funny stuff. If you're going to write a negative review with no substance, this is the way to do it. Mr. Film Genius gets high marks for the worst mangling of my name ever. (He spells it three ways, one of which is actually correct.) I love that ReelViews 2 is being compared to Chicken Soup for the Soul, and find it interesting that the "racist" card is casually thrown in (not sure where that came from). Mr. Film Genius obviously hasn't read the book, since he refers exclusively to reviews that aren't in it. My first impulse is to guess that Mr. Film Genius is a 10-year old kid but, upon further reflection, I think he's a lot older and knows exactly how funny this thing is. Maybe he didn't think I'd get the joke, but I do.
Three of the funniest films I have seen are Monty Python's The Life of Brian, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and A Fish Called Wanda. My favorite sit-com is Fawlty Towers. The common thread is obvious, but there are those who don't find John Cleese or his ex-Python friends funny. They look at these things and shake their heads, not getting it. Then they die laughing during Meet the Fockers which, to me, was humor-deprived. Some will argue that my preference is for "intellectual" humor over "stupid" humor. To counter that argument, I would point out that a lot of what John Cleese does in Fawlty Towers is not in any way intellectual. It's manic and slapstick-y, and extremely low-brow. (Although a step up from Benny Hill.)
This brings me to the main reason I'm writing this column: The Producers (the 1968 version, not the 2005 one). In his review of the new musical, Roger Ebert writes: "I know the 1968 movie The Producers virtually by heart, and it's one of the funniest movies I've ever seen." Okay. I don't know it by heart. I have seen it twice (once a number of years ago and once a couple of weeks ago in preparation for viewing the musical) and I find it to be one of the unfunniest and most obvioius movies I have ever seen. Without exaggeration, I can state that I sat through the movie and didn't laugh once. Not only that, but I didn't crack a smile. I understood where each joke was supposed to be, but nothing in this film struck me as funny. The premise is clever, but "clever" is often not humorous. Joe Morgenstern, in The Wall Street Journal called The Producers "a clumsy... movie with an inflated reputation." I am in agreement.
Why such polar reactions? I don't know. I have friends who feel the same way Roger does, and friends who agree with me. It's a source of fascination to me that two individuals can watch the same movie and come away with such different reactions. Roger thinks The Producers is a comic masterpiece. I think it's a misfire, deserving placement aside Brooks' universally decried failures like Robin Hood: Men in Tights and Dracula: Dead and Loving It. To be fair, I'm not anti-Brooks. I think Young Frankenstein is a great film, and I admire both High Anxiety and Silent Movie. When I was a teenager, I enjoyed Blazing Saddles and The History of the World Part I, but my appreciation of those films has decreased with age.
Over the years, I have realized that I laugh less than some people, and occasionally at different things. I can appreciate low-brow humor, but I like it to have an edge. Laughing at comedies isn't always about "getting it." More often, it's about whether the joke hits the funny bone before being dismissed by the mind. I can't explain why I find some things funny and why others fall flat, nor can I classify my "comedy landscape." So next time you disagree with a review of a comedy (written by me or someone else), consider that, in essence, you and the reviewer may have experienced very different movies.
What Theaters Can Do
Robert Iger is my hero. (Well, one of them.) The guy is unstoppable. Here's a man with some clout in the industry who believes that the release paradigm has to change - that the DVD release date needs to be rolled forward until it coincides (or nearly does so) with the theaterical release date. (His reasons have as much to do with stopping piracy than anything else, but that's another column.) Admittedly, things are going in this direction (King Kong, for example, is rumored to be headed for an April DVD date, which would be a four month gap). I'm a big proponent of convergence, and hope it happens - the sooner, the better. Today, however, I'd like to focus on one aspect.
Common wisdom dictates that convergence would be a disaster for theater owners. But, in reality, it shouldn't be. A well-run theater, dedicated first and foremost to serving its customers, would likely suffer a minimal drop-off in attendence (if any at all). But it's pretty hard to find theaters like that. In a perfect world, there's no doubt that watching a movie in an auditorium on a big screen is superior to watching it at home, no matter how good the home system is. But we are so far from a perfect world that such a fantasy-land doesn't even invade our deepest dreams.
What do movie theaters have to do to get to the point where they can compete with a same day-and-date DVD release? Simple. Become customer focused. Get rid of the before-movie ads. Limit previews to two or three (a compromise for those who want to see lots and those who don't want to see any). Start the movie on time (previews start 5-10 movies before the advertised starting time). Remove the sticky residue from the floors. Upgrade the seats to the most modern recliners. Calibrate sound and video properly. Don't turn down the projector bulbs. Make sure someone with experience is in the projection booth at the beginning of the film (to verify focus and framing), then have him/her check back every 10-15 minutes to make sure everything's still okay. Make ushers readily available in case a problem arises, and have spot checks of all the auditoriums so that trouble-makers can be removed. Quite a shopping list? Too expensive? (Consider the alternative...) Most multiplexes don't do any of these things, but I know of one 16-plex that does them ALL. And it's always packed. By adults. This place sometimes shows movies after they come out on DVD (Crash being the most recent example), and they still do good business with those titles. Why? Because going to a place like this is a good experience. It's a night out. Dinner and a movie. It's not an endurance trial, like going to the local Loews or AMC.
Plus, with theaters thirsting for additional revenue streams, they could sell DVDs of their current features in the lobby. Impulse buying would run rampant. People who loved the movie they just saw would buy a copy, even if it could be had for $10 cheaper on amazon.com. A successful theater that caters to its customers could make a killing this way.
Let me provide the following anecdote that emphasizes the need for theaters to "shape up." Last Friday, I received a DVD screener copy of The Family Stone from Fox. On the same day, I went to see the movie in a theater, following the dictate that most movies are better if seen on the big screen, and the theater's only 20 miles away. I watched the movie in a 24-plex with state-of-the-art stadium seating, then watched the DVD the next day. Much to my horror, the picture and sound were both better in my modest home theater set-up (65" screen) than in the multiplex (40' screen). How could this be? Poor quality control. Let me count the ways: the speakers were not properly calibrated, the projector lamp was turned down (images too dark), the film was out of frame for the first 10 minutes, and the focus was dubious throughout.
From now on, unless I'm going to the specific theater cited three paragraphs above, I'll chose my setup instead of that of a multiplex. If exhibitioners don't want everyone over the age of 35 to come to this realization (many already have), they had better start making changes that will enourage people to come back to their venues, not run in the other direction.
So How Bad was 2005?
For me, the year in movies 2005 is over. I have seen everything I'm going to see. (The exception is Wolf Creek, about which I'm on the fence. Roger Ebert and I don't always agree, but zero stars?) So I'm now in a position where I can look back on the year. One of my frequent themes during the past 12 months has been to bemoan the lack of quality to be found in multiplexes. However, a bull market in the final three months has changed things. For an idea of how back-loaded 2005 was, consider this: Of the 21 theatrical releases to which I gave ***1/2 or ****, 10 were released September 30 or later. One-third of the 21, including the only **** film, opened in November or December.
Looking back at 2005 by the numbers, here's how things broke down (by star rating):
4-stars: 0.5%
For comaparison, here are the 2004 numbers:
4-stars: 0.5%
Now, the 2003 numbers:
4-stars: 3%
Finally, the 2002 numbers:
4-stars: 1%
What jumps out immediately is that the 2004 and 2005 numbers are almost identical, meaning that there has been little agregate increase or decrease in movie quality over the last two years. 2005 really wasn't any worse than 2004. With the exception of 4-star numbers, 2003 looks similar, as well (2003 had 5 four-star titles). Even 2002 doesn't look much different, with the recommended films (3, 3.5, and 4 stars) being around 50%.
What does it all mean? That movies haven't changed much in the last four years. Admittedly, before running the numbers, I expected them to show a slow decrease in quality from 2002 to 2005. But the steady-state nature of the percentages means that the perception that movies have been getting worse may be more fiction than fact. Of course, since this is all based on opinon, and I'm using my subjective ratings here, your mileage may vary. But I'd bet not by much.
A random sampling of '90s numbers shows that the recommended percentages were higher. So movie quality has declined over the last 10 to 15 years. Maybe early next year I'll do a breakdown of every year since ReelViews opened for business (1996). For now, however, all I can say is that, at least compared to the past four years, 2005 wasn't that bad after all.
The Longest Month
For as long as I can remember, January has been my least favorite month. It's a long, bleak stretch from New Year's Day to Memorial Day, and this is only the beginning. On a sunny day, there are about nine hours of light. The daytime high typically hovers a few degrees below freezing. There tends to be either too much snow or too little. And the movie landscape is as unpromising as my windswept backyard.
For those who live in areas where the late-December limited releases don't arrive until January (these could include Munich, The New World, Match Point, and a few others), cinematic opportunities remain. But for those who have seen the majority of the 2005 releases in 2005, January doesn't offer much reason to leave the couch and go to the multiplex.
It's hard for me to make a final determination about which January movies I'll be seeing. Bad weather can change things. And there can be unexpected surprises, like the local opening of a limited release movie I hadn't expected. (Caché, perhaps?) Eliminating such wild cards, however, my current plan is to average about two movies per week. Since January has four weekends (not counting December 31/January 1), that means I'll exit the month having seen about eight movies. I figure that's about all I can stomach. If past history is an indicator of future trends, the February average will be about the same, then the numbers will start climbing in March.
So what am I planning to see in January 2006? I'll start with Grandma's Boy (no press screenings) and Hostel (limited press screenings, and I have already missed the only local one). Expecting too much from either would be a mistake, but you never know... For the weekend of 1/13-15, I plan to catch three titles: Glory Road (generic sports underdog movie - but it could be enjoyable if well made), Hoodwinked! (I have heard good things), and Tristan and Isolde. For week #3, the only thing on my schedule is Underworld: Evolution. How can anything with Derek Jacobi be all bad? (I hope the film doesn't answer that question.) Finally, January wraps with Annapolis and Nanny McPhee.
For anyone who might be wondering, missing films like Last Holiday and Big Momma's House 2 are not oversights. In general, I'm not a big fan of previews, but after seeing two minutes of Last Holiday, I decided that I didn't need to see another minute. Besides, I now know the entire story. Queen Latifa, please get a new agent! Considering how much I hated the first Big Momma's House, anyone who believed I would subject myself to a second installment is deluded. Also to be skipped: Bloodrayne (Uwe Boll - need I say more?) and The Gathering (which has such unbelievably bad advance word that I can't believe anyone would willingly pay money for it - again, no press screening).
So, there we have it: the January movie roster. Doesn't it make you want to curl up next to the fire and watch 24 (fifth season premieres Jan. 15) and Battlestar Galactica (second half of second season premieres Jan. 6)?
2005: Performances Worth Mentioning
In the past, I have tried to match performances with the Academy's four vaunted categories: Lead Actor, Lead Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress. However, since who gets into what category is a matter of games and politics, I'm not going to bother. Instead, I'll single out about twenty performances that impressed me, with leads and supports intermingled. What a sense of freedom that imparts - not having to decide whether George Clooney deserves to be mentioned for Lead Actor or Supporting Actor in Syriana.
Since I mentioned him, let me start there. 2005 marks Clooney's move from matinee idol to serious actor, and never has he been more compelling than in Syriana. Although the film is more plot-and-idea-centered than a showpiece for actors, Alexander Siddig deserves recognition, as well.
Siddig, who toiled for seven years as a regular on the TV series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine before moving to the big screen, was also exceptional in a film that everyone has forgotten, Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven. (In fact, one could make a convincing argument that he acted circles around everyone else in the film.)
Munich is Eric Bana's film. He's our gateway into its ethical morass, with his character trapped by the unpredictability of an ever-shifting moral compass. It's easy to overlook Bana because his performance is low-key. He doesn't go over-the-top, but there's tremendous intensity there. I submit that with a lesser actor in this role, Munich would not have achieved the nearly universal acclaim it has received.
When thinking about this year's crop of real life figures brought to the screen, it's tough to ignore Philip Seymour Hoffman's interpretation of Truman Capote (Capote), Joaquin Phoenix's Johnny Cash (Walk the Line), Reese Witherspoon's June Carter Cash (also Walk the Line), and David Strathairn's Edward R. Murrow (Good Night, and Good Luck). Four remarkable portrayals, all worthy of nominations. (At least one - possibly Hoffman or Strathairn - will likely be left out.)
There will be nominations from Brokeback Mountain, perhaps for both Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. Perhaps my feeling that the film is overrated colors my perceptions but, although I agree that both gave strong performances, I don't think they were among the best of the year. In fact, I would argue that Gyllenhaal was better in Jarhead. Since that film tanked, if Gyllenhaal's name is going to appear on any rosters, it will be for the Ang Lee feature. If either or both Ledger and Gyllenhaal are overlooked, it will be because of spatial restrictions.
While the Academy may acknowledge Charlize Theron for North Country, I would like to single out Richard Jenkins, who plays her father. Theron was good, but Jenkins was better. This is the kind of role that the "Best Supporting Actor" award was made for. Unfortunately, Jenkins doesn't have a high enough profile to get a nod for a film that no one saw. More's the pity.
Gywneth Paltrow deserves recognition for Proof. She successfully transfered a character from the play to the screen (unlike Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick in The Producers), and caused movie viewers to become emotionally invested in her fate. From another adaptation (this time book-to-movie), Kiera Knightley has put her name alongside the best with her fiery interpretation of Elizabeth Bennett from Pride and Prejudice. I don't know if this was the best female performance of the year, but it was my favorite. She showed her versatility (if not her taste) by following this up with Tony Scott's Domino.
Members of ensemble casts are frequently overlooked by the Academy, but I'd like to single out Thandie Newton and Matt Dillon from Crash. Long after may details of the movie have faded from the memory, these characters linger, and it's as much because of the performances as the writing and direction. If ever there was a case of two actors doing the most with limited screen time, this is it.
Joan Allen gave what is easily one of the most impressive turns of her career in The Upside of Anger, a mid-year release that could easily fall through the cracks when it comes to nominations. Diane Keaton will steal her spot with a decent, but not overwhelming, turn in The Family Stone. When I fill out my ballot for the OFCS awards, Allen will be there, however. Another "lost" performance belongs to Amber Tamblin from The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. She's easily good enough for recognition, but the movie is too easily forgotten. Now that Tamblyn is no longer hampered by a TV series, she needs to make more films. Her name deserves to be as well known as that of Dakota Fanning.
Offbeat choices: Christian Bale as the title character in Batman Begins, proving that it makes a difference to have a great actor underneath the mask. Steve Carell in The 40 Year Old Virgin. Doesn't making us laugh for 2 hours count for something? Andy Sirkis in King Kong. There's a real man behind that gorilla, and he deserves recognition since Kong was one of 2005's biggest screen presences. Will Smith in Hitch - one of the funniest and most likeable peformances of the year, right behind Carell's.
To continue the look back at 2005, tomorrow I'll present the Bottom 10, followed by the Top 10 later in the week.
2005: The Bottom 10
Bottom 10 lists are curious things. They're more fun to read than to produce. (Doing so requires the critic to peruse titles of which he/she would prefer not to be reminded.) They are often used to promote a critic's "message," with some Bottom 10s containing not the worst films, but the most disappointing, or ones that were most badly conceived, or something else. Finally, these lists are constrained by what the critic has seen, and many of us are apt to avoid titles that could have a prominent position.
My view of a Bottom 10 list is simple: the ten films I liked least of all those I saw in 2005. I do not make statements. As is my tradition, I present these in reverse order of badness, so that #1 (the worst) appears last.
#9: Hide and Seek - Proof that more than a good cast (Robert De Niro, Dakota Fanning) is needed to make a good movie. For improvement, all this production needed was a new script. Hide and Seek was one of a number of really bad 2005 horror films.
#8: Doom - Movies based on video games don't get much worse than this. With this kind of thing as a demonstration of the value of games to critics like Roger Ebert, no wonder he thinks gaming is a waste of time. Watching something like this certainly is.
#7: White Noise - 2005's worst supernatural horror film. It makes no sense whatsoever, causing one to wonder if it went into production without a completed script. One of the great mysteries of the movie is how the producers acquired the services of Michael Keaton. Is he that hard up for cash?
#6: Just Friends - How bad can romantic comedies get? Here's a good example. It's a tedious bore, filled with jokes that don't work, actors who don't act, and romance creepier than that between a brother and a sister. I suppose it's passable as a date movie, provided you keep your attention firmly on your companion and not on the screen.
#5: Bewitched - It takes a really bad movie for me to make a statement like "they raped the TV show." This movie manages to elevate the quality of a lackluster TV series to Olympian heights by comparison. It also makes me question how funny Will Ferrell actually is. "Uneven" is probably the best word I can arrive at for his talents.
#4: Miss Congeniality 2 - WHY?????
#3: Dukes of Hazzard - Just when I was ready to crown Betwitched as the worst big screen TV adaptation, along comes The Dukes of Hazzard, an astoundingly bad motion picture experience that had me considering walking out nearly every other minute. Some will tout Jessica Simpson as a reason to see the film, but she looks... well... plastic. At least I got an offbeat review out of this one.
#2: Devil's Rejects, The - Offensive, pretentious, and sickening. Those three categories, in combination, do not make for a good horror/thriller. I found The Devil's Rejects to be almost unwatchable. I know it has a small cult following but, judging by e-mails sent to me from card-carrying members, I wouldn't want to meet any of them in person.
#1: A Hole in My Heart - Most people didn't get a chance to see this film, because it opened only in limited U.S. release and hasn't yet seen the light of day on DVD (and hopefully never will). I don't often use the word "hate" to describe a movie, but it applies here. When the film's high point is one character vomiting into the mouth of another, you know you're in trouble. If I ever put myself through the torture of coming up with an all-time Worst 10 list, A Hole in My Heart would make the cut. I'm more stingy about handing out zero-star ratings than I am four-star ratings, but this movie is deserving.
Now, on to better things...
2005: The Top 10
Every year, I get asked why I don't post this list earlier. After all, some critics make theirs available in mid-December. To me, it's unseemly to reveal my favorites of the year before the year is over. So here's the list, with a few comments for each film. As is my custom, this is in reverse order, with the best saved for last.
#9: Sin City - This is the first movie to look and feel like a comic book. The story is engaging, but the thing that really makes Sin City unique is the way in which Robert Rodriguez chooses to present the visuals. The film isn't for everyone - you have to like this kind of violent, over-the-top storytelling - but if it's your thing, you'll love every minute of it.
#8: Pride & Prejudice - One could argue that the BBC-TV production of a decade ago is the definitive version of the Jane Austen novel, but this is as good as it gets when it comes to movie adaptations. Nothing previously provided for theatrical viewing comes close. In fact, it's possible to argue that this is the best big screen version of any Austen book. While I could quibble about Matthew MacFadyen's portrayal of Darcy as too laid back, it's tough to imagine anyone better than Kiera Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett. A must-see for Austen lovers, and maybe even a few who aren't.
#7: Grizzly Man - Forget the penguins - this is the most compelling documentary I have seen in several years. Timothy Treadwell's story is mesmerizing, and it's made all the more intriguing by the knowledge that he was killed by the bears about which he spends much of the movie rhapsodizing. Treadwell's footage is the best stuff this documentary has to offer, and the decision not to present the audio of his death provides a point that can be debated in post-screening discussions. The aura of fate hovers over this motion picture; one can almost feel the Hand of God at work.
#6: Match Point - Woody Allen's "comeback," and his best film since Crimes and Misdemeanors (with which it shares thematic elements). What starts out as a seemingly straightforward character drama develops into a taut thriller. The protagonists are excellently developed and well portrayed, and Allen has made a clear decision to step away from many of his "trademarks" (although some, like his preference for older recordings, remain). It's a riveting motion picture that uses its slow pace and increasingly dangerous stakes to draw the viewer in and not let him/her go.
#5: Downfall - An early year release, this German import may be the most chilling representation of Hitler's last days ever committed to the screen. Bruno Ganz's performance as the insane dictator is incredible (one could argue that his work was more deserving of the Best Actor Oscar than that of Jamie Foxx, who won the award). Based on the diaries of Hitler's personal secretary, through whose eyes the majority of the film unfolds, this is as historically accurate a portrayal of this period as there is likely to be. It's a disturbing motion picture, not easily forgotten.
#4: 3-Iron - A small, hauting romance from Korean director Kim Ki-duk, this was my first-half favorite. After a straightforward first half, the film enters the realm of the mystical in its second half before concluding in an oblique but satisfying manner. It took two viewings before I felt I had a good grasp on what was happening. This is a tough movie to decode, and not for everyone, but it's a treasure for those who appreciate this kind of motion picture.
#3: King Kong - Had the first hour of King Kong been better paced, this movie would have been closer to (or in) the #1 position. That being said, I love this for what it is: an epic updating of one of movie-dom's greatest monster movies. Spectacles don't get bigger than this one, and it's easy to forgive the film's length once the action gets started. For Kong fans, this delivers everything (and perhaps a little more) one could reasonably expect. It's doubtful anyone again will try another remake.
#2: Syriana - If I was less of a cynic, maybe I wouldn't like this film as much, but its bleak view of politics and business has the ring of truth. Syriana can boast the most convoluted plot of any 2005 film, and it demands that the viewer pay careful attention. A bathroom break can be fatal, and even the attentive viewer won't be able to connect the dots until the end credits have rolled (or perhaps not until after a second viewing). Don't expect a happy ending. One of the film's messages is that there's no such thing. The world runs on corruption, not goodwill.
#1: Munich - This is Steven Spielberg's most important film since Schindler's List, and its contemporary relevance makes it more powerful. In fact, one could make an argument that it is technically superior to Spielberg's 1993 epic (although I still regard Schindler's List as the director's crown jewel). With a tremendous lead performance by Eric Bana and equally outstanding supporting work, the acting is at the level necessary to do justice to a story that asks difficult moral and ethical questions. This is also a tense thriller, with set pieces capable of causing white knuckles. Munich is 2005's lone four-star movie, and it will find its way to my all-time Top 100 list when I update it in January 2006.
©2005 James Berardinelli
December 3, 2005 (Saturday):
Sleigh Bells Ring
December 6, 2005 (Tuesday):
December 9, 2005 (Friday):
December 10, 2005 (Saturday):
December 12, 2005 (Monday):
December 15, 2005 (Thursday):
December 17, 2005 (Saturday):
December 19, 2005 (Monday):
December 23, 2005 (Friday):
3.5 stars: 12%
3 stars: 36%
2.5 stars: 22%
2 stars: 15%
0-1.5 stars: 14%
3.5 stars: 13%
3 stars: 37%
2.5 stars: 20%
2 stars: 13%
0-1.5 stars: 16%
3.5 stars: 11%
3 stars: 36%
2.5 stars: 20%
2 stars: 18%
0-1.5 stars: 12%
3.5 stars: 12%
3 stars: 41%
2.5 stars: 16%
2 stars: 17%
0-1.5 stars: 14%
December 24, 2005 (Saturday):
December 27, 2005 (Tuesday):
December 28, 2005 (Wednesday):
#10: Into the Blue - Eye candy that could threaten brain damage. One could argue that the sight of Jessica Alba in a bikini for 2/3 of the running length is worth the pain, but I'd rather stare at a picture. Nothing is worth enduring a plot this dumb and acting this bad.
December 30, 2005 (Friday):
Honorable Mentions: Capote, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Good Night, and Good Luck, Innocent Voices, Mad Hot Ballroom, Proof, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith
#10: 40 Year Old Virgin, The - Comedies get a bum rap when it comes to Top 10's. They are mostly ignored due to a lack of "sophistication." But no movie in the past three or four years has made me laugh as hard or as frequently as Steve Carell's The 40 Year Old Virgin. And, not only is this movie bawdy and hilarious, but it's sweet, as well. One word of advice, however, when it comes to the DVD: stick with the theatrical version. The 17 additional minutes added to the extended edition amounts to filler - it's not funny and it hurts the pacing. Most of the time, editors know what they're doing.
Back To New Movies Page