The Watercooler: 5/5/08
Perhaps Iron Man can tempt David Poland with a wagonload of fruit pies
(Click the image for the whole delightful ad)
The movie everyone is talking about is Iron Man, the first big event movie of the summer. I won’t be reviewing it because it’s pretty much review proof. All you need to know is whether it delivers on its promise. It does. Fans of superhero movies and fans of Robert Downey, Jr. will get their money’s worth. Fans of neither needn’t bother. There is no genre reinvention going on here, but it’s a solid summer entertainment and certainly better than last year’s dismal Spider-Man 3.
One amusing side note is the bickering over box office. It had been widely predicted that the film wouldn’t crack the magic $100 million number. In the aftermath of it having done just that, there is plenty of backpedaling and excuse making to go around. In an oddly defensive post, David Poland would like everyone to know that the box office projections he toils over aren’t personal. Apparently he wasn’t wrong because he disliked the movie, he was just plain, good old fashioned wrong.
He offers no explanation for why the numbers matter in the first place. Do you like Iron Man more because it made over $100 million? Would you have liked it less if it hadn’t?
Before Iron Man, I saw trailers for The Incredible Hulk, which looks incredibly crappy. I’m sorry to say that because I was kind of rooting for it, but the CGI didn’t move me.
The Dark Knight trailer got the crowd excited and the Internet is abuzz with what it all means.
The Love Guru still looks wretched. Sadly, when it stiffs it will probably increase the odds of Austin Powers 4.
Finally of course was the latest Indy trailer. If the audience at the Cinerama Dome is any gauge of what’s going to be popular, Dark Knight and Indy are going to be the big hits of summer. I’m kind of stating the obvious there, huh?
Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Posts: - ‘Knight’ tops ‘Express’ at the box office…or does it?
- Joker Robs Banks, ‘Dark Knight’ Takes it Back
- ‘Dark Knight’ Finds More Cash in Batmobile Ashtray
- When I’m wrong, I’m wrong…And I’m wrong.
- Dark January Knights
I remember all of those fruit pie ads. I have many. And I hated those coagulated jelly things. But the shells were quite tasty.
As I stated on a previous post, I though IRON MAN was barely passable. The human side of the characters emerged in the early going, but in the end the bombatic proceedings went full gear turning the film into another TRANSFORMERS. Downey and Bridges were fine for sure, but it all adds up to very little. The kids though thought it was awesome.
The South American drama about a hermaphrodite, XXY was too austere and static for my tastes. (at least in this instance–I love the austerity of Bresson!! ) It was a sensitive drama that seemed to follow all the formulaic twists (including the obligatory attempted rape scene) and it showed teenage angst without any hint to how the dilemma would be resolved. The central performance is rather compelling, but its in the service of a static and understated film.
Yeah, I’m in the decent, not great, but what a terrific Downey performance area on Iron Man. I don’t think it’s much better than an average movie, all things considered, in the sense that I don’t think it does much above and beyond the call of duty. But I am glad it’s an average movie, because it certainly could have been less.
I am in the good - not quite great, but good enough for me to want to see a second time - and I generally HATE superhero films. Spiderman? Gag. Hulk? Gag. Iron Man? Grin. Transformers? Fun, but headache-inducing. Iron Man, for me, got it just right. The sequel{s} will no doubt be better - in my humble, humble opinion.
I also saw My Blueberry Nights - that was amazing, in a sort of “dig a little deeper, don’t compare it with Wong’s other films” kind of way.
I saw Counterfeiters again on DVD - I liked it less than at first, but it is still good. Katyn is better. I *cannot* wait to see Katyn again, when I saw it there were no expectations of it, no Oscar nom, nothing.
Then I saw 12:08 East of Bucharest - now I really cannot wait to see 4 Months, 3 weeks and 2 days {which releases on July 11}.
Also saw “The Walker” which sucked, in all honesty - but I doubt Kristen Scott Thomas can give a performance I can call “awful.”
Then watched “Assassination of Jesse James” on DVD, which just became available in SA. Loved it even more, if that was possible.
Today I missed the press screening of “What Happens in Vegas” because I really just do not care.
I am dying to see XXY Sam. And about a TON and a half of films released in the States not released in SA.
I also saw Indie (Raiders) on TV - having not actually seen the franchise before - at least not in its entirety - I am glad SA TV is showing one of the 3 films every Saturday night until Crystal Skull opens. Which I am REALLY interested in - and I have ZERO clue why.
I agree with KB and Sam on Iron Man, but will not argue at all with those who consider it their favorite superhero movie. Certainly it was better than Spider-Man 3! Here’s to hoping that the Iron Man sequels (#2 coming out APRIL 30, 2010 - seriously, April is the new June?) live up to this one. Also, I saw the IM trailer for the first time yesterday, and found it fantastic - no wonder everyone was so excited.
I finally saw The Visitor and My Blueberry Nights, which I scored a 92 and 90, respectively. The Visitor was about what I expected. I was a little thrown off by the ending, which is a good thing. Not as good as The Station Agent, but still very good. Richard Jenkins on Oscar watch? Yes.
Having a lot of trouble processing MBN, and I won’t read a word of all the stuff you guys have been writing over the last few weeks until I do my own. It was my first Wong film. I’ve been all over the place with it, at one point already considering it one of my favorites of the year. I also had to admit to my girlfriend that I was captivated by Norah Jones in a way that I haven’t been with anyone else on screen in a long, long time. Terrific little film.
The festival closed (I’ve posted a little recap) with Black Coffee a so-so documentary about the specialty coffee industry. Pretty interesting stuff, and a good companion piece with another coffee doc, Black Gold.
Anyway, all is well since the summer movie season is officially upon us. I’m starting to get crazy, crazy excited for Indy…
Caught up on all 3 Indy movies. Temple of Doom wasn’t nearly as bad as I had remembered it, but it does make it obvious that The Last Crusade was basically Spielberg’s apology from the second one. I had forgotten how much ludicrous b-movie action they crammed into it.
I’m with you Craig on reviewing Iron Man. The whole time I was writing my review I kept thinking, “Why am I even writing this?”
Also saw The Singing Revolution, a wonderful little documentary about Estonia’s fight for independence from the Soviets. Even though most of the interviews are stale (Estonians don’t appear to be particularly emotional people) and the film drags in the middle section (just how many archival singing montages of Estonian folk singing am I expected to take?) the film ends on a resounding note. It almost brought me to tears and reminded me of how much I take my freedom for granted. With the situation between Tibet and China currently burning up in the international press releases, this film is more relevant than ever.
12:08 East of Bucharest is next in my Netflix queue, Nick. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days is a fantastic movie. I think you’ll like it. :-)
I saw Iron Man Saturday afternoon. It’s really good, not quite great as Nick says. Truly entertaining, which is as much as I expected and wasn’t asking for anything more. The acting was terrific on all counts, particularly Robert Downey Jr., who I adore. And I loved the use of the music through the whole thing, and the way they introduced Black Sabbath’s “Iron Man” was cute. Trailers seen before the movie: Hamlet 2 (looks bad), Dark Knight (no applause in my theater, but lots of glimpses at Heath’s twists on the character of The Joker), Prince Caspian (Eh. I didn’t see the first Narnia, probably won’t see this), You Don’t Mess With Zohan (looks bad), The Love Guru (this is going to suck eggs) and: Indiana Jones (lots of applause and whistling).
I caught Strangers on a Train again on PBS. Great movie, though it still doesn’t bump out my top two favorite Hitchcock films.
And yesterday I watched La Gran Final, also known as The Great Match in English. A funny, delightful move that follows a tribe of Mongolian nomads, a tribe of Indians in the Amazon Jungle and a tribe of Nigerian camel drivers and the lengths each group goes to so they can watch the World Cup game between Brazil and Germany. The DVD is available from Netflix and I highly recommend it.
Hooray, Alison - you enjoyed The Great Match! I thought it might be appealing only to a niche audience (that niche being “great taste in international film”), so I guess we’re both a part of it. I loved how present the physical settings of each location were - jungle, desert, tundra. Great comedy, too.
Nice idea with the Indy-thon, Evan. I might consider that, but maybe it would cause me to be too critical of the differences in the new one?
Definitely, Daniel. :-)
I loved the use of music in the film, too.
Hope you enjoy Bucharest, Alison, it is funny. Not much more I can say, but I am betting 4 Months is waaaay better than it.
And I think Hamlet 2 looks good, but maybe that is the childish side of me coming through, I don’t know, could end up a trainwreck.
Nick, you could be right about Hamlet 2, and we all know better than to judge a film by its trailer. Anyway, I say embrace the childish side. Different things appeal to my childish side - I am an admitted childrens’ cartoon enthusiast.
Watched Van Sant’s Last Days. Michael Pitt (Blake) just impresses me more and more as a courageous young art house talent. I found the film mesmerizing. Amazing use of sound and music. The former played an important role in emphasizing Blake’s psychological dissociation. It did so by regularly pairing the sounds produced by another scene (chronologically earlier), including: doors opening and shutting; bells ringing; footsteps on creaking floorboards; wind ruffling of vegetation; and water lapping on a shore with the unfolding one. Also, the vivid crispness and amplification of these kinds of sounds both conveyed for me the sometimes heightened perception of a chemical high and Blake’s experience of the world’s intrusive demand for his attention/presence. The music when performed by him was the only time Blake’s highly internalized state more fully came into step with the external world, exercising a degree of lucid focus and control. That felt right for a musician in personal crisis and who was drug and psychologically impaired.
I found the making of doc interesting too. Hearing Savides talk about not needing to always keep the camera on a character we’re following, trusting that the audience can figure out what’s happening and encouraging greater participation on the viewer’s part in bringing meaning to a scene. For me, this worked as another device for emphasizing Blake’s dissociation, the extent to which he was out of step with himself and the world - the camera sometimes remaining fixed while he moves in and out of a shot or the camera lingering elsewhere for a time.
Van Sant loves tracking characters from behind as they walk down paths, corridors etc. - I like the aesthetic and its universality, the long walking sequences offer a nice metaphor for a character’s “journey” (in this case towards death). It also acts as one of the many ways in which the camera predominantly avoids close-ups of Blake’s face, telling of his withdrawal from and unease at this time with more direct connection, particularly human. The producer in the making of doc made a very astute observation when noting that Van Sant doesn’t manipulate, but rather presents. I know this loses Van Sant admirers. It can seem like there is no point of view or an overly meditative one. But I don’t experience that. Van Sant has a very distinctive one (it’s hardly random) but he’s inviting a degree of collaboration with the viewer, and prompting us to question the veracity of the manufactured meanings given by storytelling convention, including cinematic.
Finally, I appreciated being reminded how much I love the Velvet Underground’s Venus In Furs. Sorry for the long comment.
Christian, these ads crack me up to this day. I’m not sure why.
KB. It’s fair to say Iron Man pretty much delivered on its promise, no? Perhaps some are disappointed because the advance hype convinced them it would be something extraordinary.
Out of curiousity Sam, how would you stack up Iron Man compared to some of the other superhero movies? My take is that it’s among the better.
Partly for me I think I’m a little tired of superhero origin stories. I hope #2 uses this as a solid foundation and takes things to a new level.
Evan, I had the same reaction to Temple a few years back when I revisited it for the first time since it played theaters. I was surprised because back then it was a little disappointing, yet it had a lot going for it. Take away Kate Capshaw and it was pretty great really. Last Crusade just doesn’t hold up as well.
Nick and Daniel. Naturally I’m glad to see a couple more folks in the MNB = Good column. Daniel, having it be your first Wong Kar Wai film probably worked to its benefit. Much of the criticism leveled at it has been in comparison to his other work. When you’re ready to start reading other things about it, be sure to check out the piece at House Next Door. It’s quite good.
I’m with Nick on Hamlet 2, but I haven’t watched the trailer and I’m basing it mainly on enthusiasm for Steve Coogan.
Alison, I forget your Top 2 Hitchcock…Notorious is one, right?
Thanks for the nice look at Last Days, Sartre. It remains the last Van Sant movie I haven’t seen. I was cool on Michael Pitt based on his performance in The Dreamers (a movie I liked quite a bit), but I’m starting to come around on him after Funny Games. I’m interested in catching Delirious and now Last Days.
And Shadow of a Doubt, Craig. That’s number one. :-)
That’s right. Good old Uncle Charlie…
You really must pay more attention, Craig :-)
Hey, I remembered Notorious, damnit.
Ah, but Shadow of a Doubt is the one I harp on all of the time. :-)
I think TEMPLE OF DOOM is one of the best pure action films ever made, as well as an adventurous, ballsy follow-up to a (still better) popular film. Last Crusade is a clearly an apology, but I don’t think that should be phrased as a compliment, it’s (IMHO, of course) a limp, lazy, self-conscious retread of the first picture. I think its funny that everyone harps on Kate Capshaw (who is a big comedown from Karen Allen) while letting the blonder (Allison Doody?) off the hook, at least Capshaw makes an impression of some sort.
“4 Months” is indeed better than “12:08,” because its the very best of the Romanian New Wave, but “12:08″ is still wonderful. I love its deadpan sense of humor.
“XXY” is hands down one of the best films I’ve seen this year. I was totally blown away by it. I really didn’t expect to be that moved by it, but I thought it was absolutely fantastic.
I saw Helen Hunt’s “Then She Found Me,” which I LOVED. I really didn’t have big expectations going in, but it hit me just right. A bit uneven, perhaps, but ends up being one of the most emotionally honest relationship movies I’ve ever seen.
I also finally caught up with “Taxi to the Dark Side,” which I thought was very good, but not quite on the level of “No End in Sight.” I think “Sight” probably split the Oscar vote with “Sicko,” which let “Taxi” win. It deserved the nomination, just not the win.
And of course “Iron Man,” what can I say about “Iron Man” that hasn’t already been said?
I thoroughly enjoyed Iron Man. It didn’t need to reinvent or redefine the genre, I thought, it just needed to be a solid foundation for the future franchise. That it was. Solid blockbuster movies have become such a rarity as we tend to settle for such trash these days, that even seeing cookie-cutter characters and predictable arcs didn’t bother me since the performances, effects. were all good. Robert Downey J was perfect in the role. I agree with whoever it was here that said he makes every line sound adlibbed. Exactly. Also thought Gwynneth had never looked better and was better-than-average as The Girl. Overall, so much better than that Transformers drivel or Spidey 3 of last year.
Anyway, it’s in the Good Superheroes column with Batman Begins, Spidey 2 and a few others.
The Indy trailer got me all nostalgic, and there was a wave of applause for it in the theater. Then again, they were laughing their asses off at Love Guru, the Adam Sandler pic and everything else, so who knows.
Jury’s still out on the new Hulk movie. We’ll see it, though, because he’s the husband’s favorite superguy.
Didn’t watch any other movies this weekend because of work.
sartre, we recently bought Last Days used, but haven’t watched it yet. I’m more interested in it now. Thanks!
Craig, it is fair to say, on the whole, that it delivers on its promise. Although I think if the story were a little thicker, we would not have been left with so much of the long patches of Downey playing Mr. Science that seem like padding. He recovers a number of those scenes, but I kept thinking, put the damn suit on already! Once those end, the film does take off.
However, while I think it more or less delivers, I thought this is pretty good, but never quite, wow! That’s why, although I can give it a high C sort of grade, I can’t quite bring myself to give it a B.
I would have liked to have seen a more elaborate look to the film. A lot of people seem pleased with the real-worldness of the look, but it disappointed me. I prefer it when the setting of a comic book movie is tuned to the hero’s psyche ala Batman Begins, Sin City, etc. But i”m willing to listen to the other side on this and see the value of what they’re saying.
Romanian New Wave? What’s the Romanian Old Wave?
See, I think many of its supposed flaws were because it was an origin story. There’s a certain amount of stuff they had to get out of the way before the fun could begin and they did a better job with it in Iron Man than in most.
Jennybee is right that it definitely goes in the good column.
Funny Chuck, I forget Alison Doody unless someone mentions her or she’s on the screen in front of me. That illustrates your point. Still, I’d rather have set dressing than constant screeching.
In retrospect, Karen Allen did her fair share of screaming, but she was terrific.
also, i meant to say that i do like parts of Last Crusade, particularly with Connery, but I think it enjoys an undeserved goodwill amongst Indy fanboys (of which I’m one.)
sartre, I’m glad you liked “Last Days.” I thoroughly enjoyed it and felt like the very final scene was one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen on film - sweetly ethereal. And I echo the sentiment about Michael Pitt. I’ve been waiting for him to breakthrough for a long time now, but I’m glad he’s flown under the radar for so long, which allows him to keep taking on interest/challenging projects.
Re Indiana Jones — am I the only person who’s never seen any of the films? I might check them out before “Skull” comes out. Or maybe I’ll just do what my brother said and watch the third one only, lol.
If you only watch one Indiana Jones movie, Dorothy, watch the original Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Chuck I really liked Last Crusade when it first came out, but I was surprised at how tired and lifeless it mostly seemed when I revisited it recently.
Seriously Dorothy, what Alison said. Watch the first one. It’s the best. If you really like it, then watch the others, but if you have to pick just one….go with #1.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my all time favorite movies and the movie that got me into movies in the first place. I still (pathetically) know nearly every line of dialogue before its coming, I think.
You’re right Dorothy. That was a beautifully poetic moment. Raiders is magnificent. But many are divided on the value of the sequels.
I’m nervous about building your expectations for the film, jennybee. Van Sant doesn’t work for everyone all the time. Make sure you and your husband are in the mood for an art house experiential piece.
I also saw I am Legend and Southland Tales for the first time over the weekend. The former was surprisingly suspenseful, primarily because of Will Smith’s performance. I wish the guy would occasionally do less formulaic films that allowed him to grow as an actor. For me Tales was a mess, lacking sufficient intelligence, humor, coherence, and satirical edge to even remotely approach its near boundless ambition. It’s a shame that Kelly’s most interesting messages were diluted by the overly convoluted, showy, and unnecessarily oblique narrative. For all that, it had many fine set pieces and the humor occasionally worked. Kelly has talent to burn, but I hope he leaves the trippy and mind bending story telling inclinations behind.
“The Last Crusade” is my favorite Indiana Jones movie.
Matthew, when was the last time we actually agreed on something? :)
I’m still in deep mourning for the San Jose Sharks. Fourth overtime last night and they lose because of a silly tripping penalty after the Dallas Stars practically maimed several Sharks with no whistle being blown.
What a game, though. An instant NHL classic.
Anyway…
Where to begin?
Firstly, bravo to you, Sartre, good sir, as you’ve made me want to take another look at Last Days, a film that I was rather lukewarm towards when I originally saw it a few years back. I actually took another look at Paranoid Park this weekend and liked it even more the second time and I have a feeling that I’d like Last Days at least a little more in retrospect, post-Paranoid Park.
I feel like I’ve written as much on Iron Man as I want to as well, and writing a review wasn’t even a possibility, aha. I think it’s a rock solid, good popcorn comic book origins movie that is singularly blessed with an excellent team of leading actors, beginning with Robert Downey, Jr. To steal a thought from others, he definitely makes the lines of dialogue he says seem ad-libbed and spontaneous. It is what it is and it’s got enough good in it to recommend it. I usually couldn’t care less about box office but seeing David Poland wrestle with his own blindness regarding Iron Man is strangely amusing. At a certain point, you’ve got to just admit you were wrong and move from there, however.
Alison, Strangers on a Train truly is superb, isn’t it? Before watching the seven-period long Sharks game last night, I squeezed in Stage Fright. What a rather terrific, cruelly underrated Hitchcock film that is. I do think Jane Wyman is a bit too overtly mousy, even though I appreciate that it’s one of Hitchcock’s important archetypes. She’s just a little too nettlesome for me, trying to balance the victimized woman sort of character she played to perfection in Johnny Belinda and her more comedic turns in various other films. Watching the special feature on the DVD, “Htichcock and Stage Fright,” it was interesting to listen to Peter Bogdanovich, Robert Osborne and others talk about how neglected this Hitchcock effort is. One of the reasons is indeed that his very next film, Strangers on a Train was such an overpowering success, that it kind of overshadowed this film, which plays much like his 1930s English films like The 39 Steps and several others. Marlene Dietrich steals the film (Bogdanovich makes the case that she stole all of the films she appeared in) and her turn as a selfish, domineering stage star deserves great plaudits. One thing about Hitchcock’s films is that they are deceptive; at first glance they usually seem to almost pervicaciously monomaniacal but in reality they’re delving deep into a wide array of psychological matters and sociological relationships. Stage Fright doesn’t examine these themes as gracefully as some Hitchcock films do, but it does possess a surprisingly impressive ambition, considering how rarely the film is brought up, even among Hitchcock devotees. The film features a “false flashback”–a certain character tells a story and Hitchcock cuts to flashback and later on the film reveals that the flashback was garbage and just lies. Apparently this was enormously controversial at the time the film was released, as audiences resented the film for somehow betraying their trust. Osborne says that audiences simply assume that a flashback in a film is trustworthy. This vaguely Resnaisian wrinkle in the film (pre-Resnais, ahaha), however, is quite amazing to think about since this film was released in 1950 and the tricky narrative maneuver in this regard seems positively of today. Alistair Sim threatens to steal the film, too, in a rather funny role as Wyman’s father.
Saturday I finally saw One False Move, Carl Franklin’s noir. I was happily surprised by how good this film is. For one thing, it successfully manages to keep two largely separate story threads that play against one another equally compelling, and for another it begins as what appears to be a fairly simplistic drug deal gone bad movie but gradually becomes a poignant portrait of societal pressures in America, and especially in Arkansas. Have you seen this, jennybee? Bill Paxton gives a touching, earnest performace as a small-town rural police chief helping two cynical L.A. cops ensnare a trio of criminals responsible for a heinous crime in L.A. and may be going to the Arkansas town. This is a film that works engrossingly both as a fascinating social issue film dealing with race relations, varying kinds of cops in America and the disconnect between two different “worlds” within the same country, and as a dynamic dramatic thriller involving cops and robbers.
Regarding Indiana Jones, Dorothy. You have to see Raiders of the Lost Ark. Don’t be the least bit surprised, though, when, after you’ve seen that film you’ll doubtless crave the two sequels. Raiders is a truly perfect film in my estimation. Temple of Doom is a wild, fun ride, with thrillingly dark subtexts. Spielberg infuses the Indy-Short Round relationship with all of his patented father figure issues (Short Round mimics one of Indiana’s physical gestures, like Brody’s son in Jaws or Jim with two different father figures in Empire of the Sun, and on and on it goes), though for the full course on that, The Last Crusade supplies a greater emotional weight for me personally. Connery and Ford make a remarkably entertaining duo; today, Lucas admits that the third film downright needed that aspect to succeed because the story is so thin (and the screenplay’s treatment of all the other characters is, let us say, less than stellar). Anyway, I love Raiders and I like the sequels just about the same overall; they’re both flawed, in different ways (Spielberg arguably went too dark with Temple of Doom–though I don’t think so–and then went too far in the other direction with the third film; Temple of Doom is a lot of fun but always feels a little slight whereas Last Crusade could have used more roller coaster-like fun despite having a stronger emotive beat to it). I agree with Chuck that Last Crusade is kind of overrated by Indy fanboys and Temple of Doom is kind of underrated by Indy fanboys…
Have I mentioned that I think Crystal Skull will be easily the best Indy not named Raiders of the Lost Ark? Well, I do, and if you disagree I don’t wanna hear from ya about it. Where are my Fandango tickets?!?
Craig, thanks for the email!
Alexander, I’m a big fan of One False Move. Like you noted, I love how it starts off as a fairly conventional genre film and then opens out towards the end into something much more sophisticated and moving. The fairly shocking depiction of violence at the outset established an ominous and suspenseful high-stakes tone throughout.
Hey all, I don’t have much but I enjoyed catching up on your comments. First a trailer round-up.
Dark Knight: I wish I hadn’t seen it but it looks like the film to beat for Summer 2008.
Indy 4: I liked everything about this trailer except Shia. Dressing him up like The Wild One just looked ridiculous, so I’m hoping that at least plays into a great punchline. We”ll see how this pans out but I remain very skeptical of it all (although I’m certain Speilberg will deliver some good set-piece action sequences).
Hulk: Yeah, Craig, I’d kinda agree that this one looks silly but I’m still curious to see what they do with it.
Hellboy 2: I’m there with bells on. This might be the most fun I’ll have in a theater all summer. Looks like Del Toro and Mignola are having a field day here.
Iron Man: I thought the first half origin-story was the best part. But once he builds the red-and-gold suit and goes out on his idealogical war, I kinda lost interest. Thankfully, I’m not a huge Iron Man fan so my stake in all this is pretty small.
I don’t know. Let me put it this way: Iron Man entertained me and I got a good deal for my $10 ticket, but I’m not sure I’ll bother revisiting it. It was fun.
YouTube versions of the latest Batman and Indy trailers can be found here:
http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/05/dark-knight-tra.html
Yes, Sartre, I can see why you would be a big fan of One False Move. It’s a film I’ve been trying to get to for years now, as I really like Devil in a Blue Dress by Franklin. One False Move is a very special and daring motion picture, though. It’s one of those films that really sneaks up on you, takes you by surprise and astonishes you by how deftly it all fits within itself like a hand stretching snugly into a glove. Powerfully acted. Like you say, the shocking violence at the beginning tips you off that this will be a dark and tragic yarn. The fact that Billy Bob Thornton was a co-screenwriter for it, and evidently much of the final product was conceptualized by him, is also another testament to his brilliance as a writer (and with Sling Blade, director).
There was a bit o’ controversy over Carl Franklin taking excessive credit for ONE FALSE MOVE. My old alma mater CREATIVE SCREENWRITING did a thorough interview with Thornton and Billy Ray, who were upset that Franklin was talking smack about the script and claiming he fixed it.
ONE FALSE MOVE is brilliant. And if you look at Billy Bob’s career and then Franklin’s, well that movie looks more like Billy Bob to me, though Franklin’s direction is very assured and and understated.
I know he’s been jerked around, but I’d love to see Thornton slide back behind the camera again, SLING BLADE still holds up as a wonderful piece of Southern gothic, and ALL THE PRETTY HORSES, warts and all, has a faded melancholy that sticks. I don’t remember much of DADDY AND THEM so I’ll have to stay mum on that one.
Alexander, my husband’s been trying to get me to watch One False Move for a while now. We have it on DVD and he loves it. I don’t know why I’ve resisted, but I won’t anymore. Mr. Jennybee will be so happy.
We re-watched Temple of Doom last night and it was even worse than I remembered. Isolated moments of Indiana Jones magic, with long excruciating scenes in between. I love Raiders wholeheartedly. Craig, I agree about Last Crusade. The last time I revisited it, several years ago, it had not aged well, though at the time it came out, I thought it was the best. We’ll watch it again in the coming weeks and give it a 2008 opinion. I do like River Phoenix in it.
” I don’t know why I’ve resisted”
Because you’re a wilful southern belle?
Ah declare, sartre. You are a devilish one to call me such a thing.
Willful and Southern, I am most definitely. Belle? The jury’s still out on that one. Case in point: After telling him of your recommendation to watch One False Move, my husband asked me to request of you LiC’ers–since you apparently have so much more influence on me than he does–that you encourage me to quit leaving my shoes all over the living room floor.
But maybe that’s just willful?
What I think is interesting about Iron Man is that, while our opinions diverge, we’ve ALL seen it. The pull of the megaplex, I suppose, or the power of marketing. They’ve managed to make it the movie to see, and I dare anyone to have a truly bad time at the movies watching it. It’s not perfect by any means, but I thought it worked pretty well as a popcorn flick. The action set-pieces weren’t all that memorable, but there were plenty cool moments, and Robert Downey Jr. is simply great.
I had a “bad movie marathon” on Saturday, which was a load of fun. On Sunday night, I watched a miniseries, “North and South”, mostly because I have a huge crush on Richard Armitage’s broody scowl at the moment. And yesterday, Raiders of the Lost Ark was on TV, and well, how could I possibly resist that? When I told someone I thought it was the best action/adventure movie ever made, he laughed, but then failed to come up with a better one.
What amazes me most (especially after watching many 80’s movies on Saturday) is how little it has dated, probably because it was a throwback to begin with. And the cheesiness of the effects actually works to its advantage: I hope they don’t go too CGI-crazy with the new one and keep the effects slightly old-fashioned.
But really, Dorothy, watch Raiders. It’s simply got it all: a great hero, who has a brain as well as brawn, and is so iconic you can recognize him by his profile alone. A great leading lady, who kicks ass without being a martial arts expert: she needs to be saved by the hero from time to time, but she’s definitely not defenseless, and she doesn’t just stand by waiting to be rescued. There’s one action set-piece after another, great lines (”It’s not the years. It’s the mileage”), and well, I just love it. Can you tell?
Great callback to Last Days, btw. Sartre. I think it might be the best of the three movies in the so-called “death trilogy”, though I have a soft spot for Gerry.
As for Hitchcock, my favorite is and always will remain Marnie, flawed as that movie is, but Strangers on a Train is great, and I kind of love Shadow of a Doubt too, for making a character so unrelentingly amoral (he preys on lonely old women, for chrissakes, and clearly despises them) so sympathetic and seductive. And then of course there’s Vertigo, Psycho, Rope, Notorious, North by Northwest, the Birds, Rear Window, Rebecca… He made his share of clunkers (Torn Curtain anyone? I should like a film about physicists….but no. And aside from the Dalí sequence, I wasn’t very impressed with Spellbound either), but Hitchcock really is great. And I think it’s amazing someone with so twisted an imagination, and such deep-rooted complexes, could have so much mainstream success.
Blegh. Should get back to my thesis now. But it was great procrastinating here for a bit ;-)
Interesting comments so far. I’ll weigh in with my thoughts on this past weekend later today (after the SPEED RACER screening) but for now I’ll leave you with this late-breaking news. Jeff Wells calls off Spielberg-bashing!
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/05/no_cuts_in_the.php
Hedwig: Marnie? Really? I think you’re the first person that I’ve met who counts it as their favorite. It’s an interesting movie, and one that I rewatch from time to time. Certainly it has its moments but in the end it is just a little bit too contrived for me. But it definitely is a great study in damaged people - not just Marnie, but her husband and the dynamic that creates between them. I think that aspect of it is missed by a lot of people who dismiss the movie completely.
I have the same problem with Spellbound. One can’t deny the charm of Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck. Still, it’s a movie I don’t feel the need to see again.
In general, the Hitchcock films that delved into ‘psychology’ were problematic to me because they’re so oversimplified, the symbolisms so obvious. Vertigo was brilliant and a great leap for him because, among many other things, he took those themes and added more complexity. And, as much as I thought the dream images in Spellbound were completely cool (I love Dali) they had nothing on the nightmare sequence in Vertigo.
I watched Torn Curtain once and it was enough. Best part of the film: That scene where it takes forever for Paul Newman to kill a man. I don’t know if there’s been another movie that depicted just how gruesome, messy and difficult it is to murder another human being the way this one did.
All I can say to Jeff Wells is, God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. [James: 4:6]
Truly, Paul C., this is a development of epic proportions.
Regarding the Wells thread, Scorsese said at a course at NYU a couple of years ago that when it comes to blocking, editing in one’s head, usage of landscapes and utilizing as few extra takes and camera shots as possible, Spielberg is unbeatable. A friend who was there told me that Scorsese called his friend “Steve” a “freak,” ahaha…
By the way, speaking of Scorsese and Spielberg, I was amazed to learn just a little while ago that Spielberg helped as guarantor to ensure Taxi Driver was made, and assisted a great deal in editing and tightening the final bloodbath. I really had no idea about this. Really cool story, though.
Hedwig: “When I told someone I thought it was the best action/adventure movie ever made he laughed, but then failed to come up with a better one.” Ahaha, that illustrates a good point.
I’m interested in your opinion of Marnie, Hedwig. TCM just showed it the other day and the host, Ben Mankiewicz, said that Marnie is probably still Hitch’s most controversial movie, as many fans of his still hate it and many fans of his now love it and consider it to be one of his great achievements.
As Pauline Kael said, most great movies are not perfect movies (almost by definition… there can only be so many perfect films and Hitchcock, in my eyes, made at least a few) and while Marnie does have flaws, I think it’s a tremendous film, perhaps all the more so because of its recklessness and flaws… It’s a case where auteur ambition makes up for any defects from which the film may suffer.
Thanks for that info, Christian. I was reading a bit about it myself, and it sounded like Thornton and Billy Ray believed they were indeed kind of ripped off. I really dig Franklin’s direction, though, and I continually get kind of depressed these last couple of days since seeing that movie when I think about how far down he’s come, making TV show episodes more than films these days.
Chuck, I’ve been wishing Thornton would step behind the camera again for quite a few years. He’s clearly got the chops; All the Pretty Horses has a whole host of flaws but he’s certainly got a good eye. Got to admit, though, I still haven’t seen Daddy and Them. Just based on Sling Blade alone, though, I think he should go back to writing and directing.
Alison: Torn Curtain, yeah I agree…Eastern Promises amongst a handful of other films offers that same level of murderous realism.
As for Marnie, Hedwig is in hallowed company because Scorsese cites it repeatedly as a very influential movie for him. Of course, it’s important to keep in mind that Scorsese cites a LOT of movies as being influential and I think his interest is specifically in certain shots and scenes, but there you have it.
Good call on Eastern Promises, joel.
Marnie definitely has its moments. The scene where she’s reunited with her horse is so touching.
Torn Curtain never recovers after that killing scene. The whole latter part, and specifically the scenes with Newman writing on a chalkboard, are just too flat. One of Hitchcock’s weaker efforts, and the real beginning of his autumnal “dip” until Frenzy.
Marnie has a lot of fascinating shots. I can see why Scorsese would see it as influential for himself, particularly the way Hitchcock conveys Sean Connery’s coldhearted, utilitarian masculine perspective in relation to the incomprehensible feminine presence.
“What I think is interesting about Iron Man is that, while our opinions diverge, we’ve ALL seen it.”
I’ve not, and have no real interest in it.
I’m a wilful southern hemisphere bête :-)
Anybody else seen Stage Fright? Any thoughts, differences, opinions?
Come on, you people are letting me down here. :-)
No, I have not seen Stage Fright, which is why I didn’t mention it….you’ve made me curious about it though. And about Torn Curtain, I wanted to mention that scene too. It’s the only good thing about the movie, and almost excruciating to watch. As for Marnie, I love it mostly because of it’s main character, and because it’s so delightfully twisted. The ending, with the all-too-obvious psychological explanation, lets the movie down, but there’s so much good before that: the robbery scene (among the tensest scenes Hitchcock ever directed), the obviously fake backdrops, the “rape” scene… And the dynamic between Connery’s character and Marnie is amazing.
Ah, Sartre…we love you exactly for being the willful bête that you are ;-)
I saw Stage Fright such a long time ago, Alexander, that I’ve forgotten it. I’ll have to revisit and get back to you.
sartre: you are obviously not (a) a comic book fanatic, (b) swayed by hype or (c) a chick (or guy) who adores Robert Downey Jr. He’s the only reason I was there. :-)
I completely agree with you, Hedwig, although I’ve always been more forgiving of the somewhat all-too-obvious expository ending, though I don’t defend it as vigorously as the Simon Oakland explanation in Psycho because I think people who attack that aren’t seeing that the very next scene contradicts him, making it all the more chilling.
And I wholly agree that the robbery sequence is one of Hitchcock’s best, because it’s so pure and simple.
It’s a shame it was so thoroughly misunderstood and mistreated when it came out in 1964.
Thanks in advance for hoping to get back to me on Marnie, Alison. :-) You should check it out as well, Hedwig. :-)
(Two smiley faces in one post… That’s six smiley faces in four posts… probably an LiC record!)
You mean Stage Fright, don’t you, Alexander? :-)
I also agree that the robbery sequence in Marnie is terrific. And there are other moments that are truly touching.
As I commented above somewhere, I think a lot of people who dismiss the film missed the dynamic between the characters that Hendren and Connery play. And they see her problems, but not his.
“You mean Stage Fright, don’t you, Alexander? :-)”
Whoops. Um… yep!
“And they see her problems, but not his.”
It’s a man’s world, Alison. :-)
Alison, completely agree with your take on the psychology in Spellbound. But for me its silliness is part of the fun of the film, together with the excellent Dali sequence and the likeable performances of Bergman and Peck. To be fair to Hitchcock, so much of psychoanalysis itself is simplistic and ridiculous that dramatizing its application really risks bringing these characteristics into sharp focus. The psychology in Vertigo was as you say far more engaging and truthful because rather than trying to directly uncover and explain the central character’s (and the director’s) obsessions and quirks, they were more indirectly represented through his actions and preoccupations.
The psychology in Vertigo was also more generically interesting in the way the film explored how someone, particularly women, can be seen in idealized terms rather than for who they really are. And the attendant pressures upon them to meet idealized expectations.
To answer your speculations. I’m not a comic book fanatic, but I’m still enjoying the discovery of graphic novels by the likes of Moore, Ware, and Clowes. I’ll catch Iron Man down the track on DVD only because Downey Jr. is in it. And I’m not immune to hype that taps my interests.
I think some of Hitch’s more overt psychological bits haven’t aged all that well, but at the time of the films the concepts were somewhat newer and more mysterious.
I like Stage Fright and I even liked the supposed “flashback lie” that even Hitchcock admitted was probably a mistake. Jane Wyman was great and the final suspense sequence was great.
But then again, I even like I Confess, so I’m a bit of an apologist. Not much use for Torn Curtain, but I haven’t seen it for years and years…I think I even skipped it in a retro Joel and I did together where we watched every film. Frenzy is great late-career Hitch and in many ways one of his most disturbing. The old dude was still pushing the envelope even then. Family Plot is not his best work, but I think it’s fun and kind of underrated.
As per post PSYCHO Hitch, I’ve never much cared for MARNIE because the central plot device (Connery basically raping Marnie) is pretty odious and the revisionism on the film (as if those phony process shots are supposed to be phony) never convinced me. It does have interesting things, but not to me. TORN CURTAIN has that great killing scene, but it’s miscast. TOPAZ is even more of a wreck, tho it has moments. FRENZY is skillful, but again, really unpleasant. Hitchcock taught me everything about filmmaking, and for me PSYCHO was his last great movie.
As per Wells, if he had a clue about Spielberg in the first place he would already know how he cuts/films action scenes.
I Confess left me wanting, but I thought it was an interesting experiment. Hitchcock was always testing new ideas and concepts, basing entire films around them. It’s quite extraordinary that so many of them worked when normally, experiments like those tend to fail or at least underwhelm. I think Lifeboat and Rope are two of Hitchcock’s most watchable movies of the various experiments.
I remember liking Stage Fright but other than the “flashback lie” Craig mentions, I don’t recall much about it.
I’d concur with the general feelings on Hitchcock’s later work, that Marnie excels in technical details but doesn’t necessarily enthrall me as a film experience. Frenzy is highly underrated while Torn Curtain and Family Plot have positives but ultimately don’t move me much. I used to love The Trouble with Harry but it’s become more of a test with subsequent viewings.
Scorsese likes to discuss specific shots in Marnie and certain scenes over and over again. I know he’s specifically obsessed with the scene where Marnie must deal with her horse and that he’s specifically referenced that sequence of shots in a couple of his films.
“To be fair to Hitchcock, so much of psychoanalysis itself is simplistic and ridiculous…”
True, but then a lot of its weight and significance is restored in hindsight as we come to realize it was always Hitchcock himself on the psychoanalyst’s couch. Rather than expect Hitch to provide insight into what the dreams of others mean, I feel his films are Hitchcock’s confessional effort to put his own dreams on screen for the audience to interpret.
And for the record, my favorite Hitchcock film is ROPE. So what do I know?
You all know more about Hitchcock than Wells knows about Spielberg.
I suppose I shouldn’t kick the guy in the balls when he’s changing his stripes…no matter how temporarily, but it’s habit at this point.
Wells changing his stripes?
Skunk to Hyena. Is that an improvement?
Those two paragraphs by Sartre perfectly illustrate my feelings about Hitchcock’s cinematic essays on psychology. In Spellbound, for instance, the subject itself is the central theme, about looking into the mind, so to speak, of Gregory Peck. Numerous other Hitchcock films were about this, too, and Marnie is kind of a “retread,” or possibly even artistic “retreat” post-Vertigo, which excels for the very reason Sartre describes–rather than burning up film making the James Stewart character’s psychological issues an object of continual conversation, Hitchcock depicts and dramatizes it all, and the results are brilliantly creepy and sick.
As far as Hitchcock’s filmography goes, Psycho is, I think, his last big-G “Great Film,” and one of those “perfect films” I alluded to earlier. Hitchcock did kind of get more twisted as he went, though, particularly with Frenzy–which is so morbid and frequently upsetting, but with this demented glint in its winking, menacing and coldly funny eye, that it demands a great deal of respect.
The Trouble With Harry is a film that I liked well enough to see once, but I doubt I’ll ever take another look. Topaz is something of an unwieldy wreck, as Christian says, but it does have its moments.
There is quite a bit of revisionism regarding Hitchcock, and I do agree that many of his backdrops and rear-screen projection, which were often kind of poor, have now been written off as part of his “artifice,” a somewhat debatable point.
Craig, I meant to bring up the fact that Hitchcock believed his flashback lie in Stage Fright was probably his biggest career mistake, and conceded the point to his many critics at that point–all of which was discussed on the DVD special feature. I thought Wyman was just all right, and Dietrich blew her off the screen and not just because of the way the roles were written and performed.
Normally he’s sort of a skunk/hyena hybrid so this is a modest, if temporary improvement.
I like Trouble With Harry simply because I have a mad crush on Shirley McLean. Frenzy is very disturbing, which is why I like it.
I’m not sure where I stand on the process shots. The one in Family Plot is the most awkward. It’s a drawback to his need for the control he got working on a sound stage and I can mostly overlook it. It works better on the black and white films.
I actually never made it through Family Plot. Both lead actors annoyed the hell out of me and I couldn’t get into the story at all.
I love Bruce Dern, but yeah he’s kind of a weasel.
Family Plot is a hammy plod. The worst Hitchcock is better than the best of most other directors, but Family Plot sure stretches that maxim thin, doesn’t it? Hard to believe this is the same Ernest Lehman who gave us The Sweet Smell of Success and North by Northwest:
George: Smells fishy to me.
Blanche: Well even fish smells good when you’re starving to death.
(and that’s one of the 4 “memorable quotes”)
I like the actors ok, but none of the four lead characters were sympathetic. Pretty hard to make Karen Black unattractive but this movie manages.
IMDb says the tagline was “You must see it twice!” (you’ll have to jump the “once” hurdle first, Alison) and the DVD case swears it’s “An Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece” so maybe I’m missing something.
I went into it expecting it would suck, so the fact that it entertained me I might give it a bit of a pass.
Let’s not quarrel.
It just helps McCain.
plus, every time, god kills a kitten
Family Plot has such a poor reputation that my expectations were so low when I viewed it that I actually ended up more or less enjoying it. I like Bruce Dern a lot, too, and he helps carry the weight of the film.
I also rather like John Williams’ score for it.
The screenplay is a come-down from Sweet Smell of Success and North by Northwest, I grant you, Ryan. And it’s certainly minor Hitch, no doubt about it.
Oh, we can’t have that. Think of the kittens.
LiC is kitten and bunny friendly.
Alexander, we’re on the exact same page with Family Plot. The rest of you haters can suck it! :)
This tangent amuses the Hitchkittens, who fear neither the laws of man nor those of god himself.
FAMILY PLOT looks like Hitchcock filmed it for a Universal TV movie of the week. But jeez, the guy was 80, right? It’s a trifle, but I actually like Dern and Julie Harris in it. But for revisionism, read Donald Spoto’s book on HItchcock films and how he tries to parse the out of control car chase in FP as some sort of great scene; it’s all process window shots.
Omigod, Christian. Yes! Now you jog my memory of how I came to hold Family Plot in low regard. I read that Spoto book before I saw the movie. All those pages and pages of storyboards in the last chapter impressed the hell of me as a kid. I was visualizing a modern-day cliffs-of-Monaco thing. Then I finally got a chance to see the film and realized it was an episode of Columbo, minus Peter Falk.
Julie Harris was fun. The Jennifer Tilly of the ’70’s
I think I mean Spoto’s “The Art of Alfred Hitchcock” — though I can’t find it right now to verify. “The Dark Side of Genius” does not have the storyboards.
“FAMILY PLOT looks like Hitchcock filmed it for a Universal TV movie of the week” Yes! but having grown up smack dab in the era of the Universal TV movie of the week, I love that shit.
Spielberg for chrissakes!
And yeah, the cat is 80. It’s no classic, and the out of control car thing is distracting as hell, but I still dig it.
I prefer KILLDOZER to FAMILY PLOT.
Oh my God, Ryan, those kitten photos are hysterical. I particularly like the Hitchkitten.
Killdozer!!!! I think we may have had this convo at HE, but Killdozer scared the bejebus out of me when I was little. I haven’t seen it since. Is it on DVD yet?
Speaking of movies that scared the bejebus out of me when I was a little kid, off to the New Beverly for Westworld and Soylent Green.
It’s people!!!
Thanks for spoiling it, A! Jeeeez! (kidding…but you knew that, right?)
Of course! I’m sure you’ve seen it already. :-)
Oh dear, I stray from the site for a few hours and come back to find I’ve missed an entire, fantastic discussion on Hitchcock. Sigh. Sometimes I’m just not enough of an internet addict.
Cheese and rice, did someone just cite KILLDOZER on this site? Holy crap, I think I’m having an out of body experience. Killdozer and Craig go way back. This is sort of unnerving really…like we’ve come full circle. If we get a unwarranted outpouring of love for Jeff Speakman (http://www.jeffspeakman.com/) then I’ll know either a Horseman of the Apocalypse is riding or I’ve taken an unexpected blow to the noggin and fallen into the wayback machine.
Where was I? Oh yeah, process shots and elderly genius…
I kind of love Hitchcock holding onto to process shots and whatnot in his later movies. Sure, it wasn’t working out so well but the man was old as hell and a goddamned GENIUS so I say give him a break and enjoy the weirdness of it all.
I’m switching alliances here; count me in Family Plot camp.
I hella own a bootleg of KILLDOZER! I saw it the night it hella premiered! I played KILLDOZER with my Tonkas! KILLDOZER!
Come on, I haven;t seen Soylent Green, don’t even really know what the plot is, but I DO know it’s people.
We had a whole discussion the other day with my friends about whether “revealing” the central couple ends up together in “One Hundred Years of Solitude” constitutes a spoiler. They all piled on me because I thought that because I, who have not read the book, know it, it’s enough part of (pop) culture that it’s no longer a story. Plus, it’s supposed to be this great love story, right? So either they get together right away and then die, or it takes them a while and they end up together (sorry if I just spoiled 3/4 of the romantic films out there). They argued my knowledge of pop culture trivia was freaky and not to be considered common knowledge. And well, you know, they might have point there.
But isn’t there an expiration date on spoilers for (recent) movies at some point? I mean, I figure that by now, everyone who’s wanted to see The Sixth Sense must’ve gotten around to it, and it’s plot twist has kind of become common knowledge.
“They argued my knowledge of pop culture trivia was freaky and not to be considered common knowledge.” ahahah….you need new friends.
It’s a tough call on spoilers. I try to avoid them regardless of how old, but at a certain point it’s impossible. But you know, if a single person can still be surprised by what Rosebud is in Citizen Kane, it’s worth keeping my trap shut.
Yes, Killdozer Joel. It’s coming back to haunt you. I think there might have been a Jeff Speakman reference in The Foot Fist Way…is that scary enough for you?
Craig, I was almost there with you tonight but I had to catch up on (non-paying) work. Dang!
I’m surprised there hasn’t been a remake of Killdozer, with all due respect I think it’s kind of ripe for one. Even if it was just on the sci-fi channel and super-cheap, because it really shouldn’t be a CGI tentpole movie.
Jeff, they’re working their way through the 70’s with remakes now. Killdozer, Food of the Gods, The Car, Dogs, Orca…all those awful, lower tier drive-in horror movies will eventually be remade in some fashion by someone, even if it is only the Sci-Fi channel.
The irony is that I’m mocking them, but most of those scared the crap out of me when I saw them on Showtime as a child. Course…children shouldn’t be watching R-rated horror movies, but that’s another conversation entirely.
You missed a pretty good one Jeff. I was surprised at how well they held up, particularly Westworld.
I’m actually kind of afraid to see Killdozer again because it will ruin my frightening memories of it.
Westworld is a lot of fun.
I’ve… never seen Killdozer… Obviously I need to correct that, hm?
Thanks to the glory that is youtube, you may feast upon the first 7 minutes of KILLDOZER (which was penned by the highly regarded sf writer Theodore Sturgeon):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8mEK8ZpraAU
Holy shit, I gotta see the rest of that!
Thanks, Christian.
ah, good ol’ Warburton Oil Resources, currently known as Halliburton, if I’m not mistaken. Corporate designation was changed when it was decided the name “Warburton” might be tipping their hand a bit.
Bwah!
Ahaha, that was exactly what I was kind of thinking there, Ryan.
100!
The swimming subplot is definitely the best part.
Yeah, I wish I had made it, I guess maybe Forbidden Planet and The Time Machine might have to suffice.