I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.
Question for the group: Does box office negate the stones people cast against it?
I was reminded this week of the words some people have used against the newest INDIANA JONES incarnation but, from the looks of things, everyone might as well have saved that breath for blowing up balloons. Scoring over $100 million at the box office it truly was critic-proof of the highest order; some said that was going to save SPEED RACER but judging by the “Price Cut” on almost anything with a SPEED logo on it at the local Target near my house it is anything but a safe critic proof environment for films.
Now, without getting into what really makes a critic proof film, that could be a column all unto itself, I’m at a loss to really understand what kind of purpose criticism really serves in this age when anyone with an Internet connection can weasel their way into a screening and post a review of it. At 78% approval at Rotten Tomatoes the film is unquestionably a critical success.
It was obvious that the schism that occurred, critically, was one where enthusiasts of the franchise (and make no mistake that this film is just a franchise. Those who want to inflate its cultural significance to anything more than a successful business property need to take an economics class to see why Hollywood still exists today.) had real issues with some of the patina the film’s characters were wont to use, that some of the CGI was ridiculously shabby, that the self same CGI was specifically pointed out by Spielberg as something that *wasn’t* going to be heavily used in many of his previous interviews (for illustrations on how this was supposed to look, gaze on the practicality employed in IRON MAN.) and that many of the story’s elements just failed to produce any sort of pulpy sense of adventure we’ve come to expect from this film’s previous outings.
Personally, the level of quality and attention to any real tension was already on a decline after RAIDERS. How could you have topped some guy getting his face slashed by a propeller? What else has been more exciting than seeing a human skull just melt like a candle? The answer is that you couldn’t but the series has been a serviceable one not to mention that this entry was just a half-assed when compared to the other films.
And that’s really what’s at issue when it comes to critical reviews. You can either review the work in a vacuum, which it should be if you want to be absolutely true to the idea of criticism, or judge it against what has come before it. Hence, that’s the real quandary but the reason why it’s done so well at the box office. Judged alone, it’s a serviceable action film that deserved its cash because it delivers on many base needs for those who need a summer film with flashes of pop, a little intrigue and a whole lot of action. Judged against the other films, though, and you have a world of problems that people have when fans wonder why, when you have Spielberg and Lucas and Koepp in a super triad team-up, you end up with a turd that floats right on the surface of the punchbowl.
But, just like true criticism, these negative points are all muted by the very large bankroll. In a land ruled by dollars, this movie will never be seen as anything less than a success. That’s what probably irks most people who know better.
Case in point, though, is Herr Raymond “Don’t Call Me Heeb” Schillaci’s review of INDIANA JONES AND THE QUEST FOR MORE GOLD COINS which follows promptly after this column. Ray has certainly endeared himself to a lot of the readership if the mail is to be believed but since I don’t I still rate his qualifications as a reviewer to be on par with a grade schooler with an acute drooling problem…and who also happens to be retarded. But that’s just me. Feel free to disagree with him, as I have, in the comments section below.
Director: Jody Hill
Cast: Danny McBride, Ben Best, Mary Jane Bostic
Release: May 30, 2008
Synopsis: THE FOOT FIST WAY, an uproarious, full-contact comedy featuring one of this year’s least likely heroes, is the first project from Will Ferrell and Adam McKay’s Gary Sanchez Productions. Included in Ain’t It Cool News’ Top 10 Films of 2007, THE FOOT FIST WAY became a sensation at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, as audiences fell in love with the seriously self-deluded Tae Kwon Do instructor Fred Simmons, who talks a big, macho game, but falls to pieces when his wife betrays him. Self-control, courtesy, perseverance, integrity and an indomitable spirit – those are the basic tenets preached by the proud but stern Master instructor Simmons at the Concord Tae Kwon Do Studio. There “the way of the foot and the fist,” a.k.a. the definition of the featured Korean martial art, turns boys into black belts and suburbanites into great warriors. That is, until Simmons’ seemingly perfect life starts collapsing when he discovers his wife having an affair on him. Twice. A chance to resurrect his life by battling his hero – the 8-time undefeated champ and star of the “Seven Rings of Pain” trilogy, Chuck “The Truck” Wallace – gives Simmons’ life purpose as he winds up on a wild, comic journey that will take him from egomaniacal bluster all the way to becoming the stand-up man of his delusional dreams.
View Trailer:
* Medium (YouTube)
Prognosis: Negative. If I was 13 I would probably be all over this trailer.
“Wow,” I would say, “Look at how he’s taking your average blond who’s looking for a yoga workout only to be totally verbally kicked in the face by having Danny McBride say ‘Well, has yoga ever saved someone from a gang rape type of situation’! I mean, wow!”
One of the things I don’t appreciate about comedic trailers nowadays are those that try too hard and, as IDIOCRACY clearly was divining, use nut shots and other physical type of humor to say in flashing neon “Look at us! We’re really funny!”
The reason why the Payton Manning sketch on SNL bit worked, where he was beaning kids in the head with a football and mocking, chiding these children every chance he could, where there was some of the very same comedic elements present was because it worked against type. Here, though, you have an obviously disconnected retard whose only function seems to be that same whorish “Look at me!” type of personality that I guess we’re supposed to find amusing.
The first 15 seconds are painful; let’s just get that over with. The scene that follows, where this douche is taunting what looks like an 8 year-old as he punches him in the head, I guess is supposed to be uproaringly hilarious. I mean, yeah, it’s visually amusing but it just feels like they’re trying way too hard to make this funny. There’s a fine line between subtlety and blunt force trauma when it comes to punchlines.
Exhibit B: This dope of a Tae Kwon Do instructor is at a barbeque. Some trashy looking lady is doing her nails and we’re given, again what’s supposed to be a joke, a moment where this guy explains the difference between a whore and whore-ish. I just don’t get it, I guess.
And, let’s not overlook the fact that we’re told that Adam McKay and Will Ferrell was given this movie last year, and that they’ve watched it 20 times and that they’re now quoting it. As much of a lark that is to explain to the rest of us, obviously not true because if I had to even watch this trailer 5 more times I would take a meat cleaver and slice my own eyeballs with it, it doesn’t bode well for their reputations to me anyhow that they would sanction a piece of shit like this.
Ah, yes, I forgot to mention: the reason why this is a red band trailer. I think one of the ways in which red band trailers differ from many other types of trailers are that sometimes they offer a more intense look at the film. Sometimes it helps, sometimes, well, you get trailers like this. It seems red band to these people means Reason To Inject F-Bombs like it was a blitzkrieg on London circa World War II. Yeah, I like the uses of these words. I like when they’re used to hilarious effect but I dare anyone here to watch this trailer and tell me it doesn’t seem like it’s just an excuse to stick them in there.
I will say high-five for the scene where a kid is about to go toe-to-toe with one of this instructor’s friends only to have the moment broken, by instead of a martial arts fight, we have the other guy lay into the kid with a fist to the face. Nice touch.
After a very long quick clip sequence to an Andrew W.K. soundtrack, and after I’m thoroughly confused as to what is going on in this film, I’m left to say that I have no intention of seeing this film. Believe me, this trailer tries very hard to say why this is going to be the comedic equivalent of an orgasm but I’m left with blue balls on this one.
AMERICAN TEEN (2008)
Director: Nanette Burstein
Cast: Lots of High Schoolers
Release: July 25, 2008
Synopsis: A documentary on seniors at a high school in a small Indiana town and their various cliques.
View Trailer:
* Large (QuickTime)
Prognosis: Positive. I could watch this stuff all day and night.
I am endlessly fascinated by sociological examinations, be they a look into groups of people who I never took the time to understand (the lives of those who have to deal with autistic children, soldiers who are coming home from Iraq and dealing with PTSD, etc…) or groups of people I was once myself, namely high schoolers, I’ve always gravitated back to teens and young adults, Perhaps it’s my fear that I will lose my grip on what made those years from 14-18 so watershed-y but watching pieces on PBS’ Frontline about how teens are evolving to PBS’ American High which was waaaay too short to the recent series High School Confidential on the We network (seeing how I have two girls it was damn near required viewing) I am reminded why I dig this stuff. There is a certain commonality we all share with this group of individuals and AMERICAN TEEN seems like it could play just as well on the big screen as it could on the small screen.
One of the keys in making these productions work, and why this thing starts off really well, is its jumpy, cheeky tone. The music is reminiscent of an ELO ditty, not that I would expect any teen in this film to know who ELO is, but it sets up a few things without you even realizing it: the place, the time, the people and the fact that this all begins on the first day of their last year in high school.
Now, while you see the prime players in this thing, getting ready for their school day, there is the sanitized sense that this could be another whitewash that we’ve all grown accustomed to in this age of MTV editing and where it’s in that edit bay that storylines take their shape. This is further reinforced by the labels we’re given for those we’re going to follow: The Jock, The Rebel, The Geek, The Princess and The Heartthrob.
I’m at odds with my attraction to the material and the obvious misrepresentations that can happen when you do put labels and monikers on things. Evolutionarily speaking, yeah, we survive this life because we label and group things; it helps to establish some kind of order to everything which would otherwise be chaos. But, I can see why the filmmakers have decided to let this go. It just helps those of us playing at home to keep score of what we’re seeing. I get that and it’s forgivable when the cards “Who…Were…You?” come across the screen.
I’ll take Not Smart Freak for $500.
What follows is the only thing that can follow at this point. You have one girl talking about what it’s like in Warsaw, Indiana and the kind of rural country all of us in our 30’s will say looks like something out of FOOTLOOSE or 16 CANDLES. It looks like Wonder Bread country for sure and it seems like a good as place as any to document the modern teen species. Say what you will about organisms and their behavior when you expose them to cameras and observation but there is some glimmer here that we will catch a glimpse of something real in the process.
Director: Baz Luhrmann
Cast: Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman
David Wenham, Jack Thompson, Bryan Brown
Release: November 14, 2008
Synopsis: AUSTRALIA is an epic and romantic action adventure, set in that country on the explosive brink of World War II. In it, an English aristocrat (Nicole Kidman) travels to the faraway continent, where she meets a rough-hewn local (Hugh Jackman) and reluctantly agrees to join forces with him to save the land she inherited. Together, they embark upon a transforming journey across hundreds of miles of the world’s most beautiful yet unforgiving terrain, only to still face the bombing of the city of Darwin by the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor. With his new film, Luhrmann is painting on a vast canvas, creating a cinematic experience that brings together romance, drama, adventure and spectacle.
View Trailer:
* Large (QuickTime)
Prognosis: Positive. I’m going to assume a lot of people here know a lift when they see one.
I can’t say that every time I’m told when an artist has pulled this from one work or pulled that from a cover of another comic book and made it into something almost completely identical that it’s a completely derivative work but I’ll be damned if there isn’t a whole lot of thieving going on in this trailer. Not that these things are bad, mind you, but it really is the most sincere form of flattery when you steal from the best.
In this trailer it’s like you have some things from GONE WITH THE WIND, THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY, GIANT and a handful of other oldies but goodies.
As if I have to make some remark about when a parent company is owned by a subsidiary before talking about a stock recommendation but, honestly, I can’t think of the last time Nicole Kidman really inspired that lovin’ feeling in me to see one of her films. THE GOLDEN COMPASS only proved that Botox is working overtime to keep that forehead as smooth as a baby’s ass and, let’s be honest as you look over her resume over the last few years, THE INVASION sucked, FUR sucked, BEWITCHED really sucked and THE INTERPRETER really blew; that said, I was blown away by this trailer.
Even the opening is a little magical by the flip-flip-flip of the CGI papers when the set up happens at second 1: it’s World War II, it’s in Australia, the Japanese are a threat to that prison island and you have the oddest moment between Kidman and some girl who seems like she’s just chillin’ in a bomb crater. The story itself is presented pretty kid-clear as Kidman relates the tale to Crater Girl.
There’s a girl and there’s a boy. Here, Jackman is all sorts of Clint Eastwood and there is even some elements of PEARL HARBOR and that GLADIATOR shot of the fingers rolling across the wheat fields; I’m telling you, it’s like seeing a Best Of montage for all these films. And while this is all going on we have one of the most accurate grasps on what the movie is about as things roll on. It’s amazing that we know so much but don’t know anything at all regarding what Jackman and Kidman have to do with one another.
The 2nd half of this trailer, normally reserved for more exposition, is used for a lovely string arrangement that blends some of the most fantastical imagery I’ve seen for a film not already slated to come out during the summer. You have fires, horses, guns, armies and an oddly squatting Aboriginal while it’s all wrapped up in this majestic sense of time and place.
While I wouldn’t purport to say this seems like one of the more big films of the fall season by any means I will say that the sound of a cracking whip never sounded so thrilling as it did here. Indiana Jones has nothing on Hugh Jackman. As well, it’s nice to look forward to film that may bring more to the screen than just superhero theatrics and genuinely give people a reason to see why wide screens were really meant for the cinema.
I hope I’m not wrong. While I know there’s some veiled finger pointing at what seems to be original or fresh about this production I will say that this trailer is really one of the only ones this month that has kind of stayed with me for a bit. For what it’s worth it does have some charm.
###
Indiana Jones and the Curse of the Fans
No matter what, we as fans of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg will always expect more, and rarely will they deliver. So I urge everyone interested in seeing their future movies to stop genuflecting to your celluloid deities and accept them as better-than-average filmmakers who have faults with touches of brilliance. This way, one can walk out of Indian Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull with a fun sense of nostalgia and newbies can have just as good of a time as the rest of us.
Too further substantiate this claim I present the facts of the past. Lucas and Spielberg were launched into movie history fame by less than a handful of brilliant films, Lucas – Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back (some will argue American Graffiti, but that is barely a blip on the radar), Spielberg – Jaws, Close Encounters, E.T. and Schindler’s List. Together they created the Indy mythos with only Raiders being the stand out and that even had its problems to some. Those problems being that it emulated the Saturday Matinees so well that people wanted steak with their popcorn. There were complaints that it could have been the Gone With The Wind of action movies. Lacking was the depth of a real relationship between Indy and Marion even though Ford and Allen generated sparks through a downpour of action set pieces. And, what pieces they were, Lucas and Spielberg raised the bar for not only everybody else but themselves too, never to duplicate that sense of wonderment or magic. Would they touch upon it? Sure, but not always to satisfying effect.
L & S are homage experts they appear more comfortable when they emulate rather than create. Their giant hits of the past were made out of hunger and passion. Few filmmakers ever remain consistent or close to it and we as an audience have demanded it of L & S. It’s time to set expectations aside. They are not in the same category as John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock or David O’Selznick. We just thought they might be at one time. And, it could be argued that they are not as consistently interesting as those who have avoided selling themselves out and remained on the fringe creating a maintainable mythos surrounding their work; David Lynch, David Cronenberg, Quentin Tarantino.
Now for the good news, those who enter setting aside their expectations and expecting more than the pale comparisons that have emulated the Indy movies (National Treasure, Tomb Raider and half-assed Brendan Fraser fare) you may rejoice. It is fun. It will not bring you to your feet applauding but it is a great summer escape. First off, let’s dismiss the stuffy critics of Ford’s age. John Wayne was revered as a great action western star till he was 71 and Ford is in much better shape. The part is his and his alone. He fits into it like a well-worn glove and is pure fun to watch until the movie gets bogged down into exposition midway through.
The last thing we need from an Indy movie is the sense that we are going to nod off. This is probably the point when a studio exec needed to step in and demand not only a brush up on Koepp’s patchwork script but a better editor as well. After all it was Verna Fields that saved Jaws from sinking into oblivion. But this good-ole boys club is far too powerful to have anyone monkey with their newfound toy. Everyone will have to play by their rules and that means we as an audience must suffer through the slow exposition pieces, the phoned in writing of Marion’s return (which could have been a great shot in the arm) and a tagged on lackluster epilogue that not only appeared to be strained but only there for the purpose of the suggestion of another taking Indy’s reigns. Hey, L & S unless you want to see your cash cow butchered – don’t even go there!
Okay, I’ve spit out the venom, now onto the glory. Once again, everything else is pure fun. Some of the action pieces are right out of the L & S library of good times by all. As I mentioned before, Ford is great as the world weary Indy. Cate Blanchett adds fun to the villainy of Mother Russia and even though she’s Russian she might as well be goose-stepping. Not only is Blanchett pleasant on the eyes but also something about her elicits our bad-boy fantasies. Shia LeBeouf turns in a surprising performance that fares much better than any of the younger Indy carnations from the past. The story is pure Saturday matinee action/adventure with a dash of X-Files thrown in for good measure. That may seem out of place for an Indy movie but not for Lucas and Spielberg who have waded in the genre before.
But does it work? In a way, yes it worked, but not always to satisfying effect. If only less CGI was relied on. I’m not a big critic of CGI, it’s useful when not overused, and the tech wizards that L & S are should have known when enough was enough. One of the last shots is so over the top it makes some of Indy’s copycats start to look good.
Like the James Bond series Indy will be enjoyed for better or for worse. Technically savvy and catering to the fantasies of young boys and men struck down with the Peter Pan syndrome. Indy is a staple in our love for all things nostalgic and will continue to entertain as long as our children have a desire to go to the movies. I’ll buy this one on Blu Ray before I ever fork over the rental money for a National Treasure 2.
Comments: 2 Comments
2 Responses to “Trailer Park: What Do Critics, And Their Criticism, Really Matter?”Leave a Reply |
May 31st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
My problem with the current incarnations of Indiana Jones and Star Wars is simply that the stories are bad, bad, bad, and for my little herd of nerds, that is a franchise killer.
It is possible to have the full-on, in-your-face action and cgi sequences AND a decent story, but L&S seem to be working out their special effects and action dream lists and patching a story around them.
My 9-year-old, theoretically the target market, shrugged off both franchises in favor of the Lego-themed video games, and they dropped the ball on that one, too, as local gamestore had only been shipped XL t-shirts for the Lego Indy pre-orders. I can fit about 6 of him in an XL, or possibly the entire family, which says poor marketing research on the part of the multi-billion dollar company.
Bond has survived because the stories are fairly solid, if formulatic. Regardless of CGI options, the formula is held supreme, and is almost impossible to mess up.
The Timothy Dalton Bond movie deviated from the formula and didn’t do so well, and you notice the Pierce Brosnan group went straight back to the formula, as did the Daniel Craig.
The Boy came home from the new Indy and proceeded to write up what he considered to be a better story, and that does not meet my definition of a successful movie.
May 31st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Christopher, great job on the column…I do agree with you…the money this thing earned makes it all feel pointless. I was going to write an entire column about it, instead I just opted to end my upcomming column with a small paragraph at the end admitting I will eat a few of my hopeful words. It will be up within the next few days. Great job man.