VIDEO BLOG #53: “My Scooter Rally” ““
Scrubs loves scooters. A lot. No other show has loved scooters more.
Download Scrubs Video Blog #53:
VIDEO BLOG #54: “My Batcave” ““
Here’s an end-of-the-season treat for you all ““ a glimpse at a scene that didn’t make it into the season finale, featuring the lair of one Dr. Acula.
Download Scrubs Video Blog #54:
##
In the arena of popular culture, May is always one of the saddest months.
Why?
Well, because invariably, some long-running and beloved television show comes to the end of their line during season-ending sweeps. Sometimes there’s even a nationwide frenzy surrounding a treasured program’s demise, the most extreme example to date of mass audience mourning being the overheated reaction to the Seinfeld finale of several years back. But whether it’s an over the top reaction such as the farewell afforded Jerry and his associates, or the more low-key bye-bye’s directed towards several of this year’s departing programs – like The West Wing and Malcolm In The Middle, or the slightly more elaborate send-off’s bestowed upon Will and Grace and That 70’s Show – America annually gets out their collective hankies to bid adieu to some of their favorite TV characters.
Except, of course, when those TV characters originated inside the pages of a pulpy four-color comic book.
Think about it – has there ever been a comics-related show that went off the air blissfully wallowing in a country-wide swathe of melancholia? Back when the iconic Adventures of Superman shut down production, people weren’t yet conditioned to mourn the passing of a favorite television show much the way they would a close relative – and besides, until George Reeves met his unfortunate end, there was always a possibility of that show coming back for yet another season.
Then there was Batman.
When that Adam West camp-fest burst onto the scene in January of 1966, it was an immediate sensation, the likes of which had rarely been seen before – or since. Little over two years later, though, it quietly limped off the air, its welcome worn out in seeming record time. There were no “Final Batman episode” parties in March of “˜68, folks! (Though, considering what I’ve written about the show in the past, you can be excused for thinking that yours truly may’ve been throwing a celebratory shindig that very evening – but no, didn’t happen”¦)
After that, what have we got? Spider-Man? The Flash? Sable? Birds of Prey, fer gosh sakes? None of those shows lasted long enough for most Americans to even realize they were ON the air, so there was certainly no sentimental outpouring when they left those selfsame airwaves. And syndicated offerings like Swamp Thing, Superboy, and Night Man were off in their own obscure corners of the ever-expanding television schedule, so only their loyalist fans ever took the time to shed a tear or two when their inevitable end came.
The Incredible Hulk? Wonder Woman? Both shows had decent runs, true, but I wouldn’t term either one an across the board hit, either. I’ll be honest here – I only ever watched the debut episode of The Incredible Hulk (though I DID catch the trio of latter day reunion telefilms, which I suppose, was SOME evidence of the show’s enduring appeal amongst a more general public), and just a handful of Wonder Woman episodes, mostly in its forties-era situated initial season. Without actually having viewed their final shows, I’m reasonably certain that they WEREN’T the sort of “hail and farewell, tie up all loose ends” thingies that Friends, Cheers, and Buffy, the Vampire Slayer got to go out on. I think that’s mainly due to the fact that these shows don’t actually go out on their own terms, but were canceled while still desperately trying to hang on.
Which brings us to Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman.
This show ran four seasons on ABC and was a mild hit for the network. I liked it quite a bit myself (well, at least until the last season, but more on that in a moment). The series was a lot of fun, a nicely done mix of comedy, romance, and adventure, ably acted by an attractive cast. Hey, sorry Noel, Phyllis, and Margot – Teri Hatcher immediately became my favorite Lois Lane – AND the main reason I took a chance on Desperate Housewives last year! Dean Cain did a fine job as well, though I always thought it was interesting that he was made to look more appealing as Clark Kent, with the often wind-swept hair, than he was as Superman, who generally had HIS locks slicked entirely back, making him look like a muscle-bound Gilbert Gottfried! Well, at least he didn’t SOUND like him too”¦Things all went suddenly, shockingly downhill when the pair got hitched during the last season – and no, I wouldn’t blame the show’s deterioration on the mere fact that Lois and Clark married. The concept COULD’VE worked, but only with decent writing, but sadly, decent writing was nowhere to be found that last season. Truth is, I STILL have several of the program’s last episodes on tape somewhere, unwatched. I MEANT to get to them, honest I did, but somehow, I could never quite bring myself to do so, not with the memory of that horrific wedding episode still fresh in mind. I hear tell the couple were thinking about having a baby, but even that intriguing potential storyline wasn’t enough to save the show, and after such a promising start – both quality and popularity-wise – it simply vanished from sight in the spring of 1996. Faster than a speeding bullet indeed”¦
(Gee, y’know, that kid would be ten now, wouldn’t he (or she)? Wonder if he (or she)’s being kept in some kryptonite-aided stasis field buried deep in “Susan’s basement on Wisteria Lane? Hope not, cuz that’d probably be enough to kill THAT show, too”¦)
But y’know, there actually WAS one comics-based network televised program that was given a moderately respectful send-off after a long run: Sabrina The Teenage Witch.
While hardly of Seinfeld proportions, when Sabrina’s magic finally faded (not to mention star Melissa Joan Hart’s waning youthfulness) in 2002 after seven solid seasons, the folks at ABC were accommodating enough to allow the producers (many of whom were members of the Hart family, coincidentally enough) to do up a final episode, invite a few departed cast members back, and tie up the long-running romance between Sabrina and the mortal Harvey in a reasonably satisfactory manner.Hey, I’ll admit it – I watched every episode!
Partially, that was due to the fact that daughter Julie was six when the show debuted, and she was already a fan of star Hart’s earlier Clarissa Explains It All over on Nickelodeon, so it seemed like it’d be good show for us to watch together, what with its four-color roots. We kept watching because, at least over the first several seasons, it was also a genuinely good show. It was clever, it was hip (Penn and Teller had recurring roles early on, for instance), and it was actually able to pull off the trick of being funny without ever resorting to the pervasive – and oh-so-easy – suggestive material found on every other sitcom, without ever seeming sugar-coated in the process. Look, I have no problem with raunchy yocks, but I had to admire the way Sabrina was able to skillfully avoid them, and yet STILL manage to regularly elicit laughter.
But, after a fast start, the show eventually leveled off, and it seemed as if every year, the concept was overhauled and new background characters were continually rotated in as others were discarded without explanation. They even dumped Sabrina’s two aunts that last season, only one of which later elected to return for the big send-off (Penn and Teller were nowhere in sight either). Sabrina the Teenage Witch got to say goodbye all right, but it was maybe two or three years later than it should have. There were no fluffy interviews eating up time on network news programs to mark its passing. Too bad – I would’ve loved to have witnessed Barbara Walters asking that talking cat what kind of tree he wanted to be!
(Nick Bakay as Salem – he was the TRUE star of that show, and the source of an awful lot of my heart felt guffaws those seven magical years!”¦)
So currently, that leaves us with Smallville.
This show seems to be a hit of sorts, though being on a smaller network, I’m not really sure how wide-ranging a fan-base it truly has. Odds are though, when it does shut down production, it WILL be given the fond farewell salute. The intensity will no doubt fall somewhere between that of Seinfeld and Sabrina (closer to the latter, I’d imagine), and its finale, much like the freshly departed West Wing, will be more of a beginning than an ending. Just as that show morphed into “Mr. Smits Goes To Washington” as Martin Sheen tuned his office over to successor Matt Santos, the eventual end of Smallville can only mean one thing:
SuperMAN.
Gee, I wonder if Gilbert Gottfried’s gonna be available?”¦
Stay tuned”¦
But in the meantime, you can always visit Hembeck.com, my MySpace page, or send along a personal message – ain’t the Internet grand?
Copyright 2006 Fred Hembeck
Tarzan’s big fall.
by
Peter Sanderson
May 16, 2006 –
 |
 |
|
As regular readers may recall, I celebrate my birthday every year by going to see a new Broadway show. Last year it was Monty Python’s Spamalot (see “Comics in Context” #82), and this year it was Disney Theatrical Productions’ musical Tarzan.
One of the satisfying aspects of seeing a Broadway show on my birthday has been that no matter how old I get, I still seem to be one of the youngest people in the audience. Not so this time. When I bought my ticket on a Saturday afternoon I saw a number of family groups arriving for the matinee, as one would expect for a Disney show. But here I was attending the show on a weeknight, looking at all the twentysomethings sitting around me.
One reason, I suppose, might be that these are people who saw the animated movie when they were kids, and who now want to relive the experience as adults.
Another factor, I would guess, in attracting a younger demographic is the music by Phil Collins, who expanded his score for the movie. There has been rock music on Broadway from Hair through Rent, and Elton John wrote the score for The Lion King and the new “Lestat,” yet it still somehow seems unusual to hear a contemporary pop score like Tarzan‘s on Broadway. On first seeing the animated film I didn’t like the Collins score at all, but found it quite pleasant on seeing the Broadway show. Perhaps my tastes have changed, or perhaps the stage show’s longer score gave me more time to accustom myself to Collins’s style.
The stage Tarzan‘s great triumph is as spectacle. Its director, Bob Crowley, is acclaimed as a stage designer, and he designed both sets and costumes for this production. Moreover, I suspect the influence of Disney Imagineering, which for years has devised theme park attractions which immerse spectators within a fictional world.
Sitting in the audience, waiting for Tarzan to begin, one sees an immense drawing of a ship, gently swaying, against a map of Africa on a black scrim. The sounds of waves are projected into the auditorium, producing a calming effect as theatergoers leave the bustle of Times Square and settle into their seats. When the show begins, so does a storm at sea: there is a crash of thunder and a brilliant flash signifying lightning, which actually raised a shriek from many members of the audience.
Tarzan’s parents John and Alice Clayton, are first seen, seemingly underwater, swimming upward. Then they walk from the water onto an African beach, which is represented by a vertical wall: hence the Claytons are actually walking down a wall.
Soon the gorillas enter, spectacularly swinging from vines. (Burroughs uses a fictional species of “great apes,” perhaps in order to justify the more human elements of their behavior, such as language; Disney’s Tarzan uses gorillas instead.) Virtually the entire cast performs in mid-air over the course of this show; various reviewers compared the effect to watching Cirque du Soleil. At certain points performers even ride through the air over the heads of the audience. (Having read that audience members seated beneath the mezzanine could not see everything that took place in mid-air, I bought a balcony seat, which, for this show, may have been the best choice.)
The entire opening sequence, with the shipwreck of the Claytons, the introduction of the gorillas, the killing of John and Alice Clayton by a black panther (with glowing red eyes), and the adoption of their infant son by the female gorilla Kala, is all performed to Collins’s music but without words, and much of it with the actors suspended from wires, as if the opening were a synthesis of silent movie and aerial ballet.
Crowley’s basic set is a rectangle of bright green layers, successfully evoking the African rain forest while embodying an abstract modernism.
For the most part, the stage musical follows the animated film very closely. For example, as in the film, Jane teaches Tarzan about the outside world through a slide show. One seemingly major departure really isn’t. It has been reported that Chris Rock was originally approached to voice Tarzan’s gorilla friend Terk for the movie, but that he turned it down, seeing racist implications in casting an African-American as an ape; the filmmakers turned Terk into a female, voiced by Rosie O’Donnell. In the stage show Terk is back to being a male, and his wisecracking dialogue shows what the filmmakers originally had in mind when they wanted to cast Rock.
However, the stage Tarzan doesn’t have the title character’s other animal friend, Tantor, the elephant voiced by Seinfeld‘s Wayne Knight in the movie.
There are some things – like putting a convincing elephant onstage – that the stage show can’t do.
|
 |
|
Spectacle is the stage Tarzan‘s major strength, and that may explain why the second act is less successful than the first. The movie takes spectacle to levels that the stage show can’t find equivalents for. In the movie Tarzan and friends are held captive aboard the ship of the villain Clayton and break out with the aid of Tantor: this scene is understandably missing from the stage version, but it leaves a dramatic gap.
(The movie’s villain has no real equivalent in Burroughs’ book, and the filmmakers named him Clayton, doubtless to the puzzlement of people who know Burroughs’ story. Clayton is Tarzan’s real last name, but the animated film ignores this.)
In the movie, the evil Clayton has a final confrontation with Tarzan and ends up being strangled (off-camera) by vines, as if he had been hanged. Perhaps the makers of the Broadway version felt this was too gruesome an end to present to family audiences on stage, so their Clayton simply gets locked in the brig. That’s not as dramatic, and, moreover, Clayton doesn’t seem a necessary part of the story on stage, perhaps because the aforementioned shipboard sequence is missing.
The animated movie memorably concludes with a spectacular sequence of Tarzan and Jane sliding and swinging through vines, passing all the other surviving principal characters as they go. It’s the equivalent of the celebratory dance that is a traditional ending of comedy. Without the aid of animation and computers, it is impossible to duplicate this sequence onstage, and the Broadway version ends on a quieter note, with Tarzan and Jane kissing in mid-air. Again, the dramatic impact has been scaled down.
I agree with New York Times drama critic Ben Brantley, who wrote in his May 11 review that after the show’s initial burst of aerial acrobatics, “the thrill is gone”. I found myself getting used to seeing characters soar through the air. Somehow, the aerial feats should ideally have become more astonishing as the show progressed, so that the audience wouldn’t take them for granted.
As the spectacle lessens in dramatic impact in the second act, the show’s essential hollowness becomes clearer. Neither the dialogue nor the performances invest the show with sufficient emotional and psychological depth. That’s a shame since the source material is so powerful in these respects.
At first I thought of watching the animated Tarzan film again to compare it with the stage show. But then I had the better idea of going right to the source, and reading Edgar Rice Burroughs’ original Tarzan of the Apes. I’d read DC’s comics adaptation of the novel, but I’d never read the Burroughs original. Since the book is now in the public domain in the United States (although the Burroughs estate maintains a trademark on the character), I could obtain a free online copy thanks to the Gutenberg Project, and so can you.
I was in for many surprises. First and foremost, I discovered that the book was far better written than I had expected; my only real complaint was the woodenly one-dimensional dialogue and characterization for Tarzan’s real mother, Alice Clayton.
Another surprise was that in the book, Jane is American: in fact, she’s from Baltimore. The Disney version makes her British, but I don’t quarrel with this, since the English accent and initially inhibited Victorian manner that Minnie Driver gives Jane’s voice in the movie, and that actress Jenn Gambatese supplies in the stage version, make the character both funny and endearing in her first encounters with Tarzan and other jungle denizens.
I had assumed that in the book Jane’s father, Professor Porter, would be more like the gruff, stolid character played by C. Aubrey Smith in the 1932 MGM movie adaptation, and that it was the Disney filmmakers’ idea to turn him into a rather childlike eccentric (who is even as short as a child). But no, Disney was actually being surprisingly faithful to Burroughs’ version of the Professor, who is indeed a comedy character. He is so utterly impractical that Jane worries about him as if she were his parent. At one point the Professor engages in a nonsensical argument with his “fussy” assistant, one Samuel T. Philander (an Edward Everett Horton type?), oblivious to the danger presented by a stalking lion. (“Never, Mr. Philander, never before in my life have I known one of these animals to be permitted to roam at large from its cage. I shall most certainly report this outrageous breach of ethics to the directors of the adjacent zoological garden.”)
I’m disappointed that the Disney stage musical makes the Professor taller and duller, since he presents such clear comedic possibilities.
Reading Burroughs’ book also better enables me to explore the mythic archetypes on which the Tarzan story is founded.
Look at this excerpt from an exchange in which Jane Porter discusses Tarzan with a character called Captain Dufranne: “‘I admit that he would be worth waiting for, this superman of yours,’ laughed the captain. ‘I most certainly should like to see him.'”
Edgar Rice Burroughs’ original Tarzan story was first published in All-Story Magazine in 1912 and then in book form in 1914. This was over twenty years before Superman’s debut in Action Comics #1 in 1938. But the word “superman” had already entered the culture as a translation of “ubermensch” from Friedrich Nietzche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra in the 1880s, which inspired George Bernard Shaw’s 1903 play Man and Superman. Neither Tarzan nor Nietzche’s and Shaw’s “supermen” had literal super-powers.
Nonetheless, Tarzan is definitely one of the group of characters whom I have classified as “proto-superheroes.” In an interview Superman’s co-creator Jerry Siegel, naming influences on the Man of Steel, stated that “there were many: there was Tarzan, who was the greatest action hero of the time. . . .”
Consider the parallels. Each hero has idealized parents who meet dreadful deaths, leaving the hero as an orphaned infant. John and Alice Clayton themselves made the long journey from their advanced civilization (Victorian England) to the comparatively primitive realm (equatorial Africa) where their son was born; Jor-El and Lara dispatched the infant Kal-El in a rocketship from their technologically advanced world, Krypton, to the American farmlands of Earth. Each orphan is found and adopted by a kindly foster parent (Kala) or two (Ma and Pa Kent) in this less sophisticated culture.
It seems odd to compare Ma and Pa Kent to a gorilla (or whatever fictional species of ape Kala might be), and Smallville, Kansas to the jungle home of apes. But the point seems to be that Tarzan and Superman are each like princes whose true identities are unknown and who are raised in lowly circumstances. Tarzan is really a British nobleman, Lord Greystoke, while superman is the son of Krypton’s leading scientist, Jor-El. Not only is Jor-El (in some versions of the Superman legend) a member of the Science Council which governs Krypton’s technocratic society, but in the era of editor Mort Weisinger, Jor-El was a member of the “House of El,” with ancestors who included many of Krypton’s greatest historical figures. Hence, Superman (Kal-El) could be said to be a Kryptonian aristocrat, a member of one of its noble families.
Tarzan and Superman each grows up unaware of what his true identity in his native land is, and instead uses names (Tarzan, Clark Kent) given to him by the culture in which he was raised. Tarzan initially believes that he really is Kala’s son, just as Superman (in various versions of his story) believes he is a native Earthman until he reaches his mid-teens, or even adulthood.
|
 |
|
Growing up, Tarzan and Superman each develops into a heroic figure of superior physical prowess. Burroughs concedes that Tarzan is not as strong as one of the dominant male apes, but Burroughs shows how through his superior intelligence and fighting skills, Tarzan can best even the most powerful ape. Moreover, Burroughs shows that through his life in the jungle, Tarzan has not only developed physical prowess greater than that of “civilized” Westerners, but that his senses have also grown more acute than those of normal people. Tarzan may not have actual super-powers, but he comes close.
On the television series Smallville, Clark Kent’s home town seems to be an upscale suburb of Metropolis, but in previous tellings of the Superman legend, Smallville was a genuine small town, far from the big city: Ma and Pa Kent were sometimes even depicted as stereotypical backwoods hicks (see “Comics in Context” #48).
So, another parallel is that Clark Kent/Superman and Tarzan, who each grew up in isolation (to very different degrees) from the rest of society, each must encounter and cope with that society. So it is that Clark Kent moves to Metropolis, and Tarzan encounters other human beings, not only African natives, but white Englishmen and Americans, and eventually journeys to Britain and America.
This process also includes sexual awakening: Tarzan meets Jane, and Superman meets Lois. Reading Burroughs’ account of Jane’s emotions as Tarzan carries her, swinging through the trees, reminded me of Superman carrying Lois in flight over Metropolis in the “Can You Read My Mind?” sequence in Richard Donner’s 1979 Superman movie.
Superman and Tarzan each eventually learns and claims his birth identity – as son of Krypton and as Lord Greystoke – but each ultimately chooses to live in his adopted world: Earth and the African jungle.
It shouldn’t be a surprise, then, that the parallels between Superman and Tarzan have been directly addressed through DC’s “Elseworlds” concept, which recasts the mythos of a superhero in different circumstances.
“The Feral Man of Steel” in Superman Annual #6 (1994) initially appears to be inspired more by Mowgli in Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book: the infant Kal-El’s rocket lands in the jungles of India, where he is adopted and raised by a wolf, and grows up to kill his enemy, the tiger Khan (named after Kipling’s Shere Khan).
But eventually the adult Kal-El encounters explorer Lois Lane, playing the role that Jane does in the Tarzan saga, he gets referred to as an “ape-man,” and ultimately becomes a British knight and marries Lois.
The parallels were made more explicit in the later DC/Dark Horse crossover miniseries, Superman/Tarzan: Sons of the Jungle (2001), in which Kal-El is raised by apes in Africa and is called “Argozan.”
The title Tarzan of the Apes and the references to him as an “ape man” are examples of the way that various superheroes and super-villains are humans who are symbolically linked with animals. Thus, the name of another proto-superhero, Zorro, means “the Fox.” Among true superheroes there are Batman, Spider-Man, Hawkman, the Black Panther, and many more.
Even the eagle symbol on Wonder Woman’s costume, and the wings on Captain America’s cowl, link these characters with animals. All of these heroes seem to be contemporary versions of tribal shaman who dressed as animals in order to take on the powers and even the identities of animal spirits.
Burroughs’ presentation of Tarzan as a mysterious figure who strikes unseen at his native foes reminded me at points of Batman. Of course, Batman, Spider-Man, and Daredevil, swinging from ropes, webbing, and cables through the skyscrapers of modern cities, are conscious or unconscious reworkings of the familiar image of Tarzan swinging on vines through the jungle.
Tarzan is also a forebear for the superheroes who represent both the civilized and animalistic sides of humankind. Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, who looks rather apelike in Stevenson’s description, got there first. But Hyde is a villain, whereas Tarzan, who was raised as an ape, is a heroic figure. In their different ways, characters like X-Men’s Beast and Wolverine are the heirs of Tarzan.
Burroughs titles one of Tarzan of the Apes chapters, “The Forest God,” and repeats his description of Tarzan as a “god” or “godlike” numerous times. Sexually attracted to him, Jane thinks, “What a perfect creature! There could be naught of cruelty or baseness beneath that godlike exterior. Never, she thought had such a man strode the earth since God created the first in his own image.”
The idea of Tarzan as a “god” reinforces the aspect of the character as a proto-superhero, who is somehow beyond ordinary humanity.
Notice that Jane specifically compares Tarzan to “the first” man, Adam, who was created in the image of God.
Burroughs emphasizes the violence in Tarzan’s personality, and even tells the readers “That he joyed in killing, and that he killed with a joyous laugh upon his handsome lips betokened no innate cruelty. He killed for food most often, but, being a man, he sometimes killed for pleasure, a thing which no other animal does; for it has remained for man alone among all creatures to kill senselessly and wantonly for the mere pleasure of inflicting suffering and death.” (Actually, as Burroughs describes them, Kerchak and other mean-tempered apes will kill out of sheer hatred.)
Still, perhaps Burroughs intends Tarzan to represent man as he was in the Garden of Eden, before discovering “the knowledge of good and evil.” Even after becoming “civilized,” Tarzan does not “fall”: his union with Jane is like starting the saga of Adam and Eve over again, without the unhappy ending.
Burroughs’ references to Tarzan as a “forest god” mark him as a version of the archetypal figure of the “green man,” a spirit of nature and fertility, linked with the vegetative world. Robin Hood and Peter Pan are variations on the “green man”: so are DC’s Swamp Thing and Marvel’s Man-Thing. The “fertility” aspect results in Tarzan’s sexual appeal for Jane. Could it be that, whether by accident or conscious intent, Tarzan’s famous yell, which Burroughs describes in the first book, is a modern version of the cry of the Greek god Pan, another deity of nature and sexuality, who is both manlike and animal-like?
Certainly the nearly omnipresent green color of Tarzan‘s stage set, and even the green on the posters and program cover, fit right into the character’s “green man” heritage.
One song in the show is titled “Son of Man,” a phrase with unmistakable Christian connotations. Jesus would be another deity who dwells among lesser beings as one of them, but the show doesn’t take the Christ analogy further than that song title.
In reading the end of Burroughs’ book, I thought of another Shaw play, Pygmalion, which is better known today through the musical adaptation, My Fair Lady. Professor Henry Higgins had his hands full transforming the vulgar, uneducated Cockney Eliza Doolittle (whom he initially describes as if she were not even human) into a refined lady who can fit into British high society. Both works are founded on an archetype of self-realization through education, as presented through what nowadays we would call a “makeover.”
Burroughs’ Tarzan must take a far more challenging version of this archetypal journey, starting out as a human who was raised to behave like an ape and becoming a British gentleman. Moreover, Burroughs’ Tarzan is initially his own teacher.
It seems to me that this is the principal character arc of Burroughs’ novel, and it is one to which neither the Disney versions nor other film adaptations that I’ve seen do full justice.
In the Disney animated film Tarzan, the gorillas look like animals, but they speak with each other like humans. Hence they are simultaneously animals and people.
This is a duality that is common to the treatment of animals in cartoons, and something that we accept unquestioningly from early childhood. Consider Elmer Fudd hunting Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. On one level, he is a human and they are animals. We may disapprove of hunting animals for sport, but it’s not illegal to do so. On another level, Bugs and Daffy are really humans in the guise of animals: they can talk, they’re physically built much like humans, they’re as tall as Elmer, and they’re certainly smarter than he is. (Note how easily that Bugs can not only deceive Elmer into thinking he really is human, but even seduce him, simply by donning a wig and dress.) On this level, even if we don’t consciously think about it, it would be murder for Elmer to kill Bugs or Daffy. That’s a major reason why we take their side in the cartoons.
In “Tweety and Sylvester” and “Roadrunner” cartoons, Sylvester and Wile E. Coyote are carnivores stalking their natural prey (as the traditional openings of the “Roadrunner” cartoons, giving the animals mock-Latin scientific names, as if these were nature documentaries, remind us). But since Tweety, and even the Roadrunner, despite his inability to talk, demonstrate human personalities, for Sylvester or Wile E. to succeed in killing and devouring them would smack of murder and cannibalism. Hence, the audience decides that it is better for these two predators to go hungry than for them to kill their natural prey.
In his book Burroughs grants the apes their own language, which is complex enough to bear a touch of the poetic. At one point Kerchak challenges Tarzan thus: “‘Come down, Tarzan, great killer,’ cried Kerchak. ‘Come down and feel the fangs of a greater! Do mighty fighters fly to the trees at the first approach of danger?'”
I was impressed by the way the stage musical gives the audience a dual perspective on Tarzan and the gorillas. When they interact among themselves, they speak in English and act with human grace. But this proves to be both a verbal and visual translation of gorilla language and behavior into our own. When actor Josh Strickland as Tarzan initially interacts with Jane and the other explorers, they hear and see him without benefit of “translation.” He grunts, hunches forward in an ape’s posture, strikes the floor, and generally behaves like a beast.
In Disney’s animated film version of The Lion King, some of the lions are voiced by black Americans (such as James Earl Jones), while others are voiced by white Americans (like Matthew Broderick): the villain Scar is unmistakably voiced as a Caucasian Englishman (by Jeremy Irons).
In Julie Taymor’s direction of The Lion King stage musical, there is no effort to disguise the actors playing the lions and other animals as actual beasts. Instead, they are clearly human beings, many of whom wear masks (which do not always conceal their faces) or manipulate puppets that represent their animal personas. Moreover, the majority of the principal actors are black. Hence The Lion King on stage seems more like a contemporary effort to create a myth about African people. To watch the film is to see cartoon animals voiced by human actors. To watch the stage musical is to see human beings, mostly blacks, playing the roles of animals. This is an important distinction.
I expected that the actors portraying the gorillas in the Tarzan stage musical would be more completely costumed to resemble apes. But no. Instead, they wear what appear to be great masses of fur atop their heads and around portions of their bodies, leaving their faces, limbs, midriffs, and (in the case of the men) chests bare. Some of the performers playing apes are white (such as Shuler Hensley as Kerchak) while others are black (like as Chester Gregory II as Terk). They all look unmistakably like human beings.
It’s like the characters in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Cats. The performers, most of whom are dancers in skin-tight costumes, don’t look or act anything like real cats. They come across instead as a rather oddly garbed community of bohemian humans.
In contrast with Burroughs’ novel, there are no actual African natives in Disney’s Tarzan on stage or on film. Since the “apes” in the stage Tarzan look so clearly human, it is even easier to regard Kerchak, Kala and company as stand-ins for African tribespeople.
I’ve heard television newsman Chris Matthews say a few times that movies, no matter what period they are set in, are actually about the time in which they were made.
This certainly applies to Disney’s Tarzan, which becomes a parable for today’s multiracial, multicultural society. Just as mutants in X-Men are metaphors for minorities of any kind, the gorillas in Disney’s Tarzan become metaphors for people of non-Western culture, and specifically Africans. The message is that we’re all alike under the skin, and that the gorillas’ culture and society are just as valid as that of the white British and American characters like the Porters and Clayton.
|
 |
|
Maybe this is the reason behind the change that the stage version makes in the movie’s Clayton, the villain who insists that gorillas are animals to be caged or shot. In the movie Clayton is portrayed as an arrogant, macho Brit, the “great white hunter” of popular fiction presented as a villain by contemporary standards. The stage musical turns Clayton into an American with a thick Southern accent, conjuring the stereotype of a racist redneck.
In the Disney versions Tarzan is tempted to go back to England with the Porters, and even dons a suit at one point. But in the end he stays in Africa, as do the Porters: a new community is created, which combines humans and gorillas living together in harmony.
Burroughs’ Tarzan and Jane, in the later books, prefer living in Africa to living in America or Europe. But Burroughs does not perceive living amid the society of apes as a viable alternative for a human being. Although Burroughs gives his great apes a language, he does not have them speak that often in this first Tarzan novel. Moreover, he emphasizes that the apes’ language and their intelligence are severely limited in comparison with humans. (Burroughs seems to have anticipated later studies that revealed that chimpanzees have a limited form of language.) Burroughs only partly anthropomorphizes his ape characters. Ultimately, he insists that they are animals, and that Tarzan, as a human, cannot confine himself to their level.
This differentiates Burroughs from Kipling, who portrays certain of his Jungle Book characters as being wiser than human beings.
In the Disney versions, the villain Clayton kills Kerchak, the gorilla who is Tarzan’s foster father. Tarzan mourns Kerchak’s death, and the Disney version treats it as a murder, for which Clayton must be punished.
But in Burroughs’ book, it is Tarzan who kills Kerchak, who was trying to kill him. In part this is an Oedipal struggle against a sinister father. It is also Burroughs’ effort at depicting the savagery of Tarzan’s world; it is not unlike how Robert E. Howard’s Conan murders the king of Aquilonia on his throne and seizes his crown.
I think that this is also a sign that although by killing Kerchak, Tarzan makes himself “King of the Apes,” this is not the world he should stay in. In Burroughs’ book, the only ape that Tarzan truly cares for is his foster mother Kala. Burroughs kills her off, severing Tarzan’s only real emotional tie to the world of the apes.
Instead, after becoming the apes’ king, Tarzan distances himself from them. He increasingly spends his time at the cabin of his deceased human parents, where he has taught himself to read by studying their books. “As he had grown older, he found that he had grown away from his people. Their interests and his were far removed. They had not kept pace with him, nor could they understand aught of the many strange and wonderful dreams that passed through the active brain of their human king. So limited was their vocabulary that Tarzan could not even talk with them of the many new truths, and the great fields of thought that his reading had opened up before his longing eyes, or make known ambitions which stirred his soul.”
I can accept Burroughs’ notion that Tarzan could teach himself the meaning of nouns from studying picture books. Burroughs admits that it would be harder for Tarzan to decipher the meaning of verbs or other parts of speech; nevertheless, he does so, hard as I may find it to believe this.
It strikes me that Tarzan’s self-education has a literary precedent: that of Frankenstein’s monster in Mary Shelley’s novel. In both cases, the popular conception of the character is that he is inarticulate, knowing only a few words, yet in their original novels, each learns to speak intelligently and even beautifully.
In the cases of both Tarzan and Shelley’s Monster, the important point is that each taught himself: each was driven to learn, to improve himself, to rise from utter ignorance of human culture to become as fully human as possible.
Burroughs’ book even solves various questions that had puzzled me in various Tarzan adaptations. Why does he wear a loincloth, since apes wear no clothing? Burroughs shows that after Tarzan learns that humans wear clothing, he decides to do so too, precisely in order to set himself apart from the apes. How come Tarzan doesn’t have a beard? Burroughs explains that he teaches himself to shave because Tarzan thinks hair on his face makes him look too apelike. Why doesn’t Tarzan, ignorant of civilized human behavior, just rape Jane? I was surprised to see that Burroughs actually addresses the question: he has Tarzan consider taking Jane by force, but Tarzan decides against it because he is intelligent enough to perceive that humans may have different sexual customs than apes. I find this somewhat hard to believe, too, but it fits in with Burroughs’ theme of Tarzan’s overriding agenda of self-improvement.
|
 |
|
Eventually Tarzan meets and befriends his own version of Henry Higgins, the Frenchman Paul d’Arnot, a man of refined manners, who serves as the ape man’s mentor in the ways of Western civilization. Burroughs’ narration tells us that “So apt a pupil had he been that the young Frenchman had labored assiduously to make of Tarzan of the Apes a polished gentleman in so far as nicety of manners and speech were concerned.”
Towards the end of the book, a greatly changed Tarzan meets Jane once more, this time on her home ground of Baltimore, to propose marriage. “‘You are free now, Jane,’ he said, ‘and I have come across the ages out of the dim and distant past from the lair of the primeval man to claim you – for your sake I have become a civilized man – for your sake I have crossed oceans and continents – for your sake I will be whatever you will me to be. I can make you happy, Jane, in the life you know and love best. Will you marry me?'” Tarzan’s arc in the novel encapsulates mankind’s own evolution from his animal origins through barbarism to civilization, or, if you prefer, every man’s growth from an infant that is incapable of adult thinking through childhood into mature adulthood, with love, marriage and feminine virtues as socializing influences.
Burroughs’ point is that Tarzan has even gone surpassed supposedly enlightened Western civilization. Burroughs’ book propounds the familiar theme that “civilized” people are more uncivilized than they pretend to be.
But Tarzan, Noble Savage that he is, will not engage in cannibalism. In part this is due to Burroughs’ odd interpretation of genetics: Tarzan has inherited a good Englishman’s inner sense of morality. “How may we judge him, by what standards, this ape-man with the heart and head and body of an English gentleman, and the training of a wild beast?” asks Burroughs. He goes on, “All he knew was that he could not eat the flesh of this black man, and thus hereditary instinct, ages old, usurped the functions of his untaught mind and saved him from transgressing a worldwide law of whose very existence he was ignorant.”
But Tarzan is also uncorrupted by human society. In the latter part of the book, a man named Robert Canler, takes advantage of the Porters’ financial difficulties and attempts to marry her. “Do you realize that you are buying me, Mr. Canler?” Jane asks him. Burroughs makes it clear that Canler is little different from Terkoz, an ape who earlier had abducted Jane, attempting to force her to become his mate. Tarzan thwarts both these sexual predators.
At the book’s end, Tarzan and Jane acknowledge their love for each other, but Jane feels honor bound to marry William Cecil Clayton, who has inherited Tarzan’s father’s title and wealth. Neither Clayton nor Jane knows that Tarzan is the true heir, the real Lord Greystoke. But d’Arnot has discovered the truth, and communicates it to Tarzan. “Here was the man who had Tarzan’s title, and Tarzan’s estates, and was going to marry the woman whom Tarzan loved – the woman who loved Tarzan,” Burroughs writes about Clayton. “A single word from Tarzan would make a great difference in this man’s life. It would take away his title and his lands and his castles, and – it would take them away from Jane Porter also.”
Rather like Clark Kent denying to Lois Lane that he is Superman, Tarzan conceals his true identity for the sake of the happiness of the woman he loves, but feels he cannot have. In the book’s final line, Tarzan tells Clayton, “I never knew who my father was.”
In later Tarzan stories Burroughs reunited Tarzan with Jane and had them wed. But the ending of this first Tarzan novel is significant. How many “civilized” people would act as generously and selflessly? This is as much an act of heroism as Tarzan’s physical combats earlier in the book.
It shows just how far Tarzan has progressed: from savage ape man to a truly noble man who is capable of such a grand gesture of self-denial to assure the happiness of another person. Imagine seeing an actor who was capable of presenting this sort of self-transformation onstage? Now there would be a drama to remember.
Copyright 2006 Peter Sanderson
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | By Christopher Stipp
May 12, 2006
Air Sickness
Can you believe I am still hooked on this little corner of The InterWeb? Head on over to MySpace and say hey. Judging by the number of views I get every Friday when this notice appears I couldn’t be more pleased that some of you are stopping by to view what NBC no doubt has made people believe is a den for pedophelia and underage solicitations. I just wish Dateline would do more of those undercover operations to catch more of those pervs who are all boner-ed up and are willing to drive two hours just to be busted by that Tele-Prom-Ter pretty boy Chris Hansen.
Speaking of sex with minors, did anyone get sick while watching UNITED 93?
I ask this as a question because, physically, I not only had to throw my eyes off the screen about half way through the picture but, when I arrived back home, I had to toss back a couple of Pepto-Bismols just to calm my stomach. A few years ago I went to see Greengrass’ BLOODY SUNDAY. I thought the story was solid, the perspective on the event really brought home the issues which triggered the events that transpired and I got just as sick watching it as I did for UNITED 93.
Now, I know I can’t be the only one. Hell, a few people exiting the theaters mentioned that they felt queasy as well but I never once was given a warning that people who might have a predilection towards this sort of thing could possibly have a crap night at the multiplex.
I don’t bring this up as a fault of Paul’s. Like I mentioned, I braved BLOODY SUNDAY and I went through this one all the way to the end. I almost didn’t make it through 93 but I did because his filmmaking represents something important and I wanted to support that. 
For ever loving God, though, I cannot say that I’m going to go out again to the movies just to have my stomach rattled. I will admit, though, I was getting a little testy by the film’s end because I just envisioned Paul’s directorial technique being that of requiring he do all his shooting on a half dozen paint shakers.
“Oooh, fer craps sake, lad, do’ya got that ting set on ‘1 gallon.’ No, pappy, no, no, no. Crank that fooker up to the ‘Industrial Behemoth’ setting. Now git from the set before you think about stealin’ me Lucky Chaaarms.”
I’d like to think he’s not trying to get anyone sick but as the movie played out I was reminded of my own swervey hand as I filmed my first full-length movie, THE TRIAL OF G.I. JOE (which I still have securely placed in a secret location where no one will ever see it), that I shot with my friend Brandon Murphy in Barrington, Illinois, in the summer of 1988. If ever there was a lesson I learned as I replayed our solidly wretched short film (I even had special effects as I lit a helpless GI Joe up in flames using rubbing alcohol) was that you’ve got to really be mindful of picture stability.
At the end of the day you do not want your audience physically reacting to your movie in a way you don’t intend but just glancing at all the reviews I am sure people like me are just a minority. There are some of us out there, though, who are not meant to sail gently on the open oceans, join the Navy or go any Disney attraction that uses the “illusion” of motion. We’ve failed the evolutionary process somehow, I know. We’re part of the weaker variety of homo sapiens but some of us just can’t take the abuse that jittery camera movements incite in our stomachs.
I’m not advocating that Greengrass’ movie somehow suffers from this style he obviously loves employing but I am disappointed that I could not fully take in his ultimate vision because of my prediliction for stablity.
Now, before you’re let to chew on this week’s trailers I have to make sure that if you’re any sort of fan of this column you must check out the trailer for THE LAKE HOUSE. After watching and rewatching and rewatching some more of this trailer I can state with a great amount of certainty that this is a chick flick I can get behind. The song “Somewhere Only We Know” is perfectly matched up with the vibe of the video shown and I have to be honest that this trailer really does deserve a spot in the Top 10 so far in 2006 for being able to delicately balance despair, hope, love, affection and that sense that you really need to see this movie in a delicious little package. Keanu and Sandra are back again and let me be the first one to state that I hope the flick is as good as the trailer.
I don’t know why this preview has such a hold on me (I’ve been sitting on the review now for almost 3 weeks) but I invariably cue up the Keane song on my iPod while working out and wish that this is really a solid romance flick. I don’t need Julia Roberts’ horsey smile, I don’t need Jennifer Aniston’s faux preening about a love lost but I am pulling for Sandra Bullock to come correct one more time like she did in CRASH and 28 DAYS to give me something to believe in.
Check out the trailer on the movie’s homepage and tell me what you think. It’s not often that I let the soft underbelly show for the world to see but I have to give credit where it’s due and it’s due right here.
MEET THE ROBINSONS (2007)  Director: Stephen J. AndersonCast: Angela Bassett, Paul Butcher, Jessie Flower, Spencer Fox, Jordan Fry, Daniel Hansen, Tom Kenny, Wesley Singerman, Harland Williams Release: March 30, 2007 Synopsis: Boy genius invents a machine that recovers forgotten memories, and inadvertently travels forward in time, where he encounters a family whose survival depends on his ingenuity. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Leery. It couldn’t be worse than CHICKEN LITTLE. I couldn’t be more sure than any animated film that utilized Pixar-like animation could have been more messed up than that turd nugget. I mean, really, when you have three discordant storylines converging in an inglorious explosion of confusion and lameness you’ve got the ingredients for a bad movie. Even if it is a kids movie the children, and the adults taking them, deserve better. This movie, though, looks a little more focused than its previous studios’ offering. One of the very first things you notice about this flick is the full-on animated rendering of the evil villain. The guy is everything you would want in a maniacal antagonist. He’s rocking a dashingly devilish cape, dons a twisty moustache that will, hopefully, be twirled from time to time and has got a mouthful of jacked teeth that any Briton would be envious of. Now, the hero of this tale is a Jimmy Neutron nerd of sorts. I could see the wagon wheels rolling off this gravy train should the kid develop an annoying parlance that includes copious amounts of the words “awesome” or “cool” but from what is revealed here there isn’t any indication of that. The kid in this movie looks like he’ll be “playing” off the eccentric family members that comprise the people who he has never known existed”¦until now. Yes, the heavy handed goofiness that seems to make this flick look more cartoonish than it does reflective of the smart writing which has come out of Pixar is a little disconcerting. You’ve got impossibly weird and odd moments that threaten to make this movie solely enjoyable to just the little ones but you’ve also got this one moment at the end of the trailer that made me hope there is something more to this movie. A woman extols the wonderful effects of the caffeine patch and while it’s superficially funny the general sense of goofiness and slapstick that’s employed is promising to me. Animated movies have raised the general bar insofar that the greats have challenged the accepted notion that kids movies are animated; adults are being included in the making of the films, their presence being recognized in well-written moments for them, while respecting the kids who ultimately will want to see these films. CHICKEN LITTLE failed as a film, at least in execution, because of its exclusion of material that would entertain the adults who had accompany their kids to the theater. TOY STORY knew how to play to this part of the audience and so did a handful of other memorable animated movies. These things aren’t just for kids. Disney would do well to remember that.
|
THE OMEN(2006)  Director: John MooreCast: Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, Mia Farrow, David Thewlis, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Gambon, Seamus Fitzpatrick Release: June 6, 2006 Synopsis: A remake of the 1976 horror classic The Omen (1976), an American official realizes that his young son may literally be the devil incarnate. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Ahh..No. I really didn’t see the original. I figured, Satan incarnate in a little boy, starts some smack, some people die, there’s some wicked climax and somehow, some way, the kid somehow survives; saved myself the hour and a half, I figure. The power of Christ, I guess, compelled some people to make this picture again except I don’t know who is supposed to be the evil one: Damian or Julia Stiles. One is evil on the screen and the other is just an unsuspecting little boy. Never minding my own bias against the whimsy blonde I am a fan of the opening sequence. You’ve got a full-on carnival going on in the backyard of this rich kid’s place. I don’t see any carnies or cotton candy machine so I have to call shenanigans on the realism but I am a big big fan of the nasty look our little blue eyed devil child gives one of the help as this leads to a great way to start things off: a public hanging. The woman who kills herself does it with great flair, getting people’s attention before she tosses herself of a very tall home. It’s shocking, jolting. “He’s cold as ice”¦” I also appreciate the following snippet of Damian riding in the car with his parents. He stares at a church steeple while Julia takes his boy’s temperature as he keeps his eyes fixated on the visage of Christ and Co. The two steps back from the one step forward occurs when Damian is let loose in the monkey house at the zoo. The path of children that cut a line away from this demon dog is wonderfully captured but when Julia asks her beanie boy what the matter is he just explains that, “They’re afraid.” I don’t paraphrase Eddie Murphy’s comedy too much but just like in Amityville Horror when the house says to get out you can be damn sure the sounds of rubber wheeling away from the house is a lot more understandable than staying with it. When you’ve got a child who tosses deadly glances, is obviously not high on life and seems to cut a path of quiet destruction wherever he goes it might be time to take the kid back from whence it came. Then, after Mia Farrow shows up (Huh?) and says that she’s there to protect Damian we get the man, the myth, the legend: Pete Postlethwaite. I wish he were in every movie to come out in 2006 but it looks like I have to settle with him being in this. His role here seems to be that of the concerned priest who knows what that little snot is capable of and wants to do what he can to subvert the kid’s lifespan. The imagery is rich with confusing and interesting moments that have NO connection to one another, nor do they add any context to the film. I’m not sure why we’re not given more about what these weird moments mean. And it’s not just a few things here or there but when we get a 80’s era synth soundtrack that is embedded underneath video clips of weird looking people, evil dudes who wear silk robes, police who figure walking into a church with their laser sights ready to shred whatever pops up in front of them or this little boy looking even more evil than he is I am not sure what the point is supposed to be. Am I supposed to be afraid or confused? I’m afraid it’s the latter. |
Director: Alejandro AgrestiPrognosis: My list of the top trailers for 2006 is getting a little crowded. For those who can stomach it, this is a glowing review of what could be a very well made drama. For those who dare not tread down this written river Styx please turn away now or feel the power of what a great pop song and some compelling visuals does to me.
I don’t like people who eschew television and feel the need to point it out.
I’m of the mindset that those people are just the kind of Luddites who need to be tossed in a raging river with a gunnysack tied taught around their feet. There’s crap, sure, on television but have any of you checked out that show, Dwell, on Fine Living? (Check your local satellite provider for times and dates”¦) There isn’t a lot I enjoy but when that show pops up on my television I can’t not watch. For example, a few weeks ago, I see some dudes who bought a house together in Texas because it damn near is completely see-through on an open prairie. They don’t care about showering in the open because there’s no one really around to spy on them. I don’t know about that and I sure don’t know about this movie.
Sure, Sandra Bullock proved she could do drama well last year in CRASH. I was impressed and I’m glad that she’s back again in a role that has her a little more sullen than her usual bubbly self.
“I sometimes feel as if I’m invisible”¦”
Okay, Sandra’s narrating and we see people playing on a skating rink when she’s uttering some lines about how she feels so isolated and alone. I don’t know what one has to do with the other but, essentially, I get it. Then she starts going off about how “The Lake House,” this wicked awesome looking place where you could get your groove on in 360 degree delight, made her feel alive or something. In some way, shape or form she feels that the place gives her these super powers to not feel like killing herself. That’s what I take away from the conversation at least.
Then, whoa, Keanu steps in. HE owns the place too. Things get real sci-fi when we grok that Keanu and Sandra live in the same house but exist two years apart YET can communicate with one another via snail mail.
The lilting music and non-threatening storyline, one that will not garner Oscar, Golden Globe or Entertainment Tonight’s rapturous gaze, is cheesy, yes, but the trailer is doing a great job of sucking me into its world. Just assuming that this is possible in the writer’s world I like the fun the two of them are having with this relationship. It comes through really well in the preview of how both of these players see this movie as an excuse to have a little fun with one another.
And, I’ll tell you what, I’ll be goddamed if I didn’t love the way these two react to one another without ever being on screen, side-by-side. When you get these people alone, I take it, they are free to respond to the material in their own way without having to “feed off” of anyone else around them and I’d like to think that this Sandra, this Keanu, was what could have been years ago had big budget and big blockbuster expectations not been a consideration.
I just about shiat myself when we get a perfect musical selection “Somewhere Only We Know” by Keane comes on and then we get the montage that usually always plagues flicks like this. I don’t know why and I can’t really describe it but as these two kids are corresponding two years from one another yet able to get notes back and forth to one another it just starts to pull gently at you.
If you give yourself over to the notion that this could be more than just a watch it once, throw it away kind of flick, the music that begs you to listen can be something actually worth sitting through. And it’s about this time when I see this movie is coming to me from a Pulitzer Prize winning author. Not that this means a whole helluva lot but the fact that this is also where I peep this flick is happening around Chicago means two thumbs up to me; you’ve always got to appreciate when the circus comes to your town.
Besides all that this is one of the better looking dramas that will, hopefully, not require too much out of me as a viewer and for that I would be eternally grateful in this era of hysterics and SFX.
VIDEO BLOG #52: “My Ring of Fire” ““
Sometimes it doesn’t pay to show off your mad scooter skillz.
Download Scrubs Video Blog #52:
“THE TODD” BLOG #15: The Todd’s Match –
Yes, even “The Todd” ““ the omnisexual surgeon played by Robert Maschio ““ has been keeping a blog, and here’s his latest entry.
Download The Todd Video Blog #15:
##
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR |By Christopher Stipp
May 5, 2006
Revenge of This Nerd
Five weeks and it’s still raging on with my presence over ‘dere at MySpace and I couldn’t be more pleased with the people checking in just to say hello or to peep what it is that’s on the brain from week to week and so I hope that if you’re around you do the same as it’s nice to hear from you all out there.
I am troubled this week by the announcement of Fox’s decision to go through with a REVENGE OF THE NERDS remake.
Now, I am fully aware that the crap sequels that followed NERDS IN PARADISE (Hell yeah I like that movie. Where else could you see a burgeoning Bradley “West Wing” Whitford, fresh off his role as Mike Todwell from ADVENTURES IN BABYSITTING? Answer: Right here) were a disgrace to all that was an exploitative, crass and altogether boss kind of benchmark for 80’s comedies.
I think there was some n00b in an executive suite all those greenlights ago and somehow managed to figure out what kind of blood could be freshly squeezed from the rock that franchise. By taking the actors’ salaries and making it inversely proportional to the quality of the script there was some kind of odd wizardry going on that kept this series alive. I don’t bother to assume I know how these things keep going or why they’re not euthanized when it’s painfully obvious that not even Booger’s marriage to that one wierd looking chick from POLICE ACADAMY 4 (You know, the one who had eyes that could see approaching predators and core an apple with a single spin against her overbite?) could save this property.
Relaunches are all the rage lately, from the SUPERMAN franchise getting a nice reboot to the BOND franchise, well, getting a much needed downsizing, but something like the NERDS deserves more than just a retelling of the same story with the possibility of getting some of the original cast to cameo in it. For a movie like this what you need is someone who “gets” why the original really captured the zeitgeist of the era. In an age far beyond just normal do-goodism and the very public cracking down on all things even hinting at salaciousness in the media what you want is someone who is going to buck every notion of decorum and give the movie going public what it wants: offensive humor. That’s all, that’s it, it’s not so much to ask. I realize I am perhaps the only person so touched by the news of this REVENGE OF THE NERDS remake but I feel protective of matters of such importance.
Also along the lines of matters of importance I would like to issue a comment about the impending MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3 explosion that’s threatening to take over my television, radio and print media. I think while it’s been fun, hell, great fun, to watch that little Tom monkey fling his poo wherever there’s an available reporter to comment on his placenta eating desires it is important as moviegoers to see whether JJ an Co. have crafted a good summer movie. We’ve been assaulted as of late with tired fare at the box office and it is movies like this which will hopefully ballast our frazzled decisions of whether it’s going to be SCARY MOVIE or AMERICAN DREAMZ that we’re going to capitulate on. I think the summer movie season is an admirable one and no one more than me is eager to see whether MISSION deserves a break for Tom’s batshi$ crazy antics.
Let the popcorn flow like wine because it’s studio tentpole time…
LIVE FREE OR DIE (2006)  Director: Gregg Kavet, Andy RobinCast: Aaron Stanford, Paul Schneider, Michael Rapaport, Kevin Dunn, Zooey Deschanel, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Judah Friedlander Release: Who knows… Synopsis: Lackluster criminals look to pull a job in the Granite State. View Trailer: * Medium (Flash) Prognosis: Crap. This movie won an award for Best Feature at the SXSW festival? Seriously? I can say with some certainty, and a little authority, that this is a really poor trailer. If you want the short version of the review it would be that this trailer depends on its players using the word “fuck” or “shit” in ways that would be amusing to a boy of thirteen but to someone who’s thirty it just feels like it’s not so much selling a movie as it is trying to put on a “funny” front. The whole point of making a trailer is to package your film in a way that’s digestible for the most amount of people in the hopes it attracts viewers of all levels. True, whoever made this trailer made the conscious point of including a lot of swearing as a point of interest. They wanted to showcase this facet of the movie. However, and I would argue, that, out of context, swearing does nothing more than showcase the fact that your actors are juveniles who need nothing more than our complete disregard for their actions if this is the kind of sell they’re going after. However, in the light of equal time I will try and give this thing the respect it so deservedly is begging to receive. We start with our protagonist claim he is a “stone, fucking killer” and that he’s killed people with his bare, “fucking hands.” I’m not sure if I am to laugh or this is the point where this movie becomes about one man’s quest to kill as many people as he can. Said protagonist seems to be scouring the landscape for more people to completely work over although that’s just speculation on my part. The trailer is taking a lot of time to put the spotlight on the “crazy” antics of our man Friday here as a way, ostensibly, to show how much fun we’re going to have just by following this dude around as he rips up the land around him. He gets a tall, Lloyd from DUMB AND DUMBER looking dude to tag along with him, providing an extra level of comedy. Plot points? I don’t have any to explain because, frankly, I haven’t got any myself out of this thing. I do, though, get an idea when these band of misfits pick up a third and decide to go thieving. I honestly would’ve liked to have some clue as to why these guys are out ripping people off and decimating stores, I might actually have some genuine interest in allying myself to one of them but no, none of that’s forthcoming. I do get Judah Friedlander playing every single mumble-mouthed, big glasses wearing, monotone gimmick actor he’s played in every other movie as he’s given way too much time to just do his thing. The ending of this trailer is just filled with enough explicative dropping I wonder if there’s any original kind of dialogue in this movie that isn’t peppered with the f-word. I think it’s funny to have an obscene movie, 40 YEAR-OLD VIRGIN proved that last year, but what set that movie and this movie apart was that its advertising (GASP) managed to exclude anything hinting that it was going to be as blue as it was. There’s nothing held back here and, to me, that’s a bad thing.
|
THREE TIMES (2006)  Director: Hsiao-hsien HouCast: Chen Chang, Mei Di, Su-jen Liao, Fang Mei, Qi Shu Release: April 26, 2006 (Limited) Synopsis: Three stories set in three times, 1911, 1966 and 2005. Two actors play the two main characters in each story. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Positive. It’s often, I would say it isn’t but it is, when I see a foreign language film and wonder how long it will be until the story is appropriated by a domestic studio and regurgitated in a form that either dilutes the original spark or until the movie is picked up and sat on like it’ll ripen with every month that goes by without a release (i.e. NIGHTWATCH, SHAOLIN SOCCER); this movie, though, seems safe from either of those impulses as IFC Films has been an excellent distributor of films that would normally just get a weak release from any of the majors. What appealed to me most initially, then, is not so much the content but the premise. Jonsing for a peek at Aronofsky’s THE FOUNTAIN has resulted in being open to stories of just this kind. Taking place in three different time periods is a move that could either yield genuine drama or could seem like a convenient ploy, gimmick. When you see, right out of the gate, Jim Jarmusch laying out the superlatives and hyperbole for this director, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, you feel a connection to someone who many might not be familiar with. I certainly was not. Also, I very much liked the display of film festivals this movie has played at as it doesn’t linger too long and it efficiently, deservedly, establishes credibility. Also, we’re not talking about meager festivals. This one has bowed at Cannes, Telluride and Toronto. Our first shot is of a young woman playing some snooker. Regardless of how well she plays, it is the man standing behind her that catches our eye. The music is smoky, appropriate. What’s more, regarding the tune, it somehow fits the next scenes of our three eras being represented in tri split screen. Even though these two protagonists are going to be together somehow, someway, the chemistry is instant. Even when we’re given the obvious, the three dates being stamped on the screen the melding of the three time periods is seamless. Somehow you just feel the authenticity of this man and woman. The first real dialogue that’s spoken, subtitled for our pleasure, feels a little indulgent in the vein of high falutian mushiness that really only exists in cinema but that’s ok; sometimes you want to believe in the power of real strong agape between two people and if you earn it this is the arena where it can be allowed. Seeing A.O. Scott’s blurb is de regur for a movie like this. Even though you want to believe your flick is strong enough on its own you still want to revert, at least in marketing, to those things which will get people to come out of their hovels to see a film like this. The ending is a little quiet, a little reserved but the action on the screen is yearning for someone to pay attention to this woman who seems to be suffering from some kind of heartache. The fact that you can infer this from a foreign language trailer speaks volumes about the strength of the material. Highly anticipated. |
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH (2006)  Director: Davis GuggenheimCast: Al Gore Release: May 24, 2006 Synopsis: Eloquently weaves the science of global warming with Al Gore’s personal history and lifelong commitment to reversing the effects of global climate change. A longtime advocate for the environment, Gore presents a wide array of facts and information in a thoughtful and compelling way. The film is not a story of despair but rather a rallying cry. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Always consider the source. I tell you what living in Arizona makes it hard for me to tell you what I think of global warming. When the average temperature hits over 100 degrees every damn summer day I would sooner believe that the world is going to melt at any moment than try to gauge what is going on with the rest of the world, scientifically, as it pertains to global warming. The fundies would have you believe it’s due to homosexuals getting their swerve on and, thus, God’s getting his wrath on. The democrats would attribute it to big corporate greed getting in the way of sound environmental policy. And the republicans would just as soon say there isn’t a problem at all and that how dare we bring this up when there is a war that is threatening our family’s lives? I don’t know what to believe but I do like the interesting approach to getting this trailer started. “At Sundance it received three standing ovations”¦” Like any good piece of propaganda, and remember that every movie with a viewpoint is propaganda no matter how “teh awesome,” the flashes of extreme weather moments is very effective. The clips go by awfully quick but the snippets of palm trees bending, video of hurricane movements and the stark pictures of nuclear power plants are begging us to do the math about what these threes have in common. Since I’m pretty stupid I don’t have a clue. More extreme shots of limp waterfalls, deforestation, tornadoes ring the point that’s about to be made. “If you love your planet”¦ Yeah, I have a problem with that. What I loathe about exploitative news reporting and mainstream journalism as of late is that I am assaulted by teasers that constantly threaten either my or my family’s life with information that they have to tell me but can’t share until I tune in at 10:00 pm. This film’s marketing is essentially doing the same thing and I don’t appreciate it as a tactic. “By far the most terrifying film you will ever see.” Huh? I would hope that this film is being ironic because no person would have the brass satchels to make that kind of comment unless we were getting archival footage of Vlad the Impaler impaling. No, we’re getting some egg heads talking about hot weather using the same kind of scare tactics used by Newsroom Channel 5. “The consensus is that WE are causing global warming.” Sigh. Ok, Al Gore states that humans are the cause for global warming and even though I was horrid at life sciences I at least know that nugget of gold information. What else could’ve caused it? The wanton expulsion of methane gas from dairy cows? Anyway, Gore goes on to show us the dry beds of land in Patagonia many decades ago and what it looks like now, appearing to become the next Great Lake. We see before and after shots of Mt. Kilimanjaro. The night and freaking day difference between these two landmasses and the environmental effects they’ve endured is actually interesting, kids. The latter half of this trailer’s presentation of how bad global policy has resulted in things like Hurricane Katrina is at once compelling while also causing my BS Detector 2000 to activate. Does causal relationships mean relation? I don’t know but this trailer would have me believe it to be true. While this trailer suffers from bad slanting of information nothing is more amusing than the last few moments where the music gets real dramatic and the music ramps up to action movie speed. |
Director: Chan-wook ParkPrognosis: Revenge is a dish best served like this. Interesting.
Real interesting.
While I have yet to indulge completely in the Internet favorite. OLDBOY, this trailer really grabs me in a way that is reminiscent of AMELIE, where things don’t really jive with an actual reality, per se, but of a stylized reality where perception is the lens through which we see the movie’s world.
The opening is wonderfully composed.
The lighting of a single candle with the sound of a bell going off is not how one would expect to open a movie where violence will be on the proverbial menu.
The font of the movie’s establishment of the director of this movie, along with the places where this movie has played, is regal, stately. The animation that runs beneath the credits kind of sows the idea that there is a sinister underpinning to everything that we’re going to see.
The trailer also gets kudos for not messing around and getting right down to it with establishing the movie’s premise. Where some would go for the quick video clips from the film to show how things get going we’re rushed along even swifter with the story being written out for us.
We know, no more than a third of a way into the trailer, that we have a woman who wants a good life, has a nice daughter, daughter gets taken away by a wrinkly old man and that she’s illegitimately stuck in county lockup with a bunch of crazy, hula-hoop playing women.
Things take an odd turn when we’re told she wants revenge. Imagine that. Now, usually in Asian cinema this is when we get a bunch of swordplay or gunfighting or a lot of flashes using fire and a hail of bullets. Instead of this, however, I get a bunch of ladies wearing Santa beards and hats. Huh?
Just like AMELIE the very same outrageousness that constitute normal reality is taken at face value here. We’re to believe this happens in this woman’s world and the events that follow just reinforce the notion. She gets herself a gun and unleashes the kind of stuff I was looking for before Santa’s helpers made an appearance.
I don’t know exactly where things are going besides the obvious implications of what the old dude from the beginning is going to get in return for his kidnapping of this woman’s daughter. There looks like there’s going to be a lot of bad things going down and the directing looks fabulous as it renders this story of recompense.
VIDEO BLOG #48: “My House Call” ““
Ken Jenkins and Christa Miller film a scene from episode 5×21, as Carla sends Kelso on a visit to the demoralized Dr. Cox.
Download Scrubs Video Blog #48:
VIDEO BLOG #49: “My Sweet Charity” ““
Ever wonder what happens to those kind folks who win a guest spot via a charity auction? Well, wonder no more”¦
Download Scrubs Video Blog #49:
VIDEO BLOG #50: “My Donkey Show: Part 1″ ““
How exactly do you create a donkey boy? Well, first you need a donkey, and their requisite trainer. Ken P. and PA Brian chat up said trainer prior to his star’s big scene.
Download Scrubs Video Blog #50:
VIDEO BLOG #51: “My Donkey Show: Part 2″ ““
And now, the actual green screen filming of the carrot-loving thespian”¦
Download Scrubs Video Blog #51:
##
Adult Swim’s Dana Snyder and FRED’s Ken Plume set out to have a literate conversation between two pals, but inevitably devolve into a verbal, and funny, free-for-all full of bickering, infighting, and the special kind of male bonding that comes from conflict expressed through the podcast medium.
Actor/comedian/raconteur Dana Snyder, you’re certainly aware, is Aqua Teen Hunger Force’s Master Shake, Squidbillies‘ Granny, Minoriteam’s Dr. Wang, and The Venture Bros.‘ Alchemist. Available for weddings and bar mitzvahs (bat availability pending), you can keep tabs on him via his website, www.eyeofthesnyder.com.
Ken Plume is the editor-in-chief here at FRED. He is a friend of Dana’s, as well as his arch-nemesis.
VISIT THE SNYDECAST EXPERIENCE
KEN P.D. SNYDECAST #9: Episode 9 – [adult swim]’s Dana Snyder and Ken Plume’s weekly chat podcast returns with a mailbag special, wherein they endeavor to answer the stacks of queries in typically quarrelsome fashion. Who lives? Who dies? Who knows?
[CONTENT WARNING]: This podcast may contain some foul language and horribly off-color jokes. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.
DOWNLOAD: (right click to save)
Episode #9 (MP3 format)
[audio:http://traffic.libsyn.com/snydecast/ken_p_d_snyde_cast-09.mp3]
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to this Podcast via iTunes
Got something to say? E-mail Dana & Ken at the Snydecast mailbag.
CLICK HERE FOR THE SNYDECAST ARCHIVES
##
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | By Christopher Stipp
April 28, 2006
N-N-N-N-NICK NICK NICK NICKELO…DE..ON!
In its fourth week of electronic epherema called MySpace I am happy those of you who have stopped by have let me know. I apologize I don’t yet have a picture of myself in the best emo pose I can muster but the one that’s there, Terry Tate, who is standing in my stead, is doing an inglorious job letting the world know it’s all about the Pain Train, or something.
Now, in keeping things tight this week (I swear I am going to keep this intro short) I wanted to just toss out a couple of things I noticed over the weekend and they couldn’t be more divergent.
Uno, I was just hanging out with my little girl over the weekend and we were taking in a healthy amount of Sponge Bob. I don’t know why I can show her pictures of other people, not eliciting anything more than a name of the person in question, without so much as a blink but put that little fruit-loop in front of the opening on Bob and she can tell the world what that mo-fo’s name is.
Now, as is my want, I like to TiVo the episodes because I find being able to by-pass that insane amount of advertising that’s flooded to kids (Although, I shouldn’t talk as I became a hapless shill for any and all G.I. Joe products when those simulated battlefield situations in the commercials made me believe that I too could scream out, “You jive ass honkey this Cobra Commander is all about to decimate, you dig?!”) and I like being able to have that control. 
Now, as I am blazing through the adverts I see something pop up for the new Jack Black flick, NACHO LIBRE. I press play. I slow down. I was confused. I ignorantly thought that this was going to be, at the very least, an adult targeted flick.
My bad, it isn’t.
The spot that Nickelodeon ran last weekend had the little chubby kid adressing the camera as he went “on set” to tell us how “awesome” this movie was going to be. At one point the little marshmellow get into the wrestling ring with Jack and the two of them, awkwardly, grapple. 
I don’t know if it was because the vibe that Jack was putting out made it seem like having to take cues from a kid in this promo spot was lame or if realizing that being on Nickelodeon to pimp his new movie wasn’t the most “cred worthy” thing in the world. Honestly, it could be that he really didn’t mind giving some time to the little kids that are watching him but, as a big kid, I was a bit confused by the promotional spots I’ve seen on the Internets and what I was seeing there.
If this movie is the kid-friendly outing that it is being made out to be I wonder when we’re going to see this direction reflected in the advertising. Will we only be able to see the promo spots on Noggin? I’m just confused by this being the first discovery that even though the advertising says “This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated” there really is only a PG in this film’s future. Not that I was expecting there to be a great deal that would make this an R but this certainly changes how this movie is sold. Keep an eye out for this one. More of this flick’s kiddie campaign can be found here. I would ask someone out there to compare the trailers that are hosted on this site and the one’s hosted on the movie’s main site but there couldn’t be a better example of night and day when it comes to learning real quick of doing compare/contrast anaysis; it’s not just for English Lit majors anymore, children. The one for the kids really focuses on the slapsticky moments that this film is certainly filled with but just like a modern day, digitial equivalent, of “Rashomon” you’ve got what looks like two movies that are completely independent of one another. Such is the nature of trailers, I suppose, but this is really the first flick I can really remember where two wholly different advertising campaigns co-exist with one another. Food for thought.
Dos, my hat is curiously tipped to those behind the trailers-that-really-aren’t for FLIGHT 93. While tuning into West Wing on Sunday I noticed director Paul Greengrass’ narration and faux interview camera set-up as he personally guided viewers though the motions about his intention with the film. Now, while it was wholly unnecessary for him to try and explain why he helped to make FLIGHT 93 this was a curious spot to me for one reason: It was an advertisement for the movie that didn’t seem like one. Kind of the Pimp Backhand of Justice this little spot catches you unaware. Never has a trailer spoken directly to an audience like this one has and I think it is commendable that this step was taken to not only establish awareness but it gets people warmed up to the idea of an 9/11 movie in a way that’s at once dramatic yet personable. I tip my cap to you, Universal, for such a coy little piece of advertising goodness. Hell, even I felt even better about going to see the movie after hearing Paul talk about the importance of the film.
See? Quick and to the point this week. I hope you all are doing well, much love goes out to all those sending in notes and shout-outs as I appreciate every single one and, if you have any questions or comments, do me a favor and drop a line. If it’s good enough it’ll run right here. It’ll help me with having to keep observing minuate every week just to have something to write as an introduction.
DARKON (2006)  Director: Luke Meyer, Andrew NeelCast: Nerds, Geeks, Dweebs, Dorks, Nimrods, Dopes, Schmoes and lots more socially inept wierdos. (Sorry, but when you don’t have anyone listed in the IMDB that might as well be an open invitation for me…) Release: HOTDOCS Film Festival, April 28-May 7 (2006) Toronto, Canada. Synopsis: DARKON is a feature documentary that follows the real-life adventures of an unusual group of weekend “warrior knights,” fantasy role-playing gamers whose live action “battleground” is modern-day Baltimore, Maryland, re-imagined as a make-believe medieval world named Darkon. These live action gamers combine the physical drama of historical re-enactments with character-driven storylines inspired in part by such perennial favorite fantasy epics like the legends of King Arthur, Lord of the Rings, and the saga of Conan the Barbarian. As role players, they create alter-egos with rich emotional, psychological, and social lives. They costume themselves and physically act out their characters exploits both in intimate court intrigue and campouts and in panoramic battle scenarios involving competitive strategies, convincingly real props, and full contact “combat.” Because real life so often gets in the way, its easy to understand these players motivations. Everybody wants to be a hero. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Positive. I have ADHD. It’s wicked bad. Although it’s not really diagnosed by my doctor I know that my shorter than average attention span, which can be timed to a road flare, is an indication that I get really amped about some things and then, poof, it’s off to something, or someone, else. That’s why, right now, my spastic self is really rocking on the hour long ATTACK OF THE SHOW on the G4 channel every Monday through Thursday evening. I get all my geek news and reviews in one quick 25 minute block; it’s on the TiVo and, like I said, ADHD. One of the things that came up, then, a few weeks ago was this movie and after being able to sit through the entire segment without fast forwarding once I knew I had to peep the trailer. This looks like a movie that will speak to any nerd who knows what it means to grok something; what it means to live in a geek culture surrounded by reality where others don’t get you; or, better yet, what it means to be slammed into metal lockers in high school and need to further that sense of outsidership in adulthood by dressing up in silly outfits having fake battles with one another. Really, someone should’ve shot Tolken before he had a chance to write those Goddammed books. I kid because I kare, children. I really like the way this movie looks simply by how the background of this movie takes shape. I liked TREKKIES for the same reason that this trailer’s opening sequence seems to really take a real look at the people who find dressing up in LOTR-style garb, and having fake battles, to be a pleasurable experience. You’ve got a guy in the very beginning buying cereal for his kid, you see him vacuuming the carpet all the while explaining that being a hero in everyday life isn’t something that’s always attainable. He looks like he’s a dad and you feel for him, sorta, but then we’re blasted with a real live geek, a real live wire, as he’s bombastically railing against his geek brother on the field of battle. The dudes are all sorts of dressed up in Old English uniforms, dragons and lions and headbands being de regur for pseudo-combat. You get the vibe quickly that these “men” were beat up a lot in high school. A lot. Again, though, it’s fun. I find myself giddy at the prospect of being able to watch what a collective of egg heads looks like when they decide to pick up a battle ax or mace on a wooden stick. And it’s sweet. Did I mention that? It’s so nice to see that people like this are so passionate about something whereas other folk are simply happy to live their lives in abject ignorance of their own desires. The sappy music playing underneath the sweeping visions of the landscape of the town that harnesses the collective geek sweat of dozens of these people really gets to you as understanding why these people dress up gives you that layer of understanding, that context. One of the things I especially like, even after you get a feel for the major players involved in this escapade, is that the music takes everything over and all you’re left with are shots of how intricate this game has become. You visit the east coast of America, Pennsylvania for the Gettysburg reenactment that’s going to happen this year on July 1st, 2nd and 3rd let’s say, and you decide to watch what happens. You have two sides fighting on one battlefield. Here, though, you’ve got nerds swinging their battle axes and geeks firing their padded arrows from all sorts of directions at all hours of the night and day. There are multiple factions, multiple storylines happening, but when we cut to these same people doing their day jobs it’s odd. In a good way. It’s hard to imagine many of us being able to participate in something so obviously steeped in fiction but it’s just as hard to look away from this trailer and not be entertained.
|
THE ZODIAC (2006)  Director: Scott MarshallCast: Justin Chambers, Robin Tunney, Rory Culkin, Philip Baker Hall Release: March 17th, 2006 (And where the hell was it? It didn’t come out near my house…) Synopsis: Based on true events, THE ZODIAC is a psychological thriller detailing a string of gruesome murders in the Bay Area in the late 1960s and the impact on the victims, their families and the wider community. A small town cop (Justin Chambers) and his son (Rory Culkin) become obsessed with the Zodiac killer, endangering their family. View Trailer: * Medium (QuickTime) Prognosis: Negatively Confused. I was all sorts of amped when I glossed the offerings of trailers this week to see this one sitting there. Shouldn’t there have been more of a fanfare? Was I catching some exclusive peek at a quietly released trailer for David Fincher’s latest foray into film? Wasn’t this going to be great? No, it wasn’t any of these things. Just like when juggernauts DEEP IMPACT and ARMAGEDDON were released around the same time, myself wondering what in hell could’ve cosmically been the case years prior when competing end-of-the-world pics went into production around the same time, this year will be the battleground for competing Zodiac dollars. It’s a curious thing when these moments pop up in moviedom but I can tell you that this picture, while I felt let down it wasn’t Fincher’s latest, doesn’t look like the smudge on the taint that IMPACT did when compared with the God-awfulness that was ARMAGEDDON. You’ve got kids doing what they know how to do best, fogging up the windows in mom’s old Ford Festiva. The kids here, though, are looking to get themselves into some trouble of their own but leave it to the creepy darkened car that slowly pulls up alongside the kids’ car to be the one to make it a night none of them will remember. Now, since I’m not completely familiar with how the Zodiac killer operated I can only assume his interest wasn’t in getting ladies but indiscriminately killing whoever and whatever he wanted judging by the opening sequence here. It’s a solid way to introduce me and the fact that we get the doctor from Grey’s Anatomy on the case, I don’t care what you say as I watched this trailer a half dozen times, it’s the doctor from Grey’s Anatomy. It’s not an actor playing the part. It’s the doctor, and this is how I am selling myself on it, and he’s looking to make a career change. His old lady, Robin Tunney, comes right out and tells her man that she is scared. She should be as the lighting in this movie coats everything with a piss yellow hue. Her husband drags it with him to the office as the good doctor from Grey’s, who honestly doesn’t make the case he could be a po-po, gets an errie and spooky call from a dude who says he’s going to be kill some folks just for the fun of it. Now, this part of the trailer is actually pretty interesting because we get some of the actual events that transpired with the way law enforcement was played every step of the way with this serial killer. Philip Baker Hall, best known to the world as Dean Patterson in HOW I GOT INTO COLLEGE, plays the TV doctor’s boss and admonishes him to catch this guy. I think that’s all well and good but as we’ve seen in previous incarnations of this story, this doesn’t happen. I mean I’ve watched the History channel. I know how this story is going to play out and I think that’s why I just don’t feel the panic that must have ran rampant though these lifers who were dedicated to catching dudes like The Zodiac. They’re playing up the drama but it doesn’t feel like it should be a drama. And then, if you’re watching closely, his old lady and kid call him while he’s at work to start spilling diarrhea of the mouth as they both pour over astrological books to help dad out; we obviously know how that turns out. As if that isn’t enough, the good doctor’s son starts talking about the case with some girl in the neighborhood as if this Nancy Drew/Hardy Boy combo is what this case needs. It would’ve been sweet if the true definition of irony comes home to roost with the Zodiac taking out the meddling kids. The ending of this trailer should be commended, though, in doing what it should have been doing from the beginning: creating an atmosphere of paranoia and frenetic activity. No one ever knew who this guy was, or is, and with every stranger being a potential suspect or target the trailer should have focused on this feeling from the very beginning. I know you need to make it seem that this story has a human element but, I posit, the trailer plays it backward. You don’t feel that this is a movie about a serial killer but that this is a movie about how one guy deals with his family as it pertains to this case. While that’s fine it’s perhaps not the best route to take when you want and sell a movie with this much “reality” built into it. |
AKEELAH AND THE BEE (2006)  Director: Doug AtchisonCast: Angela Bassett, Keke Palmer, Laurence Fishburne, Curtis Armstrong Release: April 28, 2006 Synopsis: A young girl from South Los Angeles tries to make it to the National Spelling Bee. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: W-A-S-T-E O-F M-Y T-I-M-E. One of the things that must really be a drag when you’re a filmmaker is you think you have this great story and that no one else has done it and you’ve got this hawesome ass vision for a story and then, bam, BEE SEASON comes out just mere months before your movie. Not only do you reel from the fact that you’ve got this spelling movie with Richard Gere coming out before yours but when the movie ends up tanking like the Exxon Valdez on theaters’ doorsteps you could understandably get a little fidgety. Unfortunately, I can’t see how this movie will fare any better. What you’ve got opening this thing tells me everything I need to know about this film. You’ve got this one little girl winning her school’s first annual spelling bee and while this is all well and cheery something very Hollywoody happens. Lawrence Fishburne, along with his sidekick, Booger, nee Curtis Armstrong, jumps right into the festivities and demands this girl spell “prestidigitation.” Of course, besides the obvious weirdness of having some stranger start yelling crap at you, the camera quite visibly pulls in closer on the girl who, ta-da, does it. Her friend shiats herself, the place starts clapping but the speller girl in question bolts out of the room. It immediately feels false and hokey. The question here is not what makes this movie so different than BEE SEASON but should be why we should care about the people in these films. The simple answer is that I don’t care about her. Unfortunately, what you get in the montage of moments of this movie which will ultimately lead to the great spelling bee is that this girl follows the time tested clichés of a wise old sage mentor educating his ward. Yes, it must suck to live in a crap part of California. Yes, it must be rough as a black girl to have your brother harass you by comparing you to a white girl. Yes, it is hard to imagine that you have this old guy demanding you learn all these tough new words. Fact of the matter is that we’ve heard this story a lot of times before. Hard living, hard mentor, finding something to believe in are themes explored in the great BOYZ N THE HOOD, where Fishburne played his sage old guy part well, and the not-so-great FINDING FORRESTER where Sean Connery gave me nothing to believe in once he uttered. “You’re the man now, Dog.” Ugh. This movie looks like a heated mash of both kind of dudes with the exception that there’s nothing new here. It’s well-worn and as our protagonist struggles with trying to believe in herself, never minding that she’s in grade school and not believing in anything just comes with the age, the manipulation of the music and the dramatic lighting is nothing more than just a lazy attempt to create interest where there isn’t any. I’m sure this movie will appeal to young girls and prepubescents everywhere but, for the rest of us, this seems like an overwrought and saccharine packed sack of kiddie dramatics. |
Director: Caveh ZahediPrognosis: Very Interesting. As Men on Film once said, quite boldy, “Three words: Fab You Lus.”
You go into a trailer called I AM A SEX ADDICT with a few preconceptions about what you should be seeing: a dirty old Dell and a huge, dingy and crusty CRT screen that you know has been wanked off to more times than the collective one-offings of Brighton Middle School in Any Town, U.S.A.; I expected to see the cast off from SEVEN, the one who was force fed until he popped like a detonated whale that’s been beached; and I even supposed that I would peep the living quarters of a lonely, pathetic person who wallows in their own squalor. Instead, I get Bud Cort in a tux.
It’s not a bad way to start things as it really does clash with what you’re expecting to come at you when you click on the link to view it. He seems quite nebbish, diminutive and has the ocular cavities of an animal who can see behind himself in case of any looming, predatory strike. He’s comes off quite honest and warm as he goes through the motions of addressing the camera directly by describing what brings us to the current moment at hand.
He’s very loose when he says his last two marriages ended because he had this whole sex addiction problem thing; so casual is his tone, I feel, I get the impression he uses the same tone to order the Rooty Tooty Fresh and Fruity at IHOP. It’s cute in a way that we’re treated to his explanation of the genesis for his sex addiction by way of animation and poorly constructed dramatization. The GLH Formula-9 hair in a can, sprayed on himself to make the re-enactment of his sex addiction that much more believable and humorous is excellent. It puts me at ease regarding a topic that, one imagines, has to be walked around quite gingerly in these times.
So, the re-enactment takes on a whole new level as he breaks down the timeline of how he went from just being satisfied from talking to whores to finding that he needed to hump some whores in order to satiate his lust. As a sidebar, I don’t think this qualifies so much as sex addiction as it does with finding out that, as a dude, you like the company of whores. Whoring happens. That should be a bumper sticker, actually.
“Perversely interesting.”
Roger Ebert nails it when we get the montage of snippets from major press that are singing the praises of a movie that deals with one man’s journey to keep a girlfriend while whoring it up. There are a lot of non-linear moments, like his lady friend who backs away from a kiss while insisting he scrub himself before thinking of defiling her, or when we see him crucified like Jesus.
What the latter has to do with anything is beyond me but it shows us that this movie is gong to be a little different.
April 27, 2006
It’s horror movie time again at the Late Show. In fact, I’ve gotten so many fright films in the mail lately that I’ll have to devote two columns to them!The big news of 2005 for fright film fans was the announcement of a new Showtime anthology series, MASTERS OF HORROR. The premise was simple: take a dozen of the most acclaimed directors of horror films and have them each direct a one-hour mini-feature, with no restrictions or censorship. The resulting series was ““ as is probably inevitable with anthologies
““ a mixed bag, quality-wise. Some fans have called the entire series a disappointment, while others have been thrilled. Me, I don’t have Showtime, so I’ll be judging them individually, as I watch them on the DVDs from Anchor Bay.
The acclaimed director of Re-ANIMATOR and DAGON returns to the writer who inspired both of those previous films, H.P. Lovecraft, in MASTERS OF HORROR: STUART GORDON ““ DREAMS IN THE WITCH HOUSE (2005).
A financially-strapped physics student (Ezra Godden, DAGON) moves into a run-down boarding house where he meets several eccentric residents and dreams of a seductive succubus and a rat with a human face. He soon theorizes that a gateway to another dimension exists within the houses’ oddly-angled walls and that a malevolent witch uses that gateway to satisfy her depraved desires.
With a tight teleplay crafted in collaboration with frequent writing partner Dennis Paoli, Gordon once again manages to successfully adapt the word of Lovecraft to the screen. And while the film lacks some of the visceral punch of RE-ANIMATOR or FROM BEYOND, it’s a solidly creepy effort, only slightly undermined by the series’ TV budget. Godden gives a very good performance and is well supported by pretty Chelah Horsdal (HOLLOW MAN 2) and creepy Jay Brazeau.
Anchor Bay has delivered an excellent disc, with a flawless anamorphic, widescreen (1.77:1) transfer and Dolby 5.1 soundtrack. In addition, they’ve absolutely loaded down the disc with bonus features, including a commentary track by Gordon and Godden, several behind-the-scenes featurettes, and video interviews with the director and actress Chelah Horsdal. But that’s not all. There are trailers for all of the MASTERS OF HORROR episodes, a still gallery, a storyboard gallery and several DVD-ROM features, including a screensaver, the screenplay, and the original Lovecraft short story.
A short but solid horror flick given the royal treatment by Anchor Bay.
Highly recommended.
Reality TV performers (I refuse to call them “stars,” or even, based on the evidence in this film, “personalities”) meet much-deserved demises in the new Anchor Bay release THE SCORNED (2005).
At a Malibu beach house, a jerk (Bob Guiney, THE BACHELOR) cheats on his fiancée (Trish Schneider, THE BACHELOR) with her maid of honor (Trishelle Cannatella, THE REAL WORLD). There’s a violent argument that ends with the fiancée face down in a whirlpool bath with her throat cut. A year or so later, some slacker types (Steven Hill, THE REAL WORLD, Jenna Lewis, SURVIVOR and Jonny Fairplay, SURVIVOR) move in, only to find themselves and their friends haunted and murdered one by one by the fiancée’s vengeful spirit.
God, what agony.
More a novelty act than a real horror film, THE SCORNED sucks on virtually every level. (And people say I never give a bad review!) Slow, boring and unbelievably corny, never have 87 minutes felt quite so interminable. The horror film genre is not noted for fine acting, but this cast of no-talent wannabes brings the genre to a new low. The special effects are decidedly non-special and the writing is painfully trite, with inane dialogue and a tired story that is utterly predictable.
The only reason to buy or rent this thing is if, God help you, you’re an undemanding fan of reality TV. And if you are one of those unfortunate souls, it’s the second disc of this two-platter special edition that will really be of interest to you.
Disc 2 features a video interview with director Robert Kubilos wherein he dishes dirt on the various reality “stars” and how difficult they were to work with. Then, we get some outtakes and footage of on-set fighting among the cast. What fun. There’s also a tedious and unfunny “History of Reality TV” featurette, cast audition footage, and promos for the KILL REALITY series on E! Television, which chronicled the making of THE SCORNED. There’s more, including a “Member’s Only” locked extra, but that’s all I could bear to watch. I see enough self-important, egotistical jerks in real life.
Anchor Bay presents THE SCORNED in a sharp, full frame transfer and 5.1 Dolby Surround sound. It looks and sounds fine. Aside from the extras above, there’s also an “outrageous” commentary track by the director on disc one.
If you’re a reality TV addict, then you might enjoy seeing these people try and make a movie. If you’re a horror fan or film buff, avoid this at all costs.
Recently, TV producer Stephen J. Cannell (HUNTER, THE A-TEAM) teamed up with IDT Entertainment (parent company of Anchor Bay) to produce a series of original horror films. One of the first of these, IT WAITS (2004), has recently hit the shelves”¦ and it’s actually pretty good.
Directed by Steven R. Munroe from a screenplay by Cannell, Tom Szollosi and Richard Christian Matheson, IT WAITS is an effectively creepy creature feature with an attractive female lead, a suspenseful script and a genuinely scary monster.
A sexy young forest ranger named Danielle (buxom Cerina Vincent of CABIN FEVER) is struggling with feelings of guilt over the death of her best friend in a car accident ““ an accident that Danielle may be responsible for. Alone in an isolated mountain lookout tower, she spends her nights getting drunk and wallowing in self-pity until a demon out of Native-American
legend, ironically attracted by her despair, begins to stalk and torment her”¦
The plot here is not deep, nor are there any astounding twists or turns in the story, but IT WAITS in never less than entertaining. Vincent plays her character well, and the Indian demon is a particularly nasty bastard with a definite sadistic streak. The creature costume by Tony Gardner (DARKMAN) is great ““ very Giger-esque ““ and the actor in the suit makes the beast quite believable; too bad there’s a couple of very brief bad CGI bits to distract from the otherwise convincing performance.
Anchor Bay’s DVD is, as one would expect, a fine effort, with a pristine 1.77:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer and 5.1 Dolby Surround sound. There’s an enjoyable commentary track by director Munroe and star Vincent, an informative “Making Of” documentary, and the theatrical trailer.
IT WAITS is a solid little monster movie, and I liked it quite a bit.
Recommended.
The Dimension Films release VENOM (2005 ““ no relation to the 1982 Oliver Reed flick of the same name) is a somewhat better-than-average supernatural slasher flick with some effective direction by Jim Gillespie.
In a small Lousiana bayou town, an aged voodoo priestess accidentally unleashes some CGI snakes ““ I mean evil souls ““ from an old suitcase and they take up residence in the local tow truck driver. Said driver then proceeds to murder as many of the town’s more attractive teenagers as possible in the film’s 85-minute running time.
Professionally produced and very nicely shot, VENOM’s another slick stalk ‘n slash from producer Kevin Williamson (SCREAM, I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER). And like his earlier films, it has a good-looking teenage cast, a decent script, and strong production values. Problem is, there’s nothing particularly new here except for the admittedly spooky swamp setting. The killer is nothing but another Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers, this time with a tow truck and a machete; physically imposing, but with no personality or character of his own. Which is a shame ““ there was potential there for something more.
That said, it’s definitely a decent time-killer ““ well made and fairly entertaining.
Dimension’s disc presents the film in a crystal clear 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer and ringing 5.1 Dolby Surround sound. Being a new movie, the transfer is flawless. The studio has seen fit to include a few bonus features, including a short “Making Of” featurette, videotapes of cast auditions and a Storyboard-to-Film comparison.
For fans of slasher films, VENOM is worth a rental.
Voodoo is also at the heart of TALES FROM THE CRYPT PRESENTS: RITUAL
(2006), directed by Avi Nesher.
A contemporized remake of the 1943 Val Lewton RKO classic, I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE, RITUAL stars post-nose job Jennifer Gray (DIRTY DANCING) as an idealistic young doctor who travels to Jamaica to provide healthcare for a wealthy young American (Daniel Lapaine) who is suffering from an unknown, debilitating illness… and who believes he’s becoming a zombie. Before long, she finds herself caught up in a convoluted conspiracy and headed for a showdown with the local voodoo bigwig.
Now, it looks to me like the “TALES FROM THE CRYPT PRESENTS” and Crypt Keeper introduction were slapped on after production as a marketing ploy… apparently someone thinks there’s still some mileage in the name (kinda like all those “National Lampoon” movies where the producers just paid to put the name on the video box). It’s too bad that the Crypt
Keeper intro is so shoddily done ““ the puppet is virtually immobile and the writing is neither clever nor funny.
The movie itself plays out like a slightly-better-than-usual TV thriller with a little added (and welcome) nudity. It’s very talky and while it kept my attention all the way through, the whole experience was pretty much forgotten once the disc stopped spinning. Good thing I took notes.
The DVD from Dimension is a bare-bones affair, with no extra features whatsoever. You do get a rock-solid 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer and Dolby 5.1 Surround sound, though.
Eh.
“Abracadabra, I sit on his knee. Presto, change-o, and now he’s me! Hocus Pocus, we take her to bed. Magic is fun”¦ we’re dead.”
From Joseph E. Levine, the Hollywood entrepreneur who brought both Godzilla and Hercules to America’s drive-ins, comes the popular Seventies psychological thriller, MAGIC (1878), directed by Richard Attenborough (GHANDI).
Written by acclaimed screenwriter William Goldman, and based on his novel of the same name, MAGIC tells the tale of an unhappy young stage magician named Corky (Anthony Hopkins, THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, HANNIBAL), who, despite his talent with tricks, is too shy to really generate much stage presence or charm. Desperate to succeed, he adds a foul-mouthed ventriloquist dummy named Fats to the act, a gimmick that garners him considerable popularity with audiences and lands him an agent (Burgess Meredith, TORTURE GARDEN). Soon, he has a chance at a prime time TV series, but his anxieties get the best of him and heads for his childhood home to get his head together. There he reunites with his high school crush Peggy (the always-sexy Ann-Margaret), and it looks like he finally has a shot at happiness”¦ if Fats will let him.
Less a horror film than a macabre character study, MAGIC is an acting tour de force with fantastic performances by a young Anthony Hopkins and the rest of the cast. Attenborough’s direction is slow but steady, and while it takes a while to get where it’s going, it’s a fine ride.
Dark Sky’s excellent DVD features a beautiful anamorphic widescreen, 1.85:1 transfer culled from the original 35mm negative and supervised by the film’s cinematographer, Victor J. Kemper. While the film itself may have a distinctly 70’s look, the transfer is virtually flawless. Dark Sky has also rounded up some interesting extras, leading off with a great new featurette called “Fats and Friends.” There’s also an interview with cinematographer Kemper, a couple of vintage interviews with Hopkins, Ann-Margaret’s make-up tests (silent), the original trailers, TV and radio spots, and a photo gallery.
A classy thriller gets an equally classy presentation from Dark Sky. If you’ve got fond memories of this one or find ventriloquist dummies scary, you’ll want to check this out.
Mondo Macabro’s disturbing THE KILLER MUST KILL AGAIN (1975) disc has been sitting on my desk for months, waiting for a planned giallo-themed
column. But D.K. Holm beat me to the punch a few weeks back with his own Italian slasher round-up, so there was no reason to put off reviewing it any longer.
I never would have guessed that Luigi Cozzi ““ whose giddily goofy sci-fi and fantasy epics STARCRASH and the Lou Ferrigno vehicle THE ADVENTURES OF HERCULES, are mind-boggling, low brow/budget special effects orgies with cartoon plots and cardboard characters (and yes, I love them) ““ was the strong, directorial hand behind KILLER, but apparently it’s true.
A wealthy womanizer (George Hilton, ANY GUN CAN PLAY) blackmails a serial killer (the very sinister-looking Michel Antoine) into killing his shrewish wife for him. Once the deed is done, the killer puts her corpse in the trunk of a car, only to have the car stolen by a couple of joyriders. He sets out after them, and catches up with them at an isolated, abandoned seaside villa, and”¦ well, that would be telling.
I guess Cozzi’s early work with Dario Argento taught him something, for while the film isn’t anywhere as stylish as the maestro‘s works in the genre, it is a well-made thriller with very good production values and performances.
Mondo Macabro presents this rare giallo (previously unreleased in the U.S.) on DVD with an anamorphic 2.35:1 transfer culled from the original negative. It looks beautiful, with strong contrasts and stable colors. Even the dark scenes look good, with lots of detail. There’s an exclusive video interview with the director and another great Mondo Macabro
documentary on the Italian giallo genre. Finally, there’s a theatrical trailer and photo gallery.
Next week, I’ll have even more horror flick reviews, including MASTERS OF HORROR: JOHN CARPENTER’S CIGARETTE BURNS, BAD DREAMS, VISITING HOURS, DON’T GO NEAR THE PARK and more”¦
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | ARCHIVES By Christopher Stipp
April 21, 2006
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3: CONVINCING THE WORLD YOU’RE NOT COMPLETELY LOSING YOUR GRIP ON REALITY
In its third week of existence the voluntary experiment called MySpace has been going quite well. I’m really enjoying the ability to fill in the gaps when I can about the goings on during the week and I hope that if you’re out there you stop on by.
Also, and I wouldn’t normally interject so early, but check out the trailer down below for TRUST THE MAN. In my own, educated opinion this is one of the best marketing tools for a rom/com, buddy picture melds this year. It’s an odd combination, to be sure, but this trailer has been lingering with me all week. I may be full of shi$ but these things happen from time to time.
Now, welcome to this week’s column!
Really, though, don’t be too fooled by the exclamation mark.
Besides being trapped by the hype that was the newest thetan addition to the world, one has to wonder if Brooke Shields’ child, born the same day, is setting the stage for a real head-to-head throw down in the coming years. My money is on Brooks’ kid as, just judging by genetics alone, the kid will have about a two foot height advantage. Seriously, this courtship, fabricated or not, has only put into perspective how tiny Tom Cruise is. When your girlfriend, who isn’t that tall to begin with, towers over you and it looks like you’re kissing your mom’s cheek when you’re trying to play to the camera to show how awesome your relationship is it might be a good idea to invest in platforms. Seriously.
The media’s fervent frenzy surrounding this “couple’s” birth and, soon, public display of this runt is reflective of the fact that no matter how many years pass in this society of ours we are still enamored and fascinated by famous people.
I can’t say that I’m above all the clap-trap revolving around this cult of personality many belong to but I think it’s quite freeing when you consider that, many times, these relationships and public moments that are reported for our pleasure are just part of something bigger, yet smaller, than what they appear to be. When you consider timing, one of the biggest factors, of when things happen in the media to celebs there is ample evidence that coincidence has got nothing on manufactured hype. Aniston and Vaughn back in the papers? Yeah, stories were churning out at a quick clip back in the beginning of the year, around when THE BREAK UP was supposed to drop, only to die down when the release was punted back to this summer. Warmer weather, release date now coming soon, has resulted in an odd conflaguration of stories relating to this pesudo-couple.
Things like this only reinforce the plasticine notion that there isn’t anything real in Hollywood except a well timed publicity campaign. With M:I 3 coming soon in the next few weeks I cannot begin to tell you how odd, how gullible and head-shakingly funny this whole TomKat scenario has played out in the papers and Internets; you’d almost think the marionette masters behind the “exclusive” interviews and selected appearances could have, at one time, held court inside the Bush administration. The level of precision that it takes to convince a populace of whatever agenda you’re pushing is absolutely astounding. While it’s easy to dismiss the behind-the-scenes goings on of our celeb overlords as nothing more than silly and trivial it’s best to give credit to those who make us all aware of them. It is just unfortunate that for every story about K-Fed or whatever member of the Housewives cast has just let it be known they were violated with a tube of Extra Whitening Crest as a child there was more written suspicion with regard to timing or ulterior motives.
It’s no skin of my male sack as to whether reporting gets a little more suspicious with our millionare minions as I already feel enlightened by knowing all about this form of cause and effect. It is just hard to take when news of what these motards do makes the Top Stories on CNN. Edward R. Murrow would’ve shat himself; although, to be fair, I think he did when he finally passed.
Now, before I leave you to your own devices this week, and to lighten the heady mood here, I wanted to literally interject a little HTML blast from the past. I found this trailer and could not resist to give it some play for everyone to see. It’s great when something like YouTube comes along and can let you embed video inside a web page without having you, the fine readers you are, the option of leaving this column to taste the goodness which is the trailer for THE MONSTER SQUAD. This thing has been sold as a bootleg DVD at comic conventions for years (Anyone going to Comi-Con out there? Let me know…) alongside such gems as the rubbery live action CAPTIAN AMERICA and the really really bad version of THE FANTASTIC 4. And with good reason, too. This was a movie if you were young and stupid enough not to know better, I sure as hell didn’t, having the combined strength of that guy, the spikey haired one, from Kids Incorporated and a handful of movie monsters was a winning combo. Ah, nostaliga…it smells like…old tube socks that could walk down the stairs on their own.
THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS: TOKYO DRIFT (2006)  Director:Justin LinCast: Lucas Black, Bow Wow, Nikki Griffin, Sung Kang, Nathalie Kelly, Brian Tee, Jason J. Tobin Release: June 16, 2006 Synopsis: To avoid jail time, street racer Shaun Boswell is sent to live with his uncle in Tokyo. There he discovers drift racing. After losing a race to Yakuza-connected D.K., the Drift King, Shaun has to enter the Tokyo underworld to find a way to pay his debt. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Negative. Let me just on record just in case any of the following herein is construed as obsequious or muddled: there is a better chance I would be the next guy to appear on a viral video having my rear pumped by a thoroughbred than I would be to see this movie in the theater. Now, that said, let’s have a little fun. First, the opening. I won’t be harsh at all here and I’ll even give a major nod to the trailer makers here for crafting a real sense of what this movie will be about and who it’s directed toward. I realize I shouldn’t end my sentences with a preposition but a major misstep for many marketing companies for all kinds of movies out there miss not only their core demographic but other segments of the audience as well by trying to be all things to all people. There’s none of that B.S. here, friends. This movie opens with roaring engines; hot ladies in mini-skirts galloping in their high heels because we all know that only the hottest of the hot from the XX population like to frequent drag races; highly neoned Honda civics, or Peugeots I can’t really tell; and, lookie here, a view of a woman’s butt, leaving over an engine. You then have the MC of the drag race, a Western-looking John Cho, asking some more good-looking ladies (why wasn’t I told that I should’ve been seeking out illegal drag races when I was a blossoming young man) if they’re ready. Oh yeah, they’re ready all right. And we’re off. The cars peel out and instead of the common drag race on asphalt we’ve got dudes drag racing in a parking structure. As a 30 year-old dude I didn’t know until right now that you could do that or that it’s pervasive enough to make a movie out of it. And it’s here that Lil’ Bow Wow, or is it Big Dawg now that he’s a little older, says that if you, “ain’t out of cont’ro you ain’t in cont’ro.” Interesting. Besides the Jedi grammar-speak I see some Mercedes take out one of these hoopties with Bow-Wow asking us if we still need a dictionary. Nope, Bow. That dude wasn’t in cont’ro. Got it. We then figure out we’re in Tokyo. Although, the voice over only says “on the other side of the world.” I don’t know about you but considering American students’ ability to not even be able to pick out their own state on the map I am thinking an INDIANA JONES style graphic, with a green neon line (that’d be pimp, right?) shooting from Vin Diesel’s manse straight over to Tokyo; it’d be nice and would do much good in helping our public school hopefuls. Here we get our Paul Walker stand-in, looking fresh off the boat of Ford Modeling Company, who we’re told is on the other side of the law. Ooo”¦he’s dangerous, ladies, plus he’s”¦dangerously good-looking. Looking like he’s doing his best Blue Steel pose is ready to rock Asia like no man has done before. The montage of cars, women, street fights (in which our protagonist will get his ass kicked but not hard enough that it would leave any mark on his face), clubs and more women is enough to make any male youth anxious. And I am a real fan of this “hero” for keeping it real by racing an old P.O.S. while everyone else has state of the art vehicles. |
A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION (2006)  Director: Robert AltmanCast: Woody Harrelson, Tommy Lee Jones, Garrison Keillor, Kevin Kline, Lindsay Lohan, Virginia Madsen, Jonathan Mankuta, Matthew Modine, John C. Reilly, Maya Rudolph, Tim Russell, Geoff Schilz, Sue Scott, Meryl Streep, Lily Tomlin, Jim Westcott, Linda Williams, Robin Williams Release: June 9, 2006 Synopsis: A look at what goes on backstage during the last broadcast of America’s most celebrated radio show, where singing cowboys Dusty and Lefty, a country music siren (Streep), and a host of others hold court. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Very Positive…It suprised even this Garrison hater. To any person looking to boost my car you now have this clue: I’m the guy with the NPR sticker on his back window. True, being an NPR addict means getting a lot of quizzical looks from people when you ask them if they heard a story or two on Morning Edition. I’m not a snob, mind you, but I just figured people would know, for better or worse, about the PBS that’s made for the short wave. Part of my love for all things public radio means that I have to live with the fact that I would like to see Garrison Keillor kneecapped at the earliest possible opportunity. I’ve got no love for the land of Woe-Be-Gone and it’s all attributable to Keilllor’s intonations and vocal style; it borders on abusive, really, with the way he sort of lip smacks and draws slowly from his throat. I know he thinks he’s making great radio for the masses but unless you’re collecting social security or are eligible to get a cup of coffee at IHOP at a discounted rate on Tuesdays then you’re only really reaching a segment of potential audience share. Thus, here comes Robert Altman. SHORT CUTS. I watched that, I believe, the week after watching BOTTLE ROCKET when it first came out on VHS. I’ve been a fan of Altman and I think, honestly, the two of them together here could make a movie that even I would want to go see. The trailer, I am happy to report, does stoke the kind of feelings I thought I would never have for Keillor’s work. Thanks to Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin’s antics at the Oscars I am even more bolstered by what could-be for this movie. I wasn’t too giddy by the sight of Garrison’s visage at the outset of this movie’s trailer. His droopy features and get-off-of-my-lawn vibe in full screen frames the opening sequence as my blood pressure constricts in fear that this is how it’s going to be. Thankfully, we move quickly away from the stage, and Garrison. The stock in this movie only rises a touch when the first celeb we peep is Lindsay Lohan; she’s not terribly distracting as Lily Tomlin steps in and shoots the first volley across the comedic bow. “I’ll Give You My Moonshine If You Show Me Your Juggs” Meryl shows us that she can be forgiven for SHE-DEVIL and in this multiple character piece, which I can’t figure out of whether it’s period or contemporary, it amazes me how Woody Harrelson can be funny even if he’s just delivering a couple of lines; he can be a comedic talent if given the right opportunity and I know I can’t be the only fan of Billy in WHITE MEN CAN’T JUMP. It’s not so much a definitive feeling that this is going to be a funny movie as it is just a lot of good signs pointing towards it but I am dismayed by Lohan’s wasted looking sway as she’s getting down on stage with her other musical cohorts in a song; I don’t know from what bottom bin sale she was found but her real-life persona is threatening to break the 4th wall of separation and for a movie like this it could be life imitating art imitating life imitating an anemic looking basket case who likes to flash her nipples at car shows. And since I’m not going to let Lohan’s appearance besmirch the production on the whole I am pleased at what’s presented here. You’ve got the master of multiple storylines here to support a movie that would’ve been dead in the water for me had it been anyone else behind the lens. I might actually make my way to see this movie based on this trailer.
|
KEEPING UP WITH THE STEINS (2006)  Director: Scott MarshallCast: Jami Gertz, Daryl Hannah, Garry Marshall, Jeremy Piven, Doris Roberts Release: May 12, 2006 Synopsis: After attending a neighbor’s over the top Bar Mitzvah celebration, high-powered Hollywood agent Adam Fiedler, played by Jeremy Piven (“Old School”, HBO’s “Entourage”) is determined to pull out all the stops, and have the most extravagant celebration ever seen, for his shy, insecure son Benjamin. View Trailer: * Medium (QuickTime) Prognosis: Not even if they were serving gefilte fish. Where do they get these jaunty, smiley musical intros? I half expect to see businessmen, dressed in their brown suits, lined up the delicately manicured streets of Nowhere, USA, donning fedoras as they all simultaneously cut the lawn. I do expect, though, to be tossed a movie that is not really steeped in any heady context, an unplug-your-mind kind of comedy. What’s nice, though, right to begin with, is that Piven is in a fatherly role and although he’s not given much here, initially, we’re at least tossed the crux of what this story is all about. The Bar Mitzvah is one of those cultural events, on par with a quinceanera or a man’s first duct tape waxing of his a-noose by his drunken buddies, and the film comes out quickly to establish that this is all about besting the Joneses, or, I guess, the Finkleman’s. It’s odd to see Piven in a role of playing a proud father but I guess I buy it. There’s something about trying to say that his all about a Bar Mitzvah, at one point we see a banner giving props to the Steins’ kid saying “mazel tov” but it’s not uttered that this is a Mitzvah of any sort. Is this because the trailer makers want this to be a generic, culturally neutral, “party” theme or because we don’t want to segregate audience share? I’m not sure but getting through the first quarter of this trailer with only a reference to the torah gets me wondering. And where once my interest level in a flick that has a lot of cultural currency as of late with the big stories about 50 Cent playing a Bat Mitzvah and the book that was recently published about this subject which is a hoot to run through if any of you find yourselves wandering through a Borders, peters out kind of pathetically as Piven’s rival father, played here by the perennial antagonist to the protagonist, Larry Miller, starts to try and pry about the planning of Piven’s own party. Again, the word party planner is used in lieu of calling this for what it is, there’s a really poor attempt to wordplay 50 Cent. “How much for 50 Cent? How about 17 Cent?” Whoa there, Leno, keep these jokes down to the minimum. And just like that the Jewish-isms fall out of the sky like a full on blitzkrieg: we get Shamu donning a yarmulke, the Star of David comes out to say hey, Yiddish pops up its head and we are even treated to the party’s goings-on. It’s intimately amusing and poignant. I think while the ending suffers from a really saccharine closing, with Piven giving the fatherly speech about becoming a man which completely confirms the idea that this “family” movie will have everything turning all right out in the end. Cue studio audience “Aww”¦” And while I don’t find too much fault in things like this, I do have to make mention about Daryl Hannah’s facial credit in this flick. She doesn’t have one speaking role in what I saw here yet it’s shamelessly hinted that she’s an integral part of the movie by the ranking she’s given as we’re introduced to everyone in the movie.
|
TRUST THE MAN (2006)  Director: Bart FreundlichCast: Billy Crudup, David Duchovny, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Julianne Moore, Eva Mendes Release: August 18, 2006 Synopsis: A smart, sophisticated comedy about the challenges of love and marriage among modern day New Yorkers, TRUST THE MAN features the romantic escapades of two couples: a successful actress (Julianne Moore) and her stay at home husband (David Duchovny); and her slacker younger brother (Billy Crudup) and his aspiring novelist girlfriend Maggie. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: One of the best this year. Eva Mendes told me that I shouldn’t feel defensive about saying the words Movie Poop Shoot when I am out soliciting interviews. I should own it, she said. Almost a year later since she told me that I still think that was great advice. Odd, considering I had a physical reaction, not unlike a bad TB test, to STUCK ON YOU. What’s nice about this trailer, though, is that I enjoy everyone’s presence here. From Crudup, who was heralded as the next “it” man only to subsist on the fringe, Duchovny and Moore, well, not so much Moore, the opening sequence of this thing sets up everything that is about to be set off much later on. Billy and David feel like they’re brothers, when in fact that they’re brothers-in-law, and have a good relationship. I don’t know why it’s the case but establishing a bond early between these two guys makes me feel that there’s something about them we as an audience can trust. When we discover that Julianne publicly states that the impending marriage of Crudup and his ol’ lady is not so much sweet as it is “overrated,” the institution of it anyway, we see where there is going to be a little tension. That’s fabulous for a few reasons but the best one is that not only do we have a feel for these characters but we’re also getting an insight into the relationships these people have with one another. It’s just rare to get that quick of a glimpse so early on. Next, we’re introduced to Gary Shandling’s presence as David and Julianne’s therapist where it’s made known that David has a more than healthy sex drive. This talk spills over to David talking to Billy and while seeing people get hit in the nuts with a whiffle ball bat is amusing, seeing a kid make a direct strike against the ball sack of David’s penne pasta incites great laughs from me. The comedy comes delicately to a close as we descend like a Russian sub off the coast of the motherland before Alec Baldwin gets involved. The mood changes. Billy and David have some real words with one another about the nature of life and its natural ebb. It’s announced that Billy ditches Jake Gyllenhaal’s sister, we’re not sure why and not told, but then Julianne sticks her albino nose in the whole thing and quickly sets her up on a date with a guy who has a shaky grasp of the English language. Again, I don’t know what you define as funny but foreign people trying to grasp English phraseology in movies is always a winner with me. What’s odd is that Billy is present for this “date” of sorts and I don’t understand it. It’s odd in ways that need defining but we’re taken away from that moment to Billy asking David what’s a good flower to get a lady besides a rose. The answer is at once telling, it’s honest. Again, you feel close to these two guys as it seems that they have a genuine affinity for one another’s happiness. The music changes and it’s “Wisemen” by James Blunt. I bring it up because sometimes you get just the right music to play against what’s happening on the screen and this is no different. It’s wonderfully used to what seems like images that are supposed to endear us to these characters even more than we are. It’s needless because the trailer earned that a while ago but it’s delightful nonetheless. The way we’re let down from what’s been built up is just as powerful. To say that you’ve got to be crazy to be committed is smart in the sense that marriage between two people can feel that way, naturally, but it’s worded sharply, amusingly. |
VIDEO BLOG #47: “My Hover Hoover” ““
A behind-the-scenes look at where suction met the sky.
Download Scrubs Video Blog #47:
“THE TODD” BLOG #13: The Todd’s Tips –
Yes, even “The Todd” ““ the omnisexual surgeon played by http://www.robertmaschio.com Robert Maschio ““ has been keeping a blog, and here’s his latest entry.
READ The Todd Blog #13:
##
The Todd’s Tips for Talking to the Ladies
Anytime the Todd gets bored with a lady who goes on and on about shopping, shoes or spas, I just focus on their boobs.
I like to watch them jiggle as they talk…that makes it all worthwhile. Blah, blah, blah and jiggle.
The Todd’s Drink of Choice for Big Nights on the Town
Vicodin, viagra, creatine and red bull, on the rocks. It keeps me happy, hard and alert at all times. Plus, the creatine cuts down on the recovery time between sexual encounters.
The Todd’s Tip for Valentine’s Day
Instead of wasting time on a boring date, throwing away money on flowers and chocolates, the Todd says stays home, pop a viagra, and please yourself with your weak hand. That way it feels like you’re getting lucky on a blind date.
And finally, since The Todd is a doctor, the best one at Sacred Heart Hospital, here is some medical advice.
The Todd’s Cure for the Common Cold
Take 2 Hotties. Get in Bed. Watch Women’s Volleyball.
Now that’s what this Doctor ordered… until next week, later…
The Todd
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | By Christopher Stipp
April 14, 2006
STRAY BULLETINS
And raging into its second week into existence I have to pay homage to my “friends” who are making me feel quite welcome over at MySpace this week. I can honestly say that I’ve escaped the clap-trap about this electronic bulletin board for over a year and a half but I am finding it to be a nice place to make a comment or two during the week. Big ups to my man Buddy L who’s been a long time reader and deserves some unwarranted attention. Stop by and tell me how much I am so “teh suck.” Christ, don’t even get me started on how I wish there were a grammatical standard. I tell you, ladies, watch out for a man who can wield a semi-colon. That there’s a keeper.
This week actually is one devoted to you, the enduring readers of this column as I finally have a comment to share with the rest of the class.
Two weeks ago I ran a little review for the BASIC INSTINCT 2 trailer and, thankfully, the movie went down faster than a junior at the senior prom who’s had her wheels greased with some Olde English 800.
One of the pithy remarks I included in said review had to do with English being particularly fond of consuming a certain leaven product. I stand by my remarks, with a tounge pushed delicately on my cheek, but I had a great letter follow shortly thereafter:
“You’ve got a nice wide shot of London proper, with po-pos, or Bobby’s as you crumpet eating limeys would say, all descending on a crime scene.”
Being a “˜crumpet eating limey’ I feel the need to educate you Anglophobe’s.
The police are simply best known as “the filth”.
You can say “the fuzz” but its dated, and the added bonus that you sound like a queer if you admit to being “nabbed by the fuzz.”
Nobody really eats “˜tea and crumpets’ anymore”¦ although the slang for a hot babe still remains understood as “˜crumpet’.
So “˜crumpet eating’ is not too bad a pastime.
Here’s to further understanding of the language, that is after all, called “English””¦ we need to save it before the Gangsta’s fuck it up good and proper!
Keep up the good work
Paul
Brit in Bangkok
I honestly dig it when I’m exposed to things about linguistical nuances across the world. I do love movies like SNATCH where they’re using certain idiomatic expressions which I may have never used but are a delight to bring up in casual conversation. Por ejemplo, when Jason Statham tells his freind about said friend’s capacity of having an appropriate amount of “minerals” I knew I would be dropping that in my verbal rolodex.
Some people get confused by the patina of how conversation casually sounds in a movie where they “should be” talking their own language (read here: TRAINSPOTTING and the like) but this is what makes foriegn film a delight. I know I am in the minority on this as no one really, outside the purview of this audience, natch, does think about these things but it’s the foriegn uniqueness that should draw people’s attention.
In the coming weeks I am hoping to take advantage of my little corner in the MySpace realm and reaching out to different countries to get a clue about why its people decide to make a crap film like BASIC INSTINCT 2 a top rated film while it gets trounced here, stateside. Like Cliff Poncier stated in SINGLES (man, that’s a movie you can catch the middle of and just ride out like a choice wave), “I don’t like to reduce us just to being part of Seattle. I think of us expanding more…We’re huge in Europe right now. We’ve got records…A big record just broke in Belgium.”
I hope that dropping in on the citizens of the world won’t mind me knocking on their digital doorstep. I mean, come on, since most of them live in the EU the good money is on the fact that they’re either unemployed, drunk or plotting their escape from the homeland to America; it could be all three.
Ooo…and before I forget this week, two things. One, I know I promised a virtual slide show of sorts regarding my time at the Phoenix Film Festival. Even though I had some really good ideas of how it was going to be presented the limitations of me not being able to layer text over a picture have put a stranglehold on this process. Maybe if I was a design major I could’ve figured out how to do it but, as it stands, I barely am able to log into this website much less presupposing my own digital greatness. Two, I have to, have to, give some man-on-man love to Adam Witt (1/5 and 2/3rds, as we know there’s always a some slacker asshole that makes us all have to work harder, of troupe Schadenfreude, a comedic outfit which operates out of Chicago.). It’s been hard for me to find genuinely amusing writing out there that isn’t sanctioned by big monied corporations or that appeals to my erratic sense of funny; it changes, invariably, from week to week but Adam has managed to keep up with my ADHD.
Enjoy your weekends, kids. Henry Rollins is on IFC and you should make it a point to watch his brand of movie critique. The man cuts through modern film crit with a staccato that I wish would’ve been around years ago.
P.s. – Check out this short by a reader. I wouldn’t normally pimp something like this but since I liked the way this thing went with a wicked left-turn I wanted to give my man Rob a shout-out, Poop Shoot style.
FRIENDS WITH MONEY (2006)  Director:Nicole HolofcenerCast:Jennifer Aniston, Joan Cusack, Catherine Keener, Frances McDormand, Jason Isaacs, Scott Caan Release: April 7, 2006 (Limited) Synopsis: A drama about three married women, their husbands, and their lone single friend. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Negative. Yeah, let’s start off with the obvious. Why would I want to see a movie where a bunch of preening, socialites who are more well off than I am have a spirited talk about where someone’s going to dump a couple million dollars? Even if this was an inheritance, and these people are hippies who really only have jobs that pay them in hemp and Skittles, I’m not really identifying well with these well-to-doers. Yes, by having this conversation we are able to contrast these people’s wealth with Jennifer Aniston’s obvious predicament as someone who has to work as a maid, which I don’t believe and have no ability to stretch my finite suspension power of disbelief, but who’s identifying with whom? I don’t like the rich people and I don’t believe Aniston. It’s especially bold to state that this was an Opening Night selection at Sundance when popular opinion has it on good faith that it was due to its star wattage and not necessarily due to it’s “independence.” No matter, though, as Frances McDormand makes lemonade out of pompous pie. She really comes off as an especially likable character no matter what role she’s playing and her comment to a new mother about the size of her child is at once amusing as it is telling. I’m not sure where you want to place Catherine Keener’s obviously vapid, stupid and/or drug addled insanity when the man who I think is her husband retorts to the question about what looks different about him by saying, “I shaved my beard”¦.Three weeks ago.” Oh, the laughter this stokes in me! Is this supposed to be funny or sad? I really don’t know. McDormand brings me back to genuine amusement when she takes some line cutters to task in an Old Navy. She’s just spitting lines, I know, but she makes it believable enough for me to be right there with her but the moment cuts off too fast as I’m yanked back to the airless lives of Aniston’s friends who would be better off being stalked by a mass murderer than having to watch them complain and whine about their lives. We’re treated to a philosophical Q/A with F.O.A. (Friends of Aniston) about the nature of sex and money and how one would help facilitate the other; real Einsteins, these people. And, as if my attitude wasn’t bad enough by the end of this trailer, we get Scott Caan. I like Scott. I thought he was one of the best players in OCEAN’S ELEVEN. Not only is his presence refreshing but his quip back to Aniston when he finds out she’s a maid is, “Can I watch?” Yes, a thousand times yes. There are promo shots of Jennifer in her “outfit” and they are nowhere to be seen here. Bad move. Stupid move. If you’re an exec and you haven’t figured out that even by showing the picture of Jennifer in her French maid’s getup might mean a few more bucks at the box office you need to have your head and nads examined.
|
AMERICAN GUN (2006)  Director: Aric AvelinoCast: Marcia Gay Harden, Forest Whitaker, Donald Sutherland, Linda Cardellini, Tony Goldwyn Release: March 22, 2006 (Limited) Synopsis: IFC Films presents AMERICAN GUN, a powerful series of interwoven storylines that bring to light how the proliferation of guns in America dramatically influence and shape every day lives. A gun shop owner, an ace student, a single mother, and a school principal are among those profoundly affected. AMERICAN GUN is the debut film of director/co-writer Aric Avelino, and is co-written by Steven Bagatourian and produced by Ted Kroeber. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Positive. This is a gun safety video. At first I think that I’m watching one of those safety videos people from work. When I worked for a grocery store I was compelled to watch a video where some guy and his boy walk up to an employee as the kid is literally draining blood from his nose. The guy wants the employee to put his hands on the kid’s face to help stop the bleeding. The video asked me what I would do in a situation like this. There is no such asking of an opinion here although we get some very helpful information. “When handling a gun”¦Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.” Good advice. Especially when you’ve got a table littered with semi-automatic weaponry. I kid but the juxtaposition of these words with the display of guns makes the point quite salient. There’s a nice tension of the black and white footage with the haunting music that is embedded underneath it all. The echoing gunshot before setting up the real plot of the movie sets a good tone. Now, here comes the tricky nature of having a movie that has three, separate storylines. Good work on letting us know that there are three stories, first of all, as this helps those among us who are going to try and understand what’s happening. You’ve got Forest Whitaker, Donald Sutherland and Marcia Gay Harden leading these small vignettes and the hard part here is to give equal time to all the stories without confusing everyone. You run the risk anyway of confusing people with a blazing fast trailer that hits the high points and money shots without giving much context but a movie like this has to be presented logically otherwise you run the risk of presenting a movie that isn’t quite accurate; not that hasn’t stopped Michael Bay from making trailers for his films but I digress. All three of the stories here look compelling enough. You get the meat of the storyline quickly and without a lot of obfuscation. It gets dicey when you start having the players present start their bombastic acting moments, obviously reacting to heady contexts of their own, as I want to know what’s happening but there just isn’t enough time here. It’s done as well, though, as it can be. For that, it rises above the schizophrenia that plagues lesser films that just have to keep track of a few people. Sidebar kudos go to Tony Goldwyn and his crying-like-a-little-woman display of emotions as a cop who just wants to have a good cry. I don’t know what has brought him to that level but I do know that I haven’t seen emotion like that since he was pissed that Christian Slater blew up the chief of police’s corvette in KUFFS. The tempos change, oddly enough, and we’re left to ride out the rest of this trailer in the form of a musical montage. People are hugging, people are moving, things are happening, things are acting and reacting with our players. It’s a bold way to end a trailer. It’s almost like a party that’s really good in the beginning and is left to just run its course without any help from the host or hostess. It really does coast to the end on its own power. I’m not sure I would want to seek this one out but the trailer does as well as it can for what it is. By the way, I stated I would never assist any father/son combo where the young liege’s nose is a faucet of platelets. I was required to watch the video again.
|
RV (2006)  Director: Barry SonnenfeldCast: Robin Williams, Cheryl Hines, Jeff Daniels, Kristin Chenoweth Release: April 28, 2006 Synopsis: Bob McNeive (Williams) and his dysfunctional family rent an RV for a roadtrip to the Colorado Rockies, where they ultimately have to contend with a bizarre community of campers. View Trailer: * Medium (QuickTime) Prognosis: Not a chance in hell, not a chance on Earth and not a chance whilst playing Monopoly. There is a need for there to be more family friendly fare at the movie theater, that much I concede. I’m not someone who actually cares about these things but there is a contingent of the mass movie audience that will come out with fistfuls of dollars should there be something even middle of the road for them to enjoy. And, if I were a betting man I would put this movie up there with what THE GREAT OUTDOORS looked like many years ago; a movie that isn’t threatening to anyone, whose humor is based on simple slapstick and thinly veiled emotions of family togetherness and is destined for late night cable greatness. I think it took me a full minute of this trailer’s running time before I had something noteworthy to say and, thus, proves my previous point. I don’t imagine that the genesis for this kind of film was anything more than a germ of an idea that sought to have a vehicle, literally, where Robin Williams could just decompress after all of his “serious” roles that he’s been playing as of late. He’s a dude who lives in the suburbs and has a contentious relationship with his daughter and his son. There is really nothing special about anything until the plot moves into its second act and we’re introduced to the 2000’s equivalent of the Grizwald Family Truckster. Now, I don’t see Williams mapping out his cross-country travels on a Radio Shack Tandy brand computer, with accompanying 2-bit sound effects natch, but I do think that we’re going to be relying on the chemistry between Williams and Cheryl Hines. Hines has shown herself to be a sharper comedic talent than Williams as of late and so it shall be interesting to see if one overpowers the other. “Whenever a white man picks up a banjo”¦my cheeks tighten.” As it stands, though, the wacky misadventures that these people are going on, with Jeff Daniels providing a nice comedic sidebar in this trailer, are fairly basic in terms of the level of edginess that seems to be present here. If I could compare my feelings to a past trailer it would be precisely the way I felt about the RAT RACE trailer. You’ve got a road trip experience, some comedy tossed in to give it a fuzzy feel and don’t allow any kind of reality in at any cost. Case in point is at one point in this trailer Robin somehow, someway, finds himself hanging onto the front of his RV. He is rolling down a hill, out of control, holding on to dear life and screaming. He wheels past his family who has their back to him, of course, with Cheryl doing the whole “Did you hear that?” thing but it’s slapsticky. Parents will love it, kids will think it’s funny but, to me, that’s why I’m not going to spend money on it. It’s all about demographical advertising and I am not on that list for this movie. Knowing where you level out, just like when Mr. Wizard taught us all about the density of different clear liquids, is just all a part of understanding what kind of movies are and are not made for you.
|
LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE (2006)  Director: Jonathan Dayton, Valerie FarisCast: Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell, Toni Collette, Paul Dano Release: July 28, 2006 Synopsis: This movie tells the story of the Hoovers, one of the most endearingly fractured families ever seen on motion picture screens. Together, the motley six-member family treks from Albuquerque to the Little Miss Sunshine pageant in Redondo Beach, California, to fulfill the deepest wish of 7-year-old Olive, an ordinary little girl with big dreams. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: So close to making the list. Hmm, art for art’s sake or a really good movie? I don’t know why but the eternal question for all motion pictures that skirt the line of being independent and those that are made solely because some studio head wants to see the wacky misadventures of some actor making waves that month on Access Hollywood will always remain. I’m not sure how this one falls but with Steve Carell, the gotta-have-him guy for the moment, leading the way here I am at a loss to really try and see if this is really a flick that deserves the imprint of the ever malleable definition of “independent.” It’s a moot point, really, because this trailer really starts off well. The family at the heart of this movie all gets their due in the first quarter of this trailer’s run time. You’ve got the questionably well-adjusted mother and father playing host and hostess to a son who chooses not to talk because of a long dead philosopher; Steve, who I can’t for sure make out of whether he chooses to be a live-in guest at his brother’s house or if there’s something else afoot; and the wily father character played by my man Alan Arkin, who plays crazy better than anyone else available. You’ve got the obligatory pre-press for the film that flashes briefly on the screen. This is not only well-done in terms of the transitions from one to the next but the font and screen time devoted to these quotes are well timed. It’s easy to plaster big words and big name publications but they are done here with consideration for the viewer and that’s well noted here. And, what else is really surprising, there is an extended scene that we’re left to watch play out. It’s daring to not just whip through multiple sound bite worthy moments but the decision to let everyone in the house know why uncle Steve is living with his brother, that he was in love with a grad student who didn’t love him back and thus made him want to kill himself, was a good choice. It’s not as funny as I would’ve thought it could have been with someone other than Kinnear being the straight man but it still provides the desired effect. What’s more is that when we eventually learn that this movie is kind of not about Steve, although even after I watched this trailer I am not quite sure that’s the case, but is, in fact, about Kinnear’s kid I try and switch gears. This is about a beauty pageant in California and the road trip that ensues when the whole family decides to get in the ol’ VW van and head west into Cali. I’m kind of disappointed here as the interesting moments about this film trail off. You get a whole lot of mugging to camera, ostensibly to show how silly this movie is going to be, but you don’t get any real substance. This is about one family’s journey to connect with something, I assume, but after learning about the pageant and Steve’s attempted suicide I’m not so sure there was anything left to get me in the mood to Steve bring the funny once more. |
VIDEO BLOG #46: “My Baby Jacks” ““
Everything you ever wanted to know about the pint-sized thespians who portray young Jack Cox.
Download Scrubs Video Blog #46:
“THE TODD” BLOG #12: The Todd’s Tips –
Yes, even “The Todd” ““ the omnisexual surgeon played by Robert Maschio ““ has been keeping a blog, and here’s his latest video entry.
Download The Todd Video Blog #12:
##
Adult Swim’s Dana Snyder and FRED’s Ken Plume set out to have a literate conversation between two pals, but inevitably devolve into a verbal, and funny, free-for-all full of bickering, infighting, and the special kind of male bonding that comes from conflict expressed through the podcast medium.
Actor/comedian/raconteur Dana Snyder, you’re certainly aware, is Aqua Teen Hunger Force’s Master Shake, Squidbillies‘ Granny, Minoriteam’s Dr. Wang, and The Venture Bros.‘ Alchemist. Available for weddings and bar mitzvahs (bat availability pending), you can keep tabs on him via his website, www.eyeofthesnyder.com.
Ken Plume is the editor-in-chief here at FRED. He is a friend of Dana’s, as well as his arch-nemesis.
VISIT THE SNYDECAST EXPERIENCE
KEN P.D. SNYDECAST #8: Episode 8 – Where in the world have Dana & Ken been for the last month? Are you jonesin’ for a new Ken P.-D. Snydecast? You must have been considering all of the “Are you dead?” mail. Well, would you believe that our two hosts found themselves in Tijuana? With cash? And a tape recorder? You’d better believe it…
[CONTENT WARNING]: This podcast may contain some foul language and horribly off-color jokes. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.
DOWNLOAD: (right click to save)
Episode #8 (MP3 format)
[audio:http://traffic.libsyn.com/snydecast/ken_p_d_snyde_cast-08.mp3]
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to this Podcast via iTunes
Got something to say? E-mail Dana & Ken at the Snydecast mailbag.
CLICK HERE FOR THE SNYDECAST ARCHIVES
##
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | By Christopher Stipp
April 7, 2006
SLEVIN’S SAM JAEGER.
Thanks to all of you who peeped my new MySpace page this past week. It was great to see those of you unlurk for a moment and indulge my inner need to feel accepted by my peers. Most of you, well, who am I kidding, all of you are dudes who decided to say “hey.” Do I spurn the ladies with my writing or is my maniless just frightening? I’d like to think it’s the latter but I do know it’s the former. For every Amber MacArthur there are 2,800 dudes just out to rewrite the rules of accepted grammatical techniques. Stop by and check me out if you got the time as I am finding this beast to be overwhelming addictive and for the life of me I can’t explain why. Although, I can state with some bit of confidence that I am a little bit older than the demographic for this service skews toward.
In the first part of the conversation with Sam Jaeger, who shares time with screen chewers Bruce Willis, Ben Kingsley, Lucy Liu and Josh Hartnett in LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN, we talked about his role in the movie and the road that led to Kevin Smith and, in this second installment, I talk with Sam about his life as an actor with regard to LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN and CATCH AND RELEASE; CLERKS II comes up too, I believe. One of the things that come up with talking to a guy who has to make a living, to put food on the table, is the kind of conviction it has taken to be where he is. When you have a talk with someone you want to not only be looking for good pieces of copy to be able and stuff into a satisfying interview but you hope that there’s some bit of humanity that slips through that resonates with your own life. With Sam this interview was different insofar that he’s more blue collar than he is well-off millionare.
Sam, apart from being able to look ahead to a hopefully positive reception for CATCH AND RELEASE when it comes out in early 2007, has an exciting summer planned when he goes off and films his indie TAKE ME HOME. What really caused a Scooby-Doo “Hrr?” head twist for me was that Sam states that he is filming the movie in late summer if all goes well but he has a gorgeous trailer that nearly gives the impression that he’s all but finished with the entire film.
It’s the power of good editing, children.
Sam is just one of those kind of guys who, after you’re done talking with, you hope have miles of success in front of him. From his extensive work on television, movies and, now, his own movie, he’s keeping himself busy and I think that’s mightily appropriate for a man with a steely work ethic in a town notorious for its people striving to have things given to them.
One of the things that I’ve learned, and forgotten to some extent prior to having a conversation with Sam, is you can’t rest when it comes to success. You’ve got to want it more than the other guy, to be sure, but one thing that no one tells you when they espouse these little trinkets of wisdom is that the reason why you’ve got to want it more is that you’ve got to be ready for the long road of rejection, dejection and that gnawing voice that says maybe everyone saying no to your abilities actually means something; you’ve got to believe in your product and what you’re selling. Those that don’t are the ones left to ponder what could’ve been while you’re off hustling to get yours.
It’s all a game and Sam talks about why he keeps on keepin’ on.
SLEVIN opens today, April 7th, everywhere.
| How do you keep yourself from over-thinking a role? That seems to be the funny stereotype about actors: drama queens, overt acting, over analyzing”¦ I think”¦and this is going to sound really ridiculous, I try not to think about it. It’s the elephant in the room but, in the end, it’s only my psyche that it’s affecting. I do all my research early on and then I try to let it go. Like, in CATCH AND RELEASE, my character is a really competent fly fisherman. He owns an adventure shop in Boulder, Colorado so he has to be a good fisherman and I had done no fly fishing prior to this movie. So, two months before the movie began I was going out and I got a fly fishing reel, rod and I went out to this little pond and just cast for hours. I got really good at it but once the movie came around I was able to mellow out and not worry so much. I had to make an effort to not make it too big because then your acting becomes too much about you as opposed to what you’re experiencing in the scene. And Kevin was great. He is really really charming in this movie. He is really charismatic and I really think he does a wonderful job in it and I was just fortunate enough that I didn’t ruin the film acting alongside him.
(Laughs) You know, what’s funny I actually felt this pressure early on because he and I are best friends in this movie and I thought, “I am going to get some serious hate mail from Mewes’ fans.” Because I do not want to be the guy who steps into Jason Mewes’ thing and ruins this buddy feel. But, thankfully, my character couldn’t be further from Mewes. I play a guy that’s anal retentive, a little high strung”¦so I don’t think people will be drawing too many comparisons between me and Jason anytime soon. So, when is this movie eventually going to come out? I saw the trailer and it said this spring. (Laughs) All I can say is one of the first jobs I got when I came out to LA was that I was cast in TRAFFIC. Really? I didn’t see you attributed in the credits”¦ And the reason is because I was cut out of the movie. Here was this movie where I thought, “This is a great stepping stone for me!” I was feeling pretty big in my britches and I went to the premiere to with my girlfriend and I’m sitting in the theater and”¦my scene passes. And I lean over to my girlfriend and I said, “That was the scene I was in.” She went, “That one?!” And it kind of dawned on her that I wasn’t in the scene she had just seen and she just kind of held my hand as my ego was horribly deflated. Tell me, honestly, what was it like to just see that happen before your eyes? You could play it cool and tell me “It just happens” but really”¦ Yeah, I was torn. I think a lot of times in life, at least for me, when I start to feel really confident, there’s some higher being, some presence, call it what you will, that comes down and smites me and I…had been smoten. It’s just a way that keeps me from taking any role, or opportunity, for granted. There’s so many variables that go into making a movie and being a part of it that it’s just about being thankful for what you have. Is that what keeps you going? Yeah. This is just an unusual job. On the one hand, I’ve never waited around for the phone to ring, I do work hard for these slim opportunities, these auditions”¦and my job essentially is auditioning, it’s not acting. It’s going into a room and trying to sell people on the fact that I am the guy they need to be in their product. That can be a very dangerous position to be in because you’re constantly trying to build yourself up and pat yourself on the back”¦I compare it, like I do to my brother back in Ohio, I’ve come up with an analogy: It’s like going in for a job interview with the perfect company, and you really feel this company is going to go some places and that you can climb the ladder and all these wonderful things”¦and you go in and you feel great about it and you leave and you start talking to your family about how this could be the best job in the world and you find out you don’t get it. Then, if you can, imagine that 50 times a year. It can be”¦no wonder actors can be so precious, so silly, because they’ve had to go through some really ridiculous things. I am sure actors, all up the ladder, can tell you stories of being”¦insulted or cut down in certain ways. But, it’s what I do, I’m not complaining about it, I’m really fortunate to be where I am, it’s just a process. I went on an audition yesterday and I got so attached to it because your mind starts racing about where it could lead you, what this could do for you or how you could better the film or role and then it’s gone. You don’t hear back from those people and then you start to think, “Am I good?” Yeah, we actors have such a strange sense, need for approval. I think it runs through all of us. It’s such a balancing act with telling yourself that it’s ok and being ok with realizing that the most important thing is our family, our friends and that what we do is not who we are. Is your girlfriend an actress? What’s it about? It’s called TAKE ME HOME. A woman gets into a taxi cab in New York and convinces the driver to take her across the United States. In the process, the two form a relationship and the relationship unfurls across the landscape of America. One of the things that I sort of realized, especially with CATCH AND RELEASE coming out later, was that no one was going to give me these opportunities. People sit around in this city and wait for these opportunities to come to them. Even producers wait for a magic number, like people are all shooting for a budget. “If we can just get this money, we can make this film.” “If we can just get this star we can make this film.” One of the things I found so interesting about working with Kevin is that I think he has a certain distaste for stars because they can come in and the movie comes about them as opposed to the script which should always be the most important thing about the film. You always have to serve the script and anybody who comes into the process should serve the script. And so, this movie, instead of shooting for a budget we are going to shoot for a date. So, when August 1st rolls around whether we have $5,000 or $500,000 we are going to shoot this movie. There’s no excuses now. It was a really important decision for me to make. I’m just sort of bulldozing and I am going to try and make the best movie I can by the time we start rolling film or shooting digital and it’s a really exciting process. Did you ask Kevin for any advice? Yeah, I’m going to sit down soon and talk to him about it but like the example he set, after CATCH AND RELEASE he said, “You know, I told Susannah, “˜Five million.’ That’s the budget.’ You make a five million dollar movie, it’s the perfect amount of money. You tell people, “˜Listen, it’s a good script, just be a part of it”¦” And that’s something he should be proud of because people are coming to that movie because they believe in Kevin and they are obviously huge fans of CLERKS. And I will say this, this is another thing I love about that guy, is that when CLERKS II started he invited me to a pre-shooting party at his house and everyone had nametags and everyone was getting to know one another and that’s the way he has kind of built up his community. The people that love Kevin Smith love the fact he allows them a glimpse inside. His fans feel immersed in what he does and that is true. Everyone down the line feels like they are a part of making a movie and I respect that wholeheartedly. So, I am putting together my team for TAKE ME HOME and I am just utilizing that lesson I learned from Kevin. Are you rearranging your schedule to make room for this project? Yeah, yeah. I get too immersed in the process of making a movie that I have to remember that, “Oh, I get PAID to be an actor. Oh, that’s where the money comes from.” But, pilot season is underway and I am trying to give a lot of time to that as well but my heart has always been in film. I feel it’s like Harrison Ford who used to go into auditions where, he was a carpenter at the time, and people were mystified why he was preoccupied. He was like, “I gotta go build a deck in a half an hour. I’ve got to get this deck done today. Let’s hurry this up.” And, I think, as an actor when you give all of your vitality and all of your feelings of worth to another person or another company to a studio you end up kind of soulless and that’s just one thing I am trying to avoid. I am just trying to not let my ego get sacked by a bunch of people who judge me by whether my collar is ironed or not when I walk into the room. How do you keep that in check? Do you say, “Well, I’ve got to do this,” regardless of the circumstances or is there some wiggle room for you to say, “I don’t have to go along with this”? I think in talking with you I realize that I’ve never been cast for something where I was trying to force myself to be someone that I’m not. The roles I’ve gotten are ones where I happen to be confident with who I was when I walked into the room and confident with the job I did when I walked out. That says something. Sometimes I want a part so badly that I want to immerse myself in it and hold it too tightly, as with everything else we want in life, but it shouldn’t be forced. Thank you very much for your time. |
| V FOR VENDETTA AND C FOR CHUBBY As a double-dip for you fanboys out there who enjoyed the filmic representation of V FOR VENDETTA I am running the interview I initally ran way back in August of last year. Like a good book you understand a little bit better after the second reading the interview takes on a deeper meaning after the finished product has been rolled out. The very first thing you notice about Natalie Portman, if you’re really paying attention, is her eyes.
Those soft, rounded globes pierce right through you and, I dare say, they were able to see my soul when I asked her a total of two questions during the press roundtable, which was more like one dude who felt compelled to ask every twit-laden question rocking around in his noggin and not letting anyone else ask anything, and when she looked back and answered my queries with a friendly countenance. Now, most fan boys seem the need to fawn over the notion that Natalie is the embodiment of all their geek wishes and dreams wrapped in this perfectly shaped feminine vessel. Well, she’s obviously more than that but I do admit that I felt a tinge of something very boyish as I managed to work in a question about THE PROFESSIONAL, a quintessential must-see for any person wishing to start on their education when it comes to Ms. Portman. Even more than that, though, and I have to be honest, I think I was more in awe with the wattage that Joel Silver brought to the table more than anything else. I know the common “cool” thing to do is say his real name is Joel “Fucking” Silver, an moniker born out of homage to the man who made wearing black leather trench coats by every burn-out and overweight, goth wannabe disciple of Neo and Co. so badass, but please. How old is your average writer on most of the movie sites? Grow the hell up. That said, the guy commands a lot of fucking respect. When he talks, he does it so smoothly that you wouldn’t never guess that this man who is speaking no more than 3 feet away from me has been a part of a lot of big movies. I do, though, have to give a sorry shout-out to the other two dudes there, the director and co-creator of V, who were all but ignored by the billowing amounts of backed-up sperm producers who almost saw their presence as an intrusion as they tried to get Natalie to speak even more. It was a weird panel, one that would be repeated by the same kind of pole smoking at the Jack Black panel, which kind of freaked me out and I’ll discuss more of that later, but I liked the way things were going with the kinds of things people were asking about the nature of the movie. V FOR VENDETTA has a weird hybrid as the Wachowski brothers were tightly involved in the production, writing and day-to-day operations of the movie. That’s fine with me, though, as the brothers Wacho are a talented duo who needed to get the hell away from THE MATRIX for a while, yeah I liked Monica Bellucci in tight latex rubber but that only goes so far, and get back to making films. Anyway, enjoy the panel transcription. At the conference was Natalie Portman, Joel Silver, director James McTeigue and producer by Grant Hill.
Natalie: I worked with a dialect coach, Barbara Berkery, for about a month and a half before we started shooting and she was with me the whole time and we would do exercises every morning before we started. So, I was pretty comfortable with it by the time we shot but it definitely is an extra thing to think about. If you could, give us an idea of why you brought V FOR VENDETTA to the Comi-Con”¦ Joel: Well, V FOR VENDETTA comes from a graphic novel, comes from a comic book. So, it’s uniquely suited for this. Yes, the kinds of things that are associated with this kind of genre, young male, young female, fan base seems to be drawn to Comi-Con. It seems uniquely suited because it is a comic book but it’s a great place to launch something because the viral Internet connection between the convention and the world is enormous. It’s an epidemic. And if something is really cool, and effective, and it works here, people seem to know about that pretty quickly. And I think it is run very well. This is a group that understands what we’ve done. It’s a pleasure to come here, bring everyone here and talk about the product. The interaction here [at the Con]. You don’t get that at a lot of places. Talk about the kinds of fans you’ve met here”¦ Natalie: They just seem very passionate about this project, they really seem passionate about the comic book, the film coming out, and they seem united in their passion and I’ve seen it in other places. Do you find any part of your life that you’re passionate about outside of your career? Well, I definitely never attended a gathering like this. I mean I love music and I would travel far to see a band I liked if I had the time and cash to do it. Like, if I found myself in the position to do something like that, I would do that. When you first got the script and you found out that your character is going to be shaved did you think if you would have to put on a skull cap? When did that conversation take place? The first time I met Larry [Wachowski] and James James McTeigue. They asked me, “Would you shave your head?” And I was like, “Yeah!” Everyone else made such a bigger deal of it than I did. It seemed the brothers [Wachowski] have done a little more on a movie that they weren’t the directors of. Can you explain the relationship between where the one relationship of producer ended and director began? Joel: It’s the boys’ vision. No, it’s David Lloyd’s vision. And they [the director and producers of the film] took their vision and crafted a script, which they wrote even before we made THE MATRIX. The first draft they made of V was many many years ago and they came back to it after MATRIX REVOLUTIONS and they wanted to give James the chance to direct the picture. But, they were there. I mean, they were there everyday. They were on the set and they were very involved with the look and the feel of the movie. I mean the movie was directed by James, produced by myself and Grant”¦ Natalie: I also think that they are the second unit directors, they are also the producers and the writers which is more than most second unit directors so I think, just in that nature, they were a lot more involved than usual. In that respect they gave James the chance to create his own vision and do his own work. It was just they, you know, helped with ideas as writers and producers and second unit directors. Joel: Grant, why don’t you comment on how they worked together? Grant: Obviously, there’s a key family group which has developed through THE MATRIX films and into this. Larry and Andy developed a strong relationship with James as well as several other key people involved with the production. It’s very much a symbiotic thing. It’s very hard to sort out where the demarcation lines are, they are very much in it for James to make his movie. As Natalie has said they wrote it, they wrote the screenplay and they were very active in producing it and, fundamentally, want to make a good movie. And they wanted to give James the opportunity to do that.
Natalie, Luc Besson to George Lucas. Do you find that when you’re working with a European director versus an American director there are any fundamental differences that inform your performance or technique? Natalie: I think it’s more an individual difference than a European/American difference. I mean, I worked with a few non-Americans. It’s hard to make generalizations but individual differences”¦all over the place. It’s very different of how people will direct you, like Luc Besson, like Larry Wachowski, like Anthony Minghella will shout things out to you in the middle of a scene, and there are other directors who will never say a thing. Woody Allen I don’t think ever said anything to me the entire time I worked with him. (Laughs) I don’t think he knows I worked with him. But, I think, it’s very individual difference but I think it has to do personality. In the comic V is a terrorist but he’s also a good guy. How do you handle that in this movie? James: You say he’s a good guy but he is a good guy, in the one sense, but he is a homicidal maniac. He’s not heroic in the sense that he only kills people that deserve to be killed. He has complete, absolute dedication to wreaking vengeance on people who maybe have changed their ways, who have reformed. He’s not really a good guy and I think that’s kept in the film. He’s very complicated, he’s a great character. I was quite disturbed when the idea of making a Hollywood movie about this guy because it would be so easy to make him a good guy. In fact, he’s not. He’s a very complicated character and he actually has a lot of the traits of the terrorists who wreaked havoc on London. It’s that complication, those nuances that are still in the screenplay and I think that’s very good. Me again Joel, you have a penchant for taking ideas and making them big. When I think of big picture, I think of you. When you got the comic book what did you see where you could say, “Oh, I could punch this up right here”¦”? I acquired this thing many years ago in the late 80s when I acquired The Watchmen; I had them both and I was not able to hold onto Watchmen but I did hold onto this. I was intrigued by it. When I read it, it was black and white galleys. It hadn’t even come to America. It was just beginning to be seen by people. I was just intrigued by this incredibly weird society and this story about this guy and this girl. And I thought, “I could make this movie.” And that’s how you do it. It’s almost 20 years later when we’re finally making it but it exited me and I thought we could find a way to make it great. And, when the boys wrote it and, again, it was before they made THE MATRIX, their script was effective but nowhere near as it was when they went back and did it again because it really came to life. It’s a remarkable film. It’s quite thrilling to watch it all come together. Ditto, Holmes. Is Watchmen out of your hands now? It was one of the only DC comics left over at Warner Brothers. I was head of Fox at the time and I acquired it there. So, when I went back to Warners it was gone. And then it moved about town. But, I don’t know. There are now so many pieces of material that tread on Watchmen territory that I don’t know. When it came it out it was a blinding beacon that now it will just seem derivative because so many things have come since it that are based on ideas that are in that book.
Natalie: I don’t think necessarily there is a message. That’s part of what David is saying. It’s not a manipulative story that says “This person is the good guy, you should fall in love with him. This is the bad guy”¦” I mean, you definitely have one who you can probably identify with more but who’s heavily flawed and you can also criticize him more. I think it’s more of a provocative piece than a “This is what is what you should think” piece and trying to make you think, make you criticize, make you object, find faults in someone’s ideology or agree with parts. It’s not black and white and that’s why I liked it. It made me have questions I couldn’t answer or I had different answers to every five minutes and it has continued to be that way for me. Did you see the script first or did you read the comic book, then the script? Natalie: I saw the script first. The script had to condense a lot of the sub-plots to make it a film but it is very faithful to the graphic noel. I think that story”¦things that explore how we define violence is very interesting because we have many categories to how we define violence. Was it intended? Was it state sanctioned or is it individually sanctioned? All these things, we make sort of moral judgments and categorizations. That’s why some of these categorizations are in the eye of the beholder and that’s why some people who watch this will identify with the government and that’s why some people will identify with the revolutionaries. And that sort of openness, that sort of ambiguity, is interesting. Last one, I swear Women and the parts for them. It’s fairly common to see women in movies in the subversive roles and this part really has you in the dominant position. Do you find a good mix of interesting roles coming to you? Natalie: Well, I see a lot of movies that aren’t very interesting for women or for men. And, in terms of things that I do, I have been able to find things that I am interested in and, when I don’t, I like not working. (Laughs) But I wouldn’t, like, cry over it if I couldn’t find something interesting. And, if you can’t find something interesting, make something interesting that isn’t movies. There is plenty out there that is interesting that doesn’t involve movies.
|
VIDEO BLOG #44: “My Trivial Perception” ““
You asked for it to be harder, and the second round of Scrubs Blog trivia intimidated even the most dedicated fans. But there were a hardy few who braved the episodes and sent in their guesses, and we’ve got three winners revealed within.
Download Scrubs Video Blog #44:
VIDEO BLOG #45: “My Stand-ins” ““
Want to meet the stand-ins? Sure you do!
Download Scrubs Video Blog #45:
“THE TODD” BLOG #11: On The Road –
Yes, even “The Todd” ““ the omnisexual surgeon played by Robert Maschio ““ has been keeping a blog, and here’s his latest.
READ The Todd Blog #11:
##
April 3rd, 2006
On The Road with High Five Todd:
Check it playas! The Todd was in Las Vegas this weekend! The Todd met a hottie. Kalannea is her name, she’s a magician, who eats and blows fire. So I told her my nickname in high school was fire! Needless to say, she showed me her act. Twice. It was so good, I offered to become part of the act, professionally. A 2 man show, that would be a great way to make a living. You know, she could say, “ladies and gentleman, now I will blow Fire. Fire, would you please come out on stage.” Then the Todd would enter and give the crowd what they want! A second career for the Todd! Who’s with me?!
Fire Blowing Five!
Vegas is crazy, I will be back there on April 27th & 28th at the Palms for anyone else who wants to show me their act!!!
A trip like that makes the Todd think it’s time to leave Sacred Heart Hospital. The competition is getting really tight for attending positions next year and it might be a time for me to move to Vegas and hang my own shingle. The Plastic Surgeon for the Ladies of Las Vegas. I’ll be knee deep in boobs all day long. Think about it, boob jobs and liposuction all day, making the ladies ready for primetime. That would be a dream come true…we’ll see how it goes at Sacred Heart, otherwise I’m packing my suit case with DD’s and heading to Vegas!
Double D Five!
later,
The Todd
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | By Christopher Stipp
March 31, 2006
Well, funk you very much, too…
For those who care, I’ve set up a MySpace account as it seems there’s been a spike of people rushing over there to peep things out for a reason or two; Kevin’s updates on CLERKS II with the “real” pages of Randal and Dante give this movie a whole other meta feel to it and have found myself not being able to stop visiting the site. Stop by and say hello won’t you, neighbor? I’ve got to find a way to trick this thing out and make it all look pimp but I spent a while filling in the holes with a lot of writing about myself and my hawesome taste in all things pop cultura. Now, back to the column at hand.
I do solid work.
I show up every week and bring it to you, unadulterated. For better or worse I’m here and I try to mix it up for your benefit as people who have grasped the ability to read.
I think this is why I had such a crap week with trying to get some things done, professionally, around these parts. My attitude is just bad and it all boils down to what I see is a perceived inequity between who I work for, Poop Shoot, and the resulting latitude I get when it comes to bringing new things to this page.
I guess it started when I thought it would be really nice to try and get Darren Aronofsky to chat it up a few months ago. He was doing “press” for all sorts of movie sites for the hell of it, ostensibly to start the buzz, and it was about this time when the trailer for THE FOUNTAIN broke; I dug the hell out of the snippets that were embedded in that thing and wanted to be a part of “the circle” of other uber nerds who were deserving of his time. Now, the circle I refer to isn’t as nebulous as you think and I found out how real this was when I went through a few hoops to track down the person who could’ve hooked up a one-on-one or, at the very least, a phoner.
Well, for sake of dragging out a long narrative, I introduced myself and stated what I wanted; it was what everyone else seemed to get: some time with the dude who has seemingly spoken to everyone else of much importance. I stated who I wrote for for, Movie Poop Shoot, and the person I talked to broke out in a bit of laughter and, as I’m used to, I waited until it subsided to quickly lay out facts about the site, who ultimately pays the bandwith bill and that I’m more than qualified to handle a phone conversation thanks to the many other people who saw that this website is more than just a clever novelty.
It’s always like this. This process was gone through, just as it was executed for Darren, with Hugh Jackman’s peeps.
Two different gatekeepers, two identical reactions. “We’ll let you know,” is the way things ended.
I hear that and I know it’s over before it begins. After a few days go by without a response I’m like the gimpy nerd who gets the point from the girl who I know won’t call back. It’s no sweat off my sack but it’s still a bitch move in my book. Kevin wanted this site to be able and be something more than just an amusing punchline and we’ve got the talent here to prove that it is an ever ascending beast. This is what brings us to the Phoenix Film Festival, which I was wonderfully press passed to, that was held this past week right down the street, quite literally, from my house.
It was great to be able and catch a dozen or so films that really were the epitome of independent and I was, for lack of a more mature adjective, jazzed about Lawrence Fishburne, Jason Mewes, Danny Trejo and others making their way to my backyard. It’s only the 6th year for this festival in the desert and I must admit that I was impressed with the fare that was offered.
Now, Phoenix wasn’t going to get the kind of movies which get their due at Sundance but with Mewes’ NICE GUYS, Fishburne’s AKEELAH AND THE BEE, LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN, HARD CANDY (This movie was a mind scrambler), LA MUJER DE MI HERMANO and others getting some play it was going to be a good time. The best thing about this 7-day festival was that if you missed the showing of SLEVIN, let’s say, on Friday you had a good four or five more chances to see it in replays during the week. Now, I haven’t been to many festivals but I have never known festival flicks to get the TiVo treatment. I’m not complaining, just observing. Thanks to the work I put in last year at the Comi-Con I was able to get myself all the credentials I needed in order to cover this thing properly. Now, here’s where the dark underbelly of the story comes in.
For fear of calling some people out on the carpet for what happened on the very first day of the festival, setting the tone for the rest of the week, I will only vaguely remark that I tried, with a few people, to try and get you people out there some great exclusives. I made a lot of calls, and wrote a few emails, to people in the know and who were in the position to make things happen. Now, the fact that all these attempts failed to yield anything doesn’t bother me as much as the relationship that I built up with certain people prior to the festival coming here and thought a lot of things were in the bag.
Turns out nothing was in the bag.
One person I talked to prior to this event happened to walk by me while I was credentialing on opening night. I introduced myself as being, well, me. I was given an, “Oh yeah! I’ll be right back.” But the guy, like a puss, never came back and instead tarried off with his little buddies behind the VIP line. After mingling and saying “hey” to a few people who actually did know who I was I see puss-boy later on and, like the two dollar whore from CAN’T BUY ME LOVE who feigns knowing Ronald when Pat Dempsey is exposed for the geek he really is, turns around when he sees me. “What the hell is this,” I thought. High school? The big girl happens to be someone prominent here in the Valley of the Sun and I can only surmise that being important in a market bubbling over with filmic goings-on is a big thing and couldn’t possibly be bothered to act like a person.
The really, really odd thing is that he wasn’t the only one. A few people happened to feel that being important was, well, important, and ultimately this meant a lot of promises were broken. Things I thought I was going to bring to you out there just could not be done and the nice power that I so enjoy in this space, turns out, does not translate to people who have it in the real world. I wish I could tell you all the names of people who I’ve sent real nice e-mails to in the hopes of scoring something, anything, only to be promised, confirmed and ignorned like my name was Stanley the Movie Noob, but I won’t do it. That would be juvenile. Immature. I work for Movie Poop Shoot and, as such, decorum precludes me from such antics.
I think I just bring this all up because you may think getting people like Robert Patrick to talk with me about WALK THE LINE is easy because I work for a site like this but I’ve hustled and sold myself to far better people than the assholes who feel that their own superiority somehow means that stiffing people like me is fine. I don’t talk to hear myself speak and I don’t write to see my own words reflected back to me so I hope you all understand that my coverage of the 2006 Phoenix Film Festival next week will be limited to two flicks I really really REALLY liked (HARD CANDY and LA MUJER DE MI HERMANO) and, hopefully, a slideshow which I think you peeps will dig.
Oh, and I will have to find a way to post what should have been audio from Jason Mewes’ “Conversation with Jason Mewes” that was supposed to have taken place last Saturday at 11:30. The nearly 2 1/2 dozen of us present were told Jason had a rough Friday night with some of the ladies from Scottsdale and was still in his room recovering from a long evening; in his defense, and as the slide show will prove, the ladies in this town are indeed that potent. Danny Trejo stood in for our favorite sidekick and it was an hour well-spent. Instead of transcribing the entire conversation I’ll simply post the audio feed. I think it’s utterly fascinating to hear the man who has been in over a 100+ movies, worked with Tarintino, Rodriguez and others give his own opinion about the state of movies today. Give it a listen in all it’s chaotic glory when I get around to figuring out the best way to get this out there to you.
And speaking of getting it out to you I wanted to try experimenting with the delivery method which I think will best allow me to share my multi-media from the festival so if this treat of being able to watch Wes Anderson’s short film called BOTTLE ROCKET which led to the full-on, full-length version of, well, BOTTLE ROCKET works out then we are a go for future launch.
LA MUJER DE MI HERMANO (2006)  Director:Ricardo de MontreuilCast: Bárbara Mori, Christian Meier, Manolo Cardona, Gaby Espino, Beto Cuevas Release: April, 2006 (Limited) Synopsis: After almost 10 years of marriage, attractive Zoe discovers that her marriage lacks passion and surprise, and is seduced by the possibility of finding those sensations already forgotten in her husband’s brother. From this premise a series of events lead these three characters to a dangerous game of revenges, secrets and passions. Two brothers and one woman: the triangle is outlined in a disquieting way. It is a bomb that triggers family secrets, the contained rage of desire and the unmanageable power of love. An exciting story that subjugates the viewer from beginning to end. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Very Positive. I think that the natural evolution from being exposed to hardcore Latin cinema, courtesy of AMORES PERROS and Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN, has warmed me a bit to wanting to see a flick that doesn’t include dusty and dirty youths trying to get their groove on or wanting to throw down with the nearest available ruffian. A drama about a woman who steps out on her husband with the husband’s brother? Throw in a little sizzle, a pimp pad where all this goes down, plus set it in a warm climate where you’re gonna get a pool scene where you things aren’t going to go well for our cuckolded husband? Nice. I feel obliged to start out by commenting on the music that begins this trailer. The musical bed directs emotion, no question, and the music coordinator here deserves some love by popping in a track that not only is pleasing but sets the mood like candles on the dining room table. When we meet the couple that will no doubt implode like a supernova by film’s end, I’m unsure if these are actors or Banana Republic models. It’s okay, though, as that’s what actors are for; you rarely see the ugly ones holding anyone’s attention and the fact that the dude looks like Jeremy Sisto’s long lost Latin brother and Eva Mendes’ hotter sister only ballasts my superficial interest in what exactly is happening. And I’m glad I am not blasted by plot points. We take time here and I appreciate just being able to soak in the atmosphere. Also, and this is a mind blower, this trailer allows its players to talk. As is my theory about what film studios want their foreign language films to do in order to get people to see them, not allowing the native language to be uttered is usually the norm. Not here, though, and I genuinely love it. You get a feel for this couple’s relationship with one another and, after seeing her splayed out on the bed in her underwear, I can honestly say my interest level increases with regard to what seems to be the issue. As this husband, this wife, talk you are much better served in defining who is hurting whom by listening to their voices, their intonations. We meet the brother who treats his hair like it’s a refuge for birds but dresses nice and seems to have a vibe about him that lures the young wife away from her distant husband. What I like here is the slow motion close-up of our bride placing her wedding ring and band on the nightstand, ostensibly to start hittin’ it. We don’t see the act happen, we never see the brother and the wife kiss, it’s all implied and the husband’s questioning of whether his wife loves him is emotionally effective. I believe it. The modern style house that all this infidelity happens in is great eye candy. The mood of the house also reflects the relationship between these two people: cold, clean, gorgeous but, ultimately, heartless. Our people talk, the subtitles come up and none of it is a distraction to me; it helps to establish these characters. The highest honors go to this trailer and I promise to do all I can to see how all of this translates, ultimately, to the whole film.
|
AWESOME; I FUCKIN’ SHOT THAT! (2006)  Director: Nathaniel Hornblower (AKA Adam Yauch) (dir.)Cast: Beastie Boys (MCA, Mike D, Adrock) Release: March 31, 2006 Synopsis: A formally innovative feature film experience, the Beastie Boys handed out 50 cameras to audience members at their sold-out performance in New York’s famed Madison Square Garden in October 2004. These 50 different passionate perspectives shot from the point-of-view of the audience take the viewer deep inside the world of a live Beastie Boys show. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Positive. Now this is a concert film worth getting excited about. Thanks to Chappelle’s BLOCK PARTY the party line about what can draw in an audience has changed a bit. You can have an entire feature filled with music and not run the risk of completely alienating the audience and my only hope is that hype meets with performance for this one. “In a world”¦” The Beastie’s have always been known for their ability to rock a mic but they’re also adept at being fun without looking silly. They’ve got senses of humor and everything from their video for SABATOGE (always a fun video to watch all the way through) to their first real single unleashed on the world, FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO PARTY, has always reinforced their ability to lay it down about injustices in the world while also telling you how great it is to be married, “rockin’ the sure shot.” That’s why opening this trailer with the voiceover that starts in with the words “In a world”¦,” one of the most tried and true tropes of trailer creation, rings that superciliousness bell once more. The next shot that shows us the back heads of the Beasties, dashing past the pretzel concession stand while in slow motion, the building of anticipation for what’s about to come is executed really well. Most everyone knows that this is all being done tongue-in-cheek but it’s great fun. “When pure evil reigns over the realm of humans”¦ “ The shot of the guy who is no doubt sporting Kentucky Mud Flap under his mesh hat and handlebar moustache, his hands flailing around in slow motion comedy, does nothing less than induce laughter in me; he’s a fan, to be sure, but I guess he gets credit for rocking out. “Only the strongest can rise to the challenge”¦” The shot of the swirling mosh pit of enthusiastic fans and churning energy that’s being released with every shove and push captures the rawness of how this show is going to go. I never thought that a Beastie’s show was so physical but the buildup of the three guys about to get on stage helps to foreshadow the fact that they are about to break it down in a big way. What’s also important to note is that the switching perspectives that’s shown here helps to establish the fact that there are multiple people responsible for shooting this movie but it’s never said. The montage at the very end of what dozens of cameras recorded, I am positive, only whets the appetite for any casual fan in showing that this movie’s experiment to show what happens when you entrust the shooting to your average person is going to have a huge payoff. I can’t say for sure of whether this will be an ok film or that they should’ve entrusted someone like Spike Jonze with directorial duties but the world needs more concert films and I am glad that this is the band that’s comin’ correct to the big screen. |
ALPHA DOG (2006)  Director: Nick CassavetesCast: Emile Hirsch, Justin Timberlake, Anton Yelchin, Shawn Hatosy, Ben Foster, Sharon Stone, Dominique Swain, Lukas Haas, Bruce Willis Release: May 12, 2006 Synopsis: ALPHA DOG is inspired by the true story of Jesse James Hollywood, a mid-level drug dealer from the San Gabriel Valley whose thirst for power led him to become the youngest man ever to appear on the FBI’s Most Wanted list. Emile Hirsch stars as teenage suburban drug dealer Johnny Truelove, an ambitious young man whose lifestyle is a mecca for guns, sex and drugs. When a “client” cheats Johnny and a deal goes bad, he devises a plan to get his money back by kidnapping the client’s younger brother. But things take an unexpected twist as Johnny and his crew get caught up in the dangerous and violent world they once idealized.View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Negative. I really don’t want to believe that Justin Timberlake is a good actor. I try to spend all my waking hours avoiding reading about this pop pud and his string bean girlfriend but along comes this movie that everyone’s talking about and I find myself having to give that gimp a fair shake instead of recusing myself from the flick altogether. My natural instinct to dismiss the movie because of him but that’s just not fair and I’m glad I didn’t. The initial moments of this movie play out like a David Hockney painting; the American idealized, suburban lifestyle is one that has been derided as being soulless and that’s what comes across as you feel the numbing effects of suburbia. You’re given images of turnpikes, po-pop’s responding to a disturbance at the local Krispy Kreme, kids playing little league. This is when a woman, someone off camera, says that the kids who are ostensibly going to meet, are good kids. The latter statement usually is in response to something completely awful that a pack of juveniles who have been given everything have done and are in need of defending. The woman goes on to explain that the kids were living the rap version of “the life.” Again, these are kids who spend their afternoon playing X-Box, possibly schmoking a lil’ weed in between while the parents are off making the money to afford the lifestyle they’re all accustomed to. “Inspired by true events.” Now this is my favorite tagline and I give props to the filmmakers for busting out this little wee factoid so early in the trailer; it always makes me pay attention a little more closely. Now, I’m a little thrown by what comes next. Our pro/ant/agonist is Emile Hirsch who, we’re told, is the ringleader for this little tribe of teens who are getting involved in something illicit. Now, the assorted images of Emile and his “crew” don’t tell me anything. Yeah, we’ve got Justin Timberlake doing pull-ups, his skinny frame belays any attempt to make him seem tough, and we even have Angel himself, Ben Foster, talking in a riddle-ish type speak to someone who’s looking to hang with him for the evening. It’s all very scattered. Emile tells some guy who owes him some money that he go and make himself useful by working off the debt but I am getting a little aggravated that we’re not really being told what in the hell is going on. Is it drugs? Is it a gambling ring? Is it a high school prostitution ring and, if so, why couldn’t this have been going on in 1993? (West side Barrington representin’, yo.) We’ve got a lot of innuendo but nothing to show for it. When I see that we’re halfway through the trailer I begin to think that, for sure, we’re gonna get some context. It’s all about context and even though I had a little faith that we would get somewhere I get Ben Foster, donning that creepy ass tenor he used when he was on Six Feet Under, as he squaring off Emile. Ben, too, owes Emile money and decides to kidnap Ben’s brother until it gets resolved. The hostage is oddly calm and optimistic throughout this whole ordeal, which is a little weird, and, of course, Ben’s parents flip out when they figure out Ben is using that creepy voice from Six Feet Under again; nothing good ever happens when he does it. And, then, out of nowhere, we get a card that says 3 days, 38 witnesses. Now, three days I get. I understand that. 38 witnesses? That’s a few dozen people and I haven’t seen a few dozen people in this trailer but then I get our hostage getting his flirt on inside a pool with some lady. At first I’m thinking I’m watching the video to the Smashing Pumpkins’ “1979” but I remember that this all about Emile. I’m flat out confused. Is this drug related or what? Why was this boy kidnapped? I don’t have the answers to any of these things and you can lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of improper contextualization. If I don’t know why Emile stole a boy for ransom why should I care about any of these events? I don’t feel trusted as a viewer, like it’s a reveal that needs hiding, and I don’t like it. I appreciate that the trailer ends with a wicked cool card that tells us that Emile’s character fled the country in 1999 and then was arrested in Paraguay in 2005. Now that’s the kind of “ooh” “ahh” I like in my trailers. I find it amusing that the final, final card tells us that the names, events and details of this “true” event have been changed for whatever reason but a quick search on New Line’s own website yields us all the information we need right here. It befuddles even me, people. |
BASIC INSTINCT 2 (2006)  Director: Michael Caton-JonesCast: Sharon Stone, David Morrissey Release: March 31, 2006 Synopsis: Novelist Catherine Tramell (Stone) is once again in trouble with the law, and Scotland Yard appoints psychiatrist Dr. Andrew Glass (Morrissey) to evaluate her. Though, like Detective Nick Curran before him, Glass is entranced by Tramell and lured into a seductive game. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Funniest thing I’ve seen all year. Two thumbs up. “But you know I saw this movie this year called last year called ‘Basic Instinct.’ Okay now…Bill’s quick capsule review: Piece-of-shit. Okay now. Yeah, yeah, end of story by the way. Don’t get caught up in that fevered hype phoney fucking debate about that Piece-of-shit movie. “˜Is it too sexist, and what about the movies, are they becoming too dddddddd.’ You’re, you’re just confused, you don’t get, you’ve forgotten how to judge correctly. Take a deep breath huuh, look at it again. “Oh, it’s a Piece-of-shit!” Exactly! That’s all it is. Satan squatted, let out a loaf, they put a fucking title on it, put it on a marquee, Satan’s shit, piece of shit, walk away. “˜But is it too, what about the lesbian connot.. ddddd.’ You’re, you’re getting really baffled here. Piece-of-shit! Now walk away. That’s all it is, it’s nothing more! Free yourself folks, if you see it, Piece-of-shit, say it and walk away.” “People just are sitting there going, like, ‘I don’t care what she’s saying, I don’t care what she’s saying, I just want to know, does she get naked in the movie? Is she naked? Nude nude nude naked Do I see her boobies? I don’t care what she’s saying, I don’t care, I don’t care, is she naked?’ So let’s just get through to that…YES!” […] And I called my publicist, who’s this great, Jewish woman…” My vote is getting cast early, children, for my favorite comedy of 2006: BASIC INSTINCT 2. I would put the Billy Ocean World Tour ’06 on my list of needless things right above this movie’s existence and I am doing everything in my power to not shred this thing before we’ve all had a chance to indulge in this trailer’s goodness. Because we are an equal opportunity column here I will reserve judgment until we make our way through this one which begins, oddly enough, solidly. You’ve got a nice wide shot of London proper, with po-pos, or Bobby’s as you crumpet eating limeys would say, all descending on a crime scene. Our detective in charge of this investigation, a rough looking man with his tie sexily loosened up just a wee bit, is ranting that some chick’s fingerprints are all over the crime scene and that a psychologist is needed in order to declare our “suspect” insane. Now, while I am all about having a woman kept behind bars, the world needs more movies about caged heat, I found my nads recoiling as we see Sharon Stone, looking quite mannish, trying to affect the sexiness of a woman who knows she is on the other side of a wall that is littered with the faces of ladies who should just let nature take its course. “So, is this where we’re gonna do it?” Oh, sweet Lord, did she really drop that double entendre? I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. So, she starts in with this psychologist by telling him that she’s a writer that toils in sexual perversions and power relationships that are about as healthy as anything you see on Desperate Housewives on a good day. She’s trying, really hard, to make us feel that her deviancy and lustiness are combos that will get dudes all schweaty in their drawers. Unfortunately, she just comes across as holding on too long like the old Asian madam in BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA who is harboring the hotter meat in the annals of her cherry ranch; it’s sad, really. I half expect Kurt Russell to charge onto the screen but, alas, it doesn’t happen. Not more than a few seconds later, the most unintentional, comedic moment happens. When her interview with the police’s psychologist rages on, Ms. Stone straddles a chair from the front. Instead of her beav being flashed to us the chair’s thick back support fully covers Stone’s privates like a big censor’s obstruction. I’d like to thank the Academy for that. It made me laugh. I am at a loss to try and make sense of our psychologist’s attraction, and eventual giving in to, Sharon’s wiles. I guess the movie wouldn’t be as interesting if he called her out on her obvious insanity and delusions of grandeur but that moment when the two of them kiss I don’t immediately think this is a romance between two hot people; it’s an obvious cougar attack and our young boy has been vanquished by this woman who would probably fit in better at the Howard Johnson hotel bar on Karaoke Jam night than she would at a hipster night club. “I feel like a cigarette” Yes, Sharon has the last word in this trailer and I couldn’t agree more. For what better of an image of a smoldering, old butt that’s about to be flicked to the ground and twisted into the concrete to describe how this film’s going to be received? I think if you’re going to see it, be open to it, don’t let what I’ve seen here be any indication of its goodness or badness. I just believe you’ve got to be in the mood to laugh. |
VIDEO BLOG #41: “My Grand Dream” ““
Who hasn’t dreamt of a Grandfather Kennel, packed with tweedy goodness eager to come home with you?
Download Scrubs Video Blog #41:
VIDEO BLOG #42: “My Track Meet” ““
Is there anything the Janitor hasn’t done? And shouldn’t it be improbably hard to jump so high with a “˜stache so big?
Download Scrubs Video Blog #42:
VIDEO BLOG #43: “My Clothesline” ““
Never, ever cross the Janitor.
Download Scrubs Video Blog #43:
“THE TODD” BLOG #10: Deep Thoughts –
Yes, even “The Todd” ““ the omnisexual surgeon played by Robert Maschio ““ has been keeping a blog, and here’s his latest.
READ The Todd Blog #10:
##
March 29st, 2006
Deep Thoughts with High Five Todd:
Last night I was lying in bed and all I could think about was Dr. Cox. I’m obsessed with Cox. He rocks. At first it was his name that I loved so much. I had fun saying his name. “Hey Dr. Cox, hey Big Cox, hey Coxmeister, how’s it hanging…” It really never gets old for me. I could say his name all day long and it would still be fun! I love Cox! (See, it’s still fun.)
Then I got to know him a little bit, mostly I would see him at the gym and sometimes we’d spot each other. I tell you that Cox is big, strong, hard, tight, and he works out so much his veins really pop… (see, still funny). I hope one day, when I get to be his age, I am still hard and tight and strong like Dr. Cox. But I know I will have to work at it ““ after all, if you don’t use it, you lose it… and I owe it to the ladies never to lose it.
Sometimes I feel like I’m Johnny Appleseed and I have to spread as much of the Todd around as I can… to do that I have to be in tip top shape. And for inspiration I look to Dr. Cox to show me the way…
Dr. Cox Five!
later,
The Todd
March 24, 2006
Access Bollywood
Perhaps the most striking feature of Spike Lee’s INSIDE MAN for me personally came at the opening frames of the Universal logo, when I heard not the traditional circa-1997 fanfare anthem but the opening strains of one of my favorite Bollywood tunes ever, “Chaiyya Chaiyya,” composed by the great A.R. Rahman for Mani Ratnam’s 1998 classic DIL SE… Like the lame Indian film geek that I am, I immediately sprung out of my seat and nudged some of fellow reviewer friends at the screening and explained how incredible this was (and of course received dumbfounded “shut up” looks from most people). Lee even plays more or less the entire track over the whole main title sequence (though the version used sounded like a cross between the slightly abbreviated and punched-up 2002 remix for the Andrew Lloyd Webber-produced Bollywood-themed stage musical BOMBAY DREAMS with the original 1998 film version), and then a faithful new remix version is played over the entire closing crawl; the only major deviation are some additional Terence Blanchard-contributed strings and a couple of surprisingly unobtrusive English rap verses contributed by Panjabi MC.
What will this mean in the ongoing mission to help bring Bollywood to Hollywood? Probably not a whole lot, but it is a step, and I hope if nothing else it draws more attention to the work of Rahman, who has been steadily gaining a western profile via outlets such as BOMBAY DREAMS (currently touring in the U.S.), which incorporates and adapts a number of his more notable Bollywood melodies with new English lyrics (“Chaiyya Chaiyya,” used as a second act curtain-raiser, being the only song with its original Hindi lyrics entirely intact); and the stage musical adaptation of THE LORD OF THE RINGS, which just opened in Toronto. A less likely side effect, though one I’m hoping for, is that people check out the atypically dark and uncompromising DIL SE…, which is a key work from one of the more adventurous filmmakers working in the Indian film industry.
Next time…
…more reviews. As always, check out my home site, Mr. Brown’s Movie Site, for additional reviews.
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | By Christopher Stipp
March 24, 2006
March Madness
I will remember to spell Sam Jaeger’s name correct next time.
I will remember to spell Sam Jaeger’s name correct next time.
I will remember to spell Sam Jaeger’s name correct next time.
I will remember to spell Sam Jaeger’s name correct next time.
One of the things about spending too long with a written piece is that you start to lose the ability to do the simple things. Now, when last week’s column ran about Sam I was all over making sure everything was attributed correctly, all the formatting was completely done right and made sure I wrote a solid, accurate assessment of how I thought the conversation went between us; be on the look-out next month when I try to squirrel some time with the director who wrote one of my biggest guilty pleasures this side of BETTER OFF DEAD, BRING IT ON, as I know there will be some mention in my opening about my initial feelings regarding it. I don’t want to tip my hand but every person who gets pitched to me initially sparks something in my mind about how unique I want to make the conversation and Sam was no different. Hell, in a couple of weeks when LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN comes out you’ll be treated to part two of our talk where the talk between us gets even better as he just opens up to the behind-the-scenes goings-on of a working actor.
The problem comes in, then, when you think you’ve done everything you can, editorially, done the work that needs to be done, put in the time to write the damn thing, put all the HTML goodness on it that it needs, only to find out you’ve misspelled your subject’s name a couple of times. It’s like a writer’s blindness to their own piece. It’s an odd odd thing but it’s something that you won’t see in a couple of weeks when we revisit Sam J-A-E-G-E-R so I hope you dig it.
Speaking of which, I wanted to just let you all get right into the trailers this week so I want to keep this brief: you must read, after you read me of course, and after you tell me what I did wrong or how bad it must suck to be me, this pithy little piece by a dude who is in perhaps one of the most savory comedic troupes to ever habitate and, ostensibly, depending on how well a show goes, fornicate, in Chicago. After seeing the guy was a fan of Kevin’s work I sent a shout-out to the man and, like a pair of 12 year-old girls trading notes, sent me this. In the vein of David Sedaris’ blisteringly (I never knew why this was associated with greatness; I usually attribute it to white pus-filled bubbles of skin on one’s person) funny take on what would happen if a serious critic took that critical gaze and deconstructed a Christmas pagent. And, verily, hilarity ensues as it does with Adam Witt’s work as he fictionalizes the life of a hard-core cinephile/critic who obviously can’t be bothered with mainstream motion pictures; the guy comes from a respectible pedigree, one part of the whole Schadenfreude pie, passed this selection on to me. I had a guffaw and a sugar sprinkled Chuckle as I read it and I asked if I could share with the rest of the class. If you have the time I would suggest taking a peep and letting me know what you think of the suggested reading for the week. I know the trope of the myopic critic is well-worn with other parodies out there but since I’m the driver of this short bus with the rubber stamp I decree that I like this brand of satire.
Do enjoy this week’s column and I hope to hear from some of you out there from the Peanut Gallery.
STREET FIGHT (2006)  Director:Marshall CurryCast: Cory Booker, Sharpe James Release: February 22, 2006 (Limited) Synopsis: Follows the bare-knuckles race for mayor of Newark NJ, between Cory Booker, a 32-year old Rhodes Scholar/Yale Law School grad, and Sharpe James, the four-term incumbent twice his age. An urban David and Goliath story, the film chronicles Booker’s struggle against the city’s political machine. View Trailer: * Medium (QuickTime) Prognosis: Positive. I’m disillusioned with our political system as it is today. Be it covert, secret initiatives that our president declares are in our best interest or the tub thumping our other elected officials do on a daily basis to show that their rhetoric is strong while being unable to do anything meaningful with their positions I just don’t believe in paying attention to words as I am to actions. One person last year, though, representing the city of Chicago in the Senate, Barack Obama, gave me hope that there are still reasons to believe in this convoluted system of ours. I like that his fiery spirit and words have been cashed in full with his follow-throughs to the people he represents. I’d like to believe there are more out there like him and I see this film as a chance to see whether there are. This trailer is wonderful, right out of the gate. There isn’t any bullcrap narration setting things up for us all gingerly and such, no sir. We open with the meat of this story, mere split seconds, before we even have a chance to breathe. You’ve got a geezer who wants to keep his tenured political position to himself and you’ve got a young upstart who sees that fresh blood might be what’s needed to stir the passions of those in the community he wants to serve. I’m floored by how much information you gain just by watching things unfold. The narrator lets us know that the position these men are vying for is won or lost in the streets in which they’re both trying to blanket with their faces and their speeches. I didn’t really get a sense of who seems to be favored or who I wanted to win, the shots used are equally kind, until you get the old guy who likes his cushy gig turning to one of the cameras and gets a little ornery. I would go so far as to say his peeps try and start some shit with the documentary filmmakers. You think you’re watching the paparazzi trying to get a shot of another nip slip by Lindsey Lohan as these big meaty fingers glom on to the dude’s camera and a verbal battle of a “let go you bastard” and “why don’t you make me, chump” ensues. I’m floored at the prospect of a fairly pleasant tale of these two dudes turning into a true Royal Rumble on the streets of Newark. I thought politicians were all effete with their Dan Quayle-style hairdos that make them look better suited for playing tennis at “The Club” than they are with getting physical but I guess I’m wrong. We’ve got ourselves a Saturday Night ticket here, folks. I think if I have any contention with this swiftly paced trailer it would be that we’ve got almost a quarter of the run time for this thing burned at the end with a slowly progressing series of awards this movie has been up for. I think it’s great that it’s been nominated for so many things but, man, give me some more footage or something because all that space is being burned away when you could be impressing me more with what this thing has to offer.
|
A SCANNER DARKLY (2006)  Director: Richard LinklaterCast: Robert Downey Jr., Woody Harrelson, Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, Heather Kafka, Dameon Clarke, Rory Cochrane, Jack Cruz Release: July 7th, 2006 Synopsis: “A Scanner Darkly” is set in suburban Orange County, California in a future where America has lost the war on drugs. When one reluctant undercover cop is ordered to start spying on his friends, he is launched on a paranoid journey into the absurd, where identities and loyalties are impossible to decode. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Positive. Even better than the old thing. One of the things that intrigued me about the first trailer for A SCANNER DARKLY is that its presentation was captivating. It was so many months ago when I first had a chance to feel what was going on in this movie and, unlike teasers that need to find their “voice” before giving us a true trailer, this film gets more and more momentum with defining its threat to slam people’s minds. I like that even though WAKING LIFE didn’t make quite the dent I hoped it would on cinema Linklater sees the potential in fostering this brand of moviemaking. It is at the same time strange and malleable even though we can’t get a grip as to what dimension this movie exists in. This trailer grabs your consciousness and it is due to two moments within the first 15 seconds of film: the first noteworthy happening is Keanu’s introduction; it seems wildly animated, not real, and it seems like we’re watching a so-so cartoon. The next moment is the appearance of a completely anonymous person who seems to be in various states of shifting as he walks across a room; the effect is jarring if for only a moment. Something is afoot here and you can see how the passage of a few years and a script that lends itself better to the format of animated/photo realism than dudes just chatting about the meaning of love and life has done Richard well. The next moment of Keanu’s friends just bull-shiating on a late evening at home is a comfortable one as it doesn’t try and show all the fantastic ways this movie is going to change before your eye. It’s weirdly humanizing for the players involved in this picture. The same sentiment can be said for Keanu’s ride in a car with some floozie that wants to do a little tequila shooters with our man Bill while his buddy’s very real or very hallucinogenic mind trip mixes in some very wild images. Robert Downey seems perfect for a role that seems to command that he be a little on the wire, paranoid and completely sharp. I haven’t felt excited to see him really do anything as of late but his embodiment here as a revolutionary of sorts is really entertaining. Speaking of which, the music could not be better scored while taking all of this in; using M83 is not only hip but the tempo of the techno fits the source from where both of these visions have come from. I think, if anything, Woody Harrelson’s and Winona Ryder embodiment isn’t as compelling as everyone else’s. I like that Robert and Keanu take this movie on their shoulders but the two tag-alongs here just feel like voices who are animating a cartoon; I either don’t believe them or their caricatures just come off as false.
|
THE HEART IS DECITFUL ABOVE ALL THINGS (2006)  Director: Asia ArgentoCast: Asia Argento, Jimmy Bennett, Dylan Sprouse, Cole Sprouse, Peter Fonda, Marilyn Manson Release: March 10, 2006 (Limited) Synopsis: “The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things” is based on JT Leroy’s critically acclaimed novel of the same name. The story is about Jeremiah, a child who is pulled from his foster home and thrown into a troubled life on the road with his teenage mother, Sarah. With Sarah, Jeremiah travels through the country roads of the U.S. and learns first hand about the troubles of the world. With an impressive cast including Oscar winner Peter Fonda (Easy Rider, Ulees Gold), Jeremy Renner (S.W.A.T), and Asia Argento (starred opposite Vin Diesel in XXX), The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things will be one of the most anticipated independent film projects of 2004.View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: Positive. The woman comes from a well-seasoned lineage, no question. If my scope of movies only included the one appearance of Asia Argento in XXX I might be alarmed by this movie being not only acted but written and directed by her. For someone who is only thirty years old she definitely commands respect for the work she has done outside the purview of bad Hollywood blockbusters that were just plain busted. Her pedigree is rich, indeed, and the quality of her parts, even though they can be debated here and there, has been well-ignored by the populace here in the states. What I like, and appreciate, even before we begin to get into things is the disclaimer that’s run right before we see an inch of footage. That J.T. LeRoy was just a sham of an author, in this era of James Frey-ian level of subterfuge, the moviemakers are well served here in running the disclaimer about how the IT who wrote the initial story was, in fact, a lying cad who deserves all the literary ignominy usually reserved for people like Monica Lewinsky and their one trick antics. Far better writers are languishing in obscurity while this asshat makes a solid coin by making shit up. Why can’t Norton or Doubleday realize I can make shit up all day long? Oh well, but it is a solidly well-executed PR move by sliding this whole explanation in about this low-level author’s conceit and deceit before the trailer begins. I was a little off-put by it at first but when the trailer eventually does begin I feel good in how I view the events that transpire. You’ve got Asia to start off with. She’s off-the-wall insane, a drug addict perhaps, as she tears a room apart with Guns N’ Rose-ian aplomb and she’s about to inherit her son. Now, the kid is the narrator here. I’m willing to overlook the kid’s well reasoned and insightful commentary about the events that lead to his eventual custodial turn-over to this crazy woman, as the only thing on my mind at 5 was when the Bozo Show was coming on, but you’ve got a true sense of directorial style going on. It’s nice. Even though Asia is as punk and white trash as you could possibly make a woman there is a feeling of reality that I really enjoy being expressed though this picture. Sure, things get a little awkward when our narrator takes a beating from an adult, abuse is never easy to watch, but it’s nice to see that it’s offered up here for us to partake in. Other, less worthy directors, go for the silhouette shot of something bad happening to a kid or a completely sanitized, after the fact, kind of moment but not here. We see that our young child’s life is filled with dealing with the fact his mother’s a sleazy ho and that when he does look happy it is at a moment when his mom has dressed him up in girl’s clothing, curled his hair and has applied makeup to his face. Recipe for psychiatric care later on if you ask me but since we’ve ultimately discovered this is all fiction it’s all good in the context of this moment. The descent this film takes after this moment is riveting if nothing else. The kid discovers, clandestinely, his mother is a stripper and a whore, he has Peter Fonda smacking the crap out of him as well, he’s got real oddballs for friends (who didn’t sniff this out for the fiction it was in the first place?) and he has a lot of issues that will need a lot of resolving my film’s end. I think what clinched it for me was the moment when mother and son are huddled together, head to head, Asia affecting a really good cry, and the son says that he’ll protect her. If this was a sitcom I would be puking but, again, seeing the execution of the material here I am floored by the energy that is packed into this little movie. I honestly will forgive Asia for XXX if the end result is a movie that makes me believe in this mother/son combo. |
X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (2006)  Director: Brett RatnerCast: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Shawn Ashmore, Daniel Cudmore, Alan Cumming, Famke Janssen, James Marsden, Ian McKellen, Anna Paquin, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, Kelsey Grammer Release: May 26, 2006 Synopsis: In X-Men: The Last Stand, the final chapter in the X-Men motion picture trilogy, a “cure” for mutancy threatens to alter the course of history. For the first time, mutants have a choice: retain their uniqueness, though it isolates and alienates them, or give up their powers and become human. The opposing viewpoints of mutant leaders Charles Xavier (Stewart), who preaches tolerance, and Magneto (McKellen), who believes in the survival of the fittest, are put to the ultimate test — triggering the war to end all wars. View Trailer: * Large (QuickTime) Prognosis: I’m going, to be sure, but do I have faith? It’s waning. To paraphrase Mark Harmon from SUMMER SCHOOL, I’m a good sport, I’ll play along. I that if you’re going to talk smack and break bad on a movie that hasn’t come out yet it’s in poor form to do so without any substantiating facts or reference points. Yes, Bryan Singer inherited a lot of Internet crosstalk about whether or not he would succeed at bringing a project that was languishing in Development Hell for a long time but he directed THE USUAL SUSPECTS, a flick that garnered two Oscar wins. He more than gained my confidence because of that movie’s staying power and prowess as a solid made movie. Brett Ratner, in contrast, has given us Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan. There are differences between these two directors, to be sure, but I want to objectively break down what we have here in the newest X-MEN trailer creation. An argument cannot hold weight unless there is a foundation beneath it and I hope to prove why I am still dismayed at the prospect of this movie’s release. To open, we’ve got our man Bill Duke, the best reason why PREDATOR is great is simply for his annunciation of the words “turn around” before taking out a scorpion on Apollo Creed, talking about what needs to be done, ostensibly, about the whole mutant thing. The tension that’s created is good and you’ve got a satisfactory establishment of the conflict that’s brewing between these two races. And, if you listen real close, the president’s voice sounds awfully close to the dude who delivers the lines about the “Lexus sales event” on television every now and then. We’re then treated to an exterior shot of a convoy packed with SUV’s and one tractor/trailer holding Mystique; the black sheen on that big bad boy reminds me of that wicked show Highwayman. The lilting operatic music playing in the background has me confused, though. Is this an action movie or a drama? The slow, wandering pace of the trailer starts to get to me and even when we get Magneto delivering a speech that should stoke fear falls a little flat. The camera is far enough back that his words seem to be diminutive and without much fire. Bobby getting his swerve-on with a young co-ed at Xavier’s only twists my confusion to another level. If this an action movie, not a drama or romance, then why are we spending time here? It’s just a personal feeling of mine that if this wants to be a tent pole for Fox then they’re not exactly firing on all pistons; hell, the peeps over at Paramount for MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3 at least gets this one right. Before things fade to black we get Magneto on a close-up and I scream at the screen because this is what’s needed for Magneto to seem like he means business in this one: he needs to fill up our field of vision. He commands attention but it’s not afforded to him. Shame. Sure, we got Wolverine flexing his skillz but, crap, he’s doing it in slow”¦motion. How am I supposed to be amped about a berserker attack with all claws extended when he seems to be performing a pirouette? Answer: I’m not and I don’t. Dr. Crane shows up in all his blueness and I feel torn between thinking this is much better than last time and feeling that this still isn’t the best result for what could’ve been a better looking creation. From here we just get a little of the same old, same old from the initial teaser: Magneto flipping cars, Warren Worthington unleashing his mighty man wings, the Dark Phoenix walking around in her skivvies, etc”¦ We get to see the evil mutants doing their evilness on the Golden Gate Bridge as you’ve got Vinnie Jones still looking like he has way more abs than he needs and one chick who’s channeling the power of one member from The Misfits of Science which ran on NBC in the 80’s, she looks like she favors the hairstyling of that era as well, and then you get whisked away to the Danger Room where we know no one is any immediate danger. I want a goddamn action movie trailer and all I’m getting here is a Very Special Episode of The West Wing. I finally get a morsel, a taste of the goods when we have our X-MEN, Colossus in organic steel mode, ready to throw down. Now while Kelsey appears to be flying in a wire, which he is, and the whole thing looks like it’s set on a robust soundstage, which it most likely is, this actually excites me as a fan. I don’t know if it’s too little too late but I know that I’m still not ready to believe that the best decisions were made for this project. But, as it stands, this is all my opinion. I could be wrong; I hope I am. |
Powered by WordPress
You know, I heard from Susannah and I talked with Kevin, I think the movie, for one reason or another, Sony is resituating the film so that Jennifer [Garner] can promote it when she’s still not working on Alias which will be around January of 2007. It’s just one of those things. Everyone I talk to”¦Kevin said, “You know who this sucks for? This sucks for Sam because we all have careers.”
She is. She’s actually starring in a film that I am directing this summer.
We’re in the process of shooting it back in Ohio, pulling resources from the college I went to, trying to put people up in dorms, doing whatever we can to save money and still make it look like a 5 million dollar picture. Part of the process is also getting people who love the script, who believe in my abilities and are willing to go along for the ride.
Natalie, I noticed in the clip that they played you had a British accent. Can you talk a little about that?
Boo-yah, here’s question one of two that I was able to ask on my own. Not that anyone cares but I just thought to point that out for my own erudite and shameless reasons
Natalie, Now, what do you think of the message in the book?
Scrubs Blog: Week 24
BLOG-COMMENTARY #4: Episode 5×19 – “His Story III” –
Director John Inwood and Neil Flynn recorded a Janitor-centric audio commentary for episode 5×19, “My Buddy’s Booty” – just for you. Yeah, you know who “you” is. All you have to do is download the mp3 file below, cue up the episode on your TIVO, VHS, DVD, or computer, then hit play on the commentary. Hope you dig it”¦ And let us know if you want more. Seriously. Write us a letter and tell us what you want.
Download Blog-Commentary #4:
“THE TODD” BLOG #14: The Todd’s Type –
Yes, even “The Todd” ““ the omnisexual surgeon played by http://www.robertmaschio.com Robert Maschio ““ has been keeping a blog, and here’s his latest entry. (And if you’re wondering who keeps the cast and crew of Scrubs in shape ““ including The Todd ““ head over to trainer Jørgen de Mey’s website at www.actionherobody.com.
Download The Todd Video Blog #14:
##