O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 8, 2009
In 2004, documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock horrified us with his dogged determination to eat only McDonald’s food for each meal — every day for a month — to see how it affected his health in a fast food exposé called “Super Size Me.”
In Spurlock’s new film, “Where in the World Is Osama bin Laden?” he reasons that if we want to know where bin Laden is, then maybe we should simply ask around. After all, somebody’s bound to know where he is, right?
Actually, that kind of makes sense; on the other hand, it’s a good way to get killed. And I guess that’s a big part of Spurlock’s charm. He does indeed go around to strangers across the Middle East — many of them unfriendly — but still, he blatantly inquires.
And though Spurlock seems just as persistent and as determined as he was in “Super Size Me,” we get the feeling he knows he’s cheating by just going through the motions (probably because he too is aware this is all just a farce).
I suspect that’s why this new film aims to be more comical than its somewhat scientific predecessor. “Super Size Me” showed us Spurlock’s preparation with several doctors’ appointments to establish that he had a clean bill of health at the outset, prior to his McDonald’s binge.
And though “Where in the World…” also has a training portion, we quickly see that it’s done in a mocking spirit. In fact, the silly, cartoonish, introductory moments of the film give us various antics, like puppets, animated graphics, etc., which pass from over the top to annoying. I couldn’t help think of the little brother who got a laugh once, so he persists in additional attempts to get more laughs, painfully overdoing it.
Also, there’s a concurrent subplot about Spurlock’s wife expecting their baby. And really, I think he should have just made a film about that experience and scrapped all this bin Laden madness. Indeed, the later portions containing Spurlock’s feelings about his family are the jewel of the film.
Anyway, I won’t reveal whether Spurlock successfully locates Osama bin Laden, but I think you already know the answer. But just think how hilarious it would be if some zany, smart aleck filmmaker did what no one else in the world has been able to do.
Note: “Where in the World…” is rated only PG-13 for “some strong language,” but I think the profanity crosses over into R-rated territory.
Directed by Morgan Spurlock
Morgan Spurlock
Documentary / Comedy 90 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some strong language)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 323
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Changeling (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 7, 2009
I don’t reveal significant plot points in this review, but if you plan on seeing “Changeling,” having no foreknowledge about it whatsoever, then stop reading after this paragraph, because much like “From Dusk Till Dawn” (1996) or “Identity” (2003), the viewing experience is heightened if you go into it blindly.
As improbable as it seems, “Changeling” begins by telling us it’s “a true story.” I’ve come to learn that when a movie claims to be a true story, it still has taken some considerable liberties. And when a movie says it’s “based on true events,” well, that means it could be 99 percent fiction. (If this kind of thing interests you, there’s an entertaining book called “Based on a True Story: Fact and Fantasy in 100 Favorite Movies” by Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen.)
Though I haven’t done enough research on “Changeling” to verify the accuracy of its facts, the story is just crazy enough that it probably is true … unfortunately.
Set in Los Angeles and spanning the late 1920s to the mid-’30s, “Changeling” tells the story of a single mother (Angelina Jolie) whose son (Gattlin Griffith) vanishes one day while she’s at work. The L.A.P.D. claims to find her missing boy, except he’s not her son. And sadly, the police department is so corrupt and dysfunctional, it tries unscrupulously to convince the mother that a different child is her son — simply for the sake of avoiding further public scrutiny for such a disappointing mix-up.
This nightmarish premise has enough momentum to carry “Changeling” fairly well. But as the runtime passes the two-hour mark, we begin to grow weary. Alas, “Changeling’s” semi-conclusive ending is shocking enough — if not sufficiently satisfying — that we are renewed again and ultimately glad we watched the film.
Directed by Clint Eastwood
Angelina Jolie / Gattlin Griffith / John Malkovich
Drama / Mystery 141 min.
MPAA: R (for some violent and disturbing content, and language)
U.S. Release Date: October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008: 324
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 7, 2009
I don’t reveal significant plot points in this review, but if you plan on seeing “Changeling,” having no foreknowledge about it whatsoever, then stop reading after this paragraph, because much like “From Dusk Till Dawn” (1996) or “Identity” (2003), the viewing experience is heightened if you go into it blindly.
As improbable as it seems, “Changeling” begins by telling us it’s “a true story.” I’ve come to learn that when a movie claims to be a true story, it still has taken some considerable liberties. And when a movie says it’s “based on true events,” well, that means it could be 99 percent fiction. (If this kind of thing interests you, there’s an entertaining book called “Based on a True Story: Fact and Fantasy in 100 Favorite Movies” by Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen.)
Though I haven’t done enough research on “Changeling” to verify the accuracy of its facts, the story is just crazy enough that it probably is true … unfortunately.
Set in Los Angeles and spanning the late 1920s to the mid-’30s, “Changeling” tells the story of a single mother (Angelina Jolie) whose son (Gattlin Griffith) vanishes one day while she’s at work. The L.A.P.D. claims to find her missing boy, except he’s not her son. And sadly, the police department is so corrupt and dysfunctional, it tries unscrupulously to convince the mother that a different child is her son — simply for the sake of avoiding further public scrutiny for such a disappointing mix-up.
This nightmarish premise has enough momentum to carry “Changeling” fairly well. But as the runtime passes the two-hour mark, we begin to grow weary. Alas, “Changeling’s” semi-conclusive ending is shocking enough — if not sufficiently satisfying — that we are renewed again and ultimately glad we watched the film.
Directed by Clint Eastwood
Angelina Jolie / Gattlin Griffith / John Malkovich
Drama / Mystery 141 min.
MPAA: R (for some violent and disturbing content, and language)
U.S. Release Date: October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008: 324
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Quantum of Solace (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 4, 2009
It only took about 5 seconds of the opening chase scene of “Quantum of Solace” for my testosterone to start pumping, and I knew right then I was going to like this movie. If motion pictures were animals, this one would growl.
When it’s all said and done — yeah — “Quantum of Solace” is another action blockbuster, but it ranks among the few that are truly well made. Other examples would be its antecedent, “Casino Royale” (2006) and “The Bourne Identity” (2002).
Almost as long as people have been arguing the chicken or the egg dilemma, Bond fans have been debating over which actor plays the best 007. Actually, hyperbole aside, that discussion has gone on since about 1969, when the sixth Bond film, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,” was released — when George Lazenby showed up in a tux (temporarily) in place of Sean Connery. But others also substituted: Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and that brings us to Daniel Craig.
Prior to “Casino Royale,” I personally was in the Brosnan camp. But all that changed with Daniel Craig. To truly be someone like James Bond or Jason Bourne, one would have to be a monster — not a monster outright but a Jekyll and Hyde combination. Daniel Craig somehow conveys a transparent stoicism, meaning, though he’s obviously unafraid and ruggedly tough, we can still see that he has inner conflicts. He is a tormented individual who can displace his pain to administer it upon his foes.
But the brightest victory for both “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” (which are No. 21 and No. 22 in the count of official Bond films) is that Daniel Craig’s 007 isn’t an impervious, invincible superman like we’ve seen in some of the earlier films. In the last two movies, we see him get banged up, busted up and bleed. He doesn’t clear his jumps by a mile; he’s an extraordinary everyman — but an everyman, nevertheless. I credit this winning character attribute to Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade, the screenwriters for both films, as well as Ian Fleming, who wrote the novels. Now we can believe Bond … mostly.
The director of photography for “Quantum of Solace” was Roberto Schaefer, whose competent work you’ve also seen in “The Kite Runner” (2007), “Stranger Than Fiction” (2006), “Finding Neverland” (2004) and “Monster’s Ball” (2001), among others. I make mention of him because he does a remarkable job with shooting the action in this film. I’m no cinematographer, but Schaefer’s photography deserves to be nominated at this year’s Academy Awards for Best Cinematography.
Lastly, I will more or less dispense with the plot summary, because attempting to describe what happens and why and where is pointless. Nobody cares. Spy movies always have twisty, labyrinthine story lines that the average moviegoer doesn’t truly understand, anyway. Yeah, Bond has a score to settle to avenge the death of the woman he loved, and he also wants to stop a bad man from doing a bad thing to an entire country, but we don’t really care about all that. Since it’s fictitious, bring on the explosions, exotic cars, exotic women and some fatal, spy-versus-spy duals.
Directed by Marc Forster
Daniel Craig / Olga Kurylenko / Mathieu Amalric
Action 106 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and action, and some sexual content)
U.S. Release Date: November 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 325
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 4, 2009
It only took about 5 seconds of the opening chase scene of “Quantum of Solace” for my testosterone to start pumping, and I knew right then I was going to like this movie. If motion pictures were animals, this one would growl.
When it’s all said and done — yeah — “Quantum of Solace” is another action blockbuster, but it ranks among the few that are truly well made. Other examples would be its antecedent, “Casino Royale” (2006) and “The Bourne Identity” (2002).
Almost as long as people have been arguing the chicken or the egg dilemma, Bond fans have been debating over which actor plays the best 007. Actually, hyperbole aside, that discussion has gone on since about 1969, when the sixth Bond film, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,” was released — when George Lazenby showed up in a tux (temporarily) in place of Sean Connery. But others also substituted: Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and that brings us to Daniel Craig.
Prior to “Casino Royale,” I personally was in the Brosnan camp. But all that changed with Daniel Craig. To truly be someone like James Bond or Jason Bourne, one would have to be a monster — not a monster outright but a Jekyll and Hyde combination. Daniel Craig somehow conveys a transparent stoicism, meaning, though he’s obviously unafraid and ruggedly tough, we can still see that he has inner conflicts. He is a tormented individual who can displace his pain to administer it upon his foes.
But the brightest victory for both “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” (which are No. 21 and No. 22 in the count of official Bond films) is that Daniel Craig’s 007 isn’t an impervious, invincible superman like we’ve seen in some of the earlier films. In the last two movies, we see him get banged up, busted up and bleed. He doesn’t clear his jumps by a mile; he’s an extraordinary everyman — but an everyman, nevertheless. I credit this winning character attribute to Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade, the screenwriters for both films, as well as Ian Fleming, who wrote the novels. Now we can believe Bond … mostly.
The director of photography for “Quantum of Solace” was Roberto Schaefer, whose competent work you’ve also seen in “The Kite Runner” (2007), “Stranger Than Fiction” (2006), “Finding Neverland” (2004) and “Monster’s Ball” (2001), among others. I make mention of him because he does a remarkable job with shooting the action in this film. I’m no cinematographer, but Schaefer’s photography deserves to be nominated at this year’s Academy Awards for Best Cinematography.
Lastly, I will more or less dispense with the plot summary, because attempting to describe what happens and why and where is pointless. Nobody cares. Spy movies always have twisty, labyrinthine story lines that the average moviegoer doesn’t truly understand, anyway. Yeah, Bond has a score to settle to avenge the death of the woman he loved, and he also wants to stop a bad man from doing a bad thing to an entire country, but we don’t really care about all that. Since it’s fictitious, bring on the explosions, exotic cars, exotic women and some fatal, spy-versus-spy duals.
Directed by Marc Forster
Daniel Craig / Olga Kurylenko / Mathieu Amalric
Action 106 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and action, and some sexual content)
U.S. Release Date: November 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 325
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Get Smart (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 3, 2009
I attempted to see “Get Smart” during its release last June by visiting any theater conveniently situated off Interstate 80 as I moved from Utah to West Virginia. No luck. Then I tried to see it again at the drive-in later in the summer, but our car mysteriously began evoking “Christine” (Stephen King’s 1958 Plymouth Fury), and literally wouldn’t permit us to finish the movie. Long story.
But finally, thanks to Netflix and the hospitable environment of my own home, I got to see “Get Smart” on my third attempt, and it was worth every effort.
This silly spy spoof is a must-see for fans of Steve Carell, who plays Agent 86, Maxwell Smart, reprising the same all-heart-but-less-skilled special agent that Don Adams played in the late ‘60s TV series of the same name. And Anne Hathaway is his much abler partner, Agent 99, who used to be played by Barbara Feldon. Though I haven’t seen much of the TV show’s reruns, the movie appears to be successful in echoing its source.
Funny comedies are a rare thing — at least for me — but “Get Smart” has several laugh-out-loud moments, so I warmly recommend it. “Get Smart” was directed by Peter Segal, who also gave us “50 First Dates” (2004), “Anger Management” (2003), “Tommy Boy” (1995) and “Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult” (1994).
Directed by Peter Segal
Steve Carell / Anne Hathaway / Dwayne Johnson
Comedy 110 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some rude humor, action violence and language)
U.S. Release Date: June 20, 2008
Copyright 2008: 326
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 3, 2009
I attempted to see “Get Smart” during its release last June by visiting any theater conveniently situated off Interstate 80 as I moved from Utah to West Virginia. No luck. Then I tried to see it again at the drive-in later in the summer, but our car mysteriously began evoking “Christine” (Stephen King’s 1958 Plymouth Fury), and literally wouldn’t permit us to finish the movie. Long story.
But finally, thanks to Netflix and the hospitable environment of my own home, I got to see “Get Smart” on my third attempt, and it was worth every effort.
This silly spy spoof is a must-see for fans of Steve Carell, who plays Agent 86, Maxwell Smart, reprising the same all-heart-but-less-skilled special agent that Don Adams played in the late ‘60s TV series of the same name. And Anne Hathaway is his much abler partner, Agent 99, who used to be played by Barbara Feldon. Though I haven’t seen much of the TV show’s reruns, the movie appears to be successful in echoing its source.
Funny comedies are a rare thing — at least for me — but “Get Smart” has several laugh-out-loud moments, so I warmly recommend it. “Get Smart” was directed by Peter Segal, who also gave us “50 First Dates” (2004), “Anger Management” (2003), “Tommy Boy” (1995) and “Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult” (1994).
Directed by Peter Segal
Steve Carell / Anne Hathaway / Dwayne Johnson
Comedy 110 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some rude humor, action violence and language)
U.S. Release Date: June 20, 2008
Copyright 2008: 326
Friday, January 2, 2009
Punisher: War Zone (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 2, 2009
It is often argued that cinematic depictions of violence can be justified when employed with a relevant purpose. That is not the case, however, with “Punisher: War Zone,” whose cheerful violence pervades the movie so thoroughly, it begins to mock itself like an Edgar Wright-Simon Pegg project, such as “Shaun of the Dead” (2004) or “Hot Fuzz” (2007).
No, “War Zone” has no interest in being a comic book movie; instead it’s a fascistic action flick whose aim is to gross-out teenage boys. The movie is a barrage of bullets, blood splatter and blown-off heads.
Though “War Zone” is intended to follow “The Punisher” (2004), which cast Thomas Jane in the title role, this sequel has little regard for continuity. In fact, I’d argue that the new movie (which can stand alone) is an attempt to rectify its predecessor, much like last year’s “The Incredible Hulk” did with Ang Lee’s “Hulk” (2003). And the 1989 version of the Punisher saga starring Dolph Lundgren doesn’t apply here, either.
Yes, once again, Frank Castle (Ray Stevenson) is out to avenge his family’s murder by administering merciless justice to their killers and any other criminal associates.
Considering its purpose, “War Zone” should please those whom it targets. And though the movie’s sibling villains Jigsaw (Dominic West) and Loony Bin Jim (Doug Hutchison) match the overall, over-the-top décor, their characters are outrageous enough to be intriguing.
Directed by Lexi Alexander
Ray Stevenson / Dominic West / Doug Hutchison
Action 103 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive strong brutal violence, language and some drug use)
U.S. Release Date: December 5, 2008
Copyright 2008: 328
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 2, 2009
It is often argued that cinematic depictions of violence can be justified when employed with a relevant purpose. That is not the case, however, with “Punisher: War Zone,” whose cheerful violence pervades the movie so thoroughly, it begins to mock itself like an Edgar Wright-Simon Pegg project, such as “Shaun of the Dead” (2004) or “Hot Fuzz” (2007).
No, “War Zone” has no interest in being a comic book movie; instead it’s a fascistic action flick whose aim is to gross-out teenage boys. The movie is a barrage of bullets, blood splatter and blown-off heads.
Though “War Zone” is intended to follow “The Punisher” (2004), which cast Thomas Jane in the title role, this sequel has little regard for continuity. In fact, I’d argue that the new movie (which can stand alone) is an attempt to rectify its predecessor, much like last year’s “The Incredible Hulk” did with Ang Lee’s “Hulk” (2003). And the 1989 version of the Punisher saga starring Dolph Lundgren doesn’t apply here, either.
Yes, once again, Frank Castle (Ray Stevenson) is out to avenge his family’s murder by administering merciless justice to their killers and any other criminal associates.
Considering its purpose, “War Zone” should please those whom it targets. And though the movie’s sibling villains Jigsaw (Dominic West) and Loony Bin Jim (Doug Hutchison) match the overall, over-the-top décor, their characters are outrageous enough to be intriguing.
Directed by Lexi Alexander
Ray Stevenson / Dominic West / Doug Hutchison
Action 103 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive strong brutal violence, language and some drug use)
U.S. Release Date: December 5, 2008
Copyright 2008: 328
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Only SOME of the Best Films of 2008
by Jason Pyles / December 27, 2008
2008 was a great year for the cinema and a momentous year for my family. I only make mention of my life’s personal events to emphasize that after having our first baby, a college graduation, a move across the country and working one and a half new jobs, I’ve only been able to see 101 of this year’s films (in contrast to my 176 reviews in 2007). And unfortunately, many films that are receiving the most critical acclaim are, as of yet, unseen by me.* (see list below)
So again, the following 11 films are only some of the best films of 2008.
1.) The Dark Knight (PG-13)
Some people have said “Iron Man” is a superhero movie for those who don’t like superhero movies. OK, maybe, but it’s still a superhero movie, an excellent one. But “The Dark Knight” transcends the genre. And not to be technical, but Batman never really was a superhero in the truest sense: He’s just a rich guy with the means to have slick, crime-fighting gadgets. But let me be clear here: Yes, Christopher Nolan is a superb director whose contributions cannot be diminished; Christian Bale successfully pulls off the bat man with a straight face; in fact, all the film’s actors have become their characters. Yet it is Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker that makes “The Dark Knight” so lofty. Ledger deserves the Oscar — and not as a consolation prize for being deceased. A good villain is just as important as having a good hero. Among the films I’ve seen in 2008, “The Dark Knight” is the best of the year.
2.) The Orphanage (R)
“The Orphanage” is a truly creepy film and perhaps more impressive, one of the few effective haunted house movies. Filmed in Spanish with English subtitles, this non-slasher, spine-tingler is rated R but not for the usual reasons: Its rating is solely due to “disturbing content.” I might have termed it “troubling” content.
3.) Cloverfield (PG-13)
Everybody plays the “what if” game. And because of that, “Cloverfield” is pure cinematic delight because it allows the “what if” game to unfold before our eyes. What if a real monster attacked New York City? This is no King Kong or Godzilla monster mash; “Cloverfield” endeavors, as realistically as possible, to portray such a horrific event. Best of all, the movie pulls us up onto the screen, into the action, because we identify with a character videographer’s subjective point of view through his camera lens, a trick that “Quarantine” later attempted in October but with much less success.
4.) Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (PG)
Highly controversial and arguably slanted unfairly, “Expelled” is a documentary for “the believers,” meaning, those who believe “Genesis” over “The Origin of the Species.” Ben Stein is the gadfly of the scientific community as he observes that it seems to have closed its mind to ideas like Creationism and wholly accepted Evolution. “Expelled” is a showdown that is much more engaging than it sounds.
5.) Snow Angels (R)
Some films can carefully portray with lifelike verisimilitude the sad dramas that play out in the lives of regular, everyday people. “Snow Angels” is one such film, and its magnificence is matched only by its pensiveness.
6.) Run Fatboy Run (PG-13)
Because its director is David Schwimmer and its title is “Run Fatboy Run,” you may doubt my judgment on this surprising comedy. But Schwimmer shows considerable promise as a director, and the movie’s title is likely a marketing design, even though it is somewhat fitting. “Run Fatboy Run” is funny, but it’s also inspiring. This movie is a banner and a beacon for anyone who’s tired of being a loser and wants to stop sucking.
7.) Rambo (R)
I know. Sy Stallone is like 62 years old and “Rambo,” like most of the “Rocky” movies, is a thing of the ‘80s. But who goes to see a “Rambo” movie? Someone expecting a Merchant Ivory Production? No. Someone who wants to see “Rambo” blow everybody away. Done. But that’s not what makes this movie excellent: Reportedly, in this time of war, Stallone wanted to try to depict the true horrors of warfare, and it appears he has succeeded with a film that approaches the graphic violence of “Saving Private Ryan” (1998). And though it’s difficult to make a war film that doesn’t ultimately glorify war (which I suppose “Rambo” still does), it still paints a vividly grotesque picture.
8.) Iron Man (PG-13)
As mentioned above, “Iron Man” is a fine example of a comic book movie. It’s a well made, summer-fun, big-budget, popcorn blockbuster that is wonderfully entertaining. But as Heath Ledger is to “The Dark Knight,” so is Robert Downey Jr. to “Iron Man.” He makes the movie worth seeing on the merits of his humorous performance alone.
9.) Tropic Thunder (R)
Speaking of Robert Downey Jr., when an actor can convincingly perform in layers, piling character upon character within a role, then you know he or she has a remarkable gift. I don’t care if this is a comedy, he still should be nominated for his performance. Not only is “Tropic Thunder” hilarious, it savagely cannibalizes and ridicules the Hollywood from whence it sprang. It has an updated variation of the “Three Amigos!” (1986) plot that’s both smarter and funnier.
10.) The Ruins (R)
Many people will disagree with my ranking “The Ruins” among this list, but I don’t care. This is an excellent horror movie, which is nearly an oxymoron. While watching this film, imagine that you have fallen into this scenario. Yes, the vines (which are not the point) are ridiculous, but this is no “Little Shop of Horrors” (1986). Setting the vines aside, which are merely a plot device, the true horrors of “The Ruins” could happen. What is scarier than being marooned in another country and watching those who are with you — the only people you thought you could trust — make dreadful decisions out of fear? It is what the characters do to one another (and it’s typically not meant to be mean-spirited) in this midst of their crisis that makes “The Ruins” an effective horror movie.
11.) U2 3D (G)
I’m not even a U2 fan, per se. But I like their music, and besides, who doesn’t enjoy concerts? “U2 3D” is comprised of incredible footage from several U2 concerts that puts the viewer up on the stage with the performers. And even without the 3-D glasses, this would still be an enjoyable experience for any music lover — especially a true U2 fan.
Jason's Honorable Mention of 2008:
4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
Appaloosa
Changeling
Charlie Bartlett
Definitely, Maybe
The Happening
Horton Hears a Who!
The Incredible Hulk
Lakeview Terrace
The Other Boleyn Girl
Penelope
Pride and Glory
Quantum of Solace
Righteous Kill
Smart People
Under the Same Moon
Untraceable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These are the films from 2008 that I haven’t seen yet that are supposed to be exceptional:
Ballast
The Band’s Visit
Che
A Christmas Tale
Chop Shop
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Defiance
Doubt
The Duchess of Langeais
The Edge of Heaven
Encounters at the End of the World
The Fall
Frost/Nixon
Frozen River
A Girl Cut in Two
Gran Torino
Happy-Go-Lucky
In Bruges
I.O.U.S.A.
I’ve Loved You So Long
The Last Mistress
Let the Right One In
Man on Wire
Milk
My Winnipeg
Rachel Getting Married
The Reader
Revolutionary Road
Shotgun Stories
Slumdog Millionaire
Standard Operating Procedure
Synecdoche, New York
Tell No One
Trouble the Water
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
WALL-E
The Wrestler
XXY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for what it’s worth (which isn’t much), these are the 10 worst movies of 2008, with the absolute most terrible one listed at the bottom.
Doomsday
Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay
Vantage Point
The Eye
How She Move
Superhero Movie
First Sunday
Witless Protection
One Missed Call
Meet the Spartans
2008 was a great year for the cinema and a momentous year for my family. I only make mention of my life’s personal events to emphasize that after having our first baby, a college graduation, a move across the country and working one and a half new jobs, I’ve only been able to see 101 of this year’s films (in contrast to my 176 reviews in 2007). And unfortunately, many films that are receiving the most critical acclaim are, as of yet, unseen by me.* (see list below)
So again, the following 11 films are only some of the best films of 2008.
1.) The Dark Knight (PG-13)
Some people have said “Iron Man” is a superhero movie for those who don’t like superhero movies. OK, maybe, but it’s still a superhero movie, an excellent one. But “The Dark Knight” transcends the genre. And not to be technical, but Batman never really was a superhero in the truest sense: He’s just a rich guy with the means to have slick, crime-fighting gadgets. But let me be clear here: Yes, Christopher Nolan is a superb director whose contributions cannot be diminished; Christian Bale successfully pulls off the bat man with a straight face; in fact, all the film’s actors have become their characters. Yet it is Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker that makes “The Dark Knight” so lofty. Ledger deserves the Oscar — and not as a consolation prize for being deceased. A good villain is just as important as having a good hero. Among the films I’ve seen in 2008, “The Dark Knight” is the best of the year.
2.) The Orphanage (R)
“The Orphanage” is a truly creepy film and perhaps more impressive, one of the few effective haunted house movies. Filmed in Spanish with English subtitles, this non-slasher, spine-tingler is rated R but not for the usual reasons: Its rating is solely due to “disturbing content.” I might have termed it “troubling” content.
3.) Cloverfield (PG-13)
Everybody plays the “what if” game. And because of that, “Cloverfield” is pure cinematic delight because it allows the “what if” game to unfold before our eyes. What if a real monster attacked New York City? This is no King Kong or Godzilla monster mash; “Cloverfield” endeavors, as realistically as possible, to portray such a horrific event. Best of all, the movie pulls us up onto the screen, into the action, because we identify with a character videographer’s subjective point of view through his camera lens, a trick that “Quarantine” later attempted in October but with much less success.
4.) Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (PG)
Highly controversial and arguably slanted unfairly, “Expelled” is a documentary for “the believers,” meaning, those who believe “Genesis” over “The Origin of the Species.” Ben Stein is the gadfly of the scientific community as he observes that it seems to have closed its mind to ideas like Creationism and wholly accepted Evolution. “Expelled” is a showdown that is much more engaging than it sounds.
5.) Snow Angels (R)
Some films can carefully portray with lifelike verisimilitude the sad dramas that play out in the lives of regular, everyday people. “Snow Angels” is one such film, and its magnificence is matched only by its pensiveness.
6.) Run Fatboy Run (PG-13)
Because its director is David Schwimmer and its title is “Run Fatboy Run,” you may doubt my judgment on this surprising comedy. But Schwimmer shows considerable promise as a director, and the movie’s title is likely a marketing design, even though it is somewhat fitting. “Run Fatboy Run” is funny, but it’s also inspiring. This movie is a banner and a beacon for anyone who’s tired of being a loser and wants to stop sucking.
7.) Rambo (R)
I know. Sy Stallone is like 62 years old and “Rambo,” like most of the “Rocky” movies, is a thing of the ‘80s. But who goes to see a “Rambo” movie? Someone expecting a Merchant Ivory Production? No. Someone who wants to see “Rambo” blow everybody away. Done. But that’s not what makes this movie excellent: Reportedly, in this time of war, Stallone wanted to try to depict the true horrors of warfare, and it appears he has succeeded with a film that approaches the graphic violence of “Saving Private Ryan” (1998). And though it’s difficult to make a war film that doesn’t ultimately glorify war (which I suppose “Rambo” still does), it still paints a vividly grotesque picture.
8.) Iron Man (PG-13)
As mentioned above, “Iron Man” is a fine example of a comic book movie. It’s a well made, summer-fun, big-budget, popcorn blockbuster that is wonderfully entertaining. But as Heath Ledger is to “The Dark Knight,” so is Robert Downey Jr. to “Iron Man.” He makes the movie worth seeing on the merits of his humorous performance alone.
9.) Tropic Thunder (R)
Speaking of Robert Downey Jr., when an actor can convincingly perform in layers, piling character upon character within a role, then you know he or she has a remarkable gift. I don’t care if this is a comedy, he still should be nominated for his performance. Not only is “Tropic Thunder” hilarious, it savagely cannibalizes and ridicules the Hollywood from whence it sprang. It has an updated variation of the “Three Amigos!” (1986) plot that’s both smarter and funnier.
10.) The Ruins (R)
Many people will disagree with my ranking “The Ruins” among this list, but I don’t care. This is an excellent horror movie, which is nearly an oxymoron. While watching this film, imagine that you have fallen into this scenario. Yes, the vines (which are not the point) are ridiculous, but this is no “Little Shop of Horrors” (1986). Setting the vines aside, which are merely a plot device, the true horrors of “The Ruins” could happen. What is scarier than being marooned in another country and watching those who are with you — the only people you thought you could trust — make dreadful decisions out of fear? It is what the characters do to one another (and it’s typically not meant to be mean-spirited) in this midst of their crisis that makes “The Ruins” an effective horror movie.
11.) U2 3D (G)
I’m not even a U2 fan, per se. But I like their music, and besides, who doesn’t enjoy concerts? “U2 3D” is comprised of incredible footage from several U2 concerts that puts the viewer up on the stage with the performers. And even without the 3-D glasses, this would still be an enjoyable experience for any music lover — especially a true U2 fan.
Jason's Honorable Mention of 2008:
4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
Appaloosa
Changeling
Charlie Bartlett
Definitely, Maybe
The Happening
Horton Hears a Who!
The Incredible Hulk
Lakeview Terrace
The Other Boleyn Girl
Penelope
Pride and Glory
Quantum of Solace
Righteous Kill
Smart People
Under the Same Moon
Untraceable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These are the films from 2008 that I haven’t seen yet that are supposed to be exceptional:
Ballast
The Band’s Visit
Che
A Christmas Tale
Chop Shop
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Defiance
Doubt
The Duchess of Langeais
The Edge of Heaven
Encounters at the End of the World
The Fall
Frost/Nixon
Frozen River
A Girl Cut in Two
Gran Torino
Happy-Go-Lucky
In Bruges
I.O.U.S.A.
I’ve Loved You So Long
The Last Mistress
Let the Right One In
Man on Wire
Milk
My Winnipeg
Rachel Getting Married
The Reader
Revolutionary Road
Shotgun Stories
Slumdog Millionaire
Standard Operating Procedure
Synecdoche, New York
Tell No One
Trouble the Water
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
WALL-E
The Wrestler
XXY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for what it’s worth (which isn’t much), these are the 10 worst movies of 2008, with the absolute most terrible one listed at the bottom.
Doomsday
Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay
Vantage Point
The Eye
How She Move
Superhero Movie
First Sunday
Witless Protection
One Missed Call
Meet the Spartans
Monday, December 22, 2008
Debate: In Cold Celluloid
by Jason Pyles / December 22, 2008
Ever since the gangster pictures of the 1930s, there has been considerable debate about the portrayal of violence in film — is it exploitative? — or does it serve a meaningful purpose? It’s such an age-old controversy, many people are altogether weary of the discussion. But I have a different question, though it is related to this topic.
In 1967, Richard Brooks released a film called “In Cold Blood” that is an adaptation of Truman Capote’s novel by the same name. Both tell the grim but true tale of two zeros who planned to rob a Kansas farm family and slaughtered them all in the process. The phrase “senseless deaths” has never been more fitting.
(Interestingly, the film stars Robert Blake as one of the killers; you might remember that around 2002, Blake was arrested for the murder of his second wife but was later acquitted in 2005.)
Relative to the explicit and graphic nature of present-day movies, “In Cold Blood” is tame, perhaps even mild enough for a PG rating — minus the profanity.
But here’s the issue: The film is shot in the actual home of the murdered family. This begs an obvious moral question. What was the merit in shooting the film in their home? The reasons must have pertained to authenticity and perhaps because it’s somewhat intriguing, but are these reasons justified? I suspect that it had less to do with artistic motives and more to do with cashing in on a fascinated nation’s curiosity.
Yet, I can’t help but wonder if the same heinous event befell my family — heaven forbid — how would I feel if Hollywood wanted to tell the story within the walls of our sacred home, where the horrific acts occurred?
In his 1968 review of “In Cold Blood,” Roger Ebert wrote this:
“And every detail of the film, from the physical appearance of the actors to the use of actual locations like the Clutter farmhouse, was chosen to make the film a literal copy of those events. I do not object to this. Men have always learned about themselves by studying the things their fellows do. If mass murders of this sort are possible in American society (and many have been), then perhaps it is useful to see a thoughtful film about one of them.”
My Take:
I’ve heard this argument before, but I don’t buy it. I think it’s imperative for us to realize that monsters exist and such dangers are possible, but to me “In Cold Blood” crosses the line with its shooting location. When I watched “Breakdown” (1997), for example, I thought it a valuable cautionary tale, but it was fictitious; whereas, “In Cold Blood” unfortunately happened. (And regarding violence in film, most people think it’s fun to be scared. Fine. So fictitious horror is one thing, but when we watch the “Saw” movies for their “entertainment value?!,” I think that’s sociologically problematic.)
Please feel free to post comments and discuss this question.
[ Note: I might mention, as a mere afterthought, that we’re probably more familiar with the more recent Philip Seymour Hoffman film, “Capote” (2005), about the journalist and author who followed the story and conducted extensive interviews with one of the killers. ]
Ever since the gangster pictures of the 1930s, there has been considerable debate about the portrayal of violence in film — is it exploitative? — or does it serve a meaningful purpose? It’s such an age-old controversy, many people are altogether weary of the discussion. But I have a different question, though it is related to this topic.
In 1967, Richard Brooks released a film called “In Cold Blood” that is an adaptation of Truman Capote’s novel by the same name. Both tell the grim but true tale of two zeros who planned to rob a Kansas farm family and slaughtered them all in the process. The phrase “senseless deaths” has never been more fitting.
(Interestingly, the film stars Robert Blake as one of the killers; you might remember that around 2002, Blake was arrested for the murder of his second wife but was later acquitted in 2005.)
Relative to the explicit and graphic nature of present-day movies, “In Cold Blood” is tame, perhaps even mild enough for a PG rating — minus the profanity.
But here’s the issue: The film is shot in the actual home of the murdered family. This begs an obvious moral question. What was the merit in shooting the film in their home? The reasons must have pertained to authenticity and perhaps because it’s somewhat intriguing, but are these reasons justified? I suspect that it had less to do with artistic motives and more to do with cashing in on a fascinated nation’s curiosity.
Yet, I can’t help but wonder if the same heinous event befell my family — heaven forbid — how would I feel if Hollywood wanted to tell the story within the walls of our sacred home, where the horrific acts occurred?
In his 1968 review of “In Cold Blood,” Roger Ebert wrote this:
“And every detail of the film, from the physical appearance of the actors to the use of actual locations like the Clutter farmhouse, was chosen to make the film a literal copy of those events. I do not object to this. Men have always learned about themselves by studying the things their fellows do. If mass murders of this sort are possible in American society (and many have been), then perhaps it is useful to see a thoughtful film about one of them.”
My Take:
I’ve heard this argument before, but I don’t buy it. I think it’s imperative for us to realize that monsters exist and such dangers are possible, but to me “In Cold Blood” crosses the line with its shooting location. When I watched “Breakdown” (1997), for example, I thought it a valuable cautionary tale, but it was fictitious; whereas, “In Cold Blood” unfortunately happened. (And regarding violence in film, most people think it’s fun to be scared. Fine. So fictitious horror is one thing, but when we watch the “Saw” movies for their “entertainment value?!,” I think that’s sociologically problematic.)
Please feel free to post comments and discuss this question.
[ Note: I might mention, as a mere afterthought, that we’re probably more familiar with the more recent Philip Seymour Hoffman film, “Capote” (2005), about the journalist and author who followed the story and conducted extensive interviews with one of the killers. ]
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Australia (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / December 21, 2008
“Australia” is essentially two movies combined, and it hearkens back to the extravagant epics of the early ’60s, when Hollywood was overextending itself to compete with television: e.g., “Cleopatra” (1963).
With a 165-minute run time, “Australia’s” first story involves an uppity, English widow (Nicole Kidman) who commissions an Aussie cowboy (Hugh Jackman) to lead a cattle drive in hopes of eclipsing a local monopolist who was destroying her late husband’s business.
Few films feature such large-scale cattle drives (which are the western equivalent of road movies), but “Australia” is no “Lonesome Dove” (1989) — the best cattle drive movie and one of the great westerns.
The latter half of “Australia” strains for a dramatic attempt to reassemble the couple’s makeshift family amidst the turbulent backdrop of World War II.
“Australia” begins with silly comedy that’s not as funny as “Crocodile Dundee” (1986), breaks into an adventure that’s inferior to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (1981), falls short of accomplishing the visual sweep of “Lonesome Dove,” and wraps up with wartime melodrama comparable to “Pearl Harbor” (2001). Yet “Australia” wishes to evoke all of the above.
Yes, the movie is somewhat entertaining, but aside from a couple of parables on racism, broad spectacle is the extent of “Australia’s” ambition: In planning this film, I picture a number of studio execs sitting around a table, compiling all the elements that would delight audiences. Their primary consideration: have Kidman and Jackman kiss as many times as possible.
Directed by Baz Luhrmann
Nicole Kidman / Hugh Jackman / Brandon Walters
Adventure / Drama 165 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence, a scene of sensuality, and brief strong language)
U.S. Release Date: November 26, 2008
Copyright 2008: 329
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / December 21, 2008
“Australia” is essentially two movies combined, and it hearkens back to the extravagant epics of the early ’60s, when Hollywood was overextending itself to compete with television: e.g., “Cleopatra” (1963).
With a 165-minute run time, “Australia’s” first story involves an uppity, English widow (Nicole Kidman) who commissions an Aussie cowboy (Hugh Jackman) to lead a cattle drive in hopes of eclipsing a local monopolist who was destroying her late husband’s business.
Few films feature such large-scale cattle drives (which are the western equivalent of road movies), but “Australia” is no “Lonesome Dove” (1989) — the best cattle drive movie and one of the great westerns.
The latter half of “Australia” strains for a dramatic attempt to reassemble the couple’s makeshift family amidst the turbulent backdrop of World War II.
“Australia” begins with silly comedy that’s not as funny as “Crocodile Dundee” (1986), breaks into an adventure that’s inferior to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (1981), falls short of accomplishing the visual sweep of “Lonesome Dove,” and wraps up with wartime melodrama comparable to “Pearl Harbor” (2001). Yet “Australia” wishes to evoke all of the above.
Yes, the movie is somewhat entertaining, but aside from a couple of parables on racism, broad spectacle is the extent of “Australia’s” ambition: In planning this film, I picture a number of studio execs sitting around a table, compiling all the elements that would delight audiences. Their primary consideration: have Kidman and Jackman kiss as many times as possible.
Directed by Baz Luhrmann
Nicole Kidman / Hugh Jackman / Brandon Walters
Adventure / Drama 165 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence, a scene of sensuality, and brief strong language)
U.S. Release Date: November 26, 2008
Copyright 2008: 329
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Twilight (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / November 30, 2008
My friend Merinda Pearce said it best when she explained, “Even though ‘Twilight’ is a love story about teenage vampires, it’s a lot better than it sounds.” Despite my initial skepticism, Merinda was correct. “Twilight” is adapted from Stephenie Meyer’s book of the same name, an addictive series that has seduced many female readers (including my wife).
Though I haven’t read the book, the movie is intriguing — without a doubt — and the film’s success (and presumably the book’s) lies in its ability to make us increasingly anxious about what will happen next. We’ve all heard numerous vampire stories, which makes “Twilight’s” fresh appeal somewhat surprising.
While her mother and step-father travel to Florida for spring training, 17-year-old “Bella” Swan (Kristen Stewart), of Phoenix, moves to the tiny town of Forks, Washington (population 3,120) to live for a time with her father, Charlie Swan (the uncannily likable Billy Burke), who serves as Forks’ chief of police.
At Bella’s new high school, she encounters the mysterious, pale-faced Cullen kids, who turn out to be vampires, unbeknownst somehow to everyone else in the community. A mutual and eventually romantic intrigue befalls Bella and one of the Cullens named Edward (Robert Pattinson). But when a blood-sucking vampire and a human fall in love, things become dangerously complicated.
And the precarious circumstances of the unlikely couple’s relationship comprise the bulk of the film. Edward hungers for Bella’s blood, but he is well aware of the magnitude of such a dating faux pas. Edward’s family also finds his new girlfriend … tempting. Then there are other local vampires who aren’t so well mannered.
The best aspect to “Twilight” is its ability to make us as curious as Bella is about Edward’s vampirism. A remarkable incident occurs that initially tips Bella off that Edward is very different from the boys down in Arizona. But at the risk of evoking the wrath of die-hard “Twilight” fans, I was disappointed by the way the movie breaks its own spell when we’re shown poorly depicted demonstrations of vampiric power.
Unfortunately, “Twilight’s” portrayal of a vampire’s physical abilities (which is precisely when we need Hollywood’s illusory magic the most) is ridiculously unconvincing. Watching Edward leap about, scaling trees is comparable to a high school stage production of “Peter Pan.” I kept looking for the wire.
The worst aspect to “Twilight” is its performances. Perhaps the actors are not the ones to blame. I have read excerpts of dialogue from Meyer’s book, and at times, the cast may have had little to work with. But I suspect the real culprit is director Catherine Hardwicke, who also directed “The Nativity Story” (2006), “Lords of Dogtown” (2005) and “Thirteen” (2003).
For instance, during Bella’s first few encounters with Edward, poor Robert Pattinson’s performance is laugh-out-loud ludicrous — again, something I blame on Hardwicke’s instruction (or lack thereof). I’m sure the book describes a similar scene, but Edward just keeps staring at Bella — “real hard.” Honestly, I was worried the kid was going to pull something from straining so much. … And incidentally, shooting a person’s movements at a slower speed so they’ll playback in fast-forward, merely looks like fast-forward, not super-human speed.
Otherwise, the film’s casting works. The Cullen vampires are beautiful people, as the book prescribes. Kristen Stewart, who is somewhat reminiscent of the “Gilmore Girls’” Alexis Bledel, makes a fine Bella. Pattinson’s Edward is a faint mix between Jason Priestley and New Age pianist Paul Cardall — especially during his piano scene. And Cam Gigandet’s (“Never Back Down”) James is genuinely unsettling.
Vampire movies have been around a long time; the German film, “Nosferatu” (1922), is the earliest one I was aware of, but according to a vampire history Web site, a British film called “The Secrets of House No. 5” (1912) was the first one. (Tod Browning and Bela Lugosi’s “Dracula” didn’t come out until 1931.)
In any case, vampires have been in the cinema for decades, and their attributes have been fairly consistent, until recently. The overlooked “Cronos” (1993) throws a different spin on vampirism, for example. And “Twilight” is quite liberal with its vampiric “rules” and limitations. But much like zombies, who have become frighteningly fast in recent years, I guess vampires have to evolve, too.
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke
Kristen Stewart / Robert Pattinson / Billy Burke
Romance / Thriller 122 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence and a scene of sensuality)
U.S. Release Date: November 21, 2008
Copyright 2008: 327
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / November 30, 2008
My friend Merinda Pearce said it best when she explained, “Even though ‘Twilight’ is a love story about teenage vampires, it’s a lot better than it sounds.” Despite my initial skepticism, Merinda was correct. “Twilight” is adapted from Stephenie Meyer’s book of the same name, an addictive series that has seduced many female readers (including my wife).
Though I haven’t read the book, the movie is intriguing — without a doubt — and the film’s success (and presumably the book’s) lies in its ability to make us increasingly anxious about what will happen next. We’ve all heard numerous vampire stories, which makes “Twilight’s” fresh appeal somewhat surprising.
While her mother and step-father travel to Florida for spring training, 17-year-old “Bella” Swan (Kristen Stewart), of Phoenix, moves to the tiny town of Forks, Washington (population 3,120) to live for a time with her father, Charlie Swan (the uncannily likable Billy Burke), who serves as Forks’ chief of police.
At Bella’s new high school, she encounters the mysterious, pale-faced Cullen kids, who turn out to be vampires, unbeknownst somehow to everyone else in the community. A mutual and eventually romantic intrigue befalls Bella and one of the Cullens named Edward (Robert Pattinson). But when a blood-sucking vampire and a human fall in love, things become dangerously complicated.
And the precarious circumstances of the unlikely couple’s relationship comprise the bulk of the film. Edward hungers for Bella’s blood, but he is well aware of the magnitude of such a dating faux pas. Edward’s family also finds his new girlfriend … tempting. Then there are other local vampires who aren’t so well mannered.
The best aspect to “Twilight” is its ability to make us as curious as Bella is about Edward’s vampirism. A remarkable incident occurs that initially tips Bella off that Edward is very different from the boys down in Arizona. But at the risk of evoking the wrath of die-hard “Twilight” fans, I was disappointed by the way the movie breaks its own spell when we’re shown poorly depicted demonstrations of vampiric power.
Unfortunately, “Twilight’s” portrayal of a vampire’s physical abilities (which is precisely when we need Hollywood’s illusory magic the most) is ridiculously unconvincing. Watching Edward leap about, scaling trees is comparable to a high school stage production of “Peter Pan.” I kept looking for the wire.
The worst aspect to “Twilight” is its performances. Perhaps the actors are not the ones to blame. I have read excerpts of dialogue from Meyer’s book, and at times, the cast may have had little to work with. But I suspect the real culprit is director Catherine Hardwicke, who also directed “The Nativity Story” (2006), “Lords of Dogtown” (2005) and “Thirteen” (2003).
For instance, during Bella’s first few encounters with Edward, poor Robert Pattinson’s performance is laugh-out-loud ludicrous — again, something I blame on Hardwicke’s instruction (or lack thereof). I’m sure the book describes a similar scene, but Edward just keeps staring at Bella — “real hard.” Honestly, I was worried the kid was going to pull something from straining so much. … And incidentally, shooting a person’s movements at a slower speed so they’ll playback in fast-forward, merely looks like fast-forward, not super-human speed.
Otherwise, the film’s casting works. The Cullen vampires are beautiful people, as the book prescribes. Kristen Stewart, who is somewhat reminiscent of the “Gilmore Girls’” Alexis Bledel, makes a fine Bella. Pattinson’s Edward is a faint mix between Jason Priestley and New Age pianist Paul Cardall — especially during his piano scene. And Cam Gigandet’s (“Never Back Down”) James is genuinely unsettling.
Vampire movies have been around a long time; the German film, “Nosferatu” (1922), is the earliest one I was aware of, but according to a vampire history Web site, a British film called “The Secrets of House No. 5” (1912) was the first one. (Tod Browning and Bela Lugosi’s “Dracula” didn’t come out until 1931.)
In any case, vampires have been in the cinema for decades, and their attributes have been fairly consistent, until recently. The overlooked “Cronos” (1993) throws a different spin on vampirism, for example. And “Twilight” is quite liberal with its vampiric “rules” and limitations. But much like zombies, who have become frighteningly fast in recent years, I guess vampires have to evolve, too.
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke
Kristen Stewart / Robert Pattinson / Billy Burke
Romance / Thriller 122 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence and a scene of sensuality)
U.S. Release Date: November 21, 2008
Copyright 2008: 327
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Classifying a Movie as a "Rental"
by Jason Pyles
How often do I disagree with Roger Ebert? Not very often.
But in Ebert’s Oct. 23 Answer Man column, he said that recommending a movie as a rental (as opposed to seeing it in the theater) is terrible advice. Ebert said when someone tells you to “wait for the video,” that usually means don’t see it, but he thinks it should mean see the movie. After all, Ebert reasons, two hours of a person’s life are the same whether they’re spent in the theater or at home.
I submit that the deal-breaker between recommending a theater viewing and a video rental is whether a film is worth paying $8 to see, or is it only worth $3? (Yeah, yeah, I know, when considering matinee prices versus evening shows, exorbitant Blockbuster video prices, reasonable Netflix prices, etc., it all depends. Indeed, the cost of watching movies can vary wildly, but generally speaking, I hope we can agree that renting a movie is typically less expensive than seeing it in the theater, all things considered.)
Many people I know only make it out to the theater on special occasions, meaning, a few times a year. So if I encourage them to go to the theater and sit among texting, talking, seat-kicking strangers, instead of watching it in the comfort of their own homes, which also have surround sound and big-screen TVs, then it had better be worth it. My friend Andy Howell immediately comes to mind.
There are four reasons to see a film in the theater:
1.) The audio-visual experience and being part of that week’s big, pop-culture event
2.) For a date
3.) If it’s truly excellent or has big surprises that could be spoiled by overhearing too much buzz
4.) Simply because you like going to the theater
And if you’re a movie critic, 5.) Because you have to review the movie asap.
Of course, there are some films that should be seen in theaters first: The six “Star Wars” episodes are good examples, because of the spectacle, the event itself, and the monster speakers. (When I heard Jango Fett’s “depth charges” (or whatever those explosive devices were called) that he unleashed while being pursued by Obi-Wan in Episode II, it was unforgettable. In fact, I saw “Attack of the Clones” a second time in the theater, just to be enveloped again in those two overwhelming sounds.)
But there was no reason to catch “Dan in Real Life” in the theater (even though it’s a good movie), when it was cheaper and more comfortable to snuggle up with my sweetheart and watch it at home.
However, whenever going out to the theater is part of a date-night itinerary, then the theater’s a fine (albeit unsociable) choice.
I realize that box-office figures send production companies “messages” from the public, which means avoiding the theater could potentially hurt the making of future, similarly good films. But DVD rentals and sales also send a message.
And as a movie critic (or a friend giving an opinion about a movie to another friend), it seems like it’s my duty to be an advocate for my trusting inquirer’s “movie allowance.” After all, we only have so much money we can spend on seeing movies. In addition, I also realize that movie critics should also be advocates for great films, which brings me to my final point.
Besides experiencing an audio-visual extravaganza or seeing a fine flick on a date, the only other reason to invest in theater prices is because the movie is so good, you shouldn’t wait for it to hit video. A good example of this would be “The Sixth Sense,” which also has a big secret that you wouldn’t want to risk being spoiled for you in the passing months until it hits DVD.
And don’t forget the people who see movies at the theater just for the experience of going out to the movies. That’s OK, too, of course.
In my rating system — Masterpiece, Excellent, Good, OK, Mediocre, Avoid — oftentimes there’s a fine line between Excellent and Good, and Good and OK. But to be clear, when I say a film is Excellent, that means it’s worth seeing in the theater and will always be a good rental choice. But when I say a movie is a rental, that means it’s good — but not $8 good.
How often do I disagree with Roger Ebert? Not very often.
But in Ebert’s Oct. 23 Answer Man column, he said that recommending a movie as a rental (as opposed to seeing it in the theater) is terrible advice. Ebert said when someone tells you to “wait for the video,” that usually means don’t see it, but he thinks it should mean see the movie. After all, Ebert reasons, two hours of a person’s life are the same whether they’re spent in the theater or at home.
I submit that the deal-breaker between recommending a theater viewing and a video rental is whether a film is worth paying $8 to see, or is it only worth $3? (Yeah, yeah, I know, when considering matinee prices versus evening shows, exorbitant Blockbuster video prices, reasonable Netflix prices, etc., it all depends. Indeed, the cost of watching movies can vary wildly, but generally speaking, I hope we can agree that renting a movie is typically less expensive than seeing it in the theater, all things considered.)
Many people I know only make it out to the theater on special occasions, meaning, a few times a year. So if I encourage them to go to the theater and sit among texting, talking, seat-kicking strangers, instead of watching it in the comfort of their own homes, which also have surround sound and big-screen TVs, then it had better be worth it. My friend Andy Howell immediately comes to mind.
There are four reasons to see a film in the theater:
1.) The audio-visual experience and being part of that week’s big, pop-culture event
2.) For a date
3.) If it’s truly excellent or has big surprises that could be spoiled by overhearing too much buzz
4.) Simply because you like going to the theater
And if you’re a movie critic, 5.) Because you have to review the movie asap.
Of course, there are some films that should be seen in theaters first: The six “Star Wars” episodes are good examples, because of the spectacle, the event itself, and the monster speakers. (When I heard Jango Fett’s “depth charges” (or whatever those explosive devices were called) that he unleashed while being pursued by Obi-Wan in Episode II, it was unforgettable. In fact, I saw “Attack of the Clones” a second time in the theater, just to be enveloped again in those two overwhelming sounds.)
But there was no reason to catch “Dan in Real Life” in the theater (even though it’s a good movie), when it was cheaper and more comfortable to snuggle up with my sweetheart and watch it at home.
However, whenever going out to the theater is part of a date-night itinerary, then the theater’s a fine (albeit unsociable) choice.
I realize that box-office figures send production companies “messages” from the public, which means avoiding the theater could potentially hurt the making of future, similarly good films. But DVD rentals and sales also send a message.
And as a movie critic (or a friend giving an opinion about a movie to another friend), it seems like it’s my duty to be an advocate for my trusting inquirer’s “movie allowance.” After all, we only have so much money we can spend on seeing movies. In addition, I also realize that movie critics should also be advocates for great films, which brings me to my final point.
Besides experiencing an audio-visual extravaganza or seeing a fine flick on a date, the only other reason to invest in theater prices is because the movie is so good, you shouldn’t wait for it to hit video. A good example of this would be “The Sixth Sense,” which also has a big secret that you wouldn’t want to risk being spoiled for you in the passing months until it hits DVD.
And don’t forget the people who see movies at the theater just for the experience of going out to the movies. That’s OK, too, of course.
In my rating system — Masterpiece, Excellent, Good, OK, Mediocre, Avoid — oftentimes there’s a fine line between Excellent and Good, and Good and OK. But to be clear, when I say a film is Excellent, that means it’s worth seeing in the theater and will always be a good rental choice. But when I say a movie is a rental, that means it’s good — but not $8 good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
