TGITDNMAR (7/13/07)

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released. These mid-week releases are really wreaking havoc on this feature, as, once again, I've already seen (and written a review for) the highest profile film released. Nonetheless, I will trudge on despite the obstacles being thrown at me (if this were a movie, the captain would have just turned on the "Oscar Speech" sign).

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Typically, series that have a fifth entry are either Bond movies or of the horror ilk, and have had the gas run out of them two (or twenty) sequels ago. Harry Potter, however, is a different bird somehow - one in which the number in the title (if there were a number, that is) makes little to no difference in the quality of the film at hand. One thing that helps is that we all know that there is an end in sight (coming to theaters in 2010) and I suppose it also helps that J.K. Rowling has put some pretty good source material behind the films. Enough foreplay, I suppose - you can already see that I saw this...

Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 100%

Captivity

Did you know that Elisha Cuthbert is only 5'2"? Did you know that she's also throwing any semblance of a career away via a steady diet of torture porn? Sure, she's been in a couple quality movies (Old School, The Girl Next Door), but c'mon...House of Wax and now this? I can't understand how anyone would willingly go see this movie.

Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 0%

Rescue Dawn

I'm sure that the real story is inspirational and sad and uplifting all at the same time, but I wish Rescue Dawn weren't based on a true story, as all suspense and drama is drained via our knowing the outcome of the tale (much like A Mighty Heart, only the complete opposite). Nevertheless, I remain a big Christian Bale fan, and though I'm a bit dumbfounded by the Steve Zahn buzz, I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as he's been such a good supporting character for so long.

Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 73%

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

I'm feeling conflicted, really. See, I have this certain opinion, yet I disagree with myself. Unfair as it may be, I'm sticking with my opinion, in spite of the fact that I think it's wrong in this case. Let me explain.

About every other year, a good-great comedy or action movie comes along and around Oscar time, we wonder first of all, if said film will be nominated for Best Picture, and if so, does it have a chance in hell of winning. Outside of the win by Lord of the Rings: Return of the King a few years back, said film typically doesn't have a chance in hell of winning (and even the Return of the King win felt more like a comprehensive win for the series rather for being recognized itself as a tremendous movie.

Why does this happen? Why are comedies and action/adventurers not taken as seriously or appreciated by cineasts as much as your run-of-the-mill drama?

I don't know - and generally speaking, I'm guilty of it, too. Ask me (or many others) what some of my "favorite" movies are and I'll cite Fletch (naturally), Office Space, The Princess Bride, Raiders of the Lost Ark and other such films; yet if you ask me (or those others) what the "best" movies are and the chances are pretty solid that none of those films (save for perhaps Raiders, which was nominated for Best Picture) will make the list. For whatever reason, we (collectively) just don't grant the same respect to these movies.

And here I am again, doubting myself. The latest in the Harry Potter series is, unbelievably, the best yet, and one of the best movies I've seen this year. It was generally accepted that Prisoner of Azkaban was the best of the series, and I shared that sentiment as well - Alfonso Cuaron's entry was the first that felt more like an adult film and less like a child fantasy (not that there's anything wrong with that necessarily). Yet Order of the Phoenix is this series' Empire Strikes Back - it has far and away the best plot of the series, and despite its origin book being the longest, the film clocks in at a (by comparison) brisk two hours and eighteen minutes. Free of time-consuming distractions like meaningless quidditch matches or the misguided band/dance scene from Goblet of Fire, director David Yates is able to focus on the meat and potatoes of the story.

That's not to say that there aren't things that might have been improved. There's more than one character that feels less like a character and more like a plot point, present only to advance the story or to impart some wisdom on Harry and his friends. Others, like Hagrid and even Professor Moody, feel like also-rans, squeezed out of the movie in favor of bigger fish that need frying (even Harry's "love interest" Cho Chang is generally dismissed, though I don't really see that as a bad thing). On the bright side, Alan Rickman's Severus Snape finally gets a much deserved meatier role, and Michael Gambon's Dumbledore finally shows us some of what has made him a legend in the wizarding world. Also, for the first time in the series, the more anonymous "Harry allies" like Neville Longbottom and the other Weasley siblings (especially twins Fred and George) are more than just background characters.

The script and effects deliver as well. Despite the series' progressive (and much ballyhooed) "darkness," there are probably more laughs in Order of the Phoenix than in the previous three films combined. Meanwhile, there were several occasions where I had to drop my jaw and say "Wow" to some of the creativity and execution of the special effects, culminating in the dazzling finale.

In the end, I'm guilty of succumbing to my own preconceived notions about action movies, much less sequels. As much as I might like to ordain this amongst "the best around," a part of me still sees it as an effects-laden summer movie based on a book dealing with standard themes about teamwork, loyalty and friendship. Nevertheless, while it won't be confused with a trailblazing film like Pulp Fiction anytime soon, it's the best movie of the summer (thus far), one of the best of the year, and the best yet in a great series.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"It's in the hole!"


For the record, I haven't read any of the books in the series. Also, just for fun, here are my ratings for the previous movies in the series:

Sorcerer's Stone




Chamber of Secrets




Prisoner of Azkaban




Goblet of Fire

And then...

Fletch's Favored Five: Renaissance Films

I figure its high time I class up this joint, and what better way to do so than to honor some films that have gone beyond their appreciation of film stock and enriched our lives with that more respected medium - painting. Keep in mind, I'm no art expert, and I don't know much, but I know what I like...

While recently re-watching The Royal Tenenbaums, I was able to fall in love again with the Miguel Calderon painting to your right (and its complement - not shown) that is prominent in one of my favorite scenes. I'd rather not spoil it, so if you haven't seen the film - shame on you, first of all, as it's one of the best of the last 15 years - do so immediately and pay particular attention to a scene between Luke and Owen Wilson that takes place in Owen's characters' apartment.

Some other objects of my affection:

Much as I'm busying classing up the joint, John Hughes did so some twenty years ago with Ferris Bueller's Day Off. In what some might classify as merely being a teen comedy about a smartass slacker, Hughes not only had his trio of high schoolers taking in the stock exchange and fine dining at Chez Quis, but in what is one of the more memorable scenes, had them visit the Chicago Museum of Art, where Cameron famously gets lost in Seurat's "Sunday Afternoon."


Though the above entries are certainly hard to miss in their respective films, none are irreplaceable, and have no bearing to the plot. They most likely could have been replaced with another work of art with the audience not losing out on much. However, Magritte's "The Son of Man" gets a more prominent showcase in 1999's The Thomas Crown Affair, becoming a plot point central to the film's finale.


Amongst the many memorable sights to be seen in the Harry Potter series, the talking (and seeing, and apparently feeling) paintings that adorn the walls of the many stairwells and the dormitories has got to be one of the most creative and interesting. Though featured in some small part or another in all of the films thus far, they are given a more robust look in Prisoner of Azkaban, as the matronly woman who looks over the Gryffindor house is given quite a scare by the threat of one Sirius Black.


The work of artist Michael Sowa is featured in 2001's Amelie, and some are given speaking (or at least moving) parts as well. In what is often described as a "whimsical" film (though I find that description dismissive), seeing the artwork move and talk isn't all that unexpected, and Sowa's form lends itself perfectly to the tone of the movie.

Got more? You know what to do...

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Sicko

I'm happy to report that I was wrong. With both his curveball and fastball still intact, Michael Moore's Sicko is no different in tone than any of his previous efforts. Alternately informative and infuriating, Moore still finds plenty of time for his sardonic wit to shine through.

Through possibly an easy task, those that spend their time picking holes in Moore's arguments and/or railing him for his stunts (he attempts to take a group of folks to Guantanamo Bay for treatment, for example) are wasting their time and missing the point. Slanted as Moore may be, and however uninformed he may be in regards to the health care systems in place in Canada, France, et al, Moore's heart and head are squarely in the right place at all times. He sees a (big) problem with the US health care system and is looking at countries that maybe, just possibly, have a better system.

Amongst my few complaints with Sicko is Moore's inability to let the past go. Despite my feelings for Bush and his administration (hint: they're not fans of mine), it smacks of bitterness and stubbornness for Moore to take unrelated potshots at Bush in this film. Rail him all you want as it applies to health care, but leave the Iraq/election jabs in the editing room. There aren't many to be heard, but there's enough.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"It's in the hole!"

And then...

Some of my favorite "characters"

Steve Buscemi. John Turturro. Eric Stolz. J.T. Walsh. Paul Giamatti. R. Lee Ermey. Samuel L. Jackson.

What do these men have in common? Aside from large filmographies, all were known once upon a time as "character actors." The best of them, some would say. Early in their film careers, they were not stars - until the indie scene took off in the mid-nineties, you could argue that none would have ever had the chance at starring in a film. However, as time went on and their profiles grew, they went from being "that guy" that you recognize from 10 other films to quasi-household names (or even more, in the cases of Jackson and Giamatti). Sadly, J.T. Walsh died too young, and Ermey has always been typecast (and rightfully so); but the rest got their due.

So just for the hell of it, I'd like to list some of my current favorite "that guys" or character actors or whatever you want to call them. Some are familiar faces, some are familiar names, but chances are you've seen all of them at one time or another, and will most likely see more of them in the near future:

Karl Urban
This Kiwi is probably the biggest name of those you'll see here, as he recently starred in a major (sort of) action flick (Pathfinder, which bombed). Urban compares favorably to someone like Jason Statham, perhaps minus the martial arts training. Nonetheless, he has shone in previous films such as: The Bourne Supremacy, the disappointing The Chronicles of Riddick, and, most notably, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, where he appeared prominently in the latter two films. Up next: co-starring with Laurence Fishburne in the next Tony Kaye (American History X) film, and Run, from director John McTiernan (Die Hard).

Alan Tudyk
Yarr! Though not in character in the picture to your left, Tudyk famously played Steve the Pirate in Dodgeball and, most recently, played Katherine Heigl's E! boss in Knocked Up. He's also had voiceover roles in both Ice Age films, as well as the "lead" robot in I, Robot. But he'll always be Steve the Pirate to me.





Geoffrey Arend
Though he'll probably be forever remember for his bit part in Supertroopers ("The snozzberries taste like snozzberries!"), Arend has been pretty visible over the last few years, from a role in Garden State to numerous TV and commercial appearances (looks like he's hit the Law & Order trifecta, having had a role on all three versions), to his work as a video game voiceover actor. He even played a mentally challenged guy in Johnny Knoxville's The Ringer. Whatever he's doing, just seeing him onscreen is enough to get a laugh out of me.


David Wenham
Though you probably don't recognize him from the picture shown, he's been a go-to guy in some of the biggest action movies of the past five years, having also appeared in the latter two LOTR movies in addition to his prominent role in this year's 300. Before his American breakthough, the Aussie had been toiling around since the early 80s, with later appearances in films such as Moulin Rouge and Dark City.



Want to see more great That Guys and Gals? Fametracker is an awesome site that more or less catalogs the rises and falls of a number of them, from the ones listed at the top of this page to other great ones (who you've definitely seen time and again) like Stephen Tobolowsky, Xander Berkeley, and J.K. Simmons. Their virtual encyclopedia can be found here.

Some more resources:
* http://www.cracked.com/index.php?name=News&sid=1990
* http://www.avclub.com/content/node/48274
* http://www.what-a-character.com/

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Live Free or Die Hard

Apparently, the critics and movie audiences of the world have lowered their standards. Considerably. To think that Live Free or Die Hard is currently rated at an 8.1/10 on IMDb, or that the film regularly scores four out of five stars is all a bit disconcerting. Because, really, there isn't all that much to crow about.

I guess, in some respects, I can understand it. After all, this is the fourth in the series, and number fours aren't typically very representative of the overall quality of a franchise. The laundry list of fatal fours is long and undistinguished: Batman & Robin, Lethal Weapon 4, The Phantom Menace. Not a decent film amongst them. So, in comparison, Live Free looks like a masterpiece.

For a mindless summer popcorn flick, it's pretty effective - just be sure to remember the "no mind" portion. With almost nonstop action (it starts within 12 minutes or so of the opening credits and continues throughout), the movie certainly fulfills its requirement as an adrenaline-pumping, testocerone-fueled explosion and crash-fest.

However, it's not particularly great (or believable, which I guess goes without saying) action. Also, it may as well have been titled Generic Action Film No. 4, as there's really no connection to any of the previous films outside of some character names. As I've mentioned in this space before, for all the talk of John McClane being "an analog hero in a digital world," well, is that even true - much less relevant? Was there really that much character established in the first three films? For all the things we knew about McClane previously (troubled marriage, smoker, recovering alcoholic, NY cop, smartass), the only things that really carry over are the cop and smartass part, which makes him and the film unique to no one. Toss in Willis' bald head and he doesn't even look like the McClane from the earlier films.

Then again, all of this is pretty unimportant. The fact is, people want a rekindling of the film that they recognized as one of the best of the action genre some 18 years ago, and this edition falls far short. Though the story starts off pretty strong, the action gets ridiculous in a short time and just keeps getting more ridiculous from there on out, culminating in a borderline offensively bad sequence involving a semi, a fighter jet and a freeway (all of which feels totally egregious and serves the plot in no way whatsoever).

On the bright side, Justin Long and Kevin Smith add a light touch. Unfortunately, Timothy Olyphant's talents are wasted on a boring role that will disappear from your memory within minutes of leaving the theater. Can't say that about Jeremy Iron's Simon, that's for sure - and an action movie is only as good as its villain, anyway.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Whatever."

And then...

TGITDNMAR (7/6/07)

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released. Unfortunately, due to the holiday, we're just going to have to pretend that today is Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday all rolled into one, as one of the films below was released on each of those days. But none of us wants to see the title for this feature listed as Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released, As Well As A Couple Of Other Days From Earlier In The Week. That could get a bit lengthy...

Transformers
Peter Cullen is officially one of my new heroes. I implore you to click on the link and check out his resume. Sure, the man is already an icon amongst most people (okay, males) between the ages of 25-35 for the simple fact that he is the voice of Optimus Prime, leader of the Autobots and star of the show. However! Would you have ever guessed that he has been the voice of Eeyore for some time? How about a number of characters from GI Joe? Or Voltron? He even did a voice on the Transformers knockoff GoBots! All this and the man is barely 50 years old. Anyway, I've already seen the film (review to come next week), so...
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 100%


License to Wed
I like John Krasinski. Mandy Moore's alright. Robin Williams used to be tolerable, even hilarious or poignant at times. Throw all that out the window. I think I'd rather watch Gigli or Monster-in-Law before heading out to see this steaming pile. But if you're a fan of director Ken Kwapis' The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, you can be my guest.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 3%


Joshua
This is the film that last year's Omen remake could have been, if not in story, then at least in terms of ambition and/or mood. If you've seen the trailer, you know that this looks like a twisted, perverse movie, starring a kid who (if the film grabs any amount of success) will be typecast as "the creepy kid" for years to come. Sam Rockwell and Vera Farmiga (The Departed) co-star.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 49%

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: A Mighty Heart

How do you make an entertaining film about someone's death? Even more so, how do you do said task when all members of the audience know that the death is coming? Separate from those two questions, why is said film released in summer, at the height of blockbuster movie season?

While director Michael Winterbottom (Code 46) is left to deal with the first two questions, the last one must be saved for the studio that released A Mighty Heart (Paramount Vintage).

Try as he might, Winterbottom succeeds in making a film that, while painful to watch (due to subject matter) at many times, is still capable of some light humor and tense drama. The story of the death of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, told through the eyes of his loved ones and pursuers at and after the time of his abduction in Pakistan is not an easy story to tell, to be sure. However, if any director was up to the task, it is Winterbottom, whose multi-culti style of filmmaking and feel for moods is a perfect way to take a heart wrenching story and practically turn it into a documentary, all while maintaining a standard film narrative. Though you never get the feeling that the film is choppy, you might also notice (as I did) that no single camera shot lasts longer than 10 seconds (if that) and no scene lasts longer than a few minutes. This brisk method keeps the viewer (and the characters, to some extent) from ever having a chance to sit back and wonder about the inevitable - you're too busy keeping up with all the sights and sounds onscreen to let you head get bogged down by the truth.

Many have chastised the casting of Angelina Jolie as Marianne Pearl, from reasons as diverse as "she's not ethnic-looking enough" to "she's too big a star to portray this character" to "she's distracting." These are unfair criticisms levied by people who can't or don't want to get past Jolie in their own heads. Too distracting? Too big a star? If these were true, Jolie would pretty much have to give up acting, as no one would buy her in any role. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but Jack Nicholson continues to act, and people even occasionally think he does a good job. Same goes for Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro. As for the "ethnic" stance - take a look at a picture of Pearl and a picture of Jolie-as-Pearl. Tell me she doesn't look like her - if Jessica Alba can play black, white, brown, Puerto Rican or Haitian, I think Jolie can get away with Marianne Pearl. When she's in blackface and a fat suit playing Aretha Franklin, let me know.

The rest of the cast is similarly solid. Jerry Bruckheimer's favorite character actor, Will Patton, seems wildly out of place to anyone familiar with his oeuvre, but he is effective and probably doesn't stand out one bit to those unaware of his work in Remember the Titans, Armageddon, and Gone in Sixty Seconds. Irfan Khan (The Namesake) is great again in a paternal role, and, if I didn't already have a great dad, I would want to adopt him as my stepfather based solely on his acting performances. Actor-writer Dan Futterman (The Birdcage, Capote) gets to portray the saintly Daniel Pearl.

Therein lies one of the few flaws of A Mighty Heart. It's not spoiling anything to say that Danny Pearl is treated in the highest of regard here; after all, the film is shown through his widows' eyes and is based on a book she wrote about his life to her infant child. Though his relative merits or flaws are quite probably irrelevant to the story being told, there might have been a bit more meaning granted to the life and death of a human rather than of an ideal or stereotype (the honest, hardworking, truth-seeking-at-all-costs journalist).

The film concludes with a dedication from Marianne to her newborn son. "This film is for Adam," says Marianne. This is meant to be a heartwarming reassurance that their son will learn the truth about his father's life and death, and it seeks to give some closure to the story. But am I the only one that sees the story of a man's death (not his life, despite the few short snippets given) being the love letter to his child as being absurdly morbid, especially when said child is not even old enough to comprehend anything that goes on onscreen? Then again, maybe Marianne just wanted him to hear the news from his "mother" rather than from the news.

Fletch's Film Rating:


"Darn tootin'!"

And then...

Songs that must be retired from movie soundtracks

I need your assistance, as my memory is only so good and all of the internets are only so much help here. Perhaps this post will help other geeks in the future.

See, while I was sitting in the theater the other night waiting for the feature to begin, I was subjected yet again to the Fine Young Cannibals' 1989 smash hit "She Drives Me Crazy" playing in the trailer for the upcoming The Nanny Diaries. IMDb lists just three other high profile soundtrack appearances for the song (Hitch, The Other Sister, and Gross Anatomy), but I'm pretty sure that trailer appearances alone don't count towards that total (in case you're wondering, "Good Thing" has two such entries, and I'm not counting TV entries of foreign films). In fact, I'm going to go on the safe side and just multiply any IMDb soundtrack search total by 5 to completely unscientifically and woefully inaccurately calculate a songs' "trailer rating."

Outside of the Cannibals, I know that there metric tons of these songs that get overused to death in movie trailers, yet everyone keeps thinking that using them is a good idea (these people probably work in their spare time as wedding DJs, as many of the songs would probably top a list of "songs played to death at weddings" as well). Some other examples:

* Looking for a song for a zany comedy about a dysfunctional family and/or a slapsticky wedding-themed romantic comedy? Sister Sledge's "We Are Family" should be right up your alley. An IMDb search shows that "Family" has appeared on five soundtracks. Trailer rating: 25.

* Feelin' particularly good today? Just got a raise or found out you're not gonna die today? Katrina & the Waves would like you to go "Walking on Sunshine"! Don't it feel good? IMDb search total: 7. Trailer rating: 35.

* Are you a nerd about to get his comeuppance? Maybe a downtrodden secretary about to show your evil boss what's what? Aretha Franklin's "Respect" is your pick. IMDb search total:
15. Trailer rating: an astonishing 75.

* Credence Clearwater Revival earns an anthology award, as anything from "Fortunate Son" to "Born on the Bayou" may be used to demonstrate that your movie's characters are either a) livin' in the 60s and just aren't gonna take it from the Man anymore and/or b) are stoners/hippies. Search and trailer rating incalculable.

These songs must be stopped, and the people that continually use them time and again must relinquish their powers, however limited they may be. I'm not walking on sunshine, I don't have respect for them, they're not my family, and yes, they do drive me crazy.

Got more? You know the drill. Chime in with a comment or email me at blogcabins@yahoo.com.

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Ratatouille

Though I unfortunately can't find a link to properly give credit, Gregg Easterbrook, a writer who files a weekly column for ESPN.com during the football season, once wrote of a paradox that affects video games (he was referring to the Madden series at the time, though it can be applied universally). To sum up, the article said that as technology gets better and the graphics, interface and speed get exponentially better for video games, the flaws become all the more apparent to the avid user. When Pitfall was being played on your Atari in 1984 (or whenever), you weren't complaining that the crocodiles looked "totally fake" or how Pitfall Harry was only comprised of 14 pixels. No, because compared to Pong or Pac-Man, it was revolutionary! It was brilliant!

As time went by, however, and the next new thing came along (say, Tecmo Bowl or The Legend of Zelda), the cracks in Pitfall Harry's face started to show. Skip ahead a few generations and the flaws of the past start to get ignored, while the flaws of the current media become all the more apparent. In the Madden NFL series, this may be that the artificial intelligence used by the computer just doesn't act the way a real player or team would, or that the digitally rendered Lambeau Field just doesn't look the same way in the game as it does in reality.

This is all a long way of saying that, as expectations grow, even the slightest deficiencies become all that much more apparent. This is also a long way of giving the computer animation in Ratatouille a giant compliment (with a twist). Though the "flaw" is a bit different, a similar type of situation arises. In Ratatouille, you don't notice the mistakes, you notice the lack of them. See, the film looks so real, so painstakingly perfect that, at times, you will be left wondering if the background you're seeing is animation or real? In the end, this is a disservice to the people that worked on the film - it seems it is possible to look too good. Which isn't to say that the whole thing looks photo-realistic - for the most part, the backgrounds and inanimate objects are captured as realistic as possible, while the characters themselves are much more, well, animated.

Since I have no other organized thoughts, here are some random leftovers:

* I didn't care for the use of a Jiminy Cricket-type character at all. Though somewhat necessary, as rats can't/don't verbally communicate with humans, it smacked of a weak plot device (a la speaking to the camera) used to get Remy's (the main character) thoughts verbalized.

* The seemingly random use of French accents was truly bizarre. The whole film takes place in France, with much of the action being in Paris, yet many characters have no accent whatsoever. Are the rats in France recent immigrants from America? And how does a character named Linguini have neither a French for Italian accent?

* The vocal talent assembled is diverse and effective; I was somewhat shocked to learn that Janeane Garafolo plays the female lead, a French (accented) chef who doesn't mess around. Additionally, Ian Holm, Brian Dennehy and Peter O'Toole all play prominent parts.

* To sum up, Ratatouille succeeds on many levels. The story is not groundbreaking by any means (fish out of water), but adds a few twists and turns along the way. Though the dialogue lends more to adults, there are a number of chase scenes and more than enough visual treats for kids and older kids alike.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Darn tootin'!"

And then...