5 Things That Have Annoyed Me About Movies This Summer

One "great" thing about my current lifestyle is the ability to pop off and see a movie whenever. I say "great" because this has, all things considered, been a pretty disappointing summer for movies. Alternatively, what the hell am I think expecting movies to be good? But in any event there were 5 specific things that especially annoyed me.

1. Sly Stalone's pretensions. Why take a perfectly good shoot 'em up and try to make it 'weighty' with some kind pathos and emotional heft? I appreciate the fact that Charisma Carpenter is age appropriate as a love interest for a graying bad-ass, but...WHY BOTHER? You are wasting my time with plot points no one could possibly invest in, and this popcorn ain't gonna eat itself. Also, why have Jet Li if he doesn't get a chance to kick ass?

2. If you are going to make a live action Sorcerer's Apprentice, if you don't plan on using or clearing THE music, you DON'T HAVE A MOVIE. Just shut her down right there.

3. Like there isn't enough nerd cred to break Scott Pilgrim into two movies. Is there anyone who wouldn't have like more Scott Pilgrim?

4. The marketing campaign for The American. For those that haven't seen it, it's basically a Leone Western, set in Italy. It's not George Clooney: Badass. Though Clooney is a badass, this isn't Identità Bourne, it's Unforgiven in small town Italy. Also, the final shot is a teensy bit on the nose, not quite as bad as "The Departed" but up that alley.

5. Speaking of endings that pissed me right off; Inception. Spolier alert and all that, but I call bullshit on a transparently, insultingly blatant message from Chris Nolan saying "TALK ABOUT MY MOVIE!!!!"

Look, I'm fine with ambiguity and think it was perfectly acceptable in this story. But much like a restaurant too-visibly angling for a 4-star review, the plea for memorability (and one would assume, Oscar's) is so evident as to be off-putting. In fact after being in a constant state of "this is awesome" all through the film, I left the theater frustrated and angered. I'm sure there are dozens and dozens of ways Nolan could have ended the film, but picking the one which caused about 75% of the audience with whom I saw it to audibly groan was probably the wrong answer.

Next film which has the potential to disappoint me horribly? "The Town".

Things On Thursday

• I don't usually read the local paper, because it's the local Anchorage paper. But, occasionally something perks my interest: this kind of headline (big letters, above the fold) pretty much guaranteed that I'm in. As to the substance of the article, I liked that movie better the first time. Or the maybe this first time. Whatever, still good stuff...

• Simba has a good one on the evil that is Billy Packer. Simmons is far more generous than I in explaining the essential Grinchness that is BP:

  Here's the problem: Packer loves basketball a little too much. He doesn't grasp its entertainment value simply because he can't see it. He's too busy wondering why a coach won't switch to a 2-3 zone or why a team has stopped pounding it inside or why they won't foul to stop the clock when they still have two to give. Trapped in the nuances of the game, it's like Packer has stumbled into the giant maze in "The Shining" and can't escape.

  Perhaps. Or he's just a dick. Whatever. Also see Simmons on the Rick Barnes-D.J. Augustin conspiracy to keep Kevin Durant in college.

• Upon repeated recommendations from Papa Pooh, finally watched "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada". And it was...weird. All the performances were good, the visuals were beautiful, but nothing was resolved in the end (which is I guess the point), and the non-linear story-telling was confusing due to the lack of visual cues as to which time frame each scene was set. 7/10.

• In worrying news, I've started playing teh poker again recently. A few things. A) I'm still pretty decent. B) There are a lot of people who know how to play, but have no idea how to play. C) I like free money. At this point, we're only playing live games at friends house's, since getting money into or out of online poker sites is dicey, as our former GOP congressional overlords thought that combating online poker was more important than little things like passing budgets or winning wars.

• I'm crippled in my favorite pool though still alive in the office pool (if Pitt beats UCLA, I'm in very good shape, actually). As for who I actually think wins today? Texas A&M over Memphis, since Memphis hasn't played anybody all season, and Acie Law is dominant in the clutch - classic tight game, late game choke from the more talented Tigers in this one. Kansas has way, way, way too much for Southern Illinois - KU has 4+ guys who can create their own shot, or make plays for others. As good as SIU's defense is, can they guard Julian Wright and Brandon Rush at the same time? Plus, I think Sherron Collins can make plays from the point, even against (or especially against, given his bowling ball style) physical defense. I think Tennessee's speed forces Ohio State to play fast. Which is unfortunate for UT, because I think OSU plays better when they go small with Conley, Butler, Lewis and Cook playing with Oden. Thad Motta could conceivably try and murder the Buckeyes again, (Xavier ran the same play about 10 times in a row - high pick and roll with Oden's guy setting the pick, giving him the ball 20 feet away from the basket, taking Oden off the dribble - without OSU having an inkling of stopping it, and Motta didn't make any adjustments. Like you know, putting Oden on a guy who couldn't dribble or something) but Buckeyes by 8 or so is the pick. UCLA beats Pitt in a shootout after another boring nil-nil draw.
  

"Black Snake Moan"

Watching this film may be the closest you'll ever come to seeing what the blues actually looks like. It's dirty, and it's stinky, but most of all, it's something that comes from within a person's soul.
- Frank Wilkins, Real Talk Movie Revies

If you're only going to see one movie featuring Sam Jackson with a reptilian title...actually, I neither want to finish the joke, nor google to see how many people have already beaten me to it.

BUT, I actually quite liked "BSM." Considering that it is the sophomore effort from Craig Brewer of "Hustle & Flow" fame, and it features Samuel L. Jackson, the Dirty-South blues, and Sam Jackson unabashedly channeling the late, exceedingly great R.L. Burnside (the film is dedicated to Burnside), my operative term for this one was "Wheelhouse" from the moment I heard about it.

And then I heard a little about the plot. What the hell is Christina Ricci doing in here? And then I saw the first preview last fall sometime (shown prior to Jackass 2, no less. A ringing endorsement for film quality.) 'Yes' I thought, 'Sam, why do you got her chained?' I became skeptical as to how this could possibly work. All my favorite feminists were predictably appalled.

And in truth, it doesn't work. But, Brewer knows that the whole premise is instantly risible. Instead of trying to make it believable, he ratchets the whole thing up to eleven so you're never really sure if he's serious or not. And many of the individual pieces are just right. The southern-fried atmospherics are perfect - watching in a theater carved out of the frozen tundra, it still felt sweaty and insect-filled. Jackson plays the perfect combo of broken-down and explosive-tempered - I'd have no problem seeing him whip out an actual Ass Pocket of Whiskey, and take a slug, as he drives his tractor.

And the music...first, see the quoted lead. Second, much like "Hustle & Flow" (and "8 Mile" as well), the palpable love, reverence even, that the film has for the redemptive power of the music is what makes the whole thing go. Third, the juke-joint scene near the end should (but obviously won't) retire the 'sweaty dance-club' genre of music videos. As Kenny the Jet would say "it's over, ladies and gentleman."

Somethings work less well. S. Epatha Merkeson has the only really thankless role in the piece. Ricci's performance is good. The problem is, like with Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball", her physical attractiveness is almost a distraction. If the movie was played completely straight, this would be a fatal flaw, but as a quasi-exploitation flick, Brewer just about gets away with it. Given the parallels between Jackson and Ricci's relationship here and that of DJay and Nola in "Hustle & Flow" one is almost forced to wonder about aspects of Brewer's personal history - "H&F" was unabashedly autobiographical, whereas BSM almost has to be more allegorical. But still, that this aspect was so similar in both it does make one think.

In the end, the movie adds up to something slightly less than the sum of its parts, certain dramatic shifts seem overly, well, dramatic, and the conclusion is all too neat. After a fully unique first 2/3rds, Brewer loses the courage that got him to that point.

As a final note, like it or not, 'Black Snake Moan' is unique. Given the excessively homogenized, focus-tested mess that is major American film-making today, I'm all for that. The best possible outcome is that someone will see the film as overtly misogynist and/or racist and make their own, similarly novel, movie almost as a response. I'm not holding my breath, however.

Guess Who's Back...

And there was much rejoicing, like we just ate Brave Sir Robin's minstrels.

Anyway, for those of you who didn't know, my extended absence was occasioned by...the occasion of the Alaska Bar Exam. In an effort to minimize my online time, and therefore maximize the studying, I rather cut myself off from the internet.

I didn't check email, I didn't surf, I didn't read or write blogs/comments. Heck I barely answered the phone...(thanks for the kind wishes those of you who provided them...) And for some reason, bar exam and studying therefore aside (how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?) this was kind of awesome. Except for the 600+ emails I have to sift through now...anyway, a lot happened while I was gone, but I can only review so much:

• The Departed was not the best movie of last year. I think we all know that. The problem is, can anyone think of a movie that was worhty of being called "the best"? For all intents and purposes, I thought "Little Miss Sunshine" was the betterest movie of 2006, but calling it "the best" is a bit like drafting Andrew Bogut #1 overall. Is that all there is? Reese Witherspoon should have won something, just so she could have come onstage again. Al Gore is not running, he was funny, twice, and no politician actually running is going to risk that.

• That Texas-Texas A&M game was all kinds of awesome. Acie Law yelling "That's what I Do!" at his teammates after making some ludicrous game saving three is why I love college hoops. Reminiscent of Cat Mobley telling Dickie V. of the guy guarding him "I'm busting that ass..."

• Tyler Hansbrough needs to stop letting himself be compared to Eric Montross. He should probably transfer to avoid it, at this point. Big gangly white kid? Check. Star for UNC? Check. Bleeds easily against Duke? Check. Vastly overrated pro prospect? Transfer, young man, transfer.

• I liked "The Black Donnellys" better the first time when it was called "The Godfather".

• Immediate post-exam observation: There is nothing worse than waking up smelling like last night's cigarettes. I spent most of the weekend in the shower trying to wash the smell off. That, and I couldn't really complete the thought required to turn it off and get out...
  

The Irony is Perhaps Lost

I really had no special desire to see this.

That is, until this (via Glennzilla):

In an Ironic Twist of Events, NBC and The CW Television Network Refuse to Air Ads for Documentary Focusing on Freedom of Speech...NBC responded to a clearance report submitted by the Weinstein Company’s media agency saying that the network “cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.”

The CW Television Network responded that it does “not have appropriate programming in which to schedule this spot.”

I'm not sure which angers me more, CW's lying (not being a demographer myself, I can only speculate that there would be substantial crossover in the audiences for say "Gilmore Girls" or "Veronica Mars" and the Dixie Chicks. But that's just me, who am I to tell the bastard child of the 5th and 6th broadcast networks (out of...six) that they have no clue?) or NBC's uncharacteristically bald-faced truth telling.

Glenn hits on a point I've made (see here) in the Net Neutrality debate:

Once corporate-owned networks start selecting which politically-tinged ads are "too controversial" and which ones are not, it is inevitable that messages which please the political leadership which regulates those corporations will be allowed, while messages that displease those political leaders will be rejected.

FWIW this will probably shake out in favor of the film, if this controversy gets any play at all. For example, I now think I'm going to go see it seven or eight times out of spite. And I hate the Dixie Chicks...

"The Departed"

Finally saw "The Departed" this weekend, and while it was eminently watchable, and certainly worth my $9.25 (!), it didn't quite match the hype. I'm underwhelmed in large part because there was nothing new here. It's a nice genre piece, but I've seen it all before (though I actually haven't seen "Infernal Affairs" the Hong Kong film which this is a remake of).

I suppose as a whole, "The Departed" is a superior film to "Gangs of New York," but "Gangs" was more interesting because of my unfamiliarity with the milieu. Performance-wise, Damon, Di Caprio, Baldwin and especially Wahlberg were great, and I don't think Nicholson was as "big" as everyone has been saying (there was one Lecterish moment, but that was largely it for the indulgent scenery-chewing.)

I endorse wholeheartedly the criticism of the inanity of the film's final shot. The phrase "on the nose" comes to mind.

Perhaps I'd be more positive if the tautest portion of the film hadn't been spolied by the fact that not one but several idiots brought their toddlers to a Marty Freakin Scorecese movie. Are you high? So the rightly lauded scene consisting of Damon and Di Caprio silently listening to each other being silent over a phone connection was broken up with ga-ga-ing, and perhaps a goo-goo or two. Spolis the tension somewhat...Plus one of the kids couldn't sit still, and was wearing those shoes with the lights in the heels, so it looked like there were cop cars actually sitting in the front of the theatre with the lights on.

Anyway, if you can stand violence and profanity, see it. Thoroughly professional, though not quite transcendant. B+

Col. Jessop Revisited - Means and Ends

As if by kismet, Andrew Olmsted, the new frontpager at ObWi dives into a topic I've been noodling over recently. Rewatching "A Few Good Men" for the umpteenth time, I was struck by the question of where Jessop goes irretrievably off the rails? In the dramatic context of the film, Jack Nicholson's Jessop is unquestionably the primary villain (with an assist from Bauer-in-training Kiefer Sutherland), but it's safe to say that his larger worldview has a certain degree of acceptance. First, consider the speech in question:

"You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

Andrew, a military man himself, is conflicted:

While I am a fan of the film and I believe the outcome was the correct one, I am not alone among military personnel in acknowledging that while COL Jessup was wrong not to accept responsibility for his actions, the points he makes in the above speech are nonetheless valid.

(Read the whole post, it certainly deserves the attention.) In the very enlightening comments which follow, he adds

The passage of the speech I consider accurate is the opening: "Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it?" That is a fact. Is his current assignment vital to national security? I don't think so, but even a Colonel doesn't get to make that call. His orders are to hold Guantanamo and to protect his Marines, and he is attempting to do so. . . But in the bigger picture, until humanity decides it's 'not gonna study war no more' military personnel will remain a necessary evil. The rest of the speech I do not generally agree with, but as I noted above, I can sympathize with Jessup's position. It can be frustrating to be judged by people who have no idea what military service is like. But, I'd rather live under that system than any other.

While dramatic convention demands to Jessop be portrayed as a unapologetic twirly-mustache type, the real-world proponents of an authoritarian, "get tough" attitude are not. By many accounts, John Yoo is quite personable, funny even. Aside from VP Penguin and Karl Rove, there is no one involved who is as individually loathsome on a personal level. No one fills the archtypical "lead baddie" role.

"You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall," he says. A lot (I'd say most) of Americans probably see it that way, though the advent of blogging has probably put the lie to the "deep down in places you don't talk about at parties" portion - we talk about it all the time. At times it seems like it's all we talk about.

But it's not enough to simply "stand the post", I don't think - Jessop himself uses "words like honor, code, loyalty" but his actions subvert their very meaning. He himself lies about his conduct, ignores orders and shows an appalling lack of loyalty to Dawson and Downey.

In reading Gaddis's "Cold War", I wrote that one of the author's key points was the extent to which living up to one's ideals (or at least making the attempt) matters. Obviously, he's a fictional character, so it's unwise to draw too strong a message, but Jessop is an object lesson. When means become an end to themselves what happens to the original goal? In this case, what started out as the productive and noble goal of providing a strong defense of his country got hijacked by the personal agenda to show just how badass he could be - yes being a badass probably helps the original aim, but they aren't the same thing, and in losing sight of this, Jessop lost his claim to nobility of purpose.

To draw a broader lesson, which I also alluded to earlier, it's easy to lose sight of the end goal (which is not "winning" unless you are actually playing a sport) - I don't espouse liberal ideology because Hillary Clinton has a right (divine or more likely otherwise) to be President in 2009, but because I think that certain things like civil liberties, respect for empricism, and the social safety net are 'Good Things' - to the extent I get sidetracked from these things to focus on merely 'winning,' it had better be instrumental rather than simple boosterism. Otherwise, what am I about?

(Cross-posted at Kakistocracy)

"Talladega Nights"

Will Farrell's latest is almost the classic "love it or hate it" comedy. It's a fully constructed satire rather than the string of pratfalls and fart jokes which characterize, say, Old School. If the premise strikes you as funny, so will the film. If not, you'll think it's just dumb. Personally, I loved it, but I've been on the other side of the coin often enough to recognize that you could go either way.

What is objecticely true is that Ali G steals large portions of the movie as the French NASCAR driver (running the green "Perrier" car, no less). Mr. Baron Cohen may be the Peter Sellers of our time.

The experience is probably audience dependant to a degree - for whatever reason, a film mocking NASCAR Man didn't seem to play well in Anchorage. Funny, that. But if you can see it in some sort of movie pub, it would be absolutely perfect.

"MIami Vice" - Less than the Sum of Its Parts

Because I'm a FanBoiiiiii I went to see "Vice" on opening night, but before I get to the movie, a few things first. If you have a choice, do not see movies at Regal Cinemas - there must have been 20 minutes of commericals before the previews. (6 previews = good. However only two of the films looked definitely interesting. Two were of the resurgent "everything is crap and is getting worse" genre. I liked this one better when it was called Remember the Hoosier Wildcats when Coach Carter sent them down Glory Road so they can be Breaking Away. At least, I think that was the title. I can't even remember the sixth film, so clearly the trailer worked...) (Update: GAH! The 6th Sensepreview? I see dead people (with snake bites in their necks. On a M**********n' Plane!)

Anyway, as for the film, there was much to like. Michael Mann obviously fell in love with shooting digitally for "Collateral" and the same style works well here. So much of the film is at night, or shot in degrees of darkness, that the depth in detail supplied by digital filming is absolutely vital. The film looks fantastic. And Mann has always been great about shooting large, sprawling set-pieces, from the finale of "Last of the Mohicans" to the bank heist in "Heat." Again, no exceptions here. Similarly, the score is big and sweeping, more good stuff.

Going along with the look, the tone of the movie is almost mordantly dark. In retrospect, this isn't surprising, as behind the pastels and eye-candy, the TV show was most noted for being 'grittier' than what came before it. With "NYPD Blue" and "The Shield", that bar has been raised so that the original show is almost "Powderpuff Girls" by comparison.

The usual Achilles heel of any sort of cop movie, substandard baddies, isn't the problem either. They are menancing, mysterious, ruthless and plentiful enough for the final shootout (oops...SPOILER!. Like you didn't know there was a shootout...) to last a while.

So why, then, does the movie not totally work? Well for one, pacing. It's not too slow, it's just a little off. For once, Mann's work in the editing room doesn't seem to have equaled that produced on the set - the love scenes are nice, but they seem either extraneous or simply too long and still - in a different genre of movie they'd work fine, but here they impede rather than advance the story.

But the biggest reason is the casting of Gong Li as the pivotal female character. First, the screen chemistry between her and Colin Farrel is largely non-existant. Second, it's more than slightly confusing for this character to be Chinese-Cuban-Columbian (or whatever), accent issues aside. (And the accent issue is huge - it's hard to suspend disbelief about a relationship when you can't understand what one party is saying.) These combine to make this whole plot point labored, and ultimately unbelievable. Which wouldn't normally matter in a procedural, but Mann spends so much time on it that it is unavoidable.

All that said, this is still a quality film, just not up there with Mann's best. Penalty points for Jamie Foxx being made almost superflous to Collin Farrell's indescribably fantastic hair.

Pooh's View: B-

Second Opinions

Ok, I liked Pirates of the Caribean II. But in the interests of balanced coverage (via the Monkey of the Fu that Kungs), here's someone who didn't much care for it:

Hey, he's a ninja, who am I to argue?

Fiasco In the Making? (Bookblogging #14 - 'Fiasco')

One of the previews before Pirates II (ARRRR!) was for the latest Kevin Costner bombflick, 'The Guardian.' I say "bomb" because it has several characteristics of the films described in "Fiasco: A History of Hollywood's Iconic Flops:"

1. A series of production delays - part of the filming was to be done in New Orleans, then moved to Shreveport for obvious reasons. Location shooting was also planned for Kodiak, Alaska, but apparently locating Costner's massive forehead (and even more massive ego) this far north for a month or more at a time would cause the Earth's rotation to become unbalanced, forcing a game of interstellar marbles. And nobody wants that, right?
2. Filming on water. One might think that people would learn that filming on open water is hard. It's probably no accident that more than 20% of the films discussed in "Fiasco" went massively over budget, in part due to watery sets. (Even successful aquatic films have this problem) Of coure, it would be hard to have a movie about the Coast Guard without using water - I might suggest that's a reason not to make a Coast Guard 'blockbuster'.
3. Kevin Costner - the overriding commanality in movie disasters is ego/hubris either at the studio, directorial or most commonly star level. Costner is absolutely notorious in this regard. Who else would try to followup "Waterworld" with the freaking Postman? Perhaps the theory was that if you kept remaking The Road Warrior, you'd eventually get it right...

Of course I could be wrong and this one could blow up (destroying my HSX portfolio in the process...bastards...)

You may have noticed that I'm well into this post without really discussing James Robert Parrish's book itself. There's a reason for that - the less said about the book, the better. There is a certain irony in a book catalogging the sins of various studio disasters, top of nearly every list being some iteration of "it's not there on the page," wherein the writing of the work is alternatively leaden, overwrought or dry. How can you spend 20 pages discussing Showgirls and get nary a laugh?

Or perhaps I'm just so used to blog-quality snark that Parrish can't keep up. But it really is inexcusable to tackle such a schadenfreude-rich topic so joylessly.

Pooh's View: Skip it. If it wasn't for the 50 in 50, I wouldn't have finished it myself.

Pirates of the Caribean II: Ludicrous, Absurd, Fun

First of all, I think it's a Good Sign for the financial success of a movie if a theatre (at a multiplex where it is showing on 3+ screens) is full for an 8:30 showing on the Sunday night two weeks after the film's release. I haven't been tracking, but they are assuredly making a bundle.

And they largely deserve it - the film is pure live-action cartoon. An especially over the top cartoon at that. Depp has added a pinch of Arthur to his dragqueen/Keith Richards stew, and Jack Davenport seems to enjoy not having to play the square this time around. Orlando Bloom doesn't have much to do except swing a sword and remind my sister that he played Legolas (which seems to be plenty for exactly half of the audience. I hear he's very short in real life...)

This genre of half-camp action flicks demands memorable villains, and replacing Geoffrey Rush's 'Captain Barbosa' was going to be a challenge. Davey Jones, and his ship "The Flying Dutchman" and his, er, pet achieve this, and perhaps more.

Beyond the special effects and performances, the movie is just fun. You half expect the audience, call-and-response style, to answer every piratical "arrrrr" with a massed "ayyyyy." Or that could be why my neigbors looked at me funny on the way out...

Pooh's View: Superb popcorn fare. Bergman or Scoresese it's not, but it has much more modest aspirations, easily achieved.

(As a postscript, nothing gets one in the mood for a good "event movie" better than some kickass previews...sweet jeebus (Michael Bay! Gilbert Gottfried as StarScream?!?) did they get it right here, though I liked this one better the first time.)

CleanFlicks (Or, "How I Learned to Love the Puritanical Censor")

I have great sympathy for the arguments espoused by the Director's Guild of America concerning the 'scrubbing' and reselling of their films:

"Directors put their skill, craft and often years of hard work into the creation of a film," added [DGA President Michael] Apted, whose own repertoire includes the 1999 James Bond adventure The World Is Not Enough and Gorillas in the Mist. "These films carry our name and reflect our reputations. So we have great passion about protecting our work...against unauthorized editing."

As a legal matter, I think the judge probably reached the 'correct' ruling, given extant copywrite law. So in that aspect, I'm not sure I agree with XWL that this decision will, in fact, get overturned (given the Eldred decision, and that the Court certainly hasn't become less friendly to The Mouse and co. since then...)

That said, I do agree with the Immodest Proposer (and Reason's Nick Gillespie) in that this is bad as a policy matter:

As for the case just decided in Denver: I have no problem with gratuitous nudity (is there any other kind in a movie?), foul language, and graphic violence; but I'm squarely on the side of the easily offended CleanFlicks' customers. They are doing precisely what technology is there for: to create the sort of art, music, video, and text that an individual or group of individuals wants to consume.

Just so, especially, given that

[b]y all accounts, the CleanFlicks-type outfits weren't ripping off Hollywood in any way, shape, or form—they were paying full fees for content—and they weren't fooling anyone into thinking their versions were the originals; (emphasis mine)

(Though I'm not willing to fully buy the argument that "they weren't fooling anyone." That proves too much - I'm not fooling anyone with my Hong Kong made bootleg either, but I don't think that's kosher...)

RIA sez:

I'm of the opinion that with Art, you take it or leave it. You don't get to take someone else's vision and remake it into your own image for resale. Or at least shouldn't be able to, without permission.

Well first of all, why not? I'm serious here, Saving Private Ryan without the Normandy Beach scene is not the same movie - in my aesthetic judgment, it is miles worse, and I think most film consumers would agree. Can't we be trusted to make that decision?

Further, this leads to all sorts of imponderables such as when is use of a 'vision' a 'remake' and when is it an 'inspiration?' Also, I think RIA is mistaken, as a legal matter, here:

There are plenty of technologies to help me skip past the parts I find unnecessary.

To which technologies, by the way, the court decision does not apply, as noted in the article, nor do I argue that they should, as used by individual consumers. Nor do I buy the argument that the ruling opens the door, much less sets up a slippery slope, leading to forced commercial-watching or banning of TIVO, etc.

Actually, that is precisely what overly strong copywrite protections threaten with regards to broadcast media - the network 'owns' the content, and it can argue that the commercial breaks are integral to their artistic vision. Who are you to question that? Of course it isn't true, but prove it. Because that's what we want - a court deciding what does and does not belong as part of a performance...

LeMew has more - a taste:

Matt is also right that it's important not to be diverted by distaste for the CleanFlix enterprise. First of all, what the company is doing is not terribly unusual; various forms of content that the mass audience might find objectionable are systematically removed to show movies on broadcast TV and airlines(*), for example, and the former further bowlderizes films to fit time slots and include commercials. Being a snooty civil libertarian aesthete with no kids, I find all of this silly, and in fact I pretty much never watch movies on broadcast TV or airlines, do not think that random bad words or stray nipples on TV present a massive cultural crisis, think that film would probably benefit from more nudity and eroticism (although probably could do with less movies about blowing stuff up) etc. etc. But the puritanism of CleanFlix is also essentially harmless--as opponents of puritan busybodyism often note, nobody's forcing you to watch their products--and of course ex post facto changes are infinitely preferable (for both artists and audiences) to preventing the work from being done in the first place. Instinctive hostility to middlebrow "family values" groups shouldn't compel one to fall into the trap of advocating terrible copyrights laws. It's also worth reiterating that where Congress' copyright powers are concerned, consequentialist analysis is not merely useful but required; the Constitution specifically does not hold that copyrights are a sacrosanct abstract right, but are designed to advance the public interest, which decisions like this manifestly fail to do. (emphasis mine)

FWIW, I think the bolded point goes a long way to answering RIA's 'take it or leave it' viewpoint - and I can see (in a better world, perhaps) where allowing CleanFlix, etc. allows for more content - where this is allowed I can certainly see the arbitrary influence of the MPAA waning, and that's never a bad thing.

Since We're Here

..And today is irrelevant day at WAP(^tm), via Jake - go here, if you dare. I cannot warn strongly enough that if one is either easily offended or has a tendency to drink cola/coffee at the keyboard, one should perhaps not...

Otherwise, just do it.

Update: And...commerce

"[Y]ou should beware of any movie in which characters utter lines of dialogue whose proper place is on the advertising poster."

So says Anthony Lane in his New Yorker review of The Da Vinci Code, (via the Official Cultural Advisor to WAP, aka Bridezilla, soon to be, gulp, aka 'Mom'. Or perhaps not as to the last...)

Lane's conclusion:

The Catholic Church has nothing to fear from this film. It is not just tripe. It is self-evident, spirit-lowering tripe that could not conceivably cause a single member of the flock to turn aside from the faith. Meanwhile, art historians can sleep easy once more, while fans of the book, which has finally been exposed for the pompous fraud that it is, will be shaken from their trance. In fact, the sole beneficiaries of the entire fiasco will be members of Opus Dei, some of whom practice mortification of the flesh. From now on, such penance will be simple—no lashings, no spiked cuff around the thigh. Just the price of a movie ticket, and two and a half hours of pain.

Ouch, babe. Read the whole thing...

X3

Yes, back in the day, I was something of a comic-book dork. I'll own up to that.

So naturally, when a movie like X-Men 3: The Last Stand comes out, I generally line up with the FanBoi's and see it on the opening weekend. So I did. My expectations were actually pretty high - the end tease of X2 left me so fired up, as it seemed like a nod to the true fans. However, I don't really think X3 quite measures up - at the very least, I'm not satisfied.

As far as big-budget action movies go, it was certainly passable - there's all kinds of coolness possible within the X-Men universe, and they exploit a good deal of it. HOWEVER, the problem lies in that very richness of the back-story. I may not have intellectually understood it at the time, but at their best, the comics of my youth were well-illustrated morality tales. To a degree, this carries over into films, as the best adaptations (the first two Batman films, as well as Batman begins; whichever Superman involved him giving up his powers; Spiderman II as well as the X-Men franchise) tend to grapple, to a degree, with the "great power = great responsibility" theme.

And one of more involving storylines specifically implicating this theme was the whole Phoenix saga. While X3 does a good job of making Jean Grey's Phoenix incarnation suitably badass and unstable, it ignores the far more interesting and explicitly Faustian aspects of the original. I suppose it is unfair of me to evaluate the film in this light, but those stories (at least as I remember them) were so rich and textured that it's a shame to lose that.

Of course, as long as they keep making 'em, I'll keep seeing them.

"Da Vinci Code"

An impulse add to the 'in progress' bookpile was "Fiasco: A History of Hollywood's Iconic Flops" - a look at, wait for it, some of the memorable film flops of all time. All manner of things can go wrong in the production of a movie, but the common thread running through to Cleopatra's, Ishtar's and Showgirls' of the world is best described as excessive ambition bordering on hubris.

I bring that up, because for all the hype and hoopla, one thing noticably lacking in the film version of "The Da Vinci Code" is ambition. In retrospect, I'm not sure why this is surprising, as a by-the-numbers pot-boiler novel most easily translates into a by-the-numbers pot-boiler film. If not for the 'controversy' of the religious aspects (and the built-in audience of 40 million copies sold) this is nothing more than another here-today, gone tommorow, pseudo-historical thriller (think National Treasure or Sahara)

As an example of the genre, DVC is perfectly acceptable - especially considering the star-wattage which exceeds what can usually be brought to bear. That said, I have three minor quibbles and one major one.

The small ones - 1. Paul Bettany's ludicrous attempt at a Spanish(?) accent. Was it Mexican or more Belorussian? I half expected him to yell out "Say Hello to my lil' friend!" as he whipped himself.

2. THE SCORE IS A LITTLE OVER THE TOP AND IN YOUR FACE.

3. The utter lack of chemistry between Tom Hanks and Amelie.

But my big problem was the faith with which the film follows to book's plot - there are so many twists and turns that just don't come through well in the time alotted. The plot moves fast without moving quickly, so their is a rush from scene to scene, none of which are particularly compelling. Indeed, it serves more to demonstrate the combination of banality and risibility for which Dan Brown's novels are justly noted. The only portion that really hums are the vingettes involving Ian MacKellan who barely even pauses for tea to wash down the scenery he's been devouring.

And saddest of all, the film doesn't even live up to the controversy, as the 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' theories on which it is based are presented so quickly that there is very little in the way of a frontal challenge to the church.

Pooh's View: Decent popcorn fare, MacKellan is good, but mosly 'Feh!'

CineCrack

Because, that's what credit cards are for, Amazon is trying to wreck me by selling Criterion Collection DVD's at 45% off. May I particularly suggest, for those that like the quality films, Carol Reed's The Third Man?

(Via)

What If It Just Sucks?

I admit, I'm psyched for the "Da Vinci Code" movie - I enjoyed the book (well, the reading, since I 'read' it while driving from Minnesota to Texas a few years back. Brown's rather leaden prose is more easily digestable when spoken, apparently.) And the stupidity of the 'controversy' surrounding the film is delicious - if there is one thing that you would think people have learned by now, it's that creating a stink about something ensures a wider audience then there would have been. No publicity is bad publicity, etc.

And, as has been noted, the book was pretty much written to become a blockbuster screenplay. Add Tom Hanks, Opie Cunningham, Gandalf, and Hot French Chick du juor, what could possibly go wrong?

Well, for one, suckasge. A possibility that I'd never really considered is that it might turn out to be just a Bad Movie, not an Evil movie, Dr. Dobson, just a bad, bad movie. Consider:

At Cannes, one scene during the film, meant to be serious, elicited prolonged laughter from the audience, and when the credits rolled, there was no applause, only a few catcalls and hisses. Things were no better Stateside, where the film screened for critics in New York.

The Hollywood Reporter headlined its review, " 'Da Vinci Code' an unwieldy, bloated puzzle."

"No chemistry exists between the hero and heroine, and motivation remains a troubling sore point," wrote reviewer Kirk Honeycutt, panning Tom Hanks' "remote, even wooden performance." Only co-star Ian McKellen managed to avoid criticism.

As the canines are wont to say, "Ruh Roh!"

Consider my expectations lowered. But I'll still be there on Friday.

Screen Cap from the "Narnia" Sequel

Tyge does not approve of bootlegging, and did not authorize the release of this production still...