When I first started this blog, I decided I would write once a week, or four times a month. I have only missed that self-imposed deadline twice - when my mother was ill, and when I was waiting for my newest grand-niece.
I pride myself on the fact that it doesn't take me long to write one of these pieces, usually about a half an hour. So it's not like I'm making a huge investment. Most weeks I really enjoy writing. I compile the ideas in my head throughout the week, so that by the time I actually sit down in front of the PC the words just pour out. I do revise most of what I write, because I also have a self-imposed word count (ever the overachiever).
It's not hard to write the raves or the rants - those are easy. My viewpoints, as I've often been told, are quite strong. The hardest ones to write are the ones that are in the middle - the averages ones. Such is the story with "Morning Glory".
The film is neither good nor bad. It was advertised as a "smarter" romantic comedy, one that was more about female empowerment than anything else. It was also advertised as a comedy. Given the cast and the fact that the writer of the script also wrote "The Devil Wear Prada", I figured I'd get something that was above average. I was quite wrong.
The film is so predictable that I kept it running while I cleaned both my kitchen and my bathroom and still knew exactly where I was in the story, and exactly where I'd end up. I can't exactly say I wasted my time, but I can say that it wasn't interesting in the slightest. Nor can I say that I laughed.
Where did it go wrong? First, Harrison Ford needs to be like Brett Favre and just retire already. He's too old for the leading man, and cannot pull off the old, cranky geezer. Diane Keaton tries with what she's given, but she isn't given much. Rachel McAdams is cute - there's no denying that. However, I'm still waiting for her to do something similar to "Married Life" - where cute isn't quite enough.
I guess the biggest problem I had with the film was that I didn't find it relevant. I don't watch morning TV. Before I go to work, I usually watch either hulu or ESPN. Most people I know use that time to clear their DVRs of whatever they missed the night before. And the plot was already covered by "Broadcast News" much better over twenty years ago.
Back then people cared about the news. Now they care about TMZ. I concede that it's above the standard rom-com, but not by much. I'll still take "The Devil Wears Prada" any day. Sometimes when you go to the same well too many times you come up dry, and that's exactly what happened here.
3/30/2011
3/27/2011
Icon Vs. Legend
An icon is on your computer desktop. You click it and a program starts automatically - no thought involved. You know which program you're opening because you recognize the icon. A legend is found on the bottom of a map. Before GPS, legends told you how far apart things were, and in which direction you needed to go. With Elizabeth Taylor's passing, we have lost not just an icon, but also a legend. It is important to know the difference.
I've read (and written) articles about the current state of film - how bad it is, how unoriginal, how so many "artists" are doing films for the paycheck or the awards. We have recognizable icons in the business today - Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp. Supermarket tabloids tell all their innermost secrets, as long as they don't break confidentiality agreements. These people are movie stars - icons. They are not legends.
To be a legend, it's necessary to bring MORE to the table. Being easily recognizable makes you a movie star. It makes you famous. It can make you an icon - but nowhere near a legend. Legends are people like Clint Eastwood, who now directs as much as he acts. He got credit for giving a face lift to the genre that made him famous - the western. Another is Robert Redford - founder of Sundance. But it's not necessary to go behind the camera in order to be a legend. Paul Newman was a legend. His performances showed he wasn't just a great looking guy, he had talent and range.
True legends show you the way film is going. Whatever you may say about Elizabeth Taylor, you can't say she didn't have talent. From "National Velvet" where she stole a nation's heart to the ingenue in "Father of the Bride", giving Spencer Tracy as good as he was giving, she had the range. Plus, Taylor gets credit for being in (and almost dying for) one of the biggest box office flops ever - "Cleopatra". Talk about taking a risk!
But the one I remember most is "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" - the movie showing her at her bloated, miserable, venomous best. When I first saw it I was rather young and didn't get it. Now I now it's a stellar performance, once seemed too private and exhausting to watch. The closest we have now is "Blue Valentine", and even that's not that close.
It's a shame today's audiences don't really care to know what good acting really is. We'd rather see the same people make the same films over and over. Or we'd rather remake films because no one remembered them the first time.
It's also a shame that, given their age, more legends are leaving us. There aren't many people to fill their shoes, and most aren't even trying. And I think that's the biggest reason today's cinema is directionless.
I've read (and written) articles about the current state of film - how bad it is, how unoriginal, how so many "artists" are doing films for the paycheck or the awards. We have recognizable icons in the business today - Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp. Supermarket tabloids tell all their innermost secrets, as long as they don't break confidentiality agreements. These people are movie stars - icons. They are not legends.
To be a legend, it's necessary to bring MORE to the table. Being easily recognizable makes you a movie star. It makes you famous. It can make you an icon - but nowhere near a legend. Legends are people like Clint Eastwood, who now directs as much as he acts. He got credit for giving a face lift to the genre that made him famous - the western. Another is Robert Redford - founder of Sundance. But it's not necessary to go behind the camera in order to be a legend. Paul Newman was a legend. His performances showed he wasn't just a great looking guy, he had talent and range.
True legends show you the way film is going. Whatever you may say about Elizabeth Taylor, you can't say she didn't have talent. From "National Velvet" where she stole a nation's heart to the ingenue in "Father of the Bride", giving Spencer Tracy as good as he was giving, she had the range. Plus, Taylor gets credit for being in (and almost dying for) one of the biggest box office flops ever - "Cleopatra". Talk about taking a risk!
But the one I remember most is "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" - the movie showing her at her bloated, miserable, venomous best. When I first saw it I was rather young and didn't get it. Now I now it's a stellar performance, once seemed too private and exhausting to watch. The closest we have now is "Blue Valentine", and even that's not that close.
It's a shame today's audiences don't really care to know what good acting really is. We'd rather see the same people make the same films over and over. Or we'd rather remake films because no one remembered them the first time.
It's also a shame that, given their age, more legends are leaving us. There aren't many people to fill their shoes, and most aren't even trying. And I think that's the biggest reason today's cinema is directionless.
3/20/2011
Lightening It Up
After many months of depressing but nonetheless Important Oscar films, it's time to take a minute and catch a breath. It's that time of year when days are longer, outside seems brighter, I wake to birds outside my window, baseball is ALMOST official, and I want to lighten up.
It's also catch up time. This is the time between Oscar and the Box Office Bonanza known as the Summer Movie Season. Plus, since I'm about to be out of work for awhile and resting often, I need to start updating my plethora of lists and getting back into a movie mood.
This week's column is brought to you by the letter "R" - as in "Red" and "Rango". Both have star power and lots of laughs. Coincidentally, neither film is particularly kid-friendly.
If "Red" was a kids movie, it would be called "Fun with Frank, Friends and Firearms". This is the perfect Oscar-summer segue movie. It includes Oscar winners (Helen Mirren and Morgan Freeman) and has as its lead a huge action star (Bruce Willis). That these people (and don't forget Mary Louise Parker) have kick ass, finely honed comedic timing is enhanced by the ubiquitous one liners scattered all over the script. I felt like a little kid watching an animated movie. I giggled alot and felt really upbeat when it was over.
"Rango" is a much more difficult film to describe. It's an animated movie which was treated as a live action movie. The actors didn't just read their lines into a microphone. The movie was actually acted out, and then animated. I think that's an original idea. Plus, there's also Johnny Depp. Given that the director was the same guy who gave birth to Jack Sparrow, this should be a match made in heaven.
Unfortunately, it's not. The film itself is erratic. I did act like a kid though. Sometimes I giggled a bit, and most of the time I squirmed in my seat, thinking it was too long. (Ironically enough, the kids in my screening did the same thing.) Is it funny? Sure. But it's not cute. The one-liners went over the head of the kids and I didn't really hear any adults laughing, just chuckling.
The biggest problem I have is that I can't figure out the target audience.
I think "Rango" is either a semi-successful experiment, or a very lengthy ad for the new "Pirates" film. (Yes I know one is Nickelodeon and the other is the D-word.) Now that I remember how funny and deadpan Depp is, I may actually re-evaluate that film.
March and April are always good cinematic months. I can watch all the DVDs I've missed (a rather long list now that video stores are gone), and I'm missing nothing at the theaters. There's nothing there to see. I can be a very patient person, so I'll just wait. There's an awful lot to see in the meantime.
It's also catch up time. This is the time between Oscar and the Box Office Bonanza known as the Summer Movie Season. Plus, since I'm about to be out of work for awhile and resting often, I need to start updating my plethora of lists and getting back into a movie mood.
This week's column is brought to you by the letter "R" - as in "Red" and "Rango". Both have star power and lots of laughs. Coincidentally, neither film is particularly kid-friendly.
If "Red" was a kids movie, it would be called "Fun with Frank, Friends and Firearms". This is the perfect Oscar-summer segue movie. It includes Oscar winners (Helen Mirren and Morgan Freeman) and has as its lead a huge action star (Bruce Willis). That these people (and don't forget Mary Louise Parker) have kick ass, finely honed comedic timing is enhanced by the ubiquitous one liners scattered all over the script. I felt like a little kid watching an animated movie. I giggled alot and felt really upbeat when it was over.
"Rango" is a much more difficult film to describe. It's an animated movie which was treated as a live action movie. The actors didn't just read their lines into a microphone. The movie was actually acted out, and then animated. I think that's an original idea. Plus, there's also Johnny Depp. Given that the director was the same guy who gave birth to Jack Sparrow, this should be a match made in heaven.
Unfortunately, it's not. The film itself is erratic. I did act like a kid though. Sometimes I giggled a bit, and most of the time I squirmed in my seat, thinking it was too long. (Ironically enough, the kids in my screening did the same thing.) Is it funny? Sure. But it's not cute. The one-liners went over the head of the kids and I didn't really hear any adults laughing, just chuckling.
The biggest problem I have is that I can't figure out the target audience.
I think "Rango" is either a semi-successful experiment, or a very lengthy ad for the new "Pirates" film. (Yes I know one is Nickelodeon and the other is the D-word.) Now that I remember how funny and deadpan Depp is, I may actually re-evaluate that film.
March and April are always good cinematic months. I can watch all the DVDs I've missed (a rather long list now that video stores are gone), and I'm missing nothing at the theaters. There's nothing there to see. I can be a very patient person, so I'll just wait. There's an awful lot to see in the meantime.
3/05/2011
Academy Award Apocalypse
During the recent Oscar telecast, I posted on Facebook three words I never thought I'd connect with the Oscars - I was bored. That's right - I said it. It was boring. From the films themselves to the winners to the speeches, right down to the "best" song performances, it was boring. I acutally turned off the television not long after they announced yet ANOTHER award for "The King's Speech" (but before the unnecessary choir).
I love Annie Hathaway to death, and in my opinion she can usually do no wrong, but this wasn't exactly the best gig for her. She did quite well with her musical number and she looked lovely in (almost) all her many ensembles, but having two non-comedic actors hosting the Oscars simply isn't a good idea. But Annie was fantastic compared to the wooden and hopelessly out of place James Franco.
The show was disjointed - showing montages that were irrelevant, and adding references that were stupid. And what WAS that Harry Potter/Twilight thing supposed to be?
But it wasn't all bad. It was great to watch Colin Firth give his acceptance speech. (Now, if Julianne Moore would give one that'd be fantastic!) Natalie Portman looked beautiful and was humbled, gracious and articulate - Mike Huckabee's comments be damned.
Some Oscar Rules remain firmly intact:
1. Portraying an English monarch will get you a nod, or possibly a win (unless you're Emily Blunt).
2. If your film has Nazi references, you'll get a Best Picture nod (unless it's Indiana Jones).
3. If it's a Pixar film, it's guaranteed Best Picture, Best Animated Film and Best Original Song nods. It will win two out of three.
4. If you are nominated in one year for a career defining film and lose, your next film will get you a win (unless you're Christopher Nolan).
Finally, the most important one - if your film is full of pompous, self-important people, and your film is outdated and irrelevant but is Uplifting with an Inspirational Message, you will win. Originality is not needed or encouraged.
Honestly, how many more films like "The King's Speech" need to be lauded? This film won't be remembered in ten years - hell, it won't be remembered in two. I thought the Oscars were supposed to be about defining a film that was different - that stood out. There wasn't a thing that stood out for me in this film - that ground has more tread on it than my new Goodyear tire.
During the Oscars, I was reading Entertainment Weekly. One of the featured articles was called "10 Ways to Fix Movies". I hope someone figures something out - and soon, because this past year was weak all the way around. And apparently I'm not alone in my viewpoint.
I love Annie Hathaway to death, and in my opinion she can usually do no wrong, but this wasn't exactly the best gig for her. She did quite well with her musical number and she looked lovely in (almost) all her many ensembles, but having two non-comedic actors hosting the Oscars simply isn't a good idea. But Annie was fantastic compared to the wooden and hopelessly out of place James Franco.
The show was disjointed - showing montages that were irrelevant, and adding references that were stupid. And what WAS that Harry Potter/Twilight thing supposed to be?
But it wasn't all bad. It was great to watch Colin Firth give his acceptance speech. (Now, if Julianne Moore would give one that'd be fantastic!) Natalie Portman looked beautiful and was humbled, gracious and articulate - Mike Huckabee's comments be damned.
Some Oscar Rules remain firmly intact:
1. Portraying an English monarch will get you a nod, or possibly a win (unless you're Emily Blunt).
2. If your film has Nazi references, you'll get a Best Picture nod (unless it's Indiana Jones).
3. If it's a Pixar film, it's guaranteed Best Picture, Best Animated Film and Best Original Song nods. It will win two out of three.
4. If you are nominated in one year for a career defining film and lose, your next film will get you a win (unless you're Christopher Nolan).
Finally, the most important one - if your film is full of pompous, self-important people, and your film is outdated and irrelevant but is Uplifting with an Inspirational Message, you will win. Originality is not needed or encouraged.
Honestly, how many more films like "The King's Speech" need to be lauded? This film won't be remembered in ten years - hell, it won't be remembered in two. I thought the Oscars were supposed to be about defining a film that was different - that stood out. There wasn't a thing that stood out for me in this film - that ground has more tread on it than my new Goodyear tire.
During the Oscars, I was reading Entertainment Weekly. One of the featured articles was called "10 Ways to Fix Movies". I hope someone figures something out - and soon, because this past year was weak all the way around. And apparently I'm not alone in my viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)