Film: June 2008 Archives
Summer seems to be a good time to catch up on videos and cable movies. Here a bunch I recently watched, with very short reviews
"You Kill Me" A John Dahl movie with Ben Kingsley and Tea Leoni. I enjoyed this, definitely worth watching, Kingsley is a hit man whose alcoholism gets in the way of his job, so he joins AA. Leoni is the woman with boudariy problems that he enters a relationship with. THe joke here is the way the AA language and experience colors Kingsley's being a killer and returning to doing his job well.
"Lust, Caution" Ang Lee's R-rated epic set in Shanghai during the Japanese occupation would like to Casablanca or Notorious, but although gorgeous, it is BORING despite a few explicit sex scenes which might make you think you should rent this but I can't recommend it.
"Eastern Promises" Cronnenberg continues be one of the most interesting filmmakers over the course of his long and varied career. Great performance by Viggo Mortensen, interesting script. In the end there is something that makes only very good and not great. Not sure what that is but I almost feel this should be the pilot for a BBC TV series. Still I recommend this (although there are some brutal scenes not for the squeamish -- ths is not for Kids and not a chick flick -- although viggo could be a draw.
"The Darjeeling Limited" Wes Andersen's film, starring Owen Wilson, Jason Scwartzman and Adrian Body is practically unwatchable and I can't say that I liked the short Chevalier Hotel any better.
"You Kill Me" A John Dahl movie with Ben Kingsley and Tea Leoni. I enjoyed this, definitely worth watching, Kingsley is a hit man whose alcoholism gets in the way of his job, so he joins AA. Leoni is the woman with boudariy problems that he enters a relationship with. THe joke here is the way the AA language and experience colors Kingsley's being a killer and returning to doing his job well.
"Lust, Caution" Ang Lee's R-rated epic set in Shanghai during the Japanese occupation would like to Casablanca or Notorious, but although gorgeous, it is BORING despite a few explicit sex scenes which might make you think you should rent this but I can't recommend it.
"Eastern Promises" Cronnenberg continues be one of the most interesting filmmakers over the course of his long and varied career. Great performance by Viggo Mortensen, interesting script. In the end there is something that makes only very good and not great. Not sure what that is but I almost feel this should be the pilot for a BBC TV series. Still I recommend this (although there are some brutal scenes not for the squeamish -- ths is not for Kids and not a chick flick -- although viggo could be a draw.
"The Darjeeling Limited" Wes Andersen's film, starring Owen Wilson, Jason Scwartzman and Adrian Body is practically unwatchable and I can't say that I liked the short Chevalier Hotel any better.
Tom Rothman, the chairman of Fox Filmed Enterainment, has been introducing movies on their cable channel since last year but I've only discovered this recently.
Let me start by saying two things: First, is it not enough to receive millions for running a successful movie studio, do you have to take the job away of a host -- someone like yours truly, or some other film reporter/arts journalists/ nerd. And second: this may be all the more galling since I know and life Tom, having gone to law school with him.
Now that I've spent my bile -- let me say that watching Tom Rothman alternates between finding him stiff and sort of fake in his delivery and being interested in what he has to say. Because let's face it, he knows a things or two about movies, making them, and particularly to the extent he talks candidly about it, how certain movies got made from the studio point of view (which he does, here and there).
On the whole, although I would prefer to see someone else doing it (i.e. me), I have to say that I'll tune in again, from time to time, to here what Tom Rothman has to say.....
Let me start by saying two things: First, is it not enough to receive millions for running a successful movie studio, do you have to take the job away of a host -- someone like yours truly, or some other film reporter/arts journalists/ nerd. And second: this may be all the more galling since I know and life Tom, having gone to law school with him.
Now that I've spent my bile -- let me say that watching Tom Rothman alternates between finding him stiff and sort of fake in his delivery and being interested in what he has to say. Because let's face it, he knows a things or two about movies, making them, and particularly to the extent he talks candidly about it, how certain movies got made from the studio point of view (which he does, here and there).
On the whole, although I would prefer to see someone else doing it (i.e. me), I have to say that I'll tune in again, from time to time, to here what Tom Rothman has to say.....
Then go to a showing of "Sex in the City." I went with my wife last night, and despite being a Tuesday evening, the theater was filled, filled with women in groups of five or more, so much so that the estrogen was palpable.
As for the movie, to fans of the show it delivered what they were looking for, plenty of the girls, lots of over the top fashion and dress and shoe fetish -- not a whole lot of story or character development (certainly none for the men).
To say the movie was long -well, let me put in another way, the movie was akin to waiting for your wife to get ready to leave the house, in fact, the movie was pretty much structured that way as well, with plenty of attention to each dressing ritual, each holiday, each event.
Here's the thing: most of the women in the room will see it again, tell their friends who haven't seen it to do so, and see and buy the video.
As for the movie, to fans of the show it delivered what they were looking for, plenty of the girls, lots of over the top fashion and dress and shoe fetish -- not a whole lot of story or character development (certainly none for the men).
To say the movie was long -well, let me put in another way, the movie was akin to waiting for your wife to get ready to leave the house, in fact, the movie was pretty much structured that way as well, with plenty of attention to each dressing ritual, each holiday, each event.
Here's the thing: most of the women in the room will see it again, tell their friends who haven't seen it to do so, and see and buy the video.
There is an article in today's New York Times where M. Night tries to repair some of the damage done surrounding "Lady in the Lake," his last movie which performed abysmally.
He goes on about his maverick qualities and how he hasn't sold out - blah, blah blah.
Part of what M. Night fails to say (and perhaps fails to recognize ), is the reason that the collective schadenfreude of Hollywood has grown as his last projects performed poorly, is that he fails to acknowledge that studio and development executives have any talent, purpose or can add anything to his work.
Let me analogize: as a print journalist , I work with editors and although some of them I grumble about, others have improved and do improve what I write, that goes for editors making suggestions for new subjects to write about, to asking questions about what I've written that force me to reassess or clarify my thinking and my writing, to line editing and the work of copy editors.
The notion that Studio execs, producers and development execs -- professionals who have read thousands of scripts and have watched and studied thousands of movies and have some experience with what has worked and what doesn't -- can add value and improve his work or at least serve as a sounding board -- is not something that M. Night acknowledges. Night thinks it is all him, him, him. And his poor showings recently at the box office are, appropriately, to be blamed on him.
I remember when "The Sixth Sense" was a spec script, No one, including its producer Barry Mendel, knew if the film would work. They gave M. Night a chance. He needs to realize that, in fact, he doesn't work alone.
He goes on about his maverick qualities and how he hasn't sold out - blah, blah blah.
Part of what M. Night fails to say (and perhaps fails to recognize ), is the reason that the collective schadenfreude of Hollywood has grown as his last projects performed poorly, is that he fails to acknowledge that studio and development executives have any talent, purpose or can add anything to his work.
Let me analogize: as a print journalist , I work with editors and although some of them I grumble about, others have improved and do improve what I write, that goes for editors making suggestions for new subjects to write about, to asking questions about what I've written that force me to reassess or clarify my thinking and my writing, to line editing and the work of copy editors.
The notion that Studio execs, producers and development execs -- professionals who have read thousands of scripts and have watched and studied thousands of movies and have some experience with what has worked and what doesn't -- can add value and improve his work or at least serve as a sounding board -- is not something that M. Night acknowledges. Night thinks it is all him, him, him. And his poor showings recently at the box office are, appropriately, to be blamed on him.
I remember when "The Sixth Sense" was a spec script, No one, including its producer Barry Mendel, knew if the film would work. They gave M. Night a chance. He needs to realize that, in fact, he doesn't work alone.
This morning's newspapers are writing about the success of the "SEX IN THE CITY" movie. The newspapers and studios are SHOCKED, SHOCKED SHOCKED that women over 30 are going in droves to the movies.
This hasn't happened since....Well, since THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA starring the over 30 Meryl Streep, or THE FIRST WIVES CLUB, with Bette Midler, Goldie Hahn and Diane Keaton, or WHAT WOMEN WANT with Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson.
Which is to say that actually of course women over 30 can drive a movie to be a hit -- BUT THE STUDIOS WILL NOT MAKE MORE MOVIES FOR THIS AUDIENCE, because the reall question is HOW OFTEN WILL WOMEN MAKE A MOVIE A HIT? In the World War II era, movie audiences were heavily female, and the Screwball comedies or noirish thrillers which we all admire today got made because women could be counted on to go to the movies in the afternoon, mid-week, or on the weekends with their dates or husbands. Now getting these women to the theaters is an EVENT -- and although the studios will put projects into development to attract this demographic they will do so sparingly -- They are still chasing "The four quadrants" men, women, teens of both genders, etc...
This hasn't happened since....Well, since THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA starring the over 30 Meryl Streep, or THE FIRST WIVES CLUB, with Bette Midler, Goldie Hahn and Diane Keaton, or WHAT WOMEN WANT with Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson.
Which is to say that actually of course women over 30 can drive a movie to be a hit -- BUT THE STUDIOS WILL NOT MAKE MORE MOVIES FOR THIS AUDIENCE, because the reall question is HOW OFTEN WILL WOMEN MAKE A MOVIE A HIT? In the World War II era, movie audiences were heavily female, and the Screwball comedies or noirish thrillers which we all admire today got made because women could be counted on to go to the movies in the afternoon, mid-week, or on the weekends with their dates or husbands. Now getting these women to the theaters is an EVENT -- and although the studios will put projects into development to attract this demographic they will do so sparingly -- They are still chasing "The four quadrants" men, women, teens of both genders, etc...
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Fark
Google
Spurl
My Web
BlinkList
BlinkBits
Connotea
Feed Me Links
Shadows
Simpy
Stumble Upon
Link Roll
Blog Marks
Facebook