when the status quo frustrates.

Bad movie, worse cliche

Sunday, May 21st, 2006

Reluctantly, I found myself sucked into the obnoxiously overserious Charly, the 1968 movie version of Flowers for Algernon, on TCM this weekend.

Best dialogue moment:

ALICE: What did you learn?
[a beat]
CHARLY: I’m back. What did you learn?
[a beat]
ALICE: I’m here.

This comes on the heels of Charly attempting to force himself on Alice, failing, and going off on a 4-week Hell’s Angels motorcycle bender complete with stereotypical 60′s psychedelic film effects. He returns to his apartment more emotionally wise, presumably less of a rapist, and the two of them commence a Romance for the Ages, where their anniversary will “happily be on those days when we both remember.” Urp.

The subsequent romance montage climaxes with a shot of Charly and Alice going down a children’s slide together, he behind her with his arms around her waist. They land with expressions of joyous rapture, happier than they’ve ever been in their lives.

Now, I understand why the patriarchy loves a rape-turned-romance story, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out how or why this slide thing is the iconic expression of True Love.

You see the damn thing used in movies like this all the time, but I can’t think of a less comfortable experience than trying to make my way down a tiny, sticky, white-hot metal slide while clinging to another person. Children are often unsanitary little creatures, too, and the thought of wriggling my lower body along the uncleaned path paved by countless kid-butts is hardly intoxicating. Even if you manage to make to the bottom without toppling over, what was the ride, two seconds long? Maybe we could switch the Slide Cliche to something equally as fun, like the Condom-Breaking Moment or the Accidental Burp During a Kiss.

Of course, the final shot of Charly shows Alice watching Charly, who’s now reverted from genius back to being mentally handicapped, playing on a see-saw with a boisterous smile of childish glee. Because, clearly, the see-saw is for retards, but the slide? That’s for lovers.

21.05.2006 Film 3 Comments

Opie’s out of control

Friday, May 19th, 2006

Opie smokes

“If you’re not willing to take some chances, particularly at this stage of my career, then what are you doing? I know I’ve been commercially successful, but I’m not really a guy looking for safe, middle-of-the-road success.”

-Opie on his latest project

Thank god for artists like Ron Howard. Without them, the unsung voices in this country might never get their moment on stage.

Fortunately, per his self-expressed desire to put his rep on the line, Howard continues to push the envelope. His latest directorial effort brings to life a little-known American novel, “The Da Vinci Code.” According to the BBC, whoever that is, the book has sold a mere 40 million copies, and despite its continuing reign atop this week’s paperback bestseller list, few people seem to have caught the fever. Sure, there are some underground cult movements like these:

The Da Vinci Code has been translated into 42 languages and has spawned its own cottage industry of publications, including guides on to how to read the book, rebuttals and counter claims.

…but how could we expect Hollywood to go out on a limb with such avant garde material? Ron Howard’s rebellious will is truly the guardian angel of our entertainment dollar.

It starts with the script, of course, but the veteran director of indie thriller Apollo 13 and the black comedy Willow also knows how to pluck a budding screen star from the teeming masses of Hollywood hopefuls. The lucky actor this time around is one Thomas Hanks, the portly middle-aged fellow flashing his pearly whites here:
it's bright out here

The previously unknown Mr. Hanks must be quite the thespian; heaven knows he wasn’t cast for his looks. But if Howard wanted a movie full of beautiful people, he’d tap LA hunks like his ultra-famous brother Clint. No, Howard the maverick knows audiences care far more about the quality of performance than the name on the bill, and for that, the hungry actors of the world are grateful.

It’d be easy for a director of Ron Howard’s stature to pluck the next big literary phenomenon, plug in a couple Oscar winners, and ask the CGI staff to make his movie for him, but nobody’s ever done it like Ronnie. May we all prosper from treading the adventurous paths he blazes.

Look for “The Da Vinci Code” in an art house near you sometime this summer.

19.05.2006 Punkass!, Film 3 Comments

Magneto attracts wrath of God

Wednesday, May 17th, 2006

As if inspiring all of mutantkind to rise up and kick our asses wasn’t enough, he had to go and take on the Lord our God. The fundies are pissed:

Lauer took the bull of controversy more directly by the horns when he interviewed the cast and director Howard today. Said Lauer:

“There have been calls from some religious groups, they wanted a disclaimer at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because one of the themes in the book really knocks Christianity right on its ear, if Christ survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins and therefore was not resurrected. What I’m saying is, people wanted this to say ‘fiction, fiction, fiction’. How would you all have felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?”

There was a pause, and then famed British actor Ian McKellen [Gandalf of Lord of the Rings], piped up:

“Well, I’ve often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie. Not that it’s true, not that it’s factual, but that it’s a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing after they’ve seen it.”
[...]
With the camera focused on McKellen, one could hear a distinctly nervous laugh in the background, seeming to come from either actor Tom Hanks or director Howard. McKellen’s stunning bit of blasphemy is likely to test the adage that all publicity is good publicity.

[Emphasis from the source, believe it or not]

Stunning blasphemy! I love it. If this site wasn’t already called punkassblog.com, I think stunningblasphemy.com would suit us mighty fine.

Anyway, typical that a Brit would be forced to drop some hard truth while the fuddy-duddy Americans with sticks up their asses hem and haw over the polite thing to say.

Of course, even before his charming kick to the Christian nuts, I loved me some Ian McKellen. I suspect you did, too, and not just for Gods and Monsters or his stage work you never saw. Thanks to the Anthony Hopkins 10-Step Program for Selling Out in Hollywood, McKellen’s made a nice chunk of change while powerfully elevating the quality of some big Hollywood franchises.

Speaking of those roles, for some reason, I was irritated that the Jesus Freak Times referenced McKellen as Gandalf rather than his role as Magneto. After a bit of consideration I decided it was because McKellen’s Magneto was far more compelling than his Gandalf, even though Brett Ratner’s 94% likely to take a giant dump on the franchise.

The bad guys get all the best zingers, but as Magneto, McKellen also took several ho-hum lines and transformed them into classics. I doubt I’ve uttered “Is that what they say?” in anything other than a bad McKellen impression since X2. Okay, so I don’t exactly have cause to break out that phrase on a daily basis, but you get the idea.

[No, the idea is not that I am a monster fucking nerd, either. Even if I am.]

He paints Magneto as a calculating, ruthless Machiavellian with a lethal messiah complex and a flair for manipulation. Gandalf’s a bit more inconsistent, more generic, though perhaps that’s due more to Tolkein and Jackson than Sir Ian.

Regardless of which character was more enjoyable, though, when it comes to adding credibility to an an otherwise vapid project [or telling the godsheep where they can stick it], make mine McKellen.

17.05.2006 Film, Godbaggery 7 Comments

Small victory for my childhood

Thursday, May 4th, 2006

Yeah, yeah, these days Star Wars couldn’t be lamer if they digitally replaced Darth Vader with Michelle Malkin. But at least Lucas is finally going to release DVD versions of the original 3 movies without all his digital trickery and revisionist history.

Han Solo shot first, man. You know it, I know it, and as stupid as it is, it matters to me that this be on the record.

Lucas has so abused my original childhood imagination factory that I doubt I could ever bring myself to watch any of the movies again. But at least someone somewhere can watch “Return of the Jedi” without suffering through “Fraggle Jedi Rock” sung by CGI muppets while Boba Fett does the watusi in the corner.

04.05.2006 Film 11 Comments

Is Wes Anderson done imitating himself?

Thursday, April 27th, 2006

I hate this much less than anything else he’s done lately, and before you get too angry with me, just know you’re talking to a guy with a Rushmore poster above his couch.

(more…)

27.04.2006 Punkass!, Entertainment, Film 1 Comment

Will ‘United 93′ be exploited as war-time rallying cry?

Tuesday, April 25th, 2006

The reviews are coming in from the Tribeca premiere of “United 93,” the film about the 9/11 plane that crashed in a Pennsylvania field. Down the line, they applaud the film as a masterpiece.

Yesterday, the Boston Herald ran a piece on the annoyance of punditry from those who haven’t yet seen the film:

It seemed clear – no “United 93” for me, my own little protest against Hollywood profiteering from a national tragedy that snatched away two people I knew and cared about – and awakened me to the evil that lurks in this world.
But a funny thing happened on my way to the moral high ground. It’s possible I have simply been sucked into the turbo-charged Hollywood spin machine, but I began listening to the words of family members whose loved ones perished on Flight 93.
They endorsed the making of the film. They were consulted each step of the way. For them, the film is a celluloid memorial to the bravery and heroism of their loved ones.
Who am I to be indignant – when they so clearly are not?

I get that. I’m not gonna ding anyone for tackling this subject matter. Maybe there is exploitation at the heart of this project, but as long as the studio didn’t force Paul Greengrass to compromise his film in some way that would sell tickets (and by all accounts they didn’t), then I support an artist’s choice to produce work on whatever subject matter s/he pleases. The studio patrons may profit, but that’s what it takes to score a patron in these wacky modern times.

While I endorse the right to make and show the film, what I’m actually concerned about is its potential exploitation by the sinister warmongers salivating over the chance to whip America into a new 9/11 frenzy. I won’t be shocked if the White House repeatedly invokes the film or flight number explicitly in an attempt to get us fightin’ mad again.

The last time the administration accused some random country of being involved in 9/11, it worked. Many Americans were so angry they just wanted blood — anyone’s blood — back then. Now that we’ve got the mortgage on Iraq, Bush and friends are looking to stroll next door and raid the fridge. Will the emotional response to this film make it easier to convince people to do it?

25.04.2006 Bush is a cock, Film, Imperialism for Dummies 1 Comment

Newer Entries