Author Archive

  • Awards Ceremonies: Gripes and Back Slapping

    42

    Viggo want an OscarAs we all know by now, due to the writers strike, the Golden Globes have been all but completely called off – no ceremony, barely a press conference; likely just an online write-up of who the winners would’ve been. No matter what your feelings on The Globes might be, you have to admit that this is a pretty big deal to the Hollywood community. Over $5 million in licensing fees will be lost on GG night because of the strike/boycott; money that normally would go to philanthropic ventures like supporting film schools. This has many of us wondering if there will even be an Oscars show this year. If not, it could cost the entertiainment industry about $100 million. And if there is a show, what will it be like? Will the stars show up? Will there be picketers? Will the show be much shorter (as it should be)? How will this shape future Oscar ceremonies? Lots of questions abound. While we’ll just have to wait and see on how these questions pan out and no predictions will be made here, I’ve come up with a couple of top 5 lists and general complaints and praises about the award shows in general (most specifically, The Golden Globes and The Academy Awards).

    Let’s start with my general feelings about how often the awards’ shows get it right and why they do or don’t.

    “Getting it right” is hard to quanitfy as all film, as we know, is subjective… or is it? While you’ll never satisfy everyone with your top picks, sometimes there’s just a general consensus as to who should win; a consensus by critics, the online community and film goers in general. Yet sometimes upsets do happen. Crash. Why might this be? Who voted for this and how did they come to their conclusions to vote for who they did?

    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • Public Enemies: Mann, Depp, Bale

    9

    Michael MannAs a recent member in the Michael Mann fan club, I’m always on the hunt to see what he’s doing next. While he hasn’t directed in a while (2006′s Miami Vice being the latest), he’s done some producing jobs that end up looking like he’d directed them. Last year’s The Kingdom directed by Peter Berg had Mann’s fingerprints all over it. In ’08, as we mentioned briefly on Cinecast Episode 75, another Peter Berg film, again produced by Mann, titled Hancock will likely be pretty similar in style to Mann.

    But the good news is that Mann is helming a project slated to be released sometime in 2009 entitled Public Enemies and it sounds fabulous. According to the IMDb, the synopsis is as follows:

    The Feds try to take down notorious American gangsters John Dillilnger, Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd during a booming crime wave in the 1930s.

    I’m pretty sure this won’t be an entirely factual tale and I’m sure the action will be amped up a bit in typical Mann fashion (see Heat, Collateral, Miami Vice).

    Now for the real good news. As I’ve been sort of Johnny “Depp-ed out” recently, it’s nice to see one of my favorite actors joining the cast that is not affiliated with Tim Burton; Depp being in the role of notorious gangster, John Dillinger. Then today, I was reading over at Variety that Christian Bale is signing on to play lead FBI agent, Melvin Purvis, who led the manhunt for Dillinger et al.

    So yeah, barely into pre-production, we’ve got Bale and Depp in a 30′s style gangland picture directed by Michael Mann. Anyone else excited?

  • Starship Troopers 3

    5

    Would you like to know moreAt least for the two of us hosting the Cinecast, Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers gets a lot of love for doing what we understand it to do: satirize while simultaneously being highly entertaining (Michael Ironside, aka Jester, aka Ham Tyler aka Mr. Rasczak: “They sucked his brains out“).

    While I never bothered with the second, direct to DVD portion of the franchise, I have to admit I’ve always been intrigued. But without ever researching or looking at critics scores or anything, it was one of those films that just by looking at the artwork on the back of the DVD snap case (and a strong gut feeling), the movie is likely shit.

    So anyway, surfing around the past few days I’ve noticed a third installment is on the way. Bad news? Probably. Possibly good news? Maybe. The inklings of good news: It’s not directed by Phil Tippet. It’s being directed by (and written by) the same name that wrote the screenplay for the first film, Edward Neumeier. The second bit of “good” news is that Casper Van Dien is making his comeback as Rico. Lastly, the hottest Vulcan in space, Jolene Blalock has signed on board as well.

    With a modest budget of only $20 million (the original had over $100 million), am I eagerly anticipating this new movie? Hardly. Am I intrigued? Slightly. If they had gotten the whole crew back together (or even just a couple of them): Denise Richards, Jake Busey, Neil Patrick Harris, Dina Meyer and most importantly, Michael Ironside, I’d be more than on board for this thing. Really though, I just wanted an excuse to post pictures of Jolene Blalock.

    So check out some stills from Starship Troopers 3: Marauder after the warp…
    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • Cinecast 75 – 2008 Spectacular! Spectacular?

    47



    This Episode:
    …a little chat about the weekend, looking ahead to 2008 and this week’s DVDs…

    Unwrap the complete Show Notes…
    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • How to Save the Oscars… B.S.

    9

    Oscar statueSo I sat down to flip through Time magazine at lunch today and in the contents, I right away came across an article entitled: “How to Save the Awards Show” by Richard Corliss. With piqued interest and enthusiasm, I quickly thumbed through the pages, desperately trying to get to page 68; all the time thinking, “yeah, finally someone is going to say it!” Page 68. His thesis? Give the awards to the most popular, blockbuster films that audiences love in terms of box office receipt…

    But the movie award shows won’t increase their numbers by becoming like other TV programming. They should do it by returning to their original mandate: to nominate the year’s best popular films. In the old days, the Best Picture prize went to box-office hits like Casablanca, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Sound of Music. The mass audience had seen these movies, and they paid attention to the Oscars. Now when the nominations come out, people try to catch up with the finalists, but it’s almost like homework.

    Now on one hand, I think he’s right. Make the nominees for best picture Spider-Man 3, Pirates 3, Fantastic Four, I am Legend and Transformers and sure, WAAAY more people would tune in to watch the ceremony. But I’m sure you’re thinking what I’m thinking: this is the most ludicrous idea I’ve heard all week. Is he seriously suggesting that we don’t honor good films and instead shower the crap with accolades because teenagers went back to the theater six times to see robots fighting? Well, no.

    To be fair, in the article he suggests that Hollywood should instead go back to its roots and make big story adventures with big stars on a moderate budget; such as Out of Africa for instance. While I agree with that, I don’t agree with statements like this:

    “There aren’t likely to be any honorable blockbusters this year. Instead, the nominees for the Best Picture Oscar are almost sure to include “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood,” two ultraviolent dramas much loved by critics but too weird to be crowd pleasers. “Atonement” could fill the period-film slot; “Sweeney Todd” might get a nod for its crimson passion. With all this caviar on offer Oscar night (if there is an Oscar night), the beer-and-nachos audience will stay away, and the ratings will suffer VDD–viewer deficit disorder.

    So what? Yeah, if the Oscars are, as Mr. Corliss suggests, supposed to be about more viewers and commercialism and not about rewarding good film, then fine; nominate the above films I mentioned and have fun with your beer drinking buddies. I won’t be watching. And meanwhile, almost overnight, the Oscars will become a joke and will therefore start to lose viewership I think. Not to mention, I as a movie-goer may start to eventually wane in my love for films, because all this will do is perpetuate an already growing problem. This will simply honor the studios for putting out crap and giving them the message that this is what we want. Simultaneously, budgets for well-made “indie” films will dwindle and there will be fewer and fewer of them.

    So no Mr. Corliss, I don’t think the way to “save” The Oscars is to nominate the five movies that everyone saw. The way to save The Oscars is to nominate and award titles and actors that deserve praise for quality, not the quantity of the audience. The way to save The Oscars is to educate people about the majesty of film and the true quality that’s out there for the taking should you care to open your eyes a bit. Unfortunately, Time magazine has a little bit larger readership than those of us scribbling thoughts down in the third row in our tiny notebooks. Still, this won’t stand man. This aggression will not stand.

    source: Time
    I actually encourage you to read the article. He does make one or two valid points and I like a couple of his other ideas for gaining viewership (put Clooney and Day-Lewis in a cage and let em bare knuckle brawl it out for the trophy).

  • BAFTA Long List

    5

    BAFTAThe contenders for possible BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) Awards were announced late last week. Remember, these are just the 15 contenders in each category, from which the five nominees will be chosen in the second round of voting, which closes Jan. 14. It may not be all that interesting or surprising, but still, I love awards shows and announcements (the ones that matter anyway); so here’s the long list for The BAFTA Awards, preceded by some stats and curiosities:

    • Atonement: leads the way with 17 entries.
    • In second is a three way tie with 13 entries: No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Elizabeth: The Golden Age
    • Charlie Wilson’s War is the only best film contender not also on the best director list, where it is replaced by 3.10 to Yuma, with nine entries overall.
    • Angrily, Casey Affleck is on the… well, if you’ve been in the third row long enough, you know my beef.
    • Angelina Jolie, Julie Christie and Cate Blanchett are the only representatives for A Mighty Heart, Away from Her and I’m Not There respectively, but all stand a good chance of picking up nominations at least.

    Here’s the list:

    FILM
    “American Gangster”
    “Atonement”
    “The Bourne Ultimatum
    “Charlie Wilson’s War
    “Control”
    “Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
    “Eastern Promises
    “Into the Wild
    “Juno
    “The Kite Runner”
    “The Lives of Others”
    “Lust, Caution”
    “Michael Clayton”
    “No Country for Old Men”
    “There Will Be Blood”

    the rest of the contenders are hidden below
    show

    So that’s the long list, apparently though, BAFTA already has its five nominations for the
    Foreign langauage category:
    The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
    The Kite Runner
    The Lives of Others
    Lust, Caution
    La Vie en rose

    This is the first time the foreign-language nominees have been announced ahead of the other BAFTA nominations.

     

     
    source: Variety

  • 2007: As Strong as We Thought?

    60

    To coincide with Marina’s frustration in the post below, I too can only sigh. I know this won’t come as any big shock to anyone and doesn’t really tell us something we don’t already know. But sometimes seeing this “on paper” makes the truth hurt that much more – especially for those of us fond of sitting in the third row at The Bloor.

    Here are the top 40 box office hits for all films internationally in 2007 (courtesy of Box Office Mojo):

    40) Halloween (2007)
    39) Surf’s Up
    38) The Golden Compass
    37) Stomp the Yard
    36) Saw IV
    35) Fred Claus
    34) 1408
    33) Disturbia
    32) Beowulf
    31) Bridge to Terabithia
    30) The Game Plan
    29) Norbit
    28) Meet the Robinsons
    27) Evan Almighty
    26) Enchanted
    25) Ghost Rider
    24) Ocean’s Thirteen
    23) Blades of Glory
    22) Hairspray (2007)
    21) I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
    20) Superbad
    19) Bee Movie
    18) American Gangster
    17) Fantastic Four 2
    16) Die Hard 4.0
    15) Rush Hour 3
    14) National Treasure: Book of Secrets
    13) Knocked Up
    12) Alvin and the Chipmunks
    11) Wild Hogs
    10) The Simpsons Movie
    9) I Am Legend
    8 ) Ratatouille
    7) 300
    6) The Bourne Ultimatum
    5) Harry Potter 5
    4) Pirates 3
    3) Transformers
    2) Shrek the Third
    1) Spider-Man 3

    This is heartbreaking. While I admit that I saw exactly half of these movies, so some of these dollars were mine (but I don’t count since I’m a critic), how can dreck like Shrek 3 and Pirates 3 (especially when part 2 was so god awful) be making $300 million dollars while films like Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men and Zodiac didn’t even crack the top 60? And these weren’t arthouse films that are difficult to find either. George Clooney is about as big as you can get and Michael Clayton was in every multi-plex in the world. No Country is playing just about everywhere right now. Sure it will make up some ground in weeks to come, but it ain’t gonna hit $100 milllion – certainly not $200 million anyway.

    Seriously, why did Norbit make damn near $100 million while Hot Fuzz only made $24 million? Is the world (mostly North America) that crass and full of unintelligence? I mean how many titles on the above list were on ANY top ten lists this year? 2? Maybe 3? How many of them, from an as objective point of view as you can get, are truly good films? Maybe 9 or 10 (and that’s pushing it)?

    What I want to know is, why does this happen? Does the average American really want to go see (and is genuinely entertained so much) by Fantastic Four 2 instead of Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead that they’re willing to go to see this garbage over and over again? I’m an opitmist and refuse to believe it. There’s something else going on here and I want to get to the bottom of it. I don’t know anyone (and I know a lot of people with poor taste in film) who actually looked me in the eye and said that they really wanted to go see Stomp the Yard ($61 million).

  • Cinecast 74 – Year End Special

    58



    this episode:
    The 2007 Year in review; including our Top Ten films of the year and more!

    Unwrap the complete Show Notes by clicking on this link…

    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • Row Three’s Top 10 of 2007

    81

    Tommy Lee JonesSince everyone else is putting up their top ten films of the year, those of us all sitting in the same row of seats put our lists together, compared, contrasted and argued; and finally assigned a point system to come to some sort of agreement, or consensus if you will, of the ten “best/favorite” films released in 2007. The list seems fairly standard with a couple of welcome, oddball titles thrown in for good measure. The curious absence of Once from the list has this author seriously considering leaving this site, but otherwise it looks pretty good. So without further ado, I give you the ROW THREE TOP TEN FILMS OF 2007…

    10) Exiled
    9) Inland Empire
    8 ) Rescue Dawn
    7) Gone Baby Gone
    6) Grindhouse
    5) Atonement
    3) TIE: Paprika / Zodiac
    2) The Assassination of Jesse James
    1) No Country for Old Men

    You can see all of our lists below the fold…
    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • Cinecast 73 – Paper, Clocks and The Wisdom of Crocodiles

    76



    this episode:
    There Will Be Blood, Sweeney Todd, Charlie Wilson’s War, The Orphanage

    Unwrap the complete Show Notes by clicking on this link…

    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • January DVD Releases of Note

    11

    Not a list of every DVD that is being released this month. Just a list of DVDs I found noteworthy or might be of interest to someone. If you have more, by all means post ‘em in the comments section…


    January 1:

    Superbad Ingmar Bergman: Four Masterworks (Criterion) 12 Angry Men

    see the rest of the month…
    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • Review: The Man from Earth

    39
    Man from Earth poster

    Director: Richard Schenkman
    Writer: Jerome Bixby
    Producers: Richard Schenkman, Eric D. Wilkinson
    Starring: David Lee Smith, Tony Todd, John Billingsley, William Katt, Ellen Crawford, Annika Peterson, Richard Riehle, Alexis Thorpe
    MPAA Rating: NR
    Running time: 87 min.



    So I was cleaning out my hard drive today and came upon a movie that I had yet to extract from a .rar file, The Man from Earth. I didn’t remember downloading it as I don’t usually download movies. I went to the IMDb profile and noticed it had a viewer score of about 8.5 with almost 6000 votes. With that high of a score, it’s pretty certain that the film is at least worth taking a look at. So I extracted the file this morning and began to watch.

    Right away, I could see that this was something small and low budget. I recognized several of the main characters immediately from low grade B movies (Office Space, 90′s version of Night of the Living Dead) to short lived sci-fi television shows (Enterprise, Great American Hero). The style and direction has the feel of being a made for TV type of movie. I’ve never been able to express exactly what that style or feel of a movie is, but I’m sure you get the feeling as well and know it when you see it. So now I’m thinking, “ok, this must be some low budget, indie film a director or PR rep wanted me to take a look at for some reason.” Then the story starts.

    Wow. The entire film takes place in a single room of a quiet cottage in a secluded area of somewhere (probably mid-west America). A man named John, of about 35 years of age, is preparing to move and his friends and colleagues unexpectedly show up to give him a send off. The man was trying to quietly leave and never look back and the mystery about why he might be trying to sneak away is just too much for his friends to bear, so they start to pressure John to spit out whatever is on his mind. Finally, after being pressed, John tells the truth. He was a cave man; as in, a real cave man; from the cro-magnan era. Needless to say his friends don’t believe him and there isn’t any way to really prove or disprove his story. So instead, we get a fantastic story in a question and answer format that gets ugly and argumentative at times and in others quite fascinating and even heartwarming.

    Scientific minds should love the film. As would anyone interested in religion, history or philosophy. It is fascinating as all get out and will leave you thinking about it for days (I assume, as I just finished the film ten minutes ago and already can’t wait to share it with the world). I’d rather not get into specifics because the movie is all about discussion and revelations. What might you ask a man who claims, pretty convincingly, that he has been alive for 14,000 years? This isn’t done in some sort of super natural or overly dramatic way. John is not a vampire. He has some scientific questions and answers as to why he claims what he claims. Who was your father? What was your name? Did you meet anyone famous? Can you die? What was it like living through the dark ages? The bubonic plague? Have you ever had children? The movie could almost literally never end with the questions that could be asked of John and he seems to have a believable answer for everything. Even if his answer is, “I don’t know.” But is John really telling the truth or is he just making all of this up as some sort of hoax or for another good reason? Or maybe he’s just nuts. All of this is pretty irrelevant. If I could sit down and talk with John, it really wouldn’t matter if I believe him, the stroies are FASCINATING.

    While I don’t want to unveil my top ten list of 2007 until the Cinecast next week, I can pretty much assure you that The Man from Earth has a real good shot of making the list. As I think on it, does it deserve five stars? From a technical and acting standpoint, probably not. But usually when I get this kind of mental reaction from a film and if I have to debate with myself on whether it should get 4.5 or 5 stars, I usually give the movie the benefit of the doubt and go with five stars unless there is a glaring reason why points should be deducted. In this case, while as I stated, the acting is mediocre and the budget was probably about $15, all of that is irrelevant to the story and the fantastic script. And so readers, what might be the last movie I’ll be watching in 2007, I cap the year off with my fourth and final five star rating for a film this year. The Man from Earth.

    (5/5)

    POST SCRIPT: I mentioned in the opening paragraph I downloaded the film. This really isn’t like me and after doing some research, I remember now that I had read somewhere or someone had told me (maybe Jay at filmjunk?) that the director and producers of this movie were actually encouraging people to download the movie to spread the word. So I did. The only thing they ask is that if you like the film, tell others and visit their official web site. I’m sorry I can’t provide the link of where I originally read this, but there are some posts in the IMDb discussion board about it and while I’m not comfotable providing links to .torrent sites or illegal downloading sites, I can provide you with a few useful links below. I highly encourage you to check this film out by any means possible.

    Links:
    Official Site
    IMDb profile
    MySpace Profile
    Blockbuster Online
    Netflix
    Amazon