These are the films on AFI's 400 film list that came from the last decade. These, in other words, are the films that have come around since the last release of the list. 1997 films LA Confidential and Titanic were released in 1997 and the list came out in 1998, but were probably not on the original 400. It's an interesting set of choices, except I'm not sure why they picked Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkhaban. I think they're missing The Pianist, Master and Commander, the Truman Show, Last Samurai, Munich, Lost in Translation, Seabiscuit, and Mystic River and just like the Oscars, they went overboard by giving every installment of Lord of the Rings a nomination. Chicago vs Moulan Rouge should be interesting, I predict one of those two entries will make it on and it will be Chicago, most likely. Chicago placed 11th or 12th on AFI's recently released list of top 25 musicals, while Moulan Rouge placed 25th.
Also of note:
-Of these 29 films, 15 are best picture Oscar nominees
-8 of these films broke into the Box Office top 10 when they came out
-8 are either a sequel or a film that launched sequels
1 American Beauty
2 Austin Powers
3 Being John Malkovitch
4 Chicago
5 Finding Nemo
6 Gladiator
7 Harry Potter and the Prisoners of Azkhaban
8 Hotel Rwanda
9 The Hours
10 The Insider
11 LA Confidential
12 Lord of the Rings I
13 Lord of the Rings II
14 Lord of the Rings III
15 Matrix
16 Momento
17 Moulin Rouge!
18 Pirates of the Carribean: Curse of the Black Pearl
19 Ray
20 Rushmore
21 Saving Private Ryan
22 Shakespeare in Love
23 Shrek
24 Sixth Sense
25 Sideways
26 Spiderman 2
27 There’s Something About Mary
28 Three Kings
29 Titanic
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Fantastic Four Review (2007)
3 Stars:
If the critics had their way, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer would never have been made. They pretty much unanimously bashed the first Fantastic Four film, yet the film went onto a very respectable 56 million dollars opening weekend en route to a 154 million dollars overall.
I haven't yet seen the first film but if it's anything like the sequel, it isn't too hard to see why critics might feel like this franchise is a second-tier version of X-Men or Spiderman. The special effects can be pretty impressive at times. The London Eye sequence, for example, and the airborne battles are great set pieces. If I hadn't been introduced to Google Earth in the last couple of years, I would have been blown away by the scene where the Human Torch first chases after the Silver Surfer where the frame zooms out of Manhattan to a satellite photo of the Eastern seaboard as a flaming red speck and a silver fly across it. The problem, however, is that the special effects and the world they're set in do not seem well thought-out. Having the Human Torch and Silver Surfer bounce around from New York to Washington D.C. to outer space and Cairo without much second thought, almost feels like something out of a ripe-for-parody 1950's B movie.
That's the case for a lot of this movie: a villain with the name Dr. Von Doom (could they have been any less subtle?), this general blasé feeling by every character in the film about the world ending, etc. Take a film like "Independence Day" to see a somewhat more grandiose vision of our world as it faces a doomsday scenario. In "The Fantastic Four," Sue Storm (Jessica Alba) massages her husband's shoulders as he's being a work-a-haulic and says, "Relax, it's not like the whole weight of the world is on you." Actually, that's kind of EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. Batman is a superhero franchise that's set in "Gotham" and with it, this dark otherworldly atmosphere and Superman weaves together the world of the mundane in Manhattan with extraordinary abilities of Spiderman and his villainous counterparts. On the contrary, Fantastic Four, just appears set in Manhattan out of a lack of anywhere better to film it in. In short, Fantastic Four doesn't feel like a fully realized superhero film in tone.
What makes up for it, in part, is a certain kind of camaraderie between the characters. Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) and Ben Grimm (Michael Chilkis) both are characters imbued with a sense of humor and form a sort of Abbott and Costello chemistry. Besides just being eye candy, Sue (Jessica Alba) brings a sort of feminine balance to the group. Reed (Ioan Gruffudd) is the actual superhero of the group: the equivalent of Peter Parker in Spiderman or Wolverine in the X-Men series. Much of the drama centers around the choices he makes. When you see these four in interviews or press conferences, there's a chemistry between them all that makes them that much more appealing on screen.
If the critics had their way, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer would never have been made. They pretty much unanimously bashed the first Fantastic Four film, yet the film went onto a very respectable 56 million dollars opening weekend en route to a 154 million dollars overall.
I haven't yet seen the first film but if it's anything like the sequel, it isn't too hard to see why critics might feel like this franchise is a second-tier version of X-Men or Spiderman. The special effects can be pretty impressive at times. The London Eye sequence, for example, and the airborne battles are great set pieces. If I hadn't been introduced to Google Earth in the last couple of years, I would have been blown away by the scene where the Human Torch first chases after the Silver Surfer where the frame zooms out of Manhattan to a satellite photo of the Eastern seaboard as a flaming red speck and a silver fly across it. The problem, however, is that the special effects and the world they're set in do not seem well thought-out. Having the Human Torch and Silver Surfer bounce around from New York to Washington D.C. to outer space and Cairo without much second thought, almost feels like something out of a ripe-for-parody 1950's B movie.
That's the case for a lot of this movie: a villain with the name Dr. Von Doom (could they have been any less subtle?), this general blasé feeling by every character in the film about the world ending, etc. Take a film like "Independence Day" to see a somewhat more grandiose vision of our world as it faces a doomsday scenario. In "The Fantastic Four," Sue Storm (Jessica Alba) massages her husband's shoulders as he's being a work-a-haulic and says, "Relax, it's not like the whole weight of the world is on you." Actually, that's kind of EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. Batman is a superhero franchise that's set in "Gotham" and with it, this dark otherworldly atmosphere and Superman weaves together the world of the mundane in Manhattan with extraordinary abilities of Spiderman and his villainous counterparts. On the contrary, Fantastic Four, just appears set in Manhattan out of a lack of anywhere better to film it in. In short, Fantastic Four doesn't feel like a fully realized superhero film in tone.
What makes up for it, in part, is a certain kind of camaraderie between the characters. Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) and Ben Grimm (Michael Chilkis) both are characters imbued with a sense of humor and form a sort of Abbott and Costello chemistry. Besides just being eye candy, Sue (Jessica Alba) brings a sort of feminine balance to the group. Reed (Ioan Gruffudd) is the actual superhero of the group: the equivalent of Peter Parker in Spiderman or Wolverine in the X-Men series. Much of the drama centers around the choices he makes. When you see these four in interviews or press conferences, there's a chemistry between them all that makes them that much more appealing on screen.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Reason #39 not to be a film critic: It won't make Quentin Tarantino love you
I think this clip is illustrative of the kind of tensions that exist between critics and filmmakers, especially one as niche-oriented as Quentin Tarantino. In this clip, Quentin Tarantino blows up at a San Fransisco film critic who says that the film Kill Bill is inappropriate to 12 year olds. Without having seen Kill Bill, I don't have an opinion either way, but many of the viewers on youtube who post comments are in support of Tarantino for telling the snotty film critic off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYu6fpaNrBA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYu6fpaNrBA
Friday, June 15, 2007
The underappreciated David Spade
I wasn't watching much Hollywood Minute when David Spade was on SNL, but I think he's actually a brilliant comic. Some of the stuff he says on the Showbiz Show is just so spot-on. His "There I said it" bits are great. I loved his bit last night about how he's so tired of actors complaing about being "typecast" and his American Idol rant on how we should have stars auditioning to stay in the music industry are so spot-on. Some people think he's nothing without Farley, but I disagree. I think some people look at him and see "Joe Dirt" or something like that. Some compare him to Rob Schneider as one of the friends of Adam Sandler who gets their own movies produced by him even though they'd never been greenlit otherwise, but to be honest I even perfer David Spade to Adam Sandler. I think Lost and Found was a pretty decent film and Dickie Roberts was decent. I don't think they're anywhere near the schlock that Rob Schneider or Adam Sandler films like Click and Little Nicky were. I think Farley's good and Spade's good in their seperate ways and they were great together but Spade is a talent too. Dave Spade simultaneously is a lovable loser AND the smart alec who could make you cry in elementary school. On Just Shoot Me, for example, he would never get as many girls or have as much office clout as the photographer going bald, Elliot DeMoro. Yet at the same time, Spade's characters would always get off a deadly verbal jab at his target. There's a certain admiration you can get out of Spade, because he more or less abides by the philosophy that win or lose, at least you still have your sense of humor.
Go to http://www.theshowbizshow.com/ or comedy central to see some of his "There I Said it" pieces
Go to http://www.theshowbizshow.com/ or comedy central to see some of his "There I Said it" pieces
Thursday, June 14, 2007
If the AFI chose to expand their top 100 list, rather than redo it.
This Wednesday, the AFI is updating their Top 100 list in a CBS series which is a somewhat monumental event for me because it was the release of the original AFI 100 Years.…100 Movies list in 1998, that led to me wanting to become a film critic.
Back in 1998, when I heard a list was being released of the top 100 films of all time, I tried to guess what might be on the list based on what films I had seen and liked. I thought of films like Cool Runnings, The Mighty Ducks and an obscure Vincente Minnelli musical called Kismet. When I actually looked it up, I was completely taken aback to learn that pretty much all of the films on the list were not only movies I hadn’t seen but movies I hadn’t even heard of. I suddenly wanted to know what exactly these films could possibly have that the Mighty Ducks didn’t have. When I didn’t find a job the following summer, I spent a lot of my free time going to the library and checking out films on the actual list like Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, The African Queen, The Graduate and Network.
It most likely was not just myself who might have a gained a new appreciation of film history around this time. The AFI list came in the middle of a craze occurring around the turn of the century in which every major media outlet came up with some definitive list to mark the year 2000. Between 1995 and 2002, the Time Out Film Guide, The San Fransisco Chronicle, The LA Daily News, the British Film Institute, Video Detective, and the National Society of Film Critics, in addition to Premiere, Empire, Movie Line and Rolling Stone magazines published either top 50 or top 100 film lists recapping choices for the top films of the century.
Despite cynics who might say that these lists are just an arbitrary gimmick, the fact is that they have performed a very useful function in the promotion of classic film: They act as a reference for sorting between the quality films and the generic drivel for those who dare to venture beyond the new release sections of the video store. Before 1995, the Library of Congress’ National Film Registry, the Oscars (along with countless other film critics’ awards) and Sight and Sound Magazine’s decennial film poll were the only guides to the history of films and they were all insufficient. The Library of Congress list isn’t particularly well-publicized and the Sight and Sound polls which only polls for ten films, doesn’t nearly go far enough in promoting the great diversity of choices within each decade and each genre. The Oscars and all other awards that single out great films by the year can often fall into the trap of thinking about what’s big at the moment and selections like Around the World in 80 Days, Gentleman’s Agreement, and The Ziegfeld Follies can become dated very quickly.
Of these lists, the AFI remains the most well-known and I've come to consider it as a sort of definitive authority on film history which is way I hate to think of the concept of it being tampered with. I can't say the list is perfect but I would say that all but 2 or 3 (My Fair Lady, Wuthering Heights, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) are pretty safely in the realm of classics and 97 out of 100 is a pretty good mark. The list is also pretty inclusive of all time periods, major actors, significant directors, and runs 8 or 9 films deep in every major American genre. It has everything from recent Oscar winners (i.e. Forrest Gump, Dances with Wolves), popular crowdpleasers (i.e. Rocky, Raiders of the Lost Ark), film milestones (i.e. Birth of a Nation, Jazz Singer), cult monster movies (Frankenstein), literary adaptations (i.e. To Kill a Mockingbird, Grapes of Wrath), and the most anti-war (i.e. Mash and Apocalypse Now) and pro-war (i.e. From Here to Eternity) films ever made. A few major directors such as Spike Lee, Blake Edwards and Douglas Sirk are left off the list but special consideration is made to make sure that Sidney Pollack, Oliver Stone, Sidney Lumet, Woody Allen, Rob Altman and Clint Eastwood each get a film in the 100.
The tragic thing of redoing the AFI 100 list is that some great films will inevitably be left off to make room for the new which makes us want to consider the question, why should we delete any films from the list at all or tamper with the original order? A case could be made for the rare film like Orson Welles' Touch of Evil whose original cut was finally released in 1998 or the political 1960's thriller "The Manchurian Candidate" that was only introduced to audiences around 1990 after being withheld from circulation for controversial content. Other than these rare exceptions, it seems to be catering to popular trends to reorder the films. Citizen Kane hasn't gotten any worse over the last 10 years, after all.
Why don’t they just add 10 films, and call it 110 films, 110 movies. Even if the sound of 100 Years…100 ____ has a catchy marketing ring to it, it’s no longer 100 years. The lists should have been 102 Years, 102 Comedies or 103 Years, 103 Movie Songs. That brings the interesting question of what to add for the 10 films for the past 10 years. Here might be a good example of a workable list. There aren't my personal favorites but 10 films that have established themselves as future classics over the past 10 years. I deliberately veered away from films in the last year or two because I think there needs to be a little more breathing room to determine the merits of the film:
1. Saving Private Ryan, Stephen Spielberg, 1998-This stirring war film has established itself as a classic by this time. It came along at a time when no one thought there was anything left to say over World War II, and it's loss at the Oscars to Shakespeare in Love was almost universally decried as a mistake.
2. The Matrix, Larry and Andy Wachowski, 1999-Iffy only because the AFI has snubbed such innovative sci-fi films in the past as Blade Runner, Alien, and Brazil, the Matrix was a film like no one had ever seen before and it reset the bar for special effects and cinematic action.
3. Gladiator, Ridley Scott, 2000-Critics might have denounced the throwback to the sword and sandals epic as not being innovative enough to merit an Oscar, but it's hard to forget when watching it how well-crafted the film is and how phenomenal Russell Crowe and Joaquin Pheonix are in.
4. Traffic, Stephen Sodebergh, 2000-The bold ensemble piece on the drug trade was both entertaining and topical and let's not forget how much of an effect Sodebergh's inventive visual styles have had on the current landscape of movies.
5. The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson 2001-This decade has been dominated by big-budget blockbusters, CGI effects, and stories that take us into other worlds. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, popular with hardcore fans, casual audiences and critics alike, was seen as the best example of this.
6. Pianist, Roman Polanski, 2002-Roman Polanski's personal and deeply moving epic about a pianist and his struggle throughout the war was virtually critic-proof and nabbed a long overdue Oscar for its director.
7. Lost in Translation, Sofia Coppolla, 2003-The fact that the film was made by Francis Ford's daughter might have a little to do with the inclusion, but the bare-budget film was a very imaginative look at modern alienation, mid-life woes, and the romances that are never meant to be, resonated with audiences and critics alike.
8. Mystic River, Clint Eastwood, 2003-With three oscar-nominated films in the last four years, Eastwood will be remembered alongside Scorsese as the preeminent director of the decade and he's just too hot right now not to be included on the list. Mystic River was a film with great emotional impact that
9. Sideways, Alexander Payne, 2004-Payne who has honed his hybrid of character-based comedy and realism since Election and About Schmidt created a critical darling out of a dark comedy featuring an unlikely quartet of character actors. Like Lost in Translation, it's a film of small-scale but of great resonance.
10. Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee, 2005-It's success in turning a controversial topic into the must-see critical hit of the year should bode well for Brokeback's chances at making the AFI's new list. Aside from breaking new ground in featuring two gay cowboys in a love story, it also was the first time a non-Caucasian director won the Oscar.
Runners-Up:
1. Thin Red Line, Terrence Malick, 1998-The extremely unproductive director was one of the few great innovators of the New Wave to be left off the original list and the reintroduction of this mood director to the big screen in Thin Red Line was quite a grand event.
2. Chicago, Rob Marshall, 2002-By being nominated for an Oscar, Moulan Rouge! was a great first step in bringing the previously outdated musical genre to modernity. By winning the Oscar, Chicago is said to have actually accomplished it. In retrospect, critics point to both films as being great turning points for the reinvention of the modern musical. Since I personally found "Moulan Rouge!"'s glitz, glamour and 2 second ASL obnoxious, I'm inclined to go with Chicago, which featured its share of showstopping numbers along with great performances from Rene Zellweger, John C. Riley and Richard Gere.
3. Sixth Sense, M. Night Shamylan, 1999-The reason that this Oscar-nominated film, wouldn't make the cut is because the public has become increasingly more and more disappointed with each movie he's released, but that shouldn't be cause to forget how captivated we were by his debut.
4. Kill Bill Volume 1, Quentin Tarantino, 2003-Another homage to the movies that inspired him as a kid, Tarantino's piece was no doubt violent but in a stylized way.
5. Gangs of New York, Martin Scorsese, 2002-If we were to add another Scorsese film to the list to complement Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas, our choice could go one of three ways: The period piece and personal dream project, film historian Scorsesee's tribute to the Golden Age, or the classic cops-and-robbers film that won him the Oscar. For pure boldness in vision, I will go with Gangs of New York.
6. Master and Commander, Peter Weir, 2003-Considering that Dead Poets' Society and Witness were undeservedly left off the original list, it would be a crime if either Truman Show or Master and Commander were not added to this list. Master and Commander, if nothing else, was the single most historically realistic film I've ever experienced.
7. Babel, Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, 2006-Another film by a foreign language director, Babel was a sweeping epic of truly global porportions.
Back in 1998, when I heard a list was being released of the top 100 films of all time, I tried to guess what might be on the list based on what films I had seen and liked. I thought of films like Cool Runnings, The Mighty Ducks and an obscure Vincente Minnelli musical called Kismet. When I actually looked it up, I was completely taken aback to learn that pretty much all of the films on the list were not only movies I hadn’t seen but movies I hadn’t even heard of. I suddenly wanted to know what exactly these films could possibly have that the Mighty Ducks didn’t have. When I didn’t find a job the following summer, I spent a lot of my free time going to the library and checking out films on the actual list like Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, The African Queen, The Graduate and Network.
It most likely was not just myself who might have a gained a new appreciation of film history around this time. The AFI list came in the middle of a craze occurring around the turn of the century in which every major media outlet came up with some definitive list to mark the year 2000. Between 1995 and 2002, the Time Out Film Guide, The San Fransisco Chronicle, The LA Daily News, the British Film Institute, Video Detective, and the National Society of Film Critics, in addition to Premiere, Empire, Movie Line and Rolling Stone magazines published either top 50 or top 100 film lists recapping choices for the top films of the century.
Despite cynics who might say that these lists are just an arbitrary gimmick, the fact is that they have performed a very useful function in the promotion of classic film: They act as a reference for sorting between the quality films and the generic drivel for those who dare to venture beyond the new release sections of the video store. Before 1995, the Library of Congress’ National Film Registry, the Oscars (along with countless other film critics’ awards) and Sight and Sound Magazine’s decennial film poll were the only guides to the history of films and they were all insufficient. The Library of Congress list isn’t particularly well-publicized and the Sight and Sound polls which only polls for ten films, doesn’t nearly go far enough in promoting the great diversity of choices within each decade and each genre. The Oscars and all other awards that single out great films by the year can often fall into the trap of thinking about what’s big at the moment and selections like Around the World in 80 Days, Gentleman’s Agreement, and The Ziegfeld Follies can become dated very quickly.
Of these lists, the AFI remains the most well-known and I've come to consider it as a sort of definitive authority on film history which is way I hate to think of the concept of it being tampered with. I can't say the list is perfect but I would say that all but 2 or 3 (My Fair Lady, Wuthering Heights, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) are pretty safely in the realm of classics and 97 out of 100 is a pretty good mark. The list is also pretty inclusive of all time periods, major actors, significant directors, and runs 8 or 9 films deep in every major American genre. It has everything from recent Oscar winners (i.e. Forrest Gump, Dances with Wolves), popular crowdpleasers (i.e. Rocky, Raiders of the Lost Ark), film milestones (i.e. Birth of a Nation, Jazz Singer), cult monster movies (Frankenstein), literary adaptations (i.e. To Kill a Mockingbird, Grapes of Wrath), and the most anti-war (i.e. Mash and Apocalypse Now) and pro-war (i.e. From Here to Eternity) films ever made. A few major directors such as Spike Lee, Blake Edwards and Douglas Sirk are left off the list but special consideration is made to make sure that Sidney Pollack, Oliver Stone, Sidney Lumet, Woody Allen, Rob Altman and Clint Eastwood each get a film in the 100.
The tragic thing of redoing the AFI 100 list is that some great films will inevitably be left off to make room for the new which makes us want to consider the question, why should we delete any films from the list at all or tamper with the original order? A case could be made for the rare film like Orson Welles' Touch of Evil whose original cut was finally released in 1998 or the political 1960's thriller "The Manchurian Candidate" that was only introduced to audiences around 1990 after being withheld from circulation for controversial content. Other than these rare exceptions, it seems to be catering to popular trends to reorder the films. Citizen Kane hasn't gotten any worse over the last 10 years, after all.
Why don’t they just add 10 films, and call it 110 films, 110 movies. Even if the sound of 100 Years…100 ____ has a catchy marketing ring to it, it’s no longer 100 years. The lists should have been 102 Years, 102 Comedies or 103 Years, 103 Movie Songs. That brings the interesting question of what to add for the 10 films for the past 10 years. Here might be a good example of a workable list. There aren't my personal favorites but 10 films that have established themselves as future classics over the past 10 years. I deliberately veered away from films in the last year or two because I think there needs to be a little more breathing room to determine the merits of the film:
1. Saving Private Ryan, Stephen Spielberg, 1998-This stirring war film has established itself as a classic by this time. It came along at a time when no one thought there was anything left to say over World War II, and it's loss at the Oscars to Shakespeare in Love was almost universally decried as a mistake.
2. The Matrix, Larry and Andy Wachowski, 1999-Iffy only because the AFI has snubbed such innovative sci-fi films in the past as Blade Runner, Alien, and Brazil, the Matrix was a film like no one had ever seen before and it reset the bar for special effects and cinematic action.
3. Gladiator, Ridley Scott, 2000-Critics might have denounced the throwback to the sword and sandals epic as not being innovative enough to merit an Oscar, but it's hard to forget when watching it how well-crafted the film is and how phenomenal Russell Crowe and Joaquin Pheonix are in.
4. Traffic, Stephen Sodebergh, 2000-The bold ensemble piece on the drug trade was both entertaining and topical and let's not forget how much of an effect Sodebergh's inventive visual styles have had on the current landscape of movies.
5. The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson 2001-This decade has been dominated by big-budget blockbusters, CGI effects, and stories that take us into other worlds. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, popular with hardcore fans, casual audiences and critics alike, was seen as the best example of this.
6. Pianist, Roman Polanski, 2002-Roman Polanski's personal and deeply moving epic about a pianist and his struggle throughout the war was virtually critic-proof and nabbed a long overdue Oscar for its director.
7. Lost in Translation, Sofia Coppolla, 2003-The fact that the film was made by Francis Ford's daughter might have a little to do with the inclusion, but the bare-budget film was a very imaginative look at modern alienation, mid-life woes, and the romances that are never meant to be, resonated with audiences and critics alike.
8. Mystic River, Clint Eastwood, 2003-With three oscar-nominated films in the last four years, Eastwood will be remembered alongside Scorsese as the preeminent director of the decade and he's just too hot right now not to be included on the list. Mystic River was a film with great emotional impact that
9. Sideways, Alexander Payne, 2004-Payne who has honed his hybrid of character-based comedy and realism since Election and About Schmidt created a critical darling out of a dark comedy featuring an unlikely quartet of character actors. Like Lost in Translation, it's a film of small-scale but of great resonance.
10. Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee, 2005-It's success in turning a controversial topic into the must-see critical hit of the year should bode well for Brokeback's chances at making the AFI's new list. Aside from breaking new ground in featuring two gay cowboys in a love story, it also was the first time a non-Caucasian director won the Oscar.
Runners-Up:
1. Thin Red Line, Terrence Malick, 1998-The extremely unproductive director was one of the few great innovators of the New Wave to be left off the original list and the reintroduction of this mood director to the big screen in Thin Red Line was quite a grand event.
2. Chicago, Rob Marshall, 2002-By being nominated for an Oscar, Moulan Rouge! was a great first step in bringing the previously outdated musical genre to modernity. By winning the Oscar, Chicago is said to have actually accomplished it. In retrospect, critics point to both films as being great turning points for the reinvention of the modern musical. Since I personally found "Moulan Rouge!"'s glitz, glamour and 2 second ASL obnoxious, I'm inclined to go with Chicago, which featured its share of showstopping numbers along with great performances from Rene Zellweger, John C. Riley and Richard Gere.
3. Sixth Sense, M. Night Shamylan, 1999-The reason that this Oscar-nominated film, wouldn't make the cut is because the public has become increasingly more and more disappointed with each movie he's released, but that shouldn't be cause to forget how captivated we were by his debut.
4. Kill Bill Volume 1, Quentin Tarantino, 2003-Another homage to the movies that inspired him as a kid, Tarantino's piece was no doubt violent but in a stylized way.
5. Gangs of New York, Martin Scorsese, 2002-If we were to add another Scorsese film to the list to complement Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas, our choice could go one of three ways: The period piece and personal dream project, film historian Scorsesee's tribute to the Golden Age, or the classic cops-and-robbers film that won him the Oscar. For pure boldness in vision, I will go with Gangs of New York.
6. Master and Commander, Peter Weir, 2003-Considering that Dead Poets' Society and Witness were undeservedly left off the original list, it would be a crime if either Truman Show or Master and Commander were not added to this list. Master and Commander, if nothing else, was the single most historically realistic film I've ever experienced.
7. Babel, Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, 2006-Another film by a foreign language director, Babel was a sweeping epic of truly global porportions.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Box Office June Update
As I mentioned in my May update, it looked like the summer was going to peak in May on the movie front. Shrek 3, Pirates 2 and Spiderman 3 were undoubtedly the biggest movie picture events.
The last installment of Shrek at 441 million dollars was the 3rd highest grossing film of all time behind only Star Wars and Titanic. The original Spiderman launched this whole megablockbuster era that we have today by being the first film to gross 100 million dollars in a single weekend (this is akin to the film industry's version of breaking the 4-minute barrier) and Spiderman 2 got immense love from a large fan base and critical respectability. Like Spiderman, Pirates of the Carribean has created a cult fugure (and an oscar nomination as well) out of Jonny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow and left its marks all over the box office record books setting opening day, opening weekend, and opening 10-day records before becoming the second highest film of the decade.
So to summarize, what all these numbers mean is that last month we had the final promised installment of the three biggest summer movie phenomenons of the new millenium and whether it was because they were all crammed together or not, they all dissapointed. They still made money but sequels automatically tend to do that anyway, and they did not make money in terms of satisfied customers.
Of the three, Spiderman 3 is probably the least dissapointment-proof. It is safely above 300 million dollars now and while it had some mixed reviews upon its opening, the general consensus was pretty positive. I personally thought it was a very uneven experience at first, but satisfying overall, and it served as a satisfying conclusion to the series. The main problem, I think was that so much was resolved in Spiderman 2 (Harry knows who Spiderman is, Peter and Mary Jane get together, Peter confesses to Aunt May for lying about Uncle Ben's death, etc.) that there was little tension left over for Spiderman 3. That left the first hour of Spiderman 3 boring and uneventful. It started to feel like a teen flick and reminded me that without the superhero element, Spiderman does not have as much to offer in terms of rich and dynamic characters. In other words, I don't feel that Peter Parker, Mary Jane, and Harry are interesting enough characters to base a film around if the superhero angle was taken out of the equation. Therefore, it was imperative for the film to not waste too much time with exposition and get into the superhero dynamics before the audience gets bored, which was the case with me. Once, the film found its groove, things started rolling, however. When Spiderman's suit turned from red to black (I'm sure there's some more technical term for what happened to him that some comic geek would know), you could really tell that Tobey MaGuire was having fun playing against type for the first time in his career and I felt the new additions to the Spiderman ensemble were all complimentary. My final verdict of satisfaction came about ultimately because the ending really was very effective and it's hard to feel satisfied by any ending that you've waited five years and sat through a combined 7 hours of film to see.
Shrek 3 I've heard pretty bad opinions across the board from the imdb.com comments that it just didn't measure up to its predecessors.
Pirates of the Carribean III, on the other hand, just didn't succeed as a film, in my opinion. I say
this as someone who counts the original Pirates of the Carribean as one of his favorite films of all time so needless to say, I was rooting for the film and gave it every benefit of the doubt. In the end, it was just a squandered sequel. It was about as bad as it could possibly considering the potential of the story and the greatness of these characters. The story was so convoluted, it made Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest (which I complained was too confusing) look like Little Red Riding Hood. I was surprised that despite the fact that the movie was a failure and sequels usually have major trouble pleasing critics, Pirates of the Carribean III actually got some good reviews. My local newspaper and a number of others actually found the film to be pretty good.
The last installment of Shrek at 441 million dollars was the 3rd highest grossing film of all time behind only Star Wars and Titanic. The original Spiderman launched this whole megablockbuster era that we have today by being the first film to gross 100 million dollars in a single weekend (this is akin to the film industry's version of breaking the 4-minute barrier) and Spiderman 2 got immense love from a large fan base and critical respectability. Like Spiderman, Pirates of the Carribean has created a cult fugure (and an oscar nomination as well) out of Jonny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow and left its marks all over the box office record books setting opening day, opening weekend, and opening 10-day records before becoming the second highest film of the decade.
So to summarize, what all these numbers mean is that last month we had the final promised installment of the three biggest summer movie phenomenons of the new millenium and whether it was because they were all crammed together or not, they all dissapointed. They still made money but sequels automatically tend to do that anyway, and they did not make money in terms of satisfied customers.
Of the three, Spiderman 3 is probably the least dissapointment-proof. It is safely above 300 million dollars now and while it had some mixed reviews upon its opening, the general consensus was pretty positive. I personally thought it was a very uneven experience at first, but satisfying overall, and it served as a satisfying conclusion to the series. The main problem, I think was that so much was resolved in Spiderman 2 (Harry knows who Spiderman is, Peter and Mary Jane get together, Peter confesses to Aunt May for lying about Uncle Ben's death, etc.) that there was little tension left over for Spiderman 3. That left the first hour of Spiderman 3 boring and uneventful. It started to feel like a teen flick and reminded me that without the superhero element, Spiderman does not have as much to offer in terms of rich and dynamic characters. In other words, I don't feel that Peter Parker, Mary Jane, and Harry are interesting enough characters to base a film around if the superhero angle was taken out of the equation. Therefore, it was imperative for the film to not waste too much time with exposition and get into the superhero dynamics before the audience gets bored, which was the case with me. Once, the film found its groove, things started rolling, however. When Spiderman's suit turned from red to black (I'm sure there's some more technical term for what happened to him that some comic geek would know), you could really tell that Tobey MaGuire was having fun playing against type for the first time in his career and I felt the new additions to the Spiderman ensemble were all complimentary. My final verdict of satisfaction came about ultimately because the ending really was very effective and it's hard to feel satisfied by any ending that you've waited five years and sat through a combined 7 hours of film to see.
Shrek 3 I've heard pretty bad opinions across the board from the imdb.com comments that it just didn't measure up to its predecessors.
Pirates of the Carribean III, on the other hand, just didn't succeed as a film, in my opinion. I say
this as someone who counts the original Pirates of the Carribean as one of his favorite films of all time so needless to say, I was rooting for the film and gave it every benefit of the doubt. In the end, it was just a squandered sequel. It was about as bad as it could possibly considering the potential of the story and the greatness of these characters. The story was so convoluted, it made Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest (which I complained was too confusing) look like Little Red Riding Hood. I was surprised that despite the fact that the movie was a failure and sequels usually have major trouble pleasing critics, Pirates of the Carribean III actually got some good reviews. My local newspaper and a number of others actually found the film to be pretty good.
The sins of Paris Hilton
I think the good news about the Paris Hilton case is that at the very least, she's now making headlines for something that is relevant and a hell of a lot more interesting than when she was making national headlines for absolutely nothing. Paris is a person but one of no significance whatsoever on any artistic level. She's a celebrity who's famous for....honestly, I can't even remember what she was originally famous for. Can anyone else? The truth is that Paris Hilton has always been a media construction. She's famous only because the media says she's famous and even the very debate over whether she deserves to be famous benefited her because it fed into the publicity machine and negative publicity is superior than the realization that there's nothing to be famous about.
But with this whole prison ordeal, things are a-changing. The debate surrounding Paris Hilton is now about far more interesting stuff: the conditions in the prison system, who should pay for prison, whether celebrities are above the law, etc. It's also possible that young teens are getting an education on public health from reading about Paris' disorders.
So whatever you feel about the Paris Hilton case, I call it an improvement. I think the one problem is that people are unwilling to give credit when it's due to Paris, the person. I'm not saying that Paris Hilton neccessarily deserves credit (for the record, I do think she deserves some credit for holding her head up high and accepting the sentence as best she can) but I don't think Paris the person has a fighting chance anymore to prove to the public that she's grown as a person. At this point, she's no match for her own public image and while Paris, the person, is capable of growth, the Paris that the media is used to seeing isn't.
Besides, people are unwilling to forgive Paris for being such a nuissance in our collective culture all these years. My opinion: The angry mob of people who want to see Paris remain in prison aren't really mad at Paris. As I said before, Paris Hilton was never really anything but a media construction. How can you be mad at someone who's nothing? I think the anger that we are showing with this is really directed at ourselves for allowing Paris Hilton to become famous in the first place. I think the anger at Paris is probably misdirected by parents who are mad at their daughters for buying copies of US Weekly and indulging the craze of these celebrities.
But with this whole prison ordeal, things are a-changing. The debate surrounding Paris Hilton is now about far more interesting stuff: the conditions in the prison system, who should pay for prison, whether celebrities are above the law, etc. It's also possible that young teens are getting an education on public health from reading about Paris' disorders.
So whatever you feel about the Paris Hilton case, I call it an improvement. I think the one problem is that people are unwilling to give credit when it's due to Paris, the person. I'm not saying that Paris Hilton neccessarily deserves credit (for the record, I do think she deserves some credit for holding her head up high and accepting the sentence as best she can) but I don't think Paris the person has a fighting chance anymore to prove to the public that she's grown as a person. At this point, she's no match for her own public image and while Paris, the person, is capable of growth, the Paris that the media is used to seeing isn't.
Besides, people are unwilling to forgive Paris for being such a nuissance in our collective culture all these years. My opinion: The angry mob of people who want to see Paris remain in prison aren't really mad at Paris. As I said before, Paris Hilton was never really anything but a media construction. How can you be mad at someone who's nothing? I think the anger that we are showing with this is really directed at ourselves for allowing Paris Hilton to become famous in the first place. I think the anger at Paris is probably misdirected by parents who are mad at their daughters for buying copies of US Weekly and indulging the craze of these celebrities.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Why I love the Detroit Pistons
I actually wrote this on another blog i'm contributing to so i'll just put the link here.
http://html.nbc4.com/sh/blogger/2007/06/finally-sensible-nba-gm-why-i-love.html
http://html.nbc4.com/sh/blogger/2007/06/finally-sensible-nba-gm-why-i-love.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)