Cinematic Showdown!: Lord Of The Rings vs Pirates Of The Caribbean - Part Two

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS

VS

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST

. . .  FIGHT!!!

When last we left our respective franchises, they'd both left an impressive impact on the hearts and minds of the American (and worldwide, if anyone's counting) moviegoing public.  Peter Jackson, having pre-filmed the majority of the entire Rings trilogy, returns as director of The Two Towers, being about as "locked in" as a director can get.  Gore Verbinski, having directed the first successful pirate film in some while, was given the opportunity to direct the second and third installments of Pirates concurrently.

The Two Towers hits the ground running.  It got the majority of it's exposition out of the way in the previous film, so it has a lot more leg room to add some nice character moments and action set-pieces.  Pirates has a similar set-up;  "You know the characters, you know the world. . .  Let's get to it, shall we?".

One advantage that the previous Showdown winner, the first Pirates film, had was a beginning, middle and end.  That advantage is taken away here;  While it could be argued that Dead Man's Chest has a more definite "beginning", both it and Two Towers are essentially the middle children in their trilogies.  Neither here, nor there.  So, we're on a bit more even ground, this round.

The Two Towers is more fun than Fellowship.  There's more action, more humor, and a bigger sense of scope.  The problem lies in the unnecessary flabbiness of the whole thing.  Several scenes, some of them in the form of bizarre flashbacks, lay out plainly, and redundantly, what should already be obvious.  "Sauron seeks the ring" is repeated ad nauseum.  No shit.  Some of the flashbacks don't even make sense;  At one point, we're led to believe we're seeing the memories of Faramir, but the flashback extends to moments that he wasn't even privy to.  And while the extreme length of Fellowship was necessary, given the density of it's source material, this film seems unnecessarily padded out.  We learn a lot about the land of Rohan, but really. . . Who gives a shit?!  It feels like an episode of some serialized TV drama, not part of a pre-planned trilogy.  You're really only interested in the overarching story, and this feels like a narrative time waster.  Yeah, sure; "It's in the book".  But you could give it a greater sense of urgency somehow, other than a scene where Faramir analyzes the world's most simplistic map (It's got about ten words on it:  "Mordor", "Gondor", etc.  I know literacy wouldn't be a high priority in Middle-Earth, but you'd think you could at least memorize the names of the four kingdoms, and have a general sense of where they are).

Dead Man's Chest almost has the opposite problem to Towers;  It's an overly convoluted story, and doesn't particularly care whether you can keep up with it or not.  Luckily, I can.  It's a story I quite enjoy, it extends naturally from the elements set up in the first film, and I appreciate it's lack of condescension.  Like Two Towers, it also ups the ante in the action, comedy, etc, department, and whether you like it or not, you'll finish the film feeling as if you've got your money's worth.

The Two Towers introduces several new characters, most of which are fairly compelling.  Of particular standout is Gollum.  As voiced by actor Andy Serkis, he ends up becoming the Laurence Olivier of CGI creatures, and one of the most memorable elements of the series.  Dead Man's Chest, which was produced years later, introduced a similarly compelling mixture of CGI and live-action acting; Davy Jones, the squid-faced monstrosity portrayed by Bill Nighy.  These are two very rare example of CGI creatures who have the ability to convey pathos, and are shining example of special effects done right.

In the end, the two films have similar strengths and weaknesses to their previous installments, even while they elevate their game.  Onward and upwards to the final chapters!

FREDERICK OPINES:

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS - GREAT

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST - MASTERPIECE

Theatrical Releases Of The Week

THE MECHANIC
Director:  Simon West
Stars:  Jason Statham, Ben Foster, Donald Sutherland

Plot: In this remake of the 1972 Charles Bronson film, Statham plays an assassin who leaves no traces.  He decides to take Ben Foster's character on as an apprentice.

Should I See It?:  I've enjoyed West's films so far, for what they are (Con Air, Tomb Raider), and I would expect a collaboration with Statham to up the ante.  If you don't mind checking your brain at the door, this looks like a good time.

THE RITE
Director: Mikael Hafstrom
Stars: Anthony Hopkins, Colin O'Donoghue, Ciaran Hinds

Plot: O'Donoghue plays a priest enrolled in Exorcism school in the Vatican, who is tasked with helping veteran exorcist Hopkins get the demon out of a young girl.

Should I See It?: Hafstrom has a real hit-or-miss track record:  "1408" was almost really good, and certainly creepy, but "Derailed" was a big pile of crap, and I've heard bad things about "Shanghai".  This looks like a rental to me.  Check out The Last Exorcism instead.

FROM PRADA TO NADA
Director:  Angel Gracia
Stars:  Camilla Belle, Alexa Vega

Plot:  A modern day, Latino spin on Jane Austen's "Sense And Sensibility" has two once-rich, suddenly poor sisters move from their plush digs to a run-down part of East LA.  There they find love, adventure, blah blah blah. . .  and the will to survive.

Should I See It?: In the 200 years since Sense and Sensibility was first published, the "Riches to Rags" story has been done to death.  Will this be "good"?  Nope.  Entertaining?  Possibly.


IN LIMITED RELEASE:

BIUTIFUL
Director:  Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Stars:  Javier Bardem

Plot:  Bardem plays a man who makes money by communicating with ghosts.  Or something.  And it looks pretty.  This is the Academy Award Nominee for Best Foreign Film from Mexico.

Should I See It?:  Through no small feat, Inarritu is by far the most pretentious of the Cha Cha Cha team (Also including Guillermo del Toro and Alfonso Cuaron).  Take that as you will.  I admire the man's ambition, but I personally find his films a bit tedious.  Still, I'm sure it'll look good on the big screen.

KABOOM
Director:  Gregg Araki
Stars:  Thomas Dekker, James Duval

Plot:  Dekker is a disaffected youth having lots of sex, and also visions of the apocalypse.  It's Porky's meets The Last Wave!

Should I See It?:  I'm too old to watch this movie, but if you're under the age of 22 it looks like a lot of fun.  Araki's style seems to have remained preserved in amber since he directed The Doom Generation a lifetime ago.

My Two Cents On The Kevin Smith/Sundance Debacle

The internet has exploded in the largest Nerd Civil War since we collectively tweeted about whether James Cameron's Avatar "Sux" or "Rox".  This time, it's the Kevin Smith fans versus the online Film Critics.  What's the deal?

As you likely have heard, from any number of sources (such as the AV Club), Kevin Smith premiered his new film, a horror/action film entitled Red State, out of competition at Sundance on Sunday night.  He had originally implied that he was going to be auctioning off the independently produced film to the highest bidding distributor, but ended up "buying" the film himself for $20.  That's right;  Smith will also be distributing his own film, first doing a several state Q&A/Film Preview tour (soon to hit my town) to raise money, with tickets in the $50 range.  With the money earned from this, and one would assume some out of pocket, he will then do a wide release on 1000 screens in October.  Sounds innocent enough, right?  Wrong.

Several critics have rightly pointed out flaws in this plan, and Smith's general outlook.  During his post-film speech, Smith seemed to be implying that this would be the new paradigm for independent filmmakers.  Does he really think that some Joe Schmoe could raise money by selling out concert halls with $50 a pop tickets WITHOUT being a decade-long studio filmmaker with an already rabid fanbase? Or that, as he proposes to do, you could release a film with no advertising money spent?

So, it's not really original, and it's not practical for most people, but y'know;  more power to the guy.  If it works out for him, that's great.  So why the venomous rants on either side of the aisle?

This time, it's personal.  When Smith released his last film, the Bruce Willis comedy Cop Out, critics rightly tore it to pieces.  Smith, who in the past has had a good sense of humor about his missteps, had finally been pushed too far.  Using Twitter, and his "Smodcast", he went about decrying the very art of film criticism.  No longer would he be screening his films for critics, yadda yadda yadda.  The critics, particularly the online ones, were not a huge fan of this backlash.  Similarly, Kevin Smith's fans, who have a creepy, cult-like devotion to the man, would accept no implied disrespect to their lord and master.  The film community was divided into teams;  you're either with Mr. Smith, or against him.

Which side am I on?  Neither.  Look, the dude has directed some fairly funny, if not exceptionally well made, comedies filled with dick jokes and Star Wars references.  I don't really care enough about the guy to have an opinion one way or the other.  And, for the most part, he seems like a generally nice, laid back guy.  Troy Duffy, the director of The Boondock Saints, is easy to hate:  In addition to his movies being terrible, he's also a horrible person.  Smith?  Seems like a fun guy to drink a beer with.

My only negative thought on Kevin Smith is that he ended up being extremely disappointing.  When I was a teenager, Clerks was an incredible movie to see, and I (along with many others) anxiously anticipated his next project.  When that next movie turned out to be Mallrats, I think we were all really let down.  This wasn't a virtuoso on the level of Tarantino or Soderbergh;  he's just a dude with a camera who can swear really eloquently.  I eventually came to terms with Smith 2.0, the talentless, but humorous, director of raunchy comedies, who didn't seem to take himself very seriously, and enjoyed his movies on their own terms.

The second disappointment is a little harder to forgive.  Smith has time and again been given chances to expand his style, to grow as an artist, and has always chosen the easy route.  He was given the opportunity to direct a Green Hornet movie over a decade ago, but chose not to because he didn't know how to direct action.  Learn, motherfucker!  You've made ten movies, and your style hasn't changed one iota?!  Tim Burton used to be pretty clunky with his camera work, but through experience he learned how to move that thing around.

And really, that's fine.  Not everyone has to grow up (I should know!).  Some people follow the Tarantino path, not being comfortable to rest on their laurels.  What if, instead of doing Jackie Brown, or Kill Bill, or Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino had just decided to make Pulp Fiction 2?  That's essentially the career path that Smith chose, and I understand how comfortable it can be when you have such a strong brand, a rabid fanbase of sociopathic losers, and have surrounded yourself with sycophants.  That's why the Star Wars Prequels were horrible;  George Lucas no longer lives on the planet Earth, having long ago moved to Planet George.  Kevin Smith has been residing on Planet Kevin for some time.  A planet upon which, apparently, movies like Cop Out are above reproach.

Am I interested in Kevin Smith's new film?  Yes.  It looks like he actually made some effort to alter his trademark style, and expand his boundaries.  Do I think it will be any good?  Probably not.  But the guy is really passionate about his work, which is something that I can admire.  Michael Bay is a technical genius, but I'm sure he puts zero-percent of his heart and soul into movies like Bad Boys 2.

So yeah;  I think everyone needs to calm the fuck down out there.  Let's just be honest. . .  Kevin Smith isn't a great filmmaker.  But his movies are (sometimes) funny.

Oscar Nominations: A Complete Listing (With Personal Commentary)

I used to love the Oscar ceremony.  Then I began to hate it, mostly on a conceptual level.  Now, I've revolved back around to loving it again, but on it's own terms; as a hollow spectacle that entertains, but simultaneously trivializes film as an artistic medium.  So, with that little grain of salt firmly in place, lets take a look at the nominees!

BEST SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)

• Day & Night - Teddy Newton
• The Gruffalo - Jakob Schuh & Max Lang
• Let's Pollute - Geefwee Boedoe
• The Lost Thing - Shaun Tan & Andrew Ruhemann
• Madagascar, carnet de voyage - Bastien Dubois

Will Win:  Dunno.
Should Win:  I've only seen Day & Night, which played in front of Toy Story 3, and it was fantastic.  But personally, I think it'd be fun to hear whatever "comedic" announcer they bring out for this attempt to pronounce "Geefwee Boedoe".

BEST SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)

• The Confession - Tanel Toom
• The Crush - Michael Creagh
• God of Love - Luke Matheny
• Na Wewe - Ivan Goldschmidt
• Wish 143 - Ian Barnes & Samantha Waite

Will Win:  Whoever puts these films in their Oscar pool is a sadist.
Should Win:  Not Ivan Goldschmidt.  I need SOME Wewe in my Live-Action Short films, for God's sake!

BEST DOCUMENTARY (SHORT SUBJECT)

• KILLING IN THE NAME
• POSTER GIRL
• STRANGERS NO MORE
• SUN COMES UP
• THE WARRIORS OF QUIGANG

Will Win:  *Shrugs*
Should Win:  Who doesn't have that Rage song playing in their head right now?

BEST MAKEUP

• Barney's Version - Adrien Morot
• The Way Back - Edouard F. Henriques, Gregory Funk & Yolanda Toussieng
• The Wolfman - Rick Baker & Dave Elsey

Will Win:  In past years, I would say Rick Baker automatically; the dude has six Academy Awards collection dust in his garage.  But will the use of CGI sully his chances?  I'd still say he's the safe bet.

Should Win:  The Wolfman.  Shit was amazing.

Conspicuously Absent:  No love for Piranha 3D?!

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

• Another Year - Mike Leigh
• The Fighter - Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy & Eric Johnson
• Inception - Christopher Nolan
• The Kids Are All Right - Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg
• The King's Speech - David Seidler

Will Win:  Inception.  The King's Speech seems to be the overall frontrunner, but Original Screenplay seems to be where they always award the "cool" movie of the year (Pulp Fiction, The Usual Suspects) if it has no chance at a Best Picture win.  Plus, people are pissed about Nolan being shut out for Director (End of list spoilers!!!)

Should Win:  As much as I love Inception (Check out my Top Ten list from last year), the script is actually pretty sloppy; it's a cinematic experience more than a literate one.  Love Mike Leigh, but he probably only "writes" about 1% of his scripts, leaving most of it to improv.  It's a good batch, but I think The King's Speech is my favorite from this list.  When the majority of the "action" in your film involves a conversation between two characters, and it manages to remain gripping throughout, you know you've done something right.

Conspicuously Absent:  Four Lions.  Haven't seen it (Come to me!), but I've heard great things.  Too soon for a terrorism comedy, America?

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

• 127 Hours - Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy
• The Social Network - Aaron Sorkin
• Toy Story 3 - John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton & Lee Unkrich
• True Grit - Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
• Winter's Bone - Debra Granik & Anne Rosellini

Will Win:  Interesting;  We've got two true stories in "Original", and two here.  Let's be honest; they might as well just mail this to Sorkin right now.

Should Win:  True Grit.  The Coens get the period dialogue down pat, and wrote a western in which you want to actually spend time with these characters, not just hurry along to the next shoot-out.

Please Don't Win:  Toy Story 3.  Meh.  I liked it ok, but this is certainly the most overhyped film of the year.  Everything this movie has to say was said better, and in a more entertaining fashion, in Toy Story 2.

Conspicuously Absent:  Scott Pilgrim vs The World.  Edgar Wright effectively condensed a lengthy comic book series into a single film, while his flair for layered dialogue rewards multiple viewings with jokes within jokes.  Within jokes.  How's that for a slice of Fried Gold?

BEST ART DIRECTION

• Alice in Wonderland - Robert Stromberg, Karen O'Hara
• Harry Potter 7 - Stuart Craig, Stephenie McMillan
• Inception - Guy Henrix Dyas, Larry Dias and Doug Mowat
• The King's Speech - Eve Stewart, Judy Farr
• True Grit - Jess Gonchor, Nancy Haigh

Will Win:  The King's Speech.  

Should Win:  Inception.  Guy Dyas' "Zero-G Hotel" set made Stanley Kubrick peek his head out of the grave for a second.

Please Don't Win:  Get the fuck out of here, Alice.

Conspicuously Absent:  Scott Pilgrim.  Shutter Island.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

• Alice in Wonderland - Colleen Atwood
• I Am Love - Antonella Cannarozzi
• The King's Speech - Jenny Beavan
• The Tempest - Sandy Powell
• True Grit - Mary Zophres

Will Win:  The King's Speech.  Never bet against a royal period piece, in this category.

Should Win:  The King's Speech.

Please Don't Win:  No, really Alice - Get the fuck out of here.

Conspicuously Absent: Inception.  Girls, I've been told, will go crazy for a sharp dressed man.

BEST SOUND EDITING

• Inception - Richard King
• Toy Story 3 - Tom Myers & Michael Silvers
• Tron: Legacy - Gwendolyn Yates Whittle & Addison Teague
• True Grit - Skip Lievsay & Craig Berkey
• Unstoppable - Mark P. Stoeckhinger

Will Win:  Didn't see Unstoppable, but this is a very solid category all around.  Eenie, meenie, miney. . . Inception!

Should Win:  Inception.

Conspicuously Absent:  Sorry to be boring, but Scott Pilgrim.

BEST SOUND MIXING

• Inception - Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo & Ed Novick
• The King's Speech - Paul Hamblin, Martin Jensen & John Midgley
• Salt - Jeffrey Haboush, Greg Russell, Scott Millan & Willaim Sarokin
• The Social Network - Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick & Mark Weingarten
• True Grit - Skip Lievsay, Craig Berkey, Greg Orloff & Peter Kurland

Will Win:  Inception

Should Win:  Inception

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

• Black Swan - Matthew Libatique
• Inception - Wally Pfister
• The King's Speech - Danny Cohen
• The Social Network - Jeff Cronenweth
• True Grit - Roger Deakins

Will Win:  True Grit

Should Win:  Inception.  Look, I love Deakins as much as the next nerd, but this is hardly his best work. It's a good batch all around, but Pfister really rocked my world.

Conspicuously Absent: Adam Kimmel's work on Never Let Me Go was incredible.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

• How to Train Your Dragon - John Powell
• Inception - Hans Zimmer
• The King's Speech - Alexandre Desplat
• 127 Hours - A.R.Rahman
• The Social Network - Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

Will Win:  Inception.  Though Trent might pull ahead.

Should Win:  How to Train Your Dragon.  For real.

Conspicuously Absent:  Quality of the overall film aside, the score for Tron: Legacy was actually pretty great.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

• Coming Home - Country Strong
• I See the Light - Tangled
• If I Rise - 127 Hours
• We Belong Together - Toy Story 3

Will Win:  Um. . . Who cares? These are always shit.  Oh, alright; If I Rise.  It's by that A.R.Rahman dude.

Should Win: Haven't heard the Country Strong or Tangled songs.  I'm sure they're fantastic.

Conspicuously Absent:  "Black Sheep" from Scott Pilgrim.  Actually, anything from Scott Pilgrim.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

• Alice in Wonderland - Ken Ralston, David Schaub, Carey Villegas & Sean Phillips
• Harry Potter 7 - Tim Burke, John Richardson, Christian Manz & Nicolas Althadi
• Hereafter - Michael Owens, Bryan Grill, Stephan Trojanski & Joe Farrell
• Inception - Paul Franklin, Chris Corbould, Andrew Lockley & Peter Bebb
• Iron Man 2 - Janek Sirrs, Ben Snow, Ged Wright & Daniel Sudick

Will Win:  Inception

Should Win:  Inception

Please Don't Win:  Alice, we already talked about this. . .

Conspicuously Absent:  Scott Pilgrim.  Clash Of The Titans actually had some pretty decent monsters in it.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

• How to Train Your Dragon
• The Illusionist
• Toy Story 3

Will Win:  Toy Story 3

Should Win:  How to Train Your Dragon

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

• Exit Through the Gift Shop
• Gasland
• Inside Job
• Restrepo
• Waste Land

Will Win:  Exit Through the Gift Shop

Should Win:  Exit Through the Gift Shop

BEST FILM EDITING

• Black Swan - Andrew Weisblum
• The Fighter - Pamela Martin
• The King's Speech - Tariq Anwar
• 127 Hours - Jon Harris
• The Social Network - Angus Wall & Kirk Baxter

Will Win:  Black Swan

Should Win:  Black Swan

Conspicuously Absent:  Not nominating Inception in this category should be a crime.  Scott Pilgrim too, but I suppose I'm not expecting much for that film at this point.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

• Biutiful - Mexico
• Dogtooth - Greece
• In a Better World - Denmark
• Incendies - Canada
• Outside the Law - Algeria

Will Win:  Probably Biutiful.  It's got Javier Bardem, it's about dying, etc.

Should Win:  I haven't seen any of these, but Dogtooth sounds amazing.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

• Christian Bale - The Fighter
• John Hawkes - Winter's Bone
• Jeremy Renner - The Town
• Mark Ruffalo - The Kids Are All Right
• Geoffrey Rush - The King's Speech

Will Win:  Christian Bale.  Hands down.

Should Win:  Geoffrey Rush.  Bale is great, but Rush delivers a much more subtle and nuanced performance.

Please Don't Win:  Renner and Ruffalo.  These were by-the-numbers, typecast performances from both of them.  Love the actors, indifferent to the roles.

Conspicuously Absent:  Joel Edgerton from The Square.  Armie Hammer from The Social Network.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

• Amy Adams - The Fighter
• Helena Bonham Carter - The King's Speech
• Melissa Leo - The Fighter
• Hailee Steinfeld - True Grit
• Jacki Weaver - Animal Kingdom

Will Win:  Hailee Steinfeld

Should Win:  Hailee Steinfeld

Conspicuously Absent: Dale Dickey from Winter's Bone.

BEST ACTOR

• Javier Bardem - Biutiful
• Jeff Bridges - True Grit
• Jesse Eisenberg - The Social Network
• Colin Firth - The King's Speech
• James Franco - 127 Hours

Will Win:  Colin Firth

Should Win:  Man, I'd be happy any way they go with this.  I haven't seen Biutiful, but the other four dudes were all brilliant in their respective roles.  Push came to shove, I guess I'd say Jeff Bridges.

Conspicuously Absent: Andrew Garfield.  The future Spider-Man gave fantastic performances in three films this year - Red Riding, The Social Network, and Never Let Me Go.  Not bad for having come out of fucking nowhere.

BEST ACTRESS

• Annette Bening - The Kids Are All Right
• Nicole Kidman - Rabbit Hole
• Jennifer Lawrence - Winter's Bone
• Natalie Portman - Black Swan
• Michelle Williams - Blue Valentine

Will Win:  Natalie Portman

Should Win:  Portman.  Jennifer Lawrence was incredible, though, and it would be cool to see the two "Teenage Girls on a Mission" win both Academy Awards.

Conspicuously Absent:  Julianne Moore from Kids.  Katie Jarvis from the ridiculously underrated Fish Tank.  Chloe Moretz from Kick-Ass.  Keira Knightley and Carey Mulligan from Never Let Me Go.

BEST DIRECTOR

• Darren Aronofsky - Black Swan
• David O. Russell - The Fighter
• Tom Hooper - The King's Speech
• David Fincher - The Social Network
• Joel and Ethan Coen - True Grit

Will Win:  This could go a number of different ways, but my bet is on Fincher winning this.

Should Win:  All good choices, but I gotta say Aronofsky.  Black Swan was one of the most invigorating cinematic rides I've seen in awhile.

Conspicuously Absent:  Mark Romanek for Never Let Me Go.  Martin Scorsese for Shutter Island.  Anton Corbijn for The American.  Edgar Wright for Scott Pilgrim.  Christopher Nolan for Inception.  Debra Granik for Winter's Bone.

BEST PICTURE

• Black Swan
• The Fighter
• Inception
• The Kids Are All Right
• The King's Speech
• 127 Hours
• The Social Network
• Toy Story 3
• True Grit
• Winter's Bone

Will Win:  The King's Speech.  Yeah, I'm betting this'll be a split-vote year.  Fincher's name and pizazz help him win Director, but this will be the Academy favorite.

Should Win:  My favorite film out of this crop is Black Swan.  The film that best defines the year is probably The Social Network.  And the most remarkable achievement is Inception.

Please Don't Win:  Toy Story 3.  Don't worry;  you won't.  But you can take home that Best Animated statue as a consolation prize.

Conspicuously Absent:  See my previous list of missing Directors.

Well, this should turn out to be a fun year.  There are a lot of close calls, and I think Social Network, Black Swan and King's Speech are gonna be fighting neck-and-neck all the way.  Can't wait to watch this with a beer, a bowl of Doritos, and the company of friends.

Video Releases Of The Week

THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET'S NEST (2010)
Director: Daniel Alfredson

In the final chapter of Stieg Larsson's "Men Who Hate Women" trilogy, Lisbeth Salander comes back to. . .  do something?  Yeah, I checked out after the first one.  At this point, you're either on board, or you're not.





RED (2010)
Director: Robert Schwentke

Ya know, I've heard some hesitantly good praise for this one, and you certainly can't fault the cast.  Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich and Morgan Freeman play Ex-Covert Operatives who have to band together after being targeted for termination by their former employer.  If you've ever wanted to see Mirren blowing people away with a machine gun (and honestly, who hasn't?), this might be your only chance.

SECRETARIAT (2010)
Director:  Randall Wallace

From the writer of Pearl Harbor and the director of The Man In The Iron Mask (Same guy!) comes the story of a horse, and the woman who loved it.





SAW VII (2010)
Director:  Kevin Greutert

Supposedly the "Final Chapter", and likely will be the last one for a minute or two.  I have yet to see this, but director Greutert directed the previous Saw, which was one of the better installments in the series; take that as you will.

NOWHERE BOY (2010)
Director:  Sam Taylor-Wood

The story of John Lennon as a teenager, and the formation of his band.  Kick-Ass's Aaron Johnson stars as Lennon, and the director is also Johnson's wife (and twenty-some odd years older than he is).  This didn't seem to make much of a splash, critically or financially, on either side of the pond.





ENTER THE VOID (2010)
Director:  Gasper Noe

The story of an American drug-dealer living in Tokyo, who gets himself killed, and spends the rest of the film following the stages of death as laid out in The Tibetan Book Of The Dead.  Supposed to be pretty trippy, dreamlike, and slow.  Sounds like my cup of tea, personally.

Director Of The Week: Jerry Lewis

JERRY LEWIS (Born March 16, 1926 in Newark, NJ)

His parents both vaudevillian entertainers, young Jerome Levitch was performing on stage by the time he was five years old.  His big break came as part of a comedy duo with Dean Martin.  Between the mid-forties and mid-fifties they performed together on the stage, radio, television, and feature films.  After their split, they each continued on in highly successful solo careers.

Lewis' directorial debut came in 1960, when Paramount Studios wanted to release a film that he had starred in, Cinderfella, in the upcoming summer.  Lewis wanted Cinderfella to come out later in the year, around Christmas, but was contractually obligated to have a summer movie available for them.  So, he made The Bellboy, a near-plotless movie featuring a slapstick, mute performance from Lewis.  It was a hit.  During the course of the film, Lewis decided to videotape his scenes, so that he wouldn't have to wait until the film was developed to watch his performance; today, this has become standard practice on all major films.

Following this successful first outing, Lewis went on to write, direct and star in a number of hit films, including The Ladies Man (1961), The Nutty Professor (1963), and The Patsy (1964).  Lewis taught a Film Directing class at USC for a number of years, and his students included a young Steven Spielberg and George Lucas.

In 1972, Lewis directed one of the most infamous films of all time; The Day The Clown Cried.  The story of a circus clown who entertains children in a Nazi Death Camp, with Lewis playing the lead, it was shelved without ever being properly released, all the copies were hidden, and Lewis generally refuses to speak of it to this day.  It's a bit of a Hollywood legend;  you hear stories of the Hollywood elite gathering little clandestine parties to screen it.  Despite the release, and enormous success, of Roberto Begnini's similarly themed Life Is Beautiful (1997), it doesn't look like we'll see a release of the film while Lewis is still alive.

Lewis has left behind a strong legacy as a director, helping to prove that auteur theory doesn't need to apply solely to drama.

Cinematic Showdown!: Lord Of The Rings vs Pirates Of The Caribbean - Part One

Welcome to Cinematic Showdown, in which two films arbitrarily duke it out for supremacy.  Sometimes there's a connection between the two;  but often there's none at all.

This time, I'm comparing and contrasting two different blockbuster trilogies from the early aughts;  Pirates Of The Caribbean, and The Lord Of The Rings.  This will be in three parts, comparing the respective first, second and third films of each series against each other.

THE BREAKDOWN

That either of these films were made at all is it's own little miracle.  Before making the Rings trilogy, director Peter Jackson was primarily known for his low-budget, extremely tasteless horror films.  He did earn some critical praise from his film Heavenly Creatures (including an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay), but followed that up with the disastrous bomb The Frighteners (1996).  Having shopped the project around to several studios (which is actually a fascinating story, which I won't elucidate too much on here), the "three films shot simultaneously" enterprise was finally picked up by New Line, aka "The House That Freddy Built".  Known mostly for their slasher series, they'd made one previous attempt at producing a "blockbuster"; the underperforming, and critically panned, Lost In Space (1998).  Fantasy, at this point, was a decidedly unproven genre of film.

Another unproven genre from that time period was the pirate film.  The last major attempt at one, Renny Harlin's Cutthroat Island, bombed hard enough that it dragged it's producer, Carolco, down to Davy Jone's locker with it.  Even before Cutthroat, it'd been a LONG time since anyone had made a successful pirate film.  Despite the backing of Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer, the film was seen as a huge risk.  On top of which, it was an adaptation of a ride at Disneyland!  How could it possibly be any good?!

Both films, despite their lack of marquee stars (Johnny Depp was beloved, but hardly a box-office draw at the time), became massive hits, and earned very strong critical acclaim to boot.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING

VS

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

. . .  FIGHT!

Both directors eschewed the typical "high-key"lighting most associated with their respective genres, instead caking their actors, sets, and skies with mud.  This aesthetic of gritty realism contrasted nicely with the high adventure of the narratives, and highlighted the creepiness of both the Nazgul, and the Ghost Pirates.  Both films, despite their length, move forward at a good clip, especially considering The Fellowship Of The Ring being burdened with a fairly lengthy and dense source material.

One area that they differ greatly in is tone; while both films vacillate between moments of light and dark, Pirates is generally the more lighthearted, where Rings tends to be more dour.  Pirates is self-aware, and just this side of meta; while Rings is entrenched in it's own tangled mythology, as if recreating passages from a revered historical text.  Both styles work fine for their respective stories (especially considering the rabid fanbase that Rings has to appease), but in the consistency department, Pirates is the clear winner.  The Fellowship has several scenes that jump startlingly from deadpan seriousness to outright goofiness; Take, for example, the wizards breakdance fight, or the "No one tosses a Dwarf" line.  Pirates jumps from comedy to horror, but does so in a much smoother fashion.

By playing itself so straight-faced, Rings makes itself a target of unintentional laughter.  Pirates has the opposite effect;  by being so lighthearted for most of it's running time, you never expect a cartoon character like Jack Sparrow to have any pathos - but Depp actually gives his character some depth, which peeks out from behind his bluster on a few well-timed occasions.

FX wise, both of these films are top notch.  For being around a decade old each, neither film has anything to be embarrassed about in the visual department.

Scriptwise, again, Pirates has the edge.  Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio's script is full of clever wordplay, interesting plot twists, and complex character motivations.  Fellowship has it's complex characters, to be sure, but several elements of the screenplay seem to be in there simply to service a complete adaptation of the novels.  "Why the fuck are Merry and Pippin in this?"  "Because they're in the book." "Oh. . .  Thanks!"

The performances, and casting, of both films is excellent.  Depp and Geoffrey Rush play a game of "Who can be a more ridiculous pirate?", with Depp barely winning, and it works so well because of how great both of those actors are.  The supporting cast, including the underused and soon-to-vanish Zoe Saldana, is a good mix of straight men and cartoon-like scallywags, effectively holding up this larger-than-life conflict.  And will it be possible now to read The Lord Of The Rings without seeing Ian McKellen as Gandalf?  Or the out-of-left-field casting choice of Viggo as Strider?

There isn't a slouch between the two, and the only thing that's really changed in my opinion is a slightly raised respect for Pirates, and a slight dimming of my love for Fellowship.  It's possible, sad as it is to say, that I've "grown out" of my former unconditional love for all things Peter Jackson.  Watching his 2001 classic with modern eyes, I found myself getting tired of the over-seriousness, and endless dialogue scenes that go something like, "Why are you doing this?!" "Because I have to!" "But you cant!". . .  etc.  Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood for it;  who knows?  Either way, The Black Pearl wins round one.

FREDERICK OPINES:

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING - GREAT

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL - MASTERPIECE

Mockingjay (Book Review)

MOCKINGJAY (2010)
Author:  Suzanne Collins

When last we left Katniss Everdeen, she had been miraculously rescued from her second Hunger Games, and was being transported to the near-mythic District 13.  Picking up right where Catching Fire left off, we follow her attempts to lead the rebellion (both symbolically and literally), to rescue her sometimes boyfriend Peeta, and to exact vengeance upon the sadistic President Snow.

"This one's for the fans" is an odd statement to make, and thus fits my demeanor perfectly.  It's just as perfectly appropriate for this review.  There's nothing inherently, functionally wrong with the book, but your level of enjoyment will vary greatly based on how invested you are in the characters.  I'm invested enough to read about more grisly deaths, but do I care whether or not Katniss ends up dating Peeta, Gale, or neither?  Nah.  And, sadly for me (but great for the hardcore aficionados), a great deal of this book is spent on Katniss' pining and whining.  A realistic portrayal of a seventeen-year-old girl's confusion and heartbreak or not, isn't this the girl who puts arrows through the throats of children?  Are boy-troubles really her top priority right now?

The first, I don't know, three-quarters of this were a chore for me to read.  There's some sort of message that Collins is attempting to convey here, about the cyclical nature of conflict and "gazing into the abyss", but it mostly gets lost in a tedious story about Katniss dressing up in a G-Force costume and leading the resistance.  There's the expected third act twist, and another makeshift Hunger Games, but it was too little too late for me.  If the climax had come somewhere around halfway through the book, and the rest were dedicated to the new paradigm shift, I would have been more entertained.

Not an embarrassingly terrible conclusion to the trilogy, just another decline in the overall quality thereof.  It's another case of a writer becoming unexpectedly successful midway through telling a story, and forgetting what made her story work in the first place.

FREDERICK OPINES:  MIDDLING

Beyonce stretches herself as actress, plays singer in new Clint Eastwood movie.

Mr. Eastwood is currently in the midst of directing a biopic of J. Edgar Hoover, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, but he's already lining up his next project; a remake (of a remake, of a remake) of A Star Is Born.  The oft-told tale revolves around a rising female star, a fading male star, love, and, one presumes, tears.  The female star, as you may have guessed, will be played by Miss Beyonce Knowles, and a male star has yet to be announced.  Call me crazy, but how about DiCaprio?  Or will Scorsese be expecting him home after Clint's done with him?

Full disclosure:  Despite my prodigious film knowledge, I've yet to see any version of A Star Is Born, which has previously been directed by heavyweights William Wellman, George Cukor, and Frank Pierson.  Beyonce's role has been previously filled by Janet Gaynor, Judy Garland, and Barbara Streisand.  It's unknown at this time what type of music will be featured;  Eastwood is a big jazz and blues aficionado, so it may be in that world, or it could be R&B.  Time will tell.

Via Entertainment Weekly

And thanks to friend and confidant, Jersey Shore's Nick Fries for the heads-up!

wedding list.

As Frederick Frog mentioned, he and I have exchanged lists as part challenge, part wicked plan to expose our personalities via film before our wedding this September. My movies are fairly feminine, having a lot more to do with an interesting plot idea about women/children than stellar filmmaking or groundbreaking work (the exceptions being Harlan County, USA and perhaps Don't Eat the Pictures). Many of his are guy films - westerns, horror, stories of lone men out to seek revenge for their countrymen and maybe shoot some other dudes in the face on the way.

But what's weird is that neither of us are especially typical of our presented genders, nor are we beholden to some sort of binary gender code that means he'll behave a certain way as a husband and I as a wife. In fact, he bakes a MUCH better chocolate chip cookie than I do. And for a time, I was the one with the salaried, khaki-pants position. When it comes time for laundry to be done, he's the one to separate the delicates from the dryer-safe, and I'll gather my strewn clothing from the bathroom floor.

The gender dynamics beyond that may be better fodder for a post over at Moxie Does It, but on Blunderbuss, it's almost all about the moviewatching. I have a BA in film studies, and

Frederick's knowledge of film is so vast I often call him the Internet Movie Data Brain. But we approach moviewatching in completely different ways.

I've seen three of the movies from his assigned list (Halloween [1978], The Gold Rush, and Starship Troopers), and he's seen four from mine (Bend it Like Beckham, Lost & Delirious, White Oleander, and Harlan County, USA). Though there are several movies on each list yet to be seen, we've realized that we never choose movies for the same reasons.

He likes movies that will be spectacular - whether with tight, meaningful cinematography, excellent makeup effects, amazing violence or superb crashes. He wants to see things on the screen that would be impossible (at least, without major injuries) in real life. And coupled with that, his encyclopedic categorization of filmmakers gives him this astonishing ability to say, "Oh, dude, Taylor Hackford directed this? Okay, I'll give it a shot."

I, on the other hand, even with my looming student loan debt a monthly reminder of my diploma, rarely consider the screenwriter, production company, or even the director when

making my film choices. It might have a far-off cry in the back of my mind, but I'm much more likely to think, "Ooh, this is a film about a woman who might be a murderer reconciling with her long-lost daughter on a remote island in Maine? Coooool, let's watch it." Similarly, I've gone on a Will Arnett binge that means I've recently seen Blades of Glory as well as The Brothers Solomon and am patiently awaiting the Netflix arrival of The Waiting Game, with very little regard as to whether these movies might be good (and to Frederick's chagrin, they are not).

All of this still doesn't explain why I might have something so atrocious as Lost & Delirious on my list, though. Watching it again with Frederick - and out of the context that drew me to see it originally - I cringed, knowing it was irredeemably awful. The acting is dismal, the dialogue clunky.

But, it's a lesbian drama that unfolds at a Canadian girls' boarding school!! Starring Piper Perabo and the woman who played Aunt Hetty on Road to Avonlea!! COME ON!

I'm equally an admirer of fantastic framing and breathtaking shots, but I'm finally willing to admit that I'm usually going to choose a story that passes the Bechdel Test over one that, well, looks like a good film.

It's a sad state of affairs that I need to make that choice.

And, especially for Frederick, it's perplexing. Some great films have been made with stories that interest me, certainly (Ratcatcher being one of my favorites), but why can't a film be both? Where is the Citizen Kane of the intimate family drama?

Theatrical Releases Of The Week

NO STRINGS ATTACHED
Director:  Ivan Reitman
Stars:  Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher

WHAT'S IT ABOUT?:  Portman and Kutcher play lifelong friends who, in lieu of relationships, decide to become Fuckbuddies.  Hilarity ensues.  Kevin Kline, Greta Gerwig, and, of course, Ludacris all make appearances.  Director Reitman says ". . .  with this generation in particular, young people find it easier to have a sexual relationship than an emotional one.  That is how the sexes deal with each other today."  I suppose I should expect such open-mindedness from the producer of They Came From Within.

SHOULD I SEE IT?:  I feel as if, at this point in the game, you know which side of the "Do I want to go see the latest Ashton Kutcher movie?" debate you lie on.  If the presence of Portman or Kline pique your interest, let me direct you to a listing of Reitman's shaky post-Ghostbusters resume.  While you're at it, dwell on the possibility of this ass-clown directing Ghostbusters 3 in a year or so (I don't think it'll really happen, but it is a threat).

THE COMPANY MEN
Director:  John Wells
Stars:  Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones, Chris Cooper, Kevin Costner

WHAT'S IT ABOUT?:  Downsizing, and what a varied grouping of white collar workers do when their world comes crashing down around them.

SHOULD I SEE IT?:  The reviews are mainly positive, with longtime TV Jack-Of-All-Trades John Wells making a strong theatrical directing debut.

THE WAY BACK
Director:  Peter Weir
Stars:  Jim Strugess, Colin Farrell, Ed Harris

WHAT'S IT ABOUT?:  A bunch of prisoners escape from a Siberian Gulag during WWII.  Based on an autobiographical book entitled The Long Walk, by Slawomir Rawicz, it's a moving story of courage and determination. . .

SHOULD I SEE IT?:  . . .  a story that, unfortunately, turned out to be complete horseshit.  Yep, this is one of those Oprah-style "Duped by the Fictional Autobiography" type of stories.  Wah wah.   On the flip side of that, and from my perspective;  who cares?  It's still a new film directed by Peter Weir, one of the best directors working, with a terrific cast.  And if you want historical accuracy, read a book (but not The Long Walk)!  Is "My Darling Clementine" an accurate portrayal of the life of Wyatt Earp?  Nope.  Is it a great movie?  Yes, it is.

Critics seem to be generally pleased with this one, although the January release for such a high-profile film is suspect.  Proceed with caution.

The Villains In "Dark Knight Rises" Revealed

Christopher Nolan's third, and final, Batman movie has been shrouded in mystery.  We've known for awhile that Tom Hardy had been cast as a villain, but there was no announcement as to which character he would be playing.  Until now.

Bane, sort of an evil version of Doc Savage, with the fashion sense of El Santo, will be played by the Inception veteran.  Given the over-the-top nature of the character, it's likely that his interpretation in Nolan's more "grim 'n' gritty" universe will be barely recognizable.  The villain has previously appeared in the infamous film Batman & Robin, as kind of a near-mindless henchman to Arnold's Mr. Freeze, but the original comic character is a deadly mixture of brawn and brains; in his very first story arc, he figured out Batman's secret identity, temporarily broke his spine (!!!), and single-handedly took over the Gotham underworld.  The source of his incredible physical strength, and his greatest weakness, is the drug known as "Venom", which acts as a sort of Super-Steroid, and is highly addictive.

Secondly, Anne Hathaway will be portraying Selina Kyle, who in the comics is the alter-ego of Catwoman. In the press release today, WB specifically said "Selina", and not "Catwoman", so I'm not exactly sure what to make of that.  Does she become Catwoman towards the end of the film, much like Harvey Dent's turn in The Dark Knight?  Maybe the sometimes villain, sometimes hero takes up Batman's cause when he "retires" (This being Nolan's last Batman, I'm imagining it will have some type of conclusion to his trilogy)?

I'm really pleased with the casting of Hardy as the main villain, and I think that Bane is a potentially great choice.  He's a character who's fairly unknown, and never been done well in movie form, so it'll give Hardy the chance to make the character his own.  He's also a good counterweight to the previous film's heavy, the Joker, since he's a relatively sane villain who's obsessed with power and money;  quite the opposite of the character that Heath Ledger posthumously won an Academy Award for.

But Catwoman?  Michelle Pfeiffer pretty much nailed it in Batman Returns, so Hathaway will have to bring a much different spin to the character.

Exciting stuff.  This one's still a year and a half away, so don't start getting too hyped yet, but Nolan seems to be getting better, and more confident, with each film he makes.  If this turns out even half as good as Inception, I think we're in for one of the best movies of 2012.

"Social Network" Producers Bring Us "Sex on the Moon"

WARNING: THIS PICTURE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE

Critics and audiences alike have proclaimed the film The Social Network to be the greatest thing since bread (sliced or otherwise), so while a literal sequel would be implausible, and most likely uninteresting, the movers and shakers who brought it to the screen are teaming up again to bring us another tale of nerdery and lawyers.

"Sex on the Moon: The Amazing Story Behind the Most Audacious Heist in History", a currently conceptual, soon-to-be book by Ben Mezrich (author of "The Accidental Billionaires", from which The Social Network was adapted), has already had it's film rights purchased by Social Network producers Scott Rudin, Michael De Luca, and Dana Brunetti.  It tells the true life story of Thad Roberts, a young NASA employee who stole some moon rocks from Johnson Space Center, with the assistance of his girlfriend, and attempted to sell them on the internet.  For more details, check out this 2004 news article about the heist.  No word on casting or directing choices at this time.

It's a good story, and could be either really funny, dramatic, or both.  This Roberts character sounds like he was a straight-shooter ("with upper-management written all over him"), so it'll be interesting to see how they show his descent into reckless and, frankly, stupid criminal behavior.  Based on the title of the book alone, I'm guessing that they blame the blonde.

While nerdy, Roberts was also an athlete, and prospective astronaut, so that'll extend the casting range beyond your usual "nerd types" like Jesse Eisenberg (Though I'm sure they'd be thrilled to have him back in the fold in some capacity).  Will David Fincher return to direct?  I kind of doubt it.  The dude has a lot on his plate right now.  Current plans involve a new adaptation of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, and I could see him using his inevitable Post-Oscar clout (Believe it!) to get his long-in-gestation adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke's "Rendezvous With Rama" off the ground.

Via the LA Times

Blunderbuss 2.0 coming soon! (and how you can help)

Alright kids;  I've successfully dipped my toes into the water with this, so it's time to take the next step.  I'm going in up to my knees.

Starting this week, I'm going to attempt to infuse the site with some selected news editorials.  Not every single rumor that's out there;  I don't care who's playing a waiter in a single scene of The Avengers, or when the latest Joan Plowright film is coming out.  My criteria for posting a news story will be, "Is this interesting to me, and do I have anything to say about it?".  It'll be nerd-centric, mostly about movies, and a good conversation piece.

Secondly, I'm going to be doing a weekly preview of new films opening in theaters, and another preview of films being released on video.  It'll keep you guys in the know, so I can help steer you in the direction of good films that got little to no press, or steer you away from what's getting bad "buzz".

Thirdly, I'm going to be doing a bit more of the "Life and other questions" type stuff.  The future wife and I are collaborating on some Dinner And A Movie themed recipes to go with certain films, and we'll both be writing more about novels, comics, video games, and other random topics.

And last;  I'd like your input!  I'm hoping to build this into a "go-to" place, mostly for friends of mine, to get the latest movie news and reviews.  So let me know what's been working for you so far, what else you'd like to see, and what you'd change.

Thanks for reading so far, and I hope to see more of you guys in the future!

Director Of The Week: Barbara Kopple

BARBARA KOPPLE (July 30, 1946 New York, NY - )

Can a film really change the world?  Barbara Kopple seems to think so.  Since the early seventies, she's been filming the lives of people that you wouldn't see on the nightly news, and showing us a different, more rounded side to every story.

Working with a collective of independent filmmakers in 1971, she helped film the Winter Soldier Investigation; a three day event, sponsored by Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), that involved recording the testimony of over a hundred veterans, who had either seen war crimes take place, or had committed war crimes themselves.  The footage was collected into the documentary film, Winter Soldier (1972).

Emboldened by this collaborative effort, Kopple struck out on her own to film a strike organized by mine workers in Harlan County, Kentucky, beginning in 1972.  Four years later, her film, titled Harlan County USA, was released to wide acclaim, eventually winning the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature.  The film solidified her style; honest, straight-forward, and without direct commentary.  She lets the "characters" do the talking; and boy, does she ever find some characters!

Over the years, she's directed several other documentary films (Winning the Oscar again in 1991 for American Dream, another strike-centric film), as well as TV episodes for shows such as Homicide, and television commercials.  She's made one critically lambasted fictional feature (a requirement of all great documentarians, it seems), Havoc (2005), which stars Anne Hathaway as a rich white girl who decides to start hanging out with an East LA gang.

Some notable works include:  Friends For Life (1998), a documentary that aired on The Disney Channel, about a  11-year old boy living with HIV;  Shut Up and Sing (2006), a chronicle of the right-wing's assault on The Dixie Chicks, following their "unkind" statements about President George Bush; and Bearing Witness (2005), the story of female reporters who chronicle war from the front line.

Still very active, and one of the most recognized and respected names in the documentary world, she still has many years left to help make a difference.

Purity Of Form: Finding The Right Medium In Which To Tell Your Story

In the beginning. . .

When an idea for a story was formed, it was then channeled into one single medium:  a book, a movie, or a play, for example.  But today, ideas are often pre-planned as multi-media enterprises right off the bat;  sometimes before they're even fully-formed ideas.  Take the latest Tron film:  It's a movie, sure; but it's also a soundtrack, clothing, video games, books, toys and monorails.  It's a logical enough formula, so I understand why it's so common.  George Lucas has made a pretty penny from his Star Wars movies, but could fund his own country with the money he's made from "ancillary" toy sales.

This "branding" process has lead to the blurring of the lines between different forms of media.  While an interesting idea in theory, in practice it often isn't very successful.  Video Games based on Movies are rushed into production, and terrible.  Likewise, Movies based on Video Games tend to pander too much to their core audience, and aren't willing to adapt to a different storytelling format.  Could a pre-planned, multi-media concept ever truly work?  I think so.  The Wachowski Bros Matrix franchise was not entirely successful, but I admire the effort put into it.  Along with the release of the final two Matrix films, they took a hands on approach to creating video game, anime, and comic book spin-offs.  The level of detail, and appreciation for the respective mediums, that the Bros gave to these spin-offs allowed for some interesting interplay.  The first game, titled Enter The Matrix, followed side characters Ghost and Niobe in their own, partially shot on film, storyline.  It weaved in and out of the narrative of The Matrix Reloaded, to the point that the game become a sort of butt-kicking Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead.  The anime spin-off, perhaps too cutely titled The Animatrix, fleshing out the backstory of the war with the machines, making it (in my mind) essential viewing for the overall enjoyment of the series.

The Matrix franchise functions so efficiently because the creators recognize the advantages of each individual medium.  Enter The Matrix isn't just an adaptation of one of the films;  it has it's own functioning narrative, and understands that a game needs to be slightly more action than dialogue heavy, and that said action needs to be "taken up a notch".  In fact, a later game, The Matrix: Path Of Neo, ostensibly follows the story of the films, but feels free to make several notable variations.  The Wachowskis appear in the game as 8-bit characters, explaining that the Gnostic Christian, self-sacrificial ending to the movies would be "lame" in a video game, so you end up fighting a gigantic, Constructicon-like version of Agent Smith.

Clearly, knowing the advantages and disadvantages of each medium is key.  With that in mind, let's explore what types of stories are best realized in each format.

BOOKS:

Advantages - The ability to make plain a character's introspection, or to be the voice of an omniscient narrator.  The magic of setting a scene using only paper and ink (or just bytes, perhaps).  Books, having the ability to jump between time periods in a more fluid way than most mediums, can take place over the course of a day as easily as over the course of centuries.  If you really want your audience to feel a deep, personal connection to your characters, it works well when your reader is relying only on descriptors, not pictures;  it allows them the opportunity to fill in the blanks with little pieces of themselves.  To have some small part in the character's creation.  It's most likely the reason why you see people getting so heated over the casting of their favorite characters when novels are adapted into films.

Disadvantages - Anything that one would usually define as "action" takes a big hit.  Seeing someone suddenly get karate chopped in the face has a lot more impact than reading "Woo raised his arm upwards, then brought it down upon Inspector Chan's nose with the full force of his body".  It can also occasionally feel like explaining the world to a blind man.  A reader could be imagining that the main character looks like Tom Cruise, until you casually mention that he has a bulbous nose and a huge scar on his face somewhere around halfway through the book.  Oops.

THEATER:

Advantages - An intimate setting.  The mixture of acting, props, and sets allows for a sort-of "playtime" feel.  The mingling of a tangible reality with the fantasy.

Disadvantages - Due to budgetary and space constraints, you're somewhat limited in scope.  Les Miserables is probably one of the most "epic" stageplays, but even that has a fairly small cast of primary characters.

MUSIC:

Advantages - Whether you're telling a straightforward story from beginning to end, or more obliquely "implying" the story with selected phrases and notes, there a few more effective ways of manipulating an audiences emotions than the proper ordering and pitch of instrumentally formed noises.

Disadvantages - The more details you include, the less of a song it is, and the closer it becomes to poetry.

POETRY:

Advantages - Unless we're talking about a long-form poem, like Beowulf, I would say that brevity is the best advantage here.  Poems are the supermodels of the written word;  stark, sleek, and gorgeous.  All the fat of the narrative has been removed, leaving only the emotions and philosophies.

Disadvantages - The more details you include, the less of a poem it is, and the closer it becomes to a novel.

SPORTS:

Advantages - Sports aren't often considered a storytelling device, but they are a form of entertainment, and come pre-packaged with their own form of enacted drama.  You've got a Protagonist (Your team), an Antagonist (The other team), and a conflict.  There you go;  the very heart of drama.  One doesn't often have a really compelling reason to hate another team, other than to play-act.  You're not demanding vengeance for the Bears murdering your family as a child, or anything like that.

Whether you watch it or play it, sports have an even greater tangibility than theater, and much more unpredictable endings.

Disadvantages - The storylines often devolve practically into Dadaism.  Wolverines are battling Buckeyes?!  Could you image that movie playing at your local cineplex?

PAINTING/ SCULPTURE/ PHOTOGRAPHY/ MISC:

Advantages - Whether we're talking about Andy Warhol or Alfred Gilbert, we're usually talking about a single image representing an entire concept/story.  If you've had one particular image that you REALLY want to share, this would certainly be the way to do it.  It also allows for layering a seemingly simple image with several levels of meaning.

Disadvantages - The "story" behind the piece either has to be known, self-explanatory, extremely well crafted, or unnecessary.

COMIC BOOKS:

Advantages - Time.  Superhero comics are Soap Operas for Nerds; the popular ones are essentially a single storyline, stretched out over decades.  It's an interesting medium, caught somewhere between film and painting:  It has more of a convincing illusion of movement than painting, yet also emphasizes little moments of life in still-frame.

Disadvantages - Sound, outside of speech, has to be either implied, or directly written down, like "THWAM!".

RIDES/ WALK-THROUGH ATTRACTIONS:

Advantages - Complete immersion.  Theme park rides don't always have a "story", but there's always some kind of "theme" to them.  In the case of Haunted Houses, very few books or movies have the same kind of visceral, "fear response" type of effect.

Disadvantages - You'll be thrilled, but not often moved.  Sorry, ET: The Ride!

TABLETOP GAMES:

Advantages - The Board Game element of tabletop gaming lies somewhere between sports and video games in terms of story:  Sometimes there's very little (Hungry Hungry Hippos), and sometimes it can be ridiculously complex (Warhammer).  It gets really interesting once you get to Role-Playing Games.  You could either be the creator of the game, or the creator of the game WITHIN the game.  RPG's, more than any other medium, encourage creativity, so you could end up with a world that's vastly different from the one written down on paper.

Disadvantages - People who mostly play tabletop games are clicky (in their own way), OCD assholes who have no real sex lives to speak of, and love to argue.  Proceed with caution.

VIDEO GAMES:

Advantages - Choose Your Own Adventure on speed.  By allowing to control the thrust of the story, even down to the minutest movements of the character, you have the sensation of being able to do things that no mere mortal has in their power to do (unless you're just playing a Bass Fishing game).  Great for action, horror, and other high-intensity stories, since it's your input that determines whether the character lives or dies.

Disadvantages - Given the current demand for over-the-top action and visual candy, there often isn't much care given to the story.  That has been changing, however, as games have started to become more cinematic.

MOVIES/ TELEVISION:

Advantages - I might take some shit for daring to lump TV and Film together, but really television is just film in serialized form.  Besides; have you seen any of the shows on HBO this last decade?  I would place The Wire and Deadwood above most films that I've seen.

It's a merging of light, sound and framing.  If a Ride moves your body, and a book moves your mind, then a film is working best when it's moving your eyes and ears.  Don't get me wrong;  films can engage your mind, too.  But I think the real art is in a total sensory immersion, where, unlike a video game, you have no choice in where you're headed, and just have to hang on for the trip.

Disadvantages - The unofficial three hour time limit for theatrical films;  that doesn't give you a whole lot of breathing room when it comes to storytelling.  The ridiculous cost of making films means that you see a lot of easy sells (i.e. derivative, uncreative stories).


In the end, it's all about milling your story over, deciding what elements you would prefer to be overt, balancing the plus/minuses of the different mediums, and then catering your story thusly.  Easy peasy.

I Love You Phillip Morris (Movie Review)

I LOVE YOU PHILLIP MORRIS (2010)
Directors:  Glenn Ficarra and John Requa
Stars:  Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor

Based on the true story of conman Steven Jay Russell (Carrey), and his love affair with fellow prison inmate Phillip Morris (McGregor).  From the writing team behind Bad Santa, this light-hearted romp premiered at the Sundance Film Festival back in January of 2009, and, other festival appearances aside, has been sitting on the shelf until just last month.

The candy-coated surface of the story are the flim-flams and grifts that Steven perpetrates on his co-workers and wardens, but the chocolate center is the gay love story.  This proves to be the films worst financial handicap, and greatest critical advantage.  Yes, it is a unique twist on your standard, heterosexual version of this type of tale; but is it especially well made?  Nah.  It is, however, quite entertaining.

It does allow one to view the archetypal romantic comedy from a more interesting perspective.  Sure, Phillip Morris is a vacuous character; but is that different from any role that Marilyn Monroe ever played?  They show (well. . .  imply) Ewan McGregor spitting semen into the ocean;  not something that you would ordinarily see in a heterosexual romantic comedy.  Is it the product of two straight writers projecting an overt sexuality onto their gay characters, perhaps simply in an attempt to ruffle feathers?  Is this how most homosexual men would prefer to be portrayed (i.e. This is all of me, take it or leave it)?  Would it be possible to have a completely "innocent" love story between two men, without sex being a central focus?

Sociological philosophy aside, the actors play their parts well, and have great chemistry together.  And the cons, mostly true, are completely outrageous and amazing.  Carrey is perfectly cast in the role, being able to swing ably between "Aw-Shucks" charmer and mischievous swindler.  There aren't any real "show stopper" moments, but there is a steady, reliable sense of wonder and amusement to the proceedings.

I'm looking forward to future collaborations between this writer/director team.  They've got a little tightening to do with their narratives, and perhaps could ease off on the music montages, but their first film out the gate compares fondly with the early work of the Farrelly Bros.

FREDERICK OPINES:  GOOD