Watchpost
What follows are things that require (or will require) a viewing.
First things first. You will immediately go and watch the pilot for The Amazing Screw-On Head. It's a show based on a Mike Mignola comic (the man who created Hellboy - go look at the online comics section to get a feel for Mignola's art, and the style of the comic, which differs subtly from the movie) of the same name. You will then fill out the survey, and tell them that you love it. Go. I'll wait.
... Done? Good. Back to business.
I'm in a listful mood, lately:
The Must See Movies of 2006, So Far
1. Brick
2. Inside Man
3. Superman Returns
4. V for Vendetta
5. Thank You for Smoking
The Must See Movies of 2006, Upcoming
1. The Prestige
2. Children of Men
3. The Fountain
4. The Science of Sleep
5. The Illusionist
Honourable Mentions: Casino Royale and Hollywoodland
(Those are both in a very rough order)
When I was originally writing those lists, of an evening, bored and avoiding the writing of plays that I should be doing, I commented (to myself, largely, echoing in my empty house) that it's strange that, on the first list, there are two blockbusters (Superman, V for Vendetta), two reasonably large, widely released movies (Inside Man, and Thank You for Smoking, although the latter was quiet about itself), and one film that I had to go to Princess Twin to see (Brick), and on the second list, I'm expecting that I'll have to see every one of them at Princess. Children of Men, The Fountain, and The Illusionist might make their way to Galaxy, or AMC, but I'm expecting each of them to make a Princess run at some point.
So, anyway, I found it interesting that one of the movies (Superman, say) from the first half of the year that I think of as "must-see" will probably make more money than all five of the movies I have to see before the year's out. I imagine this has something to do with the fact that, after the summer season, the blockbusters trundle away into their gaping caves and the arthouse pictures decide to fling open the doors to the cellars and crawl blinking into the light, hoping that, until Christmas, at least, they'll be able to get around the theatres without being blotted by neo-blaxploitation comedy based on forty-year-old Loony Toons sketches.
(As a tangent, I love The Fountain already, without having seen it, purely because of the way Darren Aronofsky pulled it off. From what I'm given to understand, this is the way it worked: Aronofsky was slated to start filming the thing back in 2002 or '03, with Brad Pitt in the lead role. But Pitt had to drop it to work on Troy. At the time, Aronofsky was going to go on and do Batman: Year One, but that was handed over to someone else, and eventually ended up in Christopher Nolan's hands [who's directing The Prestige, incidentally], I think because Nolan was originally going to do Batman vs Superman, which was tossed because of the plans to make Superman, which got delayed... anyway. So The Fountain was gutted. But Aronofsky didn't give up. He liked the story and the idea so much that he rewrote it as a graphic novel, and published it, with Kent Williams illustrating [it's going into a soft cover run very soon]. The graphic novel was a hit [and, since it was a graphic novel, that meant it was a cult hit, rather than the big blockbuster sort of thing you get with Da Vinci Codes] and garnered enough attention that he was able to revive the film, with a slightly smaller budget and a different star, and is now, finally, seeing it released. It proves to me that he's a man who loves story more than industry and finance, and that's important to me)
In terms of television, I urge anyone with the time to do some downloading to find what they can of HBO's Carnivale. I've mentioned it before, but it really was an incredible show (before it was cruelly cancelled, before it's third season). It did things that few shows are willing to do, in ways that no one was thinking of, and telling stories that were entertaining, thought-provoking, a little frightening, and always wonderful. Plus, I've just manged to snag some of the second season, and am thoroughly enjoying myself.
And, just for kicks, the movies that I'm pretty sure I'll need to see in 2007 (these are in no order at all):
Spider-Man 3
TMNT
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
And let it henceforth be known that every one of you will want to see Stardust when you hear more about it, and remember that you heard it from me, first.
Post Script: There are twenty-two links in this post. I expect you to click every one. And if you're worried about windows, tab-browse fer Chrissake.
Post Post Script: Twenty-three.
First things first. You will immediately go and watch the pilot for The Amazing Screw-On Head. It's a show based on a Mike Mignola comic (the man who created Hellboy - go look at the online comics section to get a feel for Mignola's art, and the style of the comic, which differs subtly from the movie) of the same name. You will then fill out the survey, and tell them that you love it. Go. I'll wait.
... Done? Good. Back to business.
I'm in a listful mood, lately:
The Must See Movies of 2006, So Far
1. Brick
2. Inside Man
3. Superman Returns
4. V for Vendetta
5. Thank You for Smoking
The Must See Movies of 2006, Upcoming
1. The Prestige
2. Children of Men
3. The Fountain
4. The Science of Sleep
5. The Illusionist
Honourable Mentions: Casino Royale and Hollywoodland
(Those are both in a very rough order)
When I was originally writing those lists, of an evening, bored and avoiding the writing of plays that I should be doing, I commented (to myself, largely, echoing in my empty house) that it's strange that, on the first list, there are two blockbusters (Superman, V for Vendetta), two reasonably large, widely released movies (Inside Man, and Thank You for Smoking, although the latter was quiet about itself), and one film that I had to go to Princess Twin to see (Brick), and on the second list, I'm expecting that I'll have to see every one of them at Princess. Children of Men, The Fountain, and The Illusionist might make their way to Galaxy, or AMC, but I'm expecting each of them to make a Princess run at some point.
So, anyway, I found it interesting that one of the movies (Superman, say) from the first half of the year that I think of as "must-see" will probably make more money than all five of the movies I have to see before the year's out. I imagine this has something to do with the fact that, after the summer season, the blockbusters trundle away into their gaping caves and the arthouse pictures decide to fling open the doors to the cellars and crawl blinking into the light, hoping that, until Christmas, at least, they'll be able to get around the theatres without being blotted by neo-blaxploitation comedy based on forty-year-old Loony Toons sketches.
(As a tangent, I love The Fountain already, without having seen it, purely because of the way Darren Aronofsky pulled it off. From what I'm given to understand, this is the way it worked: Aronofsky was slated to start filming the thing back in 2002 or '03, with Brad Pitt in the lead role. But Pitt had to drop it to work on Troy. At the time, Aronofsky was going to go on and do Batman: Year One, but that was handed over to someone else, and eventually ended up in Christopher Nolan's hands [who's directing The Prestige, incidentally], I think because Nolan was originally going to do Batman vs Superman, which was tossed because of the plans to make Superman, which got delayed... anyway. So The Fountain was gutted. But Aronofsky didn't give up. He liked the story and the idea so much that he rewrote it as a graphic novel, and published it, with Kent Williams illustrating [it's going into a soft cover run very soon]. The graphic novel was a hit [and, since it was a graphic novel, that meant it was a cult hit, rather than the big blockbuster sort of thing you get with Da Vinci Codes] and garnered enough attention that he was able to revive the film, with a slightly smaller budget and a different star, and is now, finally, seeing it released. It proves to me that he's a man who loves story more than industry and finance, and that's important to me)
In terms of television, I urge anyone with the time to do some downloading to find what they can of HBO's Carnivale. I've mentioned it before, but it really was an incredible show (before it was cruelly cancelled, before it's third season). It did things that few shows are willing to do, in ways that no one was thinking of, and telling stories that were entertaining, thought-provoking, a little frightening, and always wonderful. Plus, I've just manged to snag some of the second season, and am thoroughly enjoying myself.
And, just for kicks, the movies that I'm pretty sure I'll need to see in 2007 (these are in no order at all):
Spider-Man 3
TMNT
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
And let it henceforth be known that every one of you will want to see Stardust when you hear more about it, and remember that you heard it from me, first.
Post Script: There are twenty-two links in this post. I expect you to click every one. And if you're worried about windows, tab-browse fer Chrissake.
Post Post Script: Twenty-three.
posted by jeereg at
5:32 PM
15 Comments:
I really can't believe it.
I was toying around with writing a series of short stories that revolved around the basic plot of "Children of Men" (from what I understand it).
Essentially the short stories were going to be vignettes of a world where everyone has mysteriously gone sterile, and the human race goes hurtling to extinction. It was going to be stories like the inevitable baby-snatching, vain attempts to correct the problem, and then the final days of the last people on earth. I then realized that my fiction writing is so poor that I would never be happy with my own execution, but nonetheless loved the idea so much that it stayed in the back of my mind.
Sorry, I should've mentioned who I was.
Also there are way too many good movies out there that I really need to see. I think I'll get to them when I go home in August.
Yep, there are a lot of good movies coming out. It's very exciting.
And something on that second list is out in August, although it might be after I go back to the 'Loo. The Illusionist, maybe?
Children of Men is adapted from a novel by P.D. James, written in 1992, so I think maybe you channelled him, first.
I swear that I never read or heard anything about any story like that before. But I guess ideas are bound to get recycled very easily in the literary world.
Why is 'Superman' on the list? The movie was overly long, and while it did stay true to its origins, it's origins where mediocre at best. The evil plot was uninventive and while Kevin Spacey is (pardon the refrence) superman amongst men when it comes to actors he can not make 'Superman' into a good movie. All his performance did was grace 'Superman' with one really great actor.
Derek
P.S. I'm excited for 'A scanner Darkly' from the same director who did 'Waking Life' and 'Dazed and Confused' Richard Linklater.
Derek: Superman Returns makes the list because I think it's an excellent treatment of the character, there are several solid performances (Brandon Routh is the perfect new-age Superman, Kate Bosworth was a great Lois, I loved Spacey's Luthor), some extremely compelling scenes, an even pace (which, despite its two-and-a-half hours, made it feel just right), great art direction and cinematography, and a plot that respects the mythos without insulting the audience's intelligence. And regardless of whether or not you like Superman as a character, he is the necessary superhero, his origins are the arcehtype from which every other caped crusader takes his/her marks, and the themes that orbit his stories (birthright, humanity, responsibility) are such a fundamental part of the mythology of superheroes that to ignore or scorn them ultimately leaves you with a poorer perspective on the genre.
Singer did everything right with the film. I couldn't be happier with it.
Greg if you appreciate the whole subtleties and nuances of the mythos, then you and I are different. I perhaps could have eaten and enjoyed that mythos, because the mythos was the most compelling part of this film, but the way I was fed, the vehicle of the movie if you will was faulty.
The evil plot of Lex Luthor has an interesting premise, yet it is simplistic, clearly lacking in any overt brilliance that I would expect from a Lex Luthor character.
I would go so far as to say that the plot was just there as a requisite of the film which was there to show the mythos of Superman. But I as a non-mythos enamoured viewer need an evil plot (that reflects the overall plot) that is more resonant and compelling because I am uninitiated and there is only so much mythos I can take, especially in such a long film.
The artistic mythos moments were undiltued or spaced out between standard dialogue which in itself was dripping in mythos. The whole movie never wavered from its point: That Superman is not human.
Alright I said I got it, now move on, but no, I an audience member had to be subjugated to this theme in gradually increasing intensities for another two-and-half hours.
There are only so many artistic mythos inducing moments that I can take. The stylistic/majestic way that he lands and the way the light shines upon him, the way his cape flutters. Many of them great details, and I agree that the cinematic artistry was a strong point, but I have to say that this was the only point of the movie. At first this was cool but after two hours of it, the amped up intensity of this theme in the final half hour made me gag. Made me have an intense physical reaction against it.
If the film was shorter there would have been less of this majestic-demigod walking and the climactic scenes at the end would have been stronger. It would have been stronger because it would not have been just an intensification of a theme that became banal pretty quickly. The end as well showing Superman to be the Great Uniter, which I can see could be touching was empty and hollow to me.
My lack of the appreciation to the genre aside, I could have seen how I could have enjoyed this movie, the mythos while there was a huge overkill due to how much of it there was could have been compelling in much smaller doses. The artistry before it became banal was cool. And I thought before I was induced to puke that the movie was incredibly good looking. I give this movie a C+ decent even good to an extent, but definately not a must watch movie.
Derek
Greg clap!
*runs off gleefully to see Brick after reading the summary and realizing Joseph Gordon-Levitt is in it*
I am a recently converted fan.
Tangent- Have you seen Mysterious Skin? He's amazing in it...along with that boy from Thirteen and Michelle Tratchenberg, who, it turns out, can actually act.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/mysterious_skin.html ... since you seem to have a link fetish.
Sidenote - Christopher Buckley (who wrote Thank You for Smoking) is this brilliantly hilarious writer who actually managed to make oppression in the Middle East funny. Read Florence of Arabia.
Thank you for the wonderful suggestions!
Derek: I'm not sure what you're debating here. If you didn't like the film, that's great. I was wildly entertained by it, I liked the tributes, the takes on Superman, and the new plot, I liked Luthor's development, I didn't think it was too long, I felt that the themes and message were more complex than you've suggested, and, frankly, your grading has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I'm going to tell people that Superman Returns is a must-see.
Of the dozen people that I've discussed the film with, you're the first to really dislike it.
Also, you've overused the word "mythos", and don't seem to understand it.
And rather than tear down my choices, you could present an alternative. I've been told that An Inconveninet Truth should be on the list, but I didn't see it, so I don't feel comfortable recommending it. Rotten Tomatoes has sixteen movies released in 2006 rated at or above a 90%, which I'd consider must-see, none of which are on my list.
It's an opinion and a perspective. Mine isn't the same as yours. If you want to write a review, put it on the SJ-Review site, or start a blog.
Kate: Interestingly, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is, I think, one of the weakest parts of Brick. It's not that he's a bad actor, or even that it's a bad performance. Ask me about it after you've seen it, we'll discuss.
The last thing I saw him in before that was Havoc, with Anne Hathaway. He's got a small role, but I liked him (and she's brilliant in it... good flick).
I vaguely remember seeing the trailer for Mysterious Skin sometime last year, but promptly forgot about wanting to see it. I do want to see it, actually, now that I've remembered that it exists.
Touche.
Derek
To be honest Greg, in the realm of the argument/discussion, I have made many mistakes. You of course can suggest what ever movies you want, it is subjective in that sense as you are choosing. There is also no apparent objective list to choose from either.
My, lets say stupid, opening comment, (I wish I could say I was drunk when I wrote that, but I can't) held only my initial unreflected, and un articulated feelings towards 'Superman Returs'. My follow-up comment was also lacking in a lot of common-sense, though I do defend my opinion, even if I can't articulate it. So for that I concede your point.
My question now however, that is if you have the time or desire, is tell me some of those more complex themes and messages, because my lack of understanding, or maybe lack of caring for those messages is at the root of my feeling that the movie was too long.
My grade by the way was to tell you that I didn't think it was all bad, that I did think there were some good parts to it.
-Derek
Derek: I don't necessarily disagree with you. I understand and sympathise with your complaints. I understand that the movie you watched was different from the movie I watched, because we're different people and that's the way it works.
In terms of the themes, I don't think it's as straightforward as "Superman's not human". I think the movie spends a great deal of time showing the ways that he is human, in fact. But, beyond that, it explores the idea of birthright, of the father and son (an impressive feat, considering the only father in the movie is a hologram displayed on a giant crystal), which in turn tackles the Christ allegory, and nature versus nurture, and it also explores the idea of responsibility, and of heroism itself.
I'm rapidly realising that I'll need to do this on a much larger scale if its going to make any sense. I may just write an essay on Superman, and post it here.
Don't worry about it Greg. There are other worlds that I need to delve into before I delve into Superman. You can write the essay for yourself and ultimately others, but don't do it on my account.
Speaking of Christ allegories, I'm not sure if it is a Christ Allegory per se, but I think the Dune series by Frank Herbet, has the most interesting thing to say about Religion, though not necessarily Christ. Any thoughts?
-Derek
Derek: Superman's myth certainly has elements of the Christ archetype - it's heightened in various interpretations and story archs, and I think elements of it are certainly present in the movie. Although, I suppose it isn't a strict allegory or reinvention.
I've only read the original Dune, and none of the sequels, but I can see what you mean. It's pretty stark.
I am constantly surprised by how good Anne Hathaway actually is. By rights she should just be another pretty face who can be half as tallented because she's twice as beautiful as the average teen actress. But she's not. She's damn good.
Just a random note.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home