Kenneth Mars of ‘The Producers’ dies (via News Briefs)

Some sad news to pass along…

[tiImage url="http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/110215/producers-kenneth-mars_320.jpg" credit="Everett Collection" align="left"]Kenneth Mars, the actor who played two of Mel Brooks' nuttiest cinematic characters, has died of pancreatic cancer, according to the New York Times. He was 75. Mars had been on Broadway and appeared in several hit TV shows (Get Smart, Gunsmoke) when he was cast as the Hitler-worshiping playwright in Brooks' 1968 co … Read More

via News Briefs

“Hook”

“Hook”-1991
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Robin Williams
Written By: James V. Hart, Malia Scotch Marmo
Directed By: Steven Spielberg

* * (out of 4)

I’ll say right up front that I’m not such a big fan of the big budget special effects films. I have a tendency to prefer good writing and a good story over how a film looks. In too many cases, all of the care and attention goes into the look of the film, and they forgot to actually make a good movie out of it.  Naturally, I want a film to look good, but not at the expense of everything else. I’m not interested in going to see a movie simply for its visuals.

1991’s “Hook” spent a lot of time (and money) on it’s visuals. Unfortunately, the visual look of the film is not a pretty one. You’d think they could have come up with something bright, imaginative and fun. Instead, what we get is a dark, dull world that fails on both counts.

The film is, of course, a re-imagining of the Peter Pan story, though it’s probably more accurate to call it a continuation of the original story, beacause now Peter has left Neverland and grown up, having no memories of his past life. He is now Peter Banning, a corporate lawyer and father of 2, though you would never know it, since he’s so busy with work that when he can’t make it to his son’s baseball game, he sends someone from the office with a video camera. His son obviously (and rightfully) resents him.

Peter is married to Moira, (the granddaughter of Wendy from the Peter Pan stories) and the family makes a trip to England to visit old Granny Wendy(Maggie Smith). While there, Peter’s kids are kidnapped, and a ransom note is left by one Capt. James Hook. (We never see Hook fly, so how got out of Neverland and back is never really explained.) And so, Peter is whisked off to Neverland by Tinkerbell (Julia Roberts), to save his kids, and for a re-match with Hook. But, first he must re-learn what it was like to be Peter Pan, since he’s all grown-up.

And, boy has Neverland gone to hell in a hand-basket without Peter. It is a rather dark, dull place with virtually no color. I have always pictured it to be a bright, colorful place. I think of it as being full of a lot of greens, not only full of life, but full of wonder and imagination. Instead what we get is a world full of browns and reds, and looking quite desolate. A black-and-white edition of the Mary Martin play would have more life and imagination that this film does.

Compare Disney’s animated Neverland with the one presented in this film….

Disney's Neverland

Hook's Neverland

I wonder what Hook and the rest of the pirates have done to the place since Peter left. (I can only assume they’ve killed off Tiger Lily and all the rest of the Indians, since they are never seen nor mentioned in the film.)

Even Tinkerbell is devoid of life and color. Again, compare Disney with this version….

Disney's Tinkerbell

Hook's Tinkerbell

That’s really the problem with the whole film–the Neverland scenes are lifeless and boring. It’s dull to look at and to listen to. Hook’s ship looks like an amusement park ride. (Conversely, the pirate films that actually were based off an amusement park ride have a much richer, more exciting, more imaginative look.)  Hook himself is never threatening. Dustin Hoffman, truly one of my favorite actors, is unimpressive. He’s just goofing around with the role, which never gives the sense that they’re ever in any real danger.

The film takes a long time to really get going, which is not good for a family film. It’s a long film to begin with(2 hours, 20 minutes), and when it takes as long as it does to have any adventure or excitement (the little that it does have), the kids will lose interest pretty quickly.

I remember watching this film in the theater when I was 5 years old. It put me to sleep. I might have been just slightly too young for it then, but not by much.  I just don’t feel there was much for kids to relate to. There wasn’t in 1991, and there sure isn’t now.

“Barton Fink”

“Barton Fink”-1991
Starring: Jon Turturro, John Goodman
Written By: Joel and Ethan Coen
Directed By: Joel Coen

* * *(out of 4)

I liked “Barton Fink” for almost all the entire first hour. I loved the characters, the performances the writing, the sly comedy perfectly mixed with drama. The second hour is a complete unexpected whirlwind that I is not easily described. It is supposed to confuse and confound, I guess. The Coens are masters of films like these, though, and it’s what makes the Coen Brothers such great filmmakers, and their films such a joy to watch.

Barton Fink(Turturro) is a New York playwright in 1941 that has just written his Broadway masterpiece. He’s captured the attention of Hollywood, and, against his better judgment, he moves out to California and rents a room indefinitely in a large but cheap motel. The place is infested by mosquitoes, the furniture is cheap, the walls are paper-thin, and the wallpaper peels.

The studio commissions Barton to write a wrestling picture. He, of course, knows nothing about wrestling, and has trouble getting started.  He is first distracted by the man in the next room, Charlie (John Goodman), a warm, hospitable insurance salesman that Barton becomes friends with. Later, Barton also runs into his idol author, W.P. Mayhew (John Mahoney). Mayhew doesn’t quite live up to Barton’s expectations. Barton takes a liking to Mayhew’s secretary, Audrey.

Barton is still experiencing writers block, and with the movie studio becoming impatient, he looks to Audrey one night for inspiration. She’s always helped Mayhew to break his writers block (by actually writing all of his books.) After a night of passion, Barton wakes up the next morning to find her bloody and dead.

This is where the film takes a strange turn. It goes down a dark road in a stark contrast to what transpired over the first hour of the film. Essentially, we come to find out Charlie isn’t all that he seems, and neither is Hollywood, for that matter.

The performances are fantastic all around, and there’s a wonderful depth to the writing. I love the broad, colorful characters that populate the Coen brother’s films, and this one is no different. Even the small roles are well developed. Despite the jarring turn over the films second half, I still enjoyed “Barton Fink.” It’s not the Coen’s best (nothing will ever beat “Fargo”), but it’s a good effort, and an enjoyable film.

“A Trip to the Moon”

“A Trip to the Moon” -1902
Written and Directed by: Georges Méliès

* * *(out of 4)

A historically important film, this 14 minute 1902 French film by Georges Méliès mostly stands as a time capsule of movie making at its time. It’s technical and visual achievement is probably its most noteworthy feature. A rather standard, simple little film that is important visually and intriguing to look back on. It does not really  have much to take anything away from almost 109 years after it was made, but it’s a good one for film fans to see for the historical significance.

The story follows a group of astronomers planning a trip to the moon. Upon arrival, (the film’s iconic image of the ship hitting the “man in the moon” ‘s eye), and see Earth from afar. Tired from the trip, they drift off to sleep, while a comet passes by overhead, as well as the Big Dipper, and Saturn. Snow begins to fall, and the astronomers seek shelter in a cave of mushrooms. The moon is inhabited by an alien race that has a tendency to explode upon brute contact. Captured by the aliens, the astronomers kill the alien king and flee back to their ship and head back to Earth.

The technical feats of the film, the explosion flashes when the aliens are killed, are very noteworthy. Simple as they may be, they were the first of their kind in film. The story is fairly simple and straightforward, and the performances basic and standard. The film is also considered the first science fiction film ever.

I can’t say I was blown away (spoiled by the technological advances over the last 109 years, I suppose). However, I can appreciate the achievements of the film, and while its far from being one of my favorites, it is worth watching at least once.

Great Directors: Stanley Kubrick (via Alec Nevala-Lee)

Supplemental to today’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” review, I’d like to share an excellent blog post I found on Stanley Kubrick

Essential films: 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lyndon, and many others. Kubrick’s case is an unusual one. Film for film, he has the most impressive body of work of any director from the last half century of movies, and no other filmmaker can match him for ambition, intelligence, and attention to detail. Yet his example is dangerous. Kubrick gets away with habits that would be deadly in a lesser director—the obsessive p … Read More

via Alec Nevala-Lee

“2001: A Space Odyssey”

“2001: A Space Odyssey”-1968
Starring: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, Douglas Rain
Written By : Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke
Directed By: Stanley Kubrick

* * * * (out of 4)

“2001: A Space Odyssey” is a one of a kind experience. It is Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece, and it is an almost indescribable film. Tracing history from the dawn of man when apes were discovering tools (and a monolith), to a future of space exploration with artificially intelligent ship computers, and beyond, it is a film that demands multiple viewings just to make sense of it all. A pioneering film in its visuals, its storytelling, and its minimal use of dialogue. It is unquestionably one of the greatest films of all time.

Millions of years after those apes discover the monolith, in the year 2001, (what was a far-off future when it was made in 1968, that, almost hauntingly, Kubrick was not far off in some of the technological advancements seen in the film), another monolith is found in a crater on the moon. A crew sets off to explore it, and while attempting to pose for a picture in front of it, the monolith sets off a strange radio signal. Later, another small crew is on a mission to Jupiter. Dave (Keir Dullea) and Frank (Gary Lockwood) man the ship, while 3 others rest in hibernation. The ship is installed with an artificial-intelligence computer named HAL 9000 (voiced by Douglas Rain). HAL is made to be“foolproof and incapable of error”.

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

However, when HAL starts acting strangely,  Dave and Frank get concerned, and a battle between man and machine ensues, and the film explores just who or what has the true intelligence and power.

What happens in the final chapter of the film is one of the most surreal experiences in the history of cinema. Another monolith is found floating in space, and we are pulled into it. What is contained within is a world of unusual cosmical phenomena and color, until finally, we are finally taken into a world of advancing age and life.

When the film ends, the viewer is left to try to make sense of what just transpired over the previous 2-and-a-half hours. It is somewhat of a mind-blowing experience, one that has to be seen to be believed. It’s mix of visuals and classical music is a thing of beauty.The special effects are, in my opinion, still some of the best ever filmed. The interpretations of this film are endless, and the reason why it perseveres as one of the greatest films ever made.

“Confessions of a Shopaholic”

“Confessions of a Shopaholic”-2009
Starring: Isla Fisher, Hugh Dancy
Written By: Tim Firth, Tracey Jackson
Directed By: P.J. Hogan

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Is there ever a good time to have a shopping obsessed movie? With the economy the way it is, the answer is a resounding no. It was even a little worse in 2009, when “Confessions of a Shopaholic” came out, so it was even worse timing then. The concept of the move could be a fun one, but I couldn’t quite get over the feeling that “Confessions of a Shopaholic” suffers from some unfortunate timing.
Even more unfortunate, though,  is the film isn’t very funny. Shopping crazed consumers are nothing new, and this film barely goes beyond the cliché level. Add on to that the additionally clichéd romantic comedy, and you’ve got a lame, extremely clichéd movie.
Isla Fisher gives everything she’s got, and she does a decent job. But, it’s not like it’s a real challenging role. Her character, Rebecca, is practically orgasmic just walking into a store. She prefers material goods over sex. She’s so bad with money, she has maxed out many credit cards, and is several thousands of dollars in debt. Yet she still can’t stop herself. Rebecca dreams of working for a big-time fashion mag, and when she goes to apply, she of course doesn’t get it, but settles instead for another mag at the same publisher—a money mag. This set-up does have comedic potential. The writers just didn’t know how to execute it, and instead spend all the time on her rather typical romance with her editor (Hugh Dancy).

She eventually lands in Shopaholics Anonymous, which are the best scenes in the movie, thanks to a cameo by John Salley.
Let’s see….there’s also the subplot of her best friends’ fast approaching wedding, and some trouble with a bridesmaid’s dress…. (This film just can’t get away from the clichés, can it?)

I didn’t completely hate this film. I did laugh a few times, but not all that much, and was rather bored most of the time. The ultimate problem with the film comes down to the fact that it at once glorifies overconsumption of material goods, while trying to preach the opposite. That simply doesn’t work.  Even if it could have made up it’s mind what it’s message was instead of having it both ways, it still needed a better script.

“Lolita”

“Lolita”-1962
Starring: James Mason, Sue Lyon, Peter Sellers
Written By: Vladmir Nabokov
Directed By: Stanley Kubrick

* * * (out of 4)

“How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?” asks the film’s poster. “Why” may be a more appropriate question. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a bad film (Kubrick never made a bad film). It’s just not really a great film, never really amounting to much more than a bad soap opera, and a bit of a boring one at that. Mostly, this is due to the censorship limitations during the time it was made. This film is supposed to be sexy and erotic. It never is, because the standards at the time wouldn’t allow it to be. Without any eroticism, it’s mostly boring. And the characters seem so bipolar-they can’t stand each other one minute, the next it’s like nothing happened-it loses all sense of reality and believability. The writing is a bit lacking, too, and I lost some patience with the film the longer it went.

Lolita(Sue Lyon) is the daughter of a housewife who rents out a spare room in her house. Professor Humbert Humbert (James Mason) rents the room, and on a tour of the house that includes the garden outside, he meets Lolita and is instantly smitten. Humbert is renting the room for a brief summer, before he is to head to Ohio to teach at a college. Lolita likes him back, and flirts with him one morning over breakfast. Her mother, Charlotte (Shelley Winters), does not have a good relationship with her disobedient daughter, afraid that she’s too young to be serious with boys and sends her off to an all-girls camp for the summer, and plans to send her off to boarding school next year. Charlotte, also smitten with Humbert, marries him. He soon grows weary of her, and starts having thoughts of killing her. After a big fight, she storms out and is hit by a car.

Humbert goes off to rescue Lolita from the all-girls camp, and they head off to Ohio for his teaching job. A bizarre sexual relationship also starts up between the two. Lolita, always the free spirit, starts driving him crazy before long.

Meanwhile, a writer and old acquaintance of Charlotte and Lolita, Clare Quilty (Sellers), who also has his eye on Lolita , is hot on the trail of Humbert and Lolita. He knows what is going on between the two of them, and tries(in multiple ways) to get between the two of them, and get himself involved with Lolita.

It is a terrific performance by Sellers, and the ultimate reason I would recommend the film. The other performances are strong as well, especially the newcomer, Sue Lyon. But Sellers is the real treasure here. The film is at its best when he is on screen, which sadly, is far too little.

Kubrick’s direction is top-notch, of course, but the film wallows in mediocrity for long stretches. Had it been allowed to be erotic as it was intended, those long stretches would have been bearable. It is worth noting that Kubrick himself said that had he known what the censorship limitations would be, he wouldn’t have made the film. I take some solace in knowing that Kubrick wasn’t completely happy with the final product, and neither was I.

“Old Dogs”

“Old Dogs”-2009
Starring: Robin Williams, John Travolta
Written By: David Diamond, David Weissman
Directed By: Walt Becker

* (out of 4)

“Old Dogs” makes a big miscalculation right from the start in giving the focus to dull adult characters instead of the kids. Kids don’t care about the adults’ dull corporate world. In a kids movie, it is my opinion that  kids would want to see other kids. The kids in this movie serve very little purpose other than to make Robin Williams character’s life more miserable. And so he can learn how to be a parent. So why are the kids basically pushed aside in favor of these two morons? The kids are practically background characters. The kids are an afterthought, not only to Travolta and Williams, but apparently to the filmmakers, too.

Dan (Williams) and Charlie (Travolta) are sports marketing executives, about to get the biggest deal of their lives. So what could possibly go wrong??

7 years ago, Dan went through a divorce, so Charlie took him out on a night of freedom. Dan got drunk, got a tattoo, met a girl, got married and promptly divorced the next morning, never to see the woman again (or so he thought….) Wouldn’t you know it, just as Charlie and Dan are about to close in on that big deal, Dan’s one-night wife comes into town in need of a temporary babysitter while she goes off to jail for 2 weeks. (Her friend, who is a hand model, was supposed to do it, but she gets her hands slammed in a trunk and is held up at the hospital.)
Dan and Charlie, of course, don’t know how to be parents.  And anywhere they go with the kids, they are always, inexplicably, being mistaken for the kids’ grandparents. And for being gay. Why we need gay jokes in a kids film is beyond me.
Will Dan figure out his priorities and learn how to be a dad? In a movie like this, why do I even need to ask this question?

The film is woefully unfunny, the directing is sloppy, frantic, and messy. The writing is amateurish. And we keep getting random cutaways to reaction shots of Charlie’s dog. I guess those are supposed to punctuate the laugh lines. Problem is it really doesn’t have any.
The best thing, really the only good thing,  about this film is the old songs used on the soundtrack. (Although there isn’t a single reason for any of the great songs to be in this film. My only guess is that they were put in to give the adults in the audience something to enjoy, because the rest of the film sure won’t do it.)
I’ll wrap up with this: At one point, one of the kids says “We should get a merit badge just for being his kid.” The audience should get a freaking medal for making it through the whole movie.

“Funny People”

“Funny People”-2009
Starring: Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann
Written By: Judd Apatow
Directed By: Judd Apatow

* * 1/2 (out of 4)

Judd Apatow is an incredibly talented filmmaker.  He’s produced some duds, (Pineapple Express and Drillbit Taylor come to mind) but almost anything with his name attached has been very funny and enjoyable. His 2 previous directorial efforts (40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up) are laugh-out-loud hilarious and raunchy, while still managing to be sweet and charming. So, naturally, I had the same hope for this one.

Adam Sandler stars as George, a washed-up comedic actor, who finds out he has a form of leukemia and gets put on an experimental medication. He returns to his roots on the stand-up circuit, and meets Ira, played by Seth Rogen, a promising up-and-coming young comic. George hires Ira to write for him, and to sort of be a companion.

Then, George’s old flame, Laura, comes back into his life. He still pines for her, and would like to get back with her, if only she weren’t married.
Laura’s husband (Eric Bana) is away on business one weekend, and George and Ira are invited to her place for the weekend. Surprise, surprise, her husband shows up unexpected. Let the fun begin!

“Funny People” has its funny and sweet moments. It’s also a more serious film, which I knew going in. I really thought Apatow could make it work. It doesn’t. He gives it everything he’s got, and it just ends up being too much. He never found the right balance of comedy and drama, and lets the film run on way too long.

And I mean WAY too long. The running time of 2 and 1/2 hours could have easily been cut down (it needed at  least a half-hour), and if it had, the film would be more tolerable. Apatow’s earlier films both ran on longer than they probably should have, but if was forgivable because they were funny. This isn’t, and it drags interminably. We literally are watching an Apatow home movie at one point. That’s was about my breaking point.

It’s a decent film, but has too many ideas, too many unnecessary minor plot points. I didn’t mind the dramatic tone of the film, but mixed in with Apatow’s brand of comedy, it’s too uneven.

I think there’s a good film in here somewhere. Ultimately, the finished product is just too damn long, and loses anythin good it had going for it the longer it goes. I didn’t hate the film, but I can’t quite say I liked it overall.