Cinema

What the Hell is Going On?

Thanos-Gamora-Hand-Trailer2.jpg

SPOILERS AHEAD (OBVIOUSLY...)


 

The culture has passed me by:

Avengers: Infinity War” can check off yet another record: The second-highest second weekend of all time.

Disney and Marvel’s latest collaboration earned $112.5 million from 4,474 locations in its second frame. The 56% decline was just enough to top the record previously held by fellow Marvel title “Black Panther,” which made $111.6 million in its second weekend. “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” holds the prize for biggest second weekend, with a mighty $149 million in 2015. Only five films have ever hit the $100 million-mark in their second weekends.

In just North America, the superhero mashup has made $450.8 million. Among “Infinity War’s” numerous accomplishments is being the fastest film to gross $1 billion, in just 11 days. And the film has yet to open in China.

I enjoy living in the future. I don't advocate a return to the bad old days. I have a smart phone and I love it when people put out new music. But I couldn't be further out of the cultural zeitgeist if I was walking around dressed like it was the 1890s and talking through the severed end of a flugelhorn. 

What do I have here at the end of watching all 18 of these terrible, terrible Marvel movies? Nothing. I have no idea what has happened. I mean, I don't want to pull the sleeve right off your best jacket, but what the hell was all that about? Some people and some magic stones have fought each other and now the universe is in balance? There is no balance in nature. It's just wild and free and shit goes one way, then another. Is Jesus supposed to show up now? I think that was a joke in Infinity War, which I saw a day ago and can't remember anything about.

Why aren't the Jesus freaks angrier about this movie? It's supposed to be the end-all, be-all of everything and all it needed was for Southpark's version of Jesus to show up, put his hand on the shoulder of Thanos, and say, "who hurt you, my son?" That would have ended the whole movie. No need for any more Avengers because Jesus can shoot a lightning bolt through your eyes if you try to make special weapons or steal magic stones.

I'll tell you how the movie will end next year. Something, joke, something, everybody's trapped in the soul stone! fight, joke, joke, fight, and then another fight and then the little girl makes the bad guy put everything back the way it was and someone hides those magic stones and we get to do it all over again in the reboot.

The whole movie runs through the relationship between the young version of Gamora and the big bad evil daddy figure. Conquering figure adopts helpless child, wah wah, okay, what did we learn? Did we learn more about emotional manipulation and allow a figure who has killed untold trillions of children in the universe to have a soft spot for a little kiddy? Genocide never had a better premise in a film. Let's just breeze past the horror--he's got a heart of gold hidden in there, but he's been hurt and Jesus never came around to save him.

Culturally, this is all just junk. It's light, it's fluffy, people eat it up, and then it dissipates. It amuses and distracts, but it doesn't really do anything beyond that. The only thing it really accomplishes is that, for far too many underpaid Americans, a massive amount of discretionary spending has been ripped out of the middle of the economy, causing people to put off buying tangible things while edging out all of the other crap they don't need. Video game makers have tried to cash in by making Avengers games, but it's just not the same. They need a new franchise, obviously, and it's something about killing. 

Is there any point to any of the Marvel crap? It's just another version of Star Wars for people who still spend a lot of money on other stuff. Someone somewhere is busy thinking up another version of all of this, but edgier, man. Everything has to be the same but just a little darker and meaner and cooler. Dude.

Think of the art that didn't get made because all of this talent, money and energy was tied up making 18 Marvel films. There are actors and actresses here who have real talents. I'm not out of line for suggesting that there are far too few female characters and way too many men who are playing characters that are younger than they are in real life. Mark Ruffalo can actually make real movies for adults. Is this a wise use of his time? And do we need slightly less stupid Andy Dwyer from Parks and Recreation to be the guy who screws up everything? Talk about playing to a cliche. I'll bet when Paul Bettany was doing Richard III, all he could think about was putting a jewel on his forehead and floating about in a robot body while living in Scotland with his girlfriend. Really? You don't think they would have preferred Brighton? Come on. No one lives in Scotland on purpose.

You could have told it all in 3 films that cost a lot less, but no one thinks small like that anymore. It has to be massive! On a scale never before seen! Why sell them three pictures when we can pad this out and make billions off of six different trilogies! Cram it into every nook and cranny! Put it on every product known to man. Well, that's what they did, and that's what they've plopped down in front of everyone. But there are more movies on the way! Here they come! 

Do you know what still has more relevance in the culture? The Beatles, high as kites and out of it, singing Love is All You Need to a world that didn't believe it for a minute. Oh well, this is what you get when you grow old.

That Batman Movie Was a Piece of Shit

1390effdc43d97964c5ad15287bd2ccf0adac636.jpg

I think I remember this film. Man, was it a piece of steaming shit:

Two-Face and Riddler looked like they had a blast together during Batman Forever, but off-camera, Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey's relationship was anything but amiable. Carrey hasn't been shy in the past about talking about how Jones hated working with him, but now the comedy star has gone into more detail on the encounter where Jones' unpleasantness was on full display. One day during Batman Forever's production, Carrey found out that Jones was eating at the same restaurant as him. He went to greet his co-star, which caused the blood in Jones' face to drain. Carrey continued:

And he got up shaking --- he must have been in mid-'kill me' fantasy or something like that. And he went to hug me and he said, 'I hate you. I really don't like you.' And I said, 'What's the problem?' and pulled up a chair, which probably wasn't smart. And he said, 'I cannot sanction your buffoonery.'

Tommy Lee Jones bluntly summarizing his hatred for Jim Carrey in such an archaic fashion is weird enough, but what's even stranger is that Jones expressed disapproval of Carrey's antics before they were going to shoot the biggest scene they had together in Batman Forever. After Carrey recalled this encounter during his recent appearance on Norm MacDonald Live, the show's eponymous host posited that Jones might have jealous that Carrey was the center of attention on set. After all, Batman Forever was in principal photography months after Carrey became a comedy movie star thanks to Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and The Mask.

No idea why anyone cares, but there you go.

Sir Roger Moore 1927-2017

A View to a Kill_01

Sir Roger Moore was the James Bond that I grew up with; his take on the character was oft-derided but it was perfect for the times.

To say that Bond should have been cunning, ruthless, and humorless in the 1970s was to ignore the overwhelming importance of male bravado and self-awareness of the times. This was the decade that made stars out of complex characters (DeNiro, Pacino, Hoffman) and less than complex fellows (Eastwood, Reynolds, Bronson). You could not have made Bond like any similar character from American cinema, nor could he have had the detached, monosyllabic approach of international films. Bond had to be a global star, able to bridge all of the different genres of film. He had to be able to do dry humor, heart-stopping action, clever romance, and political intrigue. He had to be able to save people, kill people, and mock people, often in the course of a single action sequence. 

That meant finding a British actor with serious theater chops, which is what people still do when they need someone who can truly inhabit a character. Michael Fassbender is the Roger Moore of our time, but, really, he's just another version of Moore churned out by the wonderful schools that teach acting in Britain. You can definitely see Fassbender becoming one of the greats and surpassing quite a few great actors, but he's following the template that Moore helped create.

In his day, no one was better than Roger Moore at being everyman and superman at the same time. He had to portray a character that was marketed and sold to the vast world audience of the time. He had to be the actor who could open a film in London, Rome, Los Angeles and Tokyo and few people have ever been able to do that. The universality of his portrayal does not dim with age. You can laugh at how camp it was, but the whole goddamned 1970s was a campy affair on purpose. At no point were you ever not able to believe he could do what he did. That was what made him great.

The Bond that Roger Moore gave us was sharp, sly, quick and capable. He was very much of his time, and we do his performance a disservice by thinking he had to act like the action figures of the last thirty years or so.

Tombstone

Anybody who writes an entire article about Kurt Russell's movie career and forgets to mention Tombstone probably did so entirely by accident.

Kurt Russell is such a good actor, it is possible to write about the films he has made and the quality of his work and forget what is probably his greatest role. Tombstone gets a mulligan for the mangled history but five stars for being completely and utterly entertaining. 

Oh, my bad. I meant to say Tequila Sunrise. 

Tequila Sunrise was Russell's greatest role. Who plays the guy who doesn't get the girl by choice? That was his best performance and then, the classic Tombstone. How you could write about this guy and not mention any of those movies is beyond my comprehension.

Yeah, I'll go see him in Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2. Hell, the whole movie should just be about him.

Richard Gere Has Paid a Price For His Support of Tibet

2517279SC008_dalai_lama

China's influence in the film industry means that actor Richard Here has to appear in independently financed films that are not being marketed to the Chinese:

When Richard Gere walked the red carpet at the Academy Awards in 1993, there was no way he could have known that the night would have repercussions for his career more than 20 years later. Invited to present the award for best art direction, he skipped the scripted patter to protest China's occupation of Tibet and its "horrendous, horrendous human rights situation." The late Gil Cates, the show's producer, was furious, calling the political speeches at that year's awards show —Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins also went off script to speak on behalf of Haitian refugees — "distasteful and dishonest" and vowing to ban all three from future Oscars broadcasts.

Gere hasn't done a major studio film in ten years. This is primarily because, whenever he ends up near a project that can be influenced by businesses trying to work out deals in China, pressure is exerted to have him removed.

Terry Gilliam Isn't Crazy

Terry Gilliam's Don Quixote film always struck me as proof that people in Hollywood are afraid of spending money to make great films:

It has now been 18 years since Terry Gilliam first tried to film The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, a.k.a. The Movie That Will Probably Kill Terry Gilliam, Instead. In that time, Gilliam has faced a Job-like series of setbacks on the film, from flash floods to sick actors to dead actors to some “Portuguese chap” who couldn’t deliver the financing he supposedly promised. And yet, Gilliam has persisted on the film for almost two decades, blowing through our entire stock of jokes about “tilting at windmills” and the entire project becoming the exact definition of “quixotic.”

Today, IndieWire reports that Gilliam has hopped back in the saddle again, putting together an unnamed source and an Instagram post from original cast member Rossy De Palma that indicate that production has once again resumed...

There's no reason why a Gilliam film can't be properly marketed and treated like any other commercial film product. Every year, the Oscars come and go, and the absence of really important and great films is the elephant in the room. When was the last time anyone found themselves truly inundated with great films in the span of a calendar year?

The failure to recognize the fact that he does have an audience and that he does have a masterful ability for filmmaking is a result of something entirely not his fault. Wanting to shoot a script and make a film that satisfies the artistic itch is the ultimate worthwhile endeavor.

Hollywood Doesn't Care About American Audiences

This question is easy to answer:

Will Hollywood Learn From Hidden Figures’s Success?

Nope!

Hidden Figures has been the breakout film of 2017 thus far. Starring three African American women (played by Taraji P. Henson, Janelle Monáe, and Octavia Spencer), it focuses on an unheralded piece of American history: the work of black female mathematicians and engineers at NASA in the 1960s. Released to strong reviewsHidden Figures seems destined for a few Academy Award nominations next week. Since it expanded nationwide, it has spent two weeks at the top of the box office, ahead of big-budget films like Monster TrucksPatriots DayLive By Night, and Oscar frontrunner La La Land. Made for a comparatively small $25 million, the film is essentially guaranteed to gross at least $100 million in the United States alone, posting a very healthy profit for its studio, 20th Century Fox. The viewing public’s desire for a film like Hidden Figures is indisputable. So why does Hollywood make so few of them?
In 2015, only 32 of the top 100 films at the box office featured a female lead or co-lead; only three of those leads were women of color, and almost half of them did not feature a black female character in any capacity. After having an all-white slate of acting nominees for two years in a row (spurring the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite), the Academy is trying to diversify its voting body with the hope of rewarding a broader selection of films. But Hollywood at large is showing few traces of change. Last year’s most successful films, largely superhero sequels and animated blockbusters, lack for variety in their storytelling. The slow nature of film production means it can take years to really reflect a shift in studio thinking, but Hidden Figures still feels (disappointingly) like an anomaly rather than a sign of a real transformation.

Hollywood is happy to turn out a handful of small, independent pictures like this but, really, the whole thing is built around larger movies with special effects that will appeal to global audiences. The economics are such that, if they were to shift everything, lay off thousands of special effects people, and try to make movies like this, it would bankrupt the industry faster than it's going bankrupt now.

In short, they want to make movies Chinese teenage boys will want to see, own, and watch repeatedly. They don't want to empower a generation of African-American actors and then start having to pay them what they're worth. The only way they can survive is to keep making superhero films that don't suck. They don't care about filmmaking or art anymore--it's not 1970. The biggest directors are not visionaries--they're successful project managers who can work for months on end and produce content. 

Who's the new Robert Altman and why isn't he making movies?

Octavia Spencer alone is one of the greatest actors of her generation. She's not just an actress. She's not just a black actress. She's a fucking actor. They don't treat her like Tom Hardy, Michael Fassbender, or Tom Hanks because they think she's not a movie star. Put her in a movie with five or six other people who can act, make her the lead, and she'll blow the fucking doors off of people. Do you think there's a Hollywood producer out there ready to sell that to a studio? Who's going to give her $10 million to start in a film and have her as the top billed actor?

Nobody. And that's a crying goddamned shame. She's amazing. And she's undervalued and under appreciated.

Wonder Woman

WONDER WOMAN

Something tells me that DC made a massive mistake by not making the stand-alone Wonder Woman movie before that horrible mess of a Batman against Superman movie:

She’s finally here. After years of false starts, a live-action Wonder Woman movie is coming next summer. Warner Bros. just revealed the first trailer at San Diego Comic-Con to the uproarious excitement of the Hall H crowd, and it. is. perfect.

I would add that movie trailers are really nothing to get excited about, but still. Patty Jenkins has created something that is probably going to blow the genre away. This film has a visual style that will make people wonder why Zack Snyder still gets work. It takes enormous courage for a film to use World War I as a setting, especially since we're more conditioned to other periods in history.

How Much Did They Spend on Marketing?

This is the kind of film that ends up on HBO or Starz, and they end up airing it 52,000,000 times:

Misconduct, a star-studded legal thriller starring Oscar-winners Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins, made less than £100 in its opening weekend at the UK box office.

The $11m-budget film was showing on just five screens, but its total take was only £97, making its per-site average £19.40. It received negative reviews on release, with the Observer’s Wendy Ide giving it one star and writing that it “could be shown in film schools as a textbook example of how not to make a movie”.

The cinemas were all regional Reel cinemas, in locations including Kidderminster and Burnley, and the opening coincided with a digital release, making the film simultaneously available to stream at home.

With an adult ticket at a Reel cinema costing £6.20, it means that less than four people caught the film at each site.

I think that there's a desire to make fun of the fact that Hopkins, Pacino, and Duhamel "aren't movie stars" anymore after a story like this comes out. Hell yeah, they are. Everyone in this film is good. Is this film itself any good? Well, that's more about story and presentation than it is the actors in it.

The problem is, if you don't market the film correctly, no one goes to see it. Is this something you'd release at the start of the summer movie season? Is this something you'd put out against animated films and comedies and blockbusters? Well, if you're looking for a niche, maybe, but this is a Christmas movie that should have been marketed in a better way.

Or, it's just a boring film. So what? 

Captain America: Back For More Cash

Can someone explain to me why people who don't live in America got to see Captain America before Americans did? Is that jingoistic bullshit?

The superhero tentpole — embraced by critics — is likewise expected to pull in massive numbers when opening in the U.S. on May 6, the start of the summer box office.

Doing Avengers-like business, Disney and Marvel Studios' Captain America: Civil War opened to a massive $200.2 million at the foreign box office, one of the biggest starts of all time and nearly matching the launch of last year's Avengers: Age of Ultron.

In some individual markets, Civil War came in ahead of Ultron, as it scored the biggest debut of all time for any film in Mexico ($20.6 million), Brazil ($12.3 million) and the Philippines ($7.5 million). All told, Civil War rolled out in about 63 percent of the foreign marketplace this weekend.

This is the third Captain America movie, but it's really the third Avengers movie. Or is this a prequel for the third and fourth Avengers movies? I can't even tell anymore.

Why they didn't make all of these movies about Loki is beyond my limited grasp.

J.J. Abrams Ruins Everything

One of the unintended consequences of rebooting Star Trek is the fact that it is basically Star Wars at a time when there are new Star Wars movies being released:

 

[...] there's also the issue of Star Trek's position inside the genre since its 2009 reboot in J.J. Abrams' first entry in the series.

In his attempts to bring more personal stakes and character-based stories to the franchise, he arguably moved it closer to Star Wars and diluted the more nuanced, difficult to describe appeal of the series as a whole. In other words, recent Star Trek has seemed more like Star Wars, and who needs that when the real thing is back and already on everyone's minds?

The obvious solution — and one which may already be chosen by Beyond, judging by recent comments by co-writer Simon Pegg and director Justin Lin — is to return the franchise to its roots as a vehicle for stories that are as intellectual as they are visceral, and embrace everything that makes Star Trek different from Star Wars. To go not towards the final frontier, but back to the series' roots, so to speak.

At its core, Star Trek is a procedural, not a character piece (despite having such great characters as Kirk, Spock, McCoy — and, in later incarnations, Picard, Data, Worf et al; the one exception to that rule is spinoff series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, which broke many of the rules of the franchise). It's a series of stories intended to make commentary and ask questions about the world around us today through metaphor and allegory, and the majority of the most fondly remembered episodes of the various TV series do exactly that.

Despite the Abrams movies pivoting away from that core appeal — arguably building on something that has been part of the Trek movies since 1982's Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan — it's the ability of Star Trek to look outwards that won the hearts of fans originally, and remains the franchise's unique selling point.

At its best, Star Trek does what literary sci-fi does so easily, but so much of TV and movie sci-fi stumbles with: It changes the way that its audience interacts with the world.

Whereas Star Wars is a series that speaks to the heart — it is, after all, inherently a story about relationships and families, both inherited and constructed — Star Trek is arguably at its best when it speaks to the brain, asking questions and introducing ideas that challenge the status quo. Viewed in that light, not only can the two co-exist, alternating between the two seems like a well-balanced diet of sorts.

The short answer is, J.J. Abrams ruined Star Wars after he ruined Star Trek. Everything he gets his hands on becomes a fan's nightmare and a studio executive's wet dream.

Other filmmakers are now going to have undo the damage done by retelling old story lines and abandoning the heart of each franchise. Star Trek is a cerebral examination of the archetypes in human nature; Star Wars is an adventure saga designed to make everyone forget they live in a world where there is no magic. Abrams turned them into large Hollywood movies that make kids go whee! and not much else.

How Did That Work Out For You?

4837277ah

If you've just made a widely panned sequel to three of the best adventure films ever made, why would you keep the one thing that people didn't like about it (aside from Shia Labeouf)?

Indiana Jones: Upcoming Film a Continuation of 2008's 'Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,' Producer Says

"This will be an original idea, but we have the character, and it's not prequel but continuing since the last one," Frank Marshall said Monday at CinemaCon in Las Vegas. Harrison Ford is set to star.

I think that the first thing they should have said was, "we're throwing everything out! This is a prequel that has nothing to do with weird magnetic spinning aliens! We're sorry! Please forgive us for the horrible, horrible shit we did."

Or, hey--maybe get new producers and come up with something good? Why wouldn't that be the logical move after a badly-reviewed misstep?

And, Good God--is Shia coming back or not? That's what everyone really wants to know.

The Pleasant Surprise of Zootopia

It may be late, but my review of Zootopia is positive on all fronts because of how much I enjoyed the film. I saw Zootopia over the weekend as an afterthought--we were bored, there wasn't anything else worth seeing, and so we figured, why not?

Spoilers ahead, so pause here and come back after you've seen it. And if you want to wait for the Blu-Ray or the on-demand version, go ahead. You won't be disappointed.

Zootopia is a Disney animated feature that picks up where almost no other Disney films leave off--with a hint of darkness and a tinge of the hopeless. It's not a bouncy, thoughtless romp through nonsensical product placement gags and Baby Boomer satire gags (although putting Tommy Chong in the film is as counter-culture as you can get without completely blowing minds and trampling through the fields of nostalgia). It's not fall down funny but it's amusing enough to see again.

And that's what I really liked about the film--it lived in its own world and didn't try too hard. It didn't go for the fart and gross-out jokes. No one sucked on a urinal cake. No one's ass explodes in a brown cloud of doom. There is a sick burn that weaves through the story line--it's called a hustle--and it works on a number of levels. It may be one of the first animated comedies that truly steps away from Baby Boomer humor and leaves the Simpsons era behind. That may explain why I liked it so much.

Ginnifer Goodwin and Jason Bateman have great chemistry as the leads in this. She plays an idealist and he plays an anti-hero and their collective backstory informs the plot without overwhelming anything. This did not play like an attempt for an actor to play something in a movie that their kids can see--the casting works out in the long run because of the banter they have and the conclusion to the film, which has a moment that is noticeably scarier--and more honest--than the usual Disney fare. 

Where does it fit in? Well, this was a smart film with some hard edges. I would put Zootopia just below The Princess and the Frog and Tangled, but that's very good company. I would say it's as good as Brave without the hard to parse accents. And Brave was a very, very good film that has been overlooked. These four animated films represent the best of the films that are not quite as good as Frozen, and if you haven't seen any of them, they're a pleasant discovery for anyone who enjoys animated films. This film was much, much better than Kung Fu Panda 3 and I preferred it to Inside Out (which I did not care for, but that means I'm merely an idiot, of course).

Really, this wasn't junk. We've seen a slew of junk animated films over the last few years and a handful of really strange and densely plotted things that should never have been made. This was a near murder mystery with more emphasis on the mystery aspect. There's even a twist at the end that works. How often can you say that?

Sacha Baron Cohen is the New Adam Sandler

Not Our Kid with Mark Strong

Man, you can't pay this guy enough to go away:
Sacha Baron Cohen's latest comedy fails to cause major offense and has his lowest-ever box-office bow in the U.K.
Despite a final scene, in which Donald Trump accidentally contracts AIDS (and from an already-infected character purported to be Daniel Radcliffe), Sacha Baron Cohen's latest film has failed to copy its predecessors in igniting major offense or, indeed, major box- office glory.
The Brothers Grimsby, which was released in the U.K. last week as Grimsby, landed in the comic's homeland in second place behind Deadpool with $2.7 million, the star's lowest-ever British debut (his last, The Dictator, earned $6.9 million, while Borat amassed some $11.9 million).
Liam Gallagher impersonators, take heart. You can be rest assured that Cohen won't be putting you out of business any time soon. The only career arc left for this guy is to have his own show on NBC.




Do It Yourself


Roughly $24,000 stands between you and making a feature film:
During a launch event at the DGA, the company introduced a new camera aimed at episodic series production and indie filmmaking.
Panasonic is aiming to extend its reach into television production and indie filmmaking with a new addition to its VariCam 4K camcorder line, which was unveiled Wednesday evening before several hundred guests at the DGA Theatre. The VariCam LT offers the same Super 35 sensor as the VariCam 35 but with a compact body weighing just six pounds.
The company is positioning the new model for uses including series television, documentaries and indie filmmaking, either as the main camera or a B-camera for use on a Steadicam, drone or the like. It will be available in March with a list price of $18,000, body only; or $24,000, body plus viewfinder.
It offers up to 4K resolution, variable frame rates, 14 stops of dynamic range, new dual native ISOs of 800/5000, multiple recording options, workflow tools and an EF lens mount with optional PL lens mount.
Now, add in a few lights, some accessories, some memory cards, a bag, and maybe some insurance and you're all set. The technology needed to make music at a professional level has brought the price of a home studio down considerably in the last decade or so. Got Pro Tools? You can get that for free off of someone, so set up some microphones and get ready to smooth things out. Use that to record sound while you're filming.

I'm guessing that it would take a computer and about $35,000 to set up enough gear to make a good film. If they start renting these things, the cost will plummet even further. Film students everywhere should figure out what they want to finance--a new car or a career making movies.

.

John Krasinki's Bomb


It's nice how they're calling 13 Hours a Michael Bay film. It's actually a John Krasinski film directed by Bay, and it's a bomb:
Making a movie about Benghazi is a difficult task. There’s a phenomenally interesting story to be told about the deadly 2012 assault on the diplomatic outpost that captures the drama of the attack itself alongside the complicated politics of post-revolution Libya, the idealistic motivations of the diplomatic personnel who got caught up in the tragedy, and the clandestine machinations of American intelligence services on the ground. Telling that story would be a monumental challenge, requiring a filmmaker with a gift for subtlety, a talent for weaving complex stories together, and a sophisticated understanding of the raw politics that still envelop Benghazi like so much concertina wire.

But we didn’t get any of that. Instead, we get Bayhem.
Michael Bay’s “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” is a bad movie. And I’m not just talking about the filmmaking, which is bad in the way that most Michael Bay movies are bad – it’s loaded up with frenetic camera work, neck-snapping edits that make it impossible to follow the action, and gratuitous war porn. If you were unfortunate enough to have seen “Pearl Harbor,” Bay’s other steaming pile of reductive patriotism, you may remember this shot, in which the camera trails a Japanese bomb as it spins toward an American warship. “13 Hours” features that exact same shot, only this time the camera follows a Libyan militiaman’s mortar shell on its way to murdering an American security agent.
The moral lesson here is--what? Don't make a film without a movie star in it? That you can't attack the Clintons and get away with it? Krasinski can't open a film? Or that Michael Bay has not held on to any of the box office magic he used to have (remember when these were films that came out in the summer--and now we get one after Christmas)? This should have been an early summer release. They should have dropped it on Memorial Day or the 4th of July weekend.

I think you have to divorce the art from the politics in order to succeed. A film like this could have been as successful, if not more successful, than American Sniper. Very similar milieu, very similar kind of a subject. The only thing missing was a performance that would have rivaled Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller. Oh, and the fact that Clint Eastwood wisely eliminated Chris Kyle's outspoken wingnut politics from the finished product and focused on his PTSD and his relationship with his wife, which was done in such a way as to make her a central focus of his life without relegating her to a supporting and nurturing role.

If Bay had found two actors who could have pulled off something remotely similar, we'd be talking about something else right now.

Alan Rickman 1946-2016


No, dammit, no.
Alan Rickman, one of the best-loved and most recognizable British actors of his generation, died Thursday after a battle with cancer, his family announced. Rickman, who was 69 years old, first attracted widespread attention in 1985 playing the Vicomte de Valmont in Christopher Hampton’s stageplay of Les Liaisons Dangereuses. Rickman went on to play many memorable roles, such as Professor Snape in the Harry Potter movies and Hans Gruber in Die Hard. Rickman developed a specialty for playing pantomime villains; in addition to the terror ringleader Gruber, he also found acclaim as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves and as Rasputin in a 1995 HBO production. He is survived by his wife, Rima Horton, whom he met in 1965 and married in 2012.
Alan Rickman was a criminally underrated and under-awarded actor. Why he didn't have at least Oscars on his mantle is a question for the ages. He was better--by a wide fucking margin--than virtually anyone who dared to act with him.

Goddamn it.

The Lost Art of Competent Film Projection


Honestly, who knew we had lost the ability to show films in public?
Screening problems are reportedly plaguing Quentin Tarantino's latest film, The Hateful Eight, since its release on Christmas Day in the USA – allegedly due to its unusual 70mm film format.

Set in Wyoming shortly after the Civil War, the film revolves around eight strangers seeking shelter at a stagecoach passover called Minnie's Haberdashery during a blizzard, and stars Samuel L Jackson, Kurt Russell, and Jennifer Jason Leigh.
The unusual screening style has forced some cinemas to retrofit hired equipment and bring on experienced projectionists to manage the reels of film, which reportedly weigh over 90kg in total. The Hateful Eight's 70mm screenings include a 12-minute intermission.
Technology has run wild over the last thirty years or so. There used to be an entire radio broadcasting industry! There used to be a thing called a travel agency! Where did Blockbuster go and why am I not sorry those assholes has to go find other jobs? We used to brag about not being forced to take a phone call. Good times.

Quentin Tarantino does something nice for people (remember when this film wasn't even going to be made at all?) and all they can do is crap all over it because someone forgot how to handle a 70mm film projector. First world problems being what they are, how can anyone get so worked up about this?

Sometimes the Bear Eats You




How awful.

Setting aside the tastelessness of using any form of rape as a joke, someone must really want The Revenant to fail:
20th Century Fox has dismissed reports that Leonardo DiCaprio's character is "raped by a bear" in his latest film The Revenant.
There's the whole thing about the politician (Lyndon Baines Johnson?) who told his staff to put out a rumor that his opponent was a pig fucker. The idea was, just getting him to deny that he was a pigfucker was good enough. But to extend this kind of cruelty to the release of a feature film is beyond the pale. Serious economic damage could be done here, and for what? To embarrass Leonardo DiCaprio?

You've really got to be disturbed to use a tactic like this.

Legacies and Film Franchises


I have to confess that I have almost no interest in seeing a James Bond film unless it's for free and unless I have nothing else to do. I feel that way about a lot of things and I suppose I can work up enough concern to talk about this:
Pierce Brosnan has likened his departure from the Bond franchise to being "kicked to the kerb".
The Irish actor starred as 007 in four films released between 1995 and 2002, beginning with Goldeneye and culminating with Die Another Day, then the highest-grossing Bond film ever.
Though Brosnan was keen to return for a fifth outing, the franchise's longtime producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli ultimately decided to take Bond in a new, edgier direction.
Pierce Brosnan is correct when he expresses outrage as to how the owners of the James Bond franchise treated him. It was shabby, but predictable. Virtually all of the actors were hired because of money and not much else. Hollywood's A-list of actors--Carey Grant and Richard Burton among many--would have required more money than Albert Broccoli was willing to spend.

And that's the thing of it--you're never going to get the actor you want. You're going to see the actor who agrees to do it for the money they're willing to spend.