Category Archives: movies

Setter’s ‘Spectives: It’s ‘The World’s End’ as We Know It … Big Whoop

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Ever get the feeling while watching a movie that the actors enjoyed it a lot more than you?

That was exactly my response to The World’s End, the third in the “Cornetto” trilogy of silly, hyper-violent cinematic spoofs starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. (The previous two were Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.) I’m not a huge fan of the other films in this loose series, though they’re diverting enough on a rainy day when nothing else is on. The World’s End, however, felt more slapdash and cobbled together, as if the script – which has something to do with robotic aliens taking over the world as a stuck-in-the-’80s loser attempts to make a final, epic pub crawl with his now-grown-up buddies – was devised on the fly over brewskis. Ultimately, there were a lot fewer laughs in this flick than I hoped for, despite a strong cast (Martin Freeman plays one of the pals) and what was probably an immense amount of money spent on blue, extraterrestrial blood.

Part of the reason why I’m not a “Cornetto” series fan is the insistence on frustratingly kinetic editing that typifies many of the “action” scenes. I realize this is all part of the idea – that this is spoofery and it’s all very lighthearted – but it makes for dull viewing when done over and over again. And though I feel that Hot Fuzz is the best of the lot, I think they all smack of missed opportunities, as if too many jokes fell by the wayside. If you’re going to spoof something, go all the way, à la Airplane! or Blazing Saddles. I’m not sure what the creators of The World’s End were thinking, but there were some semi-serious moments that didn’t really work in such a wild and woolly context.

Once again, I’m in the minority on this; the Cornetto trilogy is a popular one, and I seem to be, oftentimes, at odds with popular cinematic taste. I stand by my perspective on The World’s End, though, with the end result being that on the whole, I’d rather have an ice cream than watch this movie again.

Skip’s Quips: Theory of ‘Frozen’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I think the reason Frozen was such a hit was marketing.

Ads for the animated film were all over TV. They got people to see it.

But I’m not sure why so many people liked it. I thought the script was dreadful and the songs mediocre. Plus, it was highly, highly unfunny, especially the character of the live, talking, happy-go-lucky snowman. It’s highly possible that the execrable Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace was a more humorous, better developed character.

OK, the computer animation was quite well done in Frozen; that was no surprise. Yet the film seemed artificial, manufactured, as if devised specifically for a certain audience and peppered with hip dialogue and silly situations. It didn’t have an organic quality, and the songs just made it worse.

I’m in the minority on this, I know. Frozen was a huge success. Yet that doesn’t necessarily equate quality, and in that light, the movie doesn’t make the cut for me.

Disney can do better than this, methinks.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Musical Lines, Non-Parallel

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613We’re allowed to like great scores to mediocre movies, right?

I’m thinking about this as I ruminate on The Red Pony, Lewis Milestone’s 1949 film of John Steinbeck’s sad tale concerning a boy and his steed. The music, by Aaron Copland, is one of the American composer’s greatest compositions, yet it accompanies a picture that’s unfortunately just so-so.

I wish it were better.

Usually, it seems that the quality of a score reflects that of its film, but in The Red Pony‘s case, it doesn’t hold true. Frankly, I have no desire to see the film again … yet I often find myself humming the glorious, playful melodies and mulling the vibrant orchestration. Am I allowed to do this? I ask myself, half-serious. Am I able to like only one component of a full movie?

I have to answer yes, though I’m hesitant to do so. The cinema runs alongside music, and they’re often inextricable. Great directors generally know how to apply great scores by composers to celluloid, and many great composers have written for the screen. So what happened with The Red Pony? With a cast including Robert Mitchum and Myrna Loy, as well as Steinbeck’s writing chops, plus Copland’s lovely tunes, it should be a masterpiece.

It’s plodding, however, and the music is basically what saves it. Maybe this is one of the exceptions in the world of film: a picture that isn’t very good when all of the parts are added, despite one component being transcendent. At any rate, I’m glad we have this anomaly. I just hope I don’t encounter too many more.

Skip’s Quips: Movies and What to Make of ‘Uriel Acosta’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I’m afraid I’m none too knowledgeable about the world of avant-garde theater, so this post might lead anyone with more than a small understanding of the genre to look askance at me.

This past Saturday, I went to see the Target Margin Theater’s production of Uriel Acosta – I Want That Man! at The Chocolate Factory in Long Island City. What does this have to do with film? Well, the thoroughly bizarre performance – which had something to do with the life of the titular Jewish philosopher, the Yiddish play about him and all sorts of other related material – featured some very interesting video-centric content, including images of bearded men, Hebrew words and more projected onto plumes of smoke drifting upon the stage area. The performance also included a bit of curious puppeteering that was projected onto screens for the audience’s viewing pleasure. So there was a significant multimedia component.

Unfortunately, it didn’t stop the production from being rather dull and confusing – the many sequences during which the actors spoke their lines loudly and concurrently exemplified this issue. Still, the piece got me wondering about the future of cinema and how it could relate to live theater … how these media could be juxtaposed in creative ways. There’s no reason to think these are exclusive from one another, but while theater may include snippets of film, you’d be hard pressed to find movies outside of The Rocky Horror Picture Show where live performance forms an integral (albeit cosmetic) part of the experience. Perhaps we need more of the latter, though in a form where we’re not reacting to the proceedings onscreen but in accord with them. That somehow our decisions affect what happens in the movie.

That may sound like a futuristic idea, but it’s already been toyed with in films such as Fahrenheit 451, in which the characters participate in mundane teleplays whose characters seem to react to the outside participants. Hopefully, a new breed of this type of thing could be more involving.

There’s a chance this has already been done, by the way, and I’m just not privy to it. So if I’m wishing here for something that’s already obsolete, I apologize in advance.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: So Far, ‘Mud’ Rises From the Dirt

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Yes, it’s a strange title. But I’ve gotta admit: Mud is providing some highly decent viewing.

I’m about halfway through it at this juncture, and this Jeff Nichols-helmed tale of two boys who find a boat in a tree–as well as the no-goodnik (played by Matthew McConaughey) living in it–is definitely holding my attention. The script is surprisingly novelesque, with unusually crisp dialogue, and the acting feels natural. I’m not a huge fan of McConaughey’s performances in general, but he’s decent in this, a quality I must attribute in part to the direction. So … good show so far.

So far because I had to go to sleep midway through the picture owing to the lateness of the evening. To be continued, right? Right.

Skip’s Quips: The Verdict on ‘Argo’ Is … Pretty Smooth Sailing

~

Blog Sketch 082813I somehow knew Argo was going to be good, yet for no apparent reason I’ve been avoiding it.

Until last night. Saw it for the first time. And you know what? It’s a more than decent suspenser. OK, as a friend noted, there were too many “ticking clocks.” But it was tense enough, with sharp direction from Ben Affleck, who also starred in the film. There were also good turns from Alan Arkin, who was a hoot as a cynical yet patriotic producer, John Goodman and Bryan Cranston. Cinematography and editing were solid; perhaps there was a bit too much herky-jerkiness with the camera. All in all, though, it was quite well done.

I’m not usually a big fan of Affleck’s work; as an actor, I find him rather mannered. But in this movie, he was relatively subdued, and it worked nicely. I hope his next opus will be just as strong.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: I Love You, Orson, But Really!

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Ever see part of a movie so you never have to see any more of it again?

That’s what I did with Someone to Love, Henry Jaglom’s very, very (and I mean very) bad film about, basically, nothing and starring, of all people, Orson Welles and Sally Kellerman in poorly used roles. The story in part seemed to concern Jaglom’s character filming people talking about loneliness while contemplating their lives in an old Los Angeles theater, but instead of providing astute insights, it became a trying bore after only about 30 minutes. Poorly edited, too, with Welles interrupting the proceedings with strange reflections on the sexual revolution and the camera often focusing on irrelevant subjects before whisking itself away all too quickly and filming someone else.

Needless to say, it didn’t take me long to turn it off.

I was wondering what Jaglom’s point was with all of this navel-gazing. There probably were interesting things to say, but they got swallowed up in a tempest of tedious talking. I’d never seen any of Jaglom’s other films, so perhaps I should’ve come prepared, but I still think a good movie should be accessible no matter where it falls in a director’s canon. And Someone to Love wasn’t.

This would definitely be in the “So Bad It’s Funny” category if I believed we should watch bad movies for laughs.

I don’t.

Skip’s Quips, Part II: ‘Minister’-ing to Movie Wounds

~

Blog Sketch 082813Well, I saw Bertrand Tavernier’s The French Minister yesterday at Manhattan’s Walter Reade Theater.

Some amusing bits. But it didn’t feel cohesive. Undeveloped characters ran rampant in this tale, the based-on-a-true-graphic-novel-story of a young Parisian speechwriter’s encounters with his blustery foreign minister. Once-funny jokes were repeated all too often, including a running gag in which papers fly each time the public serviceman enters a room and slams the door. Yes, it was too much of a good thing. Then there was the protagonist’s love interest, who remained just that: a love interest. There wasn’t much conflict or development in their relationship as the film proceeded.

Cinematography was conservative, save a few dashing shots and screen slice-ups. And the film was overlong; much of the door-slamming could’ve been cut. Overall a decent film, but not a special one. More appetizing was the fact that Tavernier showed up and took questions afterward. A tall, white-haired gentleman, the veteran director seemed very personable and interested in talking about his film. Sadly, the movie isn’t a masterpiece, but it’s definitely different from the rest of the cinematic fare being shown on Broadway.

If only it were better.

Skip’s Quips: Off to the New Tavernier Flick

~

Blog Sketch 082813I have never seen a Bertrand Tavernier film. But now I’m going to watch one.

It’s called The French Minister and it’s playing at Manhattan’s Lincoln Center. My wife is coming, too.

I feel very ignorant about Tavernier’s body of work. I haven’t even seen ‘Round Midnight. I probably should.

There’s also Death Watch, which I’d heard about and am interested in viewing.

The French Minister should make good blogging material. I am curious about it. Plus, Tavernier apparently is scheduled to make an appearance afterward for a Q&A session. Sounds interesting, right?

All part of the benefits of living in a cinema-oriented world.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: How Glib Was My Movie

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Trying to watch Celeste & Jesse Forever is hard.

I don’t like movies like this. Glib, smug, self-conscious. Snarky, unfunny humor.

Tough flick to get through. Oh, and it’s something about a couple in the process of divorce who still behave like a married pair. What a concept. Bleah.

Too bad, too, because there’s talent involved in this Lee Toland Krieger film, including Andy Samberg and Rashida Jones as the not-so-doomed lovers. The components, however, just don’t seem to mesh, and they end up making for tiresome viewing. Too bad.

Is there a comedy in the house? Well, there is … once I decide to watch something better.