Category Archives: movies

Skip’s Quips: A Toast to ‘The Roaring Twenties’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I like a good Jimmy Cagney movie. Strange that I hadn’t seen The Roaring Twenties until the other night, though.

It was a crackling flick, this tale of the rise and fall of a bootlegger during Prohibition. Good pacing, great production design and sharp direction by the reliable Raoul Walsh. Plus, Bogie was in it, and he made, as he often did, a very able villain.

Cagney was good at playing gangsters, but he had a lot more range than I think people give him credit for. Still, these pictures remain some of his most memorable ones. Glad I got a chance to see The Roaring Twenties, finally.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Bad Puns and ‘Good Will Hunting’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I have five things to say about Good Will Hunting, which I just saw for the first time a couple of days ago.

I. Did. Not. Like. It.

Part of me knew this would happen. The bad pun in the title gave my future cinema verdict away. I couldn’t appreciate something that didn’t take itself seriously enough to give itself a sharper moniker.

But there were other problems that rubbed me the wrong way. A script that was both sappy and abrasive. An unlikable lead performance. Schmaltzy music. And a plodding pace. All of which undermined several good performances, notably by Robin Williams as a therapist helping the title character.

Direction was also problematic. The film moved so slowly it was unbearable. I’m not a big fan of Gus Van Sant’s other films, including the dreadful To Die For and the frustrating Elephant. GWH is just another movie in his canon that I don’t care for.

I realize GWH is very popular. Once again, I’m in the minority on this. I don’t know why, though. To me, it just didn’t work.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: What Is It About ‘The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies’ That Bothers Me?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613For some reason, I’m not as excited at the prospect of watching The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies as I was before, say, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King debuted.

Is it because I already know where the One Ring will end up? Perhaps the suspense is not as great as it was more than 10 years ago, when the LOTR trilogy was entering its final stages.

There’s also the issue of the Hobbit movies not being as great as the LOTR films. There’s not as much riding on the protagonists, it seems, as there was in the later books and movies. I mean, once you have Sauron and Ringwraiths pursuing you, being tense becomes an everyday thing.

I think another problem is the fact that the Hobbit pictures have been stretched out to three cinematic chapters, whereas the three LOTR books just made three movies. There seems to be a lot of filler in the former films: lots of battle scenes that are fun to watch but aren’t as insistent as the ones in LOTR.

I suspect The Battle of Five Armies will be enjoyable. Just not the instant classic that The Return of the King is.

Skip’s Quips: Watching the Fur Fly in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Let no one accuse me of not enjoying a bit of popular moviemaking now and then.

I did just that yesterday in Times Square during a showing of Guardians of the Galaxy, the hit sci-fi spectacular from Marvel about mismatched con-creatures battling a blue warlord who wants to take over the universe or something.

Yeah, that was about what it was about.

Honestly, part of the fun was not caring what it was about. This is a light, special effects-laden romp featuring, among others, a hulking tree-beast and a trash-talking raccoon, so you know it’s going to be snarky. Yet there was a good dose of sensible humor as well, plus a tender moment toward the end that nearly transcended the picture.

I wouldn’t say it’s a classic. Some of the flashy battle scenes moved slowly and were hard to follow … not that following them would’ve made a big difference. And I did feel the flick missed a few choice opportunities to be funnier, though the aforementioned raccoon was a splendid creation. Plus, it did feel incredibly derivative. It hadn’t exactly been where no one has gone before.

Still, it was diverting, and I enjoyed most of it. Would I see it again? Not sure. It was quite imaginative, however, and that’s a plus. In this day and age, you don’t always get that in the movies.

Skip’s Quips: And for Dessert, I Get ‘Seven Samurai’

~

Blog Sketch 082813This is why it pays to be nice to your spouse.

A few days ago, Trudi got the Kurosawa classic The Seven Samurai on Netflix, and we watched it together … despite the fact that both of us had seen it multiple times (I about 100 or so). Plus, it’s not Trudi’s favorite movie, though she does like it more than other samurai films. So it was something of a treat for me.

God bless you, Trudi. Thank you for being so good to me.

Oh, it was as good as ever, filled with swashbuckling adventure, heroic deeds and complex characters. I love this movie very much, and I’m grateful to my wife for letting me see it. I get Seven Samurai withdrawal symptoms, you see, and after I go, say, about six months without watching it, I get an incredible desire to view it again.

Trudi and I have different tastes when it comes to films. We don’t always agree on what’s good and what isn’t. But sometimes we do things that one half likes more than the other half – without complaint. That’s part of what makes a good marriage, I think. And it’s just one of many reasons to love Trudi.

Now, the question is: When am I going to reciprocate with a rom-com? Hoo, boy.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: When Bad Special Effects Attack

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Please don’t fault me for watching Conan the Destroyer.

It’s a horrible movie, I know. But it’s something of a guilty pleasure. And in watching it last night, I marveled at a quality I hadn’t really noticed before.

The special effects. They’re just plain awful.

Rubber suits galore. Bad animation. Welcome to the world of Conan. Where things are really cheesy.

Which is not to say that the effects are so much worse than, say, the acting, which is just as horrid. Still, you have to wonder how this stuff passed muster. It looked lousy then. It looks lousy now.

Yet I always find it on TV, for some reason. Maybe there’s a market for it.

One can always hope not.

Skip’s Quips: Condemning Flashy Filmmaking

~

Blog Sketch 082813What is it these days with cinema pyrotechnics?

I see it all the time, most recently in Darren Aronofsky’s nearly unwatchable Requiem for a Dream. Quick cuts, splashy close-ups of eyes and drug paraphernalia, sped-up photography and so on.

Couldn’t stand it. Had to turn it off.

No, I’m not going to blame this kind of filmmaking on MTV. Fast edits have been around for a long time. Rather, I think it’s a product of directors not trusting their audiences. It’s about adding flash to a recipe in the hopes of making it palatable.

I prefer a more traditional approach. That doesn’t necessarily mean I want to see more irises and wipes, though. Instead, I’d like to see a focus more on story, on telling a tale in a linear manner, without blatant showmanship. That just calls attention to the filmmaking process, and enjoyment of a movie should be organic. It should immerse you, not alienate you. Too many flicks today do the latter.

I like Aronofsky; I think he’s very talented. But I believe RfaD isn’t a success. Too much demonstration of cinematic prowess, not enough straightforward storytelling. Can we have a little more of that, please, in the future? Special request, from me.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: What Makes an Offensive Movie?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Eons ago, when VCRs ruled the world, my parents were showing my cousin and his wife the original 1968 film of The Producers. When the movie came to the sequence where Zero Mostel’s Max Bialystock gets a “toy” for a present to himself – basically a beautiful woman for him to ogle – my cousin’s wife spoke up with indignation.

“That’s so sexist,” she said.

Well, yeah. Yes, it is.

Of course it’s sexist. It’s horribly, absurdly sexist. And that’s the point. Bialystock is something of a disgusting person. I mean, he’s trying to scam people with a show glorifying Hitler. If that’s not reprehensible, I don’t know what is.

There’s an issue here, though: What makes a movie offensive? Obviously, my cousin’s wife was offended by the inherent sexism of the character and the scene. But I feel it’s within the context of the film, which is no-holds-barred offensive, anyway. This is a flick that makes fun of (sometimes unfairly) Jews, homosexuals, seniors, hippies and other groups. There are few left out. And the whole point of the movie is to make fun of bad taste. Even Brooks reportedly said of his pictures that they “rise below vulgarity.”

Is my cousin’s wife right to be indignant, though? Is it all a matter of taste? Can offensiveness be subjective, all in the eye of the beholder? Or is there an objective quality to it that legitimizes the act of taking umbrage even to what many people regard as a classic: The Producers?

It’s hard to answer this question. If someone feels strongly that something is offensive, how could we mark that person as wrong? On the other hand, can someone miss the point or context of something altogether? That’s totally possible. Maybe both are totally possible. I’m not sure.

I broached the subject of racism and films that I feel should be taught in schools or museums at CURNBLOG recently here. My point suggests that there is an objectivity to offensiveness, that some films are inherently, unequivocally racist.  But the comments to this post indicate that people have differing views on the subject. Perhaps there’s something to that.

We should continue to explore it. It’s the only way to address the issue.

Skip’s Quips: Why ‘Big’ Really Grows on You

~

Blog Sketch 082813The first time I saw the Penny Marshall film Big was in Los Angeles as part of a double feature. The other flick on the bill: Everybody’s All-American.

Needless to say, I appreciated the former movie a lot more after I saw both in one day.

Recently, I watched Big again, and I have to say it has aged well. It’s still charming, with wonderful dialogue, sharp cinematography and terrific performances – notably by Tom Hanks as the child who magically grows up overnight. Marshall has a light touch with the direction, and it never becomes plodding.

Why can’t more comedies today be like this? Big never seems to take the easy way out, and it wraps up everything nicely, even credibly, despite the fantastic aspect of the whole thing. It’s low-key, but I think it’s one of the best things Hanks has done.

It’s always the ones that fly under the radar, right?

Setter’s ‘Spectives: On Israel, ‘Genocide’ and Celebrity Politics

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I was not delighted to read the recent news report about Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem, Pedro Almodovar calling Israel’s ongoing Gaza Strip initiative a “genocide.”

These are very talented people, especially Almodovar, whose films I like very much. Unfortunately, calling Israel’s operation a genocide smacks to me of ignorance and anti-Semitism. It’s a way of turning around Jews’ experience in the Holocaust to suggest the victims of that era are now the perpetrators of an operation that seeks the extermination of a population, and that’s just not the case.

Full disclosure: I’m Jewish. I have positive feelings for Israel in my blood – my mother raised money for the country when I was an infant – and although I don’t agree with all of its policies, I support its right to exist. I also support the right of celebrities to say any ludicrous thing that comes to their minds, as everyone should have freedom of speech. Sadly, it has become fashionable to single out Israel as a “fascist” or “Nazi”-like state effecting a genocide in the Gaza Strip, despite the fact that Israel’s activities bear no resemblance to the Nazis’ attempt to eradicate Jews in the early part of the last century.

There’s no comparison. I know. I interviewed two Holocaust survivors when I was in seventh grade, and I’ll never forget the horrors they recounted to me. It’s not the same thing. The Nazis were a different animal. They sought the systematic destruction of the Jews, both physically and psychologically. They sought genocide. The two people I interviewed were witnesses.

I don’t believe in violence as a solution to the problems of living in this world. But I also don’t believe in the misuse of words to address political sentiments. Those who argue that Israel is committing genocide should reexamine their claims in light of actual attempts at genocide in recent history – including the Holocaust, the Turkish genocide of Armenians in the early 20th century and the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s. I encourage Cruz, Bardem, Almodovar and others to think further on these events, study them, before making a determination. Hopefully, they’ll come to a more educated conclusion.