Tag Archives: film

Skip’s Quips: Criticizing Crummy Movies Is Fun!

~

Blog Sketch 082813Is it so wrong that I sometimes like lampooning films more than watching them?

I tell ya: There are thousands of bad movies out there that just beg to be criticized. And I’ve only broached the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, I do enjoy viewing great (or even good-enough) cinema. I love to talk about these pictures, too. But there’s nothing like making fun of a terrible piece of celluloid. It provides a satisfaction that can’t be beat.

Granted, I’m not really a fan of sitting through bad films … I prefer to critique them. So getting there is the hard part. Watching such junk can be grueling.

The rewards, however, are the gifts that keep on giving. Awful motion pictures last as long as quality ones. They’re just as resilient. So they’re just as worthy to discuss.

Thankfully, I don’t feel guilty about doing just that. And I don’t think anyone else should, either. As long as we have crummy cinema in this world, we should have people to make fun of it. It’s part of our critical fabric. It’s innate.

Let’s not let it go to waste.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Do I Dare Continue to Dislike Dubbed Movies?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Years of watching subtitled foreign films have made me less inclined to enjoy dubbed movies, as I’ve always felt that you lose something in translation when you add voices in different languages to the developments onscreen.

Now, however, I’m not so sure I feel the same way. It’s hard to find certain films with subtitles rather than dubbing, and if the latter is the only alternative to not watching a quality picture, I’d rather view the dubbed flick.

Generally, I don’t find it difficult to follow subtitles, provided they appear clearly and not as white blurs on a white background. Yellow text is always welcome, but that’s not always available. Sometimes I have to take what I can get.

Which is why I’ve started to be more lenient in my tastes when it comes to dubbing movies. You can’t always get what you want, as the Rolling Stones song goes, and often the choices are limited when it comes to available versions of good foreign films. I feel like I’m not as particular as I used to be. Perhaps it’s a result of my old age.

It all comes down to how great the picture is, anyway. The way it appears to me shouldn’t matter. It’s what it is that counts.

Skip’s Quips: Why the Heck Isn’t ‘Stolen Kisses’ Better Known?

~

Blog Sketch 082813There are famous movies, and then there are infamous movies.

There are also movies by famous directors that kind of slip under the radar, like François Truffaut’s terrific 1968 film Stolen Kisses. I’m not sure why this great picture, one of the most romantic I’ve seen, isn’t up there with The 400 Blows and Jules and Jim in the count of the director’s masterpieces. Once upon a time, it got criticized for not being political enough in an era when riots and protests were filling the streets, but I think with Stolen Kisses, that’s beside the point. It’s only political in its accurate, carefree depiction of relationships, which is, in my humble opinion, revolutionary. I’ve never seen anything else like it.

Everything in this glittering piece of celluloid is superb: the cinematography, the editing (catch the quick, multiple cuts in the scene where Antoine Doinel enters someone’s hotel room and discovers adultery in action), the performances, the script. This is a movie where the filmmaker is in complete control. Nothing is wasted.

I wish I could say that for the host of lackluster movies that appeared in 2014.

But I don’t think we’re going to get a flick like Stolen Kisses again. Perhaps that’s for the better; you can’t repeat such unique magnificence. I would, however, like this film to be upon critics’ lips more often. It sure deserves to be, and I’ll continue to talk about it in the hopes that my wish for it will come true. Certainly, it’s an under-seen movie. Ideally, that’ll change.

Skip’s Quips: Why This Baseball Fan Liked ‘Million Dollar Arm’

~

Blog Sketch 082813OK, I’m a sucker for baseball – even in December. I’m a big fan of America’s pastime. I used to watch the New York Yankees every chance I got.

That said, I didn’t expect to like Million Dollar Arm. I thought it was going to be cheesy. Overly sentimental. Junk.

Wow, was I surprised. It’s not a perfect movie by any means, but boy, was it enjoyable. And what a story: It’s the based-on-truth tale of a sports agent (expertly played by Jon Hamm) who journeys to India in a quest to find hard-throwing baseball pitchers from the subcontinent.

Oh, yeah: And Alan Arkin is in it, so what could be bad, right?

What impressed me was the quality of the script, as well as the skill of director Craig Gillespie in moving the film along. Then you had terrific ensemble performances, not only by Hamm and Arkin, but also by the excellent Suraj Sharma and Madhur Mittal, who portray the new-to-baseball pitchers perfectly. You have some fun fish-out-of-water situations with Hamm, Sharma and Mittal all getting culture shock from the countries they travel to, along with more serious themes about the importance of family and ambition. It’s nothing profound, but it’s quality entertainment. And in this day and age, that’s important.

I don’t like all movies about baseball, despite my predilection for the game. Million Dollar Arm, however, is a good one. It was somewhat unsung this year; perhaps more viewers can rectify that. Whether it will be a sports classic in time is not known as yet. All I know is I had an enjoyable time watching it. Hopefully, you will, too.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Revisiting and Enjoying ‘Meet Me in St. Louis’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613It’s hard to go back and dig the movies you loved in childhood as much after becoming an adult, but I’d say Meet Me in St. Louis stands the test of time. This favorite of old has a real evergreen quality, with charming, tuneful songs, able performances and vibrant direction.

So why haven’t I seen it that often?

It’s not always on TV; there’s one reason. And the fact is, I chanced upon it last night on the telly. For some reason, I don’t seek it out like I do other movies. I guess that’s too bad. It’s really worth looking for.

Of course, it’s Judy Garland’s movie, and she’s terrific in it. The film basically glows, and it’s mostly because of her; she sings the marvelous tunes with such feeling that you’re likely to join her in regaling your loved ones with the catchy melodies. I did, despite the fact that my pipes are nowhere near what Garland’s were.

That didn’t stop me, however.

Meet Me in St. Louis is one of those pictures that has aged as gracefully as a fine wine, and it’s one of the few flicks that remains as good now as it did when I was a kid. I’m happy about that; it makes revisiting my childhood all the more special while allowing me to retain a grown-up’s perspective. You don’t get that chance too often. You’ve got to enjoy it while it lasts.

I’m doing that right now.

Skip’s Quips: Not Getting Excited for ‘The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Have I lost that lovin’ feeling for the characters of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth?

I just can’t seem to get too psyched over the prospect of seeing The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies in the theater today, and I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s because the last film in the series, The Desolation of Smaug, has some sloppy filmmaking moments in it. To be sure, they are countered by strong sections and some terrific sequences, but overall, I feel like director Peter Jackson’s Hobbit installments don’t have the immediacy of his previous Lord of the Rings pictures.

I miss that. Yet there’s no way to go back and recover it.

The subject matter is part of the problem. The Hobbit is the precursor to the LOTR books, and so we already know what’s going to happen. I also think Jackson’s Hobbit films feel stretched out in being spread over three films … a quality his LOTR movies didn’t have.

I think I’ll have to be content with the fact that Jackson made three terrific LOTR flicks, and that they can’t be replicated. Not even with many of the same characters from Middle-earth. It’s sad to think about, but it’s also truthful. And in this case, I have to face the truth.

So it goes.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: When a Little Bit’s Enough

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I only got the chance to see the last 30 minutes or so of Make Way for Tomorrow last night on TV, but I didn’t need any more.

This melancholy tale, starring Victor Moore and Beulah Bondi as a pair of married seniors, was quite well done … and I knew I didn’t need to watch it further to make that determination. There was part of me that didn’t want to view more anyway, as it was rather sniffle-inducing, and I was more in the mood for something lighthearted. This picture had lively moments, certainly, but it ended on a sad note. Not the kind of pick-me-up fare I was seeking.

Still, I’m wondering whether I’ll encounter it again in the future. It’ll probably be back on the telly at some point, though it’s hard to say whether I’ll be in front of it then. Maybe I’ll revisit it and start from the beginning. Or maybe I’ll just let it go. Sometimes the experience of a movie isn’t always a complete one. Sometimes it’s better to leave it unfinished.

Perhaps this is one of those times. A little bit was enough on this occasion. Whether it might do the trick for the rest of my life, I don’t know.

Skip’s Quips: Christmas Confessions of a Nice Jewish Boy

~

Blog Sketch 082813I love watching the 1951 A Christmas Carol with Alistair Sim during the holiday season.

Does it matter that I’m Jewish? I don’t think so. It’s a timeless story, with thrills, chills and a wonderful moral sensibility. Religion, methinks, is irrelevant when it comes to the cinema.

I do think it’s a shame that there aren’t that many films around that celebrate the Hanukkah holiday by telling the story of Judah Maccabee and his brethren. It’s a fascinating tale that would be most conducive to celluloid.

But I’m not at all against the trappings of Christmas on the telly. In fact, I welcome them. They bring a festive air to the season, which is much needed when the snow falls and the wind turns cold.

Viewing A Christmas Carol is one of my annual holiday traditions. I equate it to having turkey on Thanksgiving. You just can’t do without it.

And a great film is a great film, no matter what the subtext suggests. So I’m going to continue to watch Sim as Ebenezer Scrooge this season. And enjoy it. Until next year, of course. When the time for it comes around again.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Traveling Down a Not-So-Lost Highway With ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Oh, goody. We’re going to see dirty, dust-covered vehicles blow up again in Mad Max: Fury Road come 2015.

Pardon me, but I’m not going to get excited about this. I didn’t even care for the previous installments in director George Miller’s post-apocalyptic series, including the original Mad Max and Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. These may have been kinetic films, but they also presented a dreary, despondent vision of society that I wanted no part of … and didn’t enjoy watching.

Once again, I’m probably in the minority on this, though. Fury Road will likely be a hit.

It does depend, however, on whether people’s taste for such pictures remains the same. I think the Mad Max flicks of the past decades caught lightning in a bottle; fantasy films were big, and the vision of filthy cars, souped-up battling each other along never-ending highways at some point in the future was an original one.

Can Fury Road resurrect this franchise? It remains to be seen. The trailer promises the usual explosions and mayhem (hey, is that Verdi’s Requiem in there, too?), so I suspect there will be interest among fans of the original series.

That may be enough to propel this movie into successful territory. Next year, we’ll know for sure.

Skip’s Quips: Where Have All the Animal Movies Gone?

~

Blog Sketch 082813Doesn’t it seem like a long time has passed since Air Bud debuted?

Hey, it’s only been 17 years. Feels like an age, no?

I think there’s a reason for this. We’re not seeing a lot of live-action movies starring dogs, cats or other animals these days – certainly not as much as in previous years. Yes, there are plenty of CGI-flavored animated films portraying the beastie set. But the likes of Air Bud, Beethoven and Marley & Me seem to have gone to the dogs. We’re not getting as many of those kinds of flicks anymore. Why?

I wonder if it’s more economical for studios to develop animated pictures dealing with all creatures great and small than it is to do live-action ones requiring the onscreen talents of various stars. Or maybe the public has had its fill of Turner & Hooch and its ilk. That could be a possibility. Perhaps tastes have changed … though I’m not sure the taste for buddy films centering on the relationship between man and canine could ever be construed as being “good.”

To tell you the truth, I kind of miss these generally dreadful pieces of celluloid. I don’t know why. They almost always featured coarse slapstick comedy and schmaltzy sentimentality. Am I, at heart, a sucker for that?

Nah. I’ll give ya, maybe, Lassie Come Home and A Dog of Flanders. Air Bud? Nope.

Oh, that reminds me: Someone should do a film of Farley Mowat’s The Dog Who Wouldn’t Be. That’s at least a well-written story that’s cinematic. Unlike Beethoven.