Showing posts with label Criticwire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criticwire. Show all posts

Monday, October 14, 2013

My Answer to the Latest Criticwire Survey: History Too Important for Fiction

Q: CBGB was blasted by critics for its inauthentic evocation of the legendary punk club. What cultural movement or milestone would you never want to see filmed?

Because CBGB is about music, the first thing that came to mind, is that I never want to see a biopic of Kurt Cobain. Nirvana was my favorite band as a teenager, and I’m not sure I could take a film like Ray or Walk the Line about Cobain – which I probably never have to worry about, since for the most part, they like to make biopics about people who overcome their demons, not give into them, like Cobain ultimately did. Still, I shudder at the thought of a simple minded Cobain biopic, who comes up with Something in the Way while literally living underneath a bridge. Besides, Gus Van Sant already made Last Days (2005), and while that is not “officially” a Cobain movie, it is pretty much the perfect one to make about him – a portrait of a depressed, isolated, drugged out rock star who eventually gives up – told with no glamor or artifice.

For the record, I also don’t want to see a Wayne Gretzky biopic – yes, he is my favorite hockey player ever, and yes, hockey is still my favorite sport, but the movies never get hockey right anyway, and a Gretzky movie would almost certainly be overly sentimental. And after suffering through not one but two movies about the making two cinematic masterpieces by Alfred Hitchcock – Hitchcock about Psycho and The Girl about The Birds – I don’t think I want to see any other dramatizations about making my favorite movies – even if it’s obvious Jessie Eisenberg would be great as a young Martin Scorsese.

Monday, October 7, 2013

My Answer to This Week's Criticwire Survey Question: Game Changers

Q: This weekend, Gravity set a record for the biggest October opening weekend in history. But that's small potatoes compared to the claims some critics have made that it represents the dawning of a new era in movies. What's a film you thought would change movies forever, and were you right?

The first film that came immediately to mind for this was The Blair Witch Project (1999). The film was made for almost no money, over a span of 8 days, and was basically a Do-It-Yourself movie that proved that making films with cheap cameras, and non-professional actors could make a ton of money, without costing that much. I assumed at the time that we would get many more “Blair Witch Project” type movies in the years since. Was I right?
Yes, and no. True, more movies than ever before seem to be made – many by amateurs with no money. But very few have had the type of mainstream success that Blair Witch had back in 1999. But what filmmakers now do is make that small film for almost no money mainly as a calling card to get a bigger deal. You can still achieve some degree of success with these types of small movies – Jonathan Caouette;s Tarnation and Shane Carruth’s Primer comes to mind, and I hope Matthew Johnson’s recent The Dirties (review coming this week) gets seen by lots of people – but in reality, none of them have, or probably will, break through like Blair Witch did.

Strangely, in some ways The Blair Witch Project has perhaps become more influential in another way – by showing that the “found footage” genre could work. True, it took Hollywood YEARS to adopt the format (they didn’t even use it for the inevitable – Blair Witch sequel – but after it’s heir apparent – Paranormal Activity – made a ton of cash, they did. Now, found footage is mainstream – in large part because of The Blair Witch Project.

Monday, September 23, 2013

My Answer to the Latest Criticwire Survey Question: Movies Ohters Are "Just Plain Wrong" About

I’ve decided from now on, I’ll just print the Criticwire question of the week directly, rather than recap. I started recapping when I answer more than 50 at one time, but now, I’ll just print the question. This is this weeks:

Q: It's important for critics to keep an open mind, but there are some cases where it feels like no sane person could differ. What's a movie or a show where you feel like anyone who doesn't agree with you is just plain wrong?

Typically, I’m a different strokes kind of guy. While I’ll engage in intelligent debate with those who want it, I really don’t try to change people’s mind too often. I explain my point of view, and if they don’t like it, I just shrug my shoulders, and move on. Not every movie is made for everyone. But there are some examples of where I think people who disagree with me are flat out wrong.

If you don’t think Wall-E is Pixar’s best movie, you’re wrong. If you think Spike Lee’s Network-in-blackface satire Bamboozled is offensive because it uses blackface, you’re wrong. If you’re one of the critics engaging in revisionism, and trying to claim Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate as some kind of masterpiece, you’re wrong. If you think the Star Wars prequels “raped your childhood” you’re wrong.

But the film – or more accurately filmmaker – I think people who disagree with me are flat out wrong about is Kim Ki-Duk – and more specifically, his film Pieta, which was released earlier this year, after winning the top prize (on a technicality) at last year’s Venice Film Festival.

The film, inexplicably, has a 75% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Many critics have praised the film – some saying it’s subtle, or it sneaks up on you, or it has “thematic weight”, or is about the dehumanizing effect of the current economy – one critic even called it “one of the more delicately crafted character studies in modern cinema”. What the fuck!

Pieta is a horrible film – a shallow, pathetic film, about a shallow pathetic character. He is a loan shark, who takes out insurance policies on the people he lends money to, and when they cannot pay it back, he cripples them and collects the claim (get it – he cripples people physically, as the debt cripples them financially). Leave aside the absurdity of the insurance scam he’s running, this “commentary” on the economic situation is facile at best. Then, the characters “long lost mother” shows up – and he does what anyone would naturally do in this situation – grabs her by the vagina and yells “is this where I came from” – and then proceeds to rape her, after which, the two develop a close mother-son bond – with this psychopath happy to have his mommy back in his life, until, of course, Kim pulls the rug out from under the audience yet again.

The cinema of Kim Ki-Duk is full of these violent losers, who he portrays as sympathetic outsiders – cast outs from society, who do the most horrific things, but Kim always forgives their trespasses. Sorry, Kim Ki-Duk is a horrible director – he’s films are juvenile and shallow – yet because he mixes extreme violence with moments of silence, he has somehow convinced people he’s some sort of Master (that TIFF put his latest film – Moebius – in the Masters program alongside filmmakers like Jia Zhang-ke, Jafar Panahi, and Catherine Breillent – a filmmaker I don’t really like, but at least respect is ridiculous. Yes, most of the time I’m a “different strokes for different folks” kind of guy when it comes to people’s taste in movies. But if you like Kim Ki-Duk – you’re wrong.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

My Answer to the Latest Criticwire Survey Question: Cell Phone Use in the Theater

Using the already infamous incident at TIFF this year, where film blogger Alex Billington called 911 due to someone using his cellphone at a Press & Industry Screening this year, the latest Criticwire survey question asks what to do about cellphone usage at the movie.
 
Like many people, I can become annoyed when someone whips out their cellphone in a movie, and starts texting, tweeting, e-mailling or whatever else they want to do. And like most people, I think what Billington did was idiotic - the police have more important things to do than to feal with some moron using a cellphone in a movie, and an equally big moron bugging them about a guy with a cellphone in a movie.
 
What is odd is that you would think the Press and Industry screenings would be filled with people who care about the movies - they are, afterall, there working, and the public screenings at the Festival would be filled with cell phone usage. As someone who saw 17 movies at TIFF last week, I only saw one lite up cellphone screen during the movie the whole festival - and that was for all of about 2 seconds. If you are stupid enough to use a cellphone in a public screening at TIFF, you get shouted at pretty quickly from all angles.
 
But in general, is there anything that can be done about cell phone usage during a movie? The answer, sadly, is probably not. There are too many people who for whatever reason feel the need to be "connected" at all times, and for them not looking at their cell phone for 2 hours is unthinkable. They feel they are more important than everyone else, and as such, don't care if they hurt the experience of those around them, as long as they get what they want.
 
But I also have to say this - I have had very few problems with people on cellphones in movies in the past couple of years - in my experience, it's not quite the epidemic some make it out to be. Now perhaps this is because I go to the movies in Canada, and we are obviously much more polite and considerate than Americans (not likely). Or it could be that since my daughter was born two years ago, I mainly have to go the movies solo - without my wife. I'm not embarassed to go to the movies alone - after all, I'm there to see a movie, not have a conversation - but I do go during off peak hours -either the first matinee on Saturday or Sunday, or else a late show on Sunday, Monday or Wednesday (I skip cheap Tuesdays if I can help it). I also sit near the front of the theater - meaning fewer people are in front of me, so if someone checks their phone behind me, I don't see it. Most of the time, when I do see someone check their phone - it's for a few brief seconds (perhaps the check the time) and that's it.
 
I don't doubt though that going to more crowded times results in more cell phone usage - I just don't know what can be done about it. Sure, it would be nice if every theater was like the Alamo Drafthouse, and threw people out on their ass if they use a phone. But that's not going to happen. Puting in cell phone jammers won't work either - apparently, it is illegal, plus parents need to be able to be contacted in case of emergency (me and my wife have a rule - if it's an emergency, she calls twice in a row, so my phone, which is on vibrate, goes off twice in quick succession, and I can leave the theater to call her).
 
Basically, I think this is a futile fight against people being rude. You're not going to win. So avoid Friday and Saturday nights, when the theater will be packed with people. The fewer people in a theater, the better chance there is that one of them isn't an asshole.

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

My Answer to the Most Recent Criticwire Survey: Anticipated Fall Entertainments


This week’s Criticwire Survey Question asks about the most anticipated movies and/or TV shows of the fall season. For me, this is easy. When I did my 25 most anticipated movies of the year – the Coen brothers Inside Llewyn Davis took the top slot, and if anything I’m looking forward to it even more now than I was then given the reviews out of Cannes and Telluride for the film. Other films that ranked high than, and continue to now include Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave (the preview didn’t do much for me, but the reviews out of Telluride do), Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street (I never get tired of that preview), Alfosno Cuaron’s Gravity (which I’ll see next week at TIFF), John Wells’ August: Osage County (ditto), Spike Lee’s Oldboy remake, Spike Jonze’s Her, Ridley Scott’s The Counsellor, Bennett Miller’s Foxcatcher and Alexander Payne’s Nebraska. You can add films like J.C. Candor’s All is Lost and Dennis Villenueve’s Prisoners. There's much more, but that pretty much covers the big ones.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

My Answer to the Latest Criticwire Survey Question: Binge Watching

This week’s critic wire question asks what people should binge watch this labor day weekend, since nothing much will be hitting theaters this week – well, unless you’re eagerly anticipating Getaway I guess.

Binge watching usually refers to TV, and I’ve admitted, I’m not as up on TV as I should be. I may well use this weekend to binge watch a few shows I have wanted to see, but haven’t yet – House of Cards, Top of the Lake or Orange is the New Black. I cannot recommend any, because I haven’t seen them, but that is something I may do.
For a couple of suggestions as what you should binge watch – I always recommend Louie – as Louis C.K.’s “sitcom” is perhaps the best show on TV, and if you haven’t seen it, prepare yourself as it really is as great as they say. But I’ll also suggest another one that most people have seen – The Walking Dead.

I know a few people gave up on The Walking Dead after Season 1, and more at some point during Season 2. Yes, it has become a ratings bonanza in the latter half of Season 2 and throughout Season 3 – but if you gave up on the show before then, I say give it a go. Binge watching actually works in The Walking Dead’s favor – because many of the complaints people have about the show aren’t as bad when you sit down and watch a bunch of episodes in a row. The Walking Dead, like all shows of its sort, has its share of “placeholder” episodes – episodes where nothing much happens, but is needed to introduce a few plot points, or character points, and to fill out a season. When you’re watching The Walking Dead one episode a week, these can be infuriating. Nothing is worse than waiting a week to find out how Rick will respond to the Governor’s demand to turn over Michonne, only to have the entire next episode have Andrea try, and fail, to escape from Woodbury, and the entire storyline you wanted to see pushed back a week. But when binge watching, you can appreciate an episode like on its own terms – it is quite well made, and quietly intense, and then go on to find out what happened right after. You don’t have to wait another fucking week, but only an hour.
Most likely, I’ll do what another answer to the question suggested – and spend the weekend catching up on a director’s work that I have missed, but will have a film on the Fall Festival circuit. Today, I selected 10 films from TIFF that I will be seeing - but I need to add 5-7 more to fill out my schedule this weekend - so I don't quite know what it will be yet. I'll do a mini TIFF preview next week.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

My Answer to the Most Recent Criticwire Survey Question: Blindspots

This week's question is a repeat of one already asked - about cinematic blindspots. It's understandable that this question would be repeated - it was asked over a year ago, and Criticwire now has a new editor. Since I answered this question recently - sighting Claude Lanzmann's Shoah as my biggest blindspot, and I still haven't seen it (I mean to get to it this year, but it is 9 hours, so I have to admit it may not happen this year), that is still my answer.

But let me add a few more. While I have seen two Bela Tarr films - The Turin Horse (2012) and Werckmeister Harmonies (2000), I have never seen his most acclaimed film - Satantango (1994). Again, I have an excuse - it's 7 hours long! I will get to it one day. I also have never seen Jean Eustache's The Mother and the Whore (1973) - but I have a good excuse on that one - as far as I know, it's not available in North America in any form. The same goes for two of Jacques Rivette's most acclaimed films - Out 1 (1971)and Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974)- although I have no excuse for not seeing ANY of Rivette's films, so I should correct that. Another big one also not available is Abel Gance's Napolean (1927) - they did a restoration of it last year, but only showed it in a select few theaters, and are not releasing it on DVD, so again, I have no idea when I'll have a chance to see it. At some point, I hope they will released Edward Yang's A Brighter Summer Day (1991) on DVD so I can see it - I am a huge fan of his Yi Yi, so I looked forward to it.

So those are the ones I have a built in excuse for. Now for some films I have no excuse for not having seen - Claire Denis' Beau Travail (1999), Elem Klimov's Come and See (1985), F.W. Murnau's The Last Laugh (1924), anything by Andrzej Wajda - particularly Ashes and Diamonds (1958), Vincente Minelli's Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), Robert Hamer's Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949), Fei Mu's Spring in a Small Town (1948), anything by Rainer Werner Fassbender not titled Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, Giuseppe Tornatore's Cinema Paradiso (1988), Hiroshi Teshigahara's Woman in the Dunes (1964), Marcel Orphus's The Sorrow and the Pity (1969) and Frank Borzage's Seventh Heaven (1927).

I will correct all of those at some point in my life - when I don't know, but I want to see them all and many, many more older films. I've said before that exploring cinema history is a lifelong pursuit - no one can possibly see EVERYTHING they should. I just keep trying to see as much as possible - one film at a time.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

My Answer to the Latest Critcwire Survey: Coming of Age Stories

This week’s question asked what the best coming of ages stories are – in honor of the recently released The Spectacular Now.

I’ll get one answer out of the way right now – and that’s The Catcher in the Rye. The question didn’t ask for coming of age movies, although that is implied, but J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye was a very important book to me. I read it a couple of times as a teenager and once in my early 20s – and loved it every time. I often wonder if I were to read it again now – at 31 – if I would still love it, or if I would now think Holden Caufield is a spoiled, selfish brat – I think of the later is what has prevented me from reading it. And from a TV perspective, you cannot get better than the single perfect season of Freaks and Geeks.

But in terms of movies, there are a lot of great coming of age movies. There are a lot of choices – Peter Yates’ Breaking Away, Rob Reiner’s Stand By Me, Cameron Crowe’s Say Anything, George Lucas’ American Graffiti, Mike Nichols’ The Graduate, Jason Reitman’s Juno, Noah Baumbach’s The Squid and the Whale, Wes Anderson’s Rushmore, Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are, Charles Laughton’s The Night of the Hunter, Brian DePalma’s Carrie, Richard Kelly’s Donnie Darko, Peter Bogdanovich’s The Last Picture Show, Hayao Miyazaki’s Spirited Away and the granddaddy of them all Francois Truffaut’s The 400 Blows. I wouldn’t argue with anyone who picked any of these movies – more so perhaps even than most the coming of age film is a very personal choice.

But I’m thinking of three slightly more offbeat choices. The first being David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, which is a coming of age story for Kyle McLaughlin – although when he gets a glimpse of the adult world, he probably wishes he hadn’t been in such a rush to grow up. And Laura Dern’s pure innocent grows up a little bit as well – even discovering a slightly kinky side. Another offbeat choice is Spielberg’s A.I. – which is about a robot who comes of age – or at least is programmed to come of age. The film asks some rather quietly profound questions – and remains Spielberg’s most underrated masterpiece.

But the answer I’m going with is Alexander Payne’s Election. Setting a coming of age story in high school is pretty standard – but this time, it’s not the students coming of age. Reese Witherspoon’s Tracy Flick (still far and away her best performance) doesn’t learn a damned thing in the movie. I suppose the siblings played by Chris Klein and Jessica Campbell learn something – but not all that much. No, Election is about Matthew Broderick’s Mr. McAllister’s coming of age – although far too late to do him much good. By the time he’s learned his lesson, he’s lost his wife and his job, and is starting all over again – and in the hilarious last scene of the movie, he shows that perhaps, he hasn’t quite grown up just yet. With so many movies these days about overgrown man children – that for the most part celebrate how wonderful and funny these 30 year old who act like teenagers are (or perhaps worse, that they simply need the “love of a good woman” to grow up), Election stands out even more today than it did back in 1999. And because I’m now in my 30s, it speaks to me more now than those movies of teenagers reaching maturity.

Monday, July 29, 2013

My Answer to the Latest Criticwire Survey Question: First Serious TV Show


This week’s question is about TV shows – how they are taken more seriously now than ever before, but looking back at what the first show you really took seriously was. I’m not 100% sure what my answer would be. If I’m being truthful, probably The Simpsons – some of my earliest exposure to criticism aside from Roger Ebert was my subscription to Entertainment Weekly (long since lapsed), and since they reviewed TV shows as well as movie, I read their take on The Simpsons when it was at it’s peak creatively. I saw ever episode – repeatedly – and still watch the show to this day. Others around the same time would probably be South Park – which I defended in its early seasons from those who thought it was just smut. King of the Hill was, for a time, the best animated show on television – vastly superior to anything currently on Fox (except the best of The Simpsons). The X-Files would have to be listed as well – as well as Seinfeld and Roseanne (the former needs no explanation, the later was the first time I saw a sitcom that actually had some serious issues addressed, but wasn’t overtly preachy).

But the first show I remember re-arranging my normal schedule around was Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing. A brilliant show about politics that was entertaining, intelligent, well written and well acted. It came on the air the same time as The Sopranos – although it took me longer to catch onto that show, because I didn’t get HBO. Little did I know that rather than introduce a new era of intelligent drama on network TV, it would pretty much be the death knell for it. The serious shows are now all on cable – or at least critics think they are (Hannibal just finished a great first season – better than most shows on cable).
I also have to admit this - I don't watch enough "serious" TV as I probably should. I don't look down on it at all, but the truth is there is only so many hours in the day, and I cannot possibly be an "expert" on anything - so I mainly stick with movies. As good as Homeland, Justified, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones or most other cable shows you can name probably are - I just don't have the time for all of them. I do watch Breaking Bad, Louie, Mad Men and The Walking Dead - those are probably the four I take "most seriously" right now.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

My Answer to the Most Recent Criticwire Survey: Origin Story

After a few weeks hiatus, when the original editor of the Criticwire blog left, and a new one came in, the Criticwire Survey is back. This week asks for the Critic's origin story - how they got to be a film critic in the first place. As I have done a few times when answering these questions, I'll say that I don't really consider myself a critic - I write about movies mainly for myself, to work out my own feelings towards a movie, and if others get something out of the reviews, great. I don't paid to write, probably never will get paid to do so, and I'm fine with that. It is a hobby - although one I do take seriously as I continually strive to get better - but I'm happy in my tiny corner of the internet.

So with that out of the way,  how did I start writing about movies. It started by falling in love with movies - I always liked movies as a child, but remember a few moments in particular where I knew I loved them - a very long bus ride with my brother's hockey team (after they played like shit, are were quiet all the way home) where we watched Oliver Stone's JFK is still seared in my mind, even though I was 10 at the time (and no, I don't recommend watching any movie on a bus, but this time worked). Than over the next few years being pulled in my movies like Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven, Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction and Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers (yes, I was too young to see them). I also remember my yearly trip to my Aunt's where we would often end the day watching a classic movie - this is how I got exposed to the Marx Brothers, Casablanca and Citizen Kane for the first time. It was also at my Aunt's house that I first encountered film criticism - in the form of one of Roger Ebert's Video Guide, which I read a lot early in the morning, since I was an earlier riser than everyone else. As my love of film grew, I read more Ebert, starting watching Siskel and Ebert, and eventually starting reading reviews by others as well.

And then, at some point, I started writing about movies. It started slowly in high school and throughout college - brief reviews that I didn't do anything with, and then reviews I posted in the user's section of IMDB - but I grew tired of that. It wasn't really until about 2003 that I actually started writing reviews for every new movie I saw - and some older ones as well. After six years, and more than  1,000 reviews I did nothing with, and enough people telling me I should start a blog that I did in fact do that. So I've been writing reviews for 10 years, publishing them on this blog for 4 years, and I don't see that changing any time too soon.

Monday, June 24, 2013

My Answer to the Latest Criticwire Survey: Advice for Aspiring Critics

I really have no business to give aspiring critics any advice, since at best, I’m an amateur critic – and some would still say I’m an “aspiring” critic, since of course no one pays me a dime for what I write (although aspiring implies that at some point I hope to be a professional critic, something I have no delusion about ever happening). But I’ll offer a few words anyway.

1.       Don’t expect to make money. Newspapers and magazines have always been the primary employers of movie critics – and they’re in trouble, downsizing where ever they can. Most professional critics these days are freelancers. You want to be a professional movie critic who wants to make a living off it? Good luck with that.

2.       Do it for the reason I do it – I love movies; I love writing about movies, and writing reviews help me work through my feelings about the movies. I don’t really consider myself a critic – I’m just a guy who watches a lot of movies and writes about what he sees. If a few readers find that helpful, I'm glad for it, but I'd do the same thing whether or not I posted my reviews.

3.       Don’t care what others think of your reviews. I did at one point, but I’ve moved on from that. Be prepared, because even someone like me, who occupies such a tiny space on the internet, has people telling me an idiot. It goes with the territory. Don’t take it personally and move on. They aren’t worth your time. Engage in thoughtful debate with those who want to – don’t trade insults with idiots.

4.       Watch as much as they can – both old and new. If you don’t know much about film history, than you really shouldn’t be a critic. I’ve made my way through many of the “canon” titles through the years, and my list of older movies to see never gets any shorter – I just keep adding titles. It’s a monumental task, and one that will be ongoing for your entire life. You’re never going to get to know film history unless you watch films – one at a time.

5.       Don’t look down at the movies you review. Nothing bugs me more in a review than a critic who somehow holds himself above the films they are reviewing. If you have contempt for what you’re writing about, it shows. Try to meet a film on its own terms.

6.       Don’t get obsessed with a “grading scale”. I used the four star system when I started this blog, because that’s what I grew up with from Ebert and Maltin. I stopped because I was tired of people e-mailing and asking why something got 3 stars and something else got 3.5. I never meant it to be definitive – just a guide - but as soon as you attach a “rating” to a film, some people will forever and ever hold you to that. Have a grading scale if you want – but ignore any question regarding why one film got one rating, and another film got a different one.

7.       Read as much criticism as you can. Read Ebert, read Kael, read Sarris, read a wide variety of people writing now – from Glenn Kenny to James Berardinelli to Kent Jones to Amy Taubin to Manhola Dargis to A.O. Scott to Armond White and everyone in between. Like movies, you’ll like some, and dislike others. That’s kind of the point.

8.       Don’t stop writing. I still don’t think much of my own writing – but I think I’ve improved in the years I have been writing. That’s how you get better, just keep doing it.

9.       Be honest when you write – there’s no shame in disliking a movie everyone else seems to love, or liking a movie everyone else hates. I’ve never believed in the concept of “objective” criticism – as if there is some sort of algorithm that can define a great movie or a bad one. What’s important is that your subjective opinion or interpretation can be backed up by what is objectively in the movie.
 
That was WAY longer than I intended it to be, but there it is. But, as I said off the top, I’m don't consider myself a critic at all, and I'mcertainly not a professional one. So please feel free to completely ignore me.

Monday, June 17, 2013

My Answer to the Latest Criticwire Survey: Favorite Criterion Essays

I can only choose 1? The great thing about Criterion is that they go all out for their releases – even in this day of age when Blu-Ray survives as a niche market, and DVDs are low rent only. One of the best features is that practically every release contains an great essay on the film – and they’re all available online as well. In all honesty, if I’m ever looking for a review of a film that Criterion has released, the website is my first stop.

What are my favorites? Here’s just a few – Amy Taubin on Chungking Express, Michael Dare of Coup de Torchon, Roger Ebert on Do the Right Thing (although I’m not sure if this counts, because I believe it is a reprint), Armond White on George Washington (proving that once in a while, he can be great), Bertrand Tavernier on Make Way for Tomorrow, Matt Zoller Seitz on Man Bites Dog and Michael Wood on Viridiana.

My favorite essayist that Criterion frequently taps though is Kent Jones. His two favorites of mine are The Royal Tenenbaums and especially The Friends of Eddie Coyle where he makes the case for this largely forgotten masterpiece by Peter Yates starring Robert Mitchum.

Monday, June 10, 2013

My Answer to the Latest Criticwire Survey: Where is Ferris Bueller Now?

It has been 27 years since Ferris Bueller’s Day Off came out, meaning that the kid who was about 17 at the time would now be 44. So where would Ferris Bueller be now?

Let’s see, Bueller was charming, funny and likable – no one hated Bueller – but he was also selfish and a little bit sociopathic in the way he thinks about himself more than anyone else. He has a way of exploiting people while still making them feel good about themselves – see how he treats his so called best friend and girlfriend in the movie.
With that in mind, I think Bueller would have ended up on Wall Street. He would have no problem as a smart, young go-getter getting into a big firm, and banking millions on unsuspecting people, selling them junk bonds or subprime mortgages. He would have banked millions – and then would have left to start his own company, buying and selling other firms, laying people off, etc. Ferris is the type of guy that always has the luck and never gets into trouble, he would have left Wall Street and sold his business for tons of cash before the crisis back in 2008 hit. Now a charming “self-made” millionaire with a “business” background, he does what comes naturally – runs for a wins the Senate seat for the Republican party, going on and on and on lower taxes, government waste and reducing debt, he is now seen as the future of the party – a frontrunner for the Presidential nomination in 2016.

Basically, Bueller is who he has always been – the way you know you should despise, but can’t bring yourself to do so.

Monday, June 3, 2013

My Answer to the Most Recent Criticwire Survey: Best Shakespeare Adaptation

I actually did a top 10 list of Shakespeare adaptations a few years ago (http://davesmoviesite.blogspot.ca/2009/10/weekly-top-ten-best-shakespeare.html) – and I do not think my answer has changed since then despite having seen two that would easily make the top 10 since then – Orson Welles’ 1965 masterpiece Chimes at Midnight, which took parts from several Shakespeare plays to make Falstaff the main character, which is brilliant and original, and Ralph Fiennes excellent Coriolanus, a brilliant adaptation of a lesser known play (much of the rest of this post will just be a summary of that earlier one now). For non-traditional adaptations, I think you have some brilliant ones by Kurosawa – particularly Ran (1985) – his King Lear, and Gus Van Sant’s My Own Private Idaho (1991) – his Henry IV. Al Pacino’s wonderfully strange Looking for Richard (1996) is also a must see. Traditional adaptations that I love include Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s Julius Caesar (1953), Orson Welles’ Othello (1952) and MacBeth (1948), and Roman Polanski’s Macbeth (1971) is even better. Laurence Oliver’s Henry V (1945) – but not his Oscar winning Hamlet (1948), not to mention Branagh’s Henry V (1989). And then there are the ones in the middle – using Shakespeare’s language, but placing the action somewhere else – like Richard Loncraine’s Richard III (1995) or Julie Taymor Titus (1999).

But for me, my favorite Shakespeare adaptation has to be Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet (1996). Yes, Kurosawa’s Ran is a better film, but it’s not a better Shakespeare adaptation (and that makes sense to me, so hopefully it does to you as well). Branagh’s epic film is one of the only “complete” adaptations of a Shakespeare play – all four hours of the play make their way to the screen. The film is impeccably cast – even Branagh in the lead, even though he’s too old, is brilliant. The supporting cast – especially Kate Winslet (THE definitive cinematic Ophelia), Julie Christie, Derek Jacobi and Richard Briers- make up for a few ill-advised cameos (Billy Crystal? Robin Williams?). The film is also brilliantly directly by Branagh – as far from a filmed play as one can imagine, and is actually quite daring in parts.
And these are just the tip of the iceberg – there are lots more that I haven’t even had the space to mention.

Monday, May 27, 2013

My Answer to the Latest Criticwire Survey Questin: Memorial Day Viewing

This week's question is what is the best movie to watch on Memorial Day. Since I'm Canadian, and hence don't even have Memorial Day off work - we had the previous weekend for Victoria Day this year - this is a hard question to answer. But I'll take in the spirit in which it was intended and answer is with a war movie - actually two of them. What I would watch - since far too few people did back in 2006 - is Clint Eastwood's Iwo Jima double bill Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. I'm not saying these are the best war movies ever made - they certainly are not - but I think they're good for Memorail Day viewing. Why? Because as flawed as Flags of Our Fathers may have been, it is a fascinating movie not just about war heroes, but on the nature of what makes a war hero itself. The men who raised the flag and become icons, did not do it to become icons - and were uncomfortable with the fame it brought it - in some cases with really bad after effects. We should celebrate the men and women who willingly sacrificed their lives for us - but we should not exploit them, or glamorize what they did. It wasn't glamourous, and men young men died. Letters from Iwo Jima is a more straight forward film, but a less flawed one. And it took decades for an American filmmaker to make a film from the Japanese point of view. I think Letters from Iwo Jima is a great film because it reminds us that our enemies are just people too - people who are fighting for their homeland, just like our soldiers are fighting for theirs. The grunts on the ground don't make the decisions that led us to war - but they're the ones who pay the price for it.

There are lots of choices to choose from though - and I think any number of documentaries about returning soldiers and they sacrifices they have made - and how, at times, they have been mistreated by the government would also fit. The Tillman Story, Restrepo, To Hell and Back and The Invisible War all leap to mind as well.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

My Answer to the Most Recent Criticwire Survey: Best on the Big Screen

This week’s question is about what movie every movie buff should try to see on the big screen at least once. The answer, of course, is all of them. Every movie, no matter how large or small, is meant to be seen on the big screen, and while it’s wonderful that we can see way more movies than ever before on our TV’s, this should not be treated as a substitute for seeing things on the big screen. Anyway, that answer is a copout, so if you want me to name one movie I’ll say the best film ever made Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now. I’ve seen that film countless times – but only once on the big screen – and that was the inferior Apocalypse Now Redux – but it was still one of the best movie going experiences of my life. Other films I had seen many times on TV, VHS, DVD or Blu-Ray that I also loved when I saw them on the big screen include Hitchcock’s Vertigo, Rear Window and Psycho (this actually increased my admiration for Psycho immeasurably), Scorsese’s Taxi Driver, Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange and especially 2001: A Space Odyssey (which would be second only to Apocalypse Now if I really did this list) – and of course Welles’ Citizen Kane. And I’m still kicking myself for not finding time to see Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia and Jacques Tati’s Playtime on the big screen when I had the chance. Basically, I think if you have a chance to see any great film on the big screen, you shouldn’t pass that up.

Monday, May 13, 2013

My Answer to the Latest Criticwire Survey Question: Childhood Favorite that Holds Up? That Doesn't?

As a child, I was a huge fan of Ghostbusters – not just the two movies, but also the animated TV show – I also had all the action figures (not to mention the Ecto 1) and even a board game. And whenever I watch the film now, it still holds up remarkably well – my love of Bill Murray started here, and he’s still perfect in the movie. I will also always a soft spot for Ernie Hudson because of the film, because Winston was always a favorite of mine – for whatever reason I do not remember. Reitman’s film is still a blast. (by the way, that really is a poster for Ghostbusters – from the Czech Republic, leading me to wonder what the hell their poster designers are on over there, and if they are even crazier than the Polish poster designers, who are normally the most batshit crazy of the lot). A runner up would be Warren Beatty’s Dick Tracy – I don’t think I understood just how good that film was when I saw it at the age of 9.

On the flip side of movies that have not held up – I was tempted to say Ghostbusters II, but I still do have a soft spot for that movie for whatever reason, even though, admittedly, it isn’t very good. Aside from Ghostbusters the other franchise I loved as a child – and again, not just the movies but the animated show and action figures was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles – and as much as I hate to admit it, NONE of the three movies made between 1990 and 1993 hold up very well at all (especially III, when somehow they were transported back ancient Japan). The films will always have a place in my memory for being beloved when I was a child – and I will still vigorously defend them when Michael Bay announces that he’s going to make the turtles fucking ALIENS because their name is NOT Teenage Alien Ninja Turtles, it’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and making them aliens is JUST PLAIN WRONG – but other than the first film, I’m not I could even make it through one of the films these days – let alone love them.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

My Answer to the Most Recent Criticwire Survey: Best Director Under 40

Who is the best filmmaker under 40? I was somewhat surprised, although I shouldn’t have been, that many of the directors I feel are at the top right now – Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, etc. – all have 40 in the rear view mirror. I was also surprised to learn that other directors I thought may make it – Ben Wheatley, Shane Carruth and Rian Johnson – are all also 40, but barely (and in the case of Johnson, he’ll be 40 this year). I also considered Derek Cianfrance, mainly for Blue Valentine and Craig Zobel, for Complaine, but for the life of me, I could not find their birthday. Maybe they’re 40, maybe not, so I decided to play it safe and go with someone else – I probably would have anyway.

But who? Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 was great, but I’d want to see Elysium before I decide on this him. Same with Sean Durkin – as much as I loved Martha Macy May Marlene, I need to see a follow-up before I anoint him the chosen one. Mia Hansen-Love is one of the more promising directors, as her first two films – The Father of My Children and Goodbye First Love, are quietly very good – but not quite great.I quite liked Xavier Dolan’s I Killed My Mother and Heartbeats – and I still need to see Laurence Anyways – but he’s got to at least be on the list, since he’ll be eligible for years and years to come. Edgar Wright is right on the cusp of 40, but not there yet, so I considered him – but as good as Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World are – he’s a notch below my top 3.
Jason Reitman has got to get some attention – mainly because he’s one of the few directors who keeps getting better each time out. There is a marked improvement from Thank You for Smoking to Juno to Up in the Air to Young Adult (even if audiences didn’t care for that last one). He’d be a very solid choice. Fellow Canadian Sarah Polley would also be a solid choice – although her best film remains her debut – Away From Her – but Take This Waltz and the documentary Stories We Tell are also excellent.

But my choice is Jeff Nichols. Nichols is only 35, and I can attest that he has made two great films – Shotgun Stories (2007) and Take Shelter (2011), and based on all the reviews, his latest Mud is one of most anticipated films of 2013. Take Shelter is one of those rare movies that just grows in your mind over time – I think it’s better now than I did even back when I saw it at TIFF in 2011. He’s a young master in the making.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

My Answer to the Most Recent Criticwire Survey: Best Comic Book Movie

The best movie based on a comic book or graphic novel is clearly David Cronenberg’s A History of Violence. However, considering just how much has changed from the book – the movie is far less lurid than the graphic novel – and the fact that apparently Cronenberg was unaware that it was based on one when he agreed to direct the movie, and did not read the original before making the movie, I’m not going to pick that one. If I were inclined to pick an “alternative” choice rather than a superhero movie, I’d be more inclined to pick something like Robert Pulcini & Shari Spring Berman’s American Splendor, which had a ton of respect for Harvey Pekar’s source material, or one of two films by Terry Zwigoff – his adaptation of Daniel Clowes’ teen girl story Ghost World, or his documentary Crumb exploring the life and work of Robert Crumb. But even though I think all of these films are better than my actually choice, I think all of those seem to be a cop out – the critics way of dodging the real question being asked, so they can continue to look down their noses at superhero movies – which since this question was inspired by the upcoming release of Iron Man 3, is clearly what was intended.

So on that note, I’ll say the answer is The Dark Knight. True, I could have picked Batman Begins, but I think The Dark Knight is everything a great comic book movie should be – faithful to the source material, but providing a fresh spin on it. A great villain, a wonderful hero, good action sequences and a hell of an entertaining film to boot. Out of all of the recent comic book movies, this one is the best of the lot.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

My Answers to All 56 Criticwire Survey Questions Part III

Our Most Wanted Prequels
For this one, I think to my two favorite films. I wouldn’t mind seeing Colonel Kurtz’s descent into madness and then ruling over his jungle compound before Willard shows up to kill him in Apocalypse Now. But the one I really wanted to see is for Taxi Driver – what the hell happened to Travis Bickle in Vietnam that made him so crazy, or was he already that crazy. I should say this – I don’t actually want ANYONE to make either of these films, but I would have been interested in Coppola and Scorsese had done so decades ago.

Old Directors, New Technology
What old director would be benefited by all the new technology available to him today? I’m tempted to say Georges Meilles, who was a special effects wizard before there were special effects. But I’ll go a different way and say John Cassavetes. Why? Because today, Cassavetes could make his independent films with ease, on the cheap, and not labor for years in Hollywood movies to get funding for one film. His output could have expanded massively – and more films like A Woman Under the Influence and Love Streams are desperately needed today.

The Perfect Summer Movie
When I think of summer movies, I think BIG BLOCKBUSTERS, so although I am tempted to say Elia Kazan’s A Streetcar Named Desire, because I first watched it on a sweltering July night with no air conditioning, so I was as sweaty as Marlon Brando by the end, I’ll go with Steven Spielberg’s Jaws – the one that started it all. Say what you want about Spielberg and Lucas ruining Hollywood with Jaws and Star Wars (it’s bullshit by the way), but Jaws is the perfect summer blockbuster – big, bold, audience friendly, terrifying – and it all takes place at the beach. Summer movies don’t get better than Jaws.

The Ultimate Midnight Movie
Another hard one for me – since I watch movies at midnight all the time (it’s the only chance I get after my wife and infant daughter go to bed on Friday and Saturday nights) – so I’ve seen everything from rom-coms to action movies to docs to foreign films in the wee hours of the morning. But what is the ultimate one? I’ll go back to by teenage years, and say the first time I watched Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre starting at midnight, it scared the shit out of me, and I barely slept afterwards. So it gets my vote.

When Actors Attack!
This was a question is response to Samuel L. Jackson attacking A.O. Scott for his review of The Avengers, and asking if actors have the right to criticize critics. The answer, of course, is yes – actors do have a right to criticize critics, although they’re probably better off not to. Critics spend their lives criticizing the work that others do – so it’s only fair that their work is also open to be criticized. Critics critique others critics all the damn time, but for some reason get defensive when an actor does it. Samuel L. Jackson can criticize all he wants to – but it does make him look petty, defensive and angry. He should probably have the attitude Abbas Kiarostami has about critics – saying he realized when Roger Ebert called The Taste of Cherry horrible, and then Jonathan Rosenbaum called it a masterpiece, that both were equally useless. Artists are better not to think about critics, and just go about their work. But they have the right to say whatever the hell they want to.

The Sight & Sound Greatest Film Poll
This question was about the 2002 Sight and Sound Results – basically asking you to drop one film, and replace with a more worthy title. So, I guess we need to see what the top 10 in 2002 were:
1. "Citizen Kane"
2. "Vertigo"
3. "The Rules of the Game"
4. "The Godfather Parts I and II"
5. "Tokyo Story"
6. "2001: A Space Odyssey"
7. "Battleship Potemkin" (tie)
7. "Sunrise" (tie)
9. "8 1/2"
10. "Singin' in the Rain"

As tempted as I am to say drop Battleship Potemkin, it’s place in cinema history in unquestionable. So, what I will drop off is Singin’ in the Rain – a great musical to be sure, but not the best one ever made by a long stretch – that long sequence in the middle drags the movie to a dead stop. What should replace it? The greatest movie of all time – Apocalypse Now. Since Coppola has a film in the top 10 though, perhaps I should say Taxi Driver.

Your Dream DVD Commentary
What DVD commentary would I most like to record? This is a tough one, because it would have to be a film I know inside out and backwards. So out of the many choices, I’ll go with Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers. There is just so much to talk about with that film – the technical prowess, the brilliant screenplay, the acting, the themes, how it has become even more relevant in the 18 years since he made it. I’ve probably seen this film more than any other, so I’ll go with it.

Talent Deserving of Wider Recognition
This question was asking about film writers in need of more recognition, and it’s a tough one for me. I read A LOT of film criticism, but have few critics who are not well known that I read constantly. Everyone knows how great Glenn Kenny and Manhola Dargis are right? So the one I’ll go with is James Bernardnelli. Yes, he is fairly well known, but with Roger Ebert’s recent death, he’ll be the first critic I go to from now on to get his opinion on a film BEFORE I see it. He doesn’t review films deeply – neither do I – but I trust his opinion, and trust him not to spoil an anticipated movie for me, just because he can. Considering he still has to work a full time job, I guess he qualifies as someone who needs wider recognition and money.

Your Favorite Horror Film
Narrowing this down to one film is nearly impossible. Do I pick The Shining of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Halloween or Peeping Tom? Frankenstein or Bride of Frankenstein? Dawn of the Dead or Alien? Surprising, even to me, though I think I’ll go with Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. I saw it a few times on VHS and DVD and loved it, but didn’t see it as Hitch’s best – but then I got to see on the big screen, and was blown away by it. I even found myself quite frightened, even though I knew what was going to happen. Picking just one is impossible, but I’ll stick with the stock answer.

Your Most Embarrassing Cinematic Blindspot
Easy – Claude Lanzman’s nine-hour Holocaust Documentary Shoah. I have an excuse – it’s 9 fucking hours, and it hasn’t always been easy to find. However, since Criterion is releasing it this year, I’m out of excuses. I plan to rectify this oversight in 2013.

The Best Review I Ever Wrote
This one is hard, since I have approximately zero self-confidence, and feel am I very poor judge of my own writing and reviews. Having said that, I think my dual reviews of Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island back in 2010 stands out in my mind – reviewing it with no spoilers, and then reviewing it again, and putting it in its proper context among Scorsese’s films. Those are my favorites.