Latest entries in MOVE Movies
The latest in movies and film culture.
Feb. 24, 2012
Rewind: Animal House
For years, Hollywood has produced movies depicting the lives of college students. One of the most iconic films depicting college and fraternity life is "National Lampoon’s Animal House." Released in 1978, nearly 34 years later, this movie is still discussed by college students on campuses across the country. One of the most recognizable scenes from Animal House occurs when John Belushi’s character, Bluto, chants the iconic phrase “Toga! Toga! Toga!,” at the top of his lungs, signaling an over-the-top toga party.
For those who are clueless as to what I am talking about, "Animal House" tells the story of two incoming freshman, Larry Kroger and Kent Dorfman, who want to join a fraternity at Faber College. They find themselves rejected by the Omega fraternity, the most prestigious fraternity on campus, and end up pledging to Delta, who is the complete opposite. On campus, the Delta House is known for its band of misfits and troublemakers looking to disrupt their peaceful college campus. The Dean of Faber College is determined to expel the Deltas this particular year, while the frat boys continue their partying ways, oblivious to what is going on.
A lot has happened to the actors of "Animal House" after the cameras had shut off. In 1980, John Belushi (John "Bluto" Blutarsky) starred in "The Blues Brothers." Unfortunately, in 1982, at the age of 33 he passed away from an accidental overdose. Tim Matheson (Eric "Otter" Stratton) starred in many other films and went on to play Vance Wilder Sr. in National Lampoon’s Van Wilder. He also appeared on many television shows including “The West Wing.” After "Animal House," Peter Riegert (Donald "Boon" Schoenstein) played Ronald Zellman on the HBO series "The Sopranos." In 1996 Thomas Hulce (Lawrence "Pinto" Kroge) played the voice of Quasimodo in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." He has been nominated for a Golden Globe, an Emmy Award and a Tony Award. In 2007, he received a Tony Award for producing Spring Awakening. In 2002 Stephen Furst (Kent "Flounder" Dorfman) played a walrus named Dash in "The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea." Also, he made multiple guest appearances on the television show Scrubs. Since 1998 James Widdoes (Robert Hoover) has produced many successful television shows including "8 Simple Rules," "The King of Queens" and "Two and a Half Men."
Sept. 1, 2011
French-Canadian 'Incendies' loses the Foreign Film Oscar, wins the audience
What would you do if, upon reading your mother’s will, you were given two letters to deliver: one for a father you thought was dead and the other for a brother you never knew you had? Would you drop everything to go into the world to fulfill your mother’s dying wish? Or would you scoff and bury the mystery of the letters with her?
Those two mindsets represent the differing reactions of twins Jeanne and Simon Marwan in "Incendies," the French-language Canadian entry in last year’s Foreign Film Oscar category, finally making a run in U.S. theaters.
"Incendies" takes on a bifurcated structure, switching back and forth between flashbacks of the twins’ mother’s early life and the journey taken by Jeanne (and later, reluctantly, Simon) deep into the Middle East to find her father and brother. The web woven by "Incendies" is complex and often shocking, and the slow, steady revealing of details continually draws in the viewer, who remains enraptured until the final moments.
The twists are many and genuinely surprising (one in particular elicited quite the audible gasp from the audience I was a part of), but one wonders if there is anything to them, any motivation other than shock value. Yet the emotions behind them are real, and the characters full of life, intelligence and grit; so, a little plot frivolity is a small gripe indeed.
"Incendies" ended up losing the Oscar to Denmark’s "In a Better World," but don’t let that convince you it is anything less than top-notch filmmaking. The cinematography and score in particular stand out as artful and effective, and the direction by Dennis Villeneuve shows great pace and vision. If nothing else, see it for the “moment,” the one surprise that will keep you and your friends talking long after the credits have rolled.
4.5 out of 5
July 11, 2011
Dinosaurs and domesticity in 'The Tree of Life'
On paper, "The Tree of Life" is about a suburban family in the 1950s: a father (Brad Pitt), a mother (Jessica Chastain) and three sons. One of the boys, Jack, played prodigiously by the young Hunter McCracken, is entering the eve of his own manhood and individuality, developing an almost Oedipal rivalry with his father along the way. Sporadic scenes show Jack as Sean Penn, now grown and in the city, sitting in offices and riding elevators with an implacable look of concern. But 'Tree of Life' is one of those few (and often divisive) movies where plot is secondary to presentation.
This story (if you can call it that) is revealed not through truth or facts but through emotion and selective memory, as Sean Penn’s Jack reflects on his childhood. He remembers his father as an overbearing hard-ass, singling him out for chores while his brothers sat idly by. He remembers his mother as an angelic figure of purity and grace who could float among the trees, so pretty even butterflies mistook her for a flower. The mood throughout the movie is ethereal, swirly, listless. At times the camera swoops and glides around its subjects as if affixed to the breast of a ballerina. And the music swells, the beautiful score of opera and strings lending grandeur and majesty to everything, even the most mundane and everyday of moments.
And although this domestic melodrama acts as the center and the heart of "Tree of Life," the film will likely be remembered for the extended sequences of abstraction and impressionism that act as its bookends.
Early in the film the audience is treated to an exhaustive account of the creation of the universe that traces from the Big Bang on until the extinction of the dinosaurs. This 20-minute segment is probably the most breathtakingly beautiful and captivating sequence I’ve ever seen in a theater, but what the hell is it doing here? Surely, there is some thematic reason for its conclusion, some grand statement to be made about including dinosaurs and 1950s housewives in the same film, but the challenge of deciphering that is left completely up to the viewer. Don’t expect any hints.
As for me, I feel like I could make equally convincing arguments that it serves to diminish the scale of human life, or to aggrandize it. And at the end of the film, after the domestic drama wraps up, there is even more abstraction left before the credits roll. Figures amble along in a barren locale, people thought dead or gone, young Jack and old Jack both present. Is this heaven? Is this a dream? Why are there sunflowers? Once again, don’t expect any hints. And that’s exactly how director Terrence Malick wanted it. This sort of ambiguity, while at times frustrating or confounding to the viewer, incites thought, discussion and argument and extends the life of the movie within the viewers' heads and hearts well beyond the two-hour running time.
There are going to be people who hate this movie: those who need constant action and plot twists to stay entertained, those put off by the films thematic indulgences and lingering questions, those expecting a typical Brad Pitt movie. But as common as these detractors might be, I think it would be impossible to find someone who doesn’t at least admire or respect this gargantuan work of ambition. It truly is a movie that sticks with you, whether or not you loved it. And as for me? I loved it.
4.5 out of 5
April 29, 2011
Big films on small budgets
There’s something about seeing a quarter-million dollar Lamborghini speed through traffic only to crash and burn in a fiery explosion that really gets your heart going. Or a huge animatronic T. rex. Or a pair of giant robots leveling a city as they battle in stunning computer-generated glory. These awe-inspiring events are great, don’t get me wrong, but they’re a bit…easy.
What I really respect are those filmmakers who can create an engaging experience on a budget, either through great story and dialogue or creative use of their resources.
Here are a few of my favorite films done on the cheap:
"Primer"
Made on a budget of $7,000, "Primer" eschews flashiness in favor of fascinating ethical dilemmas. A time travel movie at heart, "Primer" uses a plain box instead of a plutonium-fueled sports car for its temporal leaps, allowing its writing and themes to be the real stars.
"Rocky"
Although not immediately thought of as a cheaply made movie, "Rocky" was made for just about a million dollars. The movie focuses on Rocky Balboa’s passion and determination to succeed in the sport he loves, which he does, despite losing to Apollo Creed. The original has remained my favorite of the franchise. Its more expensive sequels, while good in their own, campy ways, have always paled in comparison.
"Clerks"
When people discuss low-budget movies, "Clerks" always ends up appearing in the conversation. While definitely not the best-acted or best-directed movie of all time, "Clerks" stands out with its stellar dialogue. Talk may be cheap, but it can also pay huge dividends.
"Brick"
I love films that do interesting things, and setting a noir film in modern times absolutely counts as interesting. Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, "Brick" utilizes high school clichés to provide a fascinating framework and environment for its murder mystery. While not the easiest film to grasp, it’s extremely satisfying when you are able to put all the pieces together.
"The Big Lebowski"
OK, so maybe $15 million isn’t really the first number you think of when I say small budget, but as far as movies go, it’s relatively low. And of course, since it's a movie with Jeff Bridges (my favorite movie with Jeff Bridges to be precise), I had to find a way to sneak it in. I’m willing to bet the most expensive scene came from John Goodman wailing on that Corvette.
Pomp and circumstance is great and all. It can provide a great punch. But in my mind, substance always trumps style.
April 14, 2011
MTV is destroying the ‘80s
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right? In "Teen Wolf" and MTV's case, that adage couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Let me catch you up. In 1985, an awesome movie came out. It was called “Teen Wolf” and it starred Michael J. Fox as a high school kid who learns that through Incredible Hulk-like losses of emotional control, he can transform himself into a werewolf (which turns out to be a family trait).
In June, MTV will premiere their new “original” TV series, “Teen Wolf,” starring Tyler Posey — also known as “not Michael J. Fox” (I believe he also answers to “that one guy” or “who?”). It too centers on a high school student who struggles with his newfound hairy power, though MTV states the show is only loosely based on the 1985 film.
“Loosely” is the key term here. Instead of adhering to the original movie’s humorous tone and after school special-style lesson of being true to one’s self, the show promises to be “darker” and “edgier,” which are code for “crap.”
I’ve already seen a dark and edgy version of “Teen Wolf.” It was called “The Wolfman,” and it sucked (I don’t care how many Oscars it won for its make-up, it was atrocious). But obviously, we all understand what this show is really attempting to rip off: it begins with “T” and ends with jokes about Robert Pattinson being a glittery little girl.
Posey’s co-star, Crystal Reed, tries her best to dissuade the comparison to “Twilight.”
"Instead of Edward and Bella, it's more like Romeo and Juliet, with a central conflict in the middle," she said in a piece for MTV News (yes, MTV News is reporting on its network’s own show. Really reaching for the stars, “journalists” of MTV.)
Reed goes on to say, "We don’t know how it's going to end."
I do. It’ll end after one, Hindenburg-esque season – with a little luck and mercy, maybe even less – and everyone will go back to their lives. Until then, I’ll be printing off “Team 1985” shirts and will be handing them out to anyone with half a brain – also known as anyone who skips all episodes of MTV’s new series.
Marni Nixon is my homegirl
When I’m not in the mood for a Tarantino bloodbath or Nolan mindbender, I sink into my guiltiest of pleasures: lavish movie musicals from the 1950s and ‘60s.
Newly-released Hollywood musicals like “Hairspray” and “Phantom of the Opera” have absolutely nothing on those from the mid-20th century. Who can resist films like “South Pacific” or “Singin’ in the Rain?”
For the longest time, movie musicals other than Disney flicks were completely absent from Hollywood. The resurgence started when 2001’s “Moulin Rouge” received eight Oscar nominations and 2002’s “Chicago” following with six Oscar wins, including Best Picture.
Although I love these two movies, they're still nothing compared to the ornate musicals of long ago. Sets were enormous and decorative. Costumes were extravagant — how many little girls wish they had Barbra Streisand’s gold dress from “Hello Dolly?” But above all, the talent exhibited was mind-boggling.
Some of the best musicals from that era featured multiple female faces sharing a single voice — that of Marni Nixon. Rarely on screen herself, Nixon sang the film versions of songs that we still get stuck in our head, such as “Getting to Know You” from “The King and I.”
I bet if you said “Eliza Doolittle,” most people would think of Audrey Hepburn. On screen, she became the guttersnipe-turned-lady in “My Fair Lady,” but her voice was actually that of Nixon.
“West Side Story” is perhaps the most classic movie musical, and Nixon had a hand (voice, rather) in that one, too. She helped the very Russian Natalie Wood get away with both being Puerto Rican and having a magnificent voice.
Nixon didn’t need to have a hand in all the greats, however. Julie Andrews definitely didn’t need someone to sing for her in “Sound of Music,” one of my ultimate favorites. Notorious diva Liza Minnelli wouldn’t have let anyone sing for her in “Cabaret.”
There’s something so satisfyingly luxurious about the old Hollywood musical. Maybe it’s just the fantastic songwriting of people like Rogers and Hammerstein, or the overall time put into creating such beautiful cinema. Although we’ve had to say “So Long, Farewell” to the golden era of movie musicals, it’s “deloverly” that we can still sing along to the classics.
April 10, 2011
Hung up over ‘The Hangover Part II’ expectations
I’ll be the first one to admit that when director Todd Phillips announced the possibility of a “Hangover” sequel, I was all on board. From the moment “The Hangover” ended, I wanted more: more zany Alan, more paranoid Stu and more jungle cats in bathrooms. But I should have known by the time the trailer for part two rolled around that I needed to keep my anticipation in check.
The moment I clicked play on YouTube, I grew more wary of my already towering expectations for the film. After months of hearing stories about production in Thailand ranging from dropping Mel Gibson to hiring Liam Neeson to there possibly being a cameo from Bill Clinton, I imagined the wolf pack would be taking their partying to whole new levels.
But based on the trailer alone, it looks like the gang had the same Vegas adventure moved out East, losing another one of their pals in a night of debauchery and shenanigans and swapping a lost baby for a monkey dressed in a denim vest.
This time around, Phil, Stu, Alan and Doug head to Bangkok for Stu’s impending nuptials (I take it things with him and Jade didn’t work out), and Stu naively expects to play it safe with a harmless pre-wedding brunch, but we all know that won’t go over well once Alan is shown giving a speech.
Stu’s fiancée also makes the unwise decision of leaving her younger brother in the group’s care for the night, and before we know it, it’s morning, Alan’s head is shaved, there’s a monkey in the shower and Stu has a face tattoo à la Mike Tyson.
I’m not entirely disappointed with the footage by any means, but I can say I’m a little underwhelmed. It appears we’re being fed the same jokes from the sequel’s predecessor, but they’re tweaked ever so slightly based on the film’s location. As much as I want to be overly excited, I’m now exercising more caution concerning my expectations for part two.
I’m not expecting drastic changes to be made to the group’s drunken escapades, maybe the best stuff is being saved for the theater, but I know never to underestimate the trouble these guys can get into. Anything is possible.
For now, I hope the filmmakers are just giving us fans a familiar taste of what’s to come for the wolf pack.
March 30, 2011
Tackiness brings down 'Matrix,' but premise remains
It’s not unusual for “The Matrix” to be referenced in a philosophy or English class.
The reason for this is simple: the premise behind the Wachowski siblings’ 1999 film is a philosophical masterpiece, using Platonic concepts to ask the question: would you rather live happily in a deception or know the ugly truth about your world?
“The Matrix” is set in the future, where what we perceive as our “real world” is actually a façade created by malevolent artificial intelligence out of control. Neo (Keanu Reeves) lives a normal life in this world, “the matrix,” until Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) comes to enlighten him and get him to join the fight against the machines.
Hugo Weaving plays the machine’s human-like extension inside the matrix. He plays the part so well that it’s hard not to imagine him as a machine — it’s by far the best performance in the film.
But even with a genius storyline and Weaving’s talent, “The Matrix” can’t save itself from corniness.
A casting change would do wonders. Keanu Reeves overacts almost all his lines, which aren’t many — he doesn’t say five sentences in a row until the final speech. His part is mostly looking bewildered, which Reeves still botches at times.
Fishburne does a decent job, but it’s hard not to laugh at the faces he makes while tearing out of a pair of handcuffs or having his brain hacked.
As far as special effects go, they were fantastic for 1999. My favorite scene of the movie, the atrium showdown when Neo and Trinity shoot down an entire SWAT team, is one of the coolest gunfights I’ve ever seen in sci-fi film, combining artillery and martial arts into one hell of a battle.
The ending was almost perfect. After reciting a well-written threat message to the machines, Neo walks out of the telephone booth with Rage Against the Machine’s “Wake Up” starting up behind him. It’s just about that time when you would hope Reeves would start up a badass strut down the street, but no: he instead zooms away in a tacky Superman-style motion, the black of his coat bringing us into the credits.
“The Matrix” is very much 1999’s “Inception,” both films asking the viewer to question his or her reality. Hopefully “Inception” doesn’t seem as corny in 10 years as “The Matrix” has become in the decade since its release.
Then again, what else matters if the idea behind the film is what endures?
'Spring Breakdown' fights the party scene with girl power
Everyone has a straight-to-DVD movie he or she secretly (or maybe not so secretly) loves. Mine happens to be the 2009 campy comedy “Spring Breakdownm” starring “SNL” alums Amy Poehler and Rachel Dratch and indie vet Parker Posey. The film follows the adventures of three nerdy 30-something-year-old best friends who embark on the ultimate spring break, which seems to abide by a quintessential beach party extravaganza checklist: wet T-shirt contests, keg stands, regrettable cornrows and all.
Posey is Becky St. Germaine, a mousy office manager for the ballsy republican senator Kay Bee Hartmann, played by the effortlessly brash and hilarious Jane Lynch. Senator Hartmann recruits Becky to follow her daughter Ashley (Amber Tamblyn) to South Padre Island, Texas for spring break, just to make sure she doesn’t get into any trouble in light of her mother’s recent push to be the next vice president.
Accompanying Becky on the trip are her two best pals, Gayle and Judi, played by Poehler and Dratch, respectively, who aren’t much of the partying type. If anything, all three broads are in desperate need of an intervention from cats and “Lifetime” movies, but they are determined to the have the spring break they never were able to in college.
In honor of this year’s spring break, I thought I’d share my appreciation of this film. Sure, it’s not the meatiest movie and substance is greatly lacking, but it’s perfect for any fan of early 2000s era “SNL” like me. In its entirety, which is a meager 84 minutes, the film runs like an extended comedy sketch, which I can understand is why a lot of people didn’t like it.
But I think Poehler and Dratch are hysterical as usual, poking fun at party-scene conventions and finding every opportunity to turn them into a gross-out or awkward moment. And the film boasts a solid cast of other comedic actors as well, including Seth Meyers, Will Arnett and scene-stealer Missi Pyle.
Yes, Sophie Monk and “Laguna Beach’s” Kristin Cavallari are in it, but “Spring Breakdown” isn’t meant to be taken as a thought-provoking, satiric response to good girls versus mean girls; it’s just meant to be fun. It’s a movie written for women that says, “Hey, it’s OK to wear fanny packs to the beach and listen to Wilson Phillips, just as long as you have fun.”
“Spring Breakdown” isn’t exactly “so bad, it’s good,” but it is the perfect nonsensical movie that’s just right for the spring break season.
March 20, 2011
The Oscar curse
I was sitting down to watch “Take Me Home Tonight” (a decent movie that sadly tacks on its 80s setting, rather than fully embracing it) when I was bombarded with a trailer for “Your Highness,” a movie that looks like a quick “Pineapple Express” cash-in starring, wait, what? Natalie Portman, current Oscar queen? What’s she doing in this?
This got me thinking, what does an actor do once they’ve completed a future Oscar- winning performance? Most actors like to take a break and work on something a little lighter, but what I found was surprisingly disappointing.
“Your Highness” isn’t actually the first film Portman has done since “Black Swan.” Nope, instead it was the classic “No Strings Attached” with Ashton Kutcher. Oh wait; “classic” isn’t the right word. “Completely forgettable” is more what I meant.
Fresh off “Million Dollar Baby,” Hilary Swank participated in the weak “The Black Dahlia.” Even one of the most well-respected actresses, Dame Helen Mirren, followed up her winning performance in “The Queen,” with “National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets.” Not one of these films has gotten more than a 50 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.
Then again, they’ve done more than “The Blind Side” lead, Sandra Bullock. She’s done nothing since.
And it’s not just the ladies who have disappointed. The guys have done just as much, or in this case, little.
As much as I like it, Jeff Bridges’ “Tron: Legacy” didn’t live up to expectations. Forest Whitaker tried an animated feature “Everyone’s Hero” with similar results.
But the absolute worst of the worst is Jamie Foxx. After his powerful performance in “Ray,” he followed with “Stealth.” Do you remember “Stealth,” AKA “Top Gun” without the volleyball and, consequently, the good? Yes, “Stealth,” the movie with a 13 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.
Among the stinkers, there have been a couple bright spots. Sean Penn transitioned from “Milk” to the decent CIA agent thriller, “Fair Game.” Kate Winslet went from “The Reader” to “Revolutionary Road.” Neither of these was stellar, but they weren’t atrocities like the others.
I’m all for actors taking a break after a really demanding role, but there’s a fine line between something light and something bad, and too many actors seem to be crossing it.