Filed by matt on Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 11:51 am

I’ve seen a few Bay/Bruckheimer films in the past week and I’m struck by how both films just seemed far lamer then I remember. I saw Gone in 60 Seconds and Armageddon not too long after they came out and thought they were fine as popcorn action movies. But watching them again they weren’t near as fun and were far more ridiculous then I remember. I’ve been trying to think what makes those films lose their staying power vs other films that I’m fine with after multiple viewings. It might be that everything is so amped up – all the music and camera moves and everything is very over-dramatic and the first time you see it you’re completely caught up in it and it works. But after you know the resolution you’re not as invested and have more time to notice the clunkiness the next time around. Clearly they make a lot of money so why bother changing but I dunno. There’s plenty of action movies that I like just fine. Doesn’t seem too hard to make one vs the other.  

Filed by Richard on Friday, August 1, 2008 at 4:10 pm

With the tremendous success of the Dark Knight in the movie theaters, blogs and entertainment news outlets are falling all over themselves to anoint the film, in advance, as the soon-to-be most successful film of all time.

Please. The Dark Knight has a fairly giant uphill climb before it even enters the top 25. Can we get serious about how we define success?

1) Inflation Adjustment
To compare box office results across different eras, it’s important to equalize the measuring stick. The fact is that a dollar went a lot further in 1968 than in 2008. Fortunately the holy grail of box office office web site, Box Office Mojo, did this legwork for us. They have a formula based on generally accepted inflation rates, to show how much movies of different eras would have made in current dollars.

The upshot is that the supposed current champ, Titanic, has actually made 908 million dollars domestic in current dollars, not the 600 million typically reported. And Titanic isn’t even in the top five. The Ten Commandments, E.T., The Sound of Music, Star Wars, and Gone with the Wind are all well ahead of Titanic. Gone with the Wind, in fact, made 1.4 BILLION dollars adjusted for inflation. By this standard, the Dark Knight has a very long way to go to catch up. As of today, the Dark Knight‘s 350 million dollar haul put it at number 13 on the all-time list. But if you adjust for inflation, that figure drops precipitously to number 94.

2) International Haul
It’s interesting that box office receipts are reported in the news almost exclusively in terms of domestic receipts. Given the incredible weakness of the American dollar, and the growth in the international markets, most of the money a modern movie brings in typically comes for overseas. In the cast of the Dark Knight, this will almost certainly ultimately be the case as well. Yet the domestic market is the sole indicator typically used to measure success.

Look at Titanic again. It brought in an astounding 600 million domestic in 1997 dollars. But it also brought in an incredible 1.2 BILLION additional dollars internationally for a full take of 1.8 billion dollars. This emphasis on the domestic take has the effect of giving the impression that major money makers were actually flops. Consider Troy, the sand and sandals epic of four years ago. It brought in what was considered a weak domestic haul of 133 million. But worldwide the movie brought in half a billion dollars. Yet is is still considered a massive underperformer in many circles. The point is that in the modern marketplace, we should stop talking exclusively about domestic haul and start reporting on the worldwide box office first.

3) Number of tickets sold verus population
If we’re going to adjust box office numbers for inflation, we should also consider just how many butts were put in seats during the theatrical run of the film, and contrast those numbers with the actual domestic population at the time to get a more accurate picture of the relative popularity of the film. (The domestic take also includes Canada, but I’m just going to focus on the US).

the Dark Knight’s current 350 million domestic haul, this means that about 43 million tickets have been sold at about 8 bucks a ticket.

Let’s compare this to 1982, when E.T. ruled the theaters. Adjusted for inflation, E.T. made one billion dollars domestic,with means that about 125 million tickets would have been sold at an inflation adjusted 8 bucks a ticket.

So clearly the E.T. haul is much, much higher than the Dark Knight; it is even more successful when you realize that the US Population in 1982 was only 232 million compared the the current US Population of 303 million. Meaning that there were tickets sold for more than half of the population. The current take for the Dark Knight isn’t even at one ticket sold for every six Americans.

It would be harder to compare to Gone with the Wind, The Sound of Music, and The Ten Commandments, because they had initial “Road Show” releases at significantly higher ticket prices, but the facts are fairly clear: in much smaller markets, these film put many, many more butts in seats than the Dark Knight will ever hope to do.

None of this is meant to particularly rain on the parade of the Dark Knight. The film is doing fantastically well. But if you were to utilize accurate methods of comparison against other tops movies, the Dark Knight is almost certain to end up as an also ran.

Filed by Richard on Monday, July 21, 2008 at 4:42 pm

The Dark Knight is a good movie, with a few great performances, and some fairly perfect psycho-development of the varying lead characters. So why did it leave me cold?

I’m sure I’m not alone in being sick of hearing the Heath Ledger drumbeat; the Oscar talk, the brilliance of his performance, his ascension to the seat at the right-hand of God etc, all based on this performance. Can we STFU about it already? But the thing is, it turns out he is terrific. Incredible actually. He’s pulled off that rare accomplishment of delivering a clearly mannered performance, where it is evident that much work went into the mechanics and cadence of the performance, yet it didn’t seem mannered. At all.

Aaron Eckhart almost matches him in a much different role. As the idealistic, yet pragmatic District Attorney Harvey Dent, he’s thoroughly believable in an unbelievable universe.

Christian Bale is OK as the Bat-Man*; I still have never gotten used to how the various actors playing Bat-Man lower their voice to a growl when they put on the rubber ears. This version seemed especially bad. It seems clear that he’s not doing this to hide his identity because the few people he encounters as Bat-Man that also know Bruce Wayne already know he’s Bat-Man anyway. It comes across a bit as a weak man trying act like a tough man.

The Gotham of the Dark Knight is just a bit more grounded in reality than the Gotham of Batman Begins, with its myriad monorails floating  hundreds of feet in the air and plumbed through and between buildings. For the most part this makes for a better film experience.

The film does an extremely nuanced and effective job of developing the stories of Bruce Wayne/Bat-Man, Harvey Dent/Two-Face, Commissionar Gordon, and the Joker. For the Joker, there is no back story; and as snippets of the movie purport to tell the origins of his madness, we gradually learn they are all lies. The Joker is just a madman; there is no explanation. How refreshing.

Knowing that Harvey Dent was to become Two-Face, I spent much of the too-long movie wondering “when does he burn his face and become the villain that we know and love?”. It’s a good thing though that the transformation came so late in the movie, because for once the origin story IS the story; it took me to the end of the film to realize it. Most comic book movies seem to follow the same tired formula; the first third features highly compressed origin stories of the heroes and villains, the second third sets up the conflict, and the final third has the giant battle. But with the Dark Knight, the conflict is all about morality in an immoral world, and how sometimes there is no right choice to make.  When Dent makes the choice to become Two-Face it’s entirely understandable and his anger and villainy is almost defensible. He WAS the white knight and he played by the rules. And he was destroyed because of it.

Of course the complexity of this morality play is undercut by a presentation that seems at times to revel in fairly random and reckless killing of innocents and villains alike, yet at other times the entirety of the movie hinges on specific moral decisions by decent people and criminals alike to protect the lives of their fellow man, even at the expense of their own. When these moments arrived, it felt a bit like the final reel of a different movie had been spliced in accidentally; when did the lives of people suddenly start to matter?

Iron Man set the standard of comic book adaptations. You walked out of the theater jazzed, planning to see the movie again. With the Dark Knight you walk out impressed by many of the performances and the reach of the story line and character development, but ambivalent about the overall film because of it’s tonal inconsistencies.

*I’ve always preferred the original DC comic naming convention of “the Bat-Man” over the name “Batman.” It seems so retro, yet modern.

Filed by Richard on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 5:36 pm

My ears are ringing right now; actually my right ear is ringing. I just saw Hellboy II at my favorite local theater, the Alderwood Mall 16plex, and the projectionist screwed up the sound to such a degree that it both ruined the movie and possibly caused damage to my ears (well not really, but it WAS pretty awful).

Essentially the theater turned up the right channel to earbleed levels. I knew something was up when the trailer for the Mummy III came up (which I’ve seen in theaters at least three times so far), and the funny line that Brendan Fraser says while in a plane about to crash — “why am I laughing?”) was completely drowned out by the effect sounds. I sat through the opening credits of Hellboy to see if it would change; and it didn’t. So I went out to talk to an attendant; he followed me back in and listened for a while while I went back to my seat. I was hopeful that something would change, but nothing did.

It’s odd watching a movie where the ambient channels of the soundtrack are louder than the prime dialogue; in scenes where Hellboy is walking through a crowded street, you distinctly hear the background dialogue of the extras over the voice of Hellboy. Certain music cues that are intended to blend into the background are out there front and center. And the dialogue all sounds like it’s coming from the next theater.

And to top it off, they hadn’t turned on the Air Conditioning; and the theater was just this side of too hot; probably about 78 to 80 degrees. Bleh.

The predecessor to this theater was the late, non-lamented Grand Cinemas Alderwood. During the long slide towards closure, the theater was incapable of screening any films without screwups. The last 13 times I attended a movie there, SOMETHING was wrong, from images spilling onto the curtain, to out of sync tracks, to continual problems with focus. (Which of course prompts any rational person to wonder why I kept going back; I simply have no answer to that).

The Grand Cinemas Alderwood was a great theater once. The Alderwood Mall 16Plex is currently a great theater. I just hope the experience today isn’t part of the same trend that ruined it’s older brother.

Oh, and Hellboy II? Great movie.

Filed by Richard on Sunday, June 22, 2008 at 12:21 am

In a mild fit of nostalgia I pulled out Toy Story tonight.

• I had no idea that Joss Whedon was the lead scriptwriter. I think I remembered somewhere that he wrote Alien Ressurection, but Toy Story? No idea.
• The end credits encouraged the viewer to  “visit ‘Toy Story” online at www.toystory.com”. Is this the first movie that had this kind of a credit? The movie came out in 95, which is before most people had even used the web. Must have been weird or jarring at the time…
• There’s no opening Pixar credit sequence; just a Disney credit (the Pixar sequence came at the end of the film).
• Though the film holds up really well, it’s interesting how simple the graphics seem now, and how basic the story is. It’s a truly great film, but it’s definately moving into that “classic film that we appreciate for it’s importance” mode.
• The genesis of the film is so long ago that the creators note on the commentary that they signed Tom Hanks before Philadelphia came out, and long before Forrest Gump and Apollo 13. And no one had even heard of Tim Allen.

Filed by Richard on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Another edition of the George Polk Memorial Award-winning podcast featuring Matt and Richard.

 

 Mustard77 [59:34m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Filed by matt on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm

I like Universal HD quite a bit. They rerun Battlestar Galactica and Firefly episodes in HD and the signal quality is pretty impressive. I own the Firefly DVD set, sitting not 10 feet from where I am, and yet I’ll watch Firefly again in HD whenever the DVR records one from Universal HD.

I’m watching Solaris right now, the underappreciated Steven Soderbergh film, on Universal HD. It’s a very subtle film with a very specific mood. And I’m watching it, surfing the web for iPhone rumors and very much into the soft subtle mood the film has created. And then WHAM, a loud commercial for hair plugs. I got so used to movies on HDNet or HDTheater being commercial free that I just assumed all HD films were commercial free. With a DVR it’s not a huge deal to skip the commercials but when you’re not expecting it and you’re a film snob… well it’s sub-optimal.

On a side note the score to Solaris is amazing. One of the few soundtracks I actually went out and bought. I listen to it frequently at work as its fairly calming.

Filed by Richard on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 11:05 am

Every once in a while I’ll come across a positive review of a film that I had no intention of seeing; in fact I’d had a visceral reaction to the thought of seeing the film. Yet that review almost completely turns me around and I start mentally making plans to see the movie, then I just wander over to our friends at rotten tomatoes and suddenly my evening plans are freed up.

Filed by matt on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 8:41 am

Watched Smokin’ Aces yesterday and it was not what I expected. If you’ll recall, and I concede that there’s no reason you would want to, the commercials for it showed a lot of wacky hitmen trying to kill Jeremy Piven in what looked like pretty much an hour and a half gunfight and maybe 30 minutes of setup. But nope – all of those hyperkinetic scenes begin to dribble out maybe a quarter way through and while there is a sort of ultimate gun fight, it’s punctuated by regular old scenes that are just normally kinetic.

There’s some nonsense about a “twist ending” that is foreshadowed so early that its pretty easily determined early in the film. The last scene was interesting if for no other reason that it seems to belong in a completely different movie. Overall it’s not a bad movie but the marketing for it led me to expect something different then what was delivered and that is so irritating that it prevents me from really enjoying it.

Filed by Richard on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 10:48 pm

It’s easy to see why so many critics hated Julie Taymor’s Beatles-soaked fantasy “Across the Universe.” A sixties story told entirely through the songs of the Beatles, it seems almost designed to inspire derision.

It’s also to see why a smaller, but significant, number of important critics fell madly and deeply in love with the film. It’s joyous singing, inventive staging and choreography, talented cast, and the effortless way it digs into your core emotional memory is remarkable. Though I’m no important critic, I am definitely in the latter camp. This is a wonderful film.

Telling the story of a young English lad come to America; the girl he falls for, and her brother who’s sent to Vietnam, Across the Universe basically covers every cliche of coming of age in the 60s. That it does this without cynicism is the real revelation of the film. It’s not that the film is all butterflies and rainbows; it’s that the Taymor didn’t feel any overpowering need to comment on the time and setting with an unnecessary modern eye.

The single best creative choice Taymore made during the production of the film–and one hardly commented upon by any critics–is the use of live recording of the actors during most of the film’s songs. On a surface level it helps immeasurably to never see tell-tale miscues as an actor ever-so slightly fails to sync their lips to a pre-recorded track. But more importantly the actor sing and act with a startling clarity of emotion. They’re not trying to convey an emotion while remaining true to a song they recorded in a studio months before. They’re doing it in real-time and it makes all the difference.

And what great singers they are. Evan Rachel Wood, who’s been on the periphery of the big time in Hollywood for the last few years, has a terrific singing voice. And as her boyfriend Jude, Jim Sturgess is regularly moving while singing the most recognizable of Beatles song and instantly re-contextualizing them.

I fell for the movie within the first minute. When Jude (Sturgess), sitting on a blustery beach, turns to the camera and sings a slow, lilting acappella version of “Girl,” I was sold. It hit both the movie-loving part of my brain and the section off to the left reserved for my ipod. The combination made the film impossible for me to resist.

I suspect a lot of other people had the exact opposite reaction. But if there’s ever been a film that needs to be experienced from the heart, it’s this film. It’s own heart is as pure as can be.

 The DVD presentation features a commentary by Taymor and her partner. The commentary is not particularly revelatory, and at times merely descriptive. Given Taymor’s track record of three essentially perfect films (Titus, Frida, Across the Universe), one expects more depth to her commentary.

The DVD also contains a second disc with several documentaries about the production. While interesting, the real find is extended versions of about 10 of the songs in the film.

Filed by Richard on Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 12:53 am

Charlton Heston died today at 83, or is 84?  I’m a NY Times guy, so I say 83. Since this obituary was written at least a decade ago and periodically updated since, you’d think they could at least get a simple thing like is age right…

Charlton Heston had awful politics when it came to guns. But Michael Moore (who’s films I love and admire), actually managed to make me feel sorry for Heston when he harangued the Alzheimer’s-addled Heston and left a photo of a victim of gun violence on Heston’s doorstop at the end of his Oscar-winner “Bowling for Columbine.” It was no easy feat for me to sympathize with Heston, but Moore managed to do it.

Filed by Richard on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 12:20 am

Just saw the new Hulk trailer. Wow. Just wow. That was really underwhelming.

Hulk Trailer at MTV.com

I really hope this thing is great, and the studio and Norton figure out their problems and finish the thing, but this trailer is pretty weak. To their credit, there’s no teasing, half-shadowed snippets of Hulk. They show him in all of his glory. It’s too bad that he looks demonstrably worse than the Hulk from Ang Lee’s version six years ago.

 I’m going to go back to watching the latest Iron Man trailer again. I need some excitement.

Filed by Richard on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 12:07 am

The Bank Job is a serviceable film of a remarkable story. It runs along at a steady gallop, never really falters in any way whatsoever, but ultimately never transcends into something really great.

Apparently the film is based closely on a real story; albeit a story that was kept under wraps for the last 40 years or so. Jason Statham plays the leader of part-time gang of London crooks circa 1970. They are pressed into attempting a bank robbery by an old acquaintance (Saffron Burrows). Ostensibly the bank job is about simply robbing the bank, but Burrows’s character had actually been put up for the job by the British secret service, who wanted her to obtain some incriminating photos in the bank vault.

The story is very complex; dirty cops, clean cops, dirty politicians, secret agents, underworld hoods, and of course our hapless gang of would be bank robbers all figure into the plot. It’s to the screenwriter’s credit that the story always makes sense, always. Despite many twists and turns, and feints and jukes, you the viewer always know exactly what’s going on; yet it never feels like someone is leading you by the nose from plot point to plot point.

But that said, the Bank Job never gels into anything great. It is simply just ok-to-good in everything, but great in nothing. It’s like a Honda Accord.

Part of the problem may be because of the slavish attention to the apparently true story. Though this is pitched as a heist movie, it’s certainly one of the few heist movies where the heist is over half-way through the movie. Because of this, the actual process of the heist; typically the most enjoyable part of a heist movie, is rushed and not as involving as it could be.

The Bank Job does a good job of capturing post-swinging London; it never really hits you over the head with a too-spot-on mis en scene, but you never really notice any anachronisms either (except for maybe a BarclaysCard Visa logo on a store front… did Visa make it to London as soon as 1970?). Thankfully the film also did not pound us over the head with montages cut to the beat of iconic early 70s British songs. I can only remember hearing T. Rex’s Bang a Gong (a good choice), and a killer cover of Money over the end credits.

While it’s a good sight better than other films in general release right now, it doesn’t speak that highly of the Bank Job that it’s better than College Road Trip and 10,000 BC. A competent, mildy engaging film, nothing more.

Filed by Richard on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 10:45 pm

It didn’t take long for folks to start Googling Marion Cotillard’s name for more info about her after the Oscars (well for things other than nude video clips). The LA times is reporting that other internet outlets are reporting on her comments of the past year where she indicated that she believed that the 9/11 attacks were a US government plan to destroy the twin towers because the whole area needed urban renewal, oh and the moon landing in 1969 was faked.

Guess what… many movie stars are nucking futs. Even hot French ones. As long as Cotillard keeps appearing naked in movies, and avoids the creepy makeup she wore in La Vie en Rose, she can believe whatever the hell she wants in my book.

Source Article: LA Times
Image Credit: China Daily

Filed by Richard on Sunday, February 24, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Here’s my final, final, last, can’t change’em, guesses for the oscars:

Best Film: “No Country for Old Men” CORRECT
Director: Coens CORRECT
Actress Marion Cotillard CORRECT
Actor Daniel Day-Lewis CORRECT
Supporting dude: Javier Bardem CORRECT
Supporting chick: Cate Blanchett WRONGO FRIENDO
Screenplay: Diablo Cody CORRECT
Adapted Screenplay: Coens CORRECT
Animated: the rat movie CORRECT
Cinematography: “There Will Be Blood” CORRECT
Art Direction: “There Will Be Blood” WRONGO FRIENDO

In a weird year, I think I did pretty good with my picks…