tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39305787000541377982024-03-05T21:32:37.952-06:00Attack of the RemakeThis blog sets out to do what has been done before. It compares remade films to the originals. Every time a remake is released, the critics don't even try to avoid comparisons to the original. And neither will I.tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-78120210154906295342020-07-17T10:02:00.000-05:002020-07-17T10:02:15.512-05:00The Osiris Child (2016)<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>(not a remake)</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikolulbLhQ79OsxsifxJFZ74KZ56SEOnuO_w29bT7r9iHwpwPkxKU5oVxM_zNyUbgzyKUz0rReSZuwi6Fkeb_ClaWTZ-rsq1r46wp4-xciq88aRxekBfWguunwtdOBdw9GWgVCK9i7aa2h/s1600/osiris+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="720" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikolulbLhQ79OsxsifxJFZ74KZ56SEOnuO_w29bT7r9iHwpwPkxKU5oVxM_zNyUbgzyKUz0rReSZuwi6Fkeb_ClaWTZ-rsq1r46wp4-xciq88aRxekBfWguunwtdOBdw9GWgVCK9i7aa2h/s200/osiris+1.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is less of a review than it is a recommendation. <i>The Osiris Child</i> (a.k.a. <i>Science Fiction Volume One</i>) is the rare
indie sci-fi project that can stand among the special effects blockbusters but
still delivers on the human-level drama of a low-budget flick.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The story pulls together a lot of common tropes: a planet on
the verge of destruction, a mega corporation with a hidden agenda, an officer
who goes rogue to save his child, a team up with an escaped convict, a stop-off
at a wretched hive of scum and villainy, and everyone has a complicated past.
None of this undercuts the movie’s appeal.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
To be sure, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Osiris </i>has
some rough edges, but the pacing is brisk, so you never get to dwell on it.
Some intense stuff happens out of frame (which may be good or bad, depending on
your tastes) but there is still plenty of on-screen action including a couple
great chase sequences and a prison riot.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv2Mvx0AWsQatgQ1ay656TnscIRkCX7EM90w3HSOWkUpeKaKQu469WcNEAAMBig-wn9Q8gfxeEwh0jTY7QTkOGIl6dQlN7rNji9qxYwST0ks4DaKpHrmduC7VP58JDhDLVIgrW0n9ozLZd/s1600/osiris+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1200" height="166" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv2Mvx0AWsQatgQ1ay656TnscIRkCX7EM90w3HSOWkUpeKaKQu469WcNEAAMBig-wn9Q8gfxeEwh0jTY7QTkOGIl6dQlN7rNji9qxYwST0ks4DaKpHrmduC7VP58JDhDLVIgrW0n9ozLZd/s400/osiris+2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The narrative unfolds in a very non-linear fashion. In a few
places, this is frustrating, but overall, it’s a smart choice that both creates
and solves mystery and propels the story. Chapter title cards help keep things
clear while adding a bit of a graphic novel feel. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the best part from a sci fi perspective is how
convincingly futuristic this film is. As in other films, the Australian Outback
stands in for a sparse alien world. Special effects are used sparingly, so the
ones they have are done well. Holographic displays may be ubiquitous even on
cheap TV shows nowadays, along with spaceships and cityscapes, but those in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Osiris</i> are high-quality. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNqX5rgqnk3pH0-8ljhiQf3ndzKyLz2PniYN5QedfZgrzUJamtni3pnKdGLm3oMHxoGd2neF50znmT0GFd1k6JErT4w-wOZsMLnMv4UOF5ZXfpUlN5Rp84a_jmmXq9pAT7saTqoZ7r0E54/s1600/osiris3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="560" data-original-width="1152" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNqX5rgqnk3pH0-8ljhiQf3ndzKyLz2PniYN5QedfZgrzUJamtni3pnKdGLm3oMHxoGd2neF50znmT0GFd1k6JErT4w-wOZsMLnMv4UOF5ZXfpUlN5Rp84a_jmmXq9pAT7saTqoZ7r0E54/s400/osiris3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are all sorts of little touches that sell the idea of
being in the future. Everyone has a little device that they bump to transfer
money, much like photo sharing on cell phones. A coffeemaker adds cream and
sugar by voice command while an AI researches the main character’s ex-wife’s
new boyfriend. Smart, subtle aesthetic choices hold the sci fi feel without
needing to have a hovercraft float by every few minutes. Fans of practical
effects will be pleased, too, by the film’s creatures. (There are creatures!)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
From a scripting perspective, the thing that really sets <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Osiris</i> apart is how cooperative most
everyone is. Unlike other action films that try to increase the tension through
pointless bickering, everyone in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Osiris</i>
seems to appreciate the larger stakes. Characters may start out suspicious of
one another, but once motives are sussed out and found to reasonably align,
everyone comes together rather easily. Even the meth-head gun dealers are
basically decent fellas. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqR3foYRO1FkmQCa7w700SfRc9XA0OkQT9SZ2GrTeahTzCEY-AJhK5ubTsmerilinGf7tKirNZRb3o-fKBUQZzpO4VC8_YzsJAIcPaBhD0058gN47EcpjqvW0lXXPqsFZYPjWtcREktspk/s1600/osiris4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="560" data-original-width="1152" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqR3foYRO1FkmQCa7w700SfRc9XA0OkQT9SZ2GrTeahTzCEY-AJhK5ubTsmerilinGf7tKirNZRb3o-fKBUQZzpO4VC8_YzsJAIcPaBhD0058gN47EcpjqvW0lXXPqsFZYPjWtcREktspk/s400/osiris4.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Osiris Child</i>
is geared solidly at genre-lovers. Fans of Riddick, Mad Max, and Ridley Scott
will definitely get the most out of this, but anyone who loves sci fi action
will warm to this. By the way, the ending is one of the best surprises I’ve
encountered in a while. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-21230827577135810342018-02-24T00:01:00.000-06:002018-03-01T16:51:33.428-06:00Black Panther Gets the Job Done<h3>
<i>Black Panther</i> review (not a remake)</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiPmv8RN66fOp9zYznPdNJPZKaqjnNxivPMAATgT1vJRmiT63Z0yYVXfSHwemGVrxNk9L8Lfzjt-3Uw2qOKEof5MMOkxvunjdD5FzAQMxnXxnqnAkpHwvx331GPX3-vOqhU1eqVv7Rpv6M/s1600/1+Black+Panther+poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="520" data-original-width="730" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiPmv8RN66fOp9zYznPdNJPZKaqjnNxivPMAATgT1vJRmiT63Z0yYVXfSHwemGVrxNk9L8Lfzjt-3Uw2qOKEof5MMOkxvunjdD5FzAQMxnXxnqnAkpHwvx331GPX3-vOqhU1eqVv7Rpv6M/s200/1+Black+Panther+poster.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
The latest installment in the MCU franchise arrived amid massive hype and expectations. It handily exceeded box office projections and breathless believers are convinced that it represents a watershed moment in black cinema. In truth, <i>Black Panther</i> doesn’t tread much new ground in terms of the Marvel Universe or cinema in general. Where the film does succeed, it is by telling an origin story that doesn’t feel stale within a franchise that has already pumped out a bevy of origin stories and doing a large amount of world-building in a way that doesn’t leave the end product feeling over-stuffed. All told, Black Panther gets the job done.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
The script follows a classic sins-of-the-father narrative. We are reminded briefly of the events of <i>Captain America: Civil War</i>, wherein King T’Chaka of Wakanda is killed, causing his throne and the mantle of the Black Panther to pass to his son T’Challa. As the story progresses, we learn that the dead king had a brother, N'Jobu, who went to Oakland, CA as a Wakandan spy and become obsessed with ‘liberating’ black people the world over using advanced Wakandan weaponry. A confrontation between T’Chaka and N’Jobu leads to the latter’s death, leaving behind a son. The son grows up to become Killmonger, who seeks to fulfill his father’s ambitions and capture the Wakandan throne.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFC00AfkcNCjIlPqPOAHbyScCeShaEvT0IMK8X-pJj1-xPp204AG8LCeHWll0f1XKeeO4Pd6K2J4HFfBNxsLl0S7BWLzh3R8HeMry1ou2z_fi5FZrm4-F4VHd2vA_gigguWjqadyTAN8o-/s1600/2.+Shuri.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="600" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFC00AfkcNCjIlPqPOAHbyScCeShaEvT0IMK8X-pJj1-xPp204AG8LCeHWll0f1XKeeO4Pd6K2J4HFfBNxsLl0S7BWLzh3R8HeMry1ou2z_fi5FZrm4-F4VHd2vA_gigguWjqadyTAN8o-/s400/2.+Shuri.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
A few James Bond-esque sequences get the story rolling: a heist in London, a casino and car-chase in South Korea, joined in the middle by a trip to Q’s, er, Shuri’s workshop/lab. Shuri is T’Challa’s sister and the latest addition to the super-genius club that includes Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, Hank Pym, Rocket Raccoon, and Peter Parker. Shuri designs all of Wakanda’s technology and infrastructure using the near-magical substance vibranium. Thought to be extremely rare—with the bulk being tied up in Captain America’s shield—Wakanda just so happens to sit atop a mountain of the stuff. Thanks to Shuri and vibranium, Wakanda looks like a stop-off for the Guardians of the Galaxy if they encountered a planet with a thing for Afrofuturism.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNySU_pImE3SI3cirlico5EowKq3oeV5Ii0DwGMGG6Ko5m9z3K-HPd7qiDo4pw9wCf9W8C5EkymgFMfnaJQGTGWQN2Ev80VCKQMELLkyBkArLYfFU_MzrGQNQVKJw-Z4yKF8NHAQbPchis/s1600/3+Afrofuturism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="399" data-original-width="960" height="166" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNySU_pImE3SI3cirlico5EowKq3oeV5Ii0DwGMGG6Ko5m9z3K-HPd7qiDo4pw9wCf9W8C5EkymgFMfnaJQGTGWQN2Ev80VCKQMELLkyBkArLYfFU_MzrGQNQVKJw-Z4yKF8NHAQbPchis/s400/3+Afrofuturism.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
In terms of breaking cultural ground, it has been amusing to watch the true believers scrabble about for a “first” that Black Panther qualifies for. Ultimately, it is merely the first black superhero movie of the MCU franchise. [Sidenote: Blade, starring Wesley Snipes, was the first box office success for Marvel, spawning a trilogy and paving the way for the comic company’s own studio and the MCU.]<br />
<br />
However, just because <i>Black Panther</i> doesn’t live up to the excessive hype doesn’t mean it is a bad movie. As noted, the MCU is awash in origin stories and the addition of Black Panther calls for yet another one. Writer and director Ryan Coogler tackles this challenge by tying the character closely to the world that must also be built around him. T’Challa is a product of his upbringing and culture, and so the audience is able to learn who he is as they discover the myths, rituals, genealogies, history, and politics of Wakanda.<br />
<br />
This is no straightforward task. Wakanda is awash in contradictions. It is the most technologically advanced society on the planet, yet it maintains ancient customs and rituals. They are united as a nation, but remain divided into tribes. They are isolated, yet the concerns of the outside world press upon them. T’Challa must navigate these and other contradictions if he is to succeed as the new king.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5KXJij8W_Jz5KwhjRLcHigON2_8EFpGDurKdsXJtcVdywLyWWsw5te-5Zlfg-b43-onxoNnxISSM-BuckrRs0ovvg9yDSXDajivlkwknUk20pW_8E-PitYUhRudmWn1iKoXZsyTlf5Snx/s1600/4+ritual+combat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5KXJij8W_Jz5KwhjRLcHigON2_8EFpGDurKdsXJtcVdywLyWWsw5te-5Zlfg-b43-onxoNnxISSM-BuckrRs0ovvg9yDSXDajivlkwknUk20pW_8E-PitYUhRudmWn1iKoXZsyTlf5Snx/s400/4+ritual+combat.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Additionally, Coogler uses the villain Killmonger as an appropriate foil to showcase what a Wakandan prince separated from his heritage might become. Both men are proud, but Killmonger’s pride is distorted by resentment. While this contrast could have been explored more deeply, Coogler isn’t philosophizing; it is an action movie, after all.<br />
<br />
Despite not upping the special effects bar, there are some ingenious differences in the effects we see. For example, rather than your standard-issue hologram, Wakanda has a technology that renders a miniature 3D bust out of black (presumably vibranium) sand. There are some armored rhinos, which is fun. The overall look of the movie is really cool. African influences on the techno-designs render a look that diverges pleasantly from the Apple/Microsoft look we’ve become accustomed to.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpg6pt8SlXbycRDnY-_1YJOI83lXkxF5dIxtWljcpGHTERqLryyX-UOyVwYFemX-TUJuZa2e3dI4msId2V8e94Lpa7M29YIHsp_txKp1WMlx8oQ6lrVKQ0AZfWJ4b_h34rdLZGhIc7mM64/s400/5.-black-panther-hologram.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="400" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpg6pt8SlXbycRDnY-_1YJOI83lXkxF5dIxtWljcpGHTERqLryyX-UOyVwYFemX-TUJuZa2e3dI4msId2V8e94Lpa7M29YIHsp_txKp1WMlx8oQ6lrVKQ0AZfWJ4b_h34rdLZGhIc7mM64/s400/5.-black-panther-hologram.gif" width="400" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i>Black Panther</i> also avoids many potential pitfalls of both the genre and external pressures. For one, the film is in no way a political soapbox. When it comes to political themes, it is easily surpassed by <i>Civil War</i>. At the same time, Black Panther isn’t an endless slugfest, either. Plenty happens apart from the action to drive the story, and much of the action is story in itself. Meanwhile, the smaller scale story keeps all the world-building manageable; the script doesn’t feel overstuffed or rushed. If anything, the pace was a tad slow, but never close to dragging. And there aren’t any byzantine plot devices that fail to make sense by the time the credits roll.<br />
<br />
In short, if you put aside the hype, <i>Black Panther </i>is a decent film that entertains, but probably won’t blow you away.tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-68921917585066452602012-07-11T04:00:00.000-05:002012-07-11T08:48:34.056-05:00Anastasia (1956 / 1997)<div class="post-header">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-tV1_RWaHE3ZDUFIA3EdtvYqsBzxONfyW0f2UyC_bkTvMPIav2AYlbAJbqwYRp6HKQmiNUDm3mRpOsmpbML-932TEXlCFmU0f-HwV5HSe1yG__iE6KzD2rI6XskVE65avU4W0dPkBX_s/s1600/Anastasia.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-tV1_RWaHE3ZDUFIA3EdtvYqsBzxONfyW0f2UyC_bkTvMPIav2AYlbAJbqwYRp6HKQmiNUDm3mRpOsmpbML-932TEXlCFmU0f-HwV5HSe1yG__iE6KzD2rI6XskVE65avU4W0dPkBX_s/s200/Anastasia.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
At the beginning of the Russian Civil War, Czar Nicholas II, along with
his family, was assassinated by the Bolsheviks. However, there were
rumors that his daughter, the Grand Duchess Anastasia, had escaped. As
years passed and rumors intensified, several women came forward claiming
to be Anastasia. These rumors serve as the backstory for two very
different films about the legendary princess.<span id="fullpost"><br /> </span><br />
<span id="fullpost">The first film is a fairly straightforward historical drama, based
loosely on the real life Anastasia-imposter Anna Anderson. The remake is
a fantastic animated musical adventure designed to vie with Disney’s
pantheon of princesses. If it is dubious that such a wildly divergent
interpretation could be considered a remake, one need only look to the
film credits where it claims a basis in the 1956 Arthur Laurents
screenplay. Who am I to argue?</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja-YHNbRgNxJDE3BtsMcntDfVcGJTL9l7P6i3oHZfK2GXYffogI6c1fLqNdNUsfMHbh6LH_bgIv5tfGPV9zq-RnT3v-vysktkxGiL7DYyZGiW2sp6opgm59_DC-KIdLnbVKgGHg2dbxkA/s1600/Anastasia+%25288%2529.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja-YHNbRgNxJDE3BtsMcntDfVcGJTL9l7P6i3oHZfK2GXYffogI6c1fLqNdNUsfMHbh6LH_bgIv5tfGPV9zq-RnT3v-vysktkxGiL7DYyZGiW2sp6opgm59_DC-KIdLnbVKgGHg2dbxkA/s400/Anastasia+%25288%2529.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<b>The Plot</b><br />
It is ten years since the fall of the House of Romanov, and rumors of
Anastasia’s survival are on everybody’s lips. It is in this atmosphere
that a group of men intend to present an imposter to the Dowager
Empress, Anastasia’s grandmother, in hopes of attaining a significant
financial reward. The men take in a young vagrant woman bearing a
resemblance to the princess in hopes of passing her off as the real
thing. The woman suffers amnesia, affording convenient pretense for the
conmen as well as legitimate questions about her true identity. <br />
<br />
The woman agrees to join in the men’s ruse if only to gain an identity
for herself. In the course of her Pygmalion-esque training, she becomes
more and more convincing as the princess Anastasia, causing even her
handlers to wonder if she could really be the lost heiress. At the same
time, she and her instructor begin to fall for one another. Still, their
relationship remains distant and strained, both knowing that if their
ruse pays off, they cannot be together. <br />
<br />
<b>Anastasia ‘56</b><br />
Driving the original is the ambiguousness about identity of the young
woman called Anna. Is she the Romanov princess, or isn’t she? For the
most part, Ingrid Bergman convincingly vacillates between doubt,
confusion, and certainty over her identity as Anastasia. To pull it off,
she starts her performance from a place of extreme vulnerability with
occasional flashes of regality and moves toward a mostly confident
demeanor, albeit with a grand chink in the form of needing acceptance
from the Empress. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF3rI0jYUgd-69RbZatlOLB-7Xe0obrpPkDiyN2dpDeH8R97aUk8G4GrH1CKeaTQ97fFM8He0HzhAM14R4UNMjSV7ESsrSXmIb-Bc4XzIFHTZ14nm58c82pJ5M4zUe7oF00E2LZ41pza4/s1600/anastasia2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF3rI0jYUgd-69RbZatlOLB-7Xe0obrpPkDiyN2dpDeH8R97aUk8G4GrH1CKeaTQ97fFM8He0HzhAM14R4UNMjSV7ESsrSXmIb-Bc4XzIFHTZ14nm58c82pJ5M4zUe7oF00E2LZ41pza4/s400/anastasia2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
This
ambiguity is never resolved. It comes to a head when Anna and the
Empress (Helen Hayes) meet in a rather unconvincing scene where the
Empress’ stubborn skepticism is suddenly broken by a peculiar mannerism
of Anna’s. But even then, the old woman begs Anna, if she is not in fact
the princess, to never tell her. And so the question hangs there and,
although it is no longer a threat to her or anyone else’s plans, it
remains a point of intrigue until the end. <br />
<br />
Yul Brynner’s typically stoic performance as General Bounine makes for
believable cynicism that Bergman can play against as she becomes more
convinced of her identity as a Romanov. However, in all honesty, the
same stoicism does not lend itself to portraying a budding romance
between him and his pupil. Nor does it lend credence to his necessary
change of mind about her identity. So, even though it is hinted at in
various scenes, the romantic subplot feels like something of a surprise
when one moment the two are sniping at one another and then next they
are running off together.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that this is a high-quality film, with lavish sets and
costumes galore in addition to the estimable talent. Bergman even won
her second Academy Award for the role, though I don’t think she was as
deserving here as she was on the other occasions. All the same, the
moments of greatest anticipation never really pay off and the reason for
the rather lengthy third act doesn’t become apparent until the final
moments. I can’t help but think that a different actor in Brynner’s role
could have clarified that. <br />
<br />
<b>Anastasia ‘97</b><br />
In the remake, there are no doubts about the identity of Anastasia
(voiced by Meg Ryan). Though she does not remember her past, the
audience is clued in via prologue that she is, in fact, the real
Anastasia. What’s more, she seems largely unfazed by her amnesia and
from the outset displays an anachronistically feminist attitude typical
of films from (but not limited to) the late 90s. In fact, this Anastasia
doesn’t display a single moment of vulnerability in the entire film,
robbing her of almost all of her emotional journey. That’s too high a
price to pay to portray a “strong female character.” <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz7Y08r2vcXIiyhlY-E8Mh29qKPuwhyxInSQBzP3AYpIuiRjFIPAlatWL2S1qOxrhWT83MI9V1KKzjWt_km7qo5wTIn8TdjCgkZnDLjJw-lFHy1ihikH2qxU5t9G92UDK_Vt4NtXY6wNg/s1600/anastasia07.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz7Y08r2vcXIiyhlY-E8Mh29qKPuwhyxInSQBzP3AYpIuiRjFIPAlatWL2S1qOxrhWT83MI9V1KKzjWt_km7qo5wTIn8TdjCgkZnDLjJw-lFHy1ihikH2qxU5t9G92UDK_Vt4NtXY6wNg/s400/anastasia07.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Because
of this, the eventual meeting with the Empress (Angela Lansbury) holds
no anticipation or impact. Either it is a foregone conclusion that the
Empress will recognize her granddaughter, or Anastasia will be
self-assured enough to go one without recognition. The only saving grace
is that the actual moment of recognition comes off a little more
plausibly, perhaps because the rewrite included some props, i.e.
physical evidence to bolster Anastasia’s claims. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, since Anastasia doesn’t seem to care whether she is the
real princess, the life is also sucked out of her interactions with
Dimitri (John Cusack) and Vladimir (Kelsey Grammer)—a splitting of the
Bounine character. Their training is just a game and has no impact on
her psyche, which isn’t fragile anyway. Finally, what the original
romantic subplot lacked in believability, this one lacks in subtlety.
That Anastasia and Dimitri fall in love is just another forgone
conclusion.<br />
<br />
Having neutered all the points of interest inherit in the story, it
actually seems necessary to inject the evil undead villain Rasputin
(Christopher Lloyd) and his talking-bat sidekick, Bartok (Hank Azaria).
Sadly, despite being added to increase kid-appeal, they just don’t make
up for the aforementioned losses. Instead, they mainly serve as comic
foils and an occasional excuse for some action. The bottom line is, this
story was never suited to adaptation for children and the Rasputin
character underlines the fact. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRjFoAOl9dpggL0iJ72svc92VNTnNTh4dBuW3uvaDQklXvoXM_8cnUZvibGL6kz50Asz5ADz6Q0Wz1M4SekAxtOqy5GTXpxMME1RUhy6F8w6loGuNCmPpmnOOzl1Hyy7qGQbPJBdnOcQ4/s1600/anastasia7.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRjFoAOl9dpggL0iJ72svc92VNTnNTh4dBuW3uvaDQklXvoXM_8cnUZvibGL6kz50Asz5ADz6Q0Wz1M4SekAxtOqy5GTXpxMME1RUhy6F8w6loGuNCmPpmnOOzl1Hyy7qGQbPJBdnOcQ4/s400/anastasia7.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<b>Final Thoughts</b><br />
One tangential remark I feel compelled to make is that the 1956
live-action version, bereft of special effects and comic relief, is the
faster-paced of the two films. Not only does it move at a better clip
than the film that came 40 years later, it seems to move at a break-neck
pace compared to most of its contemporaries. Still, I would only
recommend the original if one is particularly interested in the Romanovs
and the remake I would only suggest to animation buffs (like myself). <br />
<br />
FYI: Andrew has asked me to contribute articles devoted to animated
features, which I gladly intend to do. Strictly as an animated feature,
there is much more to be said of 1997’s Anastasia, and I am inclined to
revisit it as such. Stay tuned!tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-35714291008082809692012-05-12T06:00:00.000-05:002012-05-12T10:51:29.063-05:00The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945/2009)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUA2sxmv7FCOX_1hvG4jLpWaCU_93RnAaiT2heBolrwluEk4Ls43JsbvQmLUkEGDyAs_gQSgm4FQNRvHqkwmCFchMnBTYDKxr7i744EYbg9zAxj9OhVm9jvR_nFP4D2i3PDpkOdmk6GsiW/s1600/150px-The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray-_Ivan_Albright.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_t1wqUMBRCxwYsYU1sO0PJ6O35oej-TpgdA0fizyDnc72q28LlQ7CB7WIhz6PmLKWC4Ax1jgOGskJNJE7HN3zoMOxgCCWyK4UF17Qg4VgkZBdAff6ZZBWq8CbKUmf7xEjnbCcvA0lc88E/s1600/Dorian_gray_ver2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_t1wqUMBRCxwYsYU1sO0PJ6O35oej-TpgdA0fizyDnc72q28LlQ7CB7WIhz6PmLKWC4Ax1jgOGskJNJE7HN3zoMOxgCCWyK4UF17Qg4VgkZBdAff6ZZBWq8CbKUmf7xEjnbCcvA0lc88E/s200/Dorian_gray_ver2.jpg" width="200" /></a>I’ve always felt that Dorian Gray gets cinematic short-shrift compared to his contemporaries, Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster, and Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. While everyone else has had brides and sons and run-ins with Abbot and Costello, Dorian has been largely absent from the big screen. In the 60 years that span between the two films I am about to discuss, no significant addendums have been made to Dorian’s tale. <br />
<br />
The most remarkable thing about the two films I am about to review is how utterly similar they are, though produced so far apart. Of course, there are the pacing and aesthetic changes that one might expect, and the recent version is able to be more explicit where the original is not. But what is truly remarkable is how both films treated the source material virtually the same, in my opinion, right down to hitting the same marks and making the same mistakes.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>Plot</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEircUjiF3LgtXEHOJay8QbDEQKgoUyptf3kT5wMxC2uyJZO01_xgRkGJkvuLIU1ZaOfCTh4t8WemjCxV7dfutT1ejHPr9tTIIQFAm6qDi0Wn7nMcFXaf5-M3KzqccDIkRHfhyGDfdHeuj-q/s1600/Pictureofdoriangray.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEircUjiF3LgtXEHOJay8QbDEQKgoUyptf3kT5wMxC2uyJZO01_xgRkGJkvuLIU1ZaOfCTh4t8WemjCxV7dfutT1ejHPr9tTIIQFAm6qDi0Wn7nMcFXaf5-M3KzqccDIkRHfhyGDfdHeuj-q/s200/Pictureofdoriangray.jpg" width="130" /></a>While standing for a portrait by his friend Basil, Dorian is introduced to Lord Henry Wotton, a sharp wit possessive of a cynical philosophy of hedonism and folly. Dorian is taken with Henry’s ideas, especially that youth and beauty are the only things of real value. So, when his portrait is completed, Dorian looks upon it and desires that it be the painting that would grow old rather than himself. <br />
<br />
Dorian soon discovers that his wish has been granted when he trifles with the emotions of a young actress, Sybil Vane, causing her suicide. In the wake, Dorian notices the face in the portrait has become cruel while his own appearance remains unchanged. Panicked, he locks the paining away and adopts Henry’s philosophy, pursuing a life of amoral hedonism. <br />
<br />
Years pass yet Dorian’s youthful visage remains; the evidence of his debauchery shows only on the painting. Rumors of Dorian’s double-life roil through his Victorian social circles. He grows fearful that someone will find the picture and his secret will be revealed. The paranoia eventually leads him to murder Basil and cover it up. <br />
<br />
Around the same time, Dorian becomes romantically involved with a woman much his junior. Because of her, he wants to change his ways, though he hardly refrains from his old haunts and habits. James Vane, Sybil’s brother, happens upon him. He tries to kill Dorian, but is killed in the process. <br />
<br />
Surrounded by death, Dorian ultimately realizes that he cannot bring the woman he loves into the monstrous live he has created for himself. In a final moment of self-sacrifice, he stabs the painting through the heart. Dorian dies, his corpse taking on the horrible appearance of the painting, while the painting returns to that of a young and innocent man. <br />
<br />
<b>What they got right</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijkZUYo0-Ze5nUDyBEwgvdoQSM6vtOEAFx0C7txqus96xxlVYM2GyYuxXsjVyPkWXy9aaJrtdRZ4A-6CRY6hgcZEKbsrDwO-JKVszCqAY_zTC65FwThmEHtQvQxjtiypOhScnbqr7Jpalt/s1600/dg1.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijkZUYo0-Ze5nUDyBEwgvdoQSM6vtOEAFx0C7txqus96xxlVYM2GyYuxXsjVyPkWXy9aaJrtdRZ4A-6CRY6hgcZEKbsrDwO-JKVszCqAY_zTC65FwThmEHtQvQxjtiypOhScnbqr7Jpalt/s320/dg1.jpg" width="320" /></a>Absolutely too much can be said about the technical and stylistic differences between the two films, but that isn’t what is important about the story of Dorian Gray. Both versions are a fairly straight retelling of Oscar Wilde’s novel and, so far as I’m concerned, that is the best way to go about it. The only really remarkable difference is that Dorian’s later love interest is rewritten to bring her closer to the main cast of characters. This makes for much better dramatic effect as her counterpart in the novel is almost an incidental character. <br />
<br />
This is a story about characters, and for the most part, the casting was excellent. To be honest, the role of Dorian is not particularly demanding, as his primary character trait is being able to conceal his emotions. None of this is meant to slight the actors Hurd Hatfield (1949) or Ben Barnes (2009), but all that is truly required of Dorian is that he be young and attractive.<br />
<br />
The real serious role is that of Lord Henry, the vehicle for Oscar Wilde’s irascible and irreverent wit. Both George Sanders (1949) and Colin Firth (2009) pull this off remarkably. Henry is at the same time both the perfect English gentleman of his age as well as a wry agitator. He treads this thread-thin line with perfect charm and ease, and delivers every innuendo as though it were equally rehearsed and spontaneous. If Dorian is the anti-hero, Henry is the anti-villain, and yet he is simply the villain as well. All of this conflict conspires to form a character both fascinating and intolerable, one the viewer likes in spite of himself. <br />
<br />
Compared to these two, all the other characters seem relatively minor. However, they all share the important role of demonstrating the normal relationships and emotions from which Dorian has alienated himself. This is perhaps achieved a bit more successfully overall by the 1945 cast which included a young (and young looking) Angela Lansbury and Donna Reed. However, a nod must be given to Rebecca Hall (2009) for portraying the most convincing and likely of Dorian’s romantic interests. <br />
<br />
<b>What they got wrong</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUA2sxmv7FCOX_1hvG4jLpWaCU_93RnAaiT2heBolrwluEk4Ls43JsbvQmLUkEGDyAs_gQSgm4FQNRvHqkwmCFchMnBTYDKxr7i744EYbg9zAxj9OhVm9jvR_nFP4D2i3PDpkOdmk6GsiW/s1600/150px-The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray-_Ivan_Albright.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUA2sxmv7FCOX_1hvG4jLpWaCU_93RnAaiT2heBolrwluEk4Ls43JsbvQmLUkEGDyAs_gQSgm4FQNRvHqkwmCFchMnBTYDKxr7i744EYbg9zAxj9OhVm9jvR_nFP4D2i3PDpkOdmk6GsiW/s1600/150px-The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray-_Ivan_Albright.jpg" /></a>It must have seemed all to obvious to the directors of both films that the titular picture of Dorian Gray ought to be a spectacle of sorts, especially after its hideous transformation. Unfortunately, this led to taking the film’s sole cause for special effects much, much too far. <br />
<br />
The original film is particularly noteworthy for being mainly in black and white, but showing particular shots of the portrait in Technicolor. I consider this a genius move for the time. However, the genius is overshadowed by the apparent attempt to give Technicolor a run for its money with a rainbow-colored creature in the painting. This is extremely detracting from the film. It is made clear throughout the film that the portrait supposedly remains recognizable as Dorian even though disfigured. The actual shown portrait makes this an unignorable and inexcusable lie. <br />
<br />
Despite the fact that by 2009 there were no new film technologies that might be worth showcasing in a fantasy film, this picture also took its depiction of the portrait too far. Though they created an image of recognizably aged and sinister Dorian, they also decided to bring it to life through CGI. So, rather than an inanimate painting, there is a snarling, huffing animation <i>a la </i>Hogwarts. While I don’t necessarily find this as distracting as the other painting, it just struck me as strangely unnecessary and took me out of the fantasy for that moment. <br />
<br />
<b>Differences</b><br />
<br />
While the films are very much the same, they are of course different, too. Where the earlier film had to be merely suggestive of Dorian’s exploits--as did Wilde’s novel--the more recent film is able to be explicit. At times, this is used to good effect, as the basic adage in cinema is to “show, not tell.” But at other times, this same liberty became gratuitous, dwelling too long on Dorian’s hedonism and too little on the effects the lifestyle has on him. <br />
<br />
A positive alteration was made to the rather hum-drum killing of James Vane. I’m willing to grant a little artistic license when the source material is lacking, and a foot-chase ending with the pursuer being hit by a train is a helluva lot better than an off-camera hunting accident.<br />
<br />
Another bit of artistic license was applied to the epilogue of the newer film. The earlier film simply had none whereas the newer film showed a bit of the aftermath as experienced by Henry. It is debatable whether it needs to be seen that Henry pays a price for leading Dorian astray, but it is a fitting end. The only downside to adding such a scene is that it becomes painfully obvious when Henry’s dialog is not lifted directly from Wilde’s original text. His voice was unduplicable. <br />
<br />tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-9473667275002974212012-05-03T08:00:00.000-05:002012-07-17T10:08:01.661-05:00Doubt (2008)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXfDUIaP31GRRKDQZDn_RvtZdCm2ntj9YNomKIJBeM5ckKm_Pmt1Tr8fFHsF3kUrdF-9_6KzCLU_N5_KYqRK1swD7ufnVKpMelzdAR23arnWgIpJVemhHY-X3WR-HM0XwCbI5ExoihdxYv/s1600/220px-Doubtposter08.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXfDUIaP31GRRKDQZDn_RvtZdCm2ntj9YNomKIJBeM5ckKm_Pmt1Tr8fFHsF3kUrdF-9_6KzCLU_N5_KYqRK1swD7ufnVKpMelzdAR23arnWgIpJVemhHY-X3WR-HM0XwCbI5ExoihdxYv/s200/220px-Doubtposter08.jpg" width="136" /></a></div>
Here's a straight movie review just because I can't get this one out of my head. Of course, that was the author's intent, as I will explain. This is definitely one of those films that should not be judged by the
promos. Yes, the plot revolves around a Catholic priest who is accused
of abusing an altar boy, but it is not the anti-Catholic screed one
might expect. In fact, I’d say this is the first trick the author, John
Patrick Shanley, plays on his audience as he toys with various
prejudices throughout. Is it a perfect film? No. But it is probably one
of the finest films I’ve seen in a long time. <br />
<a name='more'></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQPQw8XUv-gR6PFuvQZH9A_AVT5AA7alDM6iuTXCVHmcGYjkja21Je0LZRq1Wz5_4S1kzBP6BVEa7nKyH1qssB6jyPyDnywmtZyxOaVeTPuSFDBsfhidBIxfCsDQLQln6mr7YfQIS6LGrZ/s1600/amy-adams-and-meryl-stree-001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><br />
Let
me step aside for a moment and discuss the performances. At first I
thought Meryl Streep logged a better-than-usual performance, but on
subsequent viewings, I realized all the usual ticks and grimaces that
she passes off as “acting” are still there. I’m a big Phillip Seymour
Hoffman fan, and he does not disappoint here, being very convincing as
an affable and progressive Catholic priest. Amy Adams steals every scene
she is in, and even in a habit she remains cute as a button. Viola
Davis received a lot of praise for her bit role in this film. Frankly, I
don’t see it, which isn’t to say she isn’t a good actress; she just
doesn’t have much material in this film. There is also a smattering of precocious youngsters in the film, some of whom may be worth keeping an eye on.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQPQw8XUv-gR6PFuvQZH9A_AVT5AA7alDM6iuTXCVHmcGYjkja21Je0LZRq1Wz5_4S1kzBP6BVEa7nKyH1qssB6jyPyDnywmtZyxOaVeTPuSFDBsfhidBIxfCsDQLQln6mr7YfQIS6LGrZ/s1600/amy-adams-and-meryl-stree-001.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="120" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQPQw8XUv-gR6PFuvQZH9A_AVT5AA7alDM6iuTXCVHmcGYjkja21Je0LZRq1Wz5_4S1kzBP6BVEa7nKyH1qssB6jyPyDnywmtZyxOaVeTPuSFDBsfhidBIxfCsDQLQln6mr7YfQIS6LGrZ/s200/amy-adams-and-meryl-stree-001.jpg" width="200" /></a>The question everyone
invariably walks away from the film with is, “Did he do it or didn’t
he?” referring to the central question of the film, whether Father Flynn
(Hoffman) molested an altar boy. I personally think the script leans
toward his innocence, but it is left purposefully unresolved. However,
that’s not the point. The film was adapted by the author from his stage
play, <i>Doubt: a Parable</i>. He should have kept the subtitle for the
film because that clues us in that this story is about more than the
action portrayed. It also tells us that the answers to the questions
raised are not meant to be simple, let alone answered in a simple up or
down fashion. <br />
<br />
So what is this film about? The title gives it
away, as do numerous conversations throughout: doubt. “What do you do
when you’re not sure?” Father Flynn asks in his opening sermon which he
goes on to conclude by declaring, “Doubt can be a bond as powerful and
sustaining as certainty.” But Sister Aloysius (Streep) is not prone to
doubts, and takes Flynn’s sermon as a cause for suspicion. Thus, she
directs Sister James (Adams) to keep an eye on Flynn and report anything
unusual. It so happens that Father Flynn has taken Donald Miller
(Joseph Foster), an altar boy and the school’s first black student,
under his wing. When Flynn summons the boy for a private meeting, Sister
James dutifully reports this and Sister Aloysius, certain of the
implication, begins ruthlessly to pursue Flynn to force him to resign.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGynWKRMujfvBtjg0iNmFBCsb2whfhr9j2FzhlPsvPUO0DOCgzbp57eLNPJO0FsYUAxW0jSN2Fvqk2ZJE483zacZKhRoT691yGkkJLrI9H3m_kvmzyzprFDXrs4Bv5SO8sWXUKRcJupw98/s1600/doubt1-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGynWKRMujfvBtjg0iNmFBCsb2whfhr9j2FzhlPsvPUO0DOCgzbp57eLNPJO0FsYUAxW0jSN2Fvqk2ZJE483zacZKhRoT691yGkkJLrI9H3m_kvmzyzprFDXrs4Bv5SO8sWXUKRcJupw98/s200/doubt1-1.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGYO3FnNOI6qG9K_Pc_i6tiL_tZCwANIzlRyilhZnAomKiUbAzxAifxG3xCdR8tQMZyzzcCSAPv0GQRUK1X5gT0_fDQEy7uAXoVwsCbWqwr4NTtjjij_3R3gfOgfl90lmT2-Dx1F02lxD3/s1600/doubt.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a>And where does doubt come in? Clearly leaving the primary plot point
unresolved makes little room for certainty, but there is more. Of the
three main characters, Flynn, Aloysius, and James, only the last moves
from doubt to certainty in the course of the film. That leaves the other
characters to necessarily drift in the other direction. In the case of
Flynn, we see his confidence eroded piece by piece under weathering
attack. Aloysius’ shift is much more abrupt, coming in the form of an
emotional breakdown in the final scene. In the wake of the havoc, it
becomes clear that Sister Aloysius’ undue certainty is mainly to blame.
But even if innocent, how much blame can Father Flynn assume for raising
doubts about himself? And what of Flynn’s assertion at the outset?
Could a bond of doubt really have stemmed this awful tide?<br />
<br />
Upon watching and rewatching this film, I am ever more impressed. <i>In spite of</i>
Streep’s lackluster performance, Sister Aloysius has taken over in my
mind as one of cinema’s arch villains. This is because she is utterly
convinced of her (false) righteousness. No evidence against and
certainly no lack of evidence in favor of her prejudicial beliefs will sway her from them. Indeed, she takes these things as proof of her assumptions and
the conspiracy she imagines layered around them. In this, she is utterly believable
and utterly terrifying. <br />
<br />
Where this film really stands apart is
in the dialogue. Miscommunication drives many stories, and this is
definitely no exception. But where many films make something ridiculous
of this very real phenomenon, <i>Doubt</i> finds plausible reasons for
characters to withhold from each other, to not listen, or to outright
deny what they hear. It’s done so well, in fact, it causes to viewer to
muse mid-movie, “Do I ever do that?” coupled with the hasty follow-up,
“I sure hope not.” <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGYO3FnNOI6qG9K_Pc_i6tiL_tZCwANIzlRyilhZnAomKiUbAzxAifxG3xCdR8tQMZyzzcCSAPv0GQRUK1X5gT0_fDQEy7uAXoVwsCbWqwr4NTtjjij_3R3gfOgfl90lmT2-Dx1F02lxD3/s1600/doubt.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGYO3FnNOI6qG9K_Pc_i6tiL_tZCwANIzlRyilhZnAomKiUbAzxAifxG3xCdR8tQMZyzzcCSAPv0GQRUK1X5gT0_fDQEy7uAXoVwsCbWqwr4NTtjjij_3R3gfOgfl90lmT2-Dx1F02lxD3/s200/doubt.jpg" width="200" /></a>There is, however, one area where the film
must be criticized. And that is in trying to stuff too many social
issues into a single film. The first three issues tackled are central to
the story, priestly abuse, race, and hierarchy and gender within in the
Catholic Church. These are fine. There is also a theme that runs through
regarding cultural changes as the film is set in the early 1960s. This
doesn’t really interfere too much, though it hardly contributes, either.
It really isn’t until Donald’s mother (Davis) has her monologue that we
are overwhelmed with domestic abuse, institutional racism, and
homosexuality, all in a single blow. It stands out as a real shoehorning
of additional topics and, on first viewing, had me crying “foul!” <br />
<br />
On
a final note, this is a film that I know I will find myself watching
again and again. The pacing is excellent; 104 minutes breeze by. The
church and school are real places; one can almost smell the wax and
varnish and, despite the grave subject matter, one finds a desire for a return visit. And, of course, the story is marvelously
layered with more details that can be caught in a single pass. Nothing
aside from what has already been mentioned is superfluous, right down to
the metaphor of Father Flynn’s fingernails. But I won’t say any more.tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-51847953202734795572012-04-28T06:00:00.000-05:002012-04-28T10:08:51.856-05:0013 Ghosts (1960 / 2001)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXK9zySaTE3ofWgo0OIupin-1756FLtUrG-WEWQP4Su0dJIFjvqcsRdROdRi4ZbbIGhnHUX2kTmiSI3Z26nIycA2IbiHdJ9MjWZspote7H4lpg5b_2gTzPOBMNFGeBhI7ZYL0xmFq23h-u/s1600/thirteen_ghosts.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="161" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXK9zySaTE3ofWgo0OIupin-1756FLtUrG-WEWQP4Su0dJIFjvqcsRdROdRi4ZbbIGhnHUX2kTmiSI3Z26nIycA2IbiHdJ9MjWZspote7H4lpg5b_2gTzPOBMNFGeBhI7ZYL0xmFq23h-u/s200/thirteen_ghosts.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
There’s not much to say by way of introduction to this pair of films. Both are light and cheesy horror films that are long on spectacle and short on story. The original was produced and directed by the master of B-movie gimmicks, William Castle, while the remake was produced by Dark Castle Entertainment, a production house set up specifically to pay homage to William Castle and to remake his pictures. The original has been a late-night staple for decades now, while the remake is probably regarded more poorly than it deserves. Though vastly different in execution, both are a lot of fun. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I say the films are short on story, but what little exists is somewhat clever. An eccentric old ghost hunter dies and leaves his mansion to his nephew. Having fallen on some hard times, the nephew is all too happy to move his family into the new home. There’s just one problem: the late ghost hunter filled his mansion with twelve captured spirits who can only be seen through special glasses of his own invention. And the ghosts don’t enjoy company much. You may have noticed that I said twelve ghosts while the title of the film is <i>13 Ghosts</i>. Well, let’s just say that the old uncle isn’t as dead as his nephew was led to believe and that he has some plans for his next-of-kin. Not very nice plans, either. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgMIfLBSaDEXa5EcZKAv2Fm079j6COsycUxHUJ9G8dKS74uvECAjHr8uQ1XQ8J7rrEmge7jTlhQGGeKO4HmFD2V8RhW0yrkdIuwkIwaFGfnhaQXlTlyzJ_-cLtOtHn9y1LTHllOwU6_M5g/s1600/13-ghosts-2.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgMIfLBSaDEXa5EcZKAv2Fm079j6COsycUxHUJ9G8dKS74uvECAjHr8uQ1XQ8J7rrEmge7jTlhQGGeKO4HmFD2V8RhW0yrkdIuwkIwaFGfnhaQXlTlyzJ_-cLtOtHn9y1LTHllOwU6_M5g/s320/13-ghosts-2.jpg" width="320" /></a>Of course, the original wouldn’t be a Castle film if it didn’t include some gimmick, in this case “Illusion-O!” I was fortunate enough to come across a DVD that preserves the Illusion-O experience. William Castle explains in an introduction to the film. “When you came in, you were given a special ghost viewer…If you believe in ghosts, you look through the red part of the viewer. If you do not believe in ghosts, you look through the blue part.” <br />
<br />
The way the gimmick works is this: the audience holds up their viewers, comprised of red and blue cellophane filters, whenever the characters on screen put on the special glasses. The ghost effects were filmed separately from the rest of the action and were superimposed over the frame in a blue tint. If the audience member looks through the red filter, the ghost images are enhanced while looking through the blue filter “removes” them. As you might expect, no glasses are truly required to see the ghosts, but I did have fun raising and lowering my viewer between handfuls of popcorn. <br />
<br />
Aside from the gimmick, the film is pretty staid. The musty old mansion looks like the same one from a hundred other fright flicks. The dialogue and action are about what you’d expect from a B-movie of this era. However, fans of <i>The Wizard of Oz</i> (and who isn’t?) will immediately recognize Margaret Hamilton as the housekeeper and members of the “Nick at Nite” crowd might spot Martin Milner, star of<i> Route 66</i> and <i>Adam 12</i>.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJIju0MP8fGB0XvNVogp0xliG0CVVEWCRG8PKIhy1-jcyfiBlAmB9FiJfgACv_QVDucF1L6kFzcVRmYHuemGZx8kjMA9jpmajauIjlKvRxuFWcXbTYDftzD2JvSgSbbaM1rq45iBUgGpJY/s1600/-Thirteen-Ghosts.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJIju0MP8fGB0XvNVogp0xliG0CVVEWCRG8PKIhy1-jcyfiBlAmB9FiJfgACv_QVDucF1L6kFzcVRmYHuemGZx8kjMA9jpmajauIjlKvRxuFWcXbTYDftzD2JvSgSbbaM1rq45iBUgGpJY/s200/-Thirteen-Ghosts.jpg" width="141" /></a>Of course, by 2001 gimmicks didn’t fly so well anymore, so <i>13 Ghosts</i> had to modernize. In the new millennium, CGI effects and gore are all the rage, and the remake offers some dazzlers. Imagine if Rube Goldberg dropped a crapload of acid and then proceeded to build a house made of glass with total disregard for things like building codes, basic safety, or not-cutting-people-in-half. Then imagine that, as he withdrew from the drug, he proceeded to populate the edifice with the cripplingly horrifying manifestations of his flashback hallucinations. Finally, imagine Tony Shalhoub as someone other than Adrian Monk. Now stop imagining and watch the movie. <br />
<br />
There really isn’t much to be said besides that. Oh sure, some folks might be interested to know that Shannon Elizabeth is in it, but her presence is completely offset by Matthew Lillard reprising the role of Matthew Lillard. Also, here’s your chance to use Rah Digga in a sentence. <br />
<br />
So, depending on whether you are in the mood for some old-fashioned camp or some modern-day dazzle, pick either of these films for an enjoyable, if not very memorable night in.tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-67233008901155144402012-04-07T18:00:00.014-05:002012-04-12T09:23:36.158-05:00The Mechanic (1972/2011)<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcJRXXqcdODEUBJd7vzoXkB4ywXXf7lFckkPNkaWtxf-KJuuFxdcnir6XsAyNiQHezJXxNoDZakDWCJpC25SO2iViPjHp7_wpebsMfHpb-GCpYNTFgy8KOx_gE_1f03vk8mbRLQ0L5cQfR/s1600/themechanic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcJRXXqcdODEUBJd7vzoXkB4ywXXf7lFckkPNkaWtxf-KJuuFxdcnir6XsAyNiQHezJXxNoDZakDWCJpC25SO2iViPjHp7_wpebsMfHpb-GCpYNTFgy8KOx_gE_1f03vk8mbRLQ0L5cQfR/s200/themechanic.jpg" width="160" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A different take on auto repair</td></tr>
</tbody></table><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIfHGUOefY-WvqtMmo2fGH4bt0qSONSusUqCgbYZ3JEGvqweJOH5XIEFb0AlR9ZxofF8jcEmYubgRxjIXOrwMLPIEwQohzcO7nRbHuu7sycdFfHmcxd72qFu1BqEnDruhleFDLKG6HLOf5/s1600/spoiler-alert.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a>Charles Bronson. Jason Statham. Two paragons of badassery. Both actors are well known for playing brooding, tight-lipped anti-heroes who operate with calculating and ruthless efficiency. It almost seems too convenient that both should play the title character in <i>The Mechanic</i> so we might compare them so directly. But to be fair, the movies and the actors need to be judged separately.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>The Plot</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUHyHEfRr4Bi6BjGb1UzsR6N82WWsi4qZix1BaNtqm2kh7sG4ZbRDyMkjMNTUaIS50zrv8DTwZZP0IabGlugRUYWQduQwnAD9riTbBzv2rM1fgGryTiHDFzOAeEXhUCGs-xvR1jDSHYk0w/s1600/Mechanic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUHyHEfRr4Bi6BjGb1UzsR6N82WWsi4qZix1BaNtqm2kh7sG4ZbRDyMkjMNTUaIS50zrv8DTwZZP0IabGlugRUYWQduQwnAD9riTbBzv2rM1fgGryTiHDFzOAeEXhUCGs-xvR1jDSHYk0w/s200/Mechanic.jpg" width="130" /></a>Arthur Bishop (Bronson/Statham) is a “mechanic,” a hitman who specializes in jobs that need to look natural. He is assigned to kill Harry McKenna (Keenan Wynn/Donald Sutherland), his company contact and friend. He dutifully carries out the job. At Harry’s funeral, Bishop meets his son Steve and they strike up a friendship of sorts. Steve doesn’t know about Bishop’s involvement in his father’s death and Bishop takes on Steve as an apprentice. Steve’s first job goes down messy and draws the attention of their boss. To make amends, they are offered a job that must be done quickly. Bishop doesn’t like the prospect of a rush job, but he reluctantly accepts. At this point the two films diverge somewhat…<br />
<br />
In the original, Bishop returns home to tell Steve about the assignment. Instead, he discovers among Steve’s things a dossier on himself similar to the ones made up for other targets. Bishop brings Steve along anyway, but the rush job turns out to be a setup. The two escape and kill off the team of assassins. As the two are preparing to return home, Steve poisons Bishop. As he is dying, Bishop asks if this was because he killed Steve’s father. Steve reveals that he still had no idea. He essentially explains that he wanted to prove himself to be a superior killer than his mentor.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIU27fB9DKBdnQlKmGtkWRHwuR8evNi-M7DDwBh47Rzz1M2uIAjWpOKSdYLr72ybrCgvHOuPuiNkgwRyzIHLDH-ynNt_gkCsAUc0nGgFsYQNCOydmKq_TqjaOfFjOkr0yMfMIRFx9xEHy0/s1600/Mechanic_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIU27fB9DKBdnQlKmGtkWRHwuR8evNi-M7DDwBh47Rzz1M2uIAjWpOKSdYLr72ybrCgvHOuPuiNkgwRyzIHLDH-ynNt_gkCsAUc0nGgFsYQNCOydmKq_TqjaOfFjOkr0yMfMIRFx9xEHy0/s200/Mechanic_poster.jpg" width="135" /></a>In the remake, Bishop and Steve run into complications on the rush job and must shoot their way out. They split up. Bishop encounters another mechanic who was supposedly dead and learns that he had been tricked into killing Harry as part of a cover up. With the secret out, a hit is ordered on Bishop and Steve. While the two are making preparations to take out their boss, Steve discovers his father’s prized gun among Bishop’s things, but keeps it secret. After they kill their boss, Bishop glimpses the gun in Steve’s jacket, but stays silent. They stop to refuel and Steve takes the opportunity to kill Bishop, blowing up the vehicle along with the gas station.<br />
<br />
In both versions, Steve returns to Bishop’s house alone and immediately starts going through his things, making himself at home. Steve climbs into his/Bishop’s car and starts the engine. He then notices a note that in part reads, “Steve, if you're reading this then you're dead!” The car explodes. In the remake only, a security video from the gas station reveals that Bishop escaped just before the gas station exploded. <br />
<br />
<b>Fixing it up</b><br />
<br />
I had always heard that Bronson’s <i>Mechanic</i> was somewhat of a classic, so I was surprised to find it so underwhelming. It suffers from very uneven pacing. Between long, dull photographic studies and equally overextended action sequences, little time is left to actually develop characters or tell a story. Indeed, the film is famous for having no dialogue for the first 16 minutes as Bronson meticulously sets up a hit. The same thing could have been achieved in a third of the time while still telling us everything we needed to know about his carful nature.<br />
<br />
Compare that to Statham’s <i>Mechanic</i>, where he delivers his first hit by hiding at the bottom of a private swimming pool and dragging his target underwater to simulate a drowning. This is achieved in mere moments and, along with his carefully choreographed escape, reveals everything we need to know about his creative and fastidious methods. His character is further developed by having more time to interact with the other players and show that he isn’t simply the killing machine that he is described as.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicpljbtkely1-1betIq2qsh6G0iwqlj8V3ug3bxnV9lJCxYDvMjL0mGyXYso-j2CcktWKhWe1KOkLOq6Fupf2fqyIXWW4rBJMTrbBcy5ZDp8DksFfdUQPvZ21WqPiGKvERZ7m1JFvyumMU/s1600/donald_sutherland.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicpljbtkely1-1betIq2qsh6G0iwqlj8V3ug3bxnV9lJCxYDvMjL0mGyXYso-j2CcktWKhWe1KOkLOq6Fupf2fqyIXWW4rBJMTrbBcy5ZDp8DksFfdUQPvZ21WqPiGKvERZ7m1JFvyumMU/s200/donald_sutherland.jpg" width="133" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Plus, the remake has <br />
Donald Sutherland. Bonus!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>It’s that human side that makes the remake all-around better than the original. Bronson and Statham stack up equally as calculating killers, but only Statham’s <i>Mechanic</i> makes believable the struggle between the isolation of his work and the need for a human connection. To be sure, we’re never really sure <i>why</i> Bronson takes on an apprentice. Is it a sense of guilt? Loyalty to Steve’s father? A need to pass on his knowledge and skills? One can’t be sure, but all these reasons come in to play with Statham’s <i>Mechanic</i>.<br />
<br />
The remake also adds a level of intrigue by reimagining Steve as a much more likable character. Instead of being a haughty rich boy, he is a lovable loser in need of direction. Most of this is scripting, but Foster has a knack for drawing sympathy. Because of this, the audience is left somewhat unsure of who to root for, knowing that in the web of betrayal both of our heroes have betrayed eachother. Both have a cocky streak that proves their ultimate undoing, but it is very dissatisfying that Bronson should be offed by his apprentice when he is supposed to be this world-class hitman. The remake fixes this.<br />
<br />
In spite of its shortcomings, the original <i>Mechanic</i> is a film that was deserving of a remake and all its best parts were preserved. Arthur Bishop is a realistic character and his devotion to planning and preparation grounds even his most daring exploits. Not many points can be doled out for originality in either case, but in spite of criticisms that the films are mere action flicks, both take an interesting look at timeless and universal themes of legacy, loyalty and betrayal. The attempt to do those themes some more justice is what inspires a very worthwhile remake.tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-77689987276534668192012-03-30T18:00:00.012-05:002012-03-30T18:00:02.113-05:00Guest Review: Clash(es) of the Titans (1981-2010)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span class="post-author vcard">by <span class="fn">AndrewPrice</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://commentaramafilms.blogspot.com/" target="_blank"><span class="post-author vcard"><span class="fn">Commentarama Films </span></span></a><span class="post-timestamp"><br />
</span></div><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4p4ma7B6csIgQjVSAGCr4ECy-xoYiQJlp-a2u7gscyLM6RtVJDKUBJkPoQcDhtwbt6C0kTiisaU88tt-mf7tqyGWstJxkaicT8uHhosBwdjTkg_hXL8etRkIAcgUtOMbVwwCyIuoFsrE/s1600/clashtitansposters.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4p4ma7B6csIgQjVSAGCr4ECy-xoYiQJlp-a2u7gscyLM6RtVJDKUBJkPoQcDhtwbt6C0kTiisaU88tt-mf7tqyGWstJxkaicT8uHhosBwdjTkg_hXL8etRkIAcgUtOMbVwwCyIuoFsrE/s200/clashtitansposters.jpg" width="200" /></a>The 1981 version of <i>Clash of the Titans</i> really was an inspired movie. <i>Clash 2010</i> wasn’t. In fact, it stank. And what better way to explain why it stank than to compare the two?<span id="fullpost"><br />
</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: 78%;"><span style="color: #990000;"><i>** spoiler alert **</i> </span></span><br />
<br />
<i>Clash 2010</i> has better production values. Its costumes are more realistic. It has better scenery and thus feels more real than <i>Clash 1981</i>. The supporting actors are better too. Mads Mikkelsen is excellent as Draco, as are Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes as Zeus and Hades. After that, however, things gets sketchy. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtOVe_oXDC02HsXxD9dJC5WO3EfZEEzryX9l08gd41hHcnc0T96TXngqEyAU9ehdfGL-JfTJ4fL5VTHmLmv7BIBrk7KpEeiYI712Y0du0W9s1rUyRIuxgi_n6tNZPzfiqpC2L6X2Btm50/s1600/clashwitches.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtOVe_oXDC02HsXxD9dJC5WO3EfZEEzryX9l08gd41hHcnc0T96TXngqEyAU9ehdfGL-JfTJ4fL5VTHmLmv7BIBrk7KpEeiYI712Y0du0W9s1rUyRIuxgi_n6tNZPzfiqpC2L6X2Btm50/s320/clashwitches.jpg" width="260" /></a></div>Surprisingly, the effects in <i>Clash 1981</i> are better, not in the technical sense, but in the sense of enjoyability. The effects in <i>Clash 1981</i>, done by legendary special effects man Ray Harryhausen, feel more lively and maintain the spirit of mythology which surrounds Ancient Greece. You know these characters when you see them in <i>Clash 1981</i>. By comparison, the effects in <i>Clash 2010</i> are dreary and nondescript -- you’ve seen them in a dozen other recent films and wouldn’t spot them as Ancient Greek creatures. If you were asked to draw or describe the creatures in each movie, you could easily describe the creatures in <i>Clash 1981</i>, but those in <i>Clash 2010</i> would end up just as blurs. And that makes a huge difference in how memorable these films are.<br />
<br />
The lead actors in <i>Clash 1981</i> are better as well. Harry Hamlin portrayed the heroic young Perseus perfectly. He had enthusiasm, brashness, and was clearly captivated by Andromeda, whose life he must save. He also let the character be just naive enough that we could discover the world with him, which pulls the audience in, without making him stupid. Judi Bowker similarly gave Andromeda a regal dignity and a flirtiness in her interactions with Perseus, which made her worth saving.<br />
<br />
By comparison, the lead actors in <i>Clash 2010</i> are crap. Sam Worthington gives his usual lifeless effort. He’s dull and dumb and stiffer than a board. He whines. Even worse, his character is impossible to like. He lacks initiative. He’s not clever. He doesn’t want to be the hero, as he keeps telling us, yet for some reason he just keeps moving right along with the plot. It’s like he just had nothing better to do. He also cares so little about Princess Andromeda that you wonder why he’s bothering to save her.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx3loceo3LkL0AX6sB3NFUsb-7k1eDWj1ZkDD8aYHpHkeogGfsRhlFJuOu0fNM5cj3xcT_3Eo1vYv1HGPfmTp5JEXPBKvWhGNd33Dm_e5EoSilL0Sorofbmgal-VjH728i8KtmSj7uTBQ/s1600/clashlifeless2.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx3loceo3LkL0AX6sB3NFUsb-7k1eDWj1ZkDD8aYHpHkeogGfsRhlFJuOu0fNM5cj3xcT_3Eo1vYv1HGPfmTp5JEXPBKvWhGNd33Dm_e5EoSilL0Sorofbmgal-VjH728i8KtmSj7uTBQ/s320/clashlifeless2.png" width="260" /></a></div>Andromeda is just as bad. She’s played by Alexa Davalos, who you might remember as Olivia Wilde or Emily Blunt or Megan Fox. She’s as lifeless as Worthington and basically just mopes and occupies space. We are given no reason to like her other than her being smarter than the hillbillies around her. Frankly, by the time the mob gets her, it’s really hard to care. Heck, she doesn’t even seem to care.<br />
<br />
But where <i>Clash 2010</i> really falls apart, compared to <i>Clash 1981</i>, is in the substance. <i>Clash 1981</i> may not have been authentic Greek mythology, but it gave you the sense that it was. The characters, the creatures and the gods all acted correctly according to what we know about them from mythology. <i>Clash 2010</i> is too modern to make that claim. Consider the gods. Greek gods were flawed because they had (near)absolute power combined with the worst of human traits. They were petty, vengeful, jealous, vain, deceitful, etc. They were narcissists of the highest order, and Greek mythology crawls with their misdeeds.<br />
<br />
<i>Clash 1981</i> captured this as the story revolves around a series of characters who get caught up in the petty quarrels and sexual trysts of the gods. Indeed, the primary story involves vengeance on the people of Joppa for offending the vanity of the goddess Thetis. These gods lie and cheat and abuse their power to get their way, which is how Greek mythology paints their gods. By comparison, the gods in <i>Clash 2010</i> are a reserved lot. They are mostly caring and largely passive until they are forced to act -- except Hades who has a grudge against Zeus. Indeed, they only punish the city of Argos because the people of Argos declared war on the gods first. In effect, <i>Clash 2010</i> has Christianized the gods, and rather than being a gang of ultra-powerful but petty thugs, Zeus in <i>Clash 2010</i> is more like the Christian God of the Old Testament and Hades is like Satan. In fact, Zeus is so caring that the thrust of his story is Zeus trying to reconcile with his bastard son Perseus. Huh?<br />
<br />
Along similar lines, the people of Argos don’t make any sense either, and this leads to a larger point. They have declared war against the gods, but for no apparent purpose. There is no indication what they hope to achieve, nor is it ever clear if this is a philosophical issue or something else? In other words, is this a declaration of atheism or do they just want to be rid of <i>these</i> gods? At times the story seems to be crawling with atheistic messages, but it always undercuts itself. For example, Perseus whines repeatedly that he has no need of the gods and he’s his own man. Only. . . he’s not. In almost every scene he’s helped by the gods while the writer pretends Perseus “does it himself.” He gets magical gifts. Zeus gives him tokens he will need. The gods send an advisor/guardian angel who tells him everything he needs to know. His strength and fighting skill come from the gods. He is even told that it is his destiny to free man from the gods? Think about the ludicrousness of that statement – the mythical force of destiny has chosen Perseus to free man from mythical forces? So is this film about atheism? Who knows? The film sure doesn’t.<br />
<br />
The problem here is that the writers never bothered to fundamentally understand the nature of the characters. Are these gods or just foreign tyrants? Are the people of Argos declaring atheism or just swapping gods? And if they’re just swapping gods, what are they seeking instead? There’s a big underwear-Gnome-class hole there. Is Perseus a hero or not? Everyone treats him like a hero, yet he achieves nothing on his own -- he is always relying on others to win his fights or tell him the way to go. Etc.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiomYUYtMNvkDfEoU7EwLtYXXPUDpXceuOips2avCxVEd1IIyFA95H3TrYBw7U8c7yKCS0lu-q5ccoyK0J4osG1m3K1BfdNpy6Zj8nlOyqRuXAwJv0RpRcaNG4ru8P-j2H-MDrUfAnhmI/s1600/calibos.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiomYUYtMNvkDfEoU7EwLtYXXPUDpXceuOips2avCxVEd1IIyFA95H3TrYBw7U8c7yKCS0lu-q5ccoyK0J4osG1m3K1BfdNpy6Zj8nlOyqRuXAwJv0RpRcaNG4ru8P-j2H-MDrUfAnhmI/s320/calibos.png" width="260" /></a></div>Even the mythical creatures don’t make sense in <i>Clash 2010</i>. Pegasus, the winged-horse which cannot be tamed, simply comes to Perseus like any other horse -- he doesn’t have to find it or tame it (nor does he really need it). Calibos, the man Zeus twisted into a wretch for killing all the winged-horses except Pegasus and who pines for Andromeda, is now little more than an animal who attacks Perseus because Hades tells him to. The deceptive and cryptic witches are neither deceptive nor cryptic. And Medusa is little more than a tall snake.<br />
<br />
Moreover, the writers keep undercutting the story. Perseus needs to save Andromeda because. . . well? He doesn’t live in Argos and he can leave any time. He doesn’t love Andromeda either -- halfway through the film it is imply he kind of digs the girl the gods sent him (Io). So why is he trying to save Andromeda? And she doesn’t really want to be saved either. So why should we care? In <i>Clash 1981</i>, Perseus loved Andromeda and she really seemed to want to live. That made sense. In <i>Clash 2010</i>, that’s gone.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7Oh9DZicNJc62Wdj-cNVFVuMB0AQEAEgbdMAs_t41wSzB97hVxgd2oz9FZ8MhEgi6PgDnSN2guZUxxTz74553K8qPleQKDKzCMCrQ-Gjij6Id1JNV0EixRf8o5djKCj7Qs0r3yARkvwo/s1600/perseus.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7Oh9DZicNJc62Wdj-cNVFVuMB0AQEAEgbdMAs_t41wSzB97hVxgd2oz9FZ8MhEgi6PgDnSN2guZUxxTz74553K8qPleQKDKzCMCrQ-Gjij6Id1JNV0EixRf8o5djKCj7Qs0r3yARkvwo/s320/perseus.jpg" width="190" /></a></div>They keep undercutting the tension too. For example, <i>Clash 2010</i> tells us Perseus is a poor “everyman” -- a fisherman who’s never even held a sword (what Greek male never held a sword?). But then we’re told he’s the bastard son of Zeus, and he has special powers. And when he picks up a sword for the first time, he proves to be the ultimate swordsman. . . so much for our everyman. Think about what this does to the rest of the film. With Hamlin’s Perseus, you never knew how he would do in any fight. He got gifts from the gods to help him, but he had no extraordinary skills with which to use them. Perseus 2010 does, thus with Worthington, there’s no suspense. He will win every sword fight. Yawn. Similarly, in <i>Clash 1981</i>, Perseus needed to figure out the puzzles himself. In <i>Clash 2010</i>, Perseus is given advisors directly from the gods to make sure he figures it out. Yawn. We’re even told it’s Perseus’s destiny to win the movie. Yawn.<br />
<br />
<i>Clash 2010</i> is the perfect example of what happens when you take all the “things” out of a movie but none of the substance, and then remake the movie using those things. What you get is a truly forgettable, generic film.tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-28722921364481837302012-02-08T07:00:00.007-06:002012-03-30T15:33:50.548-05:00An Apology and a Film Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiENvutnd39wx5XFgNtBSc4fvhU_ztRa54JPxbsVUv_n-Z_IjEg1xhYJngdAeEOtz3RQ3_9SHpnsspsGROCvSvi9bI_kA6w0Azr2u5Yn3q2KwET_npOtptJ0VqGgA5CeptUW0cCDABjWRk/s1600/intimeposter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiENvutnd39wx5XFgNtBSc4fvhU_ztRa54JPxbsVUv_n-Z_IjEg1xhYJngdAeEOtz3RQ3_9SHpnsspsGROCvSvi9bI_kA6w0Azr2u5Yn3q2KwET_npOtptJ0VqGgA5CeptUW0cCDABjWRk/s200/intimeposter.jpg" width="143" /></a></div>January proved to be an unbelievably busy month for me personally, and unfortunately February doesn't propose to be much better. I'll try to get back to doing Remake Reviews on a regular basis soon.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, please check out my guest review/discussion of (warning against) the Andrew Niccol film <i>In Time </i>starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried over at <a href="http://commentaramafilms.blogspot.com/2012/02/guest-review-in-time-2011.html" target="_blank">Commentarama Films</a>. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://commentaramafilms.blogspot.com/2012/02/guest-review-in-time-2011.html" target="_blank" title="go to Commentarama Films">Read more at Commentarama Films »</a>tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-25021642277346627942011-12-23T17:00:00.221-06:002011-12-28T16:38:23.270-06:00The Bishop's / Preacher's Wife (1947 / 1996)<b><span style="font-size: large;">Sometimes angels rush in where fools fear to tread</span></b><br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/The_Bishops_Wife_%28CD%29.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="198" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/The_Bishops_Wife_%28CD%29.gif" width="200" /></a><span style="font-size: small;">Christmas is upon us and that means it's time to gather the family around and bask in television's warm glowing warming glow while all the favorite holiday flicks and specials play. Not very many holiday movies have been remade through the years, but Christmas only comes once a year, so AotR is okay for awhile. I suppose the reason why more Christmas movies don't get remade is because any film good enough to be considered a holiday classic automatically becomes off-limits for reinterpretation, lest the treasured tale be sullied. But a few bold fools have rushed in where angels fear to tread and, appropriately enough, these particular films are about an angel. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>The Story </b></span><br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/ThePreachersWife-movie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/ThePreachersWife-movie.jpg" width="204" /></a><span style="font-size: small;">Dudley in most unlikely fashion is the angel's name. He is sent to earth in answer to Bshp/Rev Henry Brougham/Bigg's prayer for help (the title and name are changed for obvious ethnic reasons). But Dudley is not necessarily here to provide the help Henry was asking for. You see, in obsessing over the needs of his church, Henry has let the needs of his wife, Julia, slip out of mind.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Understandably, Henry is skeptical of Dudley's divine nature, but Dudley inserts himself into the pastor's life anyway as an "assistant"--not a complete falsehood. Everyone else is quite taken with Dudley due to his charm and attractiveness. Of course the catch is, only Henry knows that Dudley is an angel, so he reluctantly goes along with the charade. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Still, Henry continues stubbornly to pour all his energies into the church, leaving Dudley to fill in for him at home, accompanying Julia and their child on all their Christmastime outings. The consequence of this is that Julia starts to develop feelings for Dudley, and vice-versa. This arouses Henry to the trouble he has allowed to brew at home and he immediately resumes his role as husband and father. At this, Dudley turns his attentions to the church, and quite handily wraps everything up in a fashion better than anyone imagined.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">"Feel good" is the appropriate description for both films. And why shouldn't it be? They are Christmas movies after all. The original is light and whimsical with a bit of cinema magic thrown in for spectacle. The remake, while more serious, never gets so heavy as to lose its sense of holiday cheer. These films are about the characters more than anything else, so let's just do a simple head-to-head comparison on that basis.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>Dudley</b></span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNKbQZpjIOxZIdr0DEy3f33Eqfa392lrpnq9LzOgmVXCssV7aVwesnGh2kTQNqELqrobiAz7_AfgJjrmqafPdwsI7wnhkg008x3iN67qFz-9vcE7prmOfpfEG2epgjx_Q7-eHpHMzo572i/s1600/dudley.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNKbQZpjIOxZIdr0DEy3f33Eqfa392lrpnq9LzOgmVXCssV7aVwesnGh2kTQNqELqrobiAz7_AfgJjrmqafPdwsI7wnhkg008x3iN67qFz-9vcE7prmOfpfEG2epgjx_Q7-eHpHMzo572i/s200/dudley.jpg" width="150" /></a><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Dudley is an angel with of a number of very worldly charms. </span>He is handsome, charming, always a hit with the ladies. So it makes sense that he should be cast alternately as Cary Grant and Denzel Washington, both very much charmers in their own right. The original Dudley doesn't come with a backstory, but the newer character tosses out hints about a life before he was taken in his prime, as he puts it. Because of this, it is almost ironic that Washington's Dudley seems possessive of a greater innocence and sincerity. True, both versions are playful and in certain ways naïve, they get excited by snowball fights and pizza. But there is something about the haphazard and nonchalant approach that Washington brings which makes Grant seem almost a lech in comparison. Putting that aside, both men handsomely fill their roles and inspire grins from start to finish. <br />
<br />
<b>Julia </b><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNv9WgpOA_8YFbRSyTFc9BSO37c9hIgrR_hpAHg1zTH0aUKVoGU6ft6Wa7VbmNBIh7WyFxKCQl8Ol79uTPD8_tRtwy3A3GO-H-M0qBxf2zLdAwkp6wtHh3qir-GXNUajK7Fwgy8ectj5Lq/s1600/julia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNv9WgpOA_8YFbRSyTFc9BSO37c9hIgrR_hpAHg1zTH0aUKVoGU6ft6Wa7VbmNBIh7WyFxKCQl8Ol79uTPD8_tRtwy3A3GO-H-M0qBxf2zLdAwkp6wtHh3qir-GXNUajK7Fwgy8ectj5Lq/s200/julia.jpg" width="150" /></a><br />
It seems a bit odd, but in the original film the titular character doesn't seem much like a main character. I suppose in a strict literary sense, she isn't. It is her husband, Henry, who faces the catharsis in both versions. But in the original, she seems like little more than a plot device rather than a driver of anything. To be sure, Loretta Young is beautiful in the role, matching Grant's grace and charm in all their shared scenes. But at the end of the film, one isn't left with much besides that. It certainly is no comparison to the role filled by Whitney Houston. In some ways, the remake was a vehicle for her singing, though the story stands up well besides. Unlike her black-and-white counterpart, Houston's Julia is deeply involved in the church, leading the choir and shouldering a sizable chunk of its burdens as well.<br />
<br />
Additionally, Houston's portrayal enjoys some character growth that Young's does not. While Young is charming and sweet from the first frame she appears in to the last, Houston give us a range of emotions that a stressed pastor's wife might actually experience. (To be fair, the original Henry and Julia had a cook and a maid whereas the newer couple have only visiting grandmother for the holidays.) And while the onus is clearly on Henry to make the greatest changes, Houston's Julia finds opportunity to soften her demeanor, as well.<br />
<br />
<b>Henry</b><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjftl4YaNl-Kq5eh416141mxoGDEzdwUNOcLeg3qQh4d28Gub8WT7JkcGzAaB5b5LIzqv1aOcb2Vi5SzYKCbSTQ1T420eDTFZZPT0v6YHiiXfBd2JinEQB4iUbjgEz24131gfa2XiHr6zvH/s1600/henry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjftl4YaNl-Kq5eh416141mxoGDEzdwUNOcLeg3qQh4d28Gub8WT7JkcGzAaB5b5LIzqv1aOcb2Vi5SzYKCbSTQ1T420eDTFZZPT0v6YHiiXfBd2JinEQB4iUbjgEz24131gfa2XiHr6zvH/s200/henry.jpg" width="150" /></a><br />
Henry is sort of the reason for the story, so he really can't change much from version to version. That and there are only so many ways to play the emotion of "harried." Through no fault of his acting, but rather some poor scripting decisions, David Niven is rather less sympathetic than Courtney B. Vance. This is because, while the latter is the preacher for a struggling inner-city congregation just trying to keep the boiler working one more winter, the former is set up in a parish mansion and his stress stems from trying to raise funds for an elaborate and seemingly needless cathedral. I know we all have our problems, but Niven's somehow seem less "righteous" in the comparison. <br />
<br />
<b>Everybody Else</b><br />
<br />
In actuality, there is nobody else to compare. Besides the three main characters the cast is entirely different. Even the couple's child changes from daughter to son. Oddly, this doesn't affect the story all that much, but it allows each film to shine in different ways.<br />
<br />
One gem from the original is the character of <b> </b>Professor Wutheridge played by Monty Woolley. Throughout the film, the Bishop is prevented from revealing Dudley's true identity, but in the end he finds himself able to do so to the Professor. This holds some irony as the Professor is a confirmed atheist, only his encounter with Dudley leaves him open-minded.<br />
<br />
While no counterpart for the Professor exists in the remake, it is the child son of the preacher that shares Dudley's secret. A nice addition to the remake is that the child provides some simple bookend narration revealing he is the only one who remembers Dudley at all in retrospect. It also sets a bright and innocent tone to a movie that actually takes some rather dark turns but turns out all right in the end. <br />
<br />
<b>A Couple of Misses</b><br />
<br />
<i>The Bishop's / Preacher's Wife</i> really functions best as a story about people, which is probably why the original was a feel-good classic worth the remake. So it makes sense that the few places where the films fall down are actually outside of the characters.<br />
<br />
In the original, I would have to criticize most of the effects sequences where Dudley uses his heavenly powers to magically complete a task. Except for one point involving a precisely pitched snowball, they are gaudy and unnecessary. We've already established that Dudley is an angel and quite an endearing fellow to-boot. The effects sequences only offer distraction from the story being told.<br />
<br />
In the remake, the magic tricks are all but eliminated except for a couple instances of comic effect. Instead, the fall-down moment is when Whitney Houston conveniently has to fill in for Mary in the children's Christmas pageant. It was just an awkward moment that screams, "buy the soundtrack to this movie." Incidentally, that soundtrack remains the best-selling gospel album of all time to this day. <br />
<br />
<b>Final Thoughts</b><br />
<br />
Of all the remakes I've seen, and I'm including all those not yet reviewed on this site, this is probably one of the most faithful retellings I've ever seen while still making bold departures from the original. I honestly cannot recommend one over the other on any grounds. I'm not sure how much care was taken to make the original as charming and memorable as it clearly is, but remake demonstrates utmost respect for that legacy while finding its own place.In simpler terms, each is a perfectly enjoyable film in its own right while just happening to tell the same story as the other. Both renditions rightfully and independently deserve to stand as Christmas classics.<br />
<br />
<i style="color: #990000;"><b>Y<span style="color: #274e13;">u</span>l<span style="color: #274e13;">e</span>t<span style="color: #274e13;">i</span>d<span style="color: #274e13;">e</span> <span style="color: #274e13;">T</span>r<span style="color: #274e13;">i</span>v<span style="color: #274e13;">i</span>a<span style="color: #274e13;">:</span> </b></i><i>Karolyn Grimes, more famously known as Zuzu Bailey, also played Debby Brougham, the Bishop's daughter in the 1947 film. </i>tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-82811902611019057012011-12-16T16:19:00.002-06:002012-03-30T15:33:50.550-05:00It’s a Wonderful(ly Capitalist) Life(!)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBfJ6bPhw1VKYzyM6dJUoetQwp5tO8h-K1OqBLVa7xhwXqIxCDBeTRgfpLQjpkMtIBhEgaZU4EuICnSUFwsWwXdURpxSs5K5AR38vlLBJBTdiboFOjRiEc_W4JOLFDMZYlDD2Ficf4zBk/s1600/itswonderfullifeposter.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBfJ6bPhw1VKYzyM6dJUoetQwp5tO8h-K1OqBLVa7xhwXqIxCDBeTRgfpLQjpkMtIBhEgaZU4EuICnSUFwsWwXdURpxSs5K5AR38vlLBJBTdiboFOjRiEc_W4JOLFDMZYlDD2Ficf4zBk/s200/itswonderfullifeposter.jpg" width="134" /></a></div><span style="font-size: small;">I have a guest article over at <a href="http://commentaramafilms.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Commentarama Films</a> examining the conservative message behind the Frank Capra classic <i>It's a Wonderful Life</i>. Here's a taste:</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-size: small;">"<span id="fullpost"><i>It’s a Wonderful Life</i> praises a far more substantial vision of free-enterprise than its detractors seem to apprehend. Besides that, the film is also a tribute to family, a salute to Americanism, an homage to goodwill, and an ode to traditional values all wrapped up in a beautiful golden-age Hollywood Christmas card."</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://commentaramafilms.blogspot.com/2011/12/its-wonderfully-capitalist-life.html" target="_blank" title="<i>Conan the Barbarian</i> (1982 / 2011)">Read more at Commentarama Films »</a></span>tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-45192172290576671222011-11-30T23:41:00.020-06:002011-12-21T16:58:00.780-06:00Conan the Barbarian (1982 / 2011)<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Let me tell you of the days of high adventure.</b></span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmClQ9UqC-eD2oRF74rGPSBdGTp24gzDvZDJo4E85CHSEhNnn99fd1Xk7fLqnK1pBNBf-0ssRxrsp98ASlOnI06w0Kx0mbdmaaPVSKDaUhobj6nW0HrrkZPRw7s2KmxmmWWjEyWc35uZMJ/s1600/Conan9.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmClQ9UqC-eD2oRF74rGPSBdGTp24gzDvZDJo4E85CHSEhNnn99fd1Xk7fLqnK1pBNBf-0ssRxrsp98ASlOnI06w0Kx0mbdmaaPVSKDaUhobj6nW0HrrkZPRw7s2KmxmmWWjEyWc35uZMJ/s200/Conan9.png" width="179" /></a><span style="font-size: small;">Wow, I almost let the entire month of November slip by without posting a review. (That’s if I can get this posted before midnight.) Clearly I picked the wrong time of year to start this blog. No matter. Let’s get back to it, shall we?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">I didn’t know that a remake of <i>Conan the Barbarian</i> had even been done until I saw a display for the DVD in the store. That made me realize that I had never seen the original film, despite it being considered an iconic movie of the ‘80s. So, with a twinge of guilt over my neglected fledgling blog, I did the only sensible thing I could think of: I hit the Redbox® and hoped that the original was available for instant viewing on Netflix®. It was my lucky day.</span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Though quite divergent from one another in most respects, the two <i>Conan </i>films tell approximately the same story. Conan is born into a warrior tribe called the Cimmerians. While still a boy, a band of marauders massacres his village while young Conan survives. Jump ahead several years and Conan is a full-grown warrior on a revenge quest to find and kill the man responsible for his people’s slaughter.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3g9e8ZRGfUH5kNrBg7-gIfxH37KPXw4rQUw3pLwQlkB1j82riFMpObhc1u1G7ChLR4QtPlf4GNLz4yjxdzCV2SssONadoK7vzScjQ7pGgQs8P7vEO34l9gfCgrDW00-pmLIePh87wWksO/s1600/Conan_the_Barbarian_by_Renato_Casaro.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3g9e8ZRGfUH5kNrBg7-gIfxH37KPXw4rQUw3pLwQlkB1j82riFMpObhc1u1G7ChLR4QtPlf4GNLz4yjxdzCV2SssONadoK7vzScjQ7pGgQs8P7vEO34l9gfCgrDW00-pmLIePh87wWksO/s200/Conan_the_Barbarian_by_Renato_Casaro.jpg" width="140" /></a><span style="font-size: small;">The most noteworthy thing about the original film is that Arnold Schwarzenegger effectively launched his career playing the titular character. That singular fact has proven enough to overshadow everything else about the film, so much so that I had not known James Earl Jones played the villain, Thulsa Doom. I would expect that such an overshadowing would not bode well for any film, but it turns out that I really was missing something by not seeing <i>Conan </i>sooner.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Taking in the credits, this isn’t much of a surprise, <i>Conan </i>was directed and co-written by John Milius. The entire dialogue of the film could probably fit on a bar napkin, making it a perfect vehicle for Milius’ style of writing memorable one-liners and equally pointed monologues.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Though the dialogue is scant, the script is far from it. It moves briskly from scene to scene pulling the viewer along in a way that feels as though one is breathlessly chasing Conan to keep up with the tale. Not a single scene is superfluous, though their relevance is not always immediately apparent. (Okay, Arnold punching a camel was probably unnecessary, but also hilarious.) This adventure flick holds the viewer’s attention not just by spectacle, but also by being truly captivating.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">To be sure, Schwarzenegger’s performance is expectedly campy. What is unexpected is the same level of camp from Jones, not that it isn’t excellent camp. Remember that bar napkin? Well, Jones got two-thirds of it and it is comprised of some of the most spectacularly campy monologues ever written. In fact, all of the acting is campy. But this serves the film quite well; all of the characters are believable because they play on the same level and the picture never takes itself too seriously.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">However, campy does not mean cheap. This film had a budget which shows and shows well. The film’s magnificent scenery, loads of extras and horses, elaborate sets, sweeping score, and careful animated effects easily set it apart from other fantasy adventures of the same era. The whole thing may be dated looking, but it is a spectacle of truly epic proportions.</span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN9_z35Ova5lYVzi6yRY72USENaPbbc8iCalT_Mwr9IOIyhdzmkYzh2vL39AOp-JTTHeBjl3RAHsC15DkElbHtCqAasYRT8NZO9Ug-GjWp9qP8hF_YdBW0Yvg1skZjH3vZ4lsePfykfWfS/s1600/Conan_the_Barbarian_%25282011_film%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN9_z35Ova5lYVzi6yRY72USENaPbbc8iCalT_Mwr9IOIyhdzmkYzh2vL39AOp-JTTHeBjl3RAHsC15DkElbHtCqAasYRT8NZO9Ug-GjWp9qP8hF_YdBW0Yvg1skZjH3vZ4lsePfykfWfS/s200/Conan_the_Barbarian_%25282011_film%2529.jpg" width="134" /></a><span style="font-size: small;">If all that sounds like a lot to live up to, it is, as the remake proves. The desire to remake <i>Conan the Barbarian </i>is obvious: it was an epic spectacle that had faded with time and the chance to update it with modern production abilities was irresistible. The hardest part of remaking Conan should have only been finding a suitable player for the lead. And that is the remake’s only major failing.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">In the original film, Schwarzenegger is the most physically dominating figure on the screen at any time. Not so with Jason Momoa who, though muscular, is a slight figure and is dwarfed by several other characters. This is an odd choice for a film that purports to have gone back to the source material. A little Wikipedia time informed me that Robert E. Howard’s creation is indeed meant to be the most powerful and imposing man of all. Casting Momoa as Conan strikes me as a little too modern to be believable.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The character of Conan gets some modernization from the script, as well. In addition to being a barbarian, the original Conan is a thief, a brawler, and a slayer who’s only redeeming quality is his discipline which is turned toward swordplay and revenge. The new Conan, not content to be merely an anti-hero, has a penchant for randomly freeing slaves and a rainbow coalition of buddies—you know, so you can tell he’s the good guy.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Conan isn’t the only character to get a modernization; female lead does too. In the original, Conan’s lover Valeria (Sandahl Bergman) is a valkyrian warrior and thief in her own right. In the remake, Tamara (Rachel Nichols) is a sheltered monk who, in typical empowered female fashion, demands her equality with barbaric men who manhandle her all the same. This wouldn’t seem so absurd if it weren’t for her counterpart, the witch Marique (Rose McGowan) who stands equal to the males in terms of martial prowess and she has magical powers to-boot!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Stephen Lang as Khalar Zym is satisfying as the villain, but he otherwise left such a slight impression that I’m at a loss to say anything else.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The absolute befuddlement of the remake is the casting of Morgan Freeman to narrate. The narrator for the original (Mako) just seemed right. Freeman’s voice, however, simply doesn’t fit the film. He may be the best narrator ever, but that doesn’t mean he can narrate just anything.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Where the new <i>Conan </i>takes the lead from the old is in the department of visual effects, as it rightly should. The original did not slouch at all in this department, but nothing available in the ‘80s is an adequate match to modern CGI. An early scene involving molten metal dripping on people (I assume it wasn’t real) was done so well that I didn’t think about it being an effect until later. However, the big effects scenes all felt stolen. The scene with the sand warriors smacks heavily of The Mummy Returns (2001) and the tentacle monster felt like a poor-man’s Kraken. The big final battle taking place over a gaping chasm seems so unbelievable that it is yawn inducing.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Now, maybe I am an overly nice guy, but I must finish by saying that <i>Conan the Barbarian</i> is a prime example of the hazards of remaking a film. The original is so highly revered that even a great remake would have probably attracted much negative criticism. However, in comparing the new film to the reviews it has received, I think it has suffered lower marks that it would have as an original film. In the end, both movies are simple revenge flicks that are long on spectacle but short on story. It’s hard to hold one above the other based on that. </span>tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-89975600331915297372011-10-31T05:30:00.002-05:002011-12-21T16:57:06.047-06:00Seven Deadly Draculas<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbEDfZonjo5_n8ZVAW2WHoj4a-hXcIFBkbcxlzqWlfIq8G3GEYnmk8Ir_kfZWIAG-zHREKbpesJqRqXOAS22inOvXy3zL5bLEhwAcUq4FovdJM47YTOgVGbybo342slIIY2JDzY0o69SDC/s1600/SSK200.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbEDfZonjo5_n8ZVAW2WHoj4a-hXcIFBkbcxlzqWlfIq8G3GEYnmk8Ir_kfZWIAG-zHREKbpesJqRqXOAS22inOvXy3zL5bLEhwAcUq4FovdJM47YTOgVGbybo342slIIY2JDzY0o69SDC/s1600/SSK200.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Do you think this is sexy? <br />
Well what's wrong with you?</td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="font-size: large;"><b>A Halloween FilmFest!</b></span><br />
<br />
It’s Halloween! A perfect time for remakes since the horror genre is replete with remakes. To celebrate the occasion, I figured what could be better than to examine not only one of the most remade films of all time, but one of the most iconic figures in horror cinema: <i>Dracula</i>.<br />
<br />
There have been practically countless films made <i>about</i> Dracula, but I wanted to focus only on theatrical releases based on the original Bram Stoker novel. You know, to narrow it down a bit. Well, that still left me with seven films. Yes, seven. But what could be more appropriate considering there are the same number of Deadly Sins?<br />
<br />
While the variance between the movies is rather great, I must say I was pleasantly surprised to find that there was not one bad picture in the bunch. I thought for sure at least one would be a slog, but I actually found each film rather engaging, albeit in different ways. It seems that Stoker’s original text is only to be approached with respect. Perhaps the fear of nosferatu inspires it.<br />
<br />
However, I don’t want to lavish unyielding praise, either. Each film has its shortcomings as well as its strengths. So, I thought it would be fun to assign to each of the films one of the Seven Deadliest Sins. Shall we?<br />
<br />
<i>Note: this article assumes at least a passing knowledge of the source material, Bram Stoker’s novel <i>Dracula</i>, and thus will not provide a synopsis as other articles do. Thus, any discussion of the films’ deviations from the source is written as if understood. For a quick synopsis, <a href="http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/dracula/summary.html" target="_blank">click here</a>. Also, one might simply assume that Dracula dies at the end of each of these films. That would be wrong.</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw87Jlw7S3E3UZ-hU_hAiKhTqbXOboqi3hDYAOVnJxzaf1DdrKA8QTAg2FPEqxbedbehVIvoC7ebSxVTwGNRaWYx7mfeHKP0x12An5WbuvwOZMn4VT0c78rWZpDzf8gGrkJYaInoLGO5Wm/s1600/Nosferatuposter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw87Jlw7S3E3UZ-hU_hAiKhTqbXOboqi3hDYAOVnJxzaf1DdrKA8QTAg2FPEqxbedbehVIvoC7ebSxVTwGNRaWYx7mfeHKP0x12An5WbuvwOZMn4VT0c78rWZpDzf8gGrkJYaInoLGO5Wm/s200/Nosferatuposter.jpg" width="140" /></a></div><b><i>Nosferatu</i> (1922)</b> – This, the first film adaptation of Stoker’s novel, decisively set the standard for all future Dracula films. Done in the German Expressionist style by director F.W. Murnau, the style would become customary for nearly all horror cinema to come.<br />
<br />
The film was an unauthorized adaptation and many details were changed to circumvent obtaining the rights to the novel. The most striking deviation is the appearance of the Count. Described and generally depicted as dashing and handsome, this first appearance of the Count portrayed him as wan and ghoulish with bat-like features and gruesome claws. Max Schreck, who portrays the Count, was known for portraying grotesque characters, and here it is easy to see why. Setting aside the costume and makeup, Schreck’s gait and movement are alone disturbing. <br />
<br />
It’s fun to see the skillful treatment given to those shots that were then unprecedented but are now so iconic they are duplicated in countless films since: Nosferatu rising from his coffin as though on hinged heels; the low-angle shot of him menacing with great glaring eyes aboard the schooner; the bent shadow ascending the staircase with no Count in sight. Cinematically, <i>Nosferatu</i> holds up very well for a silent-era film and in spite of the technical limitations of the time.<br />
<br />
<i>Deadliest Sin:</i> <b>GREED</b> I think it is almost unjust to apply any of the sins to the film that influenced if not inspired all the rest of the films on this list. However, because the source material was stolen, <i>Nosferatu</i> commits the sin of Greed most prominently.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ3iB0XJVul1ENE2nT9UmGKusE6Xgly12dhlzZUpTwZUzvH018IKOxZtq7VUX7ScOLpq8qqcsKq4g5xGISooc0c-o-90JpswcPvHUn7xT0rcfRjH1Angj3vP6cR9jrCtESy7E7EUj_vAWw/s1600/Dracula1931poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ3iB0XJVul1ENE2nT9UmGKusE6Xgly12dhlzZUpTwZUzvH018IKOxZtq7VUX7ScOLpq8qqcsKq4g5xGISooc0c-o-90JpswcPvHUn7xT0rcfRjH1Angj3vP6cR9jrCtESy7E7EUj_vAWw/s200/Dracula1931poster.jpg" width="128" /></a></div><b><i>Dracula</i> (1931)</b> – Here is the film that launched Béla Lugosi’s screen career and, along with <i>Frankenstein</i>, cemented Universal as the premier studio of the horror genre for the next three decades. Iconic doesn’t even begin to describe this film. While some of the visuals are clearly inspired by <i>Nosferatu</i>, such as Lugosi’s contorted hands, this version has, in its own right influenced not just portrayals of Count Dracula, but most vampire movies. Lugosi is quite literally the original suave, sophisticated film vampire, from his slicked back hair to his patent leather shoes. Lugosi’s Hungarian accent was his own, but it, too, became an affectation of countless players to follow.<br />
<br />
Lugosi’s performance may overshadow the other players in this film, but Edward Van Sloan should not go overlooked for his portrayal of Van Helsing. Their combined efforts make a simple scene wherein Van Helsing resists the Count’s attempt at hypnosis unbearably tense and electrifying, in spite of there being no score, no effects, nothing but facial expressions and scant dialogue to carry it off. So, too, should Dwight Frye be acknowledged as a most outlandish Renfield.<br />
<br />
While more faithful to the source material, this <i>Dracula</i> still deviates quite a bit. A typical treatment is to combining characters and events, and that is what is done here.<br />
<br />
<i>Deadliest Sin:</i> <b>PRIDE</b> This one was very difficult to assign, but after thinking it over, it seems to me that early filmmakers (like filmmakers today) underestimate their audiences. While I understand some of the reasons for simplifying the script, I think they were made condescendingly.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiSsqY8ace1NdiLAsoTn64fxSvWc_Abven5Mc56Mk-BQWgCpXASITWknzK7yICGSwzvKm4nhkhL-FX3rKI7xx5ZMgp4BVd2cini8IRxbnUFefGUZ3CuxezLUK4iQJzZxa5B2bGQX_e_yFD/s1600/Dracula1958poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiSsqY8ace1NdiLAsoTn64fxSvWc_Abven5Mc56Mk-BQWgCpXASITWknzK7yICGSwzvKm4nhkhL-FX3rKI7xx5ZMgp4BVd2cini8IRxbnUFefGUZ3CuxezLUK4iQJzZxa5B2bGQX_e_yFD/s200/Dracula1958poster.jpg" width="136" /></a></div><b><i>Horror of Dracula</i> (1958)</b> – The first thing one notices about this version is that it is in Technicolor, in the most vibrant sense of the word. It is quite a beautiful movie and, after the initial shock wears off, one easily settles into the story, thought it may not be quite as vibrant as the filmstock.<br />
<br />
This version marks the first in the series of Hammer Studios’ foray into the horror genre which included many subsequent pairings of Peter Cushing as Van Helsing and Christopher Lee as Dracula. I can only assume that this was because the two had a good chemistry, because their interactions were quite minimal in this film. In fact, Dracula is somewhat of a minor role.<br />
<br />
Though this is a decent <i>Dracula</i> film overall, the deviations left more of an impression than anything. Instead of a solicitor, Harker is a fellow vampire hunter to Van Helsing. And he dies right very early. This version also portrays the least powerful Dracula of any of the films. Dracula does change into a wolf or bat and his powers seem limited to hypnosis prolonged life.<br />
<br />
<i>Deadliest Sin:</i> <b>SLOTH</b> This version simplified the story more than any of the others and culled the cast of characters to the point of omitting Renfield altogether. Also, the musical score was distracting and seemed to be used to drive the tone of the movie rather than having it come through dialogue and action. For both of these reasons, this film is guiltiest of Sloth.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPkeA3acdq79MgR5_zhyphenhyphenVP5uJTVIT39xEfjYQ-lOps_I-RE_eOGAWdGlQVKi9kVVlLhgdSRYCA6WdokMwwyHK-0xNHAXn4eF3v_AAMbOouYXxoufk9LqlSahSV3V8R5BjL7Vl2fj1oKuke/s1600/Condedracula.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPkeA3acdq79MgR5_zhyphenhyphenVP5uJTVIT39xEfjYQ-lOps_I-RE_eOGAWdGlQVKi9kVVlLhgdSRYCA6WdokMwwyHK-0xNHAXn4eF3v_AAMbOouYXxoufk9LqlSahSV3V8R5BjL7Vl2fj1oKuke/s200/Condedracula.jpg" width="133" /></a></div><b><i> Count Dracula</i> (1970)</b> – If you ever wanted to invent a drinking game to go along with a Dracula movie (and be honest, who hasn’t?), this is the one to pick. There are so many zooms to close-up in this film, they start to get funny in the first twenty minutes. If I weren’t trying to stay coherent through seven films, I’d be on the floor instead.<br />
<br />
This film has Christopher Lee reprising his role as Dracula and, I think, doing a much better job. Of course, doing a ton of other Dracula movies for Hammer Films probably honed the role a bit. To be fair all around, Lee had a stronger script to work with this time as this version draws much nearer to the source material than any film before it. It is the first to show Dracula as an old man at first, growing younger as he takes victims and the first to include all three of his brides. (I don’t know that his handlebar mustache comes from the novel, though.)<br />
<br />
It also takes a cue from the Lugosi version and turns the music off quite a bit, letting silence and ambient sound build tension. This is smart because the movie’s theme is rather repetitive.<br />
<br />
A new interpretation is that of a brooding and quiet Renfield portrayed by Klaus Kinsky who would later go on to portray Nosferatu in a later film.<br />
<br />
<i>Deadliest Sin:</i> <b>GLUTTONY</b> Okay, so nothing in this particular film really qualifies as Gluttonous. Well, nothing but Christopher Lee himself. You see, by the time he joined this independent project, Lee had already done four Dracula films for Hammer. Then he went back and did four more. He only <i>started</i> to get worried about typecasting after shooting <i>Dracula AD 1972</i> but did one more film before he quit.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAvzQ94dyUGuGbHHflYx_FTGt0VaYd0oSmCJI4Cu1TmwMv3tzE8g1lPt2bh4pRN2kNMi0ztpIUjQ_sSZ7wrOb7F_V1uWuu_-Lk7j0h4z7C7uzQuOMG9DSU4GB6ErKE18vSV7MxaMC7vVI9/s1600/Dracula_ver2_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAvzQ94dyUGuGbHHflYx_FTGt0VaYd0oSmCJI4Cu1TmwMv3tzE8g1lPt2bh4pRN2kNMi0ztpIUjQ_sSZ7wrOb7F_V1uWuu_-Lk7j0h4z7C7uzQuOMG9DSU4GB6ErKE18vSV7MxaMC7vVI9/s200/Dracula_ver2_poster.jpg" width="145" /></a></div><b><i> Dracula</i> (1979)</b> – Two Dracula films were released in 1979, and both are probably more closely remakes than anything preceding them. This version, starring Frank Langella as Count Dracula, was released by Universal, the same studio that produced the Lugosi version. Like the Lugosi version, this one draws inspiration from the stage play as well as the novel. That may explain Lucy’s and Mina’s names being reversed, but changes to the characters relationships may be just as accountable.<br />
<br />
While the major plot points are mostly true to the source material, the characters themselves are largely altered, more so than any other version. The Count, while striking and suave, has lost much of his overt spookiness. Alone, that might be negligible, but Lucy (in the role of Mina) is much more aggressive. Rather than being seduced by Dracula, she might actually be the one seducing him. Other character changes have Mina as Van Helsing’s daughter. When she dies, the normally detached man of science, here portrayed by Laurence Olivier, becomes entangled and emotional.<br />
<br />
Aesthetically, the film is beautiful. The colors are muted so that the scenes seem to slip between color and black and white, combining modern and classic moods. John Williams provides the score, which fits seamlessly into the film—the only score I can truly give that praise to. The pacing is a bit off, seeming rushed at first, then lulling in the middle, but finishing at a nice jog.<br />
<br />
<i>Deadliest Sin:</i> <b>WRATH</b> That might seem like I am running out of deadly sins (which I am) but it does fit. Several things about this version could make one think it was trying to tread over the Lugosi version. I don’t think that every Dracula must have a Romanian accent, but Langella gave the count no sense of foreignness whatsoever. Also, several classic lines (like “I never drink…wine”) were kept but delivered as throw-away conversation rather than nuanced entendres. And while I normally don’t object to tweaking the characters, it is a bit much tweak the whole lineup, especially such a familiar one. I assign Wrath because this film does violence to the original that it could have just as easily built upon.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx0EIiWO4wtbzNhF5gZIhJonf_CDBI1V9iqE2uicoVg8pBak-UGy9PboDZ6YB3L5_JLDAkm9ReveY-sasCIkOm0HZCUqF9W5fgs1hDCS7BLGTUlVidfCwxKPoAJLp25VOrhdu6LsgxjoZk/s1600/Nosferatu_Phantom_der_Nacht.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx0EIiWO4wtbzNhF5gZIhJonf_CDBI1V9iqE2uicoVg8pBak-UGy9PboDZ6YB3L5_JLDAkm9ReveY-sasCIkOm0HZCUqF9W5fgs1hDCS7BLGTUlVidfCwxKPoAJLp25VOrhdu6LsgxjoZk/s200/Nosferatu_Phantom_der_Nacht.jpg" width="140" /></a></div><b><i> Nosferatu the Vampire</i> (1979)</b> – Here is the other remake from 1979, but this is intended as a remake to the 1922 silent German film. It is an interesting concept to build upon the things that set Murnau’s film apart from <i>Dracula</i> rather than those that make it similar. The pacing of this version was a bit slower than other, but it felt right for this film. Of all the Dracula films, this is probably the one I enjoyed most. Just a quick aside, Lucy and Mina are reversed in this film, too.<br />
<br />
So much of this film is striking, from the beautiful mountain landscapes to the darkly majestic musical score; the detailed costumes to the only usage of live bats among all the films. The roles of Lucy and Mina are always played by attractive young ladies, but I daresay this film has the most beautiful Lucy of them all. The ghoulish appearance of Nosferatu is preserved, and is all the more ghastly in color and in better quality. But the most fearful aspect of the Count is his soft spoken manner and melancholy demeanor. Not at all what one expects from such a creature, and it makes it all the more startling when he lashes out.<br />
<br />
<i>Deadliest Sin:</i> <b>ENVY</b> This actually doesn’t apply to the film, but to all the other films. While certainly any film can be picked apart for its flaws, this gem is so wonderful that I was simply taken into it and rendered incapable of criticism. Bear in mind, I watched five Dracula films just before this, so I was been primed to criticize. But this film disarmed me and for that reason, all the others ought to be Envious of it.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIDgSH8taiu8Qf2YMS9y_4AkdjbnTFEFL3R9hxS4DTFSsfk3RuL5k1abd0hs_FLdzCUpgbgnyXcRobwJKIaOckQ87rGhIlFR-Zq0-TPa9fGFTjHQCOeBxdOIETm0yVY7gaXRfxTqOYfb0v/s1600/Dracpos.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIDgSH8taiu8Qf2YMS9y_4AkdjbnTFEFL3R9hxS4DTFSsfk3RuL5k1abd0hs_FLdzCUpgbgnyXcRobwJKIaOckQ87rGhIlFR-Zq0-TPa9fGFTjHQCOeBxdOIETm0yVY7gaXRfxTqOYfb0v/s200/Dracpos.jpg" width="140" /></a></div><b><i> Bram Stoker’s Dracula</i> (1993)</b> – Directed by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, and Keanu Reeves performing a script more true to the original novel than anything preceding it, this film <i>should</i> have been nonpareil. Instead, we get a film that, while dazzling, is marred by flaws which cannot be ignored.<br />
<br />
Coppola does not disappoint in his sense of aesthetic, and from that standpoint, this may be his masterpiece. The effects, the lighting, the editing, all combine to establish a refined society precariously perched on the brink of madness. At least, I assume he meant to do that. The film very nearly keeps the viewer locked in a state of tension throughout by cleverly keeping things disjointed, rather than cheaply threatening a pop-scare at any minute. Performances on the parts of Oldman as Dracula and Hopkins as Van Helsing go far to contribute to that tension. Sadie Frost as Lucy, in my opinion, logs a terrific performance, in spite of a forthcoming criticism.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, there is much in the film to break that tension. Reeves put the worst British accent to film in cinema history. Ryder, normally strong in macabre roles, logs a merely passable performance. And then there are just some bad decisions. Like Vlad’s red muscle armor. What? Or the Count’s bouffant. Huh? Or Carey Elwes. Okay, that might just be me.<br />
<br />
<i>Deadliest Sin:</i> <b>LUST</b> What can I say? This version has all the gratuitous sex that the others tastefully left out. That isn’t to say that the others were bereft of sexuality—quite the contrary—but they engaged it in much the way the novel had. This film just writhes and bears its breasts.<br />
<br />
So, there you have it. Seven Deadly Dracula films in one installment of Attack of the Remake. If any of these versions are new to you, I definitely recommend seeing them. Or revisit the ones that you have seen. And have a happy and safe Halloween!<br />
<br />
<b>BONUS ATTACK!</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjItDmv6yMo95XdGfA1P_Z1uZDX_1KuMPaP4c8mhYPvxsN8Gl5fqnkZul8VxrUjpUlWrmjaUOyzRGLXEs2tzaR5yfgkR2afMG03MkK02Y-a8sZmCgQp2zPQzS_8r65cH3C5v6ESeifkDyLV/s1600/Drac_dead_and_loving_it.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjItDmv6yMo95XdGfA1P_Z1uZDX_1KuMPaP4c8mhYPvxsN8Gl5fqnkZul8VxrUjpUlWrmjaUOyzRGLXEs2tzaR5yfgkR2afMG03MkK02Y-a8sZmCgQp2zPQzS_8r65cH3C5v6ESeifkDyLV/s200/Drac_dead_and_loving_it.jpg" width="135" /></a></div><b><i>Dracula: Dead and Loving It!</i> (1995)</b> – Why include a parody on a list of remakes? Well, in spite of being a spoof, this Mel Brooks comedy is very faithful to the source material, better than some of the others on this list. All the characters are there, all the situations are followed, even key dialogue is spoken, just in a funny way.<br />
<br />
Story-wise, the film follows the Lugosi version most closely, but many of the jokes and gags are at the expense of the Coppola film. Probably owing to nothing more than Leslie Nielsen in the title role, this happens to be the only film where Count Dracula remains old throughout the film. Peter MacNicol, channeling Frye's performance, probably makes for a better Renfield than any serious attempt. Of course, Brooks inserts himself into the film, here as none other than a most outlandish–and incompetent–Van Helsing.<br />
<br />
Not every joke might hit, and in fact, many of them are just corny (Yes, we have Nosferatu! We have Nosferatu, today!) but that is the charm of any Brooks treatment. Hey, they're called "yuks" for a reason!tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-56390382305152011052011-10-27T22:23:00.018-05:002011-10-28T01:48:36.286-05:00Let the Right One In (2008) / Let Me In (2010)<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Some relationships can suck the life right out of you.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7ia_Nf9MiHzxkGLhliLRxiP5tyLF20C6_takv8nmb0Hei5Yl3NgoJF7GuPsTOws3bWmqSPZsoKjSNo1JHYLKXfuYEYGo1EQaKcu9LpV9BajX9ePEC2HhxPZ-hrnP2lBCgn7WfNcaia06E/s1600/the-temple-of-death-in-padang-tegal_vampire-children.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="155" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7ia_Nf9MiHzxkGLhliLRxiP5tyLF20C6_takv8nmb0Hei5Yl3NgoJF7GuPsTOws3bWmqSPZsoKjSNo1JHYLKXfuYEYGo1EQaKcu9LpV9BajX9ePEC2HhxPZ-hrnP2lBCgn7WfNcaia06E/s200/the-temple-of-death-in-padang-tegal_vampire-children.jpg" width="200" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Vampire children have always been freaky</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="font-size: small;">Though generally billed as horror, the story told in <i>Let the Right One In / Let Me In</i> is really a genre buster. This story about a loner boy and his relationship with the vampire next door has horror, romance, nostalgia, and coming-of-age all rolled into one.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Unlike so many import films, the American version is extremely similar to the Swedish original. Both films are based off of the Swedish best-selling novel <i>Låt den rätte komma in</i> and were both produced with extensive input from the author, which might account for their similarity. In fact, the differences that are there have so little impact on the central story that just discussing them will make them seem more drastic than they are. But, hey, that is what we are here for...</span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: small;">Most of the changes made in the remake simply make it more accessible to American audiences. The story is transported from a Stockholm suburb to Los Alamos. The names are swapped for ones without umlauts. The greatest alteration is changing the main pursuant of the vampire—the Van Helsing, if you will—from a lone vigilante figure to a police detective. To my American sensibilities, this lends the overall tale greater believability. As to how the story is told, each film is blatant in ways the other is not, and likewise, each is subtle about different things.</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">From my perspective, the difference in cinematography was a bigger change than anything done to the story. Most European cinema outside of Britain and France strikes me as a bit of a throwback to when cameras were kept still, cuts were minimal, and shots were either wide or tight—period. Conversely, the American version makes use of more perspective shots and varying angles cut together at intervals of only a few seconds. Both films are shot so artfully, I hesitate to name a better, but I must admit greater comfort with the American style. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2zHsJ2BMBpTHCCrkMQXavhfSmdSNOO4h8oZGTuZrlpYDlPX-0Oxjc_2NYfBHgMFBe9po8hu-Z2uyfXLoc_Cm4dwFw_uVcFkafY1CijEpflakfuOCl_uKiWcB0D7PwYa_YUW93tftdNGVo/s1600/Let_the_Right_One_In_%2528Swedish%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2zHsJ2BMBpTHCCrkMQXavhfSmdSNOO4h8oZGTuZrlpYDlPX-0Oxjc_2NYfBHgMFBe9po8hu-Z2uyfXLoc_Cm4dwFw_uVcFkafY1CijEpflakfuOCl_uKiWcB0D7PwYa_YUW93tftdNGVo/s200/Let_the_Right_One_In_%2528Swedish%2529.jpg" width="139" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="sv"><span class="hps">Talar du svenska?</span></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="font-size: small;">The biggest change, surprisingly, came from the way the two leads were portrayed. The original vampire, Eli (Lina Leandersson), was kept rather androgynous, even dubbing the girl’s dialogue with the voice of an adult woman (Elif Ceylan). Her appearance is dark and brooding and, well, very much what one might expect in a vampire. The remake’s vampire, Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz), on the other hand is decidedly feminine, blonde, and entirely unassuming as a creature of the night. To that end, her being a vampire is much more shocking.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The boys were cast more similarly, the biggest difference being the original’s Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) is blonde and the remake’s Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is dark. However, there is something about the portrayal of Oskar that made me want to side with the bullies from time-to-time. Owen was a more sympathetic character.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Incidentally, one very important setting to both films is a jungle-gym in the courtyard of the apartment complex where the boy and girl live. I happen to think the Swedish film has a cooler-looking jungle gym. Scandinavian design: what more can I say?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">At the heart of both films is a budding friendship between two lonely souls: a boy who lives in the limbo created by his parents’ divorce and is the target of bullies and a girl with enough secrets to have mastered evasion at an age too young. Of course, we the audience know early on that the girl is a vampire. Their mutual condition as outsiders is the basis of their bond.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The thing I love most about these films is the way they challenge archetypes. While this is certainly not a novel deed, it is the heart of their shared story. (To that end, I will simply refer to the characters by their type, rather than use names.) The young girl, a symbol of innocence and life, is actually a harbinger of death and maybe even the corruptor of souls. But she is also a mentor to the boy, encouraging him to stand up to his tormentors and ultimately promising to be his protector. The American version smashes us over the head to suggest an archetypal relationship between the pair by having <i>Romeo and Juliet</i> as one of the boy’s class assignments, but this too is disrupted as both characters continue beyond the credits. Of course, an unaging child vampire presents its own challenges to the coming of age narrative. And in the end, the boy seems to retain the fullness of his childish idealism in spite of all that transpires before then.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Some critics have been quick to point out the areas in which one or both films uphold certain archetypes, and are all too eager to call them clichés. There is the single mother, the distant father, the bully who is victim to a greater bully, the lone vigilante/detective , even the foreigner gym teacher. All play their parts as expected. For my part, I find them to be the necessary links to reality which make this fantasy tale more engaging.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS2bGWQuHrNNxb6l8fES-iieNiI4ksmNUUd3TXBe38VtnvYDvlY5axuckbfQFPgFO8BH0t_9ZO1zzlMGIpTRcZlDElKaSXCgt-FNR0qL8qs5qNy2n_3jcu8nRf_E0SFBkVGUyuLFsLPjjj/s1600/Let_Me_In_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS2bGWQuHrNNxb6l8fES-iieNiI4ksmNUUd3TXBe38VtnvYDvlY5axuckbfQFPgFO8BH0t_9ZO1zzlMGIpTRcZlDElKaSXCgt-FNR0qL8qs5qNy2n_3jcu8nRf_E0SFBkVGUyuLFsLPjjj/s200/Let_Me_In_Poster.jpg" width="134" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="sv"><span class="hps">Nej</span><span class="">, jag behöver</span> <span class="hps">inte</span></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="font-size: small;">Perhaps more important than the rest of these archetypes, however, is the loyal guardian: the man who would seem to be the girl’s father. In actuality, he is an assistant of sorts, going out to kill and gather blood on her behalf. His devotion to the girl is absolute and he is jealous of her new friend. Was he once like the boy? Moreover, he is old and tired and he makes mistakes. After failing in his duties once too many, his final act is one of poignant self-sacrifice.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Naturally, as the story unfolds, the boy discovers that his friend is a vampire. I applaud the manner in which both films handle vampires as a matter of fact. There is no feigning a world where vampires are totally unheard of, nor is there any grappling with the idea that a thing of legend has sprung into reality. The girl is a vampire, and that is that.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">At nearly the same time as the boy discovers his friend’s true nature, the detective/vigilante is closing in. This sets the stage for the first part of the story’s double climax. Here is where I think distinctions between the two films become more important.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">In both films, the vigilante/detective character intrudes upon the girl as she sleeps during the daytime. In both she is saved because the boy creates enough distraction for her to attack her would-be attacker. In the original, as the girl is subduing her attacker, the boy quickly shuts the door and runs off. But in the remake, the boy stares down at the baffled victim as he gasps for help before slowly, calculatingly closing the door. I like the second treatment better because it gives the boy a moment of catharsis to overcome, and we get to see the decision made. In the original, this catharsis must take place off camera.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The second climax comes after the girl has supposedly fled town. The bullies corner the boy at the school swimming pool. While the eldest bully is holding the boy’s head underwater, the girl comes and saves him by dispatching the tormentors. The original was a stroke of cinematic beauty. If the terms “massacre” and “understated” ever belonged in the same sentence, it is here. The remake, however, showed a much more brutal scene and frankly seemed uninspired.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The final scene shows the boy on a train seated beside a large box. The girl taps from inside the box and the boy taps back. While each film certainly alludes to the idea that the boy is stepping into the shoes of the guardian that preceded him, it somehow isn’t until this moment in both that it really hits home. The jarring realization that the story has happened countless times before and it will happen countless times again is tale setting itself up successfully as an archetype of its own. </span>tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-16437200225389811372011-10-15T02:01:00.000-05:002011-10-28T16:09:27.228-05:00Carnival of Souls (1962 / 1998)<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Keep your hands and arms in at all times. </b></span></div><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1SitF-sOvCB08991tA_QJPZ_eCsVSJceG026vWo2UD1ib2BOHAAcJ7v9h8xO9yJow1LJYveWoRir-aNpUakJEvx8chogXnLoZAFd3BpVepz73IheckwTzSA6kZKgQjvDAp2PyZa12k_oc/s1600/blog-carnival-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1SitF-sOvCB08991tA_QJPZ_eCsVSJceG026vWo2UD1ib2BOHAAcJ7v9h8xO9yJow1LJYveWoRir-aNpUakJEvx8chogXnLoZAFd3BpVepz73IheckwTzSA6kZKgQjvDAp2PyZa12k_oc/s200/blog-carnival-poster.jpg" width="156" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Step right up!"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Perhaps I should start this article with a warning: both of these films are available through Netflix for instant viewing. Subscribers to the service will understand what that means. <br />
<br />
Not that the original 1962 film is all that bad for an independent B-film. The story-line is a bit confusing, but it is well acted, tightly paced, and visually appealing. According to my research, the film enjoys a bit of a cult status because, like George Romero’s <i>Night of the Living Dead</i>, the copyright was left off of the final print, sending it instantly into the public domain, thus freeing it for decades of late-night television viewing. <br />
<br />
I wish I could say such nice things about the 1998 remake, but not even tacking "Wes Craven presents" onto the title could raise this flop. The acting is stilted, the directing is bland, and the script treatment would make "Lifetime presents" a more appropriate billing header. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The original <i>Carnival of Souls</i> stars the little-know Candice Hilligoss (IMDb lists only one other film role) as Mary Henry, a young woman who mysteriously survives a crash where her car drove into a river. Mary is a professional organist, and talented, but her demeanor is cold and aloof. It is suggested that this is different from the way she behaved before her accident.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBMa6QxopeSE58g9X2-3MUxxwEf4FEodq0JiE8VeNNv401vAAhF5tMNxcnPlDrBWWHsx5JzBjLT3ipIfn0MgcfWgoTuQDYYOSNEWwObFYbQjlRGR8r45Z0XWpuukRoiGvKMGfURm7vOyjX/s1600/CarnivalOfSoulsBox.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBMa6QxopeSE58g9X2-3MUxxwEf4FEodq0JiE8VeNNv401vAAhF5tMNxcnPlDrBWWHsx5JzBjLT3ipIfn0MgcfWgoTuQDYYOSNEWwObFYbQjlRGR8r45Z0XWpuukRoiGvKMGfURm7vOyjX/s200/CarnivalOfSoulsBox.jpg" width="137" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Moody, artsy, intriguing.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Mary takes a job at a church in Salt Lake City. Once there, she finds herself haunted by the appearance of ghoulish apparitions. She experiences spells where no one seems able to see or hear her—or is she dreaming? She becomes obsessed with an abandoned carnival pavilion outside of town. When practicing the organ, Mary slips into a trance where she sees visions of ghostly dancers at the pavilion, all the while playing a haunting, discordant melody.<br />
<br />
In the end, Mary returns to the pavilion which has drawn her since her arrival. The ghouls are there, and they pursue her. The next day a single set of foot prints are found in the sand leading away from the pavilion, ending abruptly in the middle of the beach. Back at the river, the car is being towed out—with Mary’s body inside. <br />
<br />
The ending is a bit of a rug-puller, the twist isn’t logically foreshadowed and the fact that Mary was dead the whole time raises a lot of unanswerable questions. <br />
<br />
None of this is to say that the film's cult status isn’t entirely deserved. The real star of the film is the stylish directing by Herk Harvey. Visually, <i>Carnival</i> is two films. One is sparse and ordinary, the other is stylish and moody. For the most part, the switches occur in sync with what is going on in the film, though at times it seems a bit haphazard. In a couple of important scenes, Harvey makes beautiful use of a pipe organ as a subject for the camera. The other star of the film is the score performed appropriately on organ. Its eerie sounds and haunting melodies heighten the mood of the film. Even if the script is a bit puzzling, the cinematic qualities of the film do make it noteworthy. <br />
<br />
But if the original film was confusing, the remake just feels like a rip-off. In spite of being a remake, the newer film bears little resemblance to the original aside from the reveal at the end. <br />
<br />
Honestly, the remake is so bad, I can’t even bear to write a full synopsis. All you really need to know is that as a child, Alex Grant witnessed a carnival clown rape and murder her mother. Yes, you read that right: clown rape. As an adult, Alex (Bobbie Phillips) is haunted by visions of the killer. Oh, and if there was a lack of carnival in the original, the remake more than makes up for that. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuVvZhc1oJEogRuRIaQg3TPMFmESt-CLSJaEOYE7wm9DlamqIekXm5olZgXziBB4FkK18YL09dXY5PLReLLV0XsrYndOeukfoCPBZkn5zYeSJ9xYBhZUAsHysbA8eJew8ziJs9Ny4mYyXz/s1600/el_carnaval_de_las_almas_1998.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuVvZhc1oJEogRuRIaQg3TPMFmESt-CLSJaEOYE7wm9DlamqIekXm5olZgXziBB4FkK18YL09dXY5PLReLLV0XsrYndOeukfoCPBZkn5zYeSJ9xYBhZUAsHysbA8eJew8ziJs9Ny4mYyXz/s200/el_carnaval_de_las_almas_1998.jpg" width="141" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pennywise called. He <br />
wants his balloons back.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>A major problem comes from the fact that the film’s villain, played by Larry Miller, logs in a better performance than the heroine. I’m not sure what Miller could be considered most recognized for, but he is an instantly recognizable character actor with a fair body work behind him. As for Phillips, let’s just say that her work is not the body she is most recognized for. <br />
<br />
Worse than that, the new <i>Carnival</i> seems to be trying to capture the essence of creepy clowns <i>a la</i> Stephen King’s <i>IT</i>, but it fails miserably. Personally, I draw the line at faceless monsters that have nothing to do with story in any way conceivable. That is apparently where I part ways with the producers. <br />
<br />
I wish I could say that the new <i>Carnival</i> has one saving grace, but even where it should, it doesn’t. In the original, the reveal at the end is a head-scratcher. In the new one, the end is unambiguous, but it makes you feel like you wasted 90 minutes of your life. Here, Alex has clearly died at the beginning, and the whole film was her prolonged dying hallucination. As was popularly said in the late 90’s, “been there, done that.”tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-74970994639874265242011-10-10T23:23:00.000-05:002011-12-21T16:57:06.049-06:00Fun with Dick and Jane (1977 / 2005)<div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">George and Jane verses Jim and Téa </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz7Qk-bJayOm4q7g9Y37Dp86PnZfV9xK2SdkpGwsQuBDS9qWdsC164lS57u9B01VlTkdm6pRx8688uFWit-SmuZ9cerExkdjT9Wj_wEXhEsVcWUCMdo1WZm5I3G0Tif6TuSSCroCW247to/s1600/fun+with+dick+and+jane+book.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz7Qk-bJayOm4q7g9Y37Dp86PnZfV9xK2SdkpGwsQuBDS9qWdsC164lS57u9B01VlTkdm6pRx8688uFWit-SmuZ9cerExkdjT9Wj_wEXhEsVcWUCMdo1WZm5I3G0Tif6TuSSCroCW247to/s200/fun+with+dick+and+jane+book.jpg" width="138" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Life sucks," says Dick.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>From 1930 until the early 1970s, Dick and Jane and their friends helped first graders learn to read in classrooms all across America. These films have precisely nothing to do with that. This writer is too young to have ever laid eyes on the once ubiquitous children’s primer, but doubts that they tackled such issues as joblessness, armed robbery, and corporate corruption. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The remake is an update more than anything and so it doesn’t depart much from the original. The basic story is that Dick and Jane Harper (George Segal and Jane Fonda in the 1977 version; Jim Carrey and Téa Leoni in 2005) are a couple on the fast-track to success. Things take a turn for the worse when Dick loses his job and, despite months of searching and frugal living, he is unable to find new employment. Faced with mounting debt and desperation, the couple eventually resorts to a life of crime to pay the bills. Hilarity ensues.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">That the films differ at all is mostly because each is a product of its time. In 1977, Dick is a high-level aerospace engineer who is fired as the industry is collapsing. In 2000 (the year in which the 2005 film is set), Dick is promoted to VP of Communication for his company literally days before it folds <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">à</i><i><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span>la</i> Enron. In 1977, Jane is a stay-at-home mother. In 2000, Jane is a travel agent pining for what her ’77 counterpart had. In 1977, son Billy and Spot the dog are just kinda there. In 2000, Billy speaks Spanish thanks to the housekeeper and Spot wears a shock collar.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC9vZZGECm9idmrIUBTkGHdJjPGjcJUy_dEBrr3Oa3Mw864M-eWcggKXvXegejMOX6yRbbDJkkBWf-9L67GMvAc7hXbk_iSHJGOqeE30_NzYB5m12Uq5sJwaO4GcghbXBCpOjTIOSpE2bs/s1600/Fun_With_Dick_And_Jane+DVD+George_Segal+Jane_Fonda.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC9vZZGECm9idmrIUBTkGHdJjPGjcJUy_dEBrr3Oa3Mw864M-eWcggKXvXegejMOX6yRbbDJkkBWf-9L67GMvAc7hXbk_iSHJGOqeE30_NzYB5m12Uq5sJwaO4GcghbXBCpOjTIOSpE2bs/s200/Fun_With_Dick_And_Jane+DVD+George_Segal+Jane_Fonda.jpg" width="135" /></a>Rather than save it for the end of the review, I’m just going to come out and say that the remake, while not first-rate comedy, is far more humorous than the original. Of course, some of this owes to the fact that Carey plays his part with his usual verve while Segal plays all his punch lines straight. Surprisingly though, Carey is pretty restrained for most of the film. His antics are limited to the heist scenes, and even then they aren’t out of control. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKRSJJEFET0oHPgIq6sNqhyrrEAa9kZn4dQQxZCd7VxKSiX0L6dIHrtqzGSQPzmorof8Dn9wgr-nhd2AWzMe7zANrAd0W9gWwAAODZo4gbMAQpgsB-kzhWl3CjbWeY-aX0ldGn9tvibSN9/s1600/1214419822_1215122490.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a>Part of what puts the 2005 version ahead of the 1977 film is better pacing. It may be my modern sensibilities taking over, but both films get to the part when Dick and Jane decide to go on a hold-up spree around the 45 minute mark. Even so, the original version feels like it takes a lot longer to get there. Some of this has to do with how each Dick and Jane react to their troubled situation. In the original film, most of the action and humor for the first half center on Dick’s ill-fated attempts to navigate the unemployment bureaucracy. The remake displaces this with the couple hocking their possessions, even downgrading their Beemer to the worst hatchback imaginable. Both situations are ripe for humor, but the new version makes better use of its situation.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKRSJJEFET0oHPgIq6sNqhyrrEAa9kZn4dQQxZCd7VxKSiX0L6dIHrtqzGSQPzmorof8Dn9wgr-nhd2AWzMe7zANrAd0W9gWwAAODZo4gbMAQpgsB-kzhWl3CjbWeY-aX0ldGn9tvibSN9/s1600/1214419822_1215122490.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKRSJJEFET0oHPgIq6sNqhyrrEAa9kZn4dQQxZCd7VxKSiX0L6dIHrtqzGSQPzmorof8Dn9wgr-nhd2AWzMe7zANrAd0W9gWwAAODZo4gbMAQpgsB-kzhWl3CjbWeY-aX0ldGn9tvibSN9/s200/1214419822_1215122490.jpg" width="138" /></a>In addition, the remake retained many of the best bits from the original and stepped them up. In one early scene from both films, landscapers arrive to repossess the lawn, rolling up the sod while Jane flaps about pretending she is ordering it removed for the benefit of the neighbors. In the new version Jane quips, “<span class="st">I didn't </span><i><span style="font-style: normal;">know they could do that</span></i><span class="st">!” Both films have Dick joining up with Mexican day-laborers only to have a run-in with immigration. And later, when the couple is going out on heists, they don various strange costumes. You can bet that the new costumes outdo the old ones. That Jane takes a more active role in addressing the family’s struggles in the remake only provides further opportunities for humor. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Besides the comedy, one thing that lifted the remake above the original for me was a different relationship between Dick and Jane. Much of the humor of the original comes from Segal and Fonda constantly snarking at each other. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><pre style="margin-left: .5in; tab-stops: .5in;">JANE: The only jobs you consider me qualified for are secretary and hooker.</pre><pre style="margin-left: .5in; tab-stops: .5in;">DICK: You're not qualified to be a secretary.</pre><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Conversely, Carey and Leoni present a couple that is entirely supportive of each other even at the grimmest point of the film. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><pre style="margin-left: .5in; tab-stops: .5in;">DICK: There's always prostitution. </pre><pre style="margin-left: 0.5in;">(JANE gives him a stern look.)</pre><pre style="margin-left: .5in; tab-stops: .5in;">DICK: I meant me!</pre><div class="MsoNormal"><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I realize that on paper, the original joke is funnier. But in context, both are delivered with utter sincerity giving the first gag a cringe worthy edge and the second one a goofiness which pulls an involuntary smile. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Of course, both pairs are very loving when the money is rolling in. And like in all good heist movies, eventually the pair decides to pull off one last big job before retiring. I won’t get into comparing the two, but I will say they are vastly different and that they both give Dick’s jerk boss (Ed McMahon, 1977; Alec Baldwin, 2005) an appropriate comeuppance. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">To close, a penis joke from each film.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">1977</div><pre style="margin-left: .5in; tab-stops: .5in;">JANE: (referring to the gun in Dick’s waistband) You realize if that thing </pre><pre style="margin-left: 0.5in;">goes off, you'll be going on this robbery half-cocked.</pre><pre style="tab-stops: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;">2005</span></pre><pre style="margin-left: .5in; tab-stops: .5in;">(both speaking suggestively)</pre><pre style="margin-left: .5in; tab-stops: .5in;">JANE: I am married to a genius.
</pre><pre style="margin-left: .5in; tab-stops: .5in;">DICK: It's a turn-on, isn't it?
</pre><pre style="margin-left: .5in; tab-stops: .5in;">JANE: You're a criminal. </pre><pre style="margin-left: .5in; tab-stops: .5in;">DICK: I'm a hardened criminal.</pre><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div></div>tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930578700054137798.post-57417090974939082372011-10-06T23:31:00.001-05:002011-10-10T23:30:11.092-05:00COMING SOON!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtBZIS-dqQuSDsrV3UUpjUU5m5MY8D0jbpHPcv3Loa7VmM8O2bYA_uDIQzsQ9AaALvGOEw9ITtiKblSBnhVvgp8ghawb_1BofqAQYCfjMckSmrFbw2HL9jisuZn0FkGael0_EukKmK_nq8/s1600/coming-soon.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtBZIS-dqQuSDsrV3UUpjUU5m5MY8D0jbpHPcv3Loa7VmM8O2bYA_uDIQzsQ9AaALvGOEw9ITtiKblSBnhVvgp8ghawb_1BofqAQYCfjMckSmrFbw2HL9jisuZn0FkGael0_EukKmK_nq8/s1600/coming-soon.png" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div><a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">UPDATE: (10/10/11)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeOT9k0SSlL51YkikY-lwjZoAUYgRJRKBE7a8__9dnuDXo1X3IcXGwtXl-1iHSD3Ph2fQt3-abhJDcMeV1YBTDPuTh6L-TCrPUTJcDTWn7yfijcOg9mTxu36kOr7RZ4Np1NVKuVr-SM_aM/s1600/2989330176_850c556dc8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeOT9k0SSlL51YkikY-lwjZoAUYgRJRKBE7a8__9dnuDXo1X3IcXGwtXl-1iHSD3Ph2fQt3-abhJDcMeV1YBTDPuTh6L-TCrPUTJcDTWn7yfijcOg9mTxu36kOr7RZ4Np1NVKuVr-SM_aM/s400/2989330176_850c556dc8.jpg" width="357" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-10WPeR1KbAk/TpMcOalhCVI/AAAAAAAAAJw/5-CPhG8GFEE/s1600/AotR.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div>tryanmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com0