Category: Film Page 94 of 101

The Films that Need Critics

I mentioned this several months ago, following…I think , but here is another reminder from the Guardian. The films that get the most coverage by critics are the big Hollywood blockbusters, which would get coverage ANYWAY because of the studio publicity machines. I mean, nobody really needs critics to tell them that Spider-Man 3 is coming out this summer, right? And is a review really going to influence your decision to see it, whether the review is positive or negative? For some fence-sitters, yeah, maybe, but most everyone already knows whether or not they’re the sort of person that’s going to like the third installment of a superhero franchise. Critics would be put to better use highlighting smaller films that might otherwise be missed in the mainstream rush. Not that I’m saying this would make an overnight difference in the audience split between mainstream and indie/foreign film, but even increasing awareness for alternative films would be a help. Plus, wouldn’t it make the critics a lot happier to get to lead with films they actually like and want to see do well than yet another big Hollywood blockbuster? (I’m not against Hollywood blockbusters, but I do get bored with their ubiquity.)

One of the commenters on the Guardian piece does bring up an interesting point, though, that critics get SO excited about the little films sometimes (because they’re different or innovative in a way that Hollywood usually isn’t) that they overhype them too much and thus audiences who do seek out these films are disappointed. I’ve been there, too. It’s a balancing act.

Tom Hanks is Bond. James Bond.

Dude, this is an awesome trailer mash-up. The voice-over’s a bit weak, and you kind of have to pretend that Tom Hanks looks the same age in all the clips, but wow. Of course, the idea of Hanks being Bond scared me for a second…

I couldn’t catch all the clips, because most of them are from older Hanks films that I haven’t seen, but it has twenty different films represented. TWENTY. That’s an enormous amount of work. Hat tip Trailer Mash.

Awards and Pan’s Labyrinth and Children of Men

Jeffrey M. Anderson on the Golden Globes. Among other things.

This is an old post (twelve days is really old in blog-world), but I had it marked in my feedreader to mention and I’m just getting around to going through some of those. I mentioned in my brief, ranty Golden Globes post that I was surprised by Babel‘s win. Anderson wasn’t, particularly, because as he accurately identifies, it’s an award darling. It’s calculated for awards, in a way that, say, Pan’s Labyrinth is not. Now, I still haven’t seen Babel, so I’ll let Anderson speak to the specifics, but you can see the difference in the trailers. Babel is Important with a capital “I,” while Pan’s Labyrinth is ethereal and mysterious. Anyway, the point is, as Anderson indicates, it’s become distressingly easy to bait the awards, and the same thing happens at the Oscars, except usually more so.

The Oscar nominations for Best Picture are Babel, The Departed, Letters from Iwo Jima (which I also haven’t seen, but at least it isn’t nominated in the Foreign Language category this time–another thing Anderson rants about the Globes, just as I did), Little Miss Sunshine, and The Queen. Of the three I’ve seen, I’d pick The Departed, though the other two are good as well. But Babel has A Message, so it may very likely win. However, I’d put both Children of Men (although I wasn’t as enamored of it as some) and Pan’s Labyrinth above all of them, and Volver above many. The fact that Volver wasn’t even nominated in the foreign category stymies me. Pan’s Labyrinth better win it.

Because honestly, Pan’s Labyrinth was one of the most beautiful, most moving, most gorgeous, most heartbreaking, most everything films I’ve seen in a long time. It takes place during the Spanish Civil War (also the setting of director Del Toro’s excellent The Devil’s Backbone), and in fact, the “realistic” sections dealing with the war take up substantially more screen time than the “fantastic” parts, despite what the trailer might lead you to believe. The main character, Ofelia, moves with her mother to a military outpost when her mother marries a captain there (her father is long dead); her mother is very pregnant. The captain is a brutish man, only interested in having a son to carry on his name, and focused on routing the rebels up in the hills above the camp. Hating him, Ofelia’s only escape is into a fairy world, where she may be a long-lost princess–if only she can carry out the three tasks that the faun Pan gives her. But the fairy world isn’t a safe retreat; it’s just as dangerous and scary as the real world. But it’s a world where she has a place, where she has a role and a purpose–unlike the real world, where her step-father would just as soon she disappear entirely. Is there a message? Well, yes. The importance of self-sacrifice and doing the right thing, even when it’s dangerous. But the message is woven into the action of the story; you have to tease out the meaning yourself, as you sit in the theatre and quietly cry while the credits roll. Or maybe that was just me.

The thing is, award-winning films hit you over the head with their messages. That’s probably why Children of Men didn’t get anywhere in the awards, either, despite being critically acclaimed from nearly all quarters. I’m hard-pressed to come up with a single, pithy message in the film. Love people? Care about them? Do all you can to help them? Fight against despair? Oppose fascist governments? The thing that made Children of Men great for me wasn’t WHAT it said, but the WAY it portrayed the world of the not-very-distant future. The care in the set design. The perfect camera set-ups. It was able to show the complete devastation of a world thrown into terror and confusion because of a plague with an unknown cause that led to worldwide sterility, without ever needing any of the characters to describe what was going on. It’s one of the most perfectly designed films I’ve ever, ever seen. But “perfectly designed” doesn’t hit as hard with the awards people as “Has a Really Obvious and Laudable Message.”

I should really stop ranting about awards. Everything I write about awards turns into a rant. I should just resign myself to the fact that awards are dumb and rarely get it right and just go on about my business of watching good films. So ignore the rant portions of this post and take to heart my advice to see Children of Men and especially Pan’s Labyrinth if you can. Do note both are violent, so don’t take the kids.

“The Ruin” (Old English) film

I came across this short film in a blog by an Anglo-Saxon scholar, the Unlocked Wordhoard. It’s a 6-minute adaptation of an Old English elegiac poem, “The Ruin,” done by some students at the University of Oxford. I hadn’t read the poem before (Old English and modern English text here), but it’s hauntingly beautiful. The film is done in Old English with modern English subtitles, and the language is beautiful too. Maybe someday I’ll learn it. But that day may be a ways away. Anyway. My favorite thing about the film is how it applies the poem’s description of a ruined Anglo-Saxon mead-hall to an early industrial-age cement factory…good literature resonates throughout the ages, doesn’t it?

Netflix Rules

So Netflix doesn’t have a set-top box yet for downloading rented movies and playing them on your TV screen, but this is the next best thing. They’ve started rolling out a WatchNow feature, where subscribers can watch movies on their computers. That is, the movies stream, you have full fast-forward and rewind capability, and no commercials. You’re limited to a certain number of viewing hours (18 if you’re on the 3-at-a-time plan), but it goes strictly by time–that is, if you watch five minutes of a movie and decide not to watch any more, you’re only down five minutes, not the full length of the movie. They’ve got 1,000 movies in the program so far–compare to iTunes’ 250 movies available for download–plus some TV shows.

DID I MENTION THIS IS FREE FOR SUBSCRIBERS? In other words, if you’re already a subscriber, you pay nothing extra for this. You continue to get your three or four or however many DVDs a month by mail, PLUS you can watch these streaming movies for 18 or so hours, depending on your plan. I have four-at-a-time DVDs. Add 18 hours of streaming which I calculate to be roughly 9 movies a month. Extra. Free. Immediate.

Granted, they’re not full downloads. Granted, you can’t watch them on your TV (unless you have a PC-to-TV connection). But it’s still a heckuvalot better than anything else out there, especially if you’re already a Netflix subscriber. It’s only out to a limited number of people right now (not me, *pout*), but they’re supposed to release it to everyone by June of this year.

See a screencast of it at Hacking Netflix.

Page 94 of 101

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén