Sunday, April 14, 2013

MTV Movie Award Winner Predictions

In order to predict these awards I have to think like a tween, so here it goes!

Best Film
The Avengers
Django Unchained
The Dark Knight Rises
Silver Linings Playbook
Ted

In a year without Twilight, like a year without a Santa Clause MTV will finally pick a "good" film to win this award.  Odds are that the biggest hit of the year Avengers will probably win here, but look out this is anyone's game!  I think the two films, which should not be under estimated are Ted and Django. Dark Knight was not beloved, Playbook appeals more to women (probably the larger voting block) so that could change things here.

My Prediction: The Avengers
Spoilers: Ted and Silver Linings Playbook

Best Male Performance
Ben Affleck-Argo
Daniel Day-Lewis-Lincoln
Bradley Cooper-Silver Linings Playbook
Jaimee Foxx-Django Unchained
Channing Tatum-Magic Mike

Sorry Ben the kids do not care you did not get a Best Director nomination.  This is an award based on sex appeal, namely a battle between Cooper and Tatum.  I think Tatum has a bigger younger female fan base, thus sealing his win.

My Prediction: Channing Tatum-Magic Mike
Spoiler: Bradley Cooper-Silver Linings Playbook

Best Female Performance
Anne Hathaway-Les Miserables
Mila Kunis-Ted
Jennifer Lawrence-Silver Linings Playbook
Emma Watson-Perks of Being a Wallflower
Rebel Wilson-Pitch Perfect

J-Law wins by a landslide! Watson's Hermione past and strong fan base could help her win, but doubtful.

My Predictions: Jennifer Lawrence-Silver Linings Playbook

Best Breakthrough Performance
Ezra Miller-Perks of Being a Wallflower
Eddie Redmayne-Les Miserables
Suraj Sharma-Life of Pi
Quvenzhane Wallis-Beasts of the Southern Wild
Rebel Wilson-Pitch Perfect

Wilson has three nominations technically, is the host and the most famous of these five at the moment, I think this is easily hers to win.

Will Win: Rebel Wilson

Other Categories
Best Fight: Seth MacFarlene versus Mark Wahlberg-Ted
Best Kiss: Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence-Silver Linings Playbook
Best Villain-Leonardo DiCaprio-Django Unchained
Musical Moment-Pitch Perfect
Scared as Shit Performance-Jennifer Lawrence-House at the End of the Street
On Screen Duo-Seth MacFarlene and Mark Wahlberg
Shirtless Performance-Channing Tatum-Magic Mike
WTF Moment-Pitch Perfect

Friday, April 12, 2013

Evolution of the Super Hero Films (Golden Age-Copper Age)

Back in 1966 the television series Batman starring Adam West and Burt Ward got the big screen treatment, in a film known as Batman: The Movie.  In the film the caped crusader along with his trusty sidekick battled four major super villains, Joker, Catwoman, The Riddler, and Penguin. In the television world Batman was seen as a comedy, it was even nominated for Best Comedy Series at the Primetime Emmy Awards during it's first year 1966.  This film was in fact the first feature film to be made based on a comic book. So Pow, Twap, and Kaboom, super heroes burst onto the film screen in a very interesting way, more with a laugh.

Before we asses the beginning of the comic book movie era, I must explain the breakdown I have created within the world of comic book movies.  For those who do not read comics, or are familiar comic book history is broken down by eras or ages.  The first is the Golden Age 1933-1954, The Silver Age 1954-1971, The Bronze Age 1971-1989, and The Copper Age 1989-Present. What are the differences?  The style of writing and how they represent the generation.

This website (http://www.bipcomics.com/showcase/docs/ages.cfm) is a great breakdown of what happened during this time period to reflect each age.

It was interesting growing up collecting in the current Age, the Copper Age (I started collecting in 1990), and  I have loved the various story lines and the darker evolution of things. I remember talking to a comic book shop owner back home in Albany who was a bit older, and loved hearing him reminisce about both the Silver and Bronze Age and the simpler nature of comics.  This brings me to the evolution of comic movies today.  I would like to think you could break films down into ages as well.  These are of course my own breakdowns, and do not correspond with the ages within the comic book world.  Yet for the sake of simplicity I have used the same names.

The Golden Age (1941-1966)

The first comic book movies were shown in the theatres as serials before feature length films.  One of the first The Adventures of Captain Marvel was shown in 12 parts in 1941.  I think that this is interesting because obviously the technology was not available to create a true super hero like we know today, but this was the beginning.

In 1951 Superman was the first person (with whom we follow today)  to get his own serial Superman and the Mole Men.

As stated above the next and first feature length film Batman: The Movie would be the last film released within this age.  Batman's comedic timing and simplistic construction provides the initial vantage point for comic book films and television shows, action packed but funny.  Batman was clearly meant for children, and  the other films were serialized to entertain small children in anti caption for the feature film.

What categorizes this as the the Golden Age?  To me these films are the birth of it all, they set things going, and helped to establish a base knowledge of the super hero.  Being that many of these films were actually serials set them a part in a different pantheon.

The Silver Age (1978-1988)

Thanks in large part to the Star Wars franchise super hero films came back in a big way, but not for another 12 years in 1978.  Superman flew onto the screen, and the film became a massive hit.  This was the first major hit hit at the box office making 134 million domestic in 1978, pretty impressive.

Superman dominated this age of film, which makes sense.  During this time he was the most accessible comic book character to the larger audiences out there.  Director Richard Donner made the first two, but left after these films.  There was of course, and unfortunately a Superman III (1983) and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987).

Along with the four films in the Superman franchise there was also Swamp Thing (1982) and Sequels, Supergirl (1984), The Toxic Avenger (1984) and sequels.

What categorizes the Silver Age of the comic book films? Not surprisingly  the answer is Superman.  While the Richard Donner films were the best, the whole series represents the emblematic nature of this age.  We often regard Superman as the first super hero, and he is the symbol of the strong.  One of my favorite things about Americans paint him as all-American, but often forget he is an alien.  With that said Clark Kent is the Midwest boy next store, who is smart, and strong.  These films are the the true origin of the next step in super hero films.

The Bronze Age (1989-1999)

While first trying to breakdown the ages for myself I was about to end the Silver Age with the first Batman film, from Tim Burton, but I think think Burton's Batman walks away from Donner's Superman, and starts this age with a different, and interesting transitional tone.

Batman released in 1989 starred two major movie stars of the time, Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton.  Like with the Superman model Keaton was a bit of a smaller star the way Reeves was.  Yet the tone of Burton's Batman, was this dark and ominous Gothic style, which was both unique yet fit the Batman model.

Batman dominated this age, and Tim Burton came back in 1992 with his sequel Batman Returns.  While still dark there was this tinge of comedic elements that hearkened back to the original television series.  Burton has always blended the light and the dark with a hint of dark comedy.

Burton stepped away from Batman, and then Joel Schumacher entered for Batman Forever (1995) and Batman and Robin (1997).  I watched both films about a week, and found them both painfully over the top, I used to enjoy Batman Forever mildly, but it lost something..

What these Batman films (all four) represented within this era was a darker transition with this sometimes comedic element.  The films felt like a comic book as well never leaping into the realism elements.

Other films which capture this element from this era are all of the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movies, The Rocketeer (1991), The Crow (1994), The Mask (1994), Judge Dredd (1995), The Phantom (1996), Spawn (1997), and Blade (1998).

All of these films had dark elements, better visual effects, but yet still felt as though you were in a two dimensional comic book.  Save for the the original Batman which ironically was the oldest.

The Copper Age (2000-Present)

Where did the change begin? What change?  The change to comic book films which realized the true real life nature of their super heroes.  This is hard, and could be highly debated.  I have 2000 down because I am going to cite a film with which M. Night Shyamalan does not get enough credit for, Unbreakable.  Unbreakable follows not real comic book character, but rather a man (Willis) who soon starts to think he may be a real life super hero.  The film explores the concept of the super hero in everyday terms, and from a realistic point of view, while maintaining classic comic book structure of the good versus evil trope.

Yet within this year you X-Men (2000), and in 2002 the original Spider-Man film.  Both of these films were born with the mindset of the Silver Age comic book movie in mind yet their sequels stepped out on a limb and pushed the boundaries of the comic book film even further.  X-2: X:Men United (2003) and Spider-Man 2 (2004) were the first two comic book films about super heroes which explored the psyche of the everyday life better than anything I have ever seen as a comic book fan.  There have of course been back slides, especially with the third film in each of their franchises, as though they got sloppy.

2008 was the year it all changed, with the release of Iron Man and The Dark Knight.  While Batman Begins started the shake up for the new Batman franchise, these three films changed the landscape for comic book films forever.

In an age where people started just peddling garbage like The Fantastic Four (both 1 and 2), Daredevil, Elektra, Wolverine: Origins, Hancock, and many more.  People like Christopher Nolan stepped up and said I am going to make good movies about comic book characters, which happen to be some of the most realistic films at the same time.  Both Nolan and John Favreau (Iron Man) used the concept of the crumbling economy, terrorism, global structures, and so much more to frame their films.

As films go forward they have to compete with the benchmark set, that you can't just slap things together, but that you have to know your audience, and make a film that will cater to the fans, and speak to the greater issues of it all.

As we are still in this age, Marvel pushes forward (way ahead of DC now) with the Avengers I can't help but think how far these films have come, and where they may go next.  There is so much to explore, but will we look back on these films, and think I can't believe I though this was good?  Or will this just continue to push comic book films to be that much better? I think the latter.


Tuesday, April 9, 2013

3-D Re-Releases: What's the Point? Does it Work? And is Disney Trying to Control it all?

First there were sequels, the re-makes, and re-boots now re-releasing films in 3-D is the trend in Hollywood.  Re-releasing classic films has been done for years.  There are cult following of classic movies which show on a regular basis in major cities, for films like Rocky Horror Picture Show, and The Sound of Music (sing-a-long).  Grease attempted this sing-along for one of it's anniversaries as well.  At one of my local theatres in Boston, Coolidge Corner, they play cult classics in a series at Midnight every Friday and Saturday.  I saw Mean Girls there, but they typically do smaller more obscure films, or films with tremendous fan bases.  The point of all these re-releases or "showings" is never really for the sake of commercial value, but rather to celebrate the art of film or to support a films fan base.

This current trend of re-releasing films in 3-D seems to do the exact opposite.  Not to say that these re-releases do not have strong fan bases, because Disney/Pixar films, Titanic, Star Wars, and Jurassic Park have some of the largest fan bases, but this move from studios attempts to be one to bolster easy commercial success.  Understandable!

The list below are the films I could find/remember being re-released in 3-D:


2011
The Lion King 3-D-94 million



2012
Titanic 3-D- 57 Million
Beauty and the Beast 3-D-47 million
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 3-D-43 million
Finding Nemo 3-D-41 million
Monsters, Inc 3-D- 31 million


2013
Jurassic Park 18 million (opened 4/5/13)

The Lion King may have not been "the first" but it was the most successful  and the only 3-D re-release I actually ended up going to see.  Titanic was a moderate success adding another 57 million to its large box office haul (still not toppling Avatar).  The rest of the films scored under 50 million, which is not awful although I would categorize Monsters, Inc. as a flop.  I think Disney specifically releasing classics has been a bit more successful, but the proof will be in the pudding when they re-release The Little Mermaid this fall.

I think if done right this can be fun, and I have heard from friends that people who Jurassic Park most recently that this one great film experience.  Part of the reason for creative success for this film paticularly is the way Steven Spielberg pushed the limits with his camera work that allow this to be one hell of an experience in theatres.  I may see this re-release myself.  I personally think the 3-D re-release works best for animation because the style, but Jurassic Park may be the exception, and Monsters Inc.'s box office total may be the proof I am wrong.

Yet to my question in the title, "What's the point?"  I think for the sake of looking at Jurassic Park I can say it's a smart move on two levels one the film's fan base deserves the 3-D treatment, and it's a great build up for the fourth film.  From my one friend Karl who saw the film already he stated that the fear of the T-Rex scene was even greater due in large part to the 3-D technology.  I also think it's smart to get people's minds back on this franchise, and excited for the new film.

I am curious at Disney/Pixar's model for re-release, why Lion King first?  No complaints because it worked financially.  Why not do it chronologically?  They do appear to be going backwards (although skipping my favorite Aladdin) with it going Lion King, Beauty and the Beast then Little Mermaid this fall. I think Little Mermaid will score on the same level as Beauty and the Beast (money wise) posing the question is this trend worth the time?

I would add that the Phantom Menace and Monster's Inc. would help pose this larger question either is this worth the time, or should they just be more selective.  Star Wars has a huge fan base, and who would have thought it's total would have been beat by both Titanic and Beauty and the Beast?  Lucasfilm had planned to re-release the first three in the series every year after, Clones in 2013, and Sith in 2014, but this plan has been scrapped

An official statement from Lucasfilm stated the following:



"Lucasfilm has decided to postpone this fall's scheduled release of Star Wars Episodes II and III in 3D. Given the recent development that we are moving forward with a new Star Wars trilogy, we will now focus 100 percent of our efforts on Star Wars: Episode VII in order to ensure the best possible experience for our fans. We will post further information about our 3-D release plans at a later date."

With Lucasfilm also owned by Disney (are you sensing a pattern?) "choosing to focus on the new franchise" this poses the question is this trend just a passing fad?  Monster's Inc. and it's re-release was timed in order to prep for the prequel Monster's University this summer, and I think Pixar thought they had a sure fire holiday family hit on their hand, but this film tanked.

Of the films which have been re-released only two do not come from a Disney company, Titanic and Jurassic Park.  Which poses the question that I have always had how much is Disney going to milk me for?  Disney and their "vault" or special releases, it's enough to make me sick.  Off my soap box and done with my rant.  I think this trend has valid merits, but should not be done just for the sake of it.  Not at all studios are doing this to gain a quick extra buck, but that's what this seems like.  These re-releases do not feel like a small intimate experience for fans, but rather a grasp for money from studios who want to pad their books.


Saturday, April 6, 2013

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Should Have Been a Majestic Journey Instead the Film has no Magic

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2 1/2 out of 5 Stars)
Directed by Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings series, King Kong)
Written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Torro
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, and Richard Armitage
When I was in junior high school I discovered this book by J.R.R. Tolkien about Bilbo Baggins, and his journey through well, the "unexpected" as he took on a dragon, fought with dwarfs, found a magical ring, and challenged himself to step outside of his comfort zone.  Tolkien's Hobbit was meant to be a bedtime story for his children, and unlike the complexity of his previously published Lord of the Rings series, The Hobbit.  So why did this film try so hard without ever trying?

The Hobbit, which obviously comes before the Lord of the Rings series is a simpler straight forward story about Bilbo Baggins who lives in the shire and helps a group of dwarfs try to reclaim their land from a dragon.  

To be honest this is the best and simplest way to to describe the book written by Tolkien, and yet Jackson and his collaborators will stretch this small yet wonderful book into three films.  For fans of the book, or people who know about the The Hobbit book you may ask how or why this is being done.  Well based on the first movie it seems like Jackson and his team is going to drag this out to try and make this film into something different than what it was intended.

The other problem is that this team put the cart before the horse, the back end of the film series coming before this trilogy sets up The Hobbit to be defined by the Lord of the rings films.  Fans of the films, and not the books would not be "satisfied."  The Hobbit is simpler liter fare, filled with humor and heart.  This is one area where the film succeeds, these many dwarfs are just hilarious and the heart is not fully missing from the film experience.

The other two main problems with the film are the fact that they are stretching the material too far, and the way the film is shot.  I think choosing to break this into three parts is massive mistake because while there was heart, soul, and laughter, which transcends from the original material, the script feel drawn out, and a bit of a yawn at times rather than capturing pointed moments, which make this story great.

The next problem is using the high frame rate technology, which shoots 48 frames per second, which does not add to the quality of film it merely distracts, and tries to hard to make things appear cooler than they actually end up.  This could have been shoot in the more traditional 24 frames per second and could have created a better experience.

The best parts of the film are the visuals, which are truly majestic, and they make you feel the beauty of the previous franchise.  For all its worth, and for the beauty which exists the team who wrote this focused too much on the little used Orc in the original source material rather than focusing on the simple emotional journey which exists in the book.

Jackson wanted to make the Lord of Rings again, but they forget this book is different, and their writing does not lead to strong characters layered characters like Aragorn, but flat characters with no depth beyond understanding they want their home back from the beautiful opening moments.  After the opening moments pass the film lost me along what was meant to be one of the most heartfelt journeys into self-exploration to loud bombastic unnescessary battle scenes.


Friday, April 5, 2013

Tune In or Tune Out: Hannibal

Hannibal (NBC)
Created by: Bryan Fuller (Pushing Daisies, Heroes, Wonderfalls)
Starring: Hugh Dancy, Mads Mikkelsen, Laurence Fishburne  




Last night Hannibal Lector eerily creeped back into the world, but this time in a network television series on NBC.  My only hang ups going into this show was, first network television doesn't handle the gritty as well as cable, and 2 Mikkelsen's portrayal of Dr. Lector.

Before I get into those two points, lets look at the actual premise of the show.  Hannibal actually centers around Special Agent Will Graham played with electricity by the talented Hugh Dancy.  Will is a a criminal profiler who empathizes and peers into the lives of the serial killers he hunts.  During one investigation Agent Jack Crawford brings in Dr. Lector to help Will get to psychology of the killer.

My first hang up was quickly assuaged in the first few minutes of the show, this is one dark hour of television, and left me haunted with the moments the same way many of the films did.  Part of this haunting melancholia is a credit to series creator Bryan Fuller.  Fuller has a penchant for a darker tone, and he is always grasping at giving his shows the feel they deserve.  Watching the killer and Will switch back and forth was brilliant editing, and putting the viewer and Will in the POV of the killer was brilliantly tackled.

One area which could drag or bof this show down is with the the fact that Fuller values style, and I am worried that this show could be about style over substance.  Yet with his past shows like Pushing Daisies the show never lacked quality over the style factor.  Fuller is a genius and I like the way his mind works, and he transports into this dark world with haunting ease.

Mikkelsen was creepy, and that's important.  I just hope producers realize less is more with Lector.  The show focusing on Will and his hang ups made me like it more.  Dancy is also the major standout performance wise; he is one of the most under rated actors working today.  Lector did not show up until about the 9:30 mark and even then there were large pieces in which he was missing.  The Silences of the Lambs worked as a film, because of Demme's calculated use of Lector, only in the film about 25 minutes.  I think if the show keeps this pace focusing on Will and using Dr. Lector as the cat to his mouse in small doses this show will continue to be a hit.

There have been a lot of darker shows premiering lately Bate's Motel, The Americans, but this is the first show in which the pilot hooked me.  I will be back to dine with Dr. Lector and Will next week at my own risk.  I will bring the Chianti.

Tune In 

Thursday, April 4, 2013

In Memoriam: Roger Ebert, a Great Critic

Richard Ebert may have never made a film in his life, but was a quintessential voice as a film critic for the Chicago Sun Times from 1967 until his passing today.  Along with another critic Gene Siskel Roger Ebert coined the thumbs up/thumbs down with regard to films.  Throughout much of most of the recent decades you would see Siskel and Ebert give this film two thumbs up, a giant rubber stamp.

Ebert's work as a critic came early on before the internet bloggers flooded Rotten Tomatoes from having maybe 15 or 20 critics hundreds.  Throughout the last decade or so Ebert remained one of the more "old school" critics whose style was more traditional, and looked at movies from a larger perspective.  This man was giant in his industry and he will be missed.

 Here are some of my favorite quotes from his reviews, and writings:

“Every great film should seem new every time you see it.”

“To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion.”

“Your intellect may be confused, but your emotions will never lie to you.”

"If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination." About Transformers Revenge of the Fall.

These are just a piece of the lexicon he left behind, his reviews, and words on film will be missed!

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

April Movies to See and Skip

March was another month filled with some tremendous duds, see my last post entitled "Where have all the good movies gone (this winter)."  Admission is the only film I saw, and if you could tell the way I knew from the trailer, this film was a bit of a dud.  March 21 is the first day of Spring and one would hope that with the bloom of new life, there would be a birth of new quality films on the horizon, but I am not sure we should cheer with excitement.

April 5th 
Evil Dead 
Jurassic Park 3D
Trance

I am one of the few people who is not in love with the original Evil Dead series, although I admire Raimi's work.  There are many fans who are split on the fact that this film is getting re-made.  So far decent reviews although this could go down as a did they really need to do this?

Jurassic Park in 3D could be a lot of fun, the film is 20 years old, which is crazy.  I may have to get in on this experience.  Smart film to do with 3D.

Trance looks to be the the first Danny Boyle to miss the mark in a long time, you can thank the screen writer who also wrote The Beach.



April 12th 
Oblivion
42
Scary Movie V
To the Wonder

Oblivion looks like every single other sci-fi futuristic, post apocalyptic film this year, and that is not a complement.

42 has a lot of strong potential, and I like that they have an unknown in the role of Robinson, yet I still have Red Tales on my mind so this could be a big miss, I just hope not.

Scary Movie V with Lindsey Lohan and Charlie Sheen, that's all I have to say....

Malick is a love or hate kinda guy, but the Wonder trailer is beautiful, and I look forward to this film, the score, and the way it's shot.  This film looks excellent. 



April 19th 
The Lords of Salem

Oh great one film being released and its directed by Rob Zombie, NEXT!

April 26th 
Pain & Gain
The Big Wedding
Mud

Michael Bay is back with Pain & Gain, and it looks like there much more pain than gain (see what I did there).

The Big Wedding has one of the worst titles I have ever seen, Shockingly this film is not about a funeral, but a big wedding with too much of the same old romantic comedy plotting shoved down our throats.

Mud proves McConaughey is in top form, and he is showing his true acting chops.  Nichols film Take Shelter is one of my favorite of the decade.  I am excited to see Witherspoon go back to her indie roots, and show her cool factor once again.


See it: Jurassic Park 3D, 42, To the Wonder, Mud
Skip: Pain & Gain, The Big Wedding, Scary Movie V, The Lords of Salem