jjgittes's Recent Activity - Spout

Spout Group:Spout Customer Care - Get answers to your questions here!

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMT

Group Name: Spout Customer Care - Get answers to your questions here!
Group Description:

Have a general question? Need help with some thing on the site? Have a bug you would like to report? Well then, you have come to the right place. No matter what you are having trouble with, we would like to help you find a solution. And maybe, through your own experience with the site, you will want to help other users too. That's what communities are all about.

Created: 8/1/2007
Number of Members: 79
Number of discussion posts: 513

Spout Group:HORROR MOVIES 101 - FOR ALL WHO LOVE HORROR MOVIES

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:53:17 GMT

Group Name: HORROR MOVIES 101 - FOR ALL WHO LOVE HORROR MOVIES
Group Description: " I bid you welcome... Enter freely and of your own will..."
Created: 12/17/2006
Number of Members: 414
Number of Lists: 6
Number of discussion posts: 2333

Spout Group:foureyedmonsters - Talk to Susan & Arin about the movie and those addictive podcasts.

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:42:31 GMT

Group Name: foureyedmonsters - Talk to Susan & Arin about the movie and those addictive podcasts.
Created: 6/4/2007
Number of Members: 322
Number of discussion posts: 56

Spout Group:Weekly Theme - "Fighting off boredom with the Iron Fist of Variety"

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:20:23 GMT

Group Name: Weekly Theme - "Fighting off boredom with the Iron Fist of Variety"
Created: 6/30/2008
Number of Members: 52
Number of Lists: 12
Number of discussion posts: 701

Spout Group:Spout Mavens - Spout's best movie reviewers. Membership is limited.

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:10:52 GMT

Group Name: Spout Mavens - Spout's best movie reviewers. Membership is limited.
Group Description:

A group of Spout's best reviewers.
Read the requirements.

Created: 6/20/2007
Number of Members: 36
Number of Lists: 9
Number of discussion posts: 451

Spout Group:missing a film - we'll help you find a film

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:30:05 GMT

Group Name: missing a film - we'll help you find a film
Created: 3/5/2007
Number of Members: 131
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 234

Spout Group:Friends of Foreign Flicks - Discussions of all films not American.

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:05:26 GMT

Group Name: Friends of Foreign Flicks - Discussions of all films not American.
Group Description:

At some point you just want more than what's right in front of you.

Created: 4/24/2008
Number of Members: 30
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 92

Spout Group:The Documentary - A place to talk about the much overlooked genre of the Documentary.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:05:39 GMT

Group Name: The Documentary - A place to talk about the much overlooked genre of the Documentary.
Created: 4/2/2006
Number of Members: 49
Number of Lists: 4
Number of discussion posts: 53

Spout Group:Sound on Sight - Podcasts, movie reviews, interviews, news and more.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:03:03 GMT

Group Name: Sound on Sight - Podcasts, movie reviews, interviews, news and more.
Group Description:

Sound on Sight proudly brings you two podcasts each week. Voted best podcast in 2008, these hard working hosts cover everything from mainstream Hollywood films to noir, horror, science fiction, cult cinema, documentary film making and more. Look out for a new show added every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

http://www.soundonsight.org/

Created: 1/6/2008
Number of Members: 104
Number of discussion posts: 150

Spout Group:Worst Movie Ever - The Group is dedicated to uncovering the bombs, so you don't have too.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:43:26 GMT

Group Name: Worst Movie Ever - The Group is dedicated to uncovering the bombs, so you don't have too.
Created: 5/5/2006
Number of Members: 200
Number of Lists: 10
Number of discussion posts: 412

Spout Group:Movie Polls - Vote in weekly polls and discuss

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:42:29 GMT

Group Name: Movie Polls - Vote in weekly polls and discuss
Group Description:

Each week I will post a new poll. Please vote in the poll and reply to the discussion thread to discuss the question. Please do not vote more than once.

Created: 11/25/2008
Number of Members: 66
Number of discussion posts: 414

Spout Group:Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite!

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:29:56 GMT

Group Name: Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite!
Group Description:

Join us to discuss your favorite or most horrifying Zombie Movies or just your most memorable Zombie Moments. From Funny to Scary to Gory to Bizarre...

Created: 5/28/2007
Number of Members: 104
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 594

Spout Group:A World of MSTies - Thank You, Won't We?

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:25:25 GMT

Group Name: A World of MSTies - Thank You, Won't We?
Group Description:

Glorify the best show ever (MST3K) with wit, wisdom and downright wackiness!

Created: 4/23/2008
Number of Members: 10
Number of Lists: 2
Number of discussion posts: 23

Spout Group:It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar! - Devoted to everything nominated or snubbed by the Academy of Golden Guys

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:11:33 GMT

Group Name: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar! - Devoted to everything nominated or snubbed by the Academy of Golden Guys
Group Description: Year after year, movie lovers and non movie lovers alike discuss ad nauseum the fate of films nominated for the utmost honor, the Academy Award. Some people watch it for the fashion. Some people watch for the haute couture. Some people watch for their fill of celebrity sightings. If you are a member of this group, you love everything about the Super Bowl of movies, especially the movies themselves! You love to make predictions, guess at the politics, discuss and dissect who should have been nominated and who should have won...or, you're just an avid movie lover that likes to pay attention. Come join the group!
Created: 3/4/2006
Number of Members: 41
Number of Lists: 58
Number of discussion posts: 226

Spout Group:Movie Marathons

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:33:02 GMT

Group Name: Movie Marathons
Group Description:

This is a group for members to start and organize movie marathons. Its primary purpose is to get more people exposed to more film. And to watch these films and discuss them as a group.

Anyone can start a marathon and marathons can be organized in many different ways to showcase the films of a director, actor, genre, theme etc...

Check the Guidlines and Suggestions discussion for ideas.

Created: 7/22/2009
Number of Members: 15
Number of discussion posts: 22

Spout Group:Movies we do not want to see - Try to convince us to see these movies!

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:31:56 GMT

Group Name: Movies we do not want to see - Try to convince us to see these movies!
Group Description: Want to be a member? Send me a message with a list of at least 5 movies that you do not want to see. There are many movies that I do not want to see. I'm not sure if its right of me to decide never to see a movie without seeing it. You know...like when a kid says they hate mushrooms even though they admit never trying them. So maybe this is a good spot for people to display movies they don't think they want to see, and see if anyone can convince us to try them out.
Created: 3/22/2006
Number of Members: 20
Number of Lists: 3
Number of discussion posts: 190

Spout Post: 13 Conversations About One Thing on Reel 13

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:26:47 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 10/21/2009 11:26:47 PM
Body: A college professor once told me that “cynicism was the death of art”. If that is truly the case, then Thirteen Conversations About One Thing is DOA. There is no joy in Mudville, or in this case, director Jill Sprecher’s vision of modern-day New York City. The film follows four or five different characters in intersecting, depressing short stories that seem to be constructed in the tradition of the Greek morality play (which hardly ever works out well for the protagonists). However, for the most part, moralizing on screen tends to fall flat, particularly with the way Sprecher and her sister Karen execute this in the screenplay, letting the characters all wax poetic on their different theories on the human condition in the 21st Century. Lots of chatting, let alone overt philosophizing, usually interrupts the momentum of a piece and Thirteen Conversations is no exception. To some degree, the writing is also heavily overwrought – with a handful long monologues that blatantly explain the themes of that particular storyline, instead of letting the audience draw their own conclusions. The pitfalls within the screenplay are made even more glaring and unfortunate given how strong the craft elements of the film are. The cinematography and framing are very sharp. The film is well lit and staged. The internal scene editing is smart and concise, using close-ups only for optimum impact and only pulling back wide when absolutely necessary. Like a good gambler, Sprecher and her editor seemed to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. Even the soundscape of the film is detailed, which adds an extra, usually ignored layer of meaning of the film. The ensemble are all good, which isn’t surprising since actors love to gnash their teeth on long, talky, theatrical scenes like the ones presented here. Matthew McConaughey, Alan Arkin, Clea Duvall, John Turturro and Amy Irving play the five protagonists of the film, though Irving’s scenes are more of an after-thought and for the most part are extraneous. Out of everyone, it probably surprises no one that Arkin does the strongest work of the group. His forty years on-camera experience serves him well as, unlike the other actors, he lets his face and body do most of the work instead of the words. As a result, his storyline is the most effective, interesting, evocative and cinematic. Even strong acting and filmmaking, however, can’t save the film from its own heavy-handedness or its negative outlook. In a way, the film’s pessimism acts as a kind of stylization, but it even further separates the film from verisimilitude. Life can be really shitty at times, but it isn’t as joyless as Thirteen Conversations seems to paint it. The films that feel the most real are the ones that have some semblance of balance between the good and the bad, the high points and the low. Thirteen Conversations About One Thing had a lot going for it – strong plots with potential, good, willing actors, a great sense of craft – but it never manages to be a high-quality, enjoyable or engaging viewing experience. It gets mired in its worldview and its didacticness, which most audiences reject like bad medicine. And so, the film, in spite of all its strong elements, winds up flatlining. (For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: Annie Hall on Reel 13

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:26:02 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 6/17/2009 6:26:02 PM
Body: Quite simply, ANNIE HALL is one of my top ten favorite films of all time, even higher on the list than CASABLANCA, the other Reel 13 film this year to have that honor. It is a perfect, soaring example of “modernism lite” – a cinematic movement that borrowed creative filmmaking ideas from European Art Cinema, but made them more accessible by utilizing them within a traditional Hollywood-type narrative. Modernism lite made its debut stateside in the seventies with the rise of the film school generation. Other examples of this might include AMERICAN GRAFFITI, MEAN STREETS or THE CONVERSATION. ANNIE HALL also started a genre of its own to some degree, which I like to call the “neurotic romantic comedy”, which is mostly typified by the idea that the obstacles for couple in question is really just themselves and their own hang-ups and psychological issues. This is a tradition that filmmakers like Nora Ephron and company would continue many years later with films like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY and SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE. In many ways, it is a truer and more honest representation of relationships as we know them in modern society and the comedy in these films derive from the audience recognizing themselves in the characters and the flaws in their own behavior. This is very different from traditional Hollywood romances in which the characters represented an ideal, something for the audience to admire and aspire to. Granted, none of us are quite as neurotic as Alvy and Annie are (though I may come close). They take the behavior to an extreme, but that only enhances the comedy. I think the element that is the most special about ANNIE HALL is the way it blends fantasy and reality. Early on, Allen comments that he always had a problem distinguishing the two and the results in the film are glorious. From the scene in which his eight year-old classmates stand to announce what they would grow up to become to when he and his friends would physically watch and then interact with flashbacks, these moments are high points in the film because they manage to not only provide exposition and character information, but they also comment and provide insight on the information in a way that feels very natural, kind of like drinking water to make a pill go down easier. Allen establishes this style from the get go and therefore, the transitions to his imagination never feel jarring. He handles them with a matter-of-factness for the rest of the way, which is fun, fascinating and also keeps the viewer on his or her toes. We are engaged. Diane Keaton won an Academy Award for her performance as the titular character and deservedly so. Woody Allen, at his most amusing and charismatic, is no slouch either. There has been much criticism over the years that Allen and Keaton merely played themselves, but to me, that holds little weight. While I concur that the characters were based on them, every actor needs to draw from their own experiences when approaching a performance. Here, what Allen and Keaton each do, transcends the advantage they had of living through a similar, real relationship. Their comic timing is masterful while never feeling contrived or sitcom-like. Their chemistry is natural and even though that’s probably due to their off-screen relationship, it’s still a joy to watch on-screen. They manage to make scenes with all those zingers feel honest and real, as if conversations any of us would have in real life. It’s not as easy as they make it look. In my opinion, they used themselves as a starting point, a springboard for crafting the performances that they did, but each of them added to that foundation so that the film would not still be fun and not just a home movie of their love affair. Of course, the other memorable quality to ANNIE HALL is the script, particularly the dialogue. Allen keeps most of the best quips for himself, but that never feels like too much because many of them are self-deprecating. Not only are the lines witty and well-delivered, but they have a resonance behind them. Many of them come from old jokes that Allen retells, turning them upside down to shake out the hidden meaning. Examples include the famous “I wouldn’t want to belong to a club that would have me as a member” and “I need the eggs”. These moments or lines of dialogue are funny on the surface, but quite poignant underneath, offering insight into the nature of relationships and the characters we are watching while not hitting us over the head and still being interesting and entertaining. That’s a combination that serves the film as a whole and the result is an always surprisingly powerful experience. (For more information on this film or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.com)

Spout Post: All the Real Girls on Reel 13

Tue, 12 May 2009 21:41:07 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2009 5:41:07 PM
Body: ALL THE REAL GIRLS is the third and latest David Gordon Green film to air on Reel 13 Indies this year. As good as GEORGE WASHINGTON is, it is also probably the best. ALL THE REAL GIRLS is the most heartfelt of all this films and as a result, the most effective. The plot itself is nothing new – boy meets girl, they fall in love, but can’t be together for various reasons and their struggle to deal with that. However, the application of David Gordon Green’s lyrical style to the redundant narrative elevates it to something special. The style I speak of is a strong, stark sense of verisimilitude without the device and convention of handheld camera. Characters and situations within the film feel very real even in carefully composed frames, though I would argue that perhaps Green holds on some of the frames a little long, almost defiantly so. Green also does a great job of finding the beauty in every day life around us, both in nature and manmade architecture/design. He features this in a plethora of cutaways and wide shots that help keep the film cinematic without detracting from the naturalism of the performance or the story. Speaking of performance, one can’t achieve this high a level of verisimilitude on screen without terrific acting and DGG gets just that from most his ensemble. I admit that lead and co-writer Paul Schneider has a few false moments when he is forced to be emotional, but manages to coast on his natural charm for most of the film. Also, a few of the scenes involving Bust-Ass, the Danny McBride character, are highly out of place in the movie. He is fine in the scenes with all guys, but his interactions with the Noel character are forced and the primary drawback of the film. It seems like a failed effort to add levity and comic relief to the film, but it simply doesn’t belong. In spite of those deviations, the rest of the cast is tremendous with Patricia Clarkson doing her usual fine work in a supporting role as well as a surprisingly unheralded Shea Whigham as the best friend caught in the middle. Of course, Zooey Deschanel is the heart of the soul of the film as Noel, the young, sweet object of desire so in love, but also quite troubled. I don’t think it’s a far reach to say that this is the finest performance of her young career. She does a magnificent job presenting a character confused by the strength of her emotions and how to deal with sharing her insecurities and neuroses with another person. Rarely has first love been presented with such heartbreaking truth. I expect the day will come when another filmmaker will challenge Deschanel to tap into the talent so fiercely on display here. David Gordon Green is a bit of a divisive filmmaker. Critics love him, but most audiences are lukewarm (I discount PINEAPPLE EXPRESS from this discussion, in the determination that it is more of an Apatow film than DGG). Admittedly, the trade off of the poetic qualities of his films is a slower pace. Moments can definitely drag, which is very harmful to films like SNOW ANGELS or UNDERTOW. However, I think ALL THE REAL GIRLS transcends those potential drawbacks due to it’s the universality of its themes and its honest emotions. Also, one has to appreciate the great cinematic qualities of the film – the confident framing, the lush cinematography, the terrific use of sound and dialogue bridges. Perhaps for the only time in Green’s career, he manages to make us fall in love right along with the characters. (For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org.)

Spout Post: Laura on Reel 13

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:30:34 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 3/26/2009 10:30:34 AM
Body: Interestingly enough, LAURA is the oldest film to have aired on Reel 13 this year, coming all the way from 1944. I'm not sure why the Reel 13 programmers have so vigorously avoided the 30's and such gems like BRINGING UP BABY, IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU, etc., especially given the strength of the older films they have showed. LAURA, for example, hardly feels dated. It is as evocative and mesmerizing a mystery as it must have been sixty plus years ago. The only thing that might be less effective to a modern audience is the surprise twist that occurs half way through. It was groundbreaking and the talk of the town in its day, but has been ripped off countless times since then. So, it might feel familiar to younger folks watching it today, but the film can hardly be blamed for the effect of subsequent copycats.All of the elements of Laura are outstanding and work in concert for maximum impact. Otto Preminger, who parlayed the success of LAURA into the opportunity to do edgier films (CARMEN JONES, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM, THE CARDINALl), would probably cringe to hear me say that I still think this is best work. To him, it was a paycheck – his interpretation of Hollywood sugarcoated schlock. However, his instinctual choices add depth to an already well-structured and interesting narrative. He moves his camera fluidly at a time when tracking shots were de-emphasized. He cuts in and out of scenes at just the appropriate times, which helps keep the pace brisk. He moves in and out of the flashbacks with ease and clarity. The blocking is natural and yet still executed nicely for strong, stark camera angles, which is a particular challenge in a mystery, given all of the "suspects" that Preminger needed to manipulate throughout the frames. And of course, he uses the famous "Laura" theme to perfection, sometimes even diegetically, utilizing it as a backdrop to maintain the haunting mood. Preminger is overly reliant on the voiceover to get exposition across, particularly in the first half of the film. As you may know, that is a major pet peeve of mine, but it is somehow less offensive to me in LAURA, especially since they are framed within stories that are being relayed to the investigating detective. It, like the theme, is mostly diegetic and therefore feels more natural and less like the director forcing his hand.I think another major contributor to the success of Laura is the highly underrated cast. All three of the major players are probably unknown to most modern audiences and although they would each have one or two other accomplishments in their careers, they would never be able to match the bar they set for themselves in this film. As a matter of fact, perhaps the most recognizable member of the cast to many would be Vincent Price in an against-type supporting role as Laura's cad fiancé. Price is perfectly passable in the film, but it is the three charming, charismatic leads that really make the film as engaging as it is. Clifton Webb brings the intelligence to the party in his outright remarkable performance as Waldo Lydecker (he was the only member of the cast to receive an Oscar nomination). Granted, it is a plum role with the best and wittiest dialogue of all the characters. As great as Webb is with the words, it is the combination of vulnerability and menace that he adds to the character that makes the performance so terrific. Dana Andrews brings the muscle as the Detective Mark Macpherson and I mean that in a good way. It's not that he's required to beat anybody up, but his stoic presence is intimidating to many of the other characters. He represents the earth, the practical everyman who doesn't much buy into the machinations of the bourgeoisie. Dana Andrews, who would go on to be president of the Screen Actors Guild, struggled in many of the leading roles he would score after LAURA. However, here, he provides an unusual amount of depth for what would otherwise be stereotypical flatfoot character. Although the shell of his cynicism is hardly ever broken, there is a foreboding sense of longing about him, which makes for a three-dimensional and appealing hero. Gene Tierney as the titular character provides the soul and spirit for the film, with her presence almost literally looming over scenes even when she isn't present. Tierney doesn't appear for most of the early film and is simply talked about by the other characters. One becomes incredulous as to how equally gorgeous and kind, how perfect that they make her out to be. However, once we meet her in the flashbacks, her beauty and poise suddenly make it seem plausible. I can't recall another time when being the unequivocal object of desire of so many characters was so well performed and executed. And Tierney would never have another role like it.LAURA is that rare film that manages to combine a realistic human drama sensibility with the romanticized narrative akin to the dime store bubble gum novel of the period. On its surface, LAURA is a whodunit and it is effective as such, but it is also a heartfelt romance as well as a psychological drama. Its beauty is in its layers – taut narrative, surprisingly complex characters on highly evocative journeys and an engaging mystery that is emotionally resonant. It's a film that needs to be experienced by film buffs and future filmmakers alike. It's a truly great achievement. (For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: Team Picture on Reel 13

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:02:12 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 2/27/2009 3:02:12 PM
Body: Mumblecore rears its ugly head (and I do mean ugly) once again on Reel 13 with TEAM PICTURE, which proves just how interchangeable the films within this emerging genre tend to be. Just change the city (here, it's Memphis, TN) and the protagonist and then use the same formula – drifting twentysomething deals with a potential romance and a lack of career or direction. While the plight of the aimless does have implicit dramatic tendencies, the trend is getting to be disturbingly repetitive, especially given how TEAM PICTURE takes the aimlessness to an extreme, mirroring the character's meandering with its narrative structure. At least a film like QUIET CITY had an objective – to find the friend that the girl was supposed to meet. TEAM PICTURE, conversely, is as lost as its main character.As far as that protagonist is concerned, director/star Kentucker Audley (Kentucker?) seems perpetually high (as in, on drugs) and the film seems to hope that we would mistake his quirk for depth. David, as played by Audley, eventually becomes an impossible character to root for. His inability to communicate with people in a normal way or perhaps more importantly, to the audience, is initially interesting, but it evolves into being extremely frustrating. I felt myself giving up on him three-quarters of the way through the sixty-minute main narrative and that is a sign of death for any narrative. Furthermore, I get the sense that Audley, like many of his mumblecore counterparts, is not acting so much as he is playing himself with a different name. In doing so, however, he fails to communicate the dimensions of his character/himself that would give us enough of a window into his psyche that would allow us to careThis leads me to another issue I have with the mumblecore movement that Team Picture epitomizes. While the genre is supposed to more representative of reality than most narrative films, this becomes a stylization in and of itself that many films of the genre take to an unnecessary extreme, which makes them less realistic than they think, just on the other side of the spectrum. In other words, the supposed "realism" is forced. Conversations are rarely as random as they are here and in other films of its kind. The discussions about fingernails and flowers that take place in this movie are just as crafted as regular dialogue, but here with the intention of seemingly like it wasn't as contrived. But, in my mind, they are overcompensating. I'll take a well-shaped scene that advances the narrative any day over a wandering conversation about something uninteresting. Along the same lines, technical snafus like boom shadows and breaking the 180-degree rule aren't cool or rich. It's just sloppy.I don't even know what to say about the epilogue to TEAM PICTURE, entitled GINGER SAND. After TEAM PICTURE ends suddenly after only an hour, GINGER SAND begins and seems to take place much later, reuniting two of the main characters from the main film, but it also features two characters that Audley doesn't bother to introduce or explain. Once again, he rudely eschews the need for traditional exposition, probably as some form of rebellion against "Hollywood storytelling". The ensuing ten minutes of GINGER SAND has absolutely nothing to do with the story of TEAM PICTURE and gives us no insight as to where David is in his life, what he is doing with his time, etc. All it manages to do is convey that his new relationship isn't working out, even though we just met this new girlfriend and have no sense of their history. So why should we care? And that goes for TEAM PICTURE as well. (For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: Lifeboat on Reel 13

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:54:54 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 2/10/2009 3:54:54 PM
Body: I saw LIFEBOAT for the first time this summer at the outdoor Bryant Park Film Festival and therefore didn’t need to watch it again when it aired on Reel 13 last week. This is not to suggest that it was painful to sit through. On the contrary, it was a revelation. Once again, a talented director takes on the challenge of directing an entire movie in a single location, in this case, a lifeboat drifting in the middle of Atlantic. Similar to Sidney Lumet in 12 ANGRY MEN from October, Hitchcock rises to the challenge and creates a taut, exciting, in-depth, human film. Granted, Hitch was aided by the intrinsic danger that comes along with floating in the Atlantic during WWII. In that sense, there are similarities and connections with Wolfgang Petersen’s 1982 film DAS BOOT, only LIFEBOAT might actually be more tense given that a) they are mostly civilians and b) they are totally exposed.Actually, the performances in the film don’t help much. Mary Anderson is pretty useless as the young nurse. Hume Cronyn struggles, largely due to the implausible Cockney accent he adopts. William Bendix also would have better days, coming off here as wooden and forced. John Hodiak, as the stud on the boat, has absolutely zero charisma and his anger and bigotry has no layers to it. Tallulah Bankhead is surprisingly one of the more enjoyable performances, though I am skeptical how much “acting” went into it. Her screen persona slips into this character perfectly and does well for the struggle between the classes that develops on the little boat.However, this is Hitchcock’s movie, driven almost entirely by the intelligent filmmaking. Granted, he had strong source material, working from a story by John Steinbeck, but it is the well-thought-out camera angles, detailed framing and on-point shot-to-shot editing that raise the film to another level. In a very short time frame and with significant shooting limitations, Hitchcock manages to make the boat a microcosm for global relations in the 40’s, deftly dealing with racism, xenophobia, nationalism, imperialism, the realities of war and the aforementioned class issue without beating us over the head on any one issue. In the Hitchcock canon, one often hears about NORTH BY NORTHWEST, PSYCHO, REAR WINDOW and Vertigo. Now, while I don’t suggest that LIFEBOAT is stronger than those masterpieces (it actually might be a little better than PSYCHO, though), it is in that class and though earlier in Hitchcock’s career, it needs to be included in the conversation as one of his finest achievements. (For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: Lilies of the Field

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:31:40 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 2/9/2009 4:31:40 PM
Body: LILIES OF THE FIELD, last week's Reel 13 Classic, is famous for being the film that led the first African-American (Sidney Poitier) to a Best Actor Academy Award. However, as an overall product, it's something of a disappointment. The film is built around the conceit that Homer, Poitier's character, helps out a group of German expatriate nuns with some chores around the house and then can sever seem to leave. However, the manner in which they continually trick, guilt or goad him into staying on quickly becomes tiresome. It's like a handful of bad episodes of "Gilligan's Island" in which some mishap or hijinks prevent our heroes from escaping the island.One would then assume that Sidney Poitier's Oscar-winning work in the film carries it, but I personally didn't think he was all that great. He doesn't so much create a deep, three-dimensional character as he does rely on his strongest assets – his charm and charisma, those qualities that made him palatable to white audiences of the 50's and 60's. It was, by no means, the best work of his career (THE DEFIANT ONES, TO SIR WITH LOVE, IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT and GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER are all stronger) or even the best leading man work of 1963 (Albert Finney in TOM JONES is one example). I don't even think it was the best performance in the film. Lilia Skala (well before she became famous for FLASHDANCE) does some terrific, nuanced work as Mother Maria. The conflict within her character is significantly more subtle and therefore, in a way, more palpable. As rich as the black and white cinematography is, the direction of the film is mostly haphazard. The angles are generally uninspired and the blocking for the camera is clunky (I point to several scenes in the nuns' meeting room as examples). The majority of the scenes are slow and ramble on longer than they should and as a result, the film never seems to catch any headwind – no momentum. The second half of the film is much stronger, once the repetitive cat and mouse games with the nuns take a backseat to Homer's determination to build a chapel, but it's too little too late to rescue the film from ultimately being a big ol' bore. (For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: America, So Beautiful

Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:28:31 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 2/1/2009 3:28:31 PM
Body: From the opening moments of the 70's era AMERICA, SO BEAUTIFUL, the Reel 13 Indie from a couple weeks ago, the disco music envelops me in the mood, embraces me like an old friend that I haven't seen in years and I am somehow immediately hooked in for the ride that is the film. During those early moments, the filmmakers also adopt a seventies era style of filmmaking, particularly during the dance sequences – fisheye lenses, split screens, etc. All this helps to establish the illusion of the period.Though the flashiness dies down as the film goes on, the direction is confident and strong throughout – consistently good choices in terms of the camera work, design and blocking. If there is a problem with AMERICA, SO BEAUTIFUL, it would be in the screenplay itself with its flat dialogue, meandering narrative and over-the-top approach to its message against prejudice. The film is about Iranian immigrants in Los Angeles during the 1979 hostage crisis, which is a great premise, in theory. Even in practice, the film wisely avoids heavy-handed politics for most of the piece, instead focusing on the characters' desire to survive and assimilate and also the Americanization of the younger generation, which comes into conflict with the traditions of their native culture and their elders. All this stuff is great, but as we move towards the conclusion, the message starts to rear its ugly head and it interrupts the momentum of the story. The one, long night that pretty much dominates the entire second half really sinks the rhythm they had created (there is one unfortunate scene in a diner in which the filmmakers inexplicably abandon any sense of subtlety that they seemed to have had for most of the way) and the climax could have been a lot stronger if they had turned down the amplitude of the speech-giving just a tad. While I understand they felt compelled to show dissatisfaction and disillusionment amongst their Iranian-American protagonists, they needed to be much more subtle about it. Frequently a suggestion is better than a speech. Perhaps the screenwriters felt that their "point" wasn't clear once they got to the end and decided to really hit us over the head, just in case we weren't able to read in between the lines of the first three-quarters of the film. The result for this viewer was that I felt condescended to.Fortunately, this is ultimately a minor hiccup in an otherwise effective glimpse into the lives of Middle Eastern immigrants. The acting, direction and cinematography are all quite good. Despite a handful of small bumps along the road, the film is balanced, fair, honest, complex and therefore, interesting.(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org).

Spout Post: King of Hearts on Reel 13

Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:46:54 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 11/27/2008 5:46:54 PM
Body: I had never even heard of the 1967 film KING OF HEARTS before its airing on Reel 13 a few weeks ago, even though it has some sort of record for being one of the longest running films in theatrical release of all-time. I couldn't believe my ears shortly after it began to realize that the French film was DUBBED into English. Dubbing, as a practice, has been pretty much universally debunked (and almost mocked) stateside, though I know it is a common practice overseas for some reason. I'm pretty sure even in 1967, dubbing into English was pretty rare and yet here we were. Heck, even the scenes that were actually in English were dubbed into English (I suppose they wanted to match the voices, but it looked ridiculous). I spend a full paragraph on the dubbing because as it happens, I think it was probably the biggest detractor for me when experiencing the film. I never got used to it - it was constantly distracting and quite possibly undermined the director's vision.As much as Phillipe de Broca could not help the dubbing, he is responsible for the bizarre circus of a movie that KING OF HEARTS became. Alan Bates stars as a Scottish soldier who is sent to rescue a small French town from a bomb during WWII. When he arrives at the town, it has been evacuated, but he doesn't realize that because the inmates of the local asylum have escaped and take over the town. If that's not contrived enough, they decide that Bates is their king and mayhem ensues from there. The comedy is quite broad and the film probably winds up being too silly for its own good, particularly because in all its goofing off, it never manages to be funny (granted, dubbing might have something to do with this). The film occasionally veers into the philosophical and is probably meant to be an allegory, particularly one with an anti-war message (yawn). I think the primary factor that derails the effectiveness of this is the fact that there are no specifics or differences as to the nature of the mental illnesses of the escaped inmates. They are all equally delusional and somehow manage to play nice together in the same, shared fantasy. I found this pretty convenient for the filmmakers and pretty hard to swallow for the audience.To its credit, there is a lot of detail within the design of the film. The sets and the costumes are quite strong, as the filmmaking team seem to have let their imagination run wild, using the mental patients as an excuse to pull out just about anything. Alan Bates is pleasant and charismatic as literally the sane man in an insane world, but as is true of his character in the movie, he alone is not enough to ground the film or to somehow convert the fever dream of a film into an effective cinematic experience.(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: Psycho Beach Party on Reel 13

Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:42:44 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 11/27/2008 5:42:44 PM
Body: I was truly good and excited about the airing of PSYCHO BEACH PARTY (based on Charles Busch's one-man stage show) on Reel 13 on November 1st. I have a lot of good friends in the world of theatre and many of them are big fans of Charles Busch. I had heard great things about this film and the cast alone is enough to warrant excitement – Lauren Ambrose, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"'s Nicholas Brendan, Thomas Gibson and Oscar-nominee Amy Adams seems like a dream team for this sort of an endeavor. Unfortunately, the end result didn't come close to the hype.The material is pretty much there. I think the failure of PSYCHO BEACH PARTY is a failure of film direction. Firstly, the film is very empty (why is there no one ever on the beach?!?) and while I realize that is a budgetary issue, it is a costly problem, especially when trying to do a parody of this kind. If the film wants to ape Gidget, Frankie and Annette films, surfer movies, slasher movies, The Three Faces of Eve and Joan Crawford simultaneously, it needs the scope to match. I realize the independentness of the film creates limitations, but I know for a fact that there are inexpensive to free ways to fill scenes with background actors or design details that help with the illusion. However, the production team seems to have had their priorities elsewhere.The Achilles heel of the film, however, is there is no rhythm, no sense of pace and in a broad comedy like this - that is equivalent to a slow, painful death. Most of the jokes fall horribly flat. One-liners spew out quickly enough, but the camera just lingers on the speaker, as if waiting for applause or laughter that just isn't coming. It's like those old cartoons where all you hear are crickets in the audience. Painful.Fortunately, the cast raises the level of the film a great deal. A much younger Lauren Ambrose is once again magnificent (I have such a talent crush on her) in what ultimately amounts to be a triple-role, utterly believable and hilarious in each phase of her character. Brendan is very charismatic and amusing as usual and Gibson has fun with the conceit that his cooler-than-cool beach bum character rhymes everything he says. Busch himself does his usual cross-dressing act as the local police detective, Captain Monica Stark, but the theatricality of the character and the gimmick don't really connect on the screen. Bad wig and pale skin aside, the character is like an alien in the movie, as if occasionally entering through a portal from the Greenwich Village Halloween parade. I can see it working as a stage convention, but here, it just seems awkward.Without having seen the stage play, I can't say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that is the root of all the issues with the film version of PSYCHO BEACH PARTY. Generally speaking, there is naturally a greater suspension of disbelief in the theatre. Unfortunately, film as an artform does not have that luxury. I can see most of my problems with PSYCHO BEACH PARTY working much better on stage. But here, it just gets lost in the translation.(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: What's Up, Doc? on Reel 13

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:07:41 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 11/21/2008 6:07:41 PM
Body: WHAT'S UP, DOC?, the Reel 13 Classic from November 1st, was a truly delightful surprise. Though it did fulfill my expectations of zaniness and mindless mayhem, it did so with zest, panache and also a very thorough understanding of film history. It's one thing to pay homage to the screwball comedies of the late 30's. It's another thing altogether to actually all-out make one in a modern era.Though the creative team smartly don't attempt to make the film a period piece (it takes place in the 70's – when the film was made), director Peter Bogdonavich and his collaborators nail the spirit and rhythm of its genre predecessors. Unlike others who have tried to ape the same set of films, Bogdonavich truly seems to understand the intelligence and sharp wit of the 30's films. There are several very inspired scenes and moments in WHAT'S UP, DOC? – the scene under the banquet table and the final fight in the house with all the modern art (pies in the face!) – that would make Howard Hawks, Frank Capra and the like very proud.The only major issue with the film, in my mind, is the characterization of Judy, as played by Barbra Streisand. She is very destructive and there are times when her behavior can be construed as mean-spirited. It is borderline and I think when all is said and done, Streisand's charm counter-balances and mostly overcomes this flaw. Additionally, this sort of menace in her character connects her even further to Bugs Bunny (the title is also her opening line and yes, she chomps a carrot as she delivers it), so I suppose it was part of the vision. Still, there was a certain amount of discomfort that hovered over some scenes because some of her actions, though amusing, adversely affected the character's likeability.This is not to take anything away from Streisand's performance. I had forgotten what a comic genius she was and in this movie, she's also extremely sexy (that's right, I said it!). She gels nicely with Bogdonavich's scheme for the film, like a glove that slides onto the hand in a perfect fit. Her pace, wit, charm and intelligence are a wonder to behold and it is truly a remarkable tour de force comedic performance. Come to think of it, she was at a bit of a zenith in her career with FUNNY GIRL, HELLO, DOLLY!, this and THE WAY WE WERE two years later. Similarly, Bogdonavich was also at a creative peak making this film between the earth-shatteringly good THE LAST PICTURE SHOW and the also outstanding PAPER MOON. In many ways, WHAT'S UP, DOC? is something of a meeting of the minds, a cross-pollination of two artists at high points in their careers. And the result is unexpectedly hilarious. (For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: Things You Can Tell Just By Looking at Her on Reel 13

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:28:05 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 11/19/2008 3:28:05 PM
Body: I actually saw NINE LIVES, Rodrigo Garcia's very similar follow-up to this film, a few months ago and so when I saw TTHINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER on Reel 13 at the end of October, I was having déjà vu all over again. Both films are an anthology of short films that give us glimpses into the lives of women living and working in Los Angeles. The two films boast many of the same female actors (Glenn Close, Holly Hunter, Kathy Baker, Amy Brenneman) and each film features some terrific performances (and one or two bad ones). Neither film is very upbeat or uplifting as they tend to focus on very sad moments in these women's lives. They are both mostly good and very accomplished and yet, I felt more connected with NINE LIVES. It has occurred to me that the reason for that is possibly that I saw it first even though THINGS YOU CAN TELL was chronologically first. Seeing THINGS YOU CAN TELL felt like rehashing old territory, which I think adversely impacted my viewing experience. Also, the major difference between the two films is that each of the stories in NINE LIVES are filmed in a single shot, with a slow-moving, unobtrusive camera. No cuts in the entire film. This gives NINE LIVES a certain vitality. Conversely, THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER featured beautiful, rich close-ups, but at the same time, felt a little more contrived, crafted. It seemed slightly less real.As with anything so fragmented, some segments are going to be better than others. Here, the stories featuring Glenn Close ("This is Dr. Keener") and Cameron Diaz ("Love Waits for Kathy") are both very strong and interesting. The tarot card scene featuring Close and Calista Flockhart is a triumph for both actors (and was wisely featured by Reel 13 on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2RF6Kgowk). Ally McBeal has tainted the minds of viewers into the thinking that Flockhart's not the real deal, but here she proves different. The same goes for Cameron Diaz, whose good looks take attention away from her considerable talent. She has a monologue at the end of the film that is wonderfully executed. Even the consummate theater actor would have to be impressed, particularly by how she makes it work for the camera. Lots of consecutive words tend to fall flat on screen, but Diaz makes the most of her close up and lets her face tell the rest of the story that her words leave out. I think it's something young actors should looking at when studying screen acting.Another downfall of the anthology structure is the probability of losing momentum and THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER suffers from that, particularly in its latter stages. This is particularly notable during the less successful segments in the film, including Kathy Baker's ("Someone for Rose") and "Goodnight Lilly, Goodnight Christine", which features Calista Flockhart again as a lesbian who has to watch her lover (Valeria Golino) die. I really wanted to like that one – both actors are very strong in it, but, as you can probably imagine, it is simply way too slow and depressing to be effective. On the whole, there is a lot of craft to the film. Garcia recruited one Emanuel Lubezki (one of the top three working cinematographers, if not the best) to shoot the film and the results are outstanding, particularly the aforementioned close-ups. The duo chose, on several occasions, to give the actors a great deal of headroom on some shots. It's a little distracting and I'm although I'm sure it was purposeful, I'm not clear as to their reasoning. Perhaps they were trying to suggest the influence of the surroundings on their characters or something like that… it's hard to say for sure.On the whole, Garcia does a good job of planting small mysteries within his little micro-dramas, which manages to keep us mostly interested and engaged. Though, as I suggested, I prefer his follow-up NINE LIVES, I have a great deal of respect for what Garcia is doing and how he directs actors. That is just as true here as it was in that film and I feel like the pros of THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER outweigh the cons. Now, the challenge for Rodrigo Garcia is to take his gifts and segue out of this niche that he's created for himself. That's what it will take for him to go to the next level as a modern filmmaker. (For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: 12 Angry Men on Reel 13

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:03:21 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 11/19/2008 3:03:21 PM
Body: A film that almost exclusively takes place in a single room is a frightening prospect, both to an audience (the potential boredom is very high) and to a filmmaker to somehow make it work, make it move and most importantly, make it cinematic. Sidney Lumet achieved just that with one of his earliest feature films – the Reel 13 Classic from late October - 12 ANGRY MEN. The driving force behind making this film work is editing. The pace is impeccable and manages to make a one-room movie bristle with energy. Lumet doesn't overpower us with too much camera movement, but he knows just how long to hold on a shot and when to move on to the next. It doesn't hurt to have such a good story as a foundation either. To be honest, though I hadn't seen the film, we had studied the teleplay in high school and even then, I found the concept of one juror after another succumbing to "Juror 8" (Henry Fonda) kind of contrived. However, Lumet and his ensemble make it seem plausible, primarily by the way the editor and the writer make the plot unfold. It unravels the way good mysteries should - one strand at a time, leaving bread crumbs for the audience to follow the trail, but also making sure they don't arrive there too soon.As far as the aforementioned ensemble is concerned, it was a great choice of Lumet not to go overboard with the star power. Essentially, he has 11 character actors and one star, which is perfect for this sort of thing. It adds to the sense of verisimilitude – they feel like real guys in that room (with the exception of Fonda, of course), guys that you could have seen on the street or at the bar in 1957. As it happens, Fonda's a bit of a weak link amidst the cast, not so much for what he does as the lack of dimensions to the character. His Juror 8 is less of a man than a symbol of righteous indignation. Similarly, Lee J. Cobb as the primary antagonist hits a few false notes, tending to veer towards Pacino-like bellowing. It is the rest of the cast that make the film feel so alive – actors like Jack Warden, Jack Klugman and perhaps most of all, E.G. Marshall. These actors are seasoned veterans who make the most of this opportunity to be on equal ground with someone like Fonda. With every close-up, they each give us a little more insight into their character – all with their expression or their detailed facial movements. It's practically a tutorial for what film acting should be.Still, I have to think that, at the end of the day, it's the oft-underrated Lumet who is primarily responsible for making 12 ANGRY MEN such an effective and thought-provoking piece of entertainment (10 on IMDb's all-time rankings!). It takes a great deal of knowledge of the craft of filmmaking to make such a static story work so beautifully on screen and Lumet had enough confidence in his abilities to be up to the task. And as with most great films, the devil's in the details. It's the small things (the sound design, the facial expressions, the rhythm) that make 12 ANGRY MEN not just a great one-room movie, but a great movie period. (For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: The Great Escape on Reel 13

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:46:32 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 11/14/2008 12:46:32 PM
Body: I have seen THE GREAT ESCAPE dozens of times and it's always fun to watch, which remained to be true when it aired this past October on Reel 13. In spite of how often I'd seen it, I had forgotten that it was based on a true story, which makes it all the more remarkable.I think the element that most makes THE GREAT ESCAPE work is the level of detail, the great pains that director John Sturges (in his third Reel 13 film this year) takes to display how things work – from how they forge the IDs to how they get the wood to support the tunnel to how they dispose of all the dirt they dig up without arousing suspicion. The more information we have as a viewer, the more engaged we are in the process, as if we were a part of the escape. Initially, it all seems like minutiae, but it adds up. I can't think of a modern film that would take the time to offer such small details. It's unfortunate, too, because it enhances the excitement and interest greatly. Also, for a film that lacks a lot of Sturges' trademark action scenes, it keeps the pace moving and the tone suspenseful. The film doesn't really require "acting" in the traditional sense from its large all-male cast. For the most part, their characters are composites and as a result, are essentially built around a few basic factoids (i.e. American, pilot, good at scrounging, etc.). This is not a complaint or criticism so much an observation. As I've said, the film works. It's just interesting that it manages to work with mostly two-dimensional characters. They are mostly required to be macho, look cool and offer relevant information for the advancement of the plot. This plays perfectly into the hands of Charisma King Steve McQueen. Other MAGNIFICENT SEVEN alums James Coburn and Charles Bronson amuse themselves by putting on an accent, neither with much success. The latter has a claustrophobia subplot that isn't really effective or interesting. Donald Pleasance is one notable exception as the forger who deals with losing his eyesight. However, perhaps the strongest performance in the film comes from Sir Richard Attenborough as Bartlett or "Big X", the leader of the main escape attempt. While he also has a lot narrative information to convey to the audience, he layers it with the great burden of being a leader of such a dangerous enterprise. Several hundred men rely on him for their freedom and he makes that apparent in Bartlett's face and body language. Similarly, he plays the character as a man who could and would make quick decisions and sacrifices for the good of the mission, regardless of how unpopular they may be. Granted, Attenborough is given the best material in the character of Bartlett, but he doesn't fumble the ball. It's some great work. With that said, it struck me the connection between Big X and a film director. From the way he chose the route, the costumes, the paperwork, but also consulted his men from different "departments", it's as if he were "directing" a film of the escape instead of managing the actual event. (Interestingly enough, Attenborough would go on to be an Oscar-winning film director).While it would never crack my top fifty films of all-time, THE GREAT ESCAPE is and always was a film I enjoyed thoroughly. Though, in the Sturges' canon, it does not come close to BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK - the masterpiece that I discovered this past April on Reel 13, it is stronger than THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, even though it's more ambitious. As an older and more experienced filmmaker, Sturges meets the challenge of balancing all the elements in THE GREAT ESCAPE e and manages to craft a thrilling adventure story that is and shall remain timeless. (For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: Jump Tomorrow on Reel 13

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:33:52 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 11/13/2008 6:33:52 PM
Body: Every April, I go to NYU's First Run Festival, their annual primary showcase of their student's best works. That's where I first saw FIVE FEET HIGH AND RISING, which was later made into the feature RAISING VICTOR VARGAS. One year before that (1997), I saw a delightful short called JORGE about a very tall, very awkward African-American man looking for love in all the wrong places. I knew the short did well, but I didn't know it later led to yet another feature for an NYU alum. I was thrilled to discover that UMP TOMORROW, an October Indie on Reel 13, resurrects the character of Jorge, still played by filmmaker cum actor Tunde Adebimpe, in yet another romantic adventure. Director Joel Hopkins adds some other elements to the mix this time around, including French comic actor Hippolyte Girardot, Hispanic beauty Natalie Verbeke and the stuffy Brit actor James Wilby. However, they really just fill out the edges of the feature. What really made Jorge and Jump Tomorrow tick was the presence of Tunde. As I alluded to earlier, Tunde is not a trained actor. He was actually a fellow film student of London-born Hopkins. Hopkins saw his natural comic ability and proceeded to craft both the short and the feature around his assets. In spite of his tall, imposing physique, the magic of Jorge is how Tunde transforms him into a quiet, shy figure and yet he remains consistently charismatic. He doesn't say much, which is fine because Tunde's blank expression tends to speak volumes. Furthermore, his physical comedic ability is on par with a (much taller) modern day Buster Keaton. Adebimpe uses his large frame to maximum comic potential and the results are truly joyous.Hopkins, as a director, has a little more to offer than just discovering unusual talent. His style is very playful, like something out of the late 60's, and this serves the film well. He manufactures great, plausible comic situations for his traveling duo of Jorge and Girard (Girardot) that he helps work even more with a solid pace. More often than not, independent comedies are killed by their directors and editors letting scenes linger on too long, which diffuses their jokes. Hopkins and his team know just when to cut and truly seem to understand comic timing for film. The frames are consistently well chosen, some of them almost Wes Anderson-esque in their straight-on approach and the light, good-humored music is perfect fit for the light, good-humored narrative.The actual story isn't the strong suit of the film. Contrivances are abundant and the plot is essentially familiar: Jorge meets someone special on route to his arranged wedding and she is also engaged to someone else. However, Jump Tomorrow doesn't try to be groundbreaking. It rests its laurels on its (and particularly Tunde's) charm and its almost absurdist style. In that sense, it is a hugely successful enterprise because in spite of its flaws, it never ceases to be amusing, entertaining and simply lovely. Hopkins next film, LAST CHANCE HARVEY, comes out this year starring Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman. After seeing JUMP TOMORROW, I know that I plan to be at the multiplex opening weekend to catch his follow up. (For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Post: Oliver Twist on Reel 13

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:30:49 GMT

Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 11/13/2008 6:30:49 PM
Body: I think my appreciation for OLIVER TWIST as a story by Dickens was dulled a little bit by the lame musical version, made into an Oscar-winning film in 1968 by Sir Carol Reed. It's the version by another knighted filmmaker – Sir David Lean – from 1948 that made me respect it again and I have to once again thank Reel 13 for bringing it to us this past October. Lean uses a very similar approach to Dickens that he used in GREAT EXPECTATIONS two years prior. Same Gothic-style production design, luscious high contrast cinematography and a brisk, efficient pace. He even brings back many of the same actors as if he had a Dickens repertory troupe of some kind. Perhaps his wisest decision was increasing the screen time for Alec Guinness, who played a minor supporting role in EXPECTATIONS, but here gets to chew scenery as Fagin. Sir Alec, as you might expect, does not disappoint. He disappears into the character behind a wig, a sneer and a great deal of make-up. The character is fascinating to begin with, but Guinness adds layer upon layer to help create a three-dimensional portrait of greed with an ounce or two of compassion. Modern audiences might be offended by the gigantic prosthetic hooknose (to suggest his Jewish heritage) he dons, but these were less sensitive times. Similar devices were frequently used at the Old Vic and such for "The Merchant of Venice", et al, so no harm was meant.I would still argue that GREAT EXPECTATIONS (aired on Reel 13 in April) is a slightly better film than OLIVER TWIST, but I think the primary reason for that is that EXPECTATIONS is just a stronger story than TWIST. In terms of filmic interpretation, Lean does a masterful job in both instances, on his way to becoming one of the finest filmmakers we've ever known. (For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Spout Member:The_MOW - Mickey Micklon

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: The_MOW
Name: Mickey Micklon
Interests: movies, sci-fi, professional wrestling
Occupation: Unemployed
Location: Salem, NH
Films listed: 369
Number of lists: 4
Number of groups: 2
Blog posts: 372
Blog post views: 11337
Number of times tagged: 25
Member since: 4/4/2009
Last login: 10/13/2009

Spout Member:horror

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: horror
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 1/17/2009
Last login: 1/17/2009

Spout Member:butterknife

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: butterknife
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Blog posts: 1
Member since: 4/2/2008
Last login: 4/2/2008

Spout Member:rnt2630

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: rnt2630
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/13/2007
Last login: 9/13/2007

Spout Member:dsalaski

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: dsalaski
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007

Spout Member:jennkp

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: jennkp
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007

Spout Member:Don0262

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: Don0262
Films listed: 2
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/9/2007
Last login: 9/9/2007

Spout Member:martinluthar

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: martinluthar
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007

Spout Member:clwoolfe

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: clwoolfe
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007

Spout Member:XtreamDenny

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: XtreamDenny
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:bofo

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: bofo
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:seanjoneswrexham

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: seanjoneswrexham
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:nny921

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: nny921
Number of lists: 4
Number of groups: 2
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 11/20/2008

Spout Member:mr_lol

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: mr_lol
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 9/3/2007

Spout Member:fire1311

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: fire1311
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/1/2007
Last login: 9/1/2007

Spout Member:Argueta

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: Argueta
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 8/31/2007
Last login: 8/31/2007

Film:Funny Games

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMT

Title: Funny Games
Year: 2007
Director: Michael Haneke
Times Tagged: 27
Number of Lists: 24
Number of blog posts: 14
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Dark Knight

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:13:34 GMT

Title: The Dark Knight
Year: 2008
Director: Christopher Nolan
Times Tagged: 149
Number of Lists: 98
Number of blog posts: 156
Number of discussion threads: 55
SpoutRating: 4

Film:H2

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:45:58 GMT

Title: H2
Year: 2009
Director: Rob Zombie
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 1

Film:Eleanor: First Lady of the World

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:47:51 GMT

Title: Eleanor: First Lady of the World
Year: 1982
Director: John Erman
Number of blog posts: 1

Film:Black Test Car

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:01:54 GMT

Title: Black Test Car
Year: 1962
Number of Lists: 2
SpoutRating: 4

Film:Dumpster Baby

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:53:10 GMT

Title: Dumpster Baby
Director: James Bickert
Number of Lists: 1

Film:Rick

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:32:48 GMT

Title: Rick
Year: 2002
Director: Curtiss Clayton
Times Tagged: 1
Number of Lists: 1
SpoutRating: 2

Film:Speed Racer

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:21:45 GMT

Title: Speed Racer
Year: 2008
Director: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Times Tagged: 90
Number of Lists: 16
Number of blog posts: 41
Number of discussion threads: 16
SpoutRating: 3

Film:Speed Racer [Anime Series]

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:20:43 GMT

Title: Speed Racer [Anime Series]
Year: 1967
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Raven

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:13:53 GMT

Title: The Raven
Year: 2007
Director: Ulli Lommel
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 1

Film:The Ballad of the Sad Cafe

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:25:24 GMT

Title: The Ballad of the Sad Cafe
Year: 1991
Director: Simon Callow
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 2

Film:New York, New York

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:22:40 GMT

Title: New York, New York
Year: 1977
Director: Martin Scorsese
Times Tagged: 23
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 57
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 2

Film:St. Nick

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:01:06 GMT

Title: St. Nick
Year: 2009
Director: David Lowery
Times Tagged: 3
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 5
SpoutRating: 5

Film:We Are the Strange

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:25:52 GMT

Title: We Are the Strange
Year: 2007
Director: M dot Strange
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 4

Film:The Sadist

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:08:29 GMT

Title: The Sadist
Year: 1963
Director: James Landis
Number of Lists: 4
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Alligator People

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:04:19 GMT

Title: The Alligator People
Year: 1959
Director: Roy Del Ruth
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 2