Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • FilmCouch #98: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Review Backlash

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    A few episodes ago, we talked about Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire. We had a few bones to pick with hyper-paced indie romance, some of which caused us to question the value of Boyle’s cannon. As we should have expected, a few listeners were not happy with us dogging the feel-good, rags-to-riches, out-of-left-field Oscar contender of the year.

    Meanwhile, Karina has written a less than favorable review of the forthcoming David Fincher film, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Again, a wave of backlash has ensued.

    Are we simply spiteful film snobs who love ripping on movies while they ride a wave of buzz into awards season? No. We love movies. But sometimes that love must be tough. On this week’s show we clarify a few positions, navigate the tricky waters of blogosphere backlash, and search for what Werner Herzog calls “adequate images.”

    (Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store or to our RSS feed and an episode will download each Friday)

    0:00 - Intro, the ideal Thanksgiving

    7:56 - Slumdog backlash, It’s a Wonderful Life, Casablanca

    24:41 - Karina on Benjamin Button

    filmcouch-98


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Thanksgiving Reading Material

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    So, we’re taking the rest of the week off. Enjoy your, uh, eating and shopping? That’s what people do, right? (I’m half-English, so I’m only half willing to admit that Thanksgiving even exists.) But first, for your holiday browsing pleasure, here are a bunch of stories from this week that I meant to comment on but ran out of time. Let me know if there’s anything in particular that you’d like me to revisit in depth next week.

    • “Auteurism had Andrew Sarris. Abstract expressionism had Clement Greenberg. Punk rock had Lester Bangs. Where is the equivalent voice for today’s documentary scene?” So ponders Thom Powers, before offering a number of tips for those of us who might aim to fill the position.
    • “Is there room in that diverse [film festival] community for people of faith?  For people of more conservative political beliefs?  Or are film festivals only for the support and promotion of those who agree with a specific, left-of-center political philosophy?  And therefore, must major film festivals — and their primary staff — have a de facto bias toward that philosphy?” AJ Schnack examines the implications of the Prop 8/Rich Raddon situation.
    • Eric Kohn visited the Futures of Entertainment conference, sponsored by the Comparative Media Studies department at MIT. “As the conversations progressed, so too did a flurry of typing from numerous laptops throughout the audience: Microblogging and online chatter created a series of miniature conversations that converged into a unified whole.”
    • In the second of potentially three posts on Synechdoche, NY, Filmbrain runs Charlie Kaufman’s directorial debut through the ringer of the Jungian concept of individuation. “The individuation process is about the uniting of opposites — good and evil, masculine and feminine, matter and spirit, body and psyche. There’s no question that Caden undertakes the journey, but he fails to become an individual, both literally and psychologically. Caden treats his life (both the conscious and unconscious elements) like a stage play, yet his attempt at directing from an omniscient position robs him of (in alchemical terms) the prima materia required for one to be a person.”

    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Seth Gordon Interview: We Didn’t Show You The Darker Stuff in The King of Kong

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    Seth Gordon

    I recently had the chance to sit down with director Seth Gordon while he was promoting his holiday comedy Four Christmases, which is a decent enough film with a few laughs in it, most of them courtesy of Jon Favreau’s UFC fighter wannabe character and his redneck wife, excellently played by Katy Mixon. Growing up in Texas, it’s a great portrait of many holidays past.

    However, I couldn’t stop myself from asking him about The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters, and the controversy it’s stirred up. In my other article talking about that movie and Chasing Ghosts: Beyond the Arcade, my point was that Ghosts was a much better film if you’re looking for a documentary about the arcades of yesteryear. That doesn’t mean that I wasn’t entertained by The King of Kong –– on the contrary I find it very entertaining, and having met Steve Wiebe several times, he literally is one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet, just like in the film.

    My main problem was the fact that Seth and his producer Ed Cunningham had seemed to play fast and loose with the facts when they edited their movie. Gordon doesn’t deny this, and he tantalizingly drops the fact that Billy Mitchell was actually much worse than they depicted in the movie. Does this mean that there needs to be a The King of Kong 2: Take This Hammer and Shove It sequel to set the record straight? I’d stand in line for that.

    So, I cover a lot of video game events for Joystiq, and going to these video game events I have run into Walter Day, who is very outspoken.  He has a whole page on Twin Galaxies sort of refuting facts in The King of Kong.  He breaks down the dinner and says, “Well, Billy actually did come into that dinner.  The movie makes it look like he just drove away after he found out he was there.”  And all these other facts.

    I know there is a frequently asked questions page on the The King of Kong website where you guys kind of address a couple things…

    Oh there is, right.

    But has Walter tried to contact you?  Do you know about the whole controversy?  Was the movie a product of kind of the editing process to help heighten the tension between Steve and Billy?

    It is such a complicated conversation.  The way we painted Billy and his actions is so much gentler that we could have, that it makes it hard for me to stomach the tiny little details that they are choosing to fight about, because his true actions were so ugly that we couldn’t use the complete truth, meaning we didn’t show him as dark as he really is.

    To have them take issue with these tiny, tiny little things makes me want to unveil the darker stuff, because it would silence them forever.  But it is not worth my time.  I don’t think it is worth the kind of bad blood that could bring to start really opening Pandora’s box.

    I could tell you off the record some of this stuff, but the dude is so much worse than we painted him out to be.  So we just included the stuff in the movie that was necessary to tell the story and to understand Steve’s fear of him and his reputation, but we didn’t go into any of the stuff we could have.

    All of their claims are fine, but someday we should have a symposium.  The truth is that Walter is regularly in touch with Ed Cunningham, specifically the producer of Kong, and they are good friends.  So there is no bad blood there.

    Some of those guys are pissed, like Dwayne.  Dwayne is sort of frothing at the mouth.  He is making his other documentary, I believe. Dwayne is an extreme dude.  I am excited to have a documentary that supposedly proves ours wrong.

    I invite it like, “Do the best you can dude.  Do whatever you want.”  But if we went to court and we brought all the evidence, I am sure they would regret that choice.

    The only other kind of exposure we have had to that world was Chasing Ghosts, which was at Sundance when you were at Slamdance, and then it kind of didn’t have nearly the success that Kong did, although it is coming out on Showtime next month, I just heard.

    Oh good.

    Yeah, it is going to finally be seen.

    You know what?  I didn’t know that they ever sold it.  I am excited for them.

    They are much lighter with Billy in that, although I haven’t talked to those filmmakers about the Kong controversy.  I would love to see if what they did similar to what you did.  When you do the feature film version, or the narrative, the scripted making of Kong, the remake I guess, is that something you would feel more comfortable pursuing? I mean, are these characters going to be named Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell?

    Yeah.

    Would you go down that dark road any with Billy’s character?

    Sure.

    Because you can say, “Well, you know.  This is scripted.  This is fake.”

    No, we would probably show a little more of the truth, but I think we would also hint at it more than making it…You don’t need to do much in a narrative film to suggest someone is sinister.

    I think if Billy in a narrative film behaved exactly like he did during our doc, you would consider him implausible and unbelievable, I think.  Right?  I am not talking about the footage we didn’t use.

    You are talking about what you did use.

    I am talking about the footage we did use.  Sure.

    Sure.  That is why everyone hates this guy after that movie.

    Right.  So I don’t think we would have to do much of that, but we might do a little bit.

    Tell me about The Only Living Boy in New York.  What is that all about?

    It is a great story.  It is along the lines of The Graduate.  There is a Greek tragedy kind of plot where a kid finds out his father has a mistress, and instead of doing…The way he handles it is he ends up seducing the mistress himself.

    So this woman is sleeping with both the father and the son.  Neither knows about it.  It is just really heavy.  In the process he learns that these sort of changes in some more of a semantic responsibility and accountability for his actions.  That ends up making it possible for him to fall for…

    The girl that he was interested in ends ups starting to get interested back in him and grow an unrequited love.  It is a great story.

    Is it based on something?  Is it original?  Did you write it?

    I didn’t write it.  Alan Lowe wrote it.

    Does it look like that will be your next film or do you think Kong will be the next one?

    I would imagine it will be close, because that script is done, done and the Kong script is a great first pass that is likely to take a big step up and then get cast.  So I would imagine it wouldn’t be sooner.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • 10 Craziest Shopping Scenes

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Chopping Mall  (1986)

    Dawn of the Dead  (1979)

    Falling Down  (1993)

    Mannequin  (1987)

    Modern Times  (1936)

    Splash  (1984)

    The Toy  (1982)

    True Stories  (1986)

    The Women  (1939)

    Police Story  (1985)

    Pleasantville  (1998)

    28 Days Later  (2003)

    Dawn of the Dead  (2003)

    Black Friday is a scary time for shoppers in any given year. The crowds, the lines, the difficulty finding parking — all these and more are common annoyances on the day after Thanksgiving, as millions upon millions of Americans begin the Christmas season by making a run for the shopping malls and department stores in hopes of finding the best bargains. This year, of course, the economic downturn will make the day even worse than usual. The stores may be desperately holding the biggest sales we’ll ever witness, but lowest prices aren’t quite low enough for those who are broke or bankrupt.

    So, you may stay home this Friday. Perhaps you’ll at least make some minor online purchases, because you’re a patriotic, consuming American and it’s kind of like an unofficial holiday in our capitalist democracy. But don’t not go out to the mall simply because of the craziness potentially happening on its many floors of fashion and furnishings. You mustn’t be frightened of the crowds. Just recall any or all of the following ten movie scenes and by comparison you’ll think your Black Friday errands are like a stroll in the park.

    10. Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Sinbad in Jingle All the Way (1996)

    Maybe in the past there were physical fights for Cabbage Patch Kids or Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, but in the age of the Internet, there are easier ways of tracking down hot items on your kid’s wish list. So, while this sequence depicting two fathers’ desperate attempts to locate a Turbo Man toy is ridiculously exaggerated and despicably malicious for its time, it’s now even farther from likelihood and even less possible to sympathize with or relate to.

    9. Beethoven shops for keyboards, Genghis Khan tries out baseball bats and other historical figures experience 1980s mall culture in Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1988)

    Obviously you don’t think you’ll be running into such oldies as Abraham Lincoln, Joan of Arc or Billy the Kid, but there could be some relatively ancient folks out and about Friday. And they may not be familiar with such newfangled presents as iPods and Blu-ray. But give the Grannies a break, because they haven’t yet mastered Amazon.com and its not like they’re causing too much ruckus. Unlike Joan and Genghis.

    8. Madison learns English at Bloomingdales in Splash (1984)

    Maybe it is plausible for a mermaid to pick up the local language by watching a few hours of television. How are we to prove otherwise? But wouldn’t she have some kind of an accent if she were used to communicating with high-pitched shrieks? Whatever, it’s obviously not the movie for such questions regarding believabilty. Here’s the more important thing to consider: of all the yelling and screaming going on at the shops this Friday, nothing will be as bad as Madison’s pronunciation of her real name. Also, I bet modern TV screens aren’t as easily shattered.

    7. Neo-Nazi salesman at the Army Surplus store in Falling Down (1993)

    It’s true that many salespersons and cashiers are slow, rude, incompetent or all of the above. But thank goodness there aren’t actually a lot of sexist, homophobic neo-Nazis helping you as you buy shoes. As much as you think you’ve experienced the worst employee ever hired by a retail chain, chances are it wasn’t as much of an inconvenience as it was for William Foster (Michael Douglas) to have to deal with this “sick asshole.”

    6. Technicolor fashion show in The Women (1939)

    This scene is so unnecessary to the film’s plot that it was easily removed for some modern screenings. Mostly it seems just to serve as a showcase for costume designer Adrian, whose fashions are displayed in Technicolor, while the rest of the film is presented in black and white. For the film’s characters to wear any of those outfits, they would have appeared too bold and sexy for their time (it would be like in Pleasantville). Imagine shopping in a store where the clothes aren’t even in the same color spectrum as the world you live in? Okay, in some stores it does seem like that’s the case, but nowhere near as bad as this.

    5. Bizarre fashion show in True Stories (1986)

    And despite its dismissal of physics, the parade in The Women is nowhere near as bad as the fashion show in this bizarre film from Talking Heads frontman David Byrne. There’s not even anything that can be said for this scene other than that we should all be thankful the kids aren’t wearing anything quite so ridiculous. Even some of the stuff at Hot Topic seems more normal in comparison.

    4. After hours shopping spree in Modern Times (1936)

    One great fantasy for all good, consumerist Americans is the empty-store scenario. Whether it’s the end of the world (a la Night of the Comet and 28 Days Later) or simply after hours (Mannequin; El Crimen Ferpecto), the dream is somewhat the same: free reign on all the goods in the store, from food to fashion to roller skates. And for a poor little gamin in Modern Times, it’s like a heavenly shopping spree, even if none of the items are to leave the department store when the fun is over. However, as much as you might hope you had the stores all to yourself on Friday, be thankful that you’re obeying the rules and laws and therefore won’t be arrested when the shopping’s done.

    3. Mall car chase in The Blues Brothers (1980)

    Good thing there’s a quick shot of a Toys “R” Us customer asking a cashier for a Miss Piggy doll or this scene wouldn’t really have anything to do with shopping. It would just simply be a chaotic car chase through a shopping mall. Of course, the destruction could still read as a destroying of the idea of capitalism, just as a similar reading is made about the mall fight in Jackie Chan’s Police Story, as well as any other such mall-set action scene, of which there seemed to be plenty in the materialistic 1980s. As fun as it seems, and as frustrated you might get on Friday, please don’t drive your car into any stores.

    2. Zombies go shopping in Dawn of the Dead (1978)

    This movie is not just some horror flick about people trapped in a mall, threatened by a terrorizing enemy. That’s Chopping Mall. Or the Dawn of the Dead remake. No, this is a satire of consumerism, and all those zombies are representative of the folks you’ll be encountering on Black Friday. But at least they won’t try and eat you. Probably.

    1. Richard Pryor is reduced to property in The Toy (1982)

    Kids are really spoiled these days, even more than they were twenty-six years ago, but no matter how hard it is to imagine what to get the boy who has everything, don’t even think of asking an African-American man if you can buy him for your son.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Penguin Demonstrates Documentary Ethics Issue. Clip of the Day

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Grey Gardens  (1975)

    If you were a nature documentarian and you were filming a lion’s hunt, would you intervene and save a gazelle from being eaten? Probably not, but if you were making a documentary about poor children in the Red Light district of Calcutta, you’d probably want to help the kids out, maybe even film yourself doing good deeds in order to show just how much of a saint you are. Obviously there’s a big difference in the ethical obligation to human beings versus animals, but there has also always been a debate with documentary regarding just how much interaction and intervention is okay. Should a filmmaker remain completely detached from his or her subject? Should the line be drawn at life or death situations, or is it fine to become involved with the filmed people? If direct-cinema kings Albert and David Maysles can interact so much with the Beales of Grey Gardens, even potentially becoming romantically involved, then nobody should question a documentarian’s desire to be an angel with a handicam. Right?

    Let’s pretend that the penguin in today’s clip is not just a crafty bird with the good fortune of having a whale watching vessel with which to elude his predators. Let us instead think of him as a representation of the documentary subject. Already, just by being there for the penguin to jump aboard, the boat is an example of the “observer effect” (and related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle)  In such circumstances it is impossible to adequately document the reality of this subject’s choices, since the documenter has become inadvertently involved and added an otherwise unavailable possibility. Now, because of the unintended intervention, the documenters have two choices: they can save this penguin’s life by keeping him in the boat, though this upsets the truth and nature of the film; they can throw the penguin back into the water, though this would still be a directly active participation, and besides it then could actually implicate the documenter/observer in the murder of this subject — even if the peguin’s death was already guaranteed prior to this environmental disturbance.

    So, what should happen to the penguin?


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Baz Luhrmann’s Australia: Five Reasons The Critics Are Wrong

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Wizard of Oz  (1939)

    Moulin Rouge  (2001)

    Australia  (2008)

    I might as well get this out of the way first: I loved Baz Luhrmann’s epic Australia. I was on the fence about seeing this, especially once I heard about the 165 minute running time, but I gave in and boy was I glad. It’s a sprawling epic with nods to classic films of the 30s and 40s, and besides featuring the eye candy combo of Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, it also introduces Brandon Walters, who is possibly the cutest child actor alive. If there was some sort of scientific cuteness scale, he’d break it.

    Despite the beautiful vistas and the sweeping storyline, not everyone is loving it. After the press screening I attended, a bunch of us gathered on the street outside the theater to debate reactions. It was oddly dividing: people either hated it or loathed it. I’d spent part of the week with a friend from Australia, and he’d denounced it as cheesy, because they have two Aussies in the lead roles: Jackman doing a faux “crikey!” Australian accent, while Kidman actually has a faux British accent. He said most of his friends in Sydney felt the same way.

    Here in the States, Australia’s detractors are saying a lot of the same things. So, I’m taking the top five critiques of Australia and refuting them. I might not be able to change the critics’ minds, but I’m hoping you’ll at least give the movie a chance in theaters. Spoilers ahead!

    Somewhere Over The Rainbow

    Umpteen choruses of “Over the Rainbow,” the Wizard of Oz tune that is sung whenever a tear needs jerking.” Peter Travers - Rolling Stone

    “You’ll also get a bit tired of hearing “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” and references to Oz again and again.” Tricia Olszewski - Washington City Paper

    There’s a pretty strong effort by Luhrmann to link Australia to The Wizard of Oz, and not just with this song. However, I have to take issue with these two critics. Maybe they don’t remember the movie that well, but it’s not sung often. Kidman first performs a comical rendition of the song because she can’t remember the words to it, and later Nullah sees it on the screen, basking in the glow of his first movie ever. It is played on a harmonica several times, but that’s because it becomes the song linking Lady Ashley and Nullah together. When he tells her, “I’ll sing you to me,” he means with that song. When he inherits the harmonica from the ill-fated accountant, of course he’s bound to play it –a nd yes, your heart is made of black ice if you don’t feel a twinge or two whenever he does.

    The Running Time

    “Long before the second hour of Australia (which feels like the fifth)…” Lisa Schwarzbaum - Entertainment Weekly

    “When this storyline is resolved at only ninety minutes, the film gets another fresh hour out of the bombing of Darwin by the Japanese in 1941…” Matt Goldberg - Collider

    Yes, we get it: the movie is long. But where was it ever written that films should always be two hours long at max? If I’m being entertained and I’m still drawn in by the story, then I don’t mind how long it stretches on. Although I’m not lobbying for a director’s cut version of Australia that rivals Che in length, I certainly didn’t find the movie to be too long. Yes, there are separate story arcs throughout, but even when the movie is over, you’re still wondering what’s going on the the main characters. Especially Nullah, who heads off into the Outback on walkabout with his mystical grandfather.

    It’s Sappy

    “You may find yourself drowning in high-fructose Aussie corn syrup…” Michael Phillips - The Chicago Tribune

    “Australia is what you get when the film projector overheats and the only thing that comes out is pure corn syrup.” Brandon Fibbs - BrandonFibbs.com

    Can you name one Baz Luhrmann film that isn’t sappy and overtly saccharine at times? Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge… they’ve all had those moments, so why would Australia be any different? It’s a sweeping epic fantasy love story, and if you can name any massive romance movie for me that doesn’t have even the tiniest bit of schmaltz in it, then I’ll buy your movie popcorn for a month. Several main characters get murdered in this story, aboriginal children are ripped from their homes, and the Japanese bomb Darwin, including a mission full of kids. If a filmmaker can’t balance that out with loads of happier moments and some cinematic sugar, then you’d just wind up with a depressing mess. You look for those cheesy moments to balance the mood, and even though in Luhrmann’s case you can see them coming from a mile away, they’re just as welcome.

    The Special Effects Are Bad

    “The CGI sequences – the cattle stampede, the Japanese bombing raid – that look so glaringly, absurdly fake” Tom Maurstad - The Dallas Morning News

    “The BLUE SCREEN EFFECTS WERE DOWNRIGHT AWFUL. I felt like I was watching 10,000 B.C.” - Kevin McCarthy - Big Daddy Kev’s Movie Reviews

    This was one of the big ones that people were talking about outside my screening, and I also wonder if these same people saw Moulin Rouge. That didn’t really look like a nightclub in the middle of Paris, it looked stylized and cartoonishly fake. Likewise, Australia goes to great lengths to create scenes that aren’t meant to look “fake” exactly, but they’re meant to imitate the style of films from the 30s and 40s that often featured fake sunsets and night skies. Luhrmann is creating fantasy here, so why would he try going for photorealism? It’s meant to look larger than life, grand, and completely garish and fake at times. You’ve taken the twister into Oz, and it’s not meant to look like a documentary that was shot on location. Besides, the CGI attack on Darwin, which many people say looks fake, looked pretty darn realistic to me. It looked better than Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor, and that wasn’t so shabby either. Maybe everyone should just go back to using miniatures so people will stop talking about CGI.

    Nicole Kidman Can’t Act

    “Why won’t Nicole Kidman’s face move?” Stephanie Zacharek - Salon

    “Think Katharine Hepburn in The African Queen, without the facial expressivity. Geoff Berkshire - Metromix Chicago

    These truly baffle me. I mean, Zacharek becomes so obsessed with Nicole Kidman’s face that she ends her review by talking about the nearly magical qualities of her ultrasmooth forehead. Either I didn’t pay enough attention to Kidman’s face or else it didn’t annoy me, but she had plenty of facial expressions to go around. She has looks that range from shock, to surprise, to anger, to adoration, to sadness… what do these people expect? No, she’s not as rubberfaced as Jim Carrey, but she certainly doesn’t look like a Botoxed angel made of alabaster. The last time I checked, this is the same Kidman who won an Academy Award for her role in The Hours. Do they think she’s had her facial muscles severed since then? I thought she did a bang-up job throughout the film, and yes, her face does indeed move quite a bit.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog