Just because I watched Almost Famous today.

William Miller: [on meeting Stillwater] Russell. Jeff. Ed. Larry. I really love your band. I think the song “Fever Dog” is a big step forward for you guys. I think you guys producing it yourselves, instead of Glyn Johns, was the right thing to do. And the guitar sound… is incindiary. Incendiary. Way to go. 
[He turns to leave. The band members regard one another for a moment] 
Russell Hammond: Well, don’t stop there! 
Jeff Bebe: Yeah, come back here! I’m incendiary, too, man! 

Lester Bangs: What, are you like the star of your school? 
William Miller: They hate me. 
Lester Bangs: You’ll meet them all again on their long journey to the middle. 

Jeff Bebe: “Rock ‘n’ roll can save the world”? “The chicks are great”? I sound like a dick! 
Russell Hammond: [to himself] You are a dick. 

Russell Hammond: I am a golden god! 

Russell Hammond: I never said I was a golden god… or did I? 

Penny Lane: I always tell the girls, never take it seriously, if ya never take it seriosuly, ya never get hurt, ya never get hurt, ya always have fun, and if you ever get lonely, just go to the record store and visit your friends. 

Like most people I’m switching between election coverage and whatever else is on tonight.  For a brief while I was watching the Chicago FOX affiliate and had a flashback to Sunday morning.  There was a commentator, who knows or cares what his name is, standing in front of a giant map on a computer screen.  He’s pushing buttons and moving the image around to different states.  He then starts circling and diagramming like he’s John Madden calling a Bears/Packers game.  

I quickly get bored with the coverage and flip around the channels coming to a stop on the excellent Bill Murray movie Quick Change.  I’m not totally in limbo though, I jump on the wide world of web to check out the Chicago Sun-Times web site with updated results and statistics.  Just like the fantasy football websites my leagues are registered with.  

At this point I’m convinced insanity is setting in.  I love fantasy football and all but come on, this is election day!  Surely it has nothing to do with fantasy football.  Think about it, for the election, especially a presidential election, you do research on each candidate.  You listen to the talking heads, you read bios, you compare all the things they’ve accomplished, and you do your best to anticipate just how well they’ll be able to handle the high pressure demands of the job.  Someone you can pin all your hopes on.  Just like a first round draft pick in a fantasy football draft.  

Wow, only in America could choosing a new leader be the same as playing fantasy football.  Some people might not find that too amusing.  Me, I find it reassuring.  Makes it all feel comfortable, a little more normal.   

So have fun with your election coverage.  Hopefully you went out and did your part and voted.  Maybe your candidate won.  Maybe they didn’t.  But don’t put too much of yourself in to it.  No matter how perfect a politician is they’re still just a person.  They are not going to do everything they say they will.  They will get some things right, they will also disappoint.  In the end only history will tell if they are chumps or champs…

One of the most popular comics out right now is Final Crisis.  Regardless of how you feel about the quality of the book there is no denying it is a big event right now.  As a result there have been numerous reviews for each of the four issues that have been released so far, not counting all the one-shots, mini-series, and regular series tie-ins.  This is how the whole thing works.  A new comic hits the stands, comics readers buy it, read it, and then love or loath it on the Internet.  But what happens  after the seventh and final issue is in our hands and the story is complete?

Will all the reviewers go back and review the series as a whole?  If not, why not?

I understand that each issue is a unit of the story and should stand alone, like reviewing episodes of television shows.  But in our current comics world many series are written “for the trade”.  If you were reading the current JSA storyline “One world, under Gog” wouldn’t you feel robbed if you only read issue 17?  Or just one issue of Spider-man’s “Brand New Day”?  Yet comics reviewers will just address individual chapters and not the whole story.  

Isn’t it like watching Iron Man and only discussing from the start of the film to the point where Tony Stark comes home from Afghanistan?  What about only talking about The Wizard of Oz from the point where Dorothy starts out on the yellow brick road and stopping before she gets to The Emerald City?  

Is what Roger Ebert did with “Tru Loved” the same thing all the comics reviewers are doing with titles?  Passing judgment after seeing only a portion of the over all product?

What do you think comics reviewers?

This one is for Gob Bluth…

The Book of Lies by Brad Meltzer.

  Pretty fun read so far.  I’ve enjoyed a couple of his other books and I’m liking this one so far.  

American Flagg Hardcover by Howard Chaykin

What a fun and somewhat prophetic read this 80’s indie comic was.  Just reading it for the first time and loving every page.

It’s easy to forget that Jack Nicholson used to be a very good actor.  Don’t get me wrong I love Jack.  But for the most part he’s spent the last twenty years just playing himself.  But if you look back to stuff he used to do in the 70’s; The Last Detail, One flew over the cuckoo’s nest, Chinatown, etc..  you can truly get a feel for how talented the man can be.  Five Easy Pieces in another in a long list of great Jack characters and performances.  It’s a good thing, because with a lesser actor the movie would have suffered terribly.  

Robert Dupea (Jack Nicholson) is something of an every man.  He works all day in the oil fields and comes home to Rayette (Karen Black).  The couple spend their evenings bowling and drinking.  At least most nights they do, some nights he goes partying with his friend Elton (Billy “Green” Bush).  Even though Robert is self absorbed and doesn’t treat Rayette very well he still has a sort of roguish charm to him.  

It’s that charm that tips us off that he’s hiding something.  After Robert and Elton go on an all night bender, which includes a tryst with some floozies, the pair show up late to work but get sent home for being “unfit” AKA, they’re still drunk.  During the trip home on the freeway there is a traffic jam.  Robert gets out and climbs on the back of open bed moving truck to see what the hold up is.  It’s then that he notices a piano on the truck.  He begins to play a classical piece.  He does so well, better than a blue collar kind of guy should,  that when the truck starts moving and gets off the freeway, Robert continues playing leaving Elton stuck in the traffic unable to follow. We soon learn that Robert comes from a family of classically trained musicians.  He’s soon called home to visit with his sick father who will most likely be dying soon.  

The movie is very funny and a great character study until he gets home.  In the early scenes we get a sense of how comfortable his life is.  He’s not really happy so much as content.  He treats Rayette bad but not because he doesn’t like her, he just doesn’t love her.  Every time she asks him if he loves her, he comes back with a line like “What do you think”.  Never saying what she wants to hear yet never allowing her to believe otherwise.  There is a real sense that he doesn’t know what he wants out of life so he keeps moving.  

There is a very funny, but strange segment during the road trip to the family home.  The couple picks up two hitchhikers, Palm and Terry.  Terry is mostly quiet but Palm can talk.  She is disenchanted with everything.  Complaining about all the dirt and commercialism in the world.  She never tires of griping, even when she says she doesn’t want to talk about it anymore.  It’s a fun and humorous segment but except for setting up a nice scene at a truck stop is pretty pointless.  

So the first half is fun but when Robert gets home things get somber and bogged down.  He fall for his brothers girlfriend.  For the first time in the movie we think he finally knows what he wants and goes after it.  But it doesn’t work out the way he wanted and the film ends on a note of ambiguity.  

Five Easy Pieces is strange film.  Equal parts comedy, drama, and character study.  It is all three yet not really any of them.  The tone is all over the place and it drags in parts.  Yet it’s entertaining thanks mostly to Nicholson’s Academy Award nominated performance.  I liked it but just didn’t “feel” it.  

*** out of *****

One of my favorite podcasts is Filmspotting.  Each week the hosts, Adam and Matty, offer up intelligent discussion on films.  It’s a great podcast that is also on the air in some markets.  I can not recommend it enough and encourage everyone to check it out at www.filmspotting.net.  While you’re over there take a look at the message boards.  It’s filled with people from all over the planet who are passionate about film.  Recently a new thread was introduced called the Movie Dictator Club.  In it peoples names are randomly drawn and are assigned, and also assign, movies by/to another player.  You are then required to watch and write about said film.  I was assigned the 1946 Alfred Hitchcock classic, Notorious.  Here is my write up. 

NOTORIOUS

Whatever happened to real Hollywood cool?  Remember when movies stars were larger than life figures?  Actors and actresses who were beautiful, classy, and most of all glamourous?  Oh sure we have “A” grade stars that are a little bit of a throwback to the golden age, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Nicole Kidman, but after watching Alfred Hitchcock’s 1946 classic Notorious I now realize how they don’t even come close to what Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant had.  

Notorious tells the story of Alicia Huberman (Ingrid Bergman).  At the start of the film Alicia is lost, her father has been imprisoned for being a Nazi.  She deals with this by drinking and aimlessly wondering through her life.  She has lost her direction and doesn’t know how else to pass the time.  At a party she meets Devlin (Cary Grant), he is handsome, charming, and mysterious.  Everything a woman like Alicia would want in a man.  After a drunken drive in the country it is revealed that Devlin is a federal agent who wants to hire her for a top secret mission.  After a little resistance she agrees and soon the pair is off to Rio de Janerio.  The two begin a romance that seems perfect.  Each seeming to be what the other needs.  Yet there is this feeling of “it’s too good to last”.  

Alicia’s mission is to get close to Alexander Sebastian (Claude Rains).  He is a part of a secret group of Nazi’s and the U.S. government needs to know what that group is doing.  The plan is for Alicia to “accidently” meet up with Alexander and get close to him in order to spy around his house.  She is the perfect choice for this since he was friends with her father and has had a thing for her for years.  The plan is going along find until Alexander proposes marriage to Alicia.  She accepts and soon the spying really begins.  But all that is just one of Hitchcock’s famous MacGuffins.  What the movie is really about is the love triangle between Devlin, Alicia, and Alex.  

There is so much to like about this film but my favorite part is the characterization of the three leads.  Devlin is so much in love with Alicia but also afraid to tell her.  When the mission is assigned he begins to make excuses as to why she can’t do it.  He knows it’s all B.S. but the thought of putting her in danger is too much for him to handle.  Alicia is really hurt when it seems Devlin was just playing her.  As much as she needs him she needs this mission to give her purpose.  Deep down she doesn’t want to do it but she has to.  Alexander is both a sympathetic and pathetic figure.  He really loves Alicia and it breaks his heart to see her with Devlin.  Yet he is so much a pawn in everything he never has the nerve to really take control, always relying on his mother to make the decisions for him.  

Speaking of pawns, Hitchcock has some really great visuals in this movie, the champaign at the party, the wine bottle in the cellar, the last shot of Alexander walking through the front door.  But the one I liked the most was the floor in the house.  Black and white tiles on the floor of the main room of the house constantly creates the feeling of chess pieces moving around in a complex game.  

The only letdown was not enough “thriller”.  Having not seen a lot of Alfred Hitchccock’s movies I guess I expect everyone to be more thriller/suspense than anything else.  The first half does a great job of establishing the motivations for Alicia and Devlin, but at the same time I found myself wanting the thrills and suspense to start sooner.  That’s not to say the early stuff is bad but it is a tad slow.  

Notorious is a fantastic film, one that effortlessly combines elements of romance, spy thrillers, family drama’s, and suspense.  Watching it makes one realize how much today’s filmmakers were influenced by Hitchcock, Grant, Bergman, and Rains to name a few.  This is the first exposure I’ve had to Hitchcock in years and I feel like I’m discovering him for the first time.  I can’t wait to see more.  

***** out of *****

Over at the filmspotting.net forums I came across people who said that Wall-E was their most anticipated movie of the summer.  Having seen the trailer I just didn’t see it.  Now I’m not saying I thought it was going to be bad, it’s Pixar so one can expect a high-quality product.  But I didn’t see enough in the trailer to really make me want to see it.  

Then the movie came out, all the reviews were extremely positive.  Arguments were made that film should be nominated for the best picture Oscar.  Not animated film but best film.  Grown men on Twitter said they cried at the end.  I heard phrases like “A perfect film”, “A masterpiece”, and “best movie of the year” being thrown around.  

I suddenly changed my opinion, if it’s getting that much acclaim it must be pretty damn good I thought.  I started to build my own internal hype and finally set aside some time to see it.  As the lights dimmed I was feeling like my girlfriend and I were going to be treated to something memorable.  As the lights came up an epiphany struck me!  Never fall victim to internet hype again! 

Wall-E is a robot left on earth after all the humans have left.  His sole task is to collect garbage, Earth is overrun with waste which caused mankind to flee, smash them into cubes and build skyscrapers out of them.  We get glimpses of the other Wall-E units but they have all broken down.  Part of what makes this robot survive is he’s developed a personality.  He collects interesting items and watches old musicals on a video Ipod.  He is friendly with a cockroach that follows him around and dreams of the day he can hold hands with another robot.  

One day his world of isolation is interrupted by the landing of a giant space ship.  It soon launches again but not before depositing another robot, this one named EVE.  EVE seems to be searching for something though we’re not sure what at first.  Wall-E begins to, for lack of a better word, stalk EVE.  It’s clear the boy is in love.  Eventually Wall-E gives EVE a present, a plant in a boot.  A sign of sustainable life is exactly what she is searching for.  The space ship comes back to pick her up and Wall-E hitches a ride.  The movie takes off from there.

Pixar took a little different route in creating Wall-E and it paid off.  They hired the Oscar winning cinematographer Roger Deakins to be a consultant on this film.  One shot that I loved is when Wall-E is running from the shopping carts and smacks into the door.  The “camera” swivels to follow the action and when the pile of carts hits the camera goes out of focus for just a second before re-focusing.  It appears exactly as if it had been filmed and never looked out of place.  This is the kind of thing that more animation studios should consider doing to give their films a more cinematic feel.

Another technique Pixar uses is having almost no dialogue.  Wall-E and EVE seem to be able to say very little other than each others names.  There are no celebrity voices in the title roles here.  To compensate the characters communicate with the audience through body language.  It’s really pretty amazing how expressive a robot can be by just slouching down or moving his “eyes” into different positions.   

But that is also the biggest problem with the movie.  I won’t say it has no soul but not once did I ever get emotionally involved in the hero’s plight.  I cared very little for the romance or the humans coming back to Earth or any of it.  Even though Wall-E could be expressive, he couldn’t be convincing.  It looked great but at the end of the film I didn’t walk out happy or sad.  There just wasn’t enough character in Wall-E to make me really root for him.  

I admire what director Andrew Stanton was trying to accomplish, he wanted to make an animated Charlie Chaplin.  But while a gifted entertainer like Chaplin can project actual feelings, an animated character like Wall-E can only mimic them.  There is a big difference.  

Wall-E is not a bad film.  It’s cute, it’s fun, and it’s entertaining.  It’s the kind of movie that gives film schools plenty of material for years to come.  But it doesn’t have the heart of other Pixar flicks like The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, or Toy Story.

 It’s like taking Steak, Chocolate, Bananas, and French toast and mixing them all together.  Individually you may love all of those dishes, but mix them together and they just don’t taste right. 

*** out of ***** 

If you like Pixar films, Charlie Chaplin movies, or Castaway you should like Wall-E

The key to enjoying an M. Knight Shyamalan film is buying into the crazy premise.  The Sixth Sense was probably the easiest to roll with, the kid can see and talk to ghosts.  Unbreakable: Bruce Willis plays a “regular” guy with superpowers, Signs: God is preparing us to fight aliens.  These are all crazy, nutty, and silly premises for a film.  Each one leaves itself open to unintentionally funny scenes and dialog.  They can be especially campy.  Unless, you buy into it so well that you accept it as crazy shit happening to normal people.  The Happening does not achieve this.  

The movie feels like a zombie flick without the zombies.  It opens on Tuesday morning in Central Park.  People are out enjoying the day when suddenly they begin to repeat themselves, stare off blankly, walk backwards, and then then kill themselves in the most convenient manner possible.  

The film follows a group of survivors; Elliot (Mark Whalberg), his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), his friend Julian (John Leguizamo) and his daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez).  Their plan is to get out of Philadelphia to Julian’s mother’s place in the country.  Along the way they meet various people trying to flee the cities where the happening is occurring.  

Now we’re getting into spoiler territory, it’s impossible to review this movie without discussing this.  A theory soon develops that the toxin causing this behavior is not an attack from terrorists, but from nature.  The idea, confirmed as fact before the end of the film, is nature feels threatened by groups of people.  The trees and the bushes and the grass all communicate to release the toxin.  Once again a silly premise that opens itself up for ridicule, but I was prepared to buy it.  

So why does this The Happening, The Village, and Lady in the Water result in epic fail while the three I mentioned earlier succeed?  In order to buy into the “crazy shit happens to normal people” theory you have to be able to do the strangest thing: you have to actually care about the characters. 

Elliot and Alma are in the middle of a crisis in their relationship.  She is hiding something from him, we get the sense it’s something big.  The mysterious phone calls she receives from Joey lead us to believe she is having an affair.  Her aloof behavior reinforces that belief.  He knows something is up but seems hesitant to confront her.  This is the big thing that threatens their marriage.  What could be so awful you ask?  She had lunch with another man.  That’s is, no affair, no secret rendezvous.  Just a shared meal in a public place.   

Are you kidding me?  And we’re supposed to care about these two surviving?  Where is the pathos or sense of unfulfilled potential like the characters in Signs?  Apparently it’s with Joey at the food court.  

So there is lies the biggest problem with The Happening, there is no tension what so ever.  The characters never feel like real people.  There is no emotional investment to see the win.  All this opens the door to laughing at the absurdity of a plot that might not feel so campy if you felt like real people were going through all this.  

I still wanted to like this movie. Whalberg, Deschanel, and Leguizamo are all competent actors doing their best with a bad script.  Some of the death scenes, like when the workers are falling from the buildings, are very creepy and surreal.  I also enjoyed the slow methodical pacing.  Too bad it never really builds to any kind of climax.  

To make it as a writer/director you have to find a way to balance your art with the commerce of the studio’s money.  The sad fact we all have to face is film making is a business.  I have admired Shyamalan’s ability to make his films.  Despite any outside pressures he feels from money men or critics, for better or worse he always makes the movie he wants to make.  That used to be a good thing, now I’m not so sure.

** out of *****

If you liked War of the Worlds, The Stand, or An inconvenient Truth, you might like The Happening.  

But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.

-Jules(Samuel Jackson) from Pulp Fiction

Last April I attended the 10th annual Ebertfest.  One of the films shown was Ang Lee’s 2003 film “Hulk“.  Lee was there and after the movie he went on stage for a Q&A.  During the hour or so he spoke there was much discussion about how Hulk had been a failure.  Artistically speaking I’m not so sure it is.  Sure it failed at the box office, it’s grosses dropped 70% from opening week to the following week.  Sure it is a flawed movie that doesn’t always succeed where it tries.  But it is also a movie that is about ideas and characters.  It is visually and intellectually interesting.  It has personality.  Unfortunately The Incredible Hulk does not.  

The movie opens with a montage of the events we’re already familiar with.  Dr. Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) conducts an experiment on himself, it goes horribly wrong and he turns into a giant green monster.  The military is chasing him so he hides in Brazil trying to live a somewhat normal life while searching for a cure.  He pines for his girlfriend Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), also a scientist, who he left behind when he ran.  Betty’s father General Ross (William Hurt) has an obsession for finding Bruce because of the nature of the experiments.  

As the story begins Banner is anonymously corresponding with another scientist who may be able to help him find a cure.  Banner also studies mediation, karate, and any calming techniques to help control his anger.  Ross soon discovers Banner’s whereabouts and sends a “covert” ops team led by Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to take Banner down.  Bruce “Hulks” up and soon a fight breaks out.  

Banner is on the run again and heads to the states to seek help.  Blonksy meanwhile, becomes obsessed himself with the Hulk and undergoes his own version of the experiments in order to set up a big showdown at the end of the movie.  

If that synopsis seems basic, it is, the whole movie is basic.  The plot serves as nothing more than to advance the viewer from one action sequence to another.  The 2003 Hulk at least tried to be about ideas like father/son relationships or how science does or does not co-exist with nature.  This film opened the door to issues like controlling fear/anger, dealing with addiction, and the folly of tampering with nature.  But it never follows up on any of them in a satisfactory way.  Never once do we feel like the people on the screen are learning or changing from their actions.  

The counter-argument to that would be “it’s a summer blockbuster” we don’t want plot we just want cool fight scenes.  Okay, but the movie fails there also.  While there are a few decent actions sequences, the chase trough the Brazilian village and the battle in the park, most of the action scenes are ruined by the direction of the movie and lack of tension.  

When we first see both the Hulk and the Abomination they are shrouded in shadows.  Director Louis Leterrier tries to use the “Jaws” effect of creating suspense by not showing the monster.  The problem with that is two fold.  One: We’re here to see monsters beat up on each other and destroy things.  We’re not here to be “scared” by them.  Secondly, we’ve seen what these creatures look like in the advertising for the past year.  It feels like a big waste of time.  

The bigger issue is the lack of tension.  There is nothing about the story, the parts between fights, that is remotely interesting.  The romance between Norton and Tyler is never convincing as they do their best to channel the passionless chemistry between Anakin and Padme in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.  Everyone else simply plays their parts as caricatures of the casting descriptions.  The only exceptions are a New York cab driver and a cameo at the end.  The cabbie is funny and picks things up for minute.  The cameo injects more life and charisma into the movie then everything that precedes it.  

The Incredible Hulk doesn’t have enough story to be interesting.  It doesn’t have enough style to be fun.  It’s like playing a two hour video game where you only play for thirty minutes.  The other hour and half is filled with long, boring cut scenes that make you wish you’d bought a more fun game.  

** out of *****

If you liked Daredevil, Jumper, or Pearl Harbor you might like The Incredible Hulk.