Edge of Tomorrow

There are haters out there who have it in for Tom Cruse. Something about his personal life, or his good looks, or his incredible career just sets people on edge for some reason. Well if you are in that class of people get ready for more reason to hate, because Tom Cruise has a new film that will piss you off because he is good in it and it is a big success. I don't know what the financial return will be but the accomplishment of the film is something to admire and the performance of Cruise will remind everyone that he is talented and as charismatic as all heck, despite the whatever personal baggage the haters want to make him carry.

In anticipation of the summer season, I heard people ho hum this movie. "Another Tom Cruise Action film" big whoop. I just looked at his list of recent films, of the last five which arrived since 2010, four were very solid and only one was a turkey. That's an .800 batting average. In the major leagues that puts you in the Hall of Fame. True, only one, the fourth Mission Impossible, will be a home run, but all of the others were solid singles or doubles. The guy has proven himself time and again and waiting for him to fail is a pastime that people should give up. I've heard the names of several actors who are up and coming, or were at one point, as the next Tom Cruise type. All of them are good actors with quality parts under their belts, but none is even close to the consistency and quality of Mr. Cruise.

Having outed myself as a Tom Cruise fan, let's talk about the movie. "Edge of Tomorrow" is a science fiction action flick. It's already sitting in my breadbasket with that description. It is also intelligent, fresh, and extremely well made. One thing it has going for it is that it is not a sequel and it does not lend itself well to serialization. It is a stand alone film that tries to do something somewhat original. Maybe that sounds strange since the movie has been described as "Groundhog Day" meets "Halo", but it sure feels original despite those comparisons. The science fiction gimmick that provides for the plot twist is original. The relationship between the two main characters is original. The performance of the star is original as well. Cruise plays craven rather than bold. He is cocksure but out of his depths and he makes some strong choices to show that. He starts off in what he sees as a position of power and quickly discovers his powerlessness. The terror in his eyes is real as his character Cage, is required to become something he has never been, a sincere and dedicated soldier. He overplays his P.R. creating hand and ends up on the front-line of an invasion of Europe, very similar to D-Day, on the 70th anniversary of that undertaking. He is the incompetent version of Tom Hanks in "Saving Private Ryan". It is only through an accident of battle that he acquires the ability to reset the day and live it over, hopefully changing things for the better.

Unlike "Groundhog Day", this repeated experience has nothing to do with his journey as a better man. That does happen but it is a by product rather than the purpose of the technique. Cage's real journey is one of victory over an invading force that threatens the planet. His "gift" is a stolen secret of the invaders that allows them to anticipate every action of the Earth forces because they have already experienced them before. Of course, if you start pulling too hard at the treads of any time travel story, you will start to find imperfections, the most successful of these stories work because you are too busy enjoying the events that worrying about timelines, logic and means becomes unimportant. "Edge of Tomorrow" manages to do that by surrounding the character with state of the art special effects, effective action sequences, and enough colorful characters to distract but not pull you away from the central plot. Rita Vrataski is the heroine of the Earth forces. She is known for leading them to their only victory in the war. Emily Blunt, in a departure from the characters she has played in a dozen movies I've seen, is a hardnosed battle weary figure, who does not suffer fools gladly, and Bill Cage is a fool at first. She turns out to be one of only two people in the world who know what is happening to Bill. She becomes his focus and his bane. The reset button on the time travel concept being his death. She sometimes seems to be a little too happy to hit that reset button. These two actors build a believable relationship in unbelievable circumstances.

The other soldiers in Cage's squad get just enough character to be distinctive and to give us some reason to care when they become part of the plot and not just background. Bill Paxton plays against type as the humorless tough Sargent that every military based film has ever had. Usually he is the craven soldier, faking bravado for his brothers in arms. Clearly he knows how to become a hard ass and in spite of his tough demeanor, his reactions create some of the humor in the film. Brendon Gleeson is equally without humor, and it is easy to see how men like Sgt. Farrell and General Brigham would despise Major Cage and are all to happy to see him put on the front lines, knowing he will die almost immediately. The Major Sargent and the General are military professionals engaged in a serious endeavor, Cage is play acting at being an officer and undermines the cause. They become obstacles themselves to winning the war because they have been exposed to the creature that Cage was once. Only Rita sees a new man every time she encounters him. It is a strange relationship that the two have to navigate as they become close and understand one another, only to be forced to start over again and again.

When the film first came on my radar, it was known by the title of the manga book that it is based on, "All You Need is Kill". That is a great title and I thought that changing it reflected a lack of confidence in the material and the audience. "Edge of Tomorrow" sound nondescript by comparison. As I watched the film however, I realized that the title really does reflect the theme of the movie more that the original. It is a clever recognition of the time element in the story and the dangerous situation the characters face. Sometimes the marketing department has a good idea, and when that happens they should get credit. I also love the tagline on the publicity material. The shampoo like directions "Live. Die. Repeat." contains enough of the concept to make it intriguing and the movie does that really well. You wo't feel the repeat sections with discomfort because they are subtlety changed at first then they are truncated and finally they become mere punctuation points to the story.

The action sequences looked amazing and they might be even better in the 3D format that the movie is being pushed in. We saw a regular screening and the shaky cam during the battle could be vomit inducing so in 3D it is probably more so. I liked that this is an alien invasion movie that is not all about showing us the destruction of buildings and mass deaths. Those are implied by some of the scenery and backgrounds, but the movie, while having some dramatic battle scenes is not really focused on destruction as much as it is focused on a pretty creative idea. The stars do a good job portraying their characters, and the big star, fills the screen with his presence and shows that Tom Cruise is still a force to be reckoned with. 

Carl Gottlieb Signing in Burbank

In case any readers were wondering, "JAWS" is my favorite modern film. Some day I will do the list that everyone else works up for their top ten, and depending on the day, "JAWS" will be either one or two on the list (because "The Adventures of Robin Hood" will have to fight for that spot as well). Five years ago, we saw "Jaws" at a screening on Sunset Blvd. at the Vista Theater. Mr. Gottlieb spoke for a couple of minutes before the movie and as the principle screenwriter for the film, we hung on every word. After the movie, my daughter (who is an even bigger "Jaws" fanatic than I am), had him sign her copy of "The Jaws Log", the book he wrote about his experience working on the film (he also appeared on screen as the editor of the Amity Newspaper). I did not have the foresight to go out to the shed, dig through twenty boxes of books and locate my original paperback edition, so I missed out.

My blogging colleague at "It Rains, You Get Wet", posted a notice that Carl Gottlieb would be at an authors signing at "Dark Delicacies" a horror themed bookstore in Burbank this Saturday. After making sure I had no other conflicts, I hijacked my kid the fanatic and off we went. I'ts been years since I was in this part of town but she recognized it right away, having recently visited a vintage store that sells movie and TV castoffs. It was not hard to find, the Gothic Lettering stands out on the street.

We got there a few minutes before the 2:00 starting time and they were still setting up for the dozen or so authors they were expecting  for the event. As we walked in the door, there was a stack of the 30th Anniversary Edition of the book and maybe four or five of the recently expanded edition. Having no self control, we picked up two copies and went to look for the line. Mr. Gottlieb was the first author there, he was set up at the first spot and he was ready to go, so we did not wait.

  I walked up, introduced myself and shook his hand. He smiled quietly and took my book and asked me the name I would like to have him sign it to. As he was looking for the title page to inscribe, I asked if it would be alright to get a picture with him. He said "of course" and invited me behind the table. This was only possible because the other authors had not yet arrived so there was room and not a big crowd to jockey through. I happily sat down next to him and watched as he wrote in my book.

I'm happy to add this to my recently growing collection of signed books. Most of them have not been personalized like this one was so I will be able to appreciate this even more. I wish I knew the horror and gaming based books that were written by the other authors today. As people were coming in they were very impressed to meet their favorites. As I said, it looked like they were set up for a dozen writers or so. The bookstore was never overcrowded but it did start to fill in and I felt fortunate that we had gotten there when we did.

 

Since my daughter accompanied me all the way across town to keep me from being alone, I consented to purchasing another copy for her to get signed. Short of going on ebay and hunting down collectibles at Christies, she is doing a good job of accumulating "Jaws" memorabilia. 

 Here is the signature she got which is really appropriate because she does not go in the water, even as a lifelong resident of Southern California.

We ended up walking down to the soda and candy store, Rocket Fizz, after our visit and found some hard to locate treats that should make the rest of the weekend just as memorable. As we walked back by the store, the shop was full of people waiting for their signatures. I noticed the sign in the window and could not resist getting one more shot for the post here.

I tried to talk her into getting a souvenir key fob from the "Amity Island Motor Hotel" but she said she did not want anyone to think that she was just another of the summer ginks coming into town for the weekend.

  Thanks Michael for the heads up in this, sorry you missed out.

The Fault in Our Stars

I do not mean this in a disparaging way, but every teen age girls and most young women in their twenties will be going to see this movie. The book has been huge, the stars are well cast and the time is right since all the other book based films aimed at this demographic have either flamed out or are still in the process of being made. It is as if God said "Let there be a movie for young girls to love", and this was the result. Here is the phrase that someone heard and said let's do this, "Young cancer love story."

What can you say about a romantic couple that dies? (My apologies to Oliver Barret IV) Tragic love stories are the best, because everyone is suspicious of a happy ending, with tragedy no one worries about the future when the lovers are separated by death. That's why Romeo and Juliet has lasted five centuries and "Say Anything" is mocked by the character in this movie. One of the "cancer perks" is that you will be forgiven for belittling other stories because yours is more tragic. You will also be forgiven because the story you tell has it's heart in the right place. This is not a maudlin story or one about facing the incredible odds courageously. It is a story that feels real despite the obvious emo trappings that surround it. This is due in large part to the cast and the light touch of the director. They have processed what this book represents and translated it faithfully to the screen.

Cancer patient support group does not sound like the typical "cute meet" in a romance. It sounds like something out of "Fight Club" without the cynicism. Whenever love manages to appear, even in the movies, if it is earned and reflects a legitimate path, then it is something you can respect. I respected this love story because the characters don't fall in love instantly. One becomes enamoured of the other and then there is some real cat and mouse pursuit. That they are destined to fall in love is obvious going in to the story, but the story shows us why it happens instead of merely showing us that they are in love. Unusual circumstances bring them closer and they handle it in a way that seems reasonable for the situation.

Shailene Woodley is perfectly cast as Hazel Grace, the central figure in the story. This is a tale told from the perspective of the girl. Even when the guys experience is driving the story, it is the female love interest that we follow through the plot. She is young and destined to not get much older. Her infirmities are such that the physical toll does not require her to fade in beauty as the movie goes on. Miss Woodley is a charming young woman with some nice screen charisma and she carries the story for the most part. Her counterpart is the weakness in the story, and not because the actor Ansel Elgort is not good. He is excellent at the clever by play and winsome smile and romance stuff. Where he falls down is with the dying cancer patient material. In the book (which I did indeed read), there is a physical transformation and a slow decay of the handsome and confident young man. He loses weight, and energy and looks sick according to the descriptions. In the film, he looks like the same guy we saw for the rest of the movie, only now he is in a wheelchair. It feels to be a little bit of a cheat that Hazel says in the prologue that this is the truth, not the sugarcoating, but in the end it is a little sugarcoated.

There are some wonderful moments in the movie. I loved the dinner scene in Amsterdam. The hurling of eggs at Monica's car worked pretty well on screen. I liked the cute script in the dialogue bubbles that represent the text messages. The visit to the Anne Frank house is also very good.  Laura Dern as Hazel's mom delivers some very strong lines about the hurt that she faces and the reality that they will go on. It did not sound like the platitude of a parent comforting a child, but the resignation of an adult to the hardest thing they will ever endure. Willem DeFoe looks more normal as the drunk writer than he usually does in his films, so it was played very realistically and for the most part. There were some appropriate cinematic changes to the end of the story and they improve on the clarity of the resolution without dragging in a search mystery at the last minute. Honestly, the only thing I missed from the book was the added resolution of Sisyphus the hamster.

AMC Classic Series: Raiders of the Lost Ark

OK, I don't have a lot to say about this today. Someday I will do an Indiana Jones Festival and invite anyone interested in participating. For now I will say I saw three movies in theaters this weekend, and if I had to choose only one to have gone to,this would have been it. Raiders is a fantastic adventure movie that continues to show how much better off we were creatively and as an audience, before Computers replaced everything we see with pixels.

There is a lot of humor in Raiders and Harrison Ford never gets as much credit for these physical performances as he deserves. A slack jawed expression here, a scowl there and a smirk laughing at his own situation fill this character with more personality than most action stars get through a whole series of movies. I haven't seen all of his recent performances, but I will be there on opening day to see Harrison Ford as part of the cast in "The Expendables III". I think he will fit in fine if they give him some funny business to go along with the action stuff.

If you haven't seen my post on "Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom", you don't need to see Raiders first but it could not hurt. Anytime I encounter it, Raiders of the Lost Ark on the big screen it going to pull me back to 1936 for 115 minutes. That's right my friends, this movie is less than two hours long and still packs more into it's contents than films that add another hour to their running time. There is always something new in the background, foreground or dialogue that I haven't focused on before but makes each experience unique. Today I was absorbed by all the little pieces of business that Ford does with his hands and face.

AMC has done one thing with this current series that it failed to do with the last, lower the prices. These are movies that people will come out to see but $12 for a thirty-five year old movie on a Sunday afternoon was a little steep. They've dropped the price to $6, less than the cost of an early morning screening. Today, there were a dozen people in our showing. I may go again on Wednesday if the schedule works out for me. Two years ago with the release of the Indiana Jones films on blu ray, there were some Raiders IMAX screenings. Today's presentation was a standard viewing but still worth the time and energy.

Maleficent

Disney is doing it's darndest to exploit all their properties and keep us entertained at the same time. A traditional retelling of "Sleeping Beauty" could have worked fine, just as the live action "101 Dalmatians" did a dozen or so years ago. Somewhere in the bowels of the Imagineering Department or in the Production agreement with big movie stars, someone has decided that a straight remake is not cool, and a story needs to be tweaked to make it fresh. The best known example of this in the recent past has been the musical "Wicked". A couple of years ago, Disney re-imagined "Alice in Wonderland". Now it is time for a classic fairy tale to get it's own variation and they have chosen one with a great villainess which makes the visualization a handy shortcut to the story.

There is a great deal to admire about this movie. I thought the opening section in which the character of "Maleficent" is introduced in her child form was really marvelous. The character was appealing and there is a nice romantic edge to the story line that is being developed. The character of Stephan however, is not quite as nicely developed and it was hard to see the conflicting choices he was faced with until the key scenes in the movie. The character development here was incomplete which makes some of the plotting a little muddled. Although a conflict between the two worlds was suggested in the narration, we are not really shown any of that except in a direct combat scene. One side is immediately presented as evil and as a result, they lose any interest as part of the story. A whole Kingdom becomes a cardboard cutout villain. The movie shows armies and battles but nothing that would back up the need or desire for those battles.

My daughter has watched "Once Upon a Time" and we have both seen "Frozen" so the twist in the movie is not as great as it should be. I liked it pretty well but she feels that it is almost becoming a contemporary cliche. The movie is aggressively unromantic and that trend may reflect blowback from all the years that Disney has been accused of brainwashing little girls about "true love" and the handsome prince. The switch in tone is meant to appeal to more modern audiences and ways of thinking, but it feels like something of the magic is being lost by doing this. The outcome does differ from tradition and while that might sometimes be appealing, it does feel strange when being thrust upon a story like this. In a way it makes the calculation of changing the character focus even more noticeable.

Angelina Jolie was obviously perfectly cast in the movie. She almost has the high cheekbones without the prosthetic and special effects makeup. Her eyes do a lot of the acting in the movie but her voice is also used exceptionally well. She is the main reason to see the film. She appears to be invested in telling the story and selling her performance. She has two emotional transformations that she has to pull off and both of them succeed pretty well. The second one is more subtle and takes up much of the storyline but it feels solid because it is allowed to play out. You can see the turn coming, but you can also believe that it might not get here, That is the value of her performance. It is a bit disconcerting that the bad guy has to be the hero and the reverse happens as well. I hope that the desire to tell traditional stories doesn't require us to subvert what came before every time. I'm willing to go along today because of the casting and performance, but screenwriters should be careful about going to that well too frequently.

This may have been a film where the 3D process would be worth seeing. I saw it in a regular two dimensional form and the edges of characters looked soft and artificial to me. I saw several spots where the extra dimensionality would be exciting in the scene, and make the events in those sequences more dynamic. The creatures of the moors that Maleficent is the de-facto queen over look a bit cartoonish and sometimes silly. There are long sequences where the beauty of the woods is supposed to be a marvel but it just looks conventional and weak. The best live comparison I could think of to make was Ridley Scott's "Legend". The enchanted forest in that film looked more real on the sets than anything in this CGI wonderland that has been created for the character here to inhabit.

You may notice that I've said nothing about Sleeping Beauty herself. Elle Fanning is a good actress, she was great in "Super 8" a couple of years ago. She is fine in this film but there is so little to her part that almost any pretty young actress would have been fine in the role. It has to be a thankless task to star in a fairy tale as the princess who is subject to a curse, and end up playing second fiddle to a character that might be mostly defined by her horns. The three good faeries are played strictly for laughs and between them and King Stephan, there is no emotional investment in what goes on with Aurora. There is more to say but it is late and I've been busy this weekend as you will see if you visit the other blog.  I may come back and add some more to this review but for now i can say it was an interesting experience that I can't quite warm up to, but did admire at times.

A Million Ways to Die in the West

I've not seen "Ted", I don't care for "Family Guy" and I thought his hosting of the Academy Awards was probably not appropriate. That does not mean I don't think Seth Macfarlane is funny, there are a lot of things about this movie that are amusing. I think that in limited doses and with some strong story telling, he could have made this a classic comedy that will be laughed at by audiences for years. As it is, it feels a little tired about halfway through and it fails to take full advantage of some of it's assets.

Let me start by mentioning a couple of things that worked really well for me, the songs and Charlieze Theron. The title song is actually sung over the end credits and it was funny as heck without descending to some of the sad punchlines the rest of the movie relied on. It was the one element that reminded me of "Blazing Saddles". The other song in the movie that also worked well was a dance number that did give Neil Patrick Harris the chance to show off some of his talent. It was a reworking of a Steven Foster song, so while not completely original, I know that the lyrics have been juiced up a bit by the screenwriters.

Charlieze is the one performer who seems to be trying to play a character in a story. Everyone else is mostly mugging for the camera, she plays sweet, and tough and winsome all at once. Even when she is doing comedy shtick, she still seems like a real person. Maybe not always an 1882 person, but not just a joke on two legs. MacFarlane, Giovanni Ribisi, Sarah Silverman, and even Liam Neeson, are camping it up for the camera. Silverman especially, because her part is the broadest and most risque, plays it like a live action cartoon character. After getting the great dance scene, Harris is subjected to a remake of a scene from "Dumb and Dumber" and "Bridesmaids" and it feels tired and the visual punch is for shock value only.

Part of the problem is too much of the premise is given away in the title and the trailers. We are constantly on the lookout and waiting for the next horrifying thing to happen. Instead of being surprised, we are anticipating and the lack of payoff can probably be lain at the feet of the marketing department. Rapid jokes and punchlines are fine, I loved "Airplane!" and it's successors. Here it was just more redundant than it needed to be. I think a lot of the humor relies on being politically incorrect, but that is as far as it goes. When Mel Brooks or Richard Pryor made a joke about race or religion, it was in aid of a bigger laugh, it was not the laugh itself. So much of what MacFarlane does just feels like poking the bear for the sake of getting a rise out of him.

I enjoyed seeing several cameo appearances in the movie, but I also liked seeing several familiar actors from television and movies show up in smaller parts. Matt Clark has been making movies since the 1960s and he has a nice part as a grizzled prospector in this film. He has appeared in several Clint Eastwood Westerns, at least one John Wayne film and several TV westerns. The movie needed a few more references to those roots rather than just the contemporary stunt casting used for quick visual jokes. This movie was entertaining but not special enough to make it essential repeat viewing. I don't know that there are in fact a million ways to die in the west, but I do know that there are a million ways to make a potty joke, and this movie uses about half of them.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

 Click the Poster for a link to the KAMAD Vlog Review

30 Years On: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Click the poster for the Adventure of your life.

Spartacus

Another in the series of classics at the AMC Theaters. This one appears to finish off several weeks of gladiator based type films. I went and saw "The Ten Commandments" and "Gladiator" but I missed "Ben Hur", I think it was playing on Easter Sunday and we had family plans. As I've said before, movies are best in a theater and "Spartacus" is no exception. Interestingly enough, this is not the first, second or even third time I've seen it on the big screen. Much like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Jaws" I will always make an effort to see "Spartacus" on a theater screen. In college, I went to a screening at a revival theater. When the movie was restored in 1991, I saw it a couple of times. Four or five years ago, there was a one night festival at the Hollywood Arclight theater. They had a different classic movie playing in each theater, just the one time, all screening at the same time. They did that program at least twice and I had to make some tough choices. You see all of the screenings were hosted by someone affiliated with the movie. I skipped George Lucas and "Star Wars" and Warren Beatty and "Reds", because in the Dome, "Spartacus" was being introduced by Kirk Douglas himself. At nearly ninety and having had a stroke several years earlier, he was still a great story teller and a wonderful host. The ten minutes he spent talking with us was one of the best memories I have of my movie going life.

Mr. Douglas did not make an appearance today, at least not in person. We expected some friends of my wife but they never showed up. For a few minutes it looked like we would be the only people in the theater. Three other groups finally came in just as the movie was starting with an "Overture". The house lights went down and we settled in for the kind of epic that does not get made much anymore. The three and a half hours do have quite a bit of action and there are some big battle scenes near the end, but this is really an intimate story of a man struggling against slavery and fashioned by the circumstances he finds himself in. I was impressed with how well it hold the attention even though there is not a bunch of quick cutting, CGI grandeur or  plot twists that surprise at the end. It is a solid drama with a passionate and surprisingly tender love story to go along with it.

Famously written by blacklisted screen author Dalton Trumbo, who got a screen credit because producer Douglas was having none of that blacklist stuff stop him, makes the character of Spartacus come alive. The story is based on a real uprising of gladiator slaves in the century before Christ. Events are not clear and almost certainly large liberties were taken in the personal story that was told in the film, but historically, the movie seems to get a lot of things right. This is the one film that Stanley Kubrick directed that he did not have total control over. He did however make spectacular use of the widescreen process and managed to get the cinematographer an Academy Award for his work on the movie. There are a couple of very effective choices that Kubrick made when shooting the film. My favorite was his decision to focus on Kirk Douglas and Woody Strode as they awaited their turn in the arena. Instead of highlighting the combat that was taking place before they were to fight, we see only glimpses of Rex Harrison and his opponent through small openings in the paddock that the gladiators waited in.  The tension and resignation on the two faces tells a completely different story and the more important one. It becomes clear why the victor would not kill his opponent and why the revolt started.

The other choiceI admired is a combination of the script and the director. They postpone the romance through an interlude where Spartacus is mocked for not mounting and taking the woman provided to him. The love story between the slave girl played by Jean Simmons, who is used as a sexual reward by the trainers of the gladiators, and the reluctant Spartacus, is amazingly sweet given the conditions that the two of them find themselves in. When they ultimately come together as human beings rather than animals being mated, it is a victory for humanity and restraint.

The cast of the film is amazing. It includes Laurence Olivier and Tony Curtis in a subtlety sexual moment. The scene in the bath, where Olivier discusses oysters and snails with Curtis, had been cut and when the restoration was done, the dialogue was re-looped by Anthony Hopkins filling in for Lord Olivier.  It is much clearer why Antonitus runs off in the middle of the speech Crassus is making about submitting to Rome. It is only clear after hearing the bath conversation that Antonitus was about to be violated by Crassus. This and a dozen other moments in the movie make the story work so effectively. When Tony Curtis entertains the gladiator rebels with magic and a poem (song), it is a quiet moment that sets up another romantic clinch between Douglas and Simmons. The movie just gets each of this moments right, and it does so at a pace that is slow but correct for the story.

The movie will be playing two more times on Wednesday at a variety of AMC theaters.  Look around and see if you can find one in your area that is playing this wonderful film. You will be happy to see some terrific actors doing great work on a noble film that will enthrall you with a story not just visual effects.

Godzilla

Why anyone would need a review for this is not clear. If you like the idea of watching giant monsters destroy a city and battle it out among themselves, then you will already be queuing up for this and you will have a good time. If you think that special effects movies and worldwide destruction are being over done in films these days, then you will probably want to stay home and find a more intimate horror film to spend an evening with. All in all, you will get what you expect from this movie. There are some surprises, and some disappointments but they are minor in contrast to the spectacle of a 300 foot high  gorilla-like lizard wrecking havoc on most of the stuff around him.

The movie is fortunately a slow burn. Some people want the money shot from the get go, but like romance, anticipation and deferral can make the ultimate outcome so much more rewarding. There is an effective action beat to start the movie but it may be unsatisfying because we don't really see a monster or even know for sure what is going on. Bryan Cranston plays a supervising engineer at a nuclear power plant in Japan. I like Bryan Cranston, I've never seen "Breaking Bad" but I know his work from many other movies and TV shows. His performance is a little consciously showy. He is not quite chewing the furniture because the part calls for him to be a bit "mad", but it is noticeable that he is playing it that way. His wife is also a specialist who is responsible for monitoring and controlling leaks of radioactivity. She is played by the Academy Award winning actress Juliette Binoche. We have barely had time to get started when before you know it, both of these characters disappear from the story. Flash forward fifteen years and their son played by "Kick Ass" star Aaron Taylor Johnson becomes the focal point for the story. All three are excellent but they have little opportunity to emote or build character because the real star of the movie is a big monster still to be revealed.

Father and son briefly reunite to discover the truth behind the accident at the nuclear power plant a decade and a half earlier. The original Godzilla from the 1950s was a mediation on the dangers of nuclear war and the power of radiation to destroy the planet. This story is more about the dangers of government cover up and the risks we take when we seek to supress information rather than shine a light on it. This last couple of sentences suggests a level of philosophical thought that is never really developed or cared about. It is just in the background to give us something to pay attention to until monsters start duking it out. This movie is filled with halfway developed points to keep us involved until something reaches it's creepy foot out of a hole to do some destruction. Taylor Johnson has a wife and son who are neglected by his military career but love him anyway. Academy Award nominees Sally Hawkings and Ken Watanabe are scientists with something to say about the dangers of screwing with the environment and the power of nature, but they are simply the heralds for "Godzilla" himself. A lost little boy will be a surrogate for Taylor Johnson to care for at a given point.

Last year in "Pacific Rim" there were giant robots fighting giant monsters. In "Godzilla", following the tradition of dozens of Japanese predecessors,  monsters fight each other and we are bystanders with a rooting interest. The explanations for the MUTO monster are a bit confusing and they are placed in the narrative in a way that tries to avoid having some scientist give us a lecture for five minutes, but they are coming at the same time that we are being delivered information about "Godzilla" and that made some of the characteristics unclear. It will only bother you for a couple of minutes because soon the monsters are tearing up cities and being general douches on a grand scale, and at that point no one will be thinking about their origins, mating and eating habits. Not when Cesar's Palace is getting shredded before our eyes. There is a good sequence featured in the teaser above that shows a HALO action and makes use of the same style of wailing choruses found in "2001". However, it is the monster fights in the big cities that everyone came to see, and except for the fact they are frequently shot in the dark, with dusk clouds obscuring our vision, they are pretty good.

We ended up paying $16 a ticket to see this in 3D at a time that worked for us. You absolutely do not need to see this in 3D. There was nothing special or dramatic or interesting that was enhanced by the third dimension. Now the volume in the theater and the size of the screen will make a difference to you so be sure to take that into consideration when making a movie selection. "Godzilla" will be a place holder in the summer movie line up. It will do good business and people will be entertained for the running time, but it is not special enough to think back on for long or to see a second or third time. Half of my enjoyment of the movie came from the Hot Tamale candy I dumped in my box of buttery popcorn. Searching for one of those treats was able to distract me enough that I could ignore how standard much of the movie narrative was. I don't know that American audiences will take Godzilla to heart as a hero like the Japanese have, but if you liked the T-Rex at the end of Jurassic Park, then maybe a "Godzilla" stuffed toy should be under your Christmas tree this year.

30 Years On: The Natural

The link to the Thirty Years On Page this week.

Drew Struzan Screening and Signing

So we headed back up to Forest Lawn Glendale today for the screening of "Drew:The Man Behind the Poster". This was my second time to see the film on a big screen and the second time we got the privilege of listening to the man himself speak about his life and art. The film was showing in the large auditorium at the Museum site at the cemetery. You enter through a beautiful sanctum that resembles a European church of massive proportions. The screening auditorium is probably meant for funerals attended by several hundred mourners, but today it was loaded with fans. At first it looked like maybe a hundred and fifty or so made it out on this glorious Southern California Saturday, but by the time the film had ended the numbers seem to have doubled. It was a very nice turnout for the screening, Q and A, and signing.

The movie was great, I actually own it on DVD, so revisiting it was not the main goal of this trip. It is nice however to listen to an appreciative audience react to the comments made by the figures being interviewed in the movie and to hear their laughter at a couple of the things Drew shares about his experiences. The gallery of art next door is open for two more weeks and feature art from movie illustrator Bob Peak as well. We missed a chance when we first saw the exhibit to meet Mr. Stuzan at the opening night reception. He was arriving just as we were setting off for some other plans. So our purpose here was to shake his hand, share our appreciation and get a couple of items signed for our own collection.

Drew was very modest and unassuming as he took several questions immediately after the film. He was also very quick witted and made several humorous comments about the questions and the subjects they focused on. The one question that seemed to be most interesting to most of the crowd, was whether he had been contacted to come out of "retirement" and do the posters for the new "Star Wars" films. He demurred and said no one had contacted him but if a loyal friend like George Lucas asked for a favor, he would always be there for him.

After the film screened there was a short break for people to have some refreshments out in the patio area between the Theater and the museum. Everyone was having a great time and we saw several people with interesting items that they had brought for Drew to sign. One guy and his wife had a large lobby banner from the last Indiana Jones film, several people had brought various posters to have them signed. I saw a couple of "Star Wars" posters and several "Back to the Future" posters as well. Amanda made a dash over to the museum store to pick up two copies of the beautiful book that he has released with fantastic photos of his work.

She was a little surprised that the book was more expensive than she thought, but when opened we discovered that she had purchased copies that had already been signed. That gave us the out we were looking for. We too had brought some items to get signed but we knew that he would only be able to sign one item per fan. This meant that instead of getting just the books signed, we would be able to have a permanent memento that was truly unique.  This made us both a little giddy and we quickly finished the soda and cookie we were enjoying and zipped back into the theater to queue up for the signing table.  There were people milling around but no line had started so I took the opportunity to speak with a couple of other attendees and share some stories about our love for the poster work of our host this day. I suddenly noticed Eric Sharkey standing a few feet away and approached him. Eric is the director and co-producer of the film. Back in November, I'd had a chance to meet him and talk about the movie at the Archlight screening. I reintroduced myself and thanked him again for being a big enough fan to follow through and put this film together. He had traveled three thousand miles across country tobe here today, and he was just as kind and generous in listening to me prattle on as he had been before. I was forward enough to ask if he minded taking a picture with me, and he honestly seemed surprised that anyone was interested in doing so, but also very pleased that I had asked.

I was delighted to have the picture and glad to share it here. As you can see behind us, there were some people mulling around but in thirty seconds a line suddenly appeared and we moved quickly to join it. The number of people who had stayed after the screening and had something they wanted to share with Drew and get signed was pretty impressive. It took a few minutes to get things started so I took advantage to document the line with a couple of shaky shots. No flash was used in the sanctuary, and my phone is so old I don't have one anyway, but I did find the night time setting and got these quick looks at the line.

We were about four or five back from the guy in the right hand side of the picture here. There were maybe thirty people in front of us but everyone was in a splendid mood and we all just talked to each other. Behind us was a much longer segment of the line that extended all the way through the long passage area nearly out the front door of the chapel. You may not be able to see it clearly but the line here goes though a doorway, a foyer for the theater, and then into the high ceiling ed cathedral area.

Once the signing began the line moved quickly for us. We were not rushed at all but the process seemed to be very efficient. As we walked out afterwards, I was glad we were in the front quarter of the line, because it was starting to be a long day and I had a friend who had flown into town and was having dinner with us in a couple of hours.


When we got up to Drew, I went first and I pulled out my "Revenge of the Jedi" poster that I had bought for a Christmas gift for my wife and I in December 1982. Just a few days after I had already put it in a frame and hung it on the wall of our apartment, George Lucas announced that the name of the film had been changed to "Return of the Jedi". The value of my fifteen dollar investment multipled by ten or twenty times and we had a unique collectors item.

Drew gave me some good advice on where we ought to place the signature. He discouraged the idea of signing on the textured section and offered to sign with a silver sharpie on the black area at the bottom. I joked that he was the expert on signing, since the only thing I ever signed was a check. He quickly joked back with me, "Well did you bring one, show me."  The guy in front of me had brought the Black Sabbath album with him to be signed and I saw a reprint of a "Revenge" poster also.  Amanda had suggested weeks ago, that we take the jacket from "John Carpenter's The Thing" to get it signed. The Laser Disc cover was an unusual item and Drew commented on it by pointing out the places that the video company had enhanced and extended his work from the poster.

It was terrific getting to speak with Mr. Struzan for even just the few moments we shared. He was enthusiastic with everyone and friendly as could be. We walked away with a very satisfied heart and a great memory. There was a raffle/drawing after the screening and several nice prizes were distributed. We did not have the winning numbers, but I did get a nice shot of the beautiful art lithography that summarized Drew's work with George Lucas, and had both Drew's signature and the incredibly rare George Lucas signature as well.

I'm shamefully envious of that lucky guy who had the right combination of numbers and got a ticket twenty people after I did.

On returning home after our dinner with my friend, I thought I'd add a couple of photo close-ups of the graphically elegant signature of Drew Stuzan on our two treasures.
First up, "The Thing":

Finally, here is my original "Revenge of the Jedi" poster signed by a true original, the talented and kind Drew Stuzan:

Outdoor Movie LA Calendar Hollywood Forever Cemetery

Outdoor Movie LA Calendar Hollywood Forever Cemetery



This list rocks and if you want to enjoy the Southern California Summer, you need to find one of these events to attend.

The Bounty amd Sixteen Candles: The 30 Years on Project

From the Thirty Years on Project. Click the poster to go to the entry.

Also from 1984, the John Hughes classic. Again, click the Poster and enjoy.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

We have a new winner in the race to be the weakest Spider-Man movie ever. Leading the pack for seven years was the nearly universally reviled "Spider-Man 3".  While it was certainly the least favorite of mine, I have never been a hater like so many others. It was a disappointment and at times a little silly. What it never was was boring. "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is just that. Equally bloated with plot elements and villains, but managing to be entertaining for only about a third of it's more than two hour running time. The second entry in the reboot of a series that probably did not need to restart so soon, this film will be the biggest disappointment of the year to geeks and movie executives everywhere. The comic book fans will pick it apart for it's flaws and the money men will second guess how they took a sure thing and turned it into this.

There are long stretches in the movie where we get an ill defined domestic drama featuring Peter Parker, His girlfriend Gwen and his Aunt May. This is not what people turn out for. The back and forth love affair has a couple of sweet moments, but it all feels pointless and without any real motivation. If Peter is going to make the decision to stop seeing Gwen, why does he spend all his time following her around and mooning over her? Why does Gwen take him back when she knows how he is not able to make a commitment? Why would anyone care is the two of them have created no stake for the audience to begin with? Maybe if I had re-watched the last film right before seeing this one, it might have helped, but I don't think so.

The opening chase and battle with a barely recognizable and incoherent Paul Giamatti as a Russian gangster who may figure in the plot later, was sadly divisive for me. The way it is shown, from camera positions and Peter's perspective and then at street level if gracefully imagined. It just doesn't look very good. The animated CGI images are blurry around the edges, the colors look weak and it seemed flat. It is possible that this resulted from the effort to make this a 3D spectacular, but I did not see it in 3D and it looked cheap. The spitting gibberish uttered by Giamatti in the opening is Shakespeare compared to the "Ve av vays of making u talk" accented dialogue that comes from the "scientist" who is supposed to contain the villain "Electro" later in the film.  It was literally embarrassing to listen to this cliche speak from the screen. This movie feels slapped together in a way that "Spider-Man 3" might have been, but at least there, the seams were only visible when Peter Parker goes dark. In this movie, every villain is half thought out, every Peter Parker domestic problem is written as if it were important but plays like it is not, and all of the action scenes are less than exciting.

I think Andrew Garfield is a great choice for the part. He and Emma Stone have a nice chemistry, but their story pales in comparison to the Mary Jane material that was explored in the first series of films. The reason it does not live up to it's potential is that it was underwritten. The conflict they have should play out with more emotional investment and it is instead brittle and conventional. I am a softie when it comes to emotions. I love those Spielberg moments that deliberately try to pull a tear from your eye. A good commercial or a dog story on the news or even a piece of gossip about a kid in my wife's class can make be sniffle. The resolution of this story left me unmoved. I'm told that fans of the Spider-Man comics think the Gwen Stacy story line is the apex of the emotional journey that Peter takes. I just sat there, stone faced and wondered why it wasn't working.

There are some easy bad choices to point to. Jamie Fox gets to play nerd, but he doesn't play an engineer as a geek, he plays it as an idiot. His Max Dillon practically drools when showing how awkward he is supposed to be. It is a caricature that makes a simple hero worshiping fan into a simpleton. "Electro" could use some motivation, but the psychological roots of his rage are conveniently skipped over.    Harry Osborn is a different matter. The roots of his problems are better explained, and they are set up well. It is the manner in which he steps so quickly into the role of the "Goblin" that feels rushed. Had they left the set up for a third film and waited for this character to appear, I think it could have worked much better. In this situation, it seems like they just wanted a movie of at least two hours so they grafted an additions element to flesh it out. The "Rhino" character and Giamatti's role are throw away bits which added nothing to the proceedings. If you stick around for the credits, you will get another example of the slap dash nature of the movie. In an attempt to tie in the Marvel Universe, there is an insert that has no context, no connection, and no reason for being there. It raises some interesting questions about cross promotion, but it had nothing to do with what we just spent two and a quarter hours living through. The whole enterprise is a letdown.

Gladiator (2000)

This month appears to be sword and sandal month at the AMC Classic scheduling center. Last week there was "The Ten Commandments", this week "Gladiator" and in the next couple of weeks we are going to get "Ben-Hur" and "Spartucus". Somewhere, Captain Oveur is smiling and thinking of Joey in ways that we cannot mention. This is an opportunity to write about a film I have loved since it came out, but have never posted on before. Given that it stars Russell Crowe, was directed by Ridley Scott and won the Academy Award for Best Picture, that seems a little strange to me.

"Gladiator" is only fourteen years old, yet it already feels like a classic because it launched a hundred imitators. Before 2000, it would have been a long time between historical epics featuring legions of ancient warriors conducting combat with swords and spears. After this picture succeeded, we got "Troy", "300", Kingdom of Heaven", "The Eagle", "Pompeii", remakes of Conan and cable series based on "Spartacus" plus a dozen others that don't pop into my mind at the moment. This film was hugely influential on the subject matter of films in the last decade and a half and also on their style.

Russell Crowe won the lone Oscar of his career in this centerpiece of a three picture Oscar nominated run. His turn in "A Beautiful Mind" might have been deserving, but his work in "Gladiator" is what made him the biggest star in the world for about five years. You would need to go back to 1959 to find a winning performance in an action film. This is a raw, bloodthirsty part that required physical agility, and intellectual engagement with the motivations of the character. Maybe if you count John Wayne in "True Grit", you'd get a film role that won because the character was a hero who used violence in an active way to achieve his character's purpose. Maximus starts the film as a warrior general. Not content to sit on the sidelines but charging into battle, swinging a sword and getting bloodied up close. His moment of despair at discovering the fate of his family, reaches our hearts and hardens them to the villain of the piece, who before this may have simply been a misunderstood wannabe. The challenge he issues to the crowd in the second of his five scenes in the arena, " Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?" is both an indictment and an incitement and Crowe has just the right take on it. Everyone who has seen the movie knows that the passage that won him the award was his self revelation to the Emperor at the conclusion of the first Coliseum fight. His controlled fury is the point at which the story has been tightened to it's greatest capacity, and we await the outcome because his voice told us it would be coming, in this world or the next.

As I listened to the music, there were several passages that sounded just like the themes from "Pirates of the Caribbean" and it is with good reason. Hans Zimmer recycled some of those heroic motifs from this film in the lighter pirate movie just a couple of years later. There are some great details in the production. The dusty red hued out post that is Proximo's home feels exotic and dangerous. The blue-grey tint to the battles in Germania were cold to contemplate and you could feel the dirt on your body. The golden shaded views of Rome and the gladiator contests themselves make the setting the center-point of all the proceedings.  Richard Harris leaves the film early but still makes an impression. Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus has a terrific scene with Harris, that makes us temporarily sympathetic. He manages to turn that into revulsion by delivering the provocative description of the fate of Maximus' family in a tone that makes the words even more horrible. His work contributed to Crowe's performance substantially in that section. Oliver Reed leaves this planet with what might have been his finest performance. This movie has dozens of great elements to it that make it so worthwhile.

It was just me and one other guy in the theater today. AMC needs to build this programming up a little more. I could not figure out why I was not seeing trailers for the other films coming up in this series, instead of the two art house releases that may never make it to these local theaters. The cashier in the Box Office, was surprised when I ordered my ticket, she did not even know the fim was playing. That is at least the third time I've had that reaction when I went up to the ticket window for these showings. AMC, you are doing a great thing with this program, but get the promotion up to speed and let's get a few more seats filled. There are others like me who would make the effort a couple extra steps were taken in letting people know what is happening.

The Other Woman

I think everybody knows the answer to this before it opened, but I'll go ahead and ask and answer the question anyway. Is there any way that this movie will be any good?     No.

I have liked Leslie Mann in other films, she is an every day kind of attractive. She is a talented comedic actress. She should have looked at this script and run the other way. Having made the movie, she should now sue the producers for turning her into a whining, needy, idiot, character who is made to look unattractive and stupid in nearly every sequence in the film. I have always had a thing for women in hats, maybe I saw Casablanca and and fell in love with Ingrid Bergman at a young age. This movie may have cured me of that fetish. Whenever the director wanted her to look awful, he put her in a hat that not even Bergman could have sold.

Cameron Diaz is still an attractive woman, but she is a little older now and sometimes looks a bit well worn at times. Her smile still twinkles, and her hair is cute in whatever form it shows up in, but either the sun or plastic surgery have given her a tougher look than she probably deserves. Now I will say there was a trailer for "The Sex Tape" playing before this movie and she looked terrific in that, so maybe the director of photography needs to share some of the blame here. She has been funny in a dozen movies. Many of which I liked but others have dismissed (eg. "Knight and Day") Here she has nothing funny to do or say. There are moments when I wondered if she knew what the tone of the film was supposed to be.

I don't really know Kate Upton. She is a beautiful woman and apparently world famous, probably for being beautiful. It turns out she has made three films now and I have seen all three of them. I have no memory of her from the other two at all. So while beauty is certainly a calling card, it is not a memory card, because unless she is on the beach in a bikini, I suspect her acting career will be limited. I hope that doesn't sound too mean, I don't want it to. I was just not convinced that she needed to even be in this movie.

This could almost be a remake of "The First Wives Club" from 1996. Except instead of three philanderers, we have one serial philanderer and the women he has cheated on. It's a woman's empowerment revenge story. Unfortunately, none of the main characters is likable enough to feel much sympathy for and at times they are downright irritating. The male character in the story is played with a tone that guns from suave James Bond sex machine to doofus Jeff Daniels in "Dumb and Dumber". Nothing in the way any of these characters act is in the realm of reality, which would be alright if it was all revenge fantasy, but it isn't. There is another romance shoehorned onto the story, a superfluous character played by Don Johnson, who looks great by the way, that is distracting and totally predictable, and some cultural references to  the French that might have worked if the story had stuck to the comedy and not veered into melodrama.

It doesn't work. I did not expect it to, and the two women who went with me agreed. It's the only new wide release this weekend, so maybe it will make some money, but you can look for a quick exit from theaters and an even quicker exit from your memory.

The Ten Commandments

Nothing celebrates Easter and Passover like "The Ten Commandments". Getting a chance to see it on the big screen is also a treat. I may have done this with my kids back in the late eighties or early nineties but I can't quite remember. I do know that if I did, it was not in the pristine digital form that the movie was delivered to us today in. Although it was a theatrical release for one day, I am pretty sure this was the home Blu-ray version, complete with Entrance and Exit Music, and an intermission. The problem was that they really did not take a break at the intermission, the music played briefly and then the entr'acte for the second half started. After the whole experience was over, as I was waiting for my family to exit the ladies room, I heard a young woman speaking to her father about how long the movie was that they had just seen. It sounded like they saw "Heaven is for Real". The dad was explaining why he thought it was just long enough and she said it could have been longer. Her phrase was something like "I've seen a movie that was two hours thirteen minutes, so this could have bee longer and it would not be a problem". Having just come out of a movie that runs three hours and forty minutes, I chuckled to myself and thought about how lucky I am that I can be enraptured for that long without starting to feel ADD.

A Screen Shot from the entry way to show that I really was in the theater watching this.

The spectacle of "The Ten Commandments" starts with a stirring speech by director Cecil B. DeMille. It extols the virtues of the story as the beginning of real freedom and he makes a very pointed comparison to some of the political issues of 1956. It turns out that he sees it as a very anti-communist film because it concerns totalitarianism by one man over the rule of law that governs all men. It was an apt message then and it is equally important today. Although the photographic effects are not as impressive as they once were because of the more sophisticated tools now available, they still pack a wallop and if you are caught up in the story, the imperfections hardly matter.  The characters are quite different but you can see the seeds of Ben Hur in Charlton Heston's Moses. It was an impressive performance in the first half, but once the make-up and hair took over in the second half, he was more a cardboard hero than he had been before.

I saw that my blogging friend Eric, learned all of his Jewish traditions from this film. I guess I'd have to say that this was pretty close to my education on the matter as well. DeMille assures us at the beginning that although there is a large period of time in which we do not know the history of Moses, that his film is based on historical works by ancient scholars and theologians. I'll take him, at his word, it seems unlikely that he committed any heresy that would get him in the same hot water with religious groups as Darren Aronofsky got into with the recent "Noah". The film has stood the test of time, so there is not a lot to add. If you don't care for biblical epics, this will be a burden to you, but if you are inspired by the events of the old or new testament, than this should be a treat that you can savor for a long time (3:40 to be exact).

Cuban Fury

I looked at two other blog sites today that both reviewed this movie. That is something I do not usually do before seeing a film. I want my perspective to be untainted as much as possible. The thing of it is though, I had no plan to see this movie before today. I'd only heard of it a day or two ago, and I knew next to nothing about it except that it featured dancing and Nick Frost. I let my curiosity get the better of me and I peeked at what others had said. It was not promising. The reviews that I saw were not terrible but they were at best lukewarm to the movie. They did however fill in enough details to let me know that this might be a movie I would appreciate.

Since I have the week off at one of my work sites, I thought I'd be able to take some time and sneak in several films. No such luck and to be honest I was not excited about anything I'd not already seen. I took my AMC Stubbs points, marched down and caught the matinee of this movie. I'm 56 years old and I was the youngest person in the theater. It was on one of the four big screens at the multiplex with 17 screens. There were maybe a half dozen of us there so the house seemed cavernous. All that said, everybody had a pretty good time. I heard the 70 year old ladies a dozen seats down from me laugh several times and I was doing the same. The film was a little predictable, but all romantic comedies are. What sets this apart from most of the others is the salsa-dancing background and the star.

For some reason I have usually enjoyed movie dancing. From the classic Hollywood musicals of the golden age, to the 80's revisionism of Fame, Flashdance and Footloose (the three big "Fs" of the 80s), a little fancy footwork seemed to do it for me. This film takes a big dose of "Strictly Ballroom" and crosses it with a goofball comedy sensibility to entertain for the nearly two hours that it ran. A dancer who has lost his way and seems to have settled for a more mundane existence, gets a chance to reconnect with his roots. All the while being slighted by an obnoxious co-worker and romantic rival. I liked the dialogue that reveals what a pig the rival really is and the performance of Chris O'Dowd  as the odious Drew was at least a third of the fun in the movie. So it is an underdog story set in England centered around salsa dancing.

The underdog here is Nick Frost, as Bruce, the man who gave up salsa as a child when bullied by a group of other boys. His sweetheart of a sister was his dancing partner and she still bravely faces the world with her own quirky way of coping. It is the arrival of a pretty new American woman who stirs Bruce's romantic inclinations, and when he discovers that she also salsas, he returns to the art, twenty-five years out of practice. Frost is best known to me as Simon Pegg's counterpart in the "Cornetto Trilogy"(there is a "blink and you'll miss it" appearance by Mr. Pegg in this film as well). He is a sweet faced, overweight, lump of an actor, who manages to bring real personality to his roles and sweep aside the stereotypes of his visual image. In this film, the whole goal is to subvert those sterotypes while also exploiting them for laughs. It worked really well for me.

It is not a classic that you will want to return to over and over again, but it has it's moments. There are some great scenes with an effeminate Persian man who encourages Bruce that are very funny. The showdown between Bruce and Drew is hysterically staged and full of mad ingenuity. The peripheral characters, including Ian McShane as Bruce's old salsa coach, fill the movie with little bits of charm and mild laughter. It was better than I was expecting and the credit has to go to Nick Frost, who manages to make us care that a dumpy guy might have bigger dreams than what he seems doomed to live out. 

Academy Conversations: The Adventures of Robin Hood

So a few weeks ago, I was given a heads up by one on my friends on line that my Favorite movie was to be a subject of a Special Presentation at the TCM Film Festival. I had unfortunately not planned well enough to go to the whole festival, an issue I hope to repair next year. After looking on line for individual tickets, I discovered that you have to line up for standby on the day of the event at the venue. The screening and discussion were scheduled for  9:15 on a Sunday morning, so I felt pretty confident that we could get in, but I was concerned about where we would be able to sit, and my wife has a little trouble navigating the steep walkways and dark stairs at the Egyptian Theater.  We trekked down to Hollywood and Arrived before 8:00, just to be sure. The parking lot attendant had not yet arrived and they were just putting up the Stand-by line directions for our screening, so we ended up one and two in line. Of course that is after all the VIPs, Pass holders and other Festival attendees have been let in. Fortunately, we had a guardian angel. My friend who had told me about the screening was also attending as a Festival Pass Holder. We made plans to meet before the movie.

Michael and I had never met in person before but he and I know each other well from our respective blogs. He had let me know that he would be wearing a distinctive shirt that day, much like carrying a book and a rose to meet Jimmy Stewart or Tom Hanks. As we waited at the front of the line (alone I might add), I saw him approaching and recognized the shirt immediately. He had just as easy a time finding me since my presence on the internet has a variety of pictures of me and he showed me the smiling image from my gmail account on his phone. After spending a few minutes talking about the Festival that he had been attending, he offered to save us some seats when he went in. I am so grateful to him for that kindness, it made it much easier for us to relax and the seats he picked out were easily accessible for my wonderful spouse who is on her second year of vertigo.

The program started up and we were introduced to two Academy Award winning legends, Craig Barron and Ben Burtt. They were in great form as they joked and talked about the festival and the movie. They had a wonderful presentation for us that reviewed the making of "The Adventures of Robin Hood". It began with the well known story that originally Jimmy Cagney was cast in the role and the movie was to be more comedic. The director of the movie, William Keighley was replaced during the shoot and there was a clearer explanation of that than I have seen before. Craig Barron  made a point to note that Keighley had done all the work that had set up each of the main characters and that while his contribution is sometimes minimized, he really did have a substantial impact on the tone and look of the film. Being the Special effects guy, Barron led us through a visualization of the three color process used by Technicolor. There was a smooth use of tri-color graphics being merged to give us the spectacular color that then comes off of the screen. We also got a review of some of the matte work that was done for the picture. Both he and Burtt spent time out in the former Warner's Ranch location, which is now a housing development and golf course, to try and locate the hills and set locations. They made the trip entertaining as all get out by referencing the celebrities that now occupy some of that space and revealing that they did get pulled over for speeding on the road that was earlier used by the raiding party at the end to sneak into Nottingham castle.

Ben Burtt took over for a while as the discussion shifted to the sound design process for the film. He began by looking at the location sound trucks that Warner's used and he had a clever piece of history concerning the remaining trucks and their actual colors. You could hear the geek side come out in him as he longed to have one of those trucks for his own. The mock up version using a Chevy HHR looked cool but you could tell it would not have cut it as far as his lust was concerned. The most intriguing part of the tale involved his attempt to identify how the sounds of the arrows were made in the movie. There were very distinctive references in the original script to what the sound of the war arrows should be, and the effect on screen is amazingly appropriate. Burtt attempted a series of tests to try to lock down the source of the sound. Only someone as obsessed with sound as the designer of the sounds for the Star Wars films, could find this necessary and finally succeeded in discovering the truth. It turns out that the arrows used by the archery master on the film, had distinct feathering and the feathers were cut in a specific way which helped make the dramatic impact we hear from the screen. Michael shared with me a couple of secrets about velocity and rotation that made the talk more interesting as well. The next time the film gets remastered, updated, special presentation formatted or generally packaged to get fans to buy it again, I would strongly urge the producers track down a recoding of this talk, or have the two gentlemen recreate it, because it was splendid introduction to the movie itself.

After that great presentation, which was worth the trip down to Hollywood and the ticket price, all by itself, we got to take in a screening of "The Adventures of Robin Hood". We could see and hear all of the elements that had just been talked about and of course we got to cheer for Errol Flynn. As each character arrived on screen there was applause from the audience and the reactions to the actors performances was as fresh as it might have been 76 years ago. Claude Raines picking at the pomegranate, Rathbone scowling with distaste at the mere presence of Robin, and Flynn's maniacal gleam, right before the spear comes through the back of his seat, all of these set the audience ablaze with laughter and expectation. Even after seeing the film as many times as I have, I was able to notice things I missed before. The murderous Dickon was one of the men, robbed of his clothing and sent back in rags to Nottingham. He is in the background and I had not realized that he was in this sequence. I also heard the name of the tavern keeper where Marion finds the men of Sherwood and helps them plan his escape. The name was there every time I've seen it before but it stood out for some reason this time, Humility Prim.

The danger with a screening like this is that I will want to see films presented like this always. My life will disappear into a darkened theater even more often if I give in to this temptation. I should join the Cinematique, I need to plan the TCM Festival next year. I want to book some classic movie cruises in the future. The Brotherhood of the Popcorn should expect a membership application from me any day. OK, those are all dreams that I have. For now I have this recent experience, which included meeting a couple of fellow bloggers and finding out that one I was sure was a good guy, turned out to be just as thoughtful as I imagined.