So it's Christmas time in Southern California, which means Santa Ana Winds, Wildfires and "Die Hard". We were accidentally invited to the Corporate Christmas party for the Nakatomi Corporation last night. The event took place at the beautiful Theater at the Ace Hotel. We had been to this venue back in the Spring for a Radiotopia event featuring "The West Wing Weekly". Last night however was a different thing entirely, a screening of that perennial holiday classic "Die Hard".
The event was part of KPCC's Screen Week Film series. Most of the attendees were listeners to that public radio show found here in the Southland. The radio host Larry Mantle, presented a discussion after the film with two critics who appear regularly on the KPCC show. It was a light hearted salute to the film where the two women who clearly had not seen the film in it's original run , praised it as a perfect action/popcorn feature. One woman is a critic at Variety, and she had some insights on how the movie had originally been received by critics in 1988. The second woman was a writer at Rogerebert.com, and she told some background stories about the films development. I wish I'd written their names down one was Amy and the other I think was Christine. I looked for data on-line but I could not find it listed in the program notes.
The Theater at the Ace Hotel was formerly the United Artists Theater in Downtown Los Angeles. It was built in 1927 and it features a huge orchestra level floorplan and two balcony ares. It seats 1600 people and last night it was close to capacity. If you have never seen Die Hard with an audience, you are missing something. Maybe this crowd was hyped up because it's Christmas time and they are mostly subscribers to the station, but they were definitely a receptive audience.
We whooped it up when Hans arrived, when Karl is killed, when John jumps off the building, and we laughed loudly at every L.A. cliche you can spot in the film. Argyle got a huge share of laughs and every bad guy death seemed to get a cheer from the audience. Al Powell practically got an ovation in the last scene.
I was on a podcast just two weeks ago where we rhapsodized about the film for nearly an hour and a half. If you like, the link is HERE.
were Brits who were not familiar with the Run DMC Christmas hit, "Christmas in Hollis" so for them I have included the following music video, which by the way was featured in the pre-show entertainment for the Shane Black event last Sunday.
I've seen Die Hard so many times it is hard to count, but last nights experience was one of the best. The theater was beautiful, it was packed and the sound combined with the big screen accomplishes exacly what you want, an immersive experience.
Just as promised, it will blow you thru the back wall of the theater.
If it seems like an annual tradition to see a Lawrence of Arabia post here on the KAMAD site, well I think you are pretty perceptive. This is a film, much like "Jaws" which we will go out of our way to see on the big screen, and it so happens that Southern California audiences are hungry for Lawrence on a regular basis.
Last night we had the premier of a new 70mm print, created from a restored negative, that has been in the works since 2009. Grover Crisp was introduced by the chief programming guru of the American Cinematique. He was in charge of the restoration for the 50th Anniversary restoration that arrived in 2012. He talked about how they knew it would be a long process so they actually started three years ahead of time. They created a negative print to keep in the archives, while the digital materials were distributed for the anniversary edition. They ended up having many requests for a print version to use in repertoire screenings, and he said they created six. The North American print is now in the possession of the Cinematique and will be available regularly. Our screening was the first time this print was run for an audience in North America.
Mr. Crisp gave us a brief but detailed explanation of the process that was used to create this print. There were technical elements that are beyond my ability to explain, and to some degree even understand. The visual demonstration of the defects created by the cracks in the emulsion on the original negative prints was effective at showing why the work needed to be done. Seeing the scenes back to back and side by side shows how extensive and impressive the work done by the experts was. Thank goodness someone can still do these things and that people want to make sure they get done.
For a video blog on a previous Lawrence screening, you can click HERE .
The last blog post on a Lawrence screening is HERE.
The print was magnificent and the crowd was equally appreciative. There were three young guys sitting behind us who were clearly film fans from the conversation I overheard. I asked them and they told me this was the first time they were seeing the movie. I told them they were really lucky to get the experience in this format, and that I was jealous because the first time experience with a film like this is always terrific. Even though this is the sixth time I've seen the movie in the last few years on the big screen, my face still hurts from smiling for three and a half hours.
Film fans may be distracted by "Star Wars" this week and next, but if you are in the Southern California area, you owe yourself a trip to Hollywood for these special screenings. Tonight and Sunday are still available to you this weekend, and there are three nights next week when you can do this as well. Here's a link th help you get there: American Cinematique.
If you do make one of these shows, please come back and let me know what you thought.
It's hard to be dispassionate and analytical about a subject that you have been passionate about for forty years. Star Wars has been a cultural phenomena for that long now, and even casual fans can get carried away by the enthusiasm of anticipation and nostalgia. This film manages to hit most of the right buttons for the cosplay crowd, while still being accessible to everyone else. I suspect it will require a couple more viewings to be a bit more objective, but even now I can see a few things that are weaknesses from my view. They are not particularly significant to my enjoyment of the film, but they were more noticeable to me than the flaws of the last two Star Wars movie. "The Last Jedi" is a good story, surrounded by an ambitious production, with a couple of cinematic weaknesses that keep it from the perfection that so many are hyping now.
First, the good stuff. Just about every sequence with Mark Hamill works and gives him an opportunity to bring a character we have loved for a long time, some new dimensions. The callow schoolboy of the original trilogy has become a wizened figure of melancholy, but one with a great sense of humor. There are several light moments in the film that provoke a laugh, Hamill provides most of these, even though he is a character fraught with regret. Writer/Director Rian Johnson has given Luke an arc that is redemptive, cynical and blind all at the same time. Since I refuse to simply tell you the story, I'll let you find out for yourselves, but the payoff at the conclusion of Luke's story is emotionally satisfying to all of we fans who watched the original film in 1977. This is the best kind of torch passing you will see outside of the Olympic Relay.
It's been a year now since our Princess left us, but the character lives on in this film. Carrie Fisher has a significant role in this movie and she finishes her career with a strong presence in the film. Leia is haunted by the events from the last film in the trilogy, but she is needed more than ever by the Rebellion. There is no doubt that "the Force" lives in her, even though she is not a Jedi. Largely missing from the second act, her storyline through the rest of the film works well at keeping us connected to the reason that the "First Order" cares about a relatively small rebel force.
Many people, including myself, thought that "The Force Awakens" borrowed heavily from "A New Hope". There were plenty of call backs but also it seemed that the story beats mimicked the original film to a fault. It has been widely suspected that this movie would end up doing something similar with "The Empire Strikes Back". There are several points that echo or repeat ideas from that film. They are mostly moments though, rather than plot threads. The parallel between Luke now and Yoda on Dagobah is clear but superficial. The temptation of Rey by Ben is very much in the vein of Luke and Darth Vader in "Empire". These similarities felt like strengths to me rather than weak imitations. It is as if the pattern of the struggle between the light and dark sides of the Force are destined to repeat themselves.
Of the characters introduced in "The Force Awakens", the ones who come off the best in this film are the principles in the main plot, Kilo Ren (Ben) and Rey. Adam Driver is being used in this film the way Christian Hayden should have been used in the two prequel films. His emotional arc is more subtle and less random than the earlier character. The behaviors that he was mocked for in the last film are not eliminated here but they are exploited to tell a story and create some motivation on his part. Getting rid of the mask will be one of the things that allows this film to be much more mature in bringing this character to the next film and the climax of his story.
Rey also gets a solid few pieces of character development, and much like Luke in the original trilogy, she is the center of the story without having to carry the whole film and plot on her back. Daisy Ridley can't have quite the impact she did as a new character in the last episode but she grows and fights and makes choices that all work because she commits as an actor to the character. Her best moments include a series of interactions with Luke, a moment of uncertainty in a cave, and the culmination of her interaction with Ben. Everything else in the film is context for the relationship that is being formed with these two.
OK, now to some of the things that hold this movie back from it's potential. The other characters introduced in the last episode do not fare as well in these events. Oscar Issac as Poe Dameron, is not the mix of Han and Luke that we want him to be. The character comes off as a weak version of Maverick from "Top Gun". Head strong and unwilling to listen to those higher in the chain of command, he needs more charm to be able to pull this off. His character is underwritten and feels the most cardboard of the leads in the film. Jon Boyega's Finn is marginally better, with more to do and a new character to play off. The problem is that the main sequence he is featured in was the weakest part of the film. The casino plot on a new planet, Canto Bright, feels the most like the prequel films. Elaborate set design, background scenes filled with CGI creations to amuse us, and a completely unnecessary chase on new creatures that we are introduced to, simply for the opportunity to have them in the film. The rushed and tacked on inclusion of Maz from the last film also makes this story thread feel like an accessory rather than something endemic to the plot.
There are some treats that come along with the story, which help compensate for some of the excess. The opening battle sequence is excellent as is the fight at the climax of the film. The material where Snoke confronts Rey and Ben is also a welcome surprise and turn of events. As I have already said, the Luke Skywalker payoff was maybe the most satisfying thing about the movie and the reveal and reactions to it were well played by all involved. This is officially the longest film in the Star Wars franchise, and it did not need to be. I was never bored but I was sometimes overwhelmed by having to keep track of so many events taking place simultaneously.
"The Last Jedi" can work as a stand alone feature but it does set up future events for subsequent films. The film looks terrific and there are plenty of action scenes to keep us involved, but only the plot with Luke and Rey and Ben feels like it is relevant to the story that is being told. I wish it had ended on a note that builds anticipation and discussion for the next film, but this movie feels complete. Clearly there are characters that have to be resolved, but It is unlikely to create the kinds of discussions that took place after either "Empire" or "The Force Awakens.".
The characters portrayed in this film go to Catholic Schools and wear uniforms reflecting that status. Inspired by that vision and setting, I am prepared to make a confession. "Bless me internet for I have sinned. I am not a Catholic so it has been my whole life since my last confession,...I did not love this film." Unlike Marion McPherson, I like Lady Bird rather than love her. After hearing so many podcast raves and seeing the 100% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes (which finally dropped today to 99%), maybe I was expecting too much. Don't get me wrong, this is a perfectly fine movie and it has some excellent qualities to share with us, but it is not a "perfect" film, although I can say it is an accurate and honest one.
One of the guys on the "In Session Film" podcast, said his only complaint was that "hella tight" sounded too early for 2003. He apparently is unaware that the term "hella" has been around the NorCal area since the early seventies and there was a No Doubt song that featured the phrase the year before. To me it sounded completely authentic to time and place. The one thing only that felt inauthentic was a sex scene where the girl keeps her bra on. I understand and respect the right of the film makers to present their story in a manner that is non-lascivious. This is not an 80s teen comedy after all, but Saoirse Ronan is not Janet Leigh in the opening scene of "Psycho" released in 1960. The idea that a teen Lothario would be passive enough to ignore this undergarment is just ludicrous. Find a more modest angle, or use a bedsheet, which is a lot more probable, and that scene would still work without a topless shot.
I'm really not trying to pick at the film, that was just one minor example of the slight imperfections that people might overlook because they love so much of the rest of the film. Who can blame them? There is a lot to love about this movie. The actors are all pitch perfect. Saoirse Ronan is deadpan funny in so many scenes that we ought to be laughing a lot. I did, but not as much or as deeply as I expected. Humor is subjective at times, and the contentious nature of her relationship with her mother Marion, while amusing, was also painfully expressed, which did not always deepen the laugh but soured it. The timing of the two actresses, Ronan and Laurie Metcalf, cannot be faulted. They are fine, it is the occasional bitter dialogue that sounds honest but hit my ear just a little too often as trying too hard. The same was true in a scene where "Lady Bird" confronts her best friend when being given the silent treatment. They both throw verbal jabs that are funny, but just a bit too perfectly set up.
Maybe the reason I am not quite as responsive to this is that I have lived this story to a large degree. Maybe I was off a year, but I have a daughter who longed to be going to school in NYC. She had a boyfriend who turned out to be something different than she had hoped. She worked as a barista to make cash so she could pay her own way. She was definitely smart but had work habits that held her back and she found friends late in her high school career in theater. The love/hate relationship was maybe more with her father than her mother, so the crisp dialogue in this film might just be too on the nose.
My favorite scene in the film involves Lady Bird's sudden realization that she doesn't want to fit in with her new friends. She wants to go to the prom. That was certainly the opposite of my child, who would never have bent her behavior to curry favor with a group of people she wanted to be "in" with, with only two exceptions, picking up cigarettes and automatically taking a position designed to irritate one or the other of her parents. Lady Bird has to come to realize that abandoning her friend Julie, played with a heart breaking degree of honesty by Beanie Feldstein, was a big mistake, and it is one of several transformative moments in the movie. Lucas Hedges gets a second opportunity within just a couple of weeks to make a mark on the film business. His part here is deeper and more significant than his role as the neglected surviving sibling in "Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri", and the tenderness between Ronan and he is wonderful despite the bitterness that accompanies it.
Writer/Director Greta Gerwig has fashioned a very effective coming of age story. There are plot elements that you can see coming, and the lines are sometimes to dead on, but it is a great script and film. It is however, just another coming of age story. The performances, elevate the movie quite a bit but the heaping of praise on everything about the movie burdens the experience rather than sharpening it. There is nothing to not like about the film but that doesn't make me love it. To take advantage of one of the most derided quotes in movie history, "Love means never having to say you"re sorry". My guess is that it is apparent how I feel. Sorry.
This is designed to make all the bloggers out there jealous. An evening with two Shane Black films and Shane Black himself. Since it is the Christmas Season, it only seems appropriate that Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is the main feature here. If you haven't had enough of the question whether Die Hard is a Christmas movie, get ready for the encore with this sour seasoned greeting. It is a delicious mixture of violence, comedy and tragedy, all told around the Christmas Holiday. It will certainly not be everyone's favorite pudding, but it will make a lot of people laugh at the holiday season and remember why they hate the holidays.
I love seeing films at the Egyptian and the American Cinematique has created some great programming for the month of December, including a new 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia which a certain youngest child and I will most certainly be taking in during the upcoming break. Tonight however is all about the marvelous Robert Downey Jr./Val Kilmer action comedy. Written and directed by Shane Black.
From the beginning, I was reminded that I love this movie for it's idiosyncrasies. The titles are animated with shadow graphics and in a flash back sequence we see young Harry (The RDJ character) in his magician mode. The second character in this sequence who plays a major role later in the film is a little girl who grows up to be Harmony (the Michelle Monaghan character). That we pass the next twenty years in a few brief seconds is one of the marvels of how movies can be told.
The accidental nature of Harry's arrival in Hollywood and the guilt that trials him sets up the rest of the plot. This is a plot that is pretty complicated and may at times leave some gaps that are never completely filled. The Choice by Black to keep moving forward without lingering too much over the dangling threads is one of the things that keeps the film from getting bogged down in logical consistency at the expense of narrative drive. When "Gay Perry" is introduced and becomes a foil for Harry for the rest of the film, we get a buddy comedy layered on top of a modern noir. Val Kilmer may not have had as good a role as this in the last fifteen years, and he was great.
The big question that film fans have concerns what is Black's thing about Christmas. Most of his films are set around the holiday and make explicit references to it. As he explained, "''it's like falling asleep in the back seat of the car with your father driving and singing a tune as the lights flash past your window. It is a feeling of childhood security knowing your Dad is taking care of you. When you get to L/A. The Christmas references are different, a broken figure of a saint or lighting that looks slightly out of place, but it's still Christmas. It's a culturally shared experience." He credits "Three Days of the Condor" with inspiring the Christmas motif in his films.
Black was modest and honest in describing his freshman directorial effort. He was happy to give credit to improvements in the dialogue to actors who improvised during rehearsal. He also noted that some of the photographic effects were a result of accident rather than planning. He uses the term "running and gunning" as the description of their filming schedule. One person asked if he had plans to film any other movies with different holidays and he joked about his time bomb race against the clock set during Breast Cancer Awareness week. There was also a question about the design of the story being a reverse "Chinatown" where the incest angle is different and not what you think it is going to be. "Every assumption you make is wrong and at the end you are faced with an old man bedridden that you beat on."
The second film on the program was "The Long Kiss Goodnight" and he frankly admitted that he wrote it alone in part as a way of coping with some depression. He was complimentary about director Renny Harlin but admitted there were some things that he would change about the film, which is one of the reasons he wanted to direct himself.
He strongly advised us to stick around for the second feature, which only about a third of the audience did, but we were rewarded with a great over the top serving of 90s action film that featured Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson. He debunked the notion that the plot has any 9/11 foreshadowing, as he put it, "it's just a movie."
Both films were on 35mm but Black's parting comment was that 35mm bows in the middle and is fuzzy, so he is happy with digital projection.
The event was part of KPCC's Screen Week Film series. Most of the attendees were listeners to that public radio show found here in the Southland. The radio host Larry Mantle, presented a discussion after the film with two critics who appear regularly on the KPCC show. It was a light hearted salute to the film where the two women who clearly had not seen the film in it's original run , praised it as a perfect action/popcorn feature. One woman is a critic at Variety, and she had some insights on how the movie had originally been received by critics in 1988. The second woman was a writer at Rogerebert.com, and she told some background stories about the films development. I wish I'd written their names down one was Amy and the other I think was Christine. I looked for data on-line but I could not find it listed in the program notes.
