385 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/28/10 6:30pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The dust having mostly settled on its successful bid to be the highest-grossing film of all time, it’s worth experiencing “Avatar” away from the harsh light of audience backlash and award-season drama for what it really is: an entertaining exercise in world-building and CG wizardry from one of Hollywood’s most ambitious directors.Dialogue and original plotting have never exactly been James Cameron’s strong suit, but despite catcalls from a vocal minority of haughty film fans, there are no “I’ll never let go” moments here. Nor is the “white man” portrayed as the noblest among savages. Cameron wears his politics on his sleeve, which is fine, but his true voice shows in the physical world of Pandora, which he and his team built from the ground up for nearly half a decade.20th Century Fox’s Blu-Ray transfer is, to say the least, stunning. As someone who thought “Avatar” worked better in 2-D than 3-D, the level of visual and auditory detail on 1080p/5.1 Pandora left my jaw on the floor. I would go so far as to predict this release will convert a large amount of HDTV owners formerly content with their old DVD players plus HDMI up-conversion to the Blu-Ray format.The only disconcerting thing here is the complete lack of special features, presumably due to the impending release of a super-duper special edition due in the fall. Yeah, it’s a blatant cash-in. But for anyone who enjoyed “Avatar” in theaters and wants to push their home theaters to the limit, it’s an awfully tempting purchase.
(03/03/10 3:35pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The academy doesn't always get it right. In fact, a lot of times, they get it very, very wrong. Here are some of the most shameful wins in Oscar history.Best Picture“How Green Was My Valley” beats “Citizen Kane” : Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane,” now considered by many to be the greatest film ever made, seemed to confound the academy when it was originally released. Ahead of its time in so many ways, “Kane” lost to the more measured and traditional fare of John Ford’s “How Green Was My Valley” for what I assume was no other reason than a complete lack of foresight on the academy’s part. There was a history of animosity towards Welles from the academy, and while it was nominated for nine Oscars, the only award “Kane” took home was for Best Original Screenplay.“Driving Miss Daisy” wins and “Do the Right Thing” isn’t even nominated: Sometimes the academy is so behind the times it’s jaw-dropping. In a year where probably the best film ever made about race relations in America — Spike Lee’s daringly button-pushing “Do the Right Thing” — was released to critical raves, Bruce Beresford’s aw-shucks tale of a black driver and his white boss nabbed the Best Picture honor. It’s one of Morgan Freeman’s better performances, and there’s a neat little moral in the center, but the “Miss Daisy” take on race relations is the elementary school pop-up book counterpart to Spike Lee’s Master’s thesis.“Shakespeare in Love” beats “Saving Private Ryan”: In my personal opinion, this is the worst decision and worst moment in Oscar history. Miramax flooded the academy with downright brown-nosing, sniveling appeals for “Shakespeare in Love” to win every award it possibly could. The academy took the bait, even giving Judi Dench a Best Supporting Actress award for about five minutes of screen time. Steven Spielberg, one of those non-ambitious “let the movie campaign for itself” types, took home the Best Director prize for “Saving Private Ryan,” his second World War II masterwork in a row, but lost out to “Shakespeare” for Best Picture for no other reason than the Weinstein brothers spit-shined academy voters’ shoes and sent them expensive bottles of liquor. This is the one travesty that the academy will never live down.“Crash” beats “Brokeback Mountain”: Hollywood is a town that is generally friendly to the homosexual community, so when Ang Lee’s excellent tale of two male ranch-hands in love was the favorite for Best Picture going into Oscar night, it was assumed to be the automatic winner. Not so. Paul Haggis’ tone-deaf lecture on modern race relations, “Crash,” upset the apple cart and stole Best Picture right from under Ang Lee’s nose. Some suspected bigoted academy voters shunned “Brokeback” for its onscreen depictions of gay sex and men kissing. Others thought it was Hollywood trying to appeal to middle America. No matter what the reasoning, it was a horrible call.Best DirectorJohn Ford beats Orson Welles: Orson Welles’ direction and innovations on “Citizen Kane” opened up so many storytelling and technical avenues for Hollywood productions than are possible to fathom nowadays. John Ford’s “How Green Was My Valley” was a more traditional and “safe” effort, and Oscar is often known for taking the safe route. Bob Fosse for “Cabaret” beats Francis Ford Coppola for “The Godfather”: One of the most baffling decisions in Oscar history came when Bob Fosse’s competent musical theater direction bested Francis Ford Coppola’s masterful tale of mafiosos juggling their business and personal lives. Coppola was awarded the Best Director prize for “The Godfather Part II,” but most definitely should have won for the first installment as well. Kevin Costner for “Dances with Wolves” beats Martin Scorsese for “Goodfellas”:Martin Scorsese didn’t win his first directing Oscar until 2006’s “The Departed,” but he should’ve taken it home for “Goodfellas,” his most technically superb movie. Instead, Kevin Costner walked away with the honor for “Dances with Wolves,” a film more notable for its cinematography than its direction. Scorsese crafted a claustrophobic tale of the criminal underworld, but Costner gave the academy what they so often love: an old-fashioned epic.Best ActorRex Harrison in “My Fair Lady” beats Peter Sellers in “Dr. Strangelove”: I suppose I am biased against musicals, but it always amazed me that Rex Harrison’s rather phoned-in performance as Henry Higgins in “My Fair Lady” trumped Peter Sellers’ career-best work as Officer Mandrake, President Muffley AND Dr. Strangelove in Stanley Kubrick’s Cold War dark comedy. I suspect older Oscar voters didn’t know what to make of Sellers’ roles, but maybe they just preferred a light musical to searing political commentary. Art Carney in “Harry and Tonto” beats Al Pacino in “The Godfather Part II”: Art Carney gives a touching performance as a man on a cross-country trek with his beloved cat Tonto in “Harry and Tonto.” It was a nice reminder of Carney’s light comic talents, but nothing compared to Al Pacino’s thunderous, iconic performance as Michael Corleone in “The Godfather Part II.” On occasion, but certainly not always or even the majority of the time, more is more. Roberto Benigni in “Life is Beautiful” beats Tom Hanks in “Saving Private Ryan”: That “Life is Beautiful” was nominated for or won anything is a major Oscar screw-up. It’s definitely one of the worst films I’ve ever seen, and Benigni’s performance does nothing but make a mockery of the Holocaust. Awarding Tom Hanks’ role as Captain John Miller in “Saving Private Ryan” might have seemed like overkill to the academy after his recent wins for “Philadelphia” and “Forrest Gump.” Regardless, they truly missed the mark by even acknowledging the existence of Benigni’s shit-stain of a movie. Sean Penn in “Mystic River” beats Bill Murray in “Lost in Translation”: Sean Penn overacted the hell out of his role as a grieving father in Clint Eastwood’s “Mystic River.” At the same time, Bill Murray’s status as a great comic actor was revitalized further after a string of priceless supporting roles. There’s a subtlety and grace to Murray’s performance as strung-out actor Bob Harris that’s completely missing in Penn as he screamed “WHERE’S MY DAUUUUUUUUGHTERRRRRRR?!?!” at the top of his lungs and flailed about wildly. Best ActressJulia Roberts in “Erin Brockovich” beats Ellen Burstyn in “Requiem for a Dream”: Ellen Burstyn absolutely kills it in Darren Aronofsky’s “Requiem for a Dream.” It’s honestly one of the single best performances I have ever witnessed a human being give, and it has the power to induce laughter, sobs and gasps from me every time I watch it (as difficult to watch as it is). Julia Roberts won the “likeable actress in a sassy and quotable role” award this time, though. See Sandra Bullock in “the Blind Side” for a more recent example of this. Best Supporting ActorJoel Grey in “Cabaret” beats Al Pacino, Robert Duvall and James Caan in “The Godfather”: Unfortunately, this was a simple case of a trio of brilliant “Godfather” performances canceling each other out, with Joel Grey there to pick up the leavings. If there’s ever been a case for adding a “Best Acting Ensemble” award to the Oscars, this was surely it. Melvyn Douglas in “Being There” beats Robert Duvall in “Apocalypse Now”: Melvyn Douglas is fine in “Being There,” and, at age 78, it was one of his final film roles. Yet Robert Duvall is absolutely transcendent in “Apocalypse Now.” His Colonel Kilgore steals the movie during his entire time onscreen, and the specter of his lust for war lingers for the remainder of the film. Tommy Lee Jones in “The Fugitive” beats Ralph Fiennes in “Schindler’s List”: Tommy Lee Jones is all scenery-chewing bluster in “The Fugitive,” while Ralph Fiennes in Steven Spielberg’s masterpiece is a monstrous incarnation of genocidal evil in human form. You can actually see death in the eyes of Fiennes’ Amon Goeth. It’s a terrifying performance. In this case, though, Hollywood sensibilities beat historical drama. Michael Caine in “The Cider House Rules” beats Tom Cruise in “Magnolia”: Tom Cruise’s bravest, most deeply felt and expertly acted performance was beaten by Michael Caine, who was just being Michael Caine. I’ve often wondered if the problem here was that academy voters just felt it too easy to loathe Cruise’s Frank T.J. Mackey. In any event, this is the one time in Cruise’s career where he truly deserved to be showered with acting honors. Best Supporting ActressCatherine Zeta-Jones in “Chicago” beats Meryl Streep in “Adaptation”: Oscar has always been very kind to Meryl Streep, more so in terms of nominations (16) than wins (2). This should’ve been a third win for Streep, it being her most memorable role since Sophie in “Sophie’s Choice.” However, one of Miramax’s relentless Oscar campaigns swept Catherine Zeta-Jones’ sexy but one-note work in “Chicago” along in its awards winnings. Jennifer Hudson in “Dreamgirls” beats Rinko Kikuchi in “Babel”: This was a battle between the overstated and the understated. This time overstated won. “American Idol” alum Jennifer Hudson screeched and bawled her way through her role as Effie in the criminally overrated “Dreamgirls,” while Rinko Kikuchi offered up a heart-wrenching performance as a deaf Japanese teen discovering herself in a world that she understands less than it understands her. Best Screenplay (original)“Pillow Talk” beats “North by Northwest”: It took four screenwriters to come up with the story for “Pillow Talk,” and, while it’s a fun little romantic romp, it’s still a mid-level romantic comedy at best. Meanwhile, Ernest Lehman’s thrilling screenplay for Alfred Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest” is as ambitious as it is daringly sexual for its time. The academy so often prefers lighter fare, and it showed in its voting here. “Coming Home” beats “The Deer Hunter”: This is mostly an example of the academy’s politics coming into play. Both “Coming Home” and “The Deer Hunter” are films about the horrors of the war in Vietnam, but while “The Deer Hunter” is an unflinching look at how war ravages the minds and relationships of those involved, “Coming Home” takes a slightly more patriotic look at things. Both films are anti-war, but only one delves deep enough into its characters to warrant an Oscar. “Gosford Park” beats “The Royal Tenenbaums”: Robert Altman’s “Gosford Park” is essentially a glorified night at the dinner-theater. The massive cast gives it their all, but Julian Fellowes’ screenplay never rises above being a semi-witty take on the British class system. Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson’s work on “The Royal Tenenbaums” is possibly the best comedic screenplay of the decade, as it mixes mirth and malice with a nimbleness not seen by many of today’s film writers. Best Screenplay (adapted)“Becket” beats “Dr. Strangelove”: I’m sure we all fondly remember “Becket.” No? Anyway, the obscure film based on a French play about a medieval Catholic Archbishop bested Stanley Kubrick and Terry Southern’s consistently uproarious take on Peter George’s timely Cold War novel. Maybe the subject matter was too sensitive for the academy, or maybe they were just once again showing their fuddy-duddy preference for the old-school. “In the Heat of the Night” beats “The Graduate”: While the former’s screenplays is nothing to scoff at, Calder Willingham and Buck Henry’s brilliant adaptation of Charles Webb’s novel is filled with so many iconic moments and game-changing nuances (for the film as well as the industry) that its defeat here is stunning. “The Pianist” beats “Adaptation”: “The Pianist” is a first-class Holocaust film with an amazing performance by Adrien Brody, but its screenplay pales in comparison to the Wladyslaw Szpilman memoir on which it’s based. On the other hand, Charlie Kaufman’s “Adaptation,” based ever-so-loosely on Susan Orlean’s book “The Orchid Thief,” is one of the best and densest screenplays ever written. I have to assume this is a simple case of the academy just not “getting it.”
(02/17/10 7:38pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“A Serious Man” is one of Joel and Ethan Coen’s three best efforts alongside “Fargo” and “No Country for Old Men,” and that’s saying a lot coming from a guy who considers “Fargo” one of his top three favorite films. It’s a glaringly personal work that still contains the Coens’ trademark pitch-black humor and obsessive attention to detail.It would be easy to describe the film as a 1960s-era meditation on the Book of Job, but the brilliant screenplay has much more on its mind than a simple allegory of suffering, questioning and acceptance. The Coens and their cast tackle the consequences of action and inaction as they relate to fate, the universe and a possible god who could be sadistic, apathetic or purposeful depending on the day. The actors are uniformly excellent, led by Michael Stuhlbarg, who was robbed of an Oscar nomination for his performance as long-suffering physics professor Larry Gopnik.The extras on this single-disc edition are slim but worthwhile for the peek inside the Coens’ methods. “Becoming Serious” is the primary doc exploring how “A Serious Man” reflects the Coens’ own Jewish upbringing in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. It goes by too fast, and the Coens don’t open up as much as you’d like them to, but any opportunity to hear them discuss one of their own films is worth taking.
(02/17/10 6:05pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Over time, 2K Games’ original “BioShock” has grown into one of my few favorite video games of all time. The eerily self-contained undersea world of Rapture remains a visual wonder, and the combination of gunplay and powerful genetic enhancements still feels inventive and fresh. The true appeal, however, is in the detailed storyline and constant moral dilemmas of the main character.The same basic statements apply to 2K’s sequel, although with a few caveats. This time you play as one of the first game’s baddies — an intimidating and easily angered Big Daddy. While traversing new areas of Rapture, you’ll quickly notice that the gorgeous graphical sheen that graced the original “BioShock” is slightly muddied, which perhaps is an unintended side effect of packing in more hours of gameplay and a mostly superfluous multi-player component.The game’s gunplay and plasmid (genetic modifications that give your character elemental powers) selections and implementation are reliably tight, and this time you’re able to wield one weapon and one plasmid at the same time without the need for constant swapping mid-battle. Oddly, though each of the Big Daddies you fought in the first game were armor-clad powerhouses that took serious strategy and firepower to take down, the Daddy you control is curiously vulnerable to simple enemy attacks. It’s a bit of a continuity error, but it’s certainly good that the developers didn’t want to make the game too easy.Fortunately, the sequel’s plot more than lives up to the fantastic story of the first game. Moral quandaries are still in play as you decide to rescue or harvest Little Sisters, and there are once again hundreds of recordable devices scattered throughout Rapture that reveal intricate plot points and character motivations through some of the gaming world’s finest voice acting.“BioShock 2” doesn’t quite live up to the masterful original, and its multi-player feels like a total afterthought, but it’s still a standout game with unique combat options and an excellent story that will keep players enraptured for 20-plus hours.
(01/27/10 2:07am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Following the ascendancy of "Avatar" to becoming the number one grossing film of all time, we thought it was important to discuss it in terms of the upcoming Academy Awards. So we organized a debate through exchange of emails between two of our movie critics. On one side, Brian Welk discusses James Cameron's epic from a "pro" perspective regarding the Best Picture award; John Barnett takes the other side. John leads off the debate, enjoy! --I have to start this conversation out by saying how ludicrous I think the whole "10 Best Picture nominees" concept is. The only reason I can possibly discern for this is just to beef up ratings. People who might feel alienated when just "arty" movies are nominated will have a few afterthoughts to root for. "Hey, I liked 'UP!'" "Hey, 'Up' was funny AND heartwarming!" etc.Anyway, I want to also preface this with my guess as to which movies will be the 10 nominees. Just for discussion/comparison purposes. They are:- "Avatar"- "Inglourious Basterds"- "The Hurt Locker"- "Up in the Air"- "Precious": based on blah blah blah- "An Education"- "District 9"- "Up"- "Julie & Julia"- "Nine" (because Oscar loves nothing more than to gag on Rob Marshall's peen)OK, on to "Avatar." I'm honestly baffled as to who will win the big one this year, since Hurt Locker took the Critics Choice, "Avatar' won the Globe, and "Basterds" nabbed the SAG. "Up in the Air" seems like just the kind of pap Oscar will lap up, just like they did with Jason Reitman's last mediocre but amusing and quotable movie "Juno." I don't think "Precious" has a shot, only because Mo'Nique is a lock and the telecast will be content to end its coverage of the movie with yet another shot of director Lee Daniels looking like he just got kicked in the balls and is about to shit his pants at the same time.So "Avatar." I would say Cameron's brainchild has at least a 40% shot at the top prize, primarily because of the lasting effects it will end up having on the film industry. I agree with some of the naysayers that Cameron's screenplay, as well as some of the acting, is not Oscar caliber. On the other hand, from a purely aesthetic standpoint the film is a complete masterwork. One could've leveled the came criticisms about "Titanic," and many surely did. Don't forget it won 11 Oscars. Cameron is nothing if not a populist director, which is sort of odd considering he's such an abrasive egghead. Oscar certainly doesn't reward populism in the same manner as the Golden Globes, but they certainly don't ignore box-office success and hype.At this moment, I would say the percentage odds stand here:"Avatar" - 40%"Up in the Air" - 25%"The Hurt Locker" - 20%"Inglourious Basterds" - 15%I'll await your reply.-John BarnettI totally agree that no matter what the Academy says, this 10 Best Picture nominees thing is completely a ploy to boost ratings. However, I would say the Academy's experiment has worked, because this is a very worthy lineup of 10 films. If there five, they would be "Avatar," "Basterds," "Hurt Locker," "Up in the Air" and "Precious," and those are more than worthy.As for the others, "An Education" and "Up" are both fantastic, and are likewise in. It's the last 3 that are toss-ups. "District 9" is getting a lot of buzz as of late, so I can see that. And I would say "Nine" and "Julie & Julia" are definitely out, firstly because "Nine was terrible" and "J&J" would've been a disaster were it not for Streep. Although both films are up the Academy's alley, I would say the two inspirational sports movies about South Africans and a strong woman ("Invictus" and "The Blind Side") are better bets. And suddenly, don't count out "The Hangover" after a surprising upset at the Globes.Moving on, the four films you selected are definitely the ones fighting for the top prize, but I don't where you get the percentages, because it really is anybody's race at this point. The reason "Avatar" is the current front runner stretches beyond that of its Golden Globe win and James Cameron's Best Director win. Like "Titanic" before it, the film's overwhelming success at the box office represents a cultural staple, one that everyone can rally behind. As the most successful film of this decade, the Academy may seek to honor "Avatar" not because of populist reasons but because they want to create a lasting statement of a film that defined this time period."Avatar" is also a spectacle. Unlike a simply amazing action film like "The Dark Knight" that the Academy snubbed, it is a wondrous experience that characterizes film's visual abilities like no other movie like it. A better comparison would be to the original "Star Wars" or "Lord of the Rings," because like those two movies, the industry's expectations on how Avatar can influence the way cinema is made is ambiguous, but they recognize its potential.What it has to overcome however is a variety of factors: Does a film like "The Hurt Locker," a definitive Iraq War picture, or "Up in the Air," a concept ripped right out of today's headlines, better represent the values the Academy is trying to represent? And will an equally spectacle driven film like "District 9" potentially split some of "Avatar"'s vote? If both "District 9" and "Star Trek" were nominated, it might not be able to beat both. I guess the next question to ask is, what do we want to happen on March 7, and would an "Avatar" win be a good thing?You start.- Brian WelkI totally forgot about "Invictus." That will be in the list of 10, I'm sure. I refuse to believe they'll nominate "The Blind Side," but I suppose anything is possible. Also, those percentages I applied to the top four movies were just my feelings on the likelihood of the Academy voters bestowing the prize on each movie based on what I know about the history of the Oscars. In reality, though, it may well be a complete toss-up between all four.There was recently a great article by Owen Gleiberman in Entertainment Weekly about the politics he forsees in this year's Best Picture race. You can find that here: http://movie-critics.ew.com/2010/01/02/avatar-vs-up-in-the-air/In terms of what I WANT to happen on March 7, my personal favorite film that I saw in 2009 was "Inglourious Basterds." I think it's Tarantino's second best film, only short of "Pulp Fiction," and I still get a little sore when I think about the 1995 Oscar telecast when "Forrest Gump" was sort of a hulking freight train taking everything else down. I mean I love "Gump," but "Pulp" was the best and most groundbreaking movie of that year by a longshot. Oscar often loves a feel-good hit, and they even more often love a movie with a showpiece performance at its heart.Anyway, as little of a real chance I think my personal favorite film of the 2009 has to win Best Picture (much like "There Will Be Blood" two years ago), I can dream. I will say that the only movie I hope does NOT win, and the one I'll be rooting against, is "Up in the Air." No, Cory, I've still not actually seen it. I did, however, read the screenplay after it won the Globe. In a year when a serious epic like "Avatar," a masterpiece like "Basterds," an acting tour-de-force like "Precious," and the best modern war film in ages in "The Hurt Locker" are all up for the top accolade, I'd just rather a minor-key meditation on recession-era romance by the guy who made "Juno" not best them all.So would "Avatar" winning be a good thing, or the further creation of a monster? In terms of the sheer amount of time and obsessive detail James Cameron put into his first film in 12 years, I believe he certainly deserves the Best Director prize. However, the utilitarian screenplay and occasionally leaden performances are not Best Picture caliber. Of course that's not stopped films like "Crash," "Gladiator," and Cameron's own "Titanic" from winning in the past. I could envision a future where an "Avatar" win would a bad thing if directors everywhere start trying their hand at world-build and make the false assumption that the more money they spend on their movies the more money their movies will make. There are just some things McG shouldn't attempt (actually, there's nothing McG should attempt)."The Hurt Locker" and "Basterds" are, in my opinon, the most deserving potential recipients of Best Picture this year, because not only are they personal films in the minds and eyes of their creators and writers (as is "Avatar"), but have a great cast that supplied memorable performances on top of it. "Avatar" winning Best Picture risks sending a message to Hollywood which they've been sent many times before... that epic = success. This will only lead to a slew of empty-headed epics that are churned out on a year-by-year basis. I don't forsee many directors dedicating a decade of their lives to a singular vision. I do forsee five more Stephen Sommers movies in the next decade.Don't get me wrong. I love "Avatar," but a Best Picture win could send the industry off in a direction that's probably not the best scenario for the industry. If only we could trust filmmakers and studios to use more of their energy incubating passion projects and original ideas instead of just treating films like traded commodities. But I'm a hippie idealist. Maybe THAT'S why I enjoyed "Avatar" so much.- JBCuriously enough, "Basterds" is my pick for best movie of the year too, and its certainly a dark horse in this race against three films that all stand for something in terms of 21st Century values. To be honest though, I much rather would like to see "The Hurt Locker" win the big prize. Consider for a moment that the film made barely $13 million at the box office. It's a sin that such a great film has gone completely unnoticed by the general public. A win for it would mean a surge of appreciation for the Iraq War genre, and the pulse pounding perfection of "Hurt Locker" also deserves a win from Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director, creating a big stride for female directors.But back to the work of her ex-husband Cameron. An "Avatar" win would by no means be a bad thing. The increasing numbers of action extravaganza films is inevitable, and its been that way ever since "Transformers 2" made $400 million. What's more, there isn't another living director that can churn out revolutionary films the way Cameron can. I think the message that will be sent will be less "epic = success" and more of a lifetime achievement award for the King of the World. I think "Avatar" is a great film and that it does have the potential to change the way at least spectacles such as this one are made, and arguably, a loss at the Oscars or a low round up of awards could be stifling that opportunity.I think we can agree its a race between "Hurt Locker" and "Avatar." I'm actually going to put my money behind "Hurt Locker" because this film isn't just the critical favorite; it has been met with overwhelming support by everyone who's seen it. But maybe I should cheer for "Up in the Air" out of spite. That is a wonderful film, smarter than any movie this year, containing a timely and timeless message and with multiple excellent performances. Reitman is no doubt an emerging director soon to be one of the greats, and he deserves to be recognized.- BWI'm find it very interesting that the movie that was your favorite from 2009 is not the movie you hope wins Best Picture. Of course, I totally understand why "Hurt Locker" winning would be a good thing. It's a perfectly taut, thrilling movie, and it's criminal that it's only made $16 million when the Jamie Foxx vehicle "The Kingdom" made $163 million in 2007.Needless to say, we clash on our opinions of Jason Reitman. I'm sure I'll rent "Up in the Air" when it's released on DVD. For now, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that guy.Realistically, the Academy could go one of three ways. Unfortunately, I don't think a "Basterds" dark-horse victory is one of them. The Academy DOES tend to be pretty harsh on films it considers to be contrary to conventional ideals of morality (see "Brokeback Mountain"'s confusing loss to the anti-racist speachifying of "Crash"). Of course that doesn't go very far in explaining "No Country for Old Men"'s win in 2008. "Up in the Air" could get the "feel-good" vote, even though the script has a lot of sadness at its core. Still, it's a dramedy. They LOVE dramedies. "The Hurt Locker" will get the artistic and political vote, because even though "Avatar" is chock full of liberal political commentary, it's really all about floating mountains and flying dragon things. "Avatar" will get the industry stalwart vote, which is always a big factor at the Oscars, though nowhere NEAR as big a factor as it is at the Globes.I would disagree with you that Cameron "churns" out revolutionary films, primarily because it takes him so long to make a film in the first place. But his films (with the obvious exception of "True Lies") ARE revolutionary. This has been said many times, and I'm really just repeating it here, but if "Avatar" wins Best Picture I think it will be primarily because Cameron created a film people were actually willing and excited to pay to see in a theatre, as opposed to waiting for DVD or Netflix. Not just because of the astronomical gross, but because of the spectacle itself.-JB
(01/20/10 7:24pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s been 23 years since a proper military film (Oliver Stone’s “Platoon”) took home an Oscar for Best Picture. But now “The Hurt Locker,” a gritty exploration of bomb technicians in Iraq, is poised to take home the big one.Divided into seven intense real-life scenarios, the sense that death lurks within every red and green wire never lessens. An action film at heart, it’s not the sort of film that usually comes to the forefront during awards season, which makes it all the more unique. Director Kathryn Bigelow, whose past films include early-’90s staple “Point Break” and the sort of awful “K-19: The Widowmaker, flexes some filmmaking muscle during each scene, and mostly unknown Jeremy Renner is superb in the lead as Staff Sgt. James.Extras on this single-disc edition are slim. Feature commentary by Bigelow and writer Mark Boal is welcome, but a brief mini-doc feels like an afterthought. It would have been nice to have interviews with actual military bomb techs or a more in-depth exploration of Boal’s own experiences in Iraq, but we’ll have to wait on an inevitable post-Oscar edition for this and more.Fortunately, a lack of special features does nothing to diminish the intensity and immediacy of the film itself. Boal’s screenplay adds a vital authenticity to Bigelow’s technique and Renner’s gutsy performance, adding up to make one of the best films made thus far about 21st century warfare.
(01/11/10 11:33pm)
In the latest edition of the podcast, host Cory Barker is joined via Skype by John Barnett to discuss the latest mild spoilers relating to the final season of "Lost." Apologies for the at-times shoddy audio quality.
(01/11/10 11:06pm)
In the first Watchers podcast of the new decade, host Cory Barker is joined by John Barnett via Skype to discuss the worldwide smash hit film "Avatar." Apologies for the at-time shoddy audio.
(12/13/09 11:11pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I could easily squander the next 350+ words talking about "Lost"'s fifth season by spewing superlatives like an open wound. I figure, though, that my time would be much better spent explaining why the series is on the creative and aesthetic high it’s on at the moment. By combining a "Back to the Future"-on-acid approach to fractured-time storytelling with a stellar cast of familiar and lived-in characters (as well as some memorable new additions), the series deals with the lofty themes of fate, coincidence, love, hatred, life, death, martyrdom and resurrection better than the weightiest religious text, all while continuing to spin an addicting and mysterious mythology.Destined to be known as “the time-travel season” by serious and casual fans alike, producers Damon Lindelof and Cartlon Cuse succeeded in tying the island’s history together with its present, leaving its future, and the futures of every one of its inhabitants, in serious doubt with a season-ending nuclear blast. There’s not a bad episode in the lot, although “The Little Prince” peppers in some Kate/Aaron melodrama for the ladies. This is easily forgivable for a season with such condensed masterworks as “Jughead,” “The Incident” and “The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham” (an episode that won Michael Emerson an Emmy and could’ve just as easily earned Terry O’Quinn another).As fine a package as ABC has put together here, I have a serious bone to pick with the extras on this set due to what’s glaringly missing from my own set. The selected Darlton audio commentaries, behind-the-curtain footage, location diaries and Nestor Carbonell humor are all well and good, but the only way to access to the intriguing “Lost University” (the latest ARG from the producers and writers) is to the Blu-Ray edition. This marketing gimmick smacks of executive greed and leaves as bad a taste in my mouth as the WGA strike did a couple of years ago.Now about those superlatives; Juggling countless plot threads and multiple timelines with the deftness of seasoned pros, Lindelof, Cuse and the rest of the "Lost" team have weaved what is probably the best season of the show thus far. With the sixth and final season starting on February 2nd, "Lost" has positioned itself to conclude as one of the greatest series in the history of television.
(12/02/09 8:39pm)
With so many different types of games gaining popularity this decade, it was difficult to create a comprehensive list. So, we didn’t. Instead, two WEEKEND gamers Chad Quandt and John Barnett give you their thoughts on the decade in games. Chad Quandt:This was the decade of the shooter. If you’re a fan of other genres, blame some of the games on this list. Their breakthrough success must have made every game publisher demand they get in on the FPS-bandwagon. While shooters benefited from the instantaneous feedback players received, a few landmark games stood above for reinventing their genres, creating new ones, and changing how we look at the medium. “Portal” (2007) – The best five hours you can spend. “Portal” is the videogame equivalent of an overnight success story: pitched by Digipen students, nurtured by Valve, packaged inside the spectacular Orange Box and finally becoming a critically acclaimed darling. The brilliance of the central mechanic (creating portals to solve physics and logic puzzles) will always be overshadowed by the razor-sharp writing. It’s this story that gave us GLaDOS, one of the medium’s most subtle and hilariously disturbed villains. We miss you, Weighted Companion Cube. “Shadow of the Colossus” (2005) – “SotC” asks you to defeat sixteen colossi to resurrect a loved one with nothing but a sword and a horse. Short on details and heavy on atmosphere, you can invest and interpret your actions however you wish. Are you a brave hero, scrambling around on monstrous beings like the worst kind of pest? Or are you a destroyer killing beautiful (and sometimes peaceful creatures) working for an evil deity? If you challenge games as a viable art form, pick up this cult classic. “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City” (2001) – “GTA III” came out a year before, but it wasn’t until the game went to 1980s Miami that it nailed it. Mainstream news covered its controversial material, but this re-imagining of the series effectively established the sandbox genre as its own monster. While the player’s actions were limited towards mostly illegal activities, the series perfected a satire of the same violent culture proponents claimed it advocated. “Bioshock” (2007) – Plot twists can make or break a story (just ask M. Night Shyamalan). “Bioshock” not only took the player’s mind and beat it like an adolescent discovering puberty, but also critiques the illusion of choice that videogames have triumphed for decades. The unsettling atmosphere, genuine terrors and analysis of objectivism is all icing on the cake. “Half-Life 2” (2004) – Valve’s signature series has told an engaging story with endearing characters, all without their central protagonist ever uttering a single word. Every corner contains another subtle hint to the story around them. When your companion Alyx tells you that your mission affects the world, you believe it. The phenomenal Havok physics engine gives us another inventive weapon, The Gravity Gun. Why fire bullets when you can grab a nearby garden gnome and send it flying across the landscape into your enemies’ faces? “Halo 2” (2001) – We have this series to thank for the mainstream adoption of shooters and the reason why I stood in line for “Halo 3” alongside a few frat brothers. The massive hype has prevented fair critiques of the game’s faults and strengths, but Bungie and Microsoft took solid gameplay and created the streamlined online multiplayer that eventually became home to millions of racist ten-year-olds. “God of War” (2005) – Greek mythology is messed up by its own rights. “God of War” celebrates the incestuous and sinister legends and rips their spinal cords out. Action games have been aping its style and mechanics ever since: quicktime events, unearthly combos and a story worth placing among the legends it so dearly pays homage to. You will rip off a Minotaur’s horns, throw them into a Cyclops’ eye and celebrate your victory by seducing a water nymph. A game that perfectly depicts a usual day. “Team Fortress 2” (2007) – Valve’s third entry on the list took over ten years to make and it shows. With an art style fitting for a Pixar movie, “TF2” is one of the most balanced and engaging shooters ever. The “TF2” team has treated their fans like spoiled children: every few months a new update comes out with official maps, weapons and unlockable items. All for free. When nickel-and-dime DLC eventually ruins the industry, we’ll look back at this as the glory days. “Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic” (2005) – George Lucas really should have let developer Bioware write the new trilogy as this role-playing series took an engaging look at the galaxy far, far away. “Psychonauts” (2005) – Nintendo likes to talk at some point during every new Mario game about how revolutionary it is. Usually this consists of a new power-up suit for the Italian to wear. “Psychonauts” is what Shigeru Miyamoto should be dreaming about. Creator Tim Schafer’s summer camp for aspiring psychics has so many unique gameplay mechanics and levels, a greedy publisher could have split this baby into multiple games and probably made more of a profit. This is the best game you haven’t played. If you’re not cracking up by The Milk Man level, you don’t have a soul. Notable Mentions: “The Sims” (2000), “Resident Evil 4” (2005), “World of Warcraft” (2004), “Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare” (2007), “The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion” (2006), “Super Smash Bros. Brawl” (2001), “Burnout 3” (2004), “Kingdom Hearts” (2002), “Timesplitters 2” (2002), “Pokemon” (1999, but god damn we felt its presence all decade), “The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess” (2006), “Advance Wars” (2001) John Barnett:As video games have elevated in stature from mindless entertainment to a true art form over the past several decades, it's always a fun (and some would argue important) to look back and acknowledge which games represented video gaming best. Several sub-genres have come to the fore as the most popular; first-person shooters, role-playing games and sports franchises among them. The best games, though, often subvert genre and appeal to multiple sensibilities and fan groups at once.Most "best of" lists of video games tend to acknowledge games that are the most important of groundbreaking rather than the ones that are the most exciting to play and contain the heftiest narrative thread. We'll leave the historical importance to Game Informer and concentrate on games that best represented the art of video gaming over the past decade."BioShock" (2007) – Not just the best game of the decade but one of the best of all-time is 2K’s "BioShock," a masterpiece of world design, art direction, character-leveling, fluid controls and writing that has very few peers. Exploring the atmospheric dystopia of Rapture is a religious experience for those who can appreciate the obsessive detail that went into its creation. As your character gets closer and closer to discovering his true identity, themes of morality, power and the greater good versus the self become paramount. Play it. Now.“Fallout 3” (2008) – It’s entirely possible to spend weeks of real-time exploring and completing quests in the haunted, post-nuclear-explosion Washington D.C. landscape of “Fallout 3”. Aside from being one of the most expansive games ever created, Bethesda’s masterwork allows for an unrivaled amount of freedom of choice in your character’s actions, making for an experience that gamers create themselves rather than allowing it to be created for them. Multiple downloadable content packs sustain the action and expand the scope.“Braid” (2008) – The debate over whether or not video games should aspire to be art all but ended when Jonathan Blow’s “Braid” hit the Xbox Live Game Marketplace in August of 2008. Time manipulation is the key to discovering all the game’s puzzle pieces and besting your foes. As the game gets considerably harder, the story gets considerably deeper. A literate mentality and gorgeous 2D side-scrolling graphics only add depth to the proceedings.“Shadow of the Colossus” (2005) – The premise is simple to describe, yet terribly complex to execute. Destroy 16 giant colossi to free your lover from the grip of death. As the nameless hero explores a desolate countryside on the back of his trusty steed Argo, each colossi becomes harder and harder to defeat, and the satisfaction of finally felling one of the beasts is nearly unparalleled. Add to his a haunting musical score and intuitive controls and what you have is a fantasy masterpiece.“Grand Theft Auto IV” (2008) – Rockstar’s latest “GTA” adventure succeeds in further blurring the boundary between video games and cinema. Protagonist Niko Bellic is the most dynamic and multi-faceted video game character ever in terms of personality and motivations, and the narrative he inhabits is worthy of the best cinematic crime drama. Despite all this, the real star here is a fully-realized Liberty City detailed down to the litter in its back alleys.“Super Mario Galaxy” (2007) – Brilliant level design and a heaping helping of Nintendo nostalgia combined on Wii to create Mario’s most expansive Princess-rescuing quest ever. Gravity be damned as Mario traverses a treacherous series of galaxies each with a kind of three-and-a-half dimensional landscape, allowing the mustachioed hero to search every nook and cranny for coins and wacky new power-ups to help him on his way.“Resident Evil 4” (2005) – The first “Resident Evil” started the survival horror craze that’s culminated in the far inferior “Left 4 Dead” series. The best and most consistent “RE” game by far is its fourth major installment, combining the classic building terror and sudden scares of past “RE” games with a revolutionary control scheme that’s been copied in hundreds of games ever since.“God of War” (2005) – What could have ended up as a simple hack n’ slash adventure is elevated to godlike heights by an ingenious control scheme and a story and host of set-pieces that define the term epic. As Kratos, a man out to avenge the death of his family at the hands of no less than Ares himself, you murder your way through a veritable catalog of Greek mythological figures. The 2007 sequel is just as awesome, but this game began the carnage. “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2” (2009) – While the occasionally thrilling single-player campaign admittedly leaves something to be desired, the latest COD iteration’s online multiplayer is the best ever seen in a game. Hardcore FPS addicts make their way to level 70 and beyond while obsessively tracking stats and upgrading a broad range of very lethal weapons, all as they’re surrounded by some of the most photorealistic graphics and bone-jarring sound ever seen and heard. “The Beatles: Rock Band” (2009) – No. It’s not just “Rock Band” with Beatles songs. Harmonix and Apple Corps teamed up to create the most obsessively detailed, fan-friendly music game of them all. With amazing individual animations for every single song and the ability to work on three-way vocal harmonies and perfect Ringo’s every drumbeat, this game honors the Beatles like no other piece of peripheral media out there. “Final Fantasy X” (2001) – Square’s first offering on the PS2 is heaven for serious RPG fans. New additions to the Final Fantasy canon included full-game voice acting and an overhauled combat system that remains one of the series’ most sensible and intuitive. The story is nothing to scoff at either, as it’s the most epic and memorable since the timeless “FF7.” “The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess” (2006) – Link’s first outing on the Wii shares all the same hallmarks of the previous three 3D Zelda adventures, but with some decidedly grown-up themes thrown in for good measure. As Link attempts to rescue the most fully realized Hyrule yet from being swallowed by an alien nether-realm, a most heart-wrenching story unfolds. With the possible exception of “Ocarina of Time,” “Twilight Princess” is perhaps the best, though certainly not the most important, game in the Zelda series. “Super Smash Brothers Melee” (2001) – Quite possibly the ultimate party game, the Gamecube iteration of “Smash Bros.” first and best answered that age-old query: Who would win in a fight between Mario and Ness from Earthbound? Many other burning questions were answered as friends became enemies when controlling a host of Nintendo characters as they battled their way through many an inspired stage in basic combat or the expansive tournament mode. “Manhunt” (2003) – One of the most controversial games ever made, and certainly Rockstar Games’ most controversial (which is a feat unto itself), “Manhunt” puts you in control of a man out for revenge on his captors by way of a continuous string of gruesome murders. It’s not all shock value, as Manhunt hinges on excellent stealth gameplay and wicked humor in the midst of the brutally in-your-face gore. “Wii Sports” (2006) – It’s so much more than a novelty game, yet “Wii Sports” still remains both a gift and a curse. For every “Wii Sports Resort” or “Punch-Out!!” There are 20 inferior cash-in games trying in vain to achieve the success of Wii’s inaugural offering. Yeah, the baseball sort of sucks, but everything else in the game, from bowling and tennis to golf and boxing, is infinitely fun and increasingly challenging by oneself or with friends and family.
(11/30/09 7:32pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Adam Sandler turns in his best performance since “Punch-Drunk Love” in Judd Apatow’s dramedy “Funny People.” A box office bomb for multiple reasons (a mishandled and misrepresentative ad campaign; a 146-minute runtime; an art-film sheen), it’s still a modest triumph for the Judd Apatow canon. His other films may have more laughs-per-minute, but none of them have the depth of character and emotion on display here. Sandler as a dying superstar comedian, Leslie Mann as his former girlfriend and Seth Rogen as his hired writer and fast friend and are all fine tragicomic figures.The features highlight is a spirited full-length commentary by Apatow with Sandler and Rogen, and the four-part “Funny People Diaries” is a worthy document. Also included is an episode of the fictional sitcom “Yo Teach!” and a glut of archival stand-up footage of Sandler and Rogen as amateurs. More medicore features include a look at the fictional films of George Simmons (which is still admirable for Sandler’s ability to admit most of his movies are shit), and a faux-doc on Randy, the particularly unfunny Aziz Ansari.“Funny People” is certainly Apatow’s most misunderstood effort. Those expecting a non-stop yuk-fest are better off dusting off their copies of “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up.” Anyone willing to brave the waters of a more ambitious dramedy from the mind of Apatow should certainly give these funny folks a chance.
(11/17/09 10:22pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Pre-release expectations loomed so large over Infinity Ward’s sequel to “Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare” that anything the developers offered up risked damning amounts of criticism. Leave it to the Ward folks to shut (almost) everyone up right out of the gate. “Modern Warfare 2” takes everything that was spectacular about the first “Warfare” and cranks it to 11. Any serious or even casual fan of first-person shooters or multiplayer competition is strongly advised to buy this if they weren’t already in line at midnight Nov. 10.Single-player campaign mode is the game’s only noticeable weakness, lacking length and a coherent plot, though it still delivers enough excitement and variety to buoy a six-hour run. New this time is Special Ops mode, which allows single players or teams to test their mettle on timed and scored missions ranging from fish-in-a-barrel simple to preposterously difficult.As any hardened “CoD” veteran knows, online multiplayer is the real reason for the these games’ longevity, and after nearly perfecting its multiplayer offering with “CoD 4” and last year’s WWII shooter “Call of Duty: World at War,” the series has achieved the highest level of perfection possible for a multiplayer first-person-shooter at this point in the seventh generation. If the photo-realistic graphics, fluid controls and bone-rattling sound design don’t hook you, the astonishing depth of multiplayer competition will.
(10/22/09 2:19am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In the latest episode of the WEEKEND Watchers Official Podcast, Cory
Barker and John Barnett discuss season six of 'Lost' and also touch on
'FlashForward.'
Check out the episode of the podcast.
(10/22/09 12:14am)
In the latest episode of the podcacst, Cory Barker is joined by John Barnett for a discussion about 'Lost' spoilers and 'FlashForward.'
(12/03/08 8:45pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As a longtime Guns N’ Roses fan, it’s difficult for me to believe I was just 9 years old when the grandiose Use Your Illusion I and II were released. Since then, Axl Rose has spent countless years in studios all over the world attempting to perfect the opus that would come to be called Chinese Democracy. Along the path to Democracy, original members Slash, Izzy Stradlin, Duff McKagan and Matt Sorum exited the band, and a host of new cast members, including a dude with a KFC bucket on his head, were welcomed into the fold.What ended up on disc is at once better than I had expected after all this time. The title track is an effective reintroduction to Rose’s banshee wail, still aggro after all these years, and a formal introduction to Ron Thal, Richard Fortus and Brian “Buckethead” Carroll’s fortified wall of guitar. “Catcher in the Rye” is the band at their stadium-filling best, with soaring chorus after soaring verse, and “Better” is the best track Axl has written since “Estranged” and “November Rain.” “Street of Dreams” and “Prostitute” both play on the soft/loud/piano/guitar interplay of past GnR epics.A few songs don’t work as well. “Madagascar” is clogged with an orchestra, some tape loops of Martin Luther King Jr. and more Cool Hand Luke quotes. “Sorry,” with guest vocals by Sebastian Bach, is a meandering mess. Axl never was much for filler, and in trying to load Chinese Democracy with every trick in the GnR canon, several tracks feel forced. Chinese Democracy, 17 years in the making, is a shit-hot 50-minute hard rock album stretched out to 72 minutes by way of sporadic overindulgences. Of course, when the artist is Axl Rose, a man synonymous with overindulgence and with a penchant for reclusion, perhaps we should just be happy this long-awaited album exists at all.
(11/19/08 5:38pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I could fill page after page with what’s groundbreaking, thrilling and fantastic about HBO’s legendary series “The Sopranos,” but I’ll just say it’s the best series ever to grace the television medium. The momentous Greek tragedy that is Tony Soprano’s dual life as family man and made man never once sagged during its eight years. “The Sopranos” may never be equaled.Superlatives aside, David Chase’s mob saga is presented here in one colossal box that is heavier than a gallon of milk. Thirty-three discs in total and clocking in at over 80 hours, the set is fodder for both “Sopranos” fanatics and serious TV-on-DVD collectors. I’ll forgo waxing poetic about the tremendous acting, breathtaking character arcs, perfect music cues and occasional gory bloodletting and simply say that if you’ve not experience this series firsthand, or haven’t seen it since its initial HBO run, you owe it to yourself to check out this big black box.For “Sopranos” fans with the cash on hand to pick up this $250 set, there are significant supplemental features to be mined. Aside from peripherals like a 16-page episode guide and three CDs worth of music featured in the series are a plethora of single-episode audio commentaries and meaty lost scenes from every season. Yet another curio included is “Extra Gravy;” a collection of Sopranos parodies that document its impact on popular culture. The remainder consists of several hours of interviews and forums with the cast and crew, such as a lengthy two-part discussion with David Chase on everything Soprano, as well as “Supper with The Sopranos”; a sit-down with the cast in which they dish the dirt on behind-the-scenes happenings.If you already own all seven Sopranos boxes, it might seem superfluous to shell out the money for this set, but hardcore fans may find it hard to resist such an enticing package. The extras are engaging, and if you don’t already own the series, this big, heavy box is a must.
(10/22/08 9:46pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>George Lucas could benefit from a dash of subtlety in the same way Steven Spielberg could afford to take less-calculable risks. Both of the legendary directors’ worst instincts are on full display in “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” the fourth installment in the pair’s adventure serial. That’s not to say it’s a bad movie. In fact, it’s pretty fun if taken lightly and not compared in the slightest to “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” But after a while, Spielberg’s tendency toward the maudlin and Lucas’ insistence on piling on as many Tarzan-swinging monkeys and killer ants as possible is tiring.The story involves Henry Jones Jr. (Harrison Ford), his son Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) and his former flame Marion’s (Karen Allen) search for the lost city of Akator to return one of the legendary crystal skulls. Throughout the film, they battle Russians, wacky natives and a giant waterfall, only to encounter omniscient aliens and witness a spaceship taking off in one of the year’s best special effects sequences. It’s mostly over-the-top stuff, but Ford is in fine form as Indy, and the always great John Hurt shines as the in-tune professor Oxley.For Indy fanatics there’s a two-disc edition, replete with a loving tribute to the hero and a 12-part comprehensive documentary. Also, a walkthrough of the creation of some of the film’s outlandish action sequences is worth a look. As usual, neither Spielberg nor Lucas provide even a cursory commentary track, but their interplay during the making-of shows two giddy movie lovers just happy to be back working with one of their favorite characters. Arguments can be heard about whether or not “Crystal Skull” needed to be made, but the best argument for its creation was getting these two back together.“Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is an enjoyable attempt at reigniting a fire that burned its brightest almost three decades ago. Hopefully Indiana Jones will be at peace now, taking pleasure in his twilight years with wife Marion and son Mutt. I, for one, don’t need to see Harrison Ford searching for Atlantis at age 70.
(10/15/08 10:16pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If I’ve been asked once, I’ve been asked 500 times: What the hell happened to M. Night Shyamalan’s career? Well, what happened was that he started getting pretentious and self-indulgent with his stories and characters. That doesn’t mean he’s making bad movies, it just means he’s not making the movies that fans of “The Sixth Sense” and “Signs” want to see. His latest much-maligned work is “The Happening,” in which critics and audiences complained about awkward dialogue, hackneyed acting and characters not doing much else besides running from ominous gusts of wind.What I saw was a frightening movie about one of the many ways mankind could meet its end, this time by way of nature purging us from the planet. It’s a story I can’t remember seeing on film before, and for that alone Shyamalan gets creativity points. The director also concocts several scenes that are truly chilling, proving he’s still got style where it counts. Mark Wahlberg does occasionally fumble with a script that hits some quirky notes, and Zooey Deschanel, all gorgeous eyes and agape mouth, is mostly wasted as Wahlberg’s wandering wife. “The Happening” is all about tone, and its human characters are just hapless victims of nature’s fury. Of course, this is coming from a guy who loved “The Village” and respected “Lady in the Water” for what it aspired to be (a children’s fable).Don’t be fooled by the promise of “over one hour of intense footage not shown in theatres” plastered on the DVD cover. It’s more like three minutes of extreme excised footage and an hour of stuff that was cut for time and plot progression. Aside from those three minutes that would have better served the film by being included, seen in the “Hard Cut” featurette, this one-disc edition offers a brief making-of doc and some throwaway pieces on composing a scene and parsing Shyamalan’s sometimes puzzling dialogue.The best mini-doc is “A Day for Night,” where the director’s journeyman work ethic is put on display.Haters will hate, but I’ll keep following Shyamalan’s career with great interest. The more he keeps confounding mass audiences, the more I’ll be paying attention.
(10/08/08 9:26pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve been no friend of Tinseltown’s superhero craze since its gears started spinning out of control in the early 2000s. Films based on the X-Men, Fantastic Four, Incredible Hulk, Punisher, Daredevil and Ghost Rider have all sucked mercilessly. Only Batman (Christopher Nolan and Tim Burton’s entries), Spiderman (the first two) and Superman (the first two) have been treated well by mainstream Hollywood.That being said, director Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man” is a liberal shot of nitrous oxide to the superhero genus, generously doling out smart humor, inspired visual effects and an electric plot that had fans jam-packed in theater seats back in May and June. A perfectly cast Robert Downey Jr., in the role of weapons magnate Tony Stark, brings his full arsenal of talents to the proceedings, and an understated Gwyneth Paltrow is at her most emotionally warm since the pre-Chris Martin days. Jeff Bridges makes a great villain, too, and while Iron Man’s climactic brawl with the Big Lebowski is essentially superhero boilerplate, the actors make it something more.Anyone who enjoyed Favreau’s foray into the superhero genre would be wise to pick up Paramount’s Ultimate 2-Disc Edition for some fine supplements. Aside from the usual deleted and extended scenes, there’s an extended look at the film’s visual effects, and a live-wire screen test from Downey Jr., making it impossible to imagine anyone else cast in the role of Tony Stark. Most valuably, though, is the 7-part doc “I Am Iron Man” on the full spectrum of production, and the 6-part “The Invincible Iron Man,” in which the title character’s 45-year history is delineated.With Marvel now at the helm of its own character’s films, hopefully, as with “Iron Man,” the focus of the superhero genre will shift from making big bank to making quality films with quality actors that tell quality stories. “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” have catapulted the genre into the Oscar-contending stratosphere, and although “Iron Man” may not aspire to those heights, it’s a jewel in the genre’s crown due to Downey Jr.’s excellent performance and Favreau’s smirking sense of humor.
(10/01/08 9:34pm)
Dear Science, the third full-length from Brooklyn quintet TV on the Radio, immediately harkens back to a different era with insistent hand claps and a faux-Rivingtons/Trashmen vocal scat on “Halfway Home,” all building to an aural explosion, ushering in the band’s latest experimental musical treatise. If you thought Return to Cookie Mountain was heady, prepare yourself.