199 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/17/10 11:47pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Is it strange that with the most popular book and film franchise in history, there isn’t one movie that everyone can agree upon that makes it all so much fun? At the end of Harry’s long run, we figured now would be a better time than ever to put it all in its place. 1. “The Goblet of Fire”The fourth installment of the Harry Potter franchise was a turning point in the series. The movies had already ditched Chris Columbus and the children’s film angle, but “Goblet of Fire” evolved Harry and crew into adult characters with sex on the mind. The visuals of director Mike Newell’s dragons and underwater kingdom are the best they’ve ever been, and Ralph Fiennes proves in one scarily good scene why he’s the baddest villain of them all. 2. “The Sorcerer’s Stone”None of the Harry Potter sequels have been able to match the original in sheer whimsy and charm. “The Sorcerer’s Stone” told Harry’s origin story quite delicately. It’s one of the lesser-acclaimed films but is the most financially successful. It’s a delightful childlike fantasy. It served as a terrific opener to any audience, fan of the novels or not. 3. “The Prisoner of Azkaban”Director Alfonso Cuaron might have done something to alienate the most mainstream of audiences, but he shed a lot of what had been holding the series back following “The Chamber of Secrets.” He took J.K. Rowling’s story and made it into a more complex, character-driven narrative, complete with lush visuals and cinematography. And Hermione punching Draco in the face; nice. 4. “The Half-Blood Prince”Here’s where the movies start to lose us. Daniel Radcliffe plays a more angst-ridden Harry than ever, Rupert Grint turned into a pathetic oaf as he slobbers all over Lavender Brown, the gravity of Snape’s reputation as the Half-Blood Prince is turned into an afterthought and some fight scenes, even if well-staged, are unnecessarily tacked on. That is, minus the epic final battle of course. 5. “The Chamber of Secrets”If you thought the first Harry Potter movie was lame, “The Chamber of Secrets” is even more cheesified. Make way for Colin Creevey, Gilderoy Lockhart and Dobby, three of the most annoying, forgettable characters in all of Harry Potter lore. This film has the lowest critical ratings of all, and it was proof that Columbus’s style was too soft and that these kids were just a little too young. 6. “The Order of the Phoenix”The fifth film came from the longest book and was the shortest movie, but that was the least of its problems. As David Yates’s first, he turned the much-hated but well-written Dolores Umbridge into a cliché. He amped up the teen romance gush, and he turned the fight at the Ministry of Magic into a long and boring flashing lights show.
(11/17/10 10:52pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Break out your Time Turners everyone, and let me take you back to a time before Harry Potter. Dumbledore says about three turns should do. It’s the year 2000,: HBO miraculously does not have 12-hour gaps in their programming, and Entertainment Weekly does not have equally large gaps in their coverage prior to the release of “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.”The closest thing to a fantasy blockbuster is “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.” Richard Harris, the soon-to-be-first Albus Dumbledore, is starring in the Best Picture winner “Gladiator.” Maggie Smith and Michael Gambon, the soon-to-be-second Albus Dumbledore, are working on Robert Altman’s last masterpiece, “Gosford Park.”In fact, all the British actors the Harry Potter movies would later wipe the country clean of were currently working on interesting, award-winning projects. Even John Cleese and Robbie Coltrane had memorable roles in some of the Bond movies, whereas Hagrid’s only claim to fame is, “I shouldn’t have told you that.” And yet here we are 10 years later, and the end is in sight, but not soon enough. The last, very good but very dense seventh book has been broken up into two parts, the second of which will be released in 3-D (it would appear even the magic of “Harry Potter” could still use a little more digital magic). If the anticipation (or lack thereof) between each installment has grown through the years, imagine what it will be like following a cliffhanger with a 9-month wait.And by the time the franchise is over, what will have come of it? With David Yates still helming the final two films, I doubt the quality will much improve to the point of Oscar bait. The three lead actors have become stars, but their careers are likely over. Emma Watson has made very clear she’s done with acting. Daniel Radcliffe will have to wait even longer than Henry Winkler did to not be synonymous with his character. And even though Martin Scorsese said Rupert Grint should play a gangster to avoid being typecast, I don’t see his potential stretching much farther than a few British indies.As for the rest of the cast, they will go back to what they were doing in the year 2000, or at least hopefully they will. Maggie Smith has been nominated for six Oscars and won twice. She needs another great role in her dignified old age. Alan Rickman is doing quite well as one of Tim Burton’s character actors. Helena Bonham Carter is the front-runner in this year’s Best Supporting Actress race for “The King’s Speech” and not for portraying Bellatrix Lestrange.And audiences deserve to see Ralph Fiennes with a nose. I will say this: Harry Potter, either in the films or the books, has opened up a whole generation of kids to reading. J.K. Rowling’s and Warner Bros.’s efforts in populating the films into the highest grossing worldwide film series ever and the books into the most widespread collection of literature just in front of “The Lord of the Rings” and just behind the Bible, have done wonders for popular culture as we know it. Then again, if Harry Potter did not exist, the fantasy, teen romance novel would never have existed either. Robert Pattinson would never have been cast as Cedric Diggory, and that whole generation of kids reading would never have picked up the “Twilight” books. And the final installment of that franchise would’ve never been split up into two movies either.
(11/17/10 5:07am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The camera in the documentary “Last Train Home” is allowed to linger, drinking in the surroundings of the Chinese landscape and the tiny details that say so much about their culture and way of life. In the film’s opening shot, 130 million migrant workers fight to make a train. The film zooms in on one family capable of providing a stirring slice of life in this Eastern world.Each Chinese New Year, the 130 million parents that left their families in an attempt to support them come home, making up the largest human migration on the planet. They are often awaited by naïve and distant children who do not know the hours and tireless effort their parents put forth to support their education.Many films have been made about Chinese youth who feel stifled by their strict parents who demand nothing but the best from them. “Last Train Home” looks at the other side of the coin, realizing parents can’t bare the thought of their children joining the same grueling, factory workforce they did.The plight of the migrant Chinese worker is illustrated in just one family of four. Suqin and Changhua are the migrant parents of teenage girl Qin and the young boy Yang. The adults struggle to figure out how to balance love and parenting for two children otherwise raised by their grandparents. The daughter has a mindset that her own freedom is more valuable than her education, and she drops out of school to join her parents on the assembly lines. What she does not realize is the pain of waiting at a train station with millions of others for a week’s time, just so she can get home. This is the story of a set of individuals, but it is the same for nearly all of these migrant workers, for whom director Lixin Fan dedicated his film. As part of the Ryder Film Series, Ryder director Peter LoPilato worked with the IU East Asian Studies Department to have this film screened.“It’s such a strong film, extraordinarily moving, and works so well both on a personal level — one family’s story — as well as a on a grander, epic scale,” LoPilato said. On the importance of seeing the film, Ryder Film Series employee Andrew Berenger said, “A lot of these films that come in don’t get a chance to be shown at corporation type theaters, and I support every film that’s chosen here.”'LAST TRAIN HOME'WHEN 7 p.m. Friday and SaturdayWHERE upstairs at Fine Arts buildingMORE INFO “Last Train Home” is a revealing, unpredictable documentary about hundred of millions who travel by train to and from work, leaving families behind in hopes of supporting them.
(11/11/10 4:10am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s been over three years since President Michael McRobbie decided he wanted to elevate cinema to the same level as other forms of art on the IU campus.Ever since, the IU Cinema has been under renovation and remodeling, and on Wednesday, the new state-of-the-art facility showed its potential with a debut screening of the digital remastering of David Lean’s “The Bridge on the River Kwai.”The IU Cinema opens to students and the public Jan. 13.Jon Vickers, the director of the IU Cinema, has overseen the aesthetic restoration, the technological updates and the schedule for the spring 2011 film series.“Most students on this campus have probably never been to the theater because it’s been closed for so long,” Vickers said, “But the auditorium has received a complete face lift while still paying respect to the architecture that was there. And most importantly, it was converted from a stage theater into a world class cinema.”Vickers explained IU hired architects and acousticians to remodel the space to be on par with art house theaters found in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. The completed cinema is THX ready, one of two in Indiana and one of 10 on campuses nationwide. THX helped optimize sight lines and viewing angles within the theater for the highest of picture and audio quality. “This is a big step for the university to make that commitment to quality,” Vickers said. He demonstrated that quality in stressing the significance of having the best 16mm and 35mm projection capabilities along with the 2K and 4K resolution equipment that can show digitally restored classics such as “The Bridge on the River Kwai.”“With all of that technology, Indiana University has the ability to play any film in the best format available,” Vickers said. “We can now even borrow film prints from any archive in the world.”The film schedule is catered to make the most of this opportunity, with showcases of French, Asian, Jewish and British films throughout the spring. The IU Cinema will kick off its opening with a film series on David Lean followed by another on John Ford.The IU Cinema will also serve as an academic tool, namely the screening space for film studies classes. Gregory Waller, the chair of the communication and culture department and the IU Cinema’s faculty advisory board, said he is glad that the space is still a theater first. “It’s a lot more beautiful than I imagined it would be,” Waller said. “When you finally get to see and hear something at that caliber, it seems to me that was the purpose of the thing in the first place. It was to try and come up with a screening situation that would be as good as anywhere you could imagine.”Speaking on “The Bridge on the River Kwai,” Waller said, “You could not see that film better anywhere else, and it’s amazing to have that on campus as a resource.” At the reception following the opening of the theater, Provost Karen Hanson spoke about what she called, “the absolutely marvelous cinema.”“I think you can all agree that the IU Cinema is poised to take its place as one of the finest, really the finest, university cinemas in the nation,” Hanson said.
(11/11/10 1:36am)
Our roundup of war games, sorted by conflict
(11/04/10 12:36am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Oscars are similar to Christmas; people keep talking about them earlier and earlier every year, and it’s starting to get annoying. But this is the first time that the early Oscar discussion has actually been intriguing, as the Los Angeles Times reported in early October a plan to move up the ceremony broadcast by a few weeks.This would mean pushing Oscar night to early February, being careful not to step on the toes of the Super Bowl, and subsequently announcing the nominations sooner. In order to accommodate the more than 6,000 Academy voters, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is suggesting the implementation of digital screenings, which is scaring the people who are afraid of betraying the old-fashioned voting traditions of this historic ceremony. It’s also terrifying advertisers, but frankly, who cares? David Poland of Movie City News wrote a column defending the date shift, but his article was basically from an industry perspective. He pointed out that voters claiming they can’t see the movies is no longer a valid point, and that’s true — for voters.For the general public, the limited release schedule to build buzz prior to receiving Oscar nominations is a disaster. Art house films are only released in the last week before New Years, critics are putting movies on their best of the year lists and no one has seen the movies outside of New York, Los Angeles or the extreme film festival crowd. If you’re anything like me, you’ve been reading about “Winter’s Bone” and “Blue Valentine” since Sundance, “Another Year” and “The Illusionist” since Cannes, “The King’s Speech” since Toronto and “Black Swan” since Mr. Skin of all people started breaking “news” about the film. And if you’re even more similar to me, you live in Indiana and definitely haven’t seen anything yet and definitely won’t see anything legally until late January shy of driving up to Chicago over Christmas break with the hope of catching a few of said late releases. Moving the Oscar ceremony sooner would force distributors to market their award bait in months when people are actually willing and able to see them. I understand how advertisers structure the release schedule around the slew of other awards shows, but Thanksgiving and early Christmas releases seem to make more sense. And the fact of the matter is, people get burned out by the time the Oscars roll around. It’s the king of the awards shows, and they’re saving the best for last, but no one cares after week after week of “The biggest night in Hollywood.” When “Slumdog”, Mo’Nique, Christoph Waltz and Jennifer Hudson win every other award in existence months in advance, the suspense has all but dissipated come late February.There are more than a few industry analysts who claim touching this long-held tradition would damage the Oscars more than it already has been since the reintroduction of 10 nominees and the more “mainstream” selections, but Poland and other industry leaders are more optimistic. Meryl Streep, for one, said during the last award season that she believes the ceremony should be moved to Jan. 1. That’s is extreme, but her point is the same burned-out expression I’ve been feeling. Poland claims it will even assist the strange voting procedure for documentaries and foreign films.If moving the awards ceremony up two weeks means more movies in wide release, more movies available before late December and even the potential to see shorts, docs and foreign films period, then I think Christmas has come early this year.
(11/04/10 12:20am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Jack Nicholson has not appeared on a talk show in 39 years. Conan O’Brien has not appeared on a talk show in nine months.But on Nov. 8, Conan will be the one thinking his time off the air has felt like ages.Conan’s new show, premiering Monday on TBS and so aptly titled “Conan,” is Conan’s return to television and shift to cable following his historic departure from NBC and “The Tonight Show.”But in that gap, he’s built a cult following that is enthusiastic about his TBS debut. They’ve been voting regularly on a contest to decide who Conan’s first guest will be, and Nicholson is currently leading the pack of 12 equally random, bizarre and eclectic guests. He’s followed closely by Justin Bieber, who is fresh off a riveting song debut during the World Series. Other potential guest choices include the Pope, Vladimir Putin, REO Speedwagon, Thomas Pynchon, the Sultan of Brunei and the entire cast of the 2004 live-action “Fat Albert” movie, minus Kenan Thompson, naturally.Please take a moment to reflect on that brilliantly random group of characters.Whoever wins the contest will join Seth Rogen, Lea Michele and musical guest — and Conan’s close personal friend — Jack White on Monday night. They’re the kicker to a week full of stars and comedians close to Coco who will hopefully build some buzz for the new show. Tuesday night, Tom Hanks, who also appeared on episode two of Conan’s “Tonight Show,” will be the lead to Jack McBrayer and the recently reformed Soundgarden. Wednesday features Jon Hamm, Charlyne Yi and Fistful of Mercy, and the week will close with Michael Cera, Julie Bowen and comedian Jon Dore.“Conan,” which will air at 11 p.m. Monday through Thursday, will serve as a lead-in for TBS’s other quasi-successful late night talk show “Lopez Tonight,” hosted by George Lopez. In fact, that show is even being pushed back to midnight.But Conan has been building all sorts of buzz on www.teamcoco.com, his fansite. A costume contest to win tickets to the opening taping is currently ongoing, and there are 30 finalists of Halloween costumes that have been “Conanized” by their respected wearers. It has likewise been announced on the site that Conan’s blimp that has been circling the East Coast will come west in time for the taping. And Conan will even bring back the Masturbating Bear following its appearance in the 24-hour Live Coco Cam stunt Conan and his staff pulled.Sadly, Max Weinberg will not be the leader of “Conan’s” new house band, The Basic Cable Band. Instead, it will be guitarist Jimmy Vivino, formerly of The Max Weinberg 7. The only question that remains is this: Will Conan shave his beard?
(10/27/10 11:16pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Why has an afterlife always been associated with religion? Clint Eastwood’s elegant melodrama “Hereafter” asks this question.Eastwood has never made a movie like this. And in a way, he still hasn’t. The film is a fantasy in which three characters are surrounded by death in some way, each of their stories intertwining at the end. The film opens tragically with French journalist Marie LeLay (Cecile De France) getting caught in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and Eastwood directs this scene of stunning special effects in such a way that the disaster is localized. Miraculously, Marie survives, but before she’s brought back to consciousness, she sees visions. Here, Eastwood’s post-death world is illustrated through flashes of light in an area of complete darkness where only silhouettes and vaguely distinguishable faces are seen. George Lonegan (Matt Damon) shares these visions because he has the gift (curse, as he sees it) of connecting with the afterlife of his subject’s loved ones through touch. He’s distanced himself from doing readings, but the urging of others forces him back into the line of work that once made him rich and successful. The third character is the British boy Marcus (Frankie and George McLaren), whose twin brother was hit by a car and killed. His loving but junkie of a mother is unable to care for him, and he independently searches for a way to communicate with his dead brother while in the care of a foster family. I believe the strength of Eastwood’s film and Peter Morgan’s screenplay (another writer who’s never tackled anything close to a fantasy) lies in the fact that they are both rigidly down to Earth. They’ve observed that although all people are looking for answers, everyone is also discovering how to simply cope with the idea of death. “Hereafter” allows its characters to explore these thoughts more deeply.And it does not limit this theme to its three leads. Character actors like Richard Kind and Bryce Dallas Howard are given intimate personality sketches despite eventually disappearing from the story altogether, and they thrive on the film’s melodramatic tone and delicate pacing to catapult their performances. So yes, the film is quite heavy-handed, and some would say torpid. Eastwood shoots each of George’s psychic readings in an impressive, but familiar low light, and the tone, along with the sheer level of melodrama, is about as dour as it is in “Changeling.” “Hereafter” provides no answers. It does not assume a peaceful, fulfilling existence following death, and in its own vague way, it doesn’t even entirely assume there is one. It merely charts what people will do to find solace in the face of death, and it does that brilliantly.
(10/21/10 12:51am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The following message is brought to you in part by: Craig Wood, a lecturer in the IU School of Journalism.“Advertising affects us in just about every conceivable way we define ourselves,” Wood said. “In our very fractured media landscape, advertising is everywhere.”That is perhaps a shocking claim, if not a reality, about our media-based society. But throughout the years, advertising has evolved. It’s become subtler, more entertaining and overwhelmingly pervasive. In many ways, it is as much a part of pop culture as movies, TV, music and even journalism.Wood teaches three courses in the School of Journalism about advertising, and he said he feels the lines between advertising and content are blurring. “It’s often very difficult to distinguish what is advertising and what is not advertising,” Wood said. “We see more so than ever a blending of what has traditionally been editorial or content side of media and the paid side of media.”Product placement, paid-for branding and embedded content within programming are all examples he cites of advertising’s place in our daily routines. In fact, the number of advertisements we see regularly are staggering. Phil Meyer is an adjunct instructor in the IU Department of Telecommunications teaching a course titled Promotion and Marketing in Telecommunications, and he said there is an average of 3,000 to 8,000 messages that we see, hear and read in a single day.“I don’t think people realize how pervasive it is,” Meyer said. “I also don’t think people realize how advertising changes our opinions and attitudes over time. You can’t point to any one ad or commercial that forces someone to buy something. There’s no correlation between one specific ad and purchase. It happens over time.”Instead, ads are focused on creating a branding experience through recognition and attention-grabbing entertainment, a trend which contrasts with the highly-informative radio and TV ads of the 1950s and 1960s. Meyer explained as the differences in the attributes of the product have shrunk and the outlets of media have simultaneously exploded, advertisers have found they must be in more places to reach the same number of people.Robert Affe, a senior lecturer also with the IU Telecommunications Department, teaches a course on Electronic Media Advertising, which expands on this assessment of the industry.“Because there’s so much advertising and competition for our attention and our eyeballs, the benefit side of this process is truncated,” Affe said. “We now see hundreds of ads every day that we don’t even remember. Advertising has morphed from a more leisurely, inform-and-persuade process to one where they’re just trying to grab our attention for a few seconds to reinforce the brand or the product.”Affe described every advertising strategy as based upon interacting with the individual by counting every instance of interaction. “Advertising has gone more to the immediate, the more incentivized and the more quantified form of getting the message out,” Affe said as he whipped consumer cards out of his wallet for the dozens of companies he said will do anything to reward the viewer for being a part of their brand.Affe said the attention deficit mentality created by the rapid editing of MTV has shifted advertising everywhere, most notably in recent years to the web. He used television as an example to illustrate how isolated messages to a mass audience are simply not enough. “A hit show used to be a 25 rating,” Affe said. “Now if it’s a six rating it’s a hit. Fewer people are watching. Now advertisers have to shell out more money to reach the same number of people. The clients are complaining, and that’s why we have the migration to the web. The web can target specific individuals in a way TV never can.” According to Wood, this dilution of messages creates fantastic opportunities for communication as well as an overflow of content. “If you can embed your brand into content and have it accepted as part of content, that would be the Holy Grail,” Wood said. “As individuals are absorbing the content, they’re also getting the advertising message. That’s a huge opportunity, and all advertisers are trying to now move in that direction. But it creates an enormous mountain of advertising clutter, where everywhere we look, everywhere we are, an advertiser is there telling us something, offering us something, presenting us something, asking us to become engaged with something, wanting to develop a relationship with us.”But Affe said ads work, and we need them. “I can prove it because every company has to advertise,” he said. “If companies don’t advertise, bad things happen, which is nothing.”Further, he claimed ads have never controlled us in a way detrimental to society or the media.“Not all advertising is good, but advertising gets a bum rap,” Affe said. “People say it’s manipulative. It’s not. Nobody has ever been robotically programmed to say ‘Must Drink Coke.’ Advertising doesn’t turn anyone into zombies. Good advertising should inform us and persuade us, and good advertising does. Good advertising supports good products. That’s why Coke and Hershey’s and Ivory Soap will still be made 100 years from now.”Those trying to resist it are fighting a losing battle, he said. They’re taking away a crucial part of our civilization and our livelihood.“We’re all creatures of advertising whether we are products of it or influenced by it,” Wood said. “It’s very difficult to say we are divorced from it. Our tastes, our aspirations, our value systems — so much of it is defined by advertising because we are a media saturated civilization. There are arguments that advertising is a directive in terms of how we should be, how we should think, how we should act and what our person should be based on consumption. And there’s another theory that advertising is a reflection of what we are, and products and brands become the means to transcend that and become something different or better.”
(10/21/10 12:27am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Hello ladies. Look at your man. Now back to me. Now back to him. Now back to me. Sadly, he isn’t me, but he could be as cultured as me if he knew that 2010’s movies have had some of the strongest female performances in years.There’s no doubt that every year one could make a case for the strength of actresses as a whole. Last year in particular had people picking teams of all things.But 2010’s Oscar race is a barn burner. There are about six locks in the Best Actress category already, which is obviously a problem. And that’s not to mention the very deserving performances that will either be snubbed, forgotten or ineligible. First, Natalie Portman, Michelle Williams and Lesley Manville, three of the arguable locks, are in movies yet to be released. Those are Darren Aronofsky’s “Black Swan,” the indie romance “Blue Valentine” and Mike Leigh’s Cannes hit “Another Year,” respectively. But for the films I have seen, this is the year I point to when I hear in my gender classes that there aren’t any good representations of women in the media. Some of the best work of the year was done by Noomi Rapace, the Swedish starlet whose punked-out performance as Lisbeth Salander in “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” has surprisingly only made her an outside contender come Oscar season, though she will qualify for a nomination. Lisbeth is portrayed not without her sexuality or her vulnerability, but she stands as a patron saint in the face of abuse and sexual assault by men everywhere. What’s more, in the upcoming American version of “Dragon Tattoo,” Rooney Mara can only hope to redefine goth and punk fashion the way Rapace already has. Another two locks happen to be from the same film, “The Kids Are All Right.” Annette Bening and Julianne Moore are equally matched woman protagonists playing two lesbian mothers of a pair of artificially inseminated teenage kids. These are character depictions you simply don’t see in film. Their personalities are so authentic, their chemistry is pitch-perfect and they are as charming and whip-smart as anyone in modern film. The last sure thing is Jennifer Lawrence of the big winner at Sundance, “Winter’s Bone.” The film is a cold-blooded thriller from the middle of America, and Lawrence plays a teenager fighting to maintain the family’s household from foreclosure after her father disappears.What’s intriguing about this character is she hardly comes across as the “provider” stereotype. She’s a teen, a mother, a woman, a fighter, an intellectual, a sister; she’s just a remarkably well rounded character. Lawrence is marvelously subdued here, and she may be the front-runner in this race.And the best performance of the year in my mind is Tilda Swinton’s, who will likely not even be eligible for an Oscar nomination. “I Am Love” gives her a turn as a Russian mother in an Italian family. She’s in charge and powerful, but she’s a slave to her feminine urges, and Swinton has a way of showing grief in a way few actresses can. And she does it all in two languages, both not her own.The names I’ve listed are the shortlist of soon-to-be superstars at the Oscars. Marion Cotillard, Diane Lane, Olivia Williams and Greta Gerwig are all captivating in their own ways, too. Giovanna Mezzogiorno of “Vincere” and Soledad Villamil of “The Secret in Their Eyes” are legends in their native countries, and they’ve already received all the accolades they’re going to get. One could even make a case for Angelina Jolie for “Salt” or her upcoming movie, “The Tourist,” Dakota Fanning for the underrated “The Runaways” or even the young Chloe Moretz for either “Let Me In” or “Kick-Ass.”They say behind every great man there stands a great woman. This year, the women stand alone.
(10/13/10 9:44pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Americans love an underdog. Secretariat, the greatest racehorse who ever lived, is far from being one. “Secretariat” is the rousing Disney film charting the life of a horse who dominated in every instance and the privileged and confident owner who made it happen. The point is, the underdog success story feels a little phony, and what shines through more prominently is the overly folksy tale of victory from the heartland of America that plays like a PG-rated version of “The Blind Side.”That’s not to say the film isn’t very rousing and inspirational. The performances are all strong and winning, the photography is lush and colorful and director Randall Wallace’s race cinematography is captured from the most inventive angles, truly adding to the rush of seeing Secretariat win from behind. The craft of filmmaking and storytelling is strong enough that it has the potential to become a Disney classic decades from now. However, that praise might be asking too much of this underdog.
(10/07/10 12:16am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“The U,” director Billy Corben, 2009 — After the Dolphin’s 1972 perfection and before Dan Marino (and even into his tenure), the University of Miami, aka “The U,” was defining what football meant to South Florida. Billy Corben’s documentary of the same name is a fascinating depiction of how the social and racial unrest of early Miami of the 1980s manifested itself in the Miami football program. The players coaches Howard Schnellenberger and Jimmy Johnson recruited were as brash and unpredictable as the rapidly developing city itself. The interviews and footage are brilliant snapshots of how gangster and thug culture were really received before hip-hop took them to the mainstream. — Adam Lukach“Man on Wire,” director James Marsh, 2008 — “Man on Wire” follows Philippe Petit, a 24-year-old wire walker from France, as he sets out to fulfill an extremely lofty dream. Petit wanted to perform a high-wire walk between the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, which were the tallest buildings in the world in 1974 when the events of the film took place. As the fascinating events unfold, interviews with Petit’s friends add richness to the narrative and offer insight into Petit’s motivations. “Man on Wire” won the 2009 Academy Award for Best Documentary, a collection of other prestigious awards and the hearts of audiences everywhere. — Corin Chellberg “Super Size Me,” director Morgan Spurlock, 2004 — “Super Size Me” follows filmmaker Morgan Spurlock as he sets out to eat nothing but food from McDonald’s for 30 days. His goal is to illustrate by exaggeration the health risks of the country’s increasing consumption of unhealthy fast food. He goes through an ever-worsening range of symptoms as the film progresses, starting with weight gain and eventually including depression, sexual dysfunction and heart palpitations. By the time Spurlock completed his experiment, he had gained almost 25 pounds. This entertaining but stomach-turning film will make you think twice before ordering a Big Mac the next time you are at McDonald’s, and that’s probably a good thing. — CC“Sherman’s March,” director Ross McElwee, 1986 — “Sherman’s March” begins with a shot of a massive empty apartment as McElwee narrates how he always dreamed of making a movie tracing Northern general William Sherman’s march through the South during The Civil War and seeing if its effects are still relevant today. However, it quickly turns into a tale of McElwee’s love for the women in his life and his failures in connecting with them. At times heartbreaking and hilarious, “Sherman’s March” is the film Woody Allen would make if he made a documentary. — Mikel Kjell“Jesus Camp,” directors Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, 2006 — In the last decade, dozens of skeptical filmmakers have directed their vitriol at organized religion, blaming its influence for everything from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 to the corruption of young children. While Bill Maher’s much more successful “Religulous” uses humor to aim at the former, Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady’s “Jesus Camp,” the far superior documentary, seeks to shine light on the latter. Scenes like the one of home-schooled children of Evangelical Christians pledging their allegiance to the flag of the Christian nation after being taught by their mother that evolution is an unproven theory are truly disturbing. The film should serve as a call to arms to stop extremists from teaching their kids whatever they want. — Brad Sanders“For All Mankind,” director Al Reinert 1989 — Filmmaker Al Reinert documented the history of the Apollo space missions using footage shot by the astronauts themselves. The film features a classic score from Brian Eno, the perfect accompaniment to Reinert’s celestial visuals. No fictional movie to date has represented anything as visually stunning as the documentary footage used here. — Brian Marks“F for Fake,” director Orson Welles, 1974 — Orson Welles’ final film was this free-form documentary that was part a study of reality and fiction, a pure experiment in filmmaking, a biography of an international art forger, an autobiography of Welles’ career, factual to the smallest detail, and part lying through his own teeth. It’s a bizarre work of art by the greatest of all directors, and real or fake, it’s absolutely mesmerizing. — Brian Welk“An Inconvenient Truth,” director Davis Guggenheim, 2006 — “An Inconvenient Truth” is the famous documentary of former Vice President Al Gore’s efforts to teach people around the world about global warming by giving detail-rich and visually stunning presentations. A large portion of the film is that very presentation, presented on a massive scale. That format combined with Gore’s reputation as a bland speaker may sound more like a nap-inducing lecture than a documentary film, but the presentation is dramatic, compelling and backed by a mountain of widely accepted data. The film paints a chilling picture of a slowly warming planet and serves as a clarion call to action, and it was the first to do so for the masses. — CC“Night and Fog,” director Alain Resnais, 1955 — Alain Resnais’ documentary about the Holocaust is one of the shortest made on the subject and also one of the most important. Resnais avoids minutiae and instead focuses on why something so unimaginable could happen. The answer: There is no explanation. — BM“Woodstock,” director Michael Wadleigh, 1970 — “Woodstock,” directed by Michael Wadleigh, helped to define an entire generation.Wadleigh (with the help of editors, including a young Martin Scorsese) used innovative visual techniques to catalogue all of the music and mayhem of the famous festival. See it if only for Jimi Hendrix’s closing performance. — BMThe “Up” Series, director Michael Apted — The “Up” series became the most ambitious collection of films ever made, fact or fiction, after starting in 1964 with 14 students and the mantra, “Give me a child until the age of 7, and I will give you the man.” Michael Apted faithfully followed how 14 kids from different parts of Britain grew and developed in seven-year intervals, and his project has not stopped. In 2005, Apted’s subjects turned 49 in the series’s seventh installment, and “56 Up” has been announced for a 2012 release. — BW“The Man With the Movie Camera,” director Dziga Vertov, 1929 — Regardless of whether you can call it a documentary, “The Man With the Movie Camera” is one of the greatest films ever made. Released in 1929 with an average shot-length as rapid as today’s action extravaganzas, the film was the first wholly cinematic experience of the time. It has no plot, no characters and no intertitles, and it proved that audiences could watch the shooting, editing and screening of a film about the day in the life of the people of Moscow. It’s one of the most remarkable cinematic experiments of all time. — BW“The Cove,” director Louie Psihoyos, 2009 — The Oscar-winning documentary of last year is one of the most heartbreaking, empathetic documentaries I’ve ever seen. It condemns the practice of dolphin slaughter in Japan on an emotional, environmental, ecological, political, cultural and medical level. It does all of this as though the viewer were watching a crime caper. Try not to cry at the horrific footage of dolphins being stabbed to death in a secret cove off the coast of Taiji, Japan. — BW
(10/06/10 11:38pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve complained about a lack of film distribution a lot in this column (for anyone counting, this will be the 20th time I’ve complained). I’ve scoffed at the lack of proper distribution for foreign films, low-budget indies and award-bait movies unnecessarily trying to stir up buzz for a long time. Now that list of criminally lesser-seen films includes documentaries. For several years now, I’ve been able to look back on a year and agree how great a year it was for documentaries. 2010 is remarkably above and beyond in that category, even if few others have been. Some of the best films this year include documentaries, some you might have heard of, others you likely never will. Three of the top-10 reviewed films of 2010, according to Metacritic, are docs, such as “45365,” “A Film Unfinished” and “The Tillman Story.” One documentary is a slice of life from a heartland America zip code, another is a critical examination of a historically inaccurate German film that has been used as propaganda and the last is about a soldier in Afghanistan killed under friendly fire. Serious and hard-hitting as those might be, many others scream box-office gold. “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is a mesmerizing, near mockumentary directed by and starring the famous street artist Banksy. The stars of “Restrepo” received some name recognition on CNN after they called the Korengal Valley, where the film occurs, “the most dangerous place on Earth.” The fact any footage exists from this war zone is remarkable. “Waiting for Superman,” which just opened in limited release this past week, is an examination of the American public school system by Oscar-winning documentarian Davis Guggenheim (“An Inconvenient Truth”).Even celebrities are not far from documentaries. “Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work” proved to be a funny, touching and somewhat unsentimental biography of the iconic comedienne. And this shortlist does not include the two soft-docs that cleaned up at the box office this summer. “Oceans” and “Babies,” which some critics actually admired for their spectacle appeal, are arguably nothing more than YouTube videos with HD cameras. Movies like those have become the norm for documentaries. Nature documentaries, goofy experiments and satirical jabs at American industries are all Americans expect from the genre today. Superstars like Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock certainly have influence, but many people would agree if I said they’ve run out of things to say. Some of the best documentaries of the last decade have either moved me or terrified me to a greater degree than most dramas or horror movies, but some have no agenda at all. Some films are stirring portraits of a person, a city or an idea, and some are more lyrical and cinematically wonderful than anything readily available at the local multiplex. We should stop equating documentaries with the “60 Minutes” reports or the CNN investigations and start judging them as films.
(09/29/10 11:56pm)
WEEKEND weighs in on TV and film's most fashionable
(09/29/10 11:09pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“The Social Network” is both a vivid, inventive fantasy and a dramatically realistic portrait of the 21st century. It has touched on a subject that has become so ingrained in the subconscious of everyone who’s ever heard of the Internet while expanding on the biopic sub-genre in a way as revolutionary as the idea of Facebook itself. The film is not about Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), the founder of Facebook, or Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), Mark’s one-time best friend or even about the Winklevoss twins (both played by Armie Hammer), who claim Mark stole the idea of Facebook from them. Aaron Sorkin’s inspired screenplay weaves through time and different perspectives to create a powerful story about no victim or winner. “The Social Network,” with its rapid-fire, whip-smart dialogue, is a stirring metaphor for the complexities and tragedies of life on a website where everyone is connected. And yet it is neither pro- nor anti-Facebook. It is a character sketch for what happened to these people in this screenplay in a time where the only friends Zuckerberg has are the ones we see, and not the 500 million users around the globe.To those who say the film is unfair to Zuckerberg, the film is not a true account of real events, but the ideas that are constructed from the collective perspectives of all those with a claim to Facebook.And yes, Zuckerberg does come across as an asshole. Eisenberg’s performance is cold, wired and immersed. As he recites scathing blog posts about his ex-girlfriend or explains his ideas to Saverin, he always comes across as a man with his mind elsewhere. It’s a wonderfully chilling performance. Sorkin’s screenplay is the smartest and wittiest of the year, spontaneous and insightful at the same time. And David Fincher has his work cut out for him making it come to life. The words move along with such swift clarity, and the editing seems to do the same, but Fincher sets an ideal pace for a film that never seems like a barrage of overly intelligent people parroting technical jargon. “The Social Network” is not a history lesson. It explains how Zuckerberg reached out to the world who wanted to stalk, chat and see everyone they knew. It also leads us to the point where both Saverin and the Winklevoss twins simultaneously sue Zuckerberg for rights and ownership to Facebook. But it comes to no clean conclusion, never claims complete facticity and takes no sides. It merely enchants.
(09/23/10 12:15am)
WEEKEND suggests fifteen great underground artists
(09/22/10 11:55pm)
WEEKEND runs down fifteen unappreciated gems
(09/22/10 11:12pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I know how lists work. Readers pour through them looking for titles they actually recognize, exclaim in either joy or disgust at the critic’s choice and forget the rest. Now WEEKEND has crafted a list in which, ideally, there will be no recognizable titles. Part of me fears the response, if any, we will get. I predict that some will look at our list and assume the worst. “I haven’t heard of it nor seen it, so the film must be (1) a Euro trash, arty foreign film from God knows where, (2) an avant-garde, pretentious piece of junk made for critics to gush about or (3) a lame, indie, feel-good charmer with an aggravating sound track and more hipster cred than “Juno.” And the truth is, while some of these films are far and away from a familiar screenplay and may demand patience the audience isn’t used to, I promise you all of these films are better than a majority of the junk and even above average junk that has come out of Hollywood in the last 10 years. Is it so hard to believe that an indie may actually imply a first-time filmmaker with little to no budget and no means of distribution who is just dying to tell his or her story? What about the possibility that there are legendary directors in foreign countries that have zero notoriety in the States? Many of these films are just that, and nearly all of them have a criminally low user rating on IMDB, Metacritic or Netflix. Some average Joe stumbled across the film based on a recommendation from a friend or a film critic, and they were so bored (typically the uninformative adjective of choice) and angered by a film that challenged them that they were compelled to write a scathing review, often claiming they’ve never done so before. Oh, thank you for going so far out of your way to warn the masses that you gave up within 10 minutes of this film you didn’t even try to understand. Some of the filmmakers represented on this list are amongst the most acclaimed directors working today. The Dardenne Brothers are masters in France and at the Cannes film festival. Roger Ebert wrote on his blog that Ramin Bahrani would be the next great American director, predicting the same fate he did for Martin Scorsese. Edward Yang’s “Yi yi” was named the tenth best film of the last 25 years by the Sight & Sound Critics Poll. The funny thing is, we made this list harder on ourselves than it needed to be. We excluded the Oscar nominees and the directors who have worked with subjects just too well-known from our list, and dozens of these have gone unknown and forgotten by the general public. And what’s more, most of these are available at the push of a button. It’s called the Netflix Instant Queue. Try it sometime. Our goal is not to tell you your tastes are wrong or immature, nor is it to argue if you disagree with any of the titles on our list. We love watching movies at Weekend, and if we can share in that joy by introducing you to something new, that experience is all the greater.
(09/22/10 9:53pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“I need you to help me with something. I don’t want you to ask me about it later, and we’re going to hurt people.” “Whose car are we taking?” It’s that kind of dialogue and screen acting that elevates Ben Affleck’s “The Town” from summer movie cash-in to fall movie Oscar bait. “The Town” opens with facts claiming Charlestown, Mass., near Boston, is a breeding ground for bank robbers and drug dealers. More criminals come from there than from any other town in the country, a fact that serves as interesting character development for the low-life townies skilled in rigging every angle of a complex bank heist and making it look simple. We meet Doug MacRay (Affleck) and James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) in this very job, and it’s a scene directed with speed, vigor and a smooth hand. Much of “The Town”’s action sequences are stylish and clean in a way absent from most grittily realistic cop dramas today. The pair, long-time best friends, is concerned that the hostage they took after the bank job might recognize them, she being from Charlestown as well. Doug follows Claire (Rebecca Hall) to ensure she won’t talk, and he finds himself in a relationship with her, hiding his involvement at every turn. It’s an interesting romantic element thrown into the generic one-more-score-then-I’m-out-for-good scenario, and it’s disappointing that it and another theme suggested by “The Town’s” opening piece of trivia are belittled by the cliches in the screenplay. The thought process is that this breeding ground for criminals might say something about crime in general, but the film’s shoot-em-up, melodramatic ending stifles that potential. Films such as “Boyz n the Hood” and “Gomorrah” are better examples of the idea that if you stay, you’re dead, and if you try to leave, you’re dead. Instead, “The Town” is more about its characters, which would be fine if they weren’t strung along by the constraints of a typical crime drama plot. For instance, the trigger happy Jeremy Renner character, a closely reckless personality to the one he has in “The Hurt Locker,” is hardly developed as he is simply led along the path to his fate. But Affleck gives his characters a bit of breathing room, and we get strong performances from Chris Cooper and Jon Hamm. For one, Hamm’s FBI agent is an unrelenting, direct and cold powerhouse of a character. “The Town” is a strong sophomore directorial outing from Affleck, even if not as psychologically charged as his first film, “Gone Baby Gone.” He has the markings of a great director, and I look forward to his next trip to the streets of Boston.
(09/15/10 11:44pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Resident Evil: Afterlife” is the fourth installment in a completely unnecessary franchise so prolonged it no longer bares any resemblance to the game it was actually inspired by, and I am embarrassed to be reviewing it. It is a zombie of a film, so lifeless and devoid of any redeemable human qualities it is nearly indistinguishable from the zombies that populate its cast. And yet it takes the title for being the first video game movie to ever be shot completely in 3-D. I suffered through the cinematography and the surcharge and would chop off a star from its final grade if there were any more stars to remove. Paul W. S. Anderson from the original returns to direct, certainly excited by the gimmick of blood, bullets, barrels and body parts he can now launch from the screen. His mindless action scenes are an incorrigible bore. Unable to choose between fast motion, bullet time or a complete freeze frame during which to navigate his virtual camera, he elects to switch between them all. This gives him the luxury of leaping, plummeting and gliding through a world that makes no spatial sense. How the plot could be nonsensical when the objective is “survive zombie apocalypse” is a credit to Anderson’s (also the screenwriter) disfavor. He wisely provides the story with human characters solely so they can be killed. He elicits entirely phoned-in performances when a zombie B-movie has often been the starting point of many a young career. He succeeds in never dropping the illusion that the special effects are 100 percent green-screened and artificial. He remarkably reverses the one staple common to all the previous “Resident Evil” movies: nudity from Milla Jovovich. He mercifully promises there will be an equally unnecessary sequel. He has proven that “Resident Evil: Afterlife” has as little reason to live as the underdeveloped characters simply dying for an ending to this tragedy.