Jack shit came out this week, so here's some DVDs instead ;)
"MovieBob: Intermission"
I've been extended the opportunity to pen a weekly (I believe) column for The Escapist, in addition to the reviews. Yay!
Entry numero uno can be found at the below link, a rundown/summation of my day at a roundtable press event for "Zombieland" which included a group interview with Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg. Enjoy:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6592-MovieBob-in-Zombieland
Entry numero uno can be found at the below link, a rundown/summation of my day at a roundtable press event for "Zombieland" which included a group interview with Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg. Enjoy:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6592-MovieBob-in-Zombieland
Escape to the Movies: "Zombieland"
This is a SPOILER-FREE review, just so you know. You will NOT learn "the secret" from me, and if you DON'T see "spoiler-free" on Zombieland reviews I reccomend you not read/watch them.
Capitalism
Saw the new Michael Moore movie today. Curious to see how it actually does.
At this point, "responding" to Mr. Moore's movies is obviously pointless: These aren't a guy making his case in a debate, they're polemics - and there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, as always one can point to obvious places where he's playing fast and loose with the facts, or mischaracterizes his opponents, or goes to dubious lengths to hit emotional buttons (at one point he runs some Katrina footage and mock-ponders why "it's never Bernie Madoff waving on the roof," which I imagine even the most 'liberal' fan may respond to with "uhh... because he didn't live below sea-level?") or opts for dramatic effect over facts; but to complain about that is to mistakenly conflate the word's "Documentary" with "News Reporting." These are the facts: That Michael Moore believes that Capitalism is a no-longer-functional economic model (though he stops short of an outright endorsement of "that other 'ism,") that "Capitalism: A Love Story" is a film in which he uses staged comedy bits, archival footage, news and interviews edited together in order to express this belief; and that it's quite successful in that aim.
The attention-grabbing title ("OMG! A movie against capitalism!?") is actually a pretty good encapsulation of the whole enterprise: it LOOKS a lot more controversial than it really is. While Moore states onscreen "Capitalism is evil" (as part of an ironic fake-out where he somberly calls for it to be replaced by... DEMOCRACY!) and for good measure has a bunch of Catholic priests agreeing with him, the film itself is less concerned with debating economic philosophy than it is with fanning the flames of outrage over the subprime meltdown and the bailouts. In a Q&A that followed the showing, he compared the 21st Century debate over capitalism and socialism as the rehashing of "a 16th Century economic system and a 19th Century one." Of course, "Predatory Banking Practices in The Early 21st Century: A Love Story" isn't as snappy a title.
Interestingly, it's kind of strange to see a Michael Moore movie that winds up being essentially upbeat: As of the film-proper, Moore is still obviously high on the election of Obama - which the film frames as the ultimate result of a literal citizen's revolt which Moore sums up as "Holy SHIT!" - and leaves off with the impression that things are looking up. As such, is less of a "call to arms" and more of a "pep rally," so I wonder if that'll make it more or less popular.
Of special note to history buffs will, of course, be the fact that Moore and his researchers actually managed to uncover the famous Franklin Delano Roosevelt "Second Bill of Rights" speech film footage, which had been presumed lost and is featured in the film in it's entirety.
At this point, "responding" to Mr. Moore's movies is obviously pointless: These aren't a guy making his case in a debate, they're polemics - and there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, as always one can point to obvious places where he's playing fast and loose with the facts, or mischaracterizes his opponents, or goes to dubious lengths to hit emotional buttons (at one point he runs some Katrina footage and mock-ponders why "it's never Bernie Madoff waving on the roof," which I imagine even the most 'liberal' fan may respond to with "uhh... because he didn't live below sea-level?") or opts for dramatic effect over facts; but to complain about that is to mistakenly conflate the word's "Documentary" with "News Reporting." These are the facts: That Michael Moore believes that Capitalism is a no-longer-functional economic model (though he stops short of an outright endorsement of "that other 'ism,") that "Capitalism: A Love Story" is a film in which he uses staged comedy bits, archival footage, news and interviews edited together in order to express this belief; and that it's quite successful in that aim.
The attention-grabbing title ("OMG! A movie against capitalism!?") is actually a pretty good encapsulation of the whole enterprise: it LOOKS a lot more controversial than it really is. While Moore states onscreen "Capitalism is evil" (as part of an ironic fake-out where he somberly calls for it to be replaced by... DEMOCRACY!) and for good measure has a bunch of Catholic priests agreeing with him, the film itself is less concerned with debating economic philosophy than it is with fanning the flames of outrage over the subprime meltdown and the bailouts. In a Q&A that followed the showing, he compared the 21st Century debate over capitalism and socialism as the rehashing of "a 16th Century economic system and a 19th Century one." Of course, "Predatory Banking Practices in The Early 21st Century: A Love Story" isn't as snappy a title.
Interestingly, it's kind of strange to see a Michael Moore movie that winds up being essentially upbeat: As of the film-proper, Moore is still obviously high on the election of Obama - which the film frames as the ultimate result of a literal citizen's revolt which Moore sums up as "Holy SHIT!" - and leaves off with the impression that things are looking up. As such, is less of a "call to arms" and more of a "pep rally," so I wonder if that'll make it more or less popular.
Of special note to history buffs will, of course, be the fact that Moore and his researchers actually managed to uncover the famous Franklin Delano Roosevelt "Second Bill of Rights" speech film footage, which had been presumed lost and is featured in the film in it's entirety.
"Nightmare" trailer
Myspace has the HD trailer for Platinum Dunes' "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake up, here's the embedd:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=63620005
I have three immediate strong reactions to this, which I'm inclined to imagine will be shared by a great deal of the web-surfing horror-fan contingent:
#1: The apparent fidelity to the original film(s) is genuinely shocking: Not only do a bevy of the first installments most iconic scenes seem to have been preserved; but the composition, color-palette and even the lighting looks the same. The shot of the pool-party looks like a direct screengrab from "Freddy's Revenge." Hell, is that the same factory, even? Color me intrigued, since PD's previous 80s-horror revamps were both top-to-bottom overhauls.
#2: No really good look at the Freddy makeup yet, maybe they'll try to save that for opening night, but we do get to hear what is probably Jackie Earl Haley's "official" Freddy Voice. THIS part is definately NOT aping the originals... the usual malevolent, self-satisfied cackle seems absent from Freddy's disposition here. If nothing else, it shows that Haley has been granted room to move around in this.
#3: The opening moments of the trailer would seem to confirm the early rumors that there was going to be an added "wrinkle" to the story this time involving the presence of significant doubt as to whether or not Freddy was actually GUILTY of the crimes he was killed for. This will be controversial to fans, but I can understand the angle: A big part of the story in the original film is solving the mystery of just who Freddy Krueger actually is/was. Since the audience this time around can no longer be surprised by those revelations, it makes sense to stage new ones.
I remain fully skeptical that Michael Bay and his Dunes friends are capable of EVER producing a good film, but color me a lot less skeptical than I was ten minutes ago.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=63620005
I have three immediate strong reactions to this, which I'm inclined to imagine will be shared by a great deal of the web-surfing horror-fan contingent:
#1: The apparent fidelity to the original film(s) is genuinely shocking: Not only do a bevy of the first installments most iconic scenes seem to have been preserved; but the composition, color-palette and even the lighting looks the same. The shot of the pool-party looks like a direct screengrab from "Freddy's Revenge." Hell, is that the same factory, even? Color me intrigued, since PD's previous 80s-horror revamps were both top-to-bottom overhauls.
#2: No really good look at the Freddy makeup yet, maybe they'll try to save that for opening night, but we do get to hear what is probably Jackie Earl Haley's "official" Freddy Voice. THIS part is definately NOT aping the originals... the usual malevolent, self-satisfied cackle seems absent from Freddy's disposition here. If nothing else, it shows that Haley has been granted room to move around in this.
#3: The opening moments of the trailer would seem to confirm the early rumors that there was going to be an added "wrinkle" to the story this time involving the presence of significant doubt as to whether or not Freddy was actually GUILTY of the crimes he was killed for. This will be controversial to fans, but I can understand the angle: A big part of the story in the original film is solving the mystery of just who Freddy Krueger actually is/was. Since the audience this time around can no longer be surprised by those revelations, it makes sense to stage new ones.
I remain fully skeptical that Michael Bay and his Dunes friends are capable of EVER producing a good film, but color me a lot less skeptical than I was ten minutes ago.
Polanski, Part II
Well, this didn't exactly take long even on a Sunday...
Predictably, L'Affaire Polanski ceased to be about the particulars of extraditing an ex-pat American from Zurich on 30 year-old bail-jumping and sexual misconduct charges before the door was closed on his cell; and is now officially a political hot-potato encompassing the entertainment biz, gender, class, family-values, culutre-clash and other "pet issues" of the Chattering Class. Being the weekend, the opinions of Mssrs. O'Reilly, Beck and Grace have yet to be heard from, but all edges of the Web are already well spoken-for. Let's see who's taking a swing:
First up, "Big Hollywood," Andrew Breitbart's nominally-conservative-psuedo-celebrity wildlife preserve. You probably know Breitbart most-recently as the guy shepherding the two kids from the ACORN Video through the media cycle. BH is basically a multi-contributor editorial blog wherein right-leaning movie people vent about their left-leaning industry, making it something of a kind of one-stop-shopping-spot for people you forgot existed doing their best Michael Savage impression. First reporting on the Polanski story from there fell to the site's Editor in Chief, John Nolte; previously launched to Internet Celebrity as "Dirty Harry" from the now-defunct Liberty Film Festival Blog. The site is literally CRAWLING with nutcases, but Nolte is a straight-shooter who can be counted on to be as fair as one can be while still writing what are fundamentally opinion-pieces. He comes down solidly on the "no excuses, bring him back, lets have the trial" side, but with characteristic lack of hyperbole:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/27/polanski-may-finally-face-u-s-justice/
Pretty cut and dry, right? Okay, now just for fun, here's some samplings of the commentary that's been offered up in response by the site's readership:
"I predict that Obama will pardon him at the urging of Bill Clinton."
"Some days it really does seem that the counter revolution is finally happening."
"The degenerates of Hollywood finance the coalition of scum, slime, filth, vermin and manure that run the Democ-rat Party."
"Woody Allen, anyone?"
*Sigh.* This is the problem with people for whom political-leanings define their existance: Nothing is outside the realm of left-vs-right, everything MUST be made to benefit one end to the exclusion of another. The questions at hand are, from where I sit, transpolitical: Either he ought be punished or ought not be, either there are mitigating circumstances or there aren't. By cynically framing Polanski's supporters as automatic agents of "the left" and his probable conviction as a cause for "the right;" it cheapens the issue and serves only to score the minor "culture war" victory of forcing "the left" to defend him for fear of ALLOWING said victory.
From the other side (in multiple senses) in this piece of Huffington Post; still struggling to find a reason for it's own existance in a world without the Bush Administration. Interestingly, this particular defense comes from the co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality - a potential irony not lost on a slew of the responders:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/polanskis-arrest-shame-on_b_301134.html
And these are just the "amateurs"...
Predictably, L'Affaire Polanski ceased to be about the particulars of extraditing an ex-pat American from Zurich on 30 year-old bail-jumping and sexual misconduct charges before the door was closed on his cell; and is now officially a political hot-potato encompassing the entertainment biz, gender, class, family-values, culutre-clash and other "pet issues" of the Chattering Class. Being the weekend, the opinions of Mssrs. O'Reilly, Beck and Grace have yet to be heard from, but all edges of the Web are already well spoken-for. Let's see who's taking a swing:
First up, "Big Hollywood," Andrew Breitbart's nominally-conservative-psuedo-celebrity wildlife preserve. You probably know Breitbart most-recently as the guy shepherding the two kids from the ACORN Video through the media cycle. BH is basically a multi-contributor editorial blog wherein right-leaning movie people vent about their left-leaning industry, making it something of a kind of one-stop-shopping-spot for people you forgot existed doing their best Michael Savage impression. First reporting on the Polanski story from there fell to the site's Editor in Chief, John Nolte; previously launched to Internet Celebrity as "Dirty Harry" from the now-defunct Liberty Film Festival Blog. The site is literally CRAWLING with nutcases, but Nolte is a straight-shooter who can be counted on to be as fair as one can be while still writing what are fundamentally opinion-pieces. He comes down solidly on the "no excuses, bring him back, lets have the trial" side, but with characteristic lack of hyperbole:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/27/polanski-may-finally-face-u-s-justice/
Pretty cut and dry, right? Okay, now just for fun, here's some samplings of the commentary that's been offered up in response by the site's readership:
"I predict that Obama will pardon him at the urging of Bill Clinton."
"Some days it really does seem that the counter revolution is finally happening."
"The degenerates of Hollywood finance the coalition of scum, slime, filth, vermin and manure that run the Democ-rat Party."
"Woody Allen, anyone?"
*Sigh.* This is the problem with people for whom political-leanings define their existance: Nothing is outside the realm of left-vs-right, everything MUST be made to benefit one end to the exclusion of another. The questions at hand are, from where I sit, transpolitical: Either he ought be punished or ought not be, either there are mitigating circumstances or there aren't. By cynically framing Polanski's supporters as automatic agents of "the left" and his probable conviction as a cause for "the right;" it cheapens the issue and serves only to score the minor "culture war" victory of forcing "the left" to defend him for fear of ALLOWING said victory.
From the other side (in multiple senses) in this piece of Huffington Post; still struggling to find a reason for it's own existance in a world without the Bush Administration. Interestingly, this particular defense comes from the co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality - a potential irony not lost on a slew of the responders:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/polanskis-arrest-shame-on_b_301134.html
And these are just the "amateurs"...
Wanted, Desired, Caught
In case you were nervous that 2009 was going to close without a big "Hollywood Values vs. Reg'ler Amrrrrc'n Values" dustup in the media, worry not. Roman Polanski has been arrested:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/index.html
Short version, for the younger readers: Polanski plead guilty to a statutory rape charge in the 1970s (the girl in question was 13, drugs and alcohol were involved). So goes the story, he'd worked out a plea-agreement with the judge and prosecutors by which he'd recieve a time-served sentence for 1 charge of unlawful intercourse. Polanski claims to have discovered that the judge - who's since passed away and was the subject of ethical complaints relating to this case for decades - was apparently planning to "surprise" the media-sensation trial by reneging and hitting him with a much more serious sentence. The director's response was to skip bail and flee America for France, who's extradition treaties with the U.S. do not cover the laws he's accused of breaking. That was more than 30 years ago. Polanski has continued to work steadily, recieving an Oscar for "The Pianist" recently, and has sought return to the U.S. on several occasions either by requesting a mistrial or a dismissal. He's been joined in those requests by his then-victim, who has said she wants the ordeal to be done with. However, the Los Angeles prosecutor's office has remained steadfast in saying that if he enters the U.S. they plan to arrest him and put him on trail again, this time for fleeing the original sentence.
Yesterday, Polanski entered Switzerland - which evidently DOES have the proper extradition treaties with the U.S. - to attend a retrospective of his work at the Zurich Film Festival. Swiss police were waiting at the airport, having recieved a request for arrest from U.S. authorities to assist them, and arrested him for the outstanding charges. He is now detained, awaiting the outcome of extradition deliberations. He is allowed to appeal the arrest in Switzerland, but a likely outcome as of this moment is him being sent back to the U.S. to face whatever is waiting. The third player in this, France, is already coming to his defense and chastising the Swiss government.
Unless the French manage to "roll" the Swiss on this one, this becomes a BIG deal. People have been waiting to "have this one out" for a long time; and the image of a guilty statutory-rapist living luxuriously abroad (in France no less!!!) whilst The Industry largely campaigns for his release and rewards him with Oscars has made this case a favorite whipping-boy for the media-critic arm of the "values voters" contingent. Set aside, for a moment, your personal feelings about the case and just think about that particular firestorm-in-waiting. You think this event isn't a GODSEND to them? They get to "fight" 'liberal' Hollywood AND 'godless' Europe. Nancy Grace is salivating like a rapid bassett hound as we speak...
Should be interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/index.html
Short version, for the younger readers: Polanski plead guilty to a statutory rape charge in the 1970s (the girl in question was 13, drugs and alcohol were involved). So goes the story, he'd worked out a plea-agreement with the judge and prosecutors by which he'd recieve a time-served sentence for 1 charge of unlawful intercourse. Polanski claims to have discovered that the judge - who's since passed away and was the subject of ethical complaints relating to this case for decades - was apparently planning to "surprise" the media-sensation trial by reneging and hitting him with a much more serious sentence. The director's response was to skip bail and flee America for France, who's extradition treaties with the U.S. do not cover the laws he's accused of breaking. That was more than 30 years ago. Polanski has continued to work steadily, recieving an Oscar for "The Pianist" recently, and has sought return to the U.S. on several occasions either by requesting a mistrial or a dismissal. He's been joined in those requests by his then-victim, who has said she wants the ordeal to be done with. However, the Los Angeles prosecutor's office has remained steadfast in saying that if he enters the U.S. they plan to arrest him and put him on trail again, this time for fleeing the original sentence.
Yesterday, Polanski entered Switzerland - which evidently DOES have the proper extradition treaties with the U.S. - to attend a retrospective of his work at the Zurich Film Festival. Swiss police were waiting at the airport, having recieved a request for arrest from U.S. authorities to assist them, and arrested him for the outstanding charges. He is now detained, awaiting the outcome of extradition deliberations. He is allowed to appeal the arrest in Switzerland, but a likely outcome as of this moment is him being sent back to the U.S. to face whatever is waiting. The third player in this, France, is already coming to his defense and chastising the Swiss government.
Unless the French manage to "roll" the Swiss on this one, this becomes a BIG deal. People have been waiting to "have this one out" for a long time; and the image of a guilty statutory-rapist living luxuriously abroad (in France no less!!!) whilst The Industry largely campaigns for his release and rewards him with Oscars has made this case a favorite whipping-boy for the media-critic arm of the "values voters" contingent. Set aside, for a moment, your personal feelings about the case and just think about that particular firestorm-in-waiting. You think this event isn't a GODSEND to them? They get to "fight" 'liberal' Hollywood AND 'godless' Europe. Nancy Grace is salivating like a rapid bassett hound as we speak...
Should be interesting.
