Wednesday, July 23, 2008

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

For fairly obvious reasons, THIS film has come to everyone's attention recently.  Gilliam's stuff is crazy, so the loss of his lead star might not impact his work as much as one would expect.  And he's got an I'm Not There-style homage in the works:

Star Pulse reports that Terry Gilliam has asked Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell to pay tribute to Heath Ledger by taking turns playing his role in the scenes he did not finish filming. That means four different actors will be playing one part.
I have no idea how those particular four came to be involved. Oh, and the synopsis suggests that it's not quite an I'm Not There situation:

In the present day, immortal 1,000-year-old Doctor Parnassus leads a traveling theater troupe that offers audience members a chance to go beyond reality through a magical mirror in his possession.  Parnassus had been able to guide the imagination of others through a deal with the Devil, who now comes to collect on the arrangement, targeting the doctor's daughter. The troupe, which is joined by a mysterious outsider named Tony, embark through parallel worlds to rescue the girl.

…

Actors Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law were cast to replace Heath Ledger, portraying transformed versions of Ledger's character while traveling through a magical realm.

Unlike the Haynes film, there is a semi-plausible explanation for the multiple actors.  And Christopher Plummer plays Dr. Parnassus.  (How old is he now, anyway?)
 
Posted by Father Barry at 12:00:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (2) |

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Of Good and Evil

 

Some THOUGHTS and crazy theories.  Watch for spoilers.

Posted by Father Barry at 11:00:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (6) |

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Paramount's Problems

THIS is a bit old now, but still fascinating:

Paramount Pictures said it had withdrawn from a planned film finance deal that was meant to raise as much as $450 million through a now-disbanded entertainment venture of Deutsche Bank.


The deal’s collapse is yet another indicator that the overall credit squeeze continues to afflict Hollywood .


And HERE is some commentary.  I can't imagine it'll actually end up causing any serious problems.  Paramount's not going to stop making tent-pole pieces, or anything.  Still, $450,000,000 is a lot of money.  Maybe they'll have to shelve Transformers 2.  How fortuito...er..."sad."

Mrs. Barry would be sad if the Star Trek reboot doesn't get made, though.  And I'd be disappointed not to have the opportunity to see if The Curious Case of Benjamin Button delivers on the promise of its TRAILER.
 
Posted by Father Barry at 10:30:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Thursday, June 26, 2008

The Sentinel




THIS "thriller" was a useful exercise primarily because it reminded me of several important facts one should always keep in mind when creating this sort of cinematic potboiler.

Rule #1: When adapting a book, be careful to remove unnecessary, unimportant, incidental, and "hard to explain either quickly or clearly" information from the story, and make a semi-serious effort to keep all the necessary plot points in the script.  It makes everthing a bit easier to follow for the audience.  (Oh, and if you've decided not to follow Rule #1, don't go with the 24ish editing style.  That doesn't lend itself to increased storytelling clarity.)

Rule #2, which might be seen as a corollary to Rule #1: An action thriller only requires a very basic level of plausibility; one which should not be too difficult to achieve.  If one can manage to keep the plot holes down to the Mack Truck size, it's a plus.  Airbus size is just a bit hard to swallow.  Apparently, someone forgot to tell George Nolfi this little factoid.  (It is probably important to remember that we're talking about the writer of Timeline, Ocean's Twelve and the upcoming Hawaii Five-O here.  Perhaps he's not being hired for "plausibility purposes.")

Rule #3, which is almost certainly just a corollary to Rule #2 (and therefore, depending on your view, a corollary to Rule #1): If you make a movie about the Secret Service, it's a good idea to have them be moderately competent and mostly ethical.  The unsatisfying alternative is to have one of them be a horrible traitor while the rest are simply buffoons.  Aside from the taste this leaves in the viewer's mouth, it's just not very believable.

Rule #4:  In the Line of Fire is a really well-made, gripping film about the Secret Service and Presidential assasination attempts.  It is a tight, polished, mostly plausible story highlighted by excellent performances, high production values, and featuring one of the best cinema villains ever.  Do not make a movie that will be compared to it unless you're ready to "bring your A game."  This "C+ game" stuff isn't really going to cut it.
 
Posted by Father Barry at 10:30:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (4) |

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

The Bothersome Man

This is frightfully tardy, but if I don't start the viewing long again, I'm going to fall hopelessly behind; make that "more hopelessly."  And then I'll forget everything.  Writing down my thoughts is simply a crutch for those of us (me) who are already afraid that their heads are so filled with trivial details that we (I) won't be able to keep track of the things I'd actually like to remember.

Not sure this film fits into that "things I'd like to remember" category, but one must start somewhere, musn't one?



I recently (in Galapagos land tortoise terms) had the opportunity to view this Nordic FILM, (sometimes lovingly referred to as Den Brysomme mannen), and I am pleased to report that it did indeed live up to its name.

It was a bothersome film.

Although blessed with so many of the strengths usually displayed by foreign independent features - (wonderful and wonderfully restrained acting, superb visuals and camera work, high yet not overdone production values) - the film suffered badly from "M. Night Syndrome": "the weakness of trying to say too much, and doing it far too quickly."  Unfortunately, it also suffered from "The Fellini Condition": "the state or condition of being unwilling to compromise your artistic vision or principles for the sake of a basic level of storytelling clarity and audience understanding."

Despite my occasional sympathies for folks with Problem #1, I have never been able to work up an ounce of tolerance for folks with Problem #2.  Sadly, The Bothersome Man falls firmly into both camps.  And while some might argue that a certain amount of ambiguity and confusion was an essential part of the film's message, I remain unconvinced that leaving folks "utterly lost" was what the filmmakers had in mind.  (A significant dose of unnecessarily explicit sex - actually, is there any other kind? - and bewilderingly random, explicit violence also served to detract from the film's overall enjoyableness.)

Yet despite these fairly harsh criticisms, the film succeeded in being both entertaining and thought-provoking.  I suspect it would make for an excellent "discussion" piece, given the difficult-to-interpret-but-clearly-intended symbolism throughout.  It's just a shame that the writers couldn't find a way to increase these worthwhile aspects of the film while decreasing the overall feeling of confusion.

(Oh, and don't fall for the "Purgatory" interpretation.  I don't see how it can possibly hold together.)
 
Posted by Father Barry at 17:00:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (4) |

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Tintin



That's Thomas Sangster, and he's TINTIN.

I have no particular opinion on this, really.  But this is interesting:

...alongside Andy Serkis, who played Gollum in the adaptation of Tolkien's books, as Captain Haddock.
Serkis is perfect.  He's nothing like what (who) I would have come up with on my own, but he's also completely plastic.  Hey, he's played a huge gorilla.  Of course he can play Haddock.
 
Posted by Father Barry at 11:00:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (3) |

Thursday, March 27, 2008

At a Loss for Words...


Well, not quite.

The new Netflix "homepage" seems nice.  It's a tad cumbersome, but I like the way it groups films by category.  And I like the way it offers recommendations.  Or at least I like it in theory.

This is what I got when I logged on today:



OK, those two films have nothing in common.  Actually, make that "less than nothing."  I have no idea what sort of algorithm they're using to come up with these recommendations, but it's not working.  The chances are very good that everyone who has seen and enjoyed Ushpizin will hate My Scene Goes Hollywood: The Movie.
 
Still reeling...
 
Posted by Father Barry at 16:50:23 | Permanent Link | Comments (4) |

Friday, March 21, 2008

Paul Scofield, RIP



Paul Scofield passed away on Wednesday, at the age of 86.

He will always be remembered for his incomparable performance as Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons, for which he won an Oscar.

But, as InsideCatholic's Margaret Cabaniss POINTS out, his most astounding feature may well have been his normalcy in the midst of an industry that so often destroys that very feature.

...though I am tempted to vote for the "married to the same woman for 65 years" fact, myself.  Again, given the destructive nature of the industry, that's truly astounding.

HERE is American Rhetoric's recording of More's final court room speech.  Fantastic scene, and an even more fantastic performance.  (And HERE is the Grey Lady's obit.)

Do yourself a favor and see Martin Chuzzlewit.
 
Posted by Father Barry at 10:00:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Brilliant Marketing



I know there's the whole Ledger tragedy hanging over this film, and there's no denying a sadness of that story.  But the underground (sometimes called "viral") marketing campaign has been superb.  That tagline - "Why so serious?" - is taking on a life of its own.

And this comment from Nolan about The Joker's origins is very interesting:

To me, the Joker is an absolute. There are no shades of gray to him — maybe shades of purple. He's unbelievably dark. He bursts in just as he did in the comics. 
Posted by Father Barry at 22:00:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Monday, March 10, 2008

Downey's Jolson Moment


HERE is an odd, odd story.  And I think I must just be misunderstanding something.  Or there's a misunderstanding in the story itself.

Exhibit A:

Downey Jr plays a worthy Oscar-winning actor taking on a role originally written for a black actor, and rather than re-write the part, he goes method.

Exhibit B:

"I'm not black and I find it offensive; are there not any talented enough black actors out in the world that they feel the need to hire a white guy to do a black guy?"

"They are infering that there are no good enough black actors to play a black person.

"What is the significance of hiring a white guy to play a black part? what are they trying to prove? I bet its to get more publicity."

Perhaps I missed something.  But it sounded to me like him playing a black guy even though he was white was the point.  Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be everyone's strongpoint.  (That could go for me, too.)
 
Posted by Father Barry at 21:30:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13