The Hound Of Ulster

I think they’re TRYING to copy/update THIS.  But the quarter century limit seems to have produced some strange entries, like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe at #17.  I’m not comfortable even calling that a good film, let alone one of the Best Conservative films in recent memory.  (I also wonder if everyone means the same thing by “conservative” here.  Some of the blurbs would suggest otherwise.  That’s what Stuttaford THOUGHT, too.)

#25 - GRAN TORINO
#24 - TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE
#23 - UNITED 93
#22 - BRAZIL
#21 - HEARTBREAK RIDGE
#20 - GATTACA
#19 - WE WERE SOLDIERS
#18 - THE EDGE
#17 - THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE
#16 - MASTER AND COMMANDER
#15 - RED DAWN
#14 - A SIMPLE PLAN
#13 - BRAVEHEART
#12 - THE DARK KNIGHT
#11 - THE LORD OF THE RINGS
#10 - GHOSTBUSTERS
#9 - BLAST FROM THE PAST
#8 - JUNO
#7 - THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS
#6 - GROUNDHOG DAY
#5 - 300
#4 - FOREST GUMP
#3 - METROPOLITAN
#2 - THE INCREDIBLES
#1 - THE LIVES OF OTHERS

As I look at some of these selections, I come to the realization that “Best” is clearly meant to modify “Conservative” here, and not “Movies.”  Because I can only think of about 5 or 6 of these that I would consider great films.  (A correlary: I don’t think the order is important.  At least I sure hope it isn’t.  If 300 and Forest Gump are towards the top of just about any list, I’m not thrilled. )

That’s Jamie Bell.  And he’s the new TINTIN:

Steven Spielberg has set his cast for “The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn,” the first installment in the 3-D motion-capture trilogy that Paramount Pictures and Sony Pictures Entertainment are co-financing.

“Billy Elliot” thesp Jamie Bell will star as the titular character, an intrepid young reporter whose relentless pursuit of a good story thrusts him into a world of high adventure. Daniel Craig will co-star as the nefarious Red Rackham.

Film, which has been cloaked in secrecy during pre-production, has begun principal production in Los Angeles. It is set for release in 2011.

I’m pretty neutral on Bell.  Just another sign of Jackson’s influences, methinks.  He doesn’t look as mischevious as SANGSTER did, and I’m pretty sure there’s no ballet involved.  But Bell’s age seems to be a lot closer to Herge’s intentions.

I love Craig as Rackham.  I’m also pleased that they’re starting with The Secret of the Unicorn.  It was Herge’s personal favorite, at least until Tintin in Tibet.  And it’s got a longer story arc, if I remember correctly - Unicorn, Red Rackham’s Treasure, and then (depending on your view) The Seven Crystal Balls and Prisoners of the Sun. 

Makes a lot of sense from a “this might be a huge hit, and we’ll want to make a lot of others, so let’s have something lined up ” perspective.  Which is lightyears better than the “Indiana Jones was huge, but we don’t have any idea what else we want to do, so let’s just cook up something totally absurd” one.
 

It’s nice to see Hobson’s Choice finally getting the TREATMENT it deserves.

An unsung comic triumph from David Lean, Hobson’s Choice stars the legendary Charles Laughton as the harrumphing Henry Hobson, the owner of a boot shop in late Victorian northern England. With his haughty, independent daughter Maggie (Brenda De Banzie) decides to forge her own path, romantically and professionally, with none other than Henry’s prized bootsmith Will (a splendid John Mills), father and daughter find themselves head-to-head in a fiery match of wills. Equally charming and caustic, Hobson’s Choice, adapted from Harold Brighouse’s famous play, is filled to the brim with great performances and elegant, inventive camera work.

I understand why Lean’s epics are so famous.  And I don’t begrudge them that attention; at least, not much.  But I cannot escape the belief that his “little” films - Hobson’s Choice, Brief Encounter, perhaps even Great Expectations - are significantly better films.  I think it has something to do with their small scope; an ironic fact, given the massive scope for which Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai, and Dr. Zhivago are so frequently praised.  (OK, perhaps Dr. Z isn’t praised anywhere near as much.)

Brief Encounter, in particular, is a masterpiece.  Few films are as nuanced (or as accurate) in their examination of marital infidelity and a true understanding of marital love.  And Hobson’s Choice is not far behind.  It does, however, feature a lot more humor, making it significantly more palatable to many.
 

Film Chat LINKED to this “intriguing” STORY.

Columbia Pictures is bringing a time-traveling Jane Austen drama to the bigscreen, with Sam Mendes aboard as producer.

Based on the Brit miniseries “Lost in Austen,” film will center on Amanda, an ardent Jane Austen fan, lives in present day New York with her boyfriend, until she finds she’s swapped places with Austen’s fictional creation Elizabeth Bennett.

The show’s original writer, Guy Andrews, is penning the screenplay.

A couple of quick thoughts:

First, how did I not know this TV series was happening?  Second, why would Sam Mendes be inteersted in it?  Third, if Sam Mendes is interested in it, how can I be interested?  And fourth, by “intriguing” I mean “insane.”
 
I’m in.
 

Some pretty amazing imagery, though I have fears that it will be filled with excessively politicized content.  That seems to run in the nature documentary crowd.
 

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?)
 

 

Some THOUGHTS and crazy theories.  Watch for spoilers.

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.
 

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.
 

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.)