|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: MOVIE OF THE DAY
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-07-2003 09:52 AM
DeepStar Six (1989, Sean S. Cunningham, TriStar/Carolco)
At the tail-end of the eighties there were no less than three movies in production whose main plots involved undersea creatures harassing a small community of underwater miners. Of these films, "DeepStar Six" was the first to hit theatres. Meanwhile, 20th Century-Fox had James Cameron's blockbusting "The Abyss" still in its somewhat controversial production phase. MGM chimed in last with the forgettable "Leviathan." I guess Hollywood executives all had water on the brain at the time.
"DeepStar Six" is an underwater mining rig or something of that ilk. Maybe they are drilling for oil? Forgive me, it's been a while since I last saw this movie. Why they are actually down there is not terribly important in light of the fact that the movie opens while the crew is chatting over breakfast about how good it will be to get "topside." A relief crew is due any day now. This crew is tired; they are ready to bail. But something really bad happens. It all starts when two technicians in a minisub start tracking a large, fast-moving object. Their ship loses power, they get attacked and are never heard from again. So begins the nightmare of the remaining crewmembers.
"DeepStar Six" is a low-budget guilty pleasure for me. I like the opening credit sequence. We begin on the surface and descend to the ocean floor. The credits rise one-at-a-time from the bottom of the screen, as though we are passing them on the way down. The music during this sequence is appropriate and, overall, this is a good beginning because it sets the stage nicely. The effects in this pre-CGI monster movie looked a bit dated in 1989. Still, it is hard to imagine how "DeepStar Six" could have been very much better as a result of a bigger budget. Director Sean S. Cunningham was no stranger to creating thrills and chills on a shoestring budget. He had already made history with the original "Friday the 13th" which then held some kind of record of biggest return-on-investment for a major Hollywood release.
Greg Evigan (of TV's 'My Two Dads') and Nancy Everhard are the leads here. Miguel Ferrer ("Crossing Jordan") as the snivelling, whining and hard-lucked Snyder remains my favorite in this movie. Also present is Nia Peeples, who IIRC was something of a screen sensation back then. Whatever happened to her? If there are any fans of TV's "Riptide," watch for Thom Bray. Bray was great as 'Boz' on that show and it was good to see him again in "DeepStar Six" -- even if he was one of the first victims.
[ 03-07-2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-08-2003 06:26 PM
Pippin: His Life and Times (1981, David Sheehan)
This is a television recording of a revival performance of "Pippin: His Life and Times." The show was originally directed and choreographed by Bob Fosse. I am told that this revival was a faithful homage to Fosse's production. Ben Vereen reprises his role as The Leading Player. He is joined by William Katt as Pippin.
"Pippin" is about a young Roman prince trying to overcome boredom and his frustration with being, essentially, an ordinary person. Pippin tries all sorts of different careers and lifestyles in a desperate attempt to "find himself" but, try as he might, he cannot shake his depression. Finally, he is faced with the only solution to his problem: If life sucks, then surely suicide must be the answer. Does he choose life or death?
At the time of this recording, William Katt was the star of the short-lived TV series, "The Greatest American Hero." He is in terrific physical shape here and his singing voice is very powerful and effective. Katt is perfect in this role.
Ben Vereen turns in a high-octane performance. As the Leading Player, he is our narrator and master of ceremonies. At times, he is charming, witty and entertaining while, at other times, he succeeds at becoming creepy and frightening.
The music and lyrics are by Stephen Schwartz whose credits include "Godspell" and, more recently, "The Prince of Egypt." Songs from "Pippin" include "Corner of the Sky" and "Morning Glow," both of which were covered by a very young Michael Jackson.
Adding to the delights of this live performance are special guest stars Chita Rivera and Martha Raye as stepmother Fastrada and grandmother Berthe, respectively.
The recording is available on home-video.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-10-2003 02:03 PM
Here is the Movie of the Day for yesterday, 9th March...
Apt Pupil (1998, Bryan Singer)
Teenage underachiever Todd Bowden has just survived the Holocost section of his senior year history class. He is certain that he knows where a wanted S.S. officer has been hiding out all these years. What does he Todd do? What would you do?
Inspired by the history lessons, Todd decides that he wants to hear more war stories from an actual eyewitness. Indeed, Kurt Dussander committed many of the notorious crimes against humanity. Dussander resists at first but he soon realizes that he has no choice; Todd will hand him over to the authorities if he doesn't share his stories. So begins the nightmarish alliance that bridges young and old, past and future.
"Apt Pupil" is based on a novella by Stephen King -- the same book gave us "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Stand By Me." Director Bryan Singer had just done a standout job with creating an immensely entertaining film, "The Usual Suspects." In light of the creative forces at work, some viewers went into "Apt Pupil" with high hopes and left somewhat dissatisfied. Admittedly, I was one such viewer when this film was initially released but having seen the movie again so many years later I can now enjoy it on its own terms; there is indeed a lot to like.
For instance, the symbiotic relationship between the retired Nazi and clean-cut American kid is frighteningly plausible, especially in light of recent sociological developments -- witness the rising numbers of skinheads and Aryan brothers, not to mention the horrific scenes of extreme violence, hate and intolerance that play out in high schools on more than a few occasions.
Bowden is played by Brad Renfro who is good in this role but not as convincing as he would later be in "Bully." In that instance, there was better material to work with. Sir Ian McKellan turns in a quiet, haunting performance as the retired Nazi officer Kurt Dussander. David Schwimmer (TV's "Friends" and "Band of Brothers") does some nice things with a small supporting role.
As one might expect, there is a great deal more internal character work in Stephen King's novella.
...Internet service was intermittent all day yesterday. If nobody posts a movie for today (Monday, 10th) I will post another one later on tonight.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-11-2003 11:48 AM
Titanic (1997, James Cameron, Paramount/20th Century-Fox)
It's hard to believe that James Cameron's "Titanic" is already five years old (the minimum age for Movie of the Day).
"Titanic" was an immediate box-office phenomenon. The gargantuan movie -- so costly that it required two major studios -- played to capacity on many screens in many cities and countries for many months. It topped box office score sheets despite the fact that it was over three hours in length and, thus, could not have as many scheduled showtimes as standard-length features.
To this day, people are curious as to why this movie was so passionately embraced. Obviously, there must be some Hollywood executives out there who would love nothing more than to have the ability to duplicate this success consistently and with regularity. Perhaps this is what motivated Warner Bros. to produce "The Perfect Storm" and, indubitably, this is at least part of the motivation behind Cameron's forthcoming "Ghosts of the Abyss." Amongst the most curious are those viewers who hated the movie and who REALLY don't get what all the fuss was about.
For starters, we have to look at the superficial points. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio and director James Cameron are both box-office draws. Cameron's name is certainly enough to attract attention but I think it is more than fair to suggest that Leonardo's involvement gave the movie a massive crossover appeal. In other words, teenage girls are not typically fans of Cameron (whose movies to date were decidedly adult-male oriented) but they certainly came out in support of their matinee idol. My own personal experience with the theatrical release of this movie was that repeat viewership was strong among that age group.
Next, we have the "bandwagon effect." There is an old adage: Nothing succeeds like success. Viewers who were turned away because the shows were sold out became even more anxious to see it. Television was inundated with programming about the movie or else about the real Titanic disaster. People who were not initially interested in seeing "Titanic" suddenly found themselves making time to go out and see the thing for themselves.
The Titanic disaster itself is also a box office draw. This tragic event is perhaps the most infamous disaster in recent history. Quite some years ago, a movie was made of the Hindenburg tragedy, and there are a fair number of documentaries that dissect that event. There is also actual footage taken of the airship as it burst into flames moments prior to its scheduled landing. So why aren't people drawn to that event in the same way that Titanic captures the imagination? One obvious difference is that the Hindenburg was a German vehicle. The airship was known as "the pride of the Third Reich," so there is little wonder that people aren't moved by the loss of the vehicle itself. In hindsight, it might even seem appropriate -- and even poetic -- that it should have been destroyed by fire over American soil. Titanic, on the other hand, was known as "the ship of dreams." The statement that "God himself could not sink her" is widely known and it should seem equally poetic that the ship sank on its maiden voyage. Why then do we seem to favor the memory of Titanic?
Perhaps the number of passengers is the key difference? Perhaps it is because the oceanliner took two hours to completely submerge whereas the airship exploded suddenly and was consumed in a much shorter period of time. As a result of the extended timeline and the relatively slower egress, there are more eyewitness accounts of the sinking of Titanic. True, there is actual footage of the Hindenburg explosion but, evidently, that cannot compare to hearing a first-hand account of someone who was actually on board -- someone who left people behind.
Without a doubt, the diversity of passengers ought to figure into this mystery. Hindenburg only offered first-class passenger service. All those aboard (with the exception of the German crew) were wealthy -- the idle rich on a leisure trip. For many, it is difficult to feel sorrow when such a group falls on hard times. That sentiment may not be morally correct but, nonetheless, it seems widespread. We often hear of the first-class accommodations available on Titanic but the same is true of its steerage compartment and this may well be the crucial bonding aspect: There is a link between the steerage passengers and the earliest American settlers. The vast majority of casualties came from the lower classes due to the slim odds of their gaining access to the scarce number of lifeboats. Chances are, if you or I were aboard Titanic we would have been travelling in steerage. Only a handful of us would have been able to afford first-class accommodations on either Titanic or Hindenburg. Thus, our ability to empathize with Titanic's passengers is greatly enhanced by the possibility that "it could have been us."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-21-2003 05:14 PM
Your Friends & Neighbors (1998, Neil LaBute)
Sex, sex and more sex -- that's all these yuppies seem interested in. Trouble is, none of these guys and dolls is getting any "satisfaction," if you know what I mean. The film's strength lies in the bold decision to actually depict and exemplify the unhappiness and the dissatisfaction. As I recall, we're never shown any "good sex." But, man! Do we ever get to witness some awkward moments in these bedrooms!?
Jason Patric (who also co-produced) gives the standout performance as an arrogant, self-absorbed, would-be alpha-male bachelor. The role is somewhat reminiscent of Christian Bale in "American Psycho" with the key difference being that this character is considerably less absurd. Nonetheless, the emotions and the sentiment are striking in their similarity. Writer-Director Neil LaBute has created one of the greatest monologues in recent cinema for this character and Patric delivers it beautifully. Also interesting to watch is Ben Stiller as he bestows a sense of dignity upon an otherwise pathetic character.
"Your Friends & Neighbors" approaches issues of sexual dysfunction from a decidedly masculine perspective and one might go so far as to say there is an air of mysogyny about the film. LaBute clearly has little patience or sympathy for hopeless romantics and intellectuals. In fact, those characters are the least realistic of his creations and, as a result, it is easy for him to punish them. They are the cinematic equivalent of a straw-man argument. On the other hand, LaBute seems heavily in favor of aggressiveness and confidence, also rewarding indifference and aloofness (characters with these traits have better sex-lives). Hence, it is tempting to conclude that LaBute is harboring a certain amount of hostility toward women -- he certainly seems to have a distaste for those characteristics that might typically be associated with feminity.
Note: The DVD appears to be out-of-print at the moment but I was able to score a used copy quite easily over at Amazon.com
[ 03-22-2003, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-23-2003 01:21 PM
WOW!!! A DOUBLE-FEATURE!!!
The Boys in the Band (1970, William Friedkin)
"The Boys in the Band" is NOT a musical!
Indeed, it's a faithful adaptation of the play by Mart Crowley in which a group of gay friends gather at a surprise birthday party. What starts off as a rather funny comedy gives way to some pretty dramatic -- even scary -- stuff.
At the centre of the action is Michael, best friend of the guest of honor (possibly an ex-lover?) and the host of the party. Michael has recently given up drinking and smoking and it's a good thing -- we learn that he was an angry drunk. Actually, I believe the word was "hostile." Anyway, he's busy setting up for the party when he receives an unexpected phone call from Alan -- a friend from way back in his boarding-school days -- who happens to be in town overnight. There's just one problem: Alan is straight and has not idea that Michael is homosexual. More to the point, Michael does not want Alan to know that he is gay.
Now, more than ever, Michael needs a drink. Suffice it to say that it gets ugly. But along the way we meet the guests, all of whom are in rare form. The dialogue is chock-full of wit and humor and the first half of the movie is laugh-out-loud funny.
But this movie has a dark half. Literally. You can practically set your watch by it. The outdoor party gets rained out and the clan is forced to move indoors. It's a perfect metaphor for what follows as the guys become more subdued and introspective. The masks come off and we're left with a group of troubled individuals. And here we find the greatest critical flaw to be found in "The Boys in the Band."
Despite the fact that the dialogue and the acting are uniformly excellent, the fact is that the plot ultimately portrays all homosexuals as tortured souls for whom we should feel nothing but pity. The reason I say "all homosexuals" is because the invitees amount to a microcosm of gay life: there's the straight-acting schoolteacher, a fashion photographer, a flaming-raging nelly queen, a gay-for-pay hustler, an aging Jewish birthday boy and the guilt-ridden, alcoholic Catholic host (who spends beyond his means).
Watch as they tear each other apart. Watch as they turn on themselves. I'm not one to give away an ending, but it's little wonder that the mystery guest would decide to go back to his wife!
Having said all of that, I can still recommend "The Boys in the Band" for the fine dialogue and acting. Cliff Gorman (as Emory) has a great monologue in the second half wherein he describes the one man he has truly loved and then there is the entertaining chemistry between Kenneth Nelson (Michael) and Leonard Frey (Harold).
Obviously, Gunnar and I were typing at the same time!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-25-2003 07:09 PM
In the Company of Men (1997, Neil LaBute)
Issues. Neil LaBute has issues.
A few days ago, I reviewed his second film, "Your Friends & Neighbors" which I found to be entertaining, if symptomatic of a warped outlook on gender and sexuality. Today we travel back in time to cover writer-director Neil LaBute's debut effort which received a lot of critical recognition upon its release.
Certainly, "In the Company of Men" is an entertaining film. The situation and acting are plausible and I found the dialogue to be well written. Nonetheless, I found myself overwhelmed by the intense level of mysogyny and self-loathing that lies at the very core of this creation.
The plot concerns itself with two college buddies who are working together out-of-town for six weeks. Chad's wife has just left him and Howard's love-life has also recently gone into the toilet, leaving him with a distinct aura of impotence. Chad's negativity about the situation has imbued him with an intense, focused hatred toward womankind. Chad coaxes Howard into participating in a revenge plot wherein the two friends will alternately seduce one woman and then dump her right before their six weeks are up. Chad sums it all up by saying, "All right then. Let's go hurt somebody."
LaBute seems to be venting here and his follow-up film, "Your Friends & Neighbors" takes us to a whole new height of lowness. Still, his characters make great movie villains and those are often the most interesting and memorable characters.
It's just too bad that the apparent personal relationship between writer-director and his material continually threatens to overshadow anything that might be happening on-screen. It is, thus, debatable whether LaBute is a good filmmaker. On the one hand, his films seem more like personal expression. On the other hand, one is constantly aware of the creator of the fiction -- he often comes across as being manipulative when it comes to his characters, their thoughts and their actions. (In fairness, I should admit that his second film suggests that he is working to bring this tendency under control.)
Low-budget filmmakers might find this film an interesting object of study. Note that the presence of extras is usually implied on the soundtrack. Whether we are at a zoo, in a restaurant or at an office party there are rarely other bodies in the frame. The majority of scenes occur indoors and, as far as I can recall, there is no scored music. All of this, in addition to a small ensemble cast of unknowns, contributes to an overall reduction in budget. "In the Company of Men" transcends its budgetary limitations, relying on the strength of its bold message -- however twisted it might be. Solid, credible portrayals on the part of the three main perfomers keep the dialogue-driven scenes alive.
If I have one aesthetic complaint, it is that I felt myself wanting more closeups. I suppose that one could argue that this was a movie about distance and never really being able to get close to somebody but my gut reaction would be to reject that as making excuses for missed opportunities. After all, a lot of the dialogue would REALLY be an internal monologue and, thus, there is arguably a great degree of intimacy between the viewer and these characters.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-26-2003 10:14 PM
Mary Poppins (1964, Robert Stevenson, Disney)
I know what you're thinking: "Mary Poppins" isn't an obscure movie. You may be right. After all, it's a safe bet that many of you have seen the movie about a dozen times or more -- or, at least, once. "Mary Poppins" is one of those movies that you might never get to see simply because you feel as though you have already seen it on the basis of your exposure to certain component elements. Those of you who have never seen "Mary Poppins" probably know a little something about it. Perhaps you can hum a few bars of "A Spoonful of Sugar." You might know the word "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!" At the very least, you'd have to agree that the image of Julie Andrews sailing into a London neighborhood with the help of an umbrella is nothing, if not, an icon.
So today's pick isn't an obscure movie. No big deal...because "Mary Poppins," like so many of the great classics, has a lot more to offer in terms of its rich, coherent subtext and it is that obscure aspect that I want us to explore today.
But, first, we should at least skim the major plot points. First, we have the setup in which we find ourselves in London around the turn-of-the-century (1900) and the nanny of the Banks household is busy quitting and making a dramatic exit from the household. George Banks returns home from his job as a junior partner at the bank. He is boastful and proud of the ordered lifestyle he has fashioned for himself. When he learns of the nanny's sudden departure, he immediately sets about arranging for her replacement. The following morning he meets and hires Mary Poppins, unaware that she possesses magical powers. She is pleasant but forceful and immediately makes a connection with the children. As he learns of their outrageous adventures, George remarks that Mary Poppins is perhaps a little too cheerful and playful. After losing one or two arguments with her, George puts his foot down and insists that the sooner his children learn about adulthood and responsibility, the better off they will be. He takes them to work with him the following day. The children become frightened by the austere atmosphere and the aggressive and greedy manner of the senior partners and attempt to run away, creating a scene which nearly results in financial disaster for the bank. As a result, George loses his job. He returns home to his family and soon realises that he finally has time to spend with his children. Mary Poppins considers this another success story. She leaves quietly.
It is tempting to view this as a story about mischievous kids who are brought in line by a magical nanny. In fact, one might easily arrive at that conclusion given the sheer amount of time devoted to defining the children and their adventures with Mary. Not that such an interpretation would be incorrect. It's just that (to me, anyway) there is so much more to this movie than that. I prefer to think of "Mary Poppins" as a story about a father who is brought in line by a magical nanny because if we study the children we will find that they are not evil little monsters. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Jane and Michael Banks are delightful and pleasant. The first nanny quit because they supposedly "ran away" but this is simply not the case; they were chasing their kite. Even the constable later agrees "it was the kite that ran away." So, in fact, the first nanny simply had unrealistic expectations of children and, thus, had no business working with them in the first place. Jane and Michael feel guilt when she quits. They apologize and offer to help find a replacement. These children are constantly shown to be possessed of good hearts. Hence, it would be a waste of time to make a movie about bringing these kids in line -- they are models of decency.
Now, let us look at the father. A simple before-and-after ought to suffice. When we first meet him, he is rather full of himself and proud of his accomplishments and possessions. He has modeled his home life after his career at the bank. Indeed, his name is Banks. George is a man defined by his occupation. Not to put too fine a point on things, one could go so far as to say that Banks is preoccupied with this occupation. The children resent this and, when given the opportunity to invest in the bank, they declare that the money is for the birds (!) and run away. In contrast to his cocky arrival at the head-end of the movie, George's final return to the family is decidedly more humble. His attitude toward his family -- that they are his only real treasure -- stands in sharp contrast to what we witnessed earlier. In this way, George Banks undergoes the greatest transformation of all the characters in the show. I think the movie is (quietly) all about Mary's effect on the father.
Nobody has ever gone so far as to claim that Walt Disney was abused as a child but it has been reported that his father was emotionally detached and very strict, occasionally given to whipping as a means of discipline. It is also widely known that Walt grew to become a benevolent dictator, taking a very active role in the development of the movies he produced. Evidently he took a special interest in this film -- it is one of Disney's biggest productions. One wonders if Walt's love for "Mary Poppins" is due to the parallel between his own father and the one in his film. If so, then "Mary Poppins" might be seen as a page one rewrite of his childhood, as might Disneyland and his many other escapist creations.
I suppose I ought to discuss the aesthetic qualities of the film to round out my thoughts.
First and foremost, now would be a good time to state that "Mary Poppins" is a musical. The songs -- written by Richard & Robert Sherman -- are wonderful and memorable and they also happen to be quite varied, including delightful numbers like "A Spoonful of Sugar," "Jolly Holiday" and "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!" as well as haunting anthems like "Feed the Birds" and "Chim Chim Cher-ee" and the lullaby, "Stay Awake." Walt Disney was reportedly always brought to tears by "Feed the Birds." The Sherman brothers went on to win Oscars for their score and for the song, "Chim Chim Cher-ee."
Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke are perfectly cast in the starring roles, as are David Tomlinson and Glynis Johns as the parents of Jane and Michael Banks (believably played by Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber). Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress with her performance in the title role.
"Mary Poppins" received 13 Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Screenplay (Adapted) and Best Director and won in 5 categories.
One of those Oscar "wins" was for the dazzling array of visual effects showcased within the film. Mary Poppins can fly, she takes the children on an adventure in a cartoon world and to a floating tea party; chimney sweeps dance atop the roofs amid fireworks and her magic makes cleaning the nursery a snap. A wide array of special effects techniques are on display here and it is difficult to imagine any other studio achieving so satisfying a result.
So, there it is. "Mary Poppins" revisited.
Enjoy!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic