(I spent a lot of time debating internally whether to use this opening line or not, but here goes...)
I knew it was supposed to be horribly, over-the-top misogynistic, but I didn't expect it to be so funny!
Okay, so Martin Scorsese's biopic on Jordan Belfort is very well made and entertaining. All the criticism has been about whether or not it glamorizes Belfort's life and about the running time. For what it's worth, I thought the three hours flew by. As for the first point, I am seriously shocked that there are people--people I respect...people whose opinions about movies I respect--who argue it isn't glamorizing his life. He actually includes a "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous"-type voice-over in one scene (Robin Leach isn't credited on IMDb, I don't know if Scorsese used him or an impersonator.) If this isn't a glamorous depiction of being filthy rich, banging whores, and doing tons of drugs...I don't know what is.
And now I wanna try quaaludes. Dammit, I'm not even into drugs but that's how much this movie glamorizes them! (As for banging whores...that sounds exhausting. As for owning a mansion, Lamborghini, yacht, helicopter...that sounds like a lot of upkeep. But doing quaaludes--that looks like fun!)
And yeah, there are ways of analyzing it that makes it not-so-bad. Primarily that Scorsese is holding a mirror up to Belfort--and the society that created him. So take that anger you feel at the movie and turn it on Belfort, turn it on Wall Street (there's an argument to be made that the title refers not to Belfort but to the "Wolf" that is Wall Street,) turn it on America (there's a wonderfully pointed scene where Belfort waxes rhapsodical about how his firm--Stratton-Oakmont--is the embodiment of the American dream.) But you know what...it's also perfectly fine to turn it on Scorsese. I mean, he made the damn movie and intentionally ignored the actual victims who, remember, exist in real life. And I understand he's telling the story from Belfort's point of view, so ignoring the victims is a reflection of that. But if you show the FBI agent who took him down riding the subway home, you can devote a minute or two to the victims (counter-thought: maybe he doesn't actually ride the subway, if the whole film is Belfort's P.O.V., maybe it's Belfort imagining that he takes the subway when in fact he drives a reasonably nice car.)
Or, I don't know, maybe you can just fantasize about being obscenely rich and enjoy all the naked ladies on screen.
Running Time: 180 minutes
My Total Minutes: 347,315
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Jason goes to Niles for a Laurel and Hardy Talkie...ish Matinee
So normally the second Sunday of every month is a Laurel and Hardy Talkie Matinee at the Niles Essanay Silent Film Museum. But last Sunday was a special event--Laurel and Hardy and Our Gang shorts that bridged the end of the silent era and the beginning of talkies. So these films were made as silents, then had a soundtrack of music and sound effects added later.
THE SPANKING AGE (1928): Our Gang's Mary Ann and Wheezer get in trouble for stealing (and wrecking) a cake. Then they decide to have a secret party with the whole gang while their stepmother is out. But...they screw up the recipe of the cake and put alum in it instead of flour, leading to a lot of sour faces.
HABEAS CORPUS (1928): As I said when I saw the silent version back in October:
SATURDAY'S LESSON (1929): As I said when I saw the silent version back in...2008 (wow, and it still seemed familiar):
Total Running Time: 80 minutes
My Total Minutes: 347,134
THE SPANKING AGE (1928): Our Gang's Mary Ann and Wheezer get in trouble for stealing (and wrecking) a cake. Then they decide to have a secret party with the whole gang while their stepmother is out. But...they screw up the recipe of the cake and put alum in it instead of flour, leading to a lot of sour faces.
HABEAS CORPUS (1928): As I said when I saw the silent version back in October:
The Boys, Laurel and Hardy are hired by a scientist to help with his experiments. Problem number one--the scientist is completely loony-tunes crazy. Problem number 2--he hired Laurel and Hardy to go dig up a corpse from the local cemetery. Maybe times were just different then, or maybe L&H are geniuses who can wring a heck of a lot of humor from such a macabre setup. In any case, it was hilarious.Then a short intermission, and the final two shorts.
SATURDAY'S LESSON (1929): As I said when I saw the silent version back in...2008 (wow, and it still seemed familiar):
(One of?) the last "Our Gang" silents, before they went all talkie. The gang doesn't want to do chores on Saturday morning. But a guy in a devil costume teaches them a lesson. Maybe a little too well, in fact.WRONG AGAIN (1929): As I said when I saw the silent version back in 2010:
And we end with the boys, Laurel and Hardy. They work in the stables, and hear news that The Blue Boy has been stolen. There's a $5,000 reward for its return. Which is good news, because they know exactly where Blue Boy is. Too bad they don't know that the reward is for the famous painting, not a race horse named Blue Boy. Particularly funny when the owner (who's in the bath) tells them to just put it on the piano.So three of the 4 films I had previously seen as silent films with live piano music. And they're all very funny. But it's interesting how the soundtrack changes things. It's actually kind of jarring to hear the music and sound effects (e.g., lots of knocking, or the horse neighing, etc.) Especially hearing the sound effects but not the dialogue...I don't think it works that well. I'd rather see the silent version with live music.
Total Running Time: 80 minutes
My Total Minutes: 347,134
Jason Watches 12 YEARS A SLAVE
Well, that was pretty freakin' sad.
And now that I think about it...is there anything more to it? I mean, it's a great movie, based on the real story of Solomon Northup. It's very well made, acting was incredible, but...is 'Slavery = Bad' really much of a lesson? Amy Poehler got a good laugh at the Golden Globes by quipping how she "can honestly say that after seeing that film, I will never look at slavery the same way again."
Well, for some who claim the Civil War was about other issues, or that slaves liked the good masters (only the cruel masters were a problem,) I guess they do need some reminding. But I'm willing to believe that they're a small but vocal fringe element. More importantly, if a system condones--even rewards--cruelty, than the system is the problem, not the cruel actors. There is arguably one "good" master in the movie. But when the chips are down, he doesn't prevent Solomon from being abused, he sells him to a cruel master. Not necessarily because he wants Solomon to be abused, but because he thinks he's powerless to do anything else (he claims he's saving Solomon's life.)
Perhaps just as important is the fact of how he's saved (and I apologize in advance for giving away some spoilers.) There is a man with a conscience (conspicuously, he's Canadian.) And when he hears Solomon's story he agrees to help, to send a letter to Solomon's friends in the North. And abruptly they show up, produce papers proving he's a free man, and he's taken home. Perhaps a message for our times is how easy it is--once you decide to act on conscience--to right a wrong.
Or perhaps the message for our times is less optimistic. After all, the men who kidnapped and sold Solomon were caught and put on trial, but never punished. Perhaps the message is that when injustice is tolerated on a grand scale, the injustice easily infiltrates areas where it's thought not to be.
No, there's still plenty to think about in 12 YEARS A SLAVE even if you're already comfortably anti-slavery.
Running Time: 134 minutes
My Total Minutes: 347,054
And now that I think about it...is there anything more to it? I mean, it's a great movie, based on the real story of Solomon Northup. It's very well made, acting was incredible, but...is 'Slavery = Bad' really much of a lesson? Amy Poehler got a good laugh at the Golden Globes by quipping how she "can honestly say that after seeing that film, I will never look at slavery the same way again."
Well, for some who claim the Civil War was about other issues, or that slaves liked the good masters (only the cruel masters were a problem,) I guess they do need some reminding. But I'm willing to believe that they're a small but vocal fringe element. More importantly, if a system condones--even rewards--cruelty, than the system is the problem, not the cruel actors. There is arguably one "good" master in the movie. But when the chips are down, he doesn't prevent Solomon from being abused, he sells him to a cruel master. Not necessarily because he wants Solomon to be abused, but because he thinks he's powerless to do anything else (he claims he's saving Solomon's life.)
Perhaps just as important is the fact of how he's saved (and I apologize in advance for giving away some spoilers.) There is a man with a conscience (conspicuously, he's Canadian.) And when he hears Solomon's story he agrees to help, to send a letter to Solomon's friends in the North. And abruptly they show up, produce papers proving he's a free man, and he's taken home. Perhaps a message for our times is how easy it is--once you decide to act on conscience--to right a wrong.
Or perhaps the message for our times is less optimistic. After all, the men who kidnapped and sold Solomon were caught and put on trial, but never punished. Perhaps the message is that when injustice is tolerated on a grand scale, the injustice easily infiltrates areas where it's thought not to be.
No, there's still plenty to think about in 12 YEARS A SLAVE even if you're already comfortably anti-slavery.
Running Time: 134 minutes
My Total Minutes: 347,054
Jason watches The Book of Mormon
Hasa Diga Eebowai!
So I took a little break from watching movies to catch some live theater. And it was awesome. Of course, when you team up South Park and Avenue Q, it's bound to be funny. Really, really funny. Like literally your-sides-hurt-from-laughing-too-hard funny. And of course it blasphemous, and takes a lot of potshots at the church of Mormon. But when you stop to think about it, it's actually taking aim at all privileged rich westerners who think they can go to a third world country, stay for a little while, and actually help them. And in the end, it actually makes a pretty interesting case for religion--that you shouldn't let the truth get in the way of a good story. And if the story can actually help people, even less of a reason for truth.
Of course, that's the same kind of thinking that leads to believing TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE is actually an insightful critique and defense of American foreign policy. In both cases, first and foremost it's really, really funny.
So I took a little break from watching movies to catch some live theater. And it was awesome. Of course, when you team up South Park and Avenue Q, it's bound to be funny. Really, really funny. Like literally your-sides-hurt-from-laughing-too-hard funny. And of course it blasphemous, and takes a lot of potshots at the church of Mormon. But when you stop to think about it, it's actually taking aim at all privileged rich westerners who think they can go to a third world country, stay for a little while, and actually help them. And in the end, it actually makes a pretty interesting case for religion--that you shouldn't let the truth get in the way of a good story. And if the story can actually help people, even less of a reason for truth.
Of course, that's the same kind of thinking that leads to believing TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE is actually an insightful critique and defense of American foreign policy. In both cases, first and foremost it's really, really funny.
Jason goes to Midnites for Maniacs and celebrates Nicolas Cage's 50th Birthday
Happy 50th Birthday to an actor who doesn't always get respect, but is always interesting. A man who never phones it in, even if what he brings is a little...out there. Or, in his words, Nouveau-Shamanic.
Before I get to the movies, I just want to tell you all about the time I very briefly saw Nicolas Cage in person. This was back in my college years. I went to college in Pasadena, and one of the favorite spots for my friends and me was the Original Pantry in downtown L.A.--a classic 24/7 greasy spoon diner. They would start serving breakfast at 4:00 am, but at one point we were such regulars if we showed up at 3:30 they'd switch to their breakfast menu right then. One night, we accidentally got off a few exits too early and we ended up driving through downtown L.A. in the middle of the night (if you take the 9th street exit you get off and you're practically there.) There was almost no traffic, and we knew the way by surface streets (some of us had actually walked there from Pasadena, but that's another story) so this wasn't a problem. But then a cop pulled us over. Although we thought we had obeyed all traffic signals (i.e., we waited for the light to turn green) it turned out the streets were partially blocked off for filming a major studio project. When that occurs, you're not supposed to look at the traffic lights, you're supposed to look at the motorcycle cop off in the corner and cross when he signals you to. Anyway, we were given a brief talking to but no ticket, and we made our way to the diner easily enough. As we were walking in, there was a guy in a dirty, bloody wife-beater walking out. This is...not common, but not that surprising for the place and time of day. So we sort of averted our eyes and walked past him. But something made me turn around for a second look, and I suddenly recognized Nicolas Cage. He apparently was taking a break from filming and grabbing a bite at The Pantry just before we got there. It was too late (and I was too timid) to stop him and say anything to him. But a few months later, we started seeing advertisements for CON AIR. So...I brushed by Nicolas Cage in costume during a break on CON AIR. Pretty cool story, isn't it?
Shut up. On to the movies.
VALLEY GIRL (1983): The movie that made Cage a star. And, of course, a teen classic. And an R-rated teen comedy with tits...so it deserves to be a classic. Why isn't director Martha Coolidge a bigger name? I looked her up on IMDb, and was surprised to be reminded that she also directed REAL GENIUS. Which--tying back to my rambling story about brushing past Nicolas Cage--was shot at and (sort of) based on my Alma Mater. So now I'm not just more of a Nicolas Cage fan, I'm more of a Martha Coolidge fan, too.
RAISING ARIZONA (1987): And of course, the Coen brothers (I swear I'll see INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS soon!) I love this movie. There was a time I watched this so often it was undoubtedly my most-watched Coen brothers film (I think THE BIG LEBOWSKI has overtaken it, mainly because of Indiefest's annual Lebowski party.) I don't even feel a need to describe it, instead I'll mention a friend of mine in college (bringing me back to my rambling Nic Cage story again!) who was adamantly not a fan of Cage (way, way before he was a joke to nearly everyone, this guy thought Nicolas Cage was a talent-less hack. But even he admitted that RAISING ARIZONA was a great movie and Cage was great in it. He just attributed it to the Coens giving him such a great role. And at the time, I would've listened. But after this night of Cage-apalooza, I disagree. Nicolas Cage is just...great. Just fucking great, man!
And it wasn't just the movies, it was the 20-some Nicolas Cage trailers. Kinda like seeing an abbreviated version of his career arc, I realized that there are a lot of Nicolas Cage movies that I've skipped (not necessarily avoided, just wasn't interested in) that suddenly seem a lot more interesting.
I still refuse to acknowledge that there was ever a remake of WICKER MAN, though. I know this is against all the high-minded principles of M4M, but...no...I draw the line there.
Total Running Time: 193 minutes
My Total Minutes: 346,920
Before I get to the movies, I just want to tell you all about the time I very briefly saw Nicolas Cage in person. This was back in my college years. I went to college in Pasadena, and one of the favorite spots for my friends and me was the Original Pantry in downtown L.A.--a classic 24/7 greasy spoon diner. They would start serving breakfast at 4:00 am, but at one point we were such regulars if we showed up at 3:30 they'd switch to their breakfast menu right then. One night, we accidentally got off a few exits too early and we ended up driving through downtown L.A. in the middle of the night (if you take the 9th street exit you get off and you're practically there.) There was almost no traffic, and we knew the way by surface streets (some of us had actually walked there from Pasadena, but that's another story) so this wasn't a problem. But then a cop pulled us over. Although we thought we had obeyed all traffic signals (i.e., we waited for the light to turn green) it turned out the streets were partially blocked off for filming a major studio project. When that occurs, you're not supposed to look at the traffic lights, you're supposed to look at the motorcycle cop off in the corner and cross when he signals you to. Anyway, we were given a brief talking to but no ticket, and we made our way to the diner easily enough. As we were walking in, there was a guy in a dirty, bloody wife-beater walking out. This is...not common, but not that surprising for the place and time of day. So we sort of averted our eyes and walked past him. But something made me turn around for a second look, and I suddenly recognized Nicolas Cage. He apparently was taking a break from filming and grabbing a bite at The Pantry just before we got there. It was too late (and I was too timid) to stop him and say anything to him. But a few months later, we started seeing advertisements for CON AIR. So...I brushed by Nicolas Cage in costume during a break on CON AIR. Pretty cool story, isn't it?
Shut up. On to the movies.
VALLEY GIRL (1983): The movie that made Cage a star. And, of course, a teen classic. And an R-rated teen comedy with tits...so it deserves to be a classic. Why isn't director Martha Coolidge a bigger name? I looked her up on IMDb, and was surprised to be reminded that she also directed REAL GENIUS. Which--tying back to my rambling story about brushing past Nicolas Cage--was shot at and (sort of) based on my Alma Mater. So now I'm not just more of a Nicolas Cage fan, I'm more of a Martha Coolidge fan, too.
RAISING ARIZONA (1987): And of course, the Coen brothers (I swear I'll see INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS soon!) I love this movie. There was a time I watched this so often it was undoubtedly my most-watched Coen brothers film (I think THE BIG LEBOWSKI has overtaken it, mainly because of Indiefest's annual Lebowski party.) I don't even feel a need to describe it, instead I'll mention a friend of mine in college (bringing me back to my rambling Nic Cage story again!) who was adamantly not a fan of Cage (way, way before he was a joke to nearly everyone, this guy thought Nicolas Cage was a talent-less hack. But even he admitted that RAISING ARIZONA was a great movie and Cage was great in it. He just attributed it to the Coens giving him such a great role. And at the time, I would've listened. But after this night of Cage-apalooza, I disagree. Nicolas Cage is just...great. Just fucking great, man!
And it wasn't just the movies, it was the 20-some Nicolas Cage trailers. Kinda like seeing an abbreviated version of his career arc, I realized that there are a lot of Nicolas Cage movies that I've skipped (not necessarily avoided, just wasn't interested in) that suddenly seem a lot more interesting.
I still refuse to acknowledge that there was ever a remake of WICKER MAN, though. I know this is against all the high-minded principles of M4M, but...no...I draw the line there.
Total Running Time: 193 minutes
My Total Minutes: 346,920
Monday, January 13, 2014
Jason Watches AMERICAN HUSTLE
And my favorite part is the opening text, "Some of this actually happened." (Slate has a good article on what did and didn't happen for real.)
I liked it quite a bit, despite the fact that I'm a bit too young to remember the Abscam operation. The acting is great. Christian Bale is again a trouper undergoing a physical transformation to play a pudgy conman with an "elaborate" hairpiece. Bradley Cooper is great as the zealous FBI agent in over his head. Amy Adams is great, Jennifer Lawrence is great but isn't given enough to work with (she's basically a force of chaos.) And I especially liked Jeremy Renner as a corrupt-ish New Jersey politician (but see, his corruption is always for the people so he's really a good guy!) Robert De Niro appears in a cameo, essentially playing Robert De Niro, but he's just always great to see on screen.
The thing is...as much as I liked it (and I did) I didn't think it was that award-worthy. There's something that just...bugs me about David O. Russell. He makes good movies, maybe even great movies, but lately they always seem to get more praise than I think they deserve. SPANKING THE MONKEY and FLIRTING WITH DISASTER were great "indie" works that have deserved cult followings. THREE KINGS was a surprisingly good movie--what looked like a "bro" war-comedy turned out to be very thoughtful and anti-war (but still with a sly sense of humor.) I HEART HUCKABEES is actually my favorite of his work, although it has his lowest Rotten Tomatoes score. Then I never saw THE FIGHTER, maybe it really is excellent and he's coasting off the glory of that one, because that's when I think overpraising Russell became common. THE SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, while well made and funny, I thought it was badly overwritten. And I get the same sense from AMERICAN HUSTLE. I can't put my finger on it the same way as I could with THE SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, I just feel like it's good but not deserving of all the praise and award nominations it's getting.
Running Time: 138 minutes
My Total Minutes: 346,727
I liked it quite a bit, despite the fact that I'm a bit too young to remember the Abscam operation. The acting is great. Christian Bale is again a trouper undergoing a physical transformation to play a pudgy conman with an "elaborate" hairpiece. Bradley Cooper is great as the zealous FBI agent in over his head. Amy Adams is great, Jennifer Lawrence is great but isn't given enough to work with (she's basically a force of chaos.) And I especially liked Jeremy Renner as a corrupt-ish New Jersey politician (but see, his corruption is always for the people so he's really a good guy!) Robert De Niro appears in a cameo, essentially playing Robert De Niro, but he's just always great to see on screen.
The thing is...as much as I liked it (and I did) I didn't think it was that award-worthy. There's something that just...bugs me about David O. Russell. He makes good movies, maybe even great movies, but lately they always seem to get more praise than I think they deserve. SPANKING THE MONKEY and FLIRTING WITH DISASTER were great "indie" works that have deserved cult followings. THREE KINGS was a surprisingly good movie--what looked like a "bro" war-comedy turned out to be very thoughtful and anti-war (but still with a sly sense of humor.) I HEART HUCKABEES is actually my favorite of his work, although it has his lowest Rotten Tomatoes score. Then I never saw THE FIGHTER, maybe it really is excellent and he's coasting off the glory of that one, because that's when I think overpraising Russell became common. THE SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, while well made and funny, I thought it was badly overwritten. And I get the same sense from AMERICAN HUSTLE. I can't put my finger on it the same way as I could with THE SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, I just feel like it's good but not deserving of all the praise and award nominations it's getting.
Running Time: 138 minutes
My Total Minutes: 346,727
Jason watches THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG in IMAX 3-D HFR
I'm falling way behind in my blog, I guess I should at least finish up 2013.
We're back in Middle Earth, and it feels good, even if it doesn't feel the same as our first trip. The 3-D is fine, although it breaks Jason's Rule of 3-D several times, it wasn't too distracting. Interesting, the HFR (High Frame Rate--48 frames/sec) which I thought looked weird all through THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY didn't bother me at all this time. And the story is really picking up, too. Peter Jackson took on the difficult job of adapting what is essentially a children's story and trying to fit it with the darker tone of his LORD OF THE RINGS movies (and the LOTR books.) And he does...an okay job. There's still an uneasy fit of silly slapstick and dark themes (including the introduction of a resurgent Sauron.) But it still a fun ride (often, quite literally looking like an amusement park ride) and Smaug in all his glory is pretty damn impressive. I still think he stretched things pretty far to get 3 movies out of the source material, but I'll be ready and eager for part 3 same time next year.
Oh, and we get to see Legolas many years before he appears in LORD OF THE RINGS. I want to know his fitness plan, because I swear he looks a decade younger than when we see him some 77 years later.
Running Time: 161 minutes
My Total Minutes: 346,589 (adjusted downward due to discovering an error in my record-keeping, I double-counted ~1500 minutes)
We're back in Middle Earth, and it feels good, even if it doesn't feel the same as our first trip. The 3-D is fine, although it breaks Jason's Rule of 3-D several times, it wasn't too distracting. Interesting, the HFR (High Frame Rate--48 frames/sec) which I thought looked weird all through THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY didn't bother me at all this time. And the story is really picking up, too. Peter Jackson took on the difficult job of adapting what is essentially a children's story and trying to fit it with the darker tone of his LORD OF THE RINGS movies (and the LOTR books.) And he does...an okay job. There's still an uneasy fit of silly slapstick and dark themes (including the introduction of a resurgent Sauron.) But it still a fun ride (often, quite literally looking like an amusement park ride) and Smaug in all his glory is pretty damn impressive. I still think he stretched things pretty far to get 3 movies out of the source material, but I'll be ready and eager for part 3 same time next year.
Oh, and we get to see Legolas many years before he appears in LORD OF THE RINGS. I want to know his fitness plan, because I swear he looks a decade younger than when we see him some 77 years later.
Running Time: 161 minutes
My Total Minutes: 346,589 (adjusted downward due to discovering an error in my record-keeping, I double-counted ~1500 minutes)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)