The Good, The Bad and the Ugly Films

The Good

I admit it – I am a fan of Robert Rodriguez. Hell, I am a fan of the concept of Robert Rodriguez – a film maker that works as easily within the studio system as he does outside of it, wearing every conceivable hat on the production. At SXSW this Friday, he debuted some footage from this upcoming production of Predators, both from the film and behind the scenes. While not directed by Rodriguez himself, but by Nimród Antal, and staring the unlikely action duo Adrien Brody and Topher Grace, the concepts and footage look great. I have faith in Rodriguez and I’m looking forward to this.

The Bad

Bad news for Hulk fans – when asked if there was an Incredible Hulk sequel on its way Edward Norton stated that there are no plans for another Hulk film at the moment, saying…

“I don’t think so. I think it has got more to do with what Marvel is doing. I get the sense they have this grand vision of unspooling a lot of their characters and then starting to put them together. I think they can only do so many at a time. Obviously, they are doing Iron Man 2 and then getting some of the new ones out.”

It has been long established that all the hero film are leading to an eventual Avengers flick featuring The Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America and more. Given Norton’s reputation as a temperamental talent, it seems unlikely that he would still be on board with an ensemble project unless Marvel has an ironclad contract given the animosity on the production of The Incredible Hulk, and relatively moderate success.

The Ugly

I have a really hard time accepting that someone actually got paid for this…

Did someone hire their 14-year-old nephew to design the poster for this movie? Or perhaps it was someone on the production’s first day with Photoshop and they impressed the hell out of themselves and went with it? Either way, you are doing your film a disservice by making it look so damn cheap. On the strength of the cast alone, I would be interested in seeing this movie – but this turd of a poster makes me think “Forget it!”

There is one major flaw with Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. And what a flaw. It looks terrible.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure I should mention that I did not particularly appreciate the aesthetics of The Nightmare Before Christmas, nor Corpse Bride, nor Beetlejuice. There are times when Burton’s Edward Gorey look works for me, such as with his two takes on Batman. Edward Scissorhands, too. My dislike for The Nightmare Before Christmas and The Corpse Bride can be easily labelled a subjective one. I admit it. Some people love the look of those two films, but to me they’re cloying and ugly. Trying too hard. Without the simple class of Gorey’s work.

Alice in Wonderland does not look like The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Its artistic style is cribbed, it seems, from kids fruit juice commercials from the late 1990s. You know, right when advertisers discovered you could combine actors faces with CG fruits. Yes. Tim Burton has discovered this about ten years too late, and it doesn’t look any better now. Helena Bonham Carter’s hydrocephalus isn’t the ugliest thing in the film, but it’s distracting and detracts from the scene. It’s tough to call what the ugliest element of the film is; Matt Lucas as Tweedledum and Tweedledee is hideous, while Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter, now portrayed with terrifying contact lenses and costuming and makeup from the worst of Cirque du Soleil, made me both angry and bored. All at once. Not being able to look at a film is a tough knock against it. There are some positive elements to the design, those which have pulled much more from the early illustrations from Through the Looking Glass and Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, as well as some which have the airbrushed, 70s quality of Terry Gilliam’s animation from Monty Python.

How is the film as a retelling of the books? Adequate. It loses much of the flavor of the two novels by liberally picking and choosing elements from both. Gone is the chess-game steps of Through The Looking Glass, and with that some of the added depth. Parts of the Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland still remain, but the general thrust of the plot deals with the Red Queen and the slaying of the Jabberwocky. The material works best when it stays closest to Carrol’s dialogue, and at its weakest when it makes more knowing, pop-culture style riffs. There isn’t, at least, anyone who screams “That’s what I’m talking about!”

It’s hard to remain objective about a film that assaults your eyes like this one did. Maybe you like this sort of thing. Maybe you think it’s clever how they made Carter have a giant head. To me, the look killed the film. There were some positive points. Mia Wasikowska was fine as an older Alice, and her father, played by Marton Csokas, is endearing during his brief role. Alan Rickman phones it in with a sneering Snape delivery, but Stephen Fry does much better with his material as the Cheshire Cat. It moves through its paces fast, and hits all the necessary Alice in Wonderland points without staying for very long at any of them. It seems in a rush, which isn’t surprising given the amount of material it chews up at record speed. The longest scene in the film is possibly also its most tedious; the tea party with the Mad Hatter. The text, which is all about circular logic and bizarre mangling of words is pushed as fast as it can go, which creates a scene which drags by being played too fast. Also, it features several close-ups of Depp’s Hatter, something which kills about any scene in the film.

How was the film? Functional. It tells a story. There is excitement. Alice’s likability and natural performance help. While some portions, such as the eye-popping savagery, might scare the teeniest, tiniest of babies, most kids could deal with the dark take on the source material and enjoy the film. Burton obviously loves the material and the world, but perhaps he was not the most ideal choice to show it. He doesn’t seem to be in love with the story as much as the pictures that it creates in his mind. He sacrifices so much of the beauty of the original in pursuit of a bankrupt aesthetic.

Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is not a terrible film, but it isn’t good. Whether you should plunk down for a ticket depends entirely on your appreciation for how it looks. A good barometer would be the following: do you have to look away from all the posters of Depp as the Mad Hatter? If yes, avoid the film. If no, seek therapy. And watch it.

One last thing: why can’t anyone animate a human character riding on an animal’s back? They did it back in Wizards. What about the idea can a computer not replicate? The second a human actor and computer generated animal combine, in pretty much anything from Attack of the Clones to Avatar, it looks choppy and weird. This film continues the tradition.

Alice In Wonderland : BAD

(Though, perhaps UGLY would be an apt description.)

The Good

Being objective here, I would have to say that Avatar returning to theatres this summer in an expanded form with “Scenes from the cutting room floor” that were excluded from the original release in its haste to make its release date, is good news for its fans. It’s also good news for the the studios that have now found a way to double dip a movie theatrically – no small feat. It’s Also great news for those who take pleasure in the pain this movie inflicts on me! So it’s win-win-win for everyone… except me ¦¬(

The Bad

Quentin Tarantino as the voice of Brainy Smurf in the upcoming 3-D live action film? Wha…? Huh…??? As a writer and director Tarantino pretty much walks on water as far as critics and film fans are concerned; but when he puts on his “acting” hat, his choices are a little dubious. What’s next? Destiny Turns on the Radio II?

The Ugly

Something tells me Ross will love this, however for myself it smacks of ‘too many cooks…’ An interactive theatrical movie that phones you to help choose the direction it goes, because what is lacking in theatres is phones ringing! The film will be using “voice recognition technology” and blah blah blah… Oh C’mon!!! This is a video game on the big screen, and unless the movies calls you, you are just watching someone else play a game. and who wants to watch someone else play a video game?!? Ok… maybe Mark will love this! ¦¬)

Part two of 1975 retrospective clips by quickly since we talked about most of the films in part one… and some of the lists are short here. C’mon – give us a little credit; we shorted our Ugly lists rather than rip into movies that don’t deserve the branding of worst of the worst. As predicted, Jaws surfaces on 3 of our Top 5 Lists, but from there the choices differ – check them out!

Ugly

Allen

Salo: The 120 Days of Sodom

Mandingo

Bug

John

The Fortune

Mark

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes Smarter Brother

Mahogany

Ross

Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze

The Strongest Man in the World

Moonrunners

Bug

The Adventures of the Wilderness Family

Top 5

John

1. The Wicker Man

2. The Great Waldo Pepper

3. Dog Day Afternoon

4. The Stepford Wives

5. Jaws

Mark

1. Jaws

2, The Rocky Horror Picture Show

3. Monty Python & The Holy Grail

Ross

1. Barry Lyndon

2. Monty Python & The Holy Grail

3. The Rocky Horror Picture Show

4. The Sunshine Boys

5. Day of the Locust

Allen

1. Jaws

2. Night Moves

3. Picnic at Hanging Rock

4. Tommy

5. Grey Gardens

Download This Episode Here

The Good

Betty White has been booked to host Saturday Night Live on May 8th. This is definitely good news, but it is surprising how much buzz this is getting online. It is amazing and admirable that someone with a 70 year old career can still garner this much attention and affection from a multi-generational fan-base.

The Bad

I am sure that I was happier than most (especially James Cameron) that Kathryn Bigelow and The Hurt Locker cleaned up on Oscar night, and Hollywood wastes no time in exploiting a big win. Check out this new International Poster for The Hurt Locker released today. The week isn’t even over and the cash-in begins!

The Ugly

Speaking of exploiting, Corey Feldman appeared on Larry King to re-hash his up and downs with occasional co-star and estranged friend Corey Haim following Haim’s very recent passing. Has this guy no shame? His corpse-licking appearance on Larry King following Michael Jackson’s death was a new low; who knew he could out-sleaze himself so soon! We talked briefly about Hollywood eating it’s young on Tuesday’s podcast, and it is even more sickening to see them cannibalize each other.

I know that some people wouldn’t consider Peter Jackson’s King Kong a traditionally animated character, because he’s not a cartoon, but computer animation and motion capture are bringing us to new heights in movie making. Just ask James Cameron and all the Avatards.

Andy Serkis, who did all the motion capture acting for Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, was brought on to be the movements behind Kong. Hours and hours of gorilla footage were studied and many trips to the London Zoo. All that wasn’t quite good enough for Andy, so he went to Rwanda to study the mountain gorilla in its natural habitat.

The resulting gorilla is quite life-like in my opinion, with a beautiful blend of simian movement and features with humanistic facial emotion. The only way the on screen version of Kong could of looked and moved more realistically is if they put a motion capture suit on a real gorilla, as well as all the 60+ facial points that have to be mapped as well. I don’t think that would have ended well.

The subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, emotions coming from Kong’s facial expressions were at times heart-wrenching and affected me more than almost any other animated character in movies. Anyone that didn’t have a tear in their eye and a lump in their throat with the sad look when he died is cold and dead on the inside.

He didn’t use any words, just vocalizations, movement and facial expression, but he made you invest a bit of yourself into his performance, care about him, despite knowing how tragically it was going to turn out. This is why he deserves the Oscar for best Animated Performance.

On the podcast, we have talked several times about movies that could not be remade in any way similar to the original for multiple reasons -  this has come up whenever Blazing Saddles is mentioned for example. What is deemed socially acceptable, or politically correct has changed enough that there would not be much tolerance for much of the content should it be remade, but as a historic artifact it can be enjoyed.

Having made what many consider to be the definitive film adaptation of Romeo & Juliet, director Franco Zeffirelli returned to familiar territory with 1981’s Endless Love, bringing audiences the story of David & Jade, high school lovers torn apart by their families.

Timeless as the premise sounds, the execution, as well as the actions of several characters, is what would keep Endless Love out of contention for remaking in an age when the most vocal of the population cannot engage in a serious conversation about teen sex and believe that teens should be abstaining from sex – and certainly not idealizing it.

The films stars Brooke Shields as 15 year old Jade Butterfield. Shields at the time was considered a “sex symbol“, a term that has itself become antiquated. Endless Love was her third film of a strong sexual nature (the first two being Louis Malle’s Pretty Baby, and the shipwreck romance The Blue Lagoon), and as well as being the spokes model for Calvin Klein Jeans – it is hard to believe that she somehow maintained a squeaky-clean image. David Axelrod is played convincingly enough by new-comer Martin Hewitt. Also Starring in the film are Shirley Knight as Anne Butterfield, Don Murray as Hugh Butterfield, James Spader as Keith Butterfield, Richard Kiley as Arthur Axelrod and Academy Award Winner Beatrice Straight as Rose Axelrod.

Major Spoilers to Follow:

As the film opens, Jade and David are well into their new romance, spending much of their time together with Jade’s family. Jade’s Mother and father, Hugh and Anne Butterfield, are a bohemian pair – he a doctor, she a writer – who have encouraged their children to be open to new ideologies and experiences. They regularly host parties for their children where the alcohol flows freely and the weed is smoked in the open. It is following one of these parties that Anne gets up in the middle of the night and heads downstairs to discover Jade and David having sex in front of the fireplace. Anne’s reaction is not to break it up and throw David out, but to sit, unnoticed, on the stairs and watch them. Anne is mesmerized by what she has seen, later describing it to her husband as beautiful. Later, when Hugh stumbles across the post-coital pair, his reaction is more paternal, though still not what we would expect from the father of a 15 year old daughter having sex under his roof. He expresses his displeasure with the situation to Anne, who rebuffs his response by saying Jade is simply doing what he has always taught her to do, and that he should be happy that she is not being hypocritical by hiding it.

Meanwhile, we meet David’s parents, Aurthur and Rose Axelrod, lawyers and liberal activists who have little time for their son while they save the world. They have quiet reservations about David spending time at the Butterfield residence, “that house and what goes on there,” but not enough to stop him from going there, or even vocalizing their concerns until the fit hits the shan!

Upon witnessing an early morning exit by David from their house, Hugh discovers Jade raiding his medicines for sleeping pills, which seems to be the line crossed that Hugh cannot abide by. He puts a 30 day moratorium on the relationship, until school is out for the year. Obsessed and in love, this proves to be too much for David to handle, and inspired by a buddy’s story (Tom Cruise in his first film role), starts a fire at the Butterfield home in a effort to be the hero when he saves them from disaster. Disaster is what ends up happening and after the house goes up in flames, David goes to an asylum.

Two years later, when David is released, he skips out on his parole and tracks down the now-divorced Anne in New York in hopes of finding out where Jade is. Over wine and dinner, Anne tells David about seeing Jade and him having sex, and how she imagined it was herself he was making love to and proceeds to attempt to seduce him, but he tells her that he can not be with anyone but Jade. The next day, Hugh spots David in the street and goes after him, only to be struck by a car and killed. This of course brings Jade to New York and David asks Anne to tell Jade where he is. When Jade comes to David’s hotel room, she tells him what they had together happened at time when they were both not old enough to handle it, and turns to leave. David begs Jade not to leave and when she continues to exit, he pulls her back to the bed and holds her down until she relents and the two spend the night together. In the morning, it is revealed that David was at the scene when Hugh died. This results in David and Keith, Jade’s brother,  fighting in the hotel lobby. David is sent to jail for breaking his parole. In a brief scene, Jade professes her confusion, but continuing love for David to her mother. The film closes with Jade going to visit David in jail.

There have been several movies made since that have a twisted love affair at the heart of the film; like 9½ Weeks or Secretary, but there are points they hit that don’t happen in Endless love. These subsequent movies usually feature consenting adults, and usually the lovers are no longer together at the end, or at least appropriately punished or doomed. The anguish David puts the Butterfield family through should be enough to make being with him inconsiderable to Jade, yet they are together at the end of the film. But that isn’t the biggest problem a contemporary audience would have with the film…

Anne watching David and Jade in front of the fireplace is creepy and voyeuristic, especially considering she was getting her ya-yas from watching her kid have sex. Her resulting fixation with her daughter’s boyfriend pushes her into predatory-cougar status, the likes of which would not even amuse Stiffler’s Mom. Furthermore, Anne tries to shame Hugh for having issue with his 15 year old daughter being sexually active, and later in New York tries seducing the mentally unstable David. The character of Anne would be a huge obstacle for anyone trying to do a remake, as she is a Catholic League lightening rod! Hugh doesn’t fare much better, as he drunkenly wobbles up the stairs after his kids’ house party. Even after he decides to be a parent and puts the brakes on Jade’s and David’s relationship, he can be seen joyously smoking a joint at yet another party before the fire.

David’s parents turn out to be the typical movie construct of parents too busy for their children. David’s institutionalization appears to be the catalyst for their marriage dissolving, but Arthur confesses to David that when he saw David and Jade riding a bicycle together he was so struck by their beauty and love that he knew then he needed that back in his life, and he wasn’t getting it from Rose. Jeez, thanks Dad!

Finally there is the matter of the sex scene between David and Jade. Shields was, in fact, 16 years old in 1981 and famously used a body double for both this and The Blue Lagoon, but none-the-less was participant in these scenes. Today’s temper does not endorse the portrayal of teens having sex unless the words “Barely Legal” precede it. Okay, Okay – to be fair we do see this today on cable networks like Showtime’s Weeds, where there are no ratings restrictions (and so many taboos are being broken anyway), but not in major theatrical releases.

To that end, it should be noted that Universal Home video has not released Endless Love on DVD in North America in the format’s near 15 year life span, despite the relative success the film enjoyed theatrically. This alone should be indication enough that the studio knows the content of the film would not set well with current audiences. Even those who enjoyed the film in their youth, would not be willing to pass on the film to their children in the name of nostalgia the way they do with movies like Grease or Dirty Dancing.

While it would be ridiculous to say that any film would never be remade, a remake of Endless Love would have little resemblance to the original material, except perhaps the use of the hit theme song – which, of course, would be remade too.

Wow! What was going to be a quick recap of the Academy Awards and how we did on our Oscar predictions turned into a joy ride. With Johnny at work, join the three remaining movie junkies as they tear apart, yet still appreciate, the Holiest Night in the Church of the Cinema. Here’s some of what we talk about:

• New articles on the site to kick off our first week of having something new posted every day. John has his Oscar Worthy Animated Performance piece on Teddy from Artificial Intelligence: AI, and Ross has his article about why Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey could never be remade
• Coming up: Mark’s Oscar Worthy Animated Performance and Allen’s movie that will never be remade
• The opening number of the Academy Awards
• Fisher Stevens wins an Oscar!
• Oscar’s “Kanye” Incident
• We recount the wins and see how we did in our predictions (see below for the chart)
• Horror Film Tribute fiasco
• Technical Awards 30 second acknowledgement
• In Memorium – who did they forget?

GBU List – The Oscars

As you can see, we all had a different idea of what to do for this. Allen went “all time”, Ross used the whole show and I focused on just the wins. Heh. Did you have a Good Bad Ugly list for the Oscars? We’d like to hear about it. Reply to this post or click the Contact Us link at the top of this page.

The movie we reviewed this week was Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story. It lists all the depressing economic problems facing America today and how it got to this point. There’s the usual Michael Moore shenanigans involving Big Business and some touching moments when the little guys actually make it. Allen: GOOD- Mark: GOOD- Ross: BAD+ Have you seen it? Care to share what your opinions on it were? Fire us off an email to podcast@goodbaduglyfilms.com or leave a voicemail via Skype to tell us what you think of Michael Moore and/or this movie.

OSCAR PREDICTION RESULTS

It was a close race, but it looks like Johnny and I came out on top. If I would have actually given an answer for Best Picture, the totals might be a little bit different. -Mark

Download this episode here

There seems to be two ways to enter Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey…

1) Drop some acid and prepare to trip balls! Or…

2) Open your mind and prepare to be challenged.

To those taking route #1 – have fun! For the rest of us, 2001 is a puzzle that some get, and others (like myself) keep poking and twisting at without ever solving.

Enter Kubrick 2001: The Space Odyssey Explained. This flash presentation found at www.kubrick2001.com graciously tries to simplify and explain the film to simpletons like me, moving through the film in four chapters designed to expose the overall theme of the film. I gotta say, for the most part it does a great job. However, like the film, the fourth chapter still leaves me with questions – questions, I think, that will remain unanswered since Kubrick is no longer with us (no chance now of ever having the audio commentary I so desperately want for this film!).

The presentation opens with a quote from Kubrick:

You are free to speculate, as you wish, about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film

Of 2001, Kubrick also said:

"I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing with an emotional and philosophical content. I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does."

That is great, but I just want some answers, damn it! ¦¬)

Check out www.kubrick2001.com

Check out Ross’ Never Be Remade post on 2001: A Space Odyssey

This is the first in a personal series on films that hit at the right moment. Films that had a huge impact on my life, and my tastes. They may not be considered classics, or even good. But their impact on me, at that time and place, makes them milestones. Why these films so important? Do I still feel the same today? We’ll start this off with the dark reimagining that is Tim Burton’s Batman.

Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman isn’t much loved by most critics. Ebert calls it depressing. The New York Times calls it a corporate product, devoid of soul. To me, these responses are nothing but alien. This film was magical to me. Watching it, I think, must be very much equivalent to the memories of Gen-Xers who sat down in the theatre for Star Wars in 1977. I was ten, and I remember the details of that afternoon to this day. My Mom took us on what must have been the second weekend it was open, to a matinee. It was all four of the kids, too. I saw it at a now defunct theater in Pointe-Claire, Quebec. Going to the theater was a real novelty to us, as my parents had gleaned the fiscal advantage of a VHS deck by 1983, so it was normal for me to wait until a film was out on video before watching it. This was special.

In retrospect, the excitement me and my brothers and sister had for the film was very much the result of corporate grooming. There was an extensive ad campaign, showing off the great sets, awesome costumes, and incredible action that was to await us. There was a soundtrack that was a marketing campaign all its own; Batdance was a number one single by this point. Every cool kid at school was sporting a black and yellow Batman T, with Joker ones following as a subversive second. I went into the theater fully expecting this film to be awesome.

To me, it was. Maybe there are some massive rose colored glasses going on here, but I loved the 1989 Batmobile. So modern and sleek. I really liked Michael Keaton as Batman and Bruce Wayne, too. His quiet and meek Batman was nothing like the ridiculous Adam West Batman I was only casually familiar with from the occasional Saturday morning airing. This is a film which captivated me, with its dark, moody city, and its evocative (and anachronistic) use of period gear, clothing, and sets. Nicholson’s Joker will always be my favorite depiction of the character, just as I’m sure those (horrendously scarred?) kids that grew up with Druggy McGee as Joker in The Dark Knight will always identify him with that character.

The cast is eccentric and varied. Kim Basinger’s turn as Vicki Vale has been said, in secret circles, to be the true reason for her Oscar win. Jack Palance is memorable as the eccentric crime boss, and Nicholson’s Joker bridges the line almost perfectly between Cesar Romero and The Dark Knight’s interpretations. Robert Wuhl has an odd role as the comic relief in the film, sometimes aided by Michael Gough, and even the sets themselves. One of the most charming scenes in the film is an awkward dinner between Wayne and Vale, where the chemistry of the two actors is offset by a ridiculously long table. Also great is the scene stealing Billy Dee Williams as the up-and-coming Harvey Dent.

Even now, I had wished that Burton’s projected direction for the sequel had surfaced. Williams as Two-Face would have been a much more logical path for the franchise, as well as being downright incredible. Instead we get a sequel with not enough Batman, nowhere near enough of Pfieffer’s Catwoman, and far, far too much Christopher Walken.

The film had a joy, and it was in the perverse world constructed by Burton. Batman may be understated, but he still was a likeable hero, and the Keaton’s take on him was the best of the four that have tackled the role in the past twenty-one years. It’s a tricky role to get right, because he’s not a dweeb like Clark Kent. Everything about this film was top-notch, as befits its hefty budget. The sets are only eclipsed, perhaps, by the even more fantastically realized Gotham of its less approachable sequel, Batman Returns. But this one is more coherent and focused. And it easily trumps anything that Joel Schumacher attempted in his misguided turns at the wheel. I’ve seen this film a few dozen times, and to me the special effects are – for the most part – flawless. Much is practical, or accomplished with detailed miniatures. No mid-90s CG to ruin it. There are a few instances of Burton-esque stop motion animation that does date the film (the bullet-proof armor on the Batmobile is a glaring example) but otherwise this is a film that stands up as a superior example of pre-computer craftsmanship in blockbusters.

This is a meticulously crafted film, something that its middle-aged critics are eager to point out. It is a machine-fabricated, plasticized and soulless, they say. Yes, this doesn’t have the same lively joy that seeing Ward and West camping it out in the 60s brought you. But you know what? You were ten then, as well.

Maybe the soul that I see in this movie is the one that my boyhood self projects onto it, and that’s fine.