The Good, The Bad and the Ugly Films

Archive for the ‘Reviews’ Category

Ross hosts this episode of the GBUF Podcast, an all reviews show. Today, we review the new releases of: Valentine’s Day, Legion, Edge of Darkness, and The New Daughter.

What did we think these movies did right? What did they get wrong? Why didn’t one of the lead actors in Valentine’s Day wave a shotgun or a handgun around? Get the answers to almost all of these burning questions by listening to the podcast.

Valentine’s Day

Valentine’s Day follows the lives of several couples in this light-hearted comedy. Their ups and downs in the game of love. All of the stories are inter-connected in a bit of a ham-fisted way, but it still works as a good date movie. The cast is populated with many stars, including: Ashton Kutcher, Bradley Cooper, Julia Roberts, Jamie Foxx, Jessica Alba, Jessica Biel, Taylor Lautner, Topher Grace, Queen Latifah, Hector Elizondo, Patrick Dempsey and Jennifer Garner.

John: BAD Mark: GOOD (after I finished) Ross: N/A

Legion

Legion takes place in a diner on the outskirts of Las Vegas. The angel Michael comes down from heaven to protect a pregnant woman and her unborn child, who, no surprise here, is going to be the next saviour of mankind. The other angels don’t like this idea so much, feeling that the time of man is coming to a close and try to speed up the apocalypse by killing the woman and anyone trying to help her. This stars Paul Bettany, Dennis Quaid, Lucas Black, Charles S Dutton, Tyrese Gibson and Kevin Durand.

John: BAD Mark: BAD Ross: UGLY

Edge of Darkness

Mel Gibson stars as Thomas Craven, a homicide detective that loses his daughter to an unknown assailant at his house. Working under the impression that he was the intended target, he is set straight by Jedburgh, a corporate “fixer” played by Ray Winstone. His investigation into his daughter’s life leads him to darker and darker places in his search for justice and revenge.

John: BAD Mark: BAD Ross: BAD

The New Daughter

Kevin Costner plays a father with two children whose wife has recently left him for another man. He and the kids move to an idyllic town in South Carolina. The daughter, played by Pan’s Labyrinth’s Ivana Baquero, starts acting even stranger than a regular teen girl acts, which leads the dad to start investigating the strange mound on his property. This movie went directly to DVD/Blu-Ray.

John: UGLY Mark: UGLY Ross: UGLY

If you’ve seen any of these movies and would like to add your comments, then please feel free to do so right here on the article, or email us at podcast@goodbaduglyfilms.com. You can also leave us a voice mail via Skype. You never know… we might just play your message on one of the podcasts.

Download This Episode Here

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

In today’s podcast, we review 3 movies: Tooth Fairy, It’s Complicated and The Descent: Part 2. Ross wasn’t able to join us, so we keep our Michelle Rodriguez jokes to a minimum. Yes, I know she isn’t in any of these films. That doesn’t stop us from making fun of her.

If you think we’re wrong with any of our reviews, or have something to add to the mix, please feel free to email us at podcast@goodbaduglyfilms.com or leave us a voice mail with Skype.

May the 4th be with you…

Tooth Fairy

Allen: BAD John: BAD Mark: BAD

It’s Complicated

Allen: BAD John: UGLY Mark: GOOD

The Descent: Part 2

Allen: BAD John: BAD Mark: BAD

For the article Allen talks about that reviews The Descent (the first movie), click here.

Download This Episode Here

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

We’re a man down today as Johnny was called in to work. He won’t be giving his two cents to today’s topics (and we get to make fun of him). We start off by examining a few of the blog posts we made and some of the news in the past week. Here’s a brief rundown of what’s in store for you:

• Movies I Wish I Could Un-See: Ross wants all recollections of Hook gone, and Allen would like to have Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom expunged from his memory
• Movies to Introduce People To: John chose the Todd Solondz film, Happiness as the one he likes to show his friends for the first time, while Allen wants to show you The Long Kiss Goodnight, by Renny Harlin
• Helen Mirren joins the Arthur remake
• Avatar breaks even more records, this time in DVD/Blu-Ray sales
• Against the odds, Blockbuster’s stock rises thanks to the sweetheart studio deals
• With MGM’s financial woes, the fate of James Bond is up in the air
• Joss Whedon in line to direct Marvel Comic’s Avengers movie
• Ross nerds out talking about Star Wars

The movie we review this week is Michael Bay’s Armageddon. With it getting a brand new Blu-Ray release, we thought we’d bust out the old DVD of it and watch it again. We give our thoughts about what works and what doesn’t, but pretty much end up at the same place in the end. Johnny’s input would have been really appreciated for this because I think he might have a different perspective.

If you think that we’reway off in our opinions, or you’d like to tell us what you think, how about sending us an email to podcast@goodbaduglyfilms.com, adding a comment to this article, or leaving us a voice mail with Skype.

Download This Episode Here

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

As listeners to the podcast would know, I had some pretty high hopes going in to Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief. It has some pretty good actors (Sean Bean, Pierce Brosnan, Uma Thurman, etc), a theme that I’m interested in (Greek Mythology), and a director (Chris Columbus) I like… What more could you ask for?

The story centres around Percy Jackson, a high school kid that has dyslexia and ADHD. On a school outing to a museum, he discovers that he’s the son of the Greek god, Poseidon. He and a couple of friends then have zany adventures across America while trying to prove his innocence in the theft of Zeus’ lightning bolt. The movie is based on the first in a series of Percy Jackson books, by author Rick Riordan.

Given the base similarities, I can see why some people dismissed this outright as a Harry Potter rip-off; It’s based on a series of kids books, it’s about a boy who finds out he’s more than he thinks he is and has adventures with his two friends, it’s even got the same director as the first two Harry Potter movies! That’s about where the similarities end. The first Harry Potter movie was a much more rich and rewarding experience. I can only assume because the source material was so rich to begin with. I hadn’t read the Philosopher’s Stone before I saw the movie, but still found it to be a rewarding experience and, to this day, it’s my favorite of all of the HP movies. It actually made me interested in reading the books. Percy Jackson yadda yadda Lightning Thief felt very thin to me. It didn’t instill the same desire to find out more about these characters. Maybe I should read the book though, just to see if it fleshes out the story.

The aforementioned “good actors” were very under-utilized. They were on screen enough, they just weren’t pushed to actually give a decent performance. Given the body of work that both Pierce Brosnan and Sean Bean have done, I expected a bit more out of them… Instead, they both seemed to phone it in. Where’s the pride in the art of your craft? Was it just a paycheque? Did Chris Columbus just not have tight enough rein on things and let those shabby performances go? Some actors need to be forced to step up their game. I’m wondering too if there were time and/or budget constraints that led to some cut corners. Even Uma Thurman seemed a bit over the top in this, but I love her, so she gets a pass.

I might try to track down a cheap copy of the book and I’m probably going to watch this again when it comes out on DVD, just to see if I can fill out the story a bit more. I’d also like to see if my feeling that it runs a bit too fast is justified. Call me crazy, but I think you might need a bit more than a day of training (which was just a game of capture the flag), to take on Hades on his home turf.

I felt glad I was in a pretty much deserted theatre when I saw it. No one to see my shame.

I rate this: BAD

We’re in fine form today as we review three films: Sherlock Holmes, Brothers, and The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans. Johnny, who was woefully unprepared for this show, only watched Sherlock Holmes, so didn’t do a lot of commenting.

Take a listen after the end music for Reznor’s (the podcast mascot) contribution to the show.

The first movie in our review sights is Sherlock Holmes. Starring Robert Downey Jr, and Jude Law as Holmes and Watson respectively, this Guy Ritchie directed action pic covers our heroes as they battle the supernatural forces being brought to bear by Mark Strong’s character, Lord Blackwood. Rachael McAdams also shows up as the femme fatale.

Allen: BAD

John: GOOD

Mark: GOOD

Ross: GOOD

Our second review is of Brothers. It stars Tobey Maguire as a Marine that is about to serve a tour in Afghanistan, Natalie Portman as his wife, and Jake Gyllenhaal as his fresh-from-prison brother. When Tobey’s character, Captain Sam Cahill, is believed killed in Afghanistan, Natalie and Jake, never the best of friends, find some common ground. This is directed by Jim Sheridan, who gave us pics like My Left Foot and In America. How does it stack up?

Allen: BAD

Mark: BAD

Ross: BAD

The third movie is Werner Herzog’s The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans. Is this a remake? A sequel? Something else entirely? You be the judge. We have Nicolas Cage as the Bad Lieutenant, a cop that’s injured during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, who spirals downward and out of control as his addiction to pain killers leads to harder things. This also stars Eva Mendes as his prostitute girlfriend and Val Kilmer as his partner. What did we think of this? Find out below.

Allen: GOOD

Mark: GOOD

Ross: GOOD

If you’d like to give your opinions of these movies, or tell us where we went horribly wrong, please feel free to email us at podcast@goodbaduglyfilms.com, comment right here on this post, or send us a voicemail via Skype. We’d love to hear what you think. -Mark

Download this episode here

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

It really comes down to two things that made ‘The Runaways’ a GOOD film instead of a BAD film. Although it’s riddled with some very tired and generic rock movie cliches, ‘The Runaways’ is successful due to very talented actors as well as a few uniquely memorable scenes. Charting the meteoric rise and subsequent fall of the all girl band in the mid-70s, ‘The Runaways’ borrows a lot of ideas from a lesser known documentary called ‘Edgeplay: A film about the Runaways’ (2003). It was this documentary that got me very interested in seeing this new movie. The film also mines material from the lead singer’s 1989 biography ‘Neon Angel: The Cherie Currie Story”. Currie has also recently updated the book with a new new title: “Neon Angel: A Memoir of a Runaway”.

Before the Spice Girls, The Bangles or the Go-Gos; The Runaways broke into a male-dominated hard rock scene in 1975. Director Floria Sigismondi creates a believable Southern California from 35 years ago, although it’s obvious that she’s working with a severely limited budget. To compensate, the story is chained together by many interior shot scenes (although there are a few beautiful exteriors here and there). What unfortunately happens at various times of “The Runaways”, is Sigismondi’s weakness for rock movie imagery that we’ve seen countless times before. Like, for example: The montage that seems to be a prerequisite for a band when they first become famous… the quick-fire headline shots and magazine covers that lazily tell the audience that “The Runaways” have achieved stardom. I’d rather have seen more about their road to success. Instead there’s a huge gap between the initial formation of the group, and their giant popularity in Japan. There’s also seems to be a lack of focus on the other band mates. As the band teeters towards breaking up, bass player Lita Ford [correction: guitar player - I don't know my instruments] appears to be harbouring a big grudge towards Cherie Currie. Sadly, we don’t see the build up to this – just the fall out.

Sigismondi spends most of the film looking at the relationship between Joan Jett ( Kristen Stewart) and Cherie Currie (Dakota Fanning). Both actresses do an amazing job in their roles – Stewart breaking from a type-cast Twilight career, and Fanning proving she is one of the most talented young actresses in Hollywood right now. Michael Shannon does an incredible job playing the role of the sleazy manager, Kim Fowley. At times I swore he was channeling Mick Jagger and Eddie Izzard – a brilliant portrayal that made me eager to check out the many other films he has appeared in. The character of Kim Fowley really cements the whole journey of this band – he comes across as a glam 70s Simon Fuller (founder of the Spice Girls). His ‘vision’ of an all girl band and their sexual draw to their male audience doesn’t deviate far from the message we see in modern acts such as the Pussy Cat Dolls. One more performance I’d like to point out is Tatum O’Neill as Cherie Curie’s mom. What a treat to see her on the big screen again!

As the movie charts the predictable ups and downs we’ve come accustomed to in rock biopics, Sigimondi sometimes surprises the audiences with some incredible visuals. From the opening shot of a drop of blood hitting the dusty ground, the director strives to show us imagery that is unsettling and controversial (one wonders what the Twilight crowd thought of Stewart coaching a band mate to masturbate to a Farrah Fawcett picture). The best scene (for me at least) is the kiss shared by Stewart and Fanning in a roller disco. NO, I’m not a pervert – Hear me out! It wouldn’t matter if it was a guy & girl, guy & guy, or Mark & his anime pillow – The kissing scene ranks amongst my favourite scenes of the last year. The change in lighting, the initial awkwardness between the characters, the music, and the final dive into sensuality makes this a very powerful scene. You’ll find other scenes in the film that just rip into your expectation of what you think will happen next. A superb effort from all involved – and I have a feeling Sigismondi will be making more great films in the near future.

Sadly this film is getting a pretty limited release. You’d think crap like ‘Bounty Hunter’ or ‘Alice’ would give up a few more hundred screens to let people see something new and original. If you can’t see it on the big screen, it’s definitely a purchase or rental on DVD/ Blu-Ray.

As I said before: GOOD

Allen wasn’t able to join us for this podcast, so Ross, John and I make it our mission to give you everything you didn’t ask to know about George Clooney! Call it our George Clooney Special. We briefly list off his career in the entertainment industry, then launch into reviews for two of his movies from 2009 that are, coincidentally, being released today: Fantastic Mr. Fox and The Men Who Stare At Goats.

Listen in to what the mice say while the cat’s away…

The Men Who Stare At Goats

Ewan McGregor plays an American war correspondent who thinks he might have the story of a lifetime in George Clooney’s, Lyn Cassidy, a man who claims to be a former psychic soldier for Uncle Sam.

Ross: BAD

John: GOOD

Mark: BAD

Fantastic Mr. Fox

George Clooney plays the titular role of Mr. Fox in this Wes Anderson adaptation of the children’s book by Roald Dahl. He has dreams and aspirations that he’s put on hold due to becoming a father, but the time has come to see if he’s still got what it takes to provide for his family the old fashioned way.

Ross: GOOD

John: GOOD

Mark: GOOD

If you’d like to chime in on what you thought of these two movies, George Clooney in general, or anything we’ve said on the podcast, please email us at podcast@goodbaduglyfilms.com. You can also leave a voicemail for us with Skype. – Mark.

Download this episode here

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The new Blu-Ray of the “Fame” remake kept taunting me. I had never seen the new movie, but love the original and its spinoffs… Well at least until the failed “Fame LA” of the mid-90s and the reality show that used elements of “Fame” a few years ago. Before I decided to review the new “Fame” movie, I decided to revisit the previous efforts to see if a remake was really warranted.

The original “Fame” (1980) remains one of my favourite films. Director Alan Parker paints a realistic portrait of teens trying to achieve their dreams in a New York school for the arts. The story is equal parts inspiring and bleak – most of the characters never seem to reach their dreams. The reality of fame is that a very few actually get there… while the rest try to deal with their failures. I had two chances in my life to attend an art school – Once before high school, and another before college. I even had an Art Scholarship, but my fortitude had been battered by the stories I had seen in “Fame”. I didn’t want to channel all my energy into a profession that was basically a crap-shot at success. I did keep some of my creative energy brewing… I still work weekly as a Drama Instructor at a number of Arts Schools.

Those that reach for fame can also succumb to its perils: drugs, exploitation, embezzlement. Parker was extremely frank in showing just what a young person would sacrifice to reach fame. He was also not afraid to cast light on teenage sexuality; not the neutered shenanigans we see in films like “High School Musical”.

The characters in “Fame” were all incredibly believable. Coco was an aspiring singer/dancer, Leroy the unsuspecting dance prodigy, Bruno the future of music composition, Montgomery the actor/ singer, and the list goes on. Coco played by Irene Cara was my favourite in the film. I loved her energy and how she interacted with all the other characters. It felt like she was ready to take on the world, and she did (in real life). A few years after “Fame”, her theme song to “Flashdance” would catapult her into international stardom. Fame has a downside: the faster to climb, the faster you fall. She never matched the success of “Flashdance” as a singer. There’s a really good British documentary called “Bring Back… Fame” which actually tracks down Irene Cara in 2008. To see her now is kinda sad – I know everyone gets old and everything… but sheesh, that’s supposed to be Coco. By the way, the same documentary tracks down Erica Gimpel (who played Coco in the TV series), and a few other cast members. It’s worth checking out, and there’s lots of dirt on the naughty behind the scenes antics – Drugs, sex, booze (hmmm, the price of fame once again). It’s really sad how actor who played Leroy (Gene Anthony Ray) saw his life go down the drain – ending with his untimely death at the age of 42. I really didn’t know how to start comparing the original “Fame” to the 2009 remake. There were similar elements in each, so I decided to go with that. I broke down key themes from both movies and graded them like a school’s subject matter (pretty ingenious, huh?). Here we go:

Subject: The Auditions

Both films start with potential students auditioning for their respective arts subjects: Acting, dance, and music. I really liked the school environment in the 1980 version. It really felt like an old school, and to top it off, it felt like the end of August. Alan Parker has always had a keen eye for set design, and makes a totally believable environment. You can totally feel how muggy and hot it must be in the rehearsal space. My one quip is that some of the students look a lot older that high school. There’s one guy who auditions for a drama spot (the Romeo and Juliet guy) who looks about 30 years old. Another small gripe was when Leroy auditions for dance (or doesn’t audition – you decide), the dance judge played by Debbie Allen seems to get all hot and bothered. So basically you have a 15 year old boy making an adult teacher sexually excited. It was kind of creepy. Unless you’re Mary Kay LaTorrneau.

The 2009 version follows the same opening. A lot of the environments are darker and not naturally lit. It feels fabricated. The editing style is the same – How one scene blends into the next, but I felt that the director (Kevin Tancharoen) was not really trying to break any new ground at this point. There’s also a terrible scene with one student doing a drama audition by reciting lines from ‘Taxi Driver’ (“You talkin’ to me?). Not only is this lame, but how many times has this been done before in other films and TV? The kid in the audition gets a place in the school, which doesn’t bode well for what’s to come. Both films have an Asian kid auditioning with a wood instrument. What’s up with that?

1980 Version Grade: B+

2009 Version Grade: C-

Subject: The Faculty

Oh boy. This is where a huge rift opened up between the two films. The 1980 version did a perfect job in casting for the teaching staff. Debbie Allen was an actual choreographer. Albert Hague, who played the music teacher Mr. Shorofsky, never even acted before – He kinda had another side job: Composing music. Alan Parker was intent on finding people for these roles who epitomized their profession. When Bruno starts infusing electronic riffs in classical compositions, Mr. Shorofsky isn’t even acting… he’s showing a genuine “What the f*ck is this crap?” The fact that the teachers were relative unknowns also worked; helping alienate our perception of the teaching faculty and not expect how they would judge certain students.

This is where the 2009 version derails. Where do I start? The music teacher is bafflingly played by Kelsey Grammar. We already recognize this guy from over 20 years of television. He really tries though. When a student plays for him, Kelsey stares of into the distance thinking “If I look pensive perhaps that will make it appear I actually know anything about music”. Charles Dutton is the drama teacher. Ok, not as bad. Charles Dutton IS an actor (however that’s questionable considering his involvement in Alien 3 and Roc). The dance teacher is played by Bebe Neuwirth. What the hell, did the director go to a TV star garage sale? Did he get a “Buy one Cheers/ Frasier star, get one free” deal? Or maybe its because Bebe has one of the last few Hollywood A-Cups to fill a leotard with dignity (Do you hear me J-Lo, leotards are all about dignity!). To top off the TV star reunion, the bowels of hell literally opened out to spit out the putrid incubus that is also known as Megan Mullally. She is the walking epitome of nails on a chalkboard, and I pity anyone who actually endured her for 8 seasons of “Will & Grace”. I don’t know what class Miss Mullally is teaching, but I think it was drama.

1980 Version Grade: A+

2009 Version Grade: D

Subject: The Cafeteria Jam

Parker was originally going to call his 1980 version of “Fame” something else. “Hot Lunch” was the working title until Parker discovered it meant something else during a stroll through Times Square. “Hot Lunch” is still the theme song during the classic cafeteria improve scene – And dammit, I love it more than the equally catchy “Fame” song. To watch a small beat turn into this huge improvised jam session is a beautiful work of art. Alan Parker does a great job in showcasing each distinct artistic community in the school coming together and transforming into a collective tour du force. It remains my favourite scene of the original film, and I was eager to see how the remake would play homage to it.

The 2009 remake song just doesn’t feel as catchy. Sure its modernized (complete with a weird rap interlude), but the students feel fragmented in what is supposed to feel like a student body coming together. The aforementioned rappers do their thang, but that really the last we hear from them. Hey, there’s another Asian guy playing a violin! Then everything is upstaged by a tap-dancing guy who steals the show and let’s everyone else play second fiddle to his showboating. Although Coco (Irene Cara) started to steal the show in the original when she began the lyrics to “Hot Lunch”, it didn’t feel like she was stealing from everyone else. It was a gradual build to her solo, and it worked. The tap-dancing fool just breaks into dance with no real hindsight to what has happened before. It just feels messy.

1980 Version Grade: A

2009 Version Grade: C+

Subject: Extra-Curricular Activity

There’s a part in the original “Fame” where a couple of the kids (Ralph and Doris) visit a showing of “Rocky Horror Picture Show”. As both were studying drama, it helped Doris overcome her inhibitions and get on stage with the people acting along to what was on screen. It also introduced a lot of us to the cult like theatrics that go on with midnight showings of Rocky Horror. It was a good scene, and audiences still flock to midnight showings of Rocky Horror to this day.

I couldn’t really fine a clear comparison in the remake. The kids go to a Halloween event put together by the school. It falls into the typical high school movie cliché where the whole event (decorations, costumes, performers) look like the school budget for this was in the millions of dollars. Instead of cardboard cutouts and tacky costumes that would probably prevail in most real parties, we’re treated to complex outfits and a Cirque Du Soleil atmosphere. You gotta wonder: who paid for all this stuff? That’s a pretty vague comparison to “Rocky Horror”, so I followed the new version of the drama queen – ‘Joy’ played by Anna Maria Perez de Tagle – and her discovery of inner talent. We get to see her in a scene getting filmed drunk on a park bench, which is actually quite amusing. Good acting on her part. Students overcoming their fears? Kelsey Grammar and Megan Mullally take some of the kids to a karaoke bar. Whoa! Teachers taking kids to a bar after school? Kelsey even spends the whole scene with a drink in his hand! I’m beginning to think I should have joined that art school. The whole scene is just a platform for Megan Mullally to show off her karaoke skills. At this point I was ready to shut off the movie. Why quit when you’re almost there?

1980 Version Grade: B

2009 Version Grade: F

Subject: Failure

Not every student is cut out for the fame game. It’s the harrowing task of the teachers to let them know that their profession will not happen. Parker’s original had this scene where Debbie Allen had to tell a dancer she just wasn’t good enough. The scene is extremely moving – you can literally feel the tension in the room when she breaks the news. We meet up with the dancer shortly after, as she heads home on the subway with her fellow students. As the subway approaches, she begins to walk slowly towards the track. The suspense in this scene is maddening – Is she really going to kill herself. Parker really drags on the moment, and you’re on the edge of your seat (or covering your eyes). She can’t possibly do it! The climax provides a well earned turn of comedic relief. The dancer has thrown her dance clothes on the track. She tells her friends that she’ll just switch to the acting department.

The remake attempts these scenes as well. Bebe Neuwirth tells a young male dancer he just doesn’t have what it takes, and he’ll never make a living in dance. It tries to evoke the same power of the original, but then something really funny happens – We get to watch an extended dance routine by some of the other students. Kerington Payne, the girl with quite possibly the worst airbrushed face ever conceived on a DVD cover, leads her peers in a weird Bob Fosse meets Pussy Cat Dolls routine. It’s actually pretty good. Make that very good. The dancers really pour their hearts into this number, but then you’re distracted by Bebe Neuwirth and her “You’re not good enough. You’ll never be good enough” slinking back into the soundtrack.

We’re treated to a very similar subway scene after Kerington finishes shaking her booty, but once again things go… weird. The dancer actually tries to walk in front of the train! He’s pulled back and everyone is in shock and bewilderment in the middle of the subway platform. What the hell? I thought Parker did a good job at showing the emotional turmoil a student faces in failure, but there was always hope. Always. I don’t get it. The new version’s director appears to be totally oblivious to the overall message of this scene.

1980 Version Grade: A

2009 Version Grade: B- (the dance sequence made it better a bit)

Subject: The Price of Fame

The most controversial scene in the original Fame has to be the story about Coco and the con artist. Posing as a European director, a sleazy dude (Francois LeFete) coerces Coco to take part in a ‘screen test’ which in actuality is just his attempt to make her take her clothes off. This was very unsettling. It almost appears that Coco knows that she’s getting into trouble, but her determination to become famous gives her a moral ambiguity.

There is a scene earlier on in the film that is not as powerful, but lends to this dark underbelly of fame. The kids visit a restaurant and the waiter turns out to be an aspiring actor who just didn’t quite make it out there in Hollywood. He is still waiting for fame, and it’s obvious it will never come. The students seem quite unfazed to this, their feeling that it will not happen to them.

Finally we see a character named Ralph. He starts off as an aspiring actor, but by graduating year he’s working late nights as a stand-up comedian. A slave not only to punishing long hours, but to drugs and booze. This was the standard moral tale of this film: “Watch out or fame will kill you!”. This theme has been played out so many times in real life.

The 2009 remake also explores this theme; with varying results. Remember the guy who did a bad ‘Taxi Driver’ imitation during the auditions? He gets ripped off by a con artist posing as a big producer. He loses thousands of dollars, but we never really pick up how this has affected him. The next scene we see him in, he’s graduating. There is no impact on his life. To be fair, I  re-watched the original, and noticed that Parker also didn’t really follow up on the impact of Coco’s seduction by the creepy filmmaker. Perhaps it was due to time constraints and the fact that there were so many plot threads to tie up.

The washed-up actor story was also re-examined in the remake. Kind of. The director decided to kill two birds with one stone and make the older washed up actor seduce one of the students. He isn’t really all that ‘washed up’ though. He stars in a soap opera or something, but it’s obvious the director is trying to portray this job as second tier to ‘real acting’. The soap opera creep takes the student back to his on-set trailer. Wait a minute! The message is supposed to be fame rarely gets all this stuff! Huh? There’s an attempt to make a creepy moment like the Coco/sleaze bag scene, but it turns out feeling like an After School Special on teen exploitation or something.

1980 Version Grade: A

2009 Version Grade: B

Subject: The Graduation Performance

“I Sing the Body Electric” is another song that is still catchy from the original film. It’s the final song during the students’ graduation performance. All the main cast are featured, but what I found pretty cool (and logical) is that Parker would sometimes showcase performers we had barely seen throughout the rest of the film. There’s one part with the soloists that this is made obvious. The natural build up to the crescendo draws similarities to the earlier lunch room scene. It was nice to see the gradual infusion of modern sound over a heavily classical start to the performance. Once again the sense of each person coming together to embody the collective artistic conscience of the art school is evident in every frame. There are no extra bells and whistles, funky costumes or fireworks. Just the students showing the skills they’ve accumulated over the last four years.

Guess what? The remake also has a Graduation Performance. Not content with the raw, pure talent of the students, somebody decided to dress a bunch of them up in a tribal costume motif. This totally comes out of left field – I have no idea its relevance with the rest of the show. Most of the main character get to share the main stage, but much of the graduating class is missing. Aha! There they are! Singing in a church-like congregation in the back of the theatre! The production gets even busier, and I’m left yearning for the beautiful simplicity of Parker’s vision.

1980 Version Grade: B

2009 Version Grade: D+

So it’s pretty obvious what I thought of the remake. Although the original 1980 version gets a resounding GOOD!, the remake gets a low BAD! It’s not UGLY; some scenes are fairly interesting and I do have to acknowledge a diverse and talented stable of young actors. Looking back, the two ‘Fame’ films really summarize all the wrong things a remake entails. A cautionary tale in the current remake/reboot crazy world.

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.)

no·to·ri·ous [noh-tawr-ee-uhs, -tohr-, nuh-]  –adjective
1. widely and unfavorably known
2. publicly or generally known, as for a particular trait

Tinto Brass’ Caligula is nothing if not notorious. It is a film whose reputation preceded it before its release, and has followed it ever since. Surrounded with controversy and rumours, it is fair to wonder if it has ever been judged simply on its merits, or lack thereof. Upon its release Roger Ebert gave it Zero Stars and said, ""Caligula" is sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash. If it is not the worst film I have ever seen, that makes it all the more shameful…" Lighten up Rog, it ain’t that bad!

Scripted by Gore Vidal, directed  by Tinto Brass and produced by Penthouse Magazine publisher Bob Guccione, the movie was at odds with itself from the beginning of production, as all three men had distinctively different visions of what the final film would be. Vidal saw it as a sweeping epic, Brass saw something a little more playful, and Guccione saw an opportunity to bring porn to the masses with an international A-list cast. Vidal had his name removed from the film. Brass had the film taken away from him at editing. And Guccione got final cut, inserting his commissioned scenes of hardcore sex into an already sexually extreme film.

I have always had a little affection for the film. My first viewing was of the 146 minute R-Rated cut. All of the hardcore sex and much of the extreme violence was excised from the film to garner its "R" rating, and the remains were enough to entertain and leave me curious about all that missing footage.

Caligula: Complete Unedited, Unrated Version (DVD)

This 1999 release was my first exposure to the complete version of Caligula, including all the porn and violence. To be honest, this 156 minute cut of the film really does little to improve the film. The inserted porn scenes, to me, don’t stand out all that much since the sexual content of the film was so high to begin with – and to my eyes, being no virgins to porn, the inclusion was certainly not shocking. The fact that some of them run so long is actually problematic. Lingering on the sex scenes only serves to slow down the pace of the narrative. Guccione could have gotten away with the inclusion of the hardcore sex had he edited it as tightly as the rest of the film. Certainly other films have, like 9 Songs, by treating the sex like any other part of the film, instead of leering at the acts like a naughty schoolboy.  Bearing in mind that the movie was filmed in 1976, much of the explicit violence isn’t as cringe-inducing as expected since the effects are all practical and we have seen much more sophisticated effects in the time since the release of the film.

The special features on the disk amount to some old EPK (Electronic Press Kit) materials, and not much of that, with some clips from other Penthouse titles. So if you want a lot of soft-core to go with a little hardcore, this is your collection. Otherwise, this edition was just about having the Unrated version on DVD.

Caligula: The Imperial Edition (Blu-Ray)

Following Guccione losing the rights to Caligula, Image Entertainment stepped in and lovingly produced this edition first released in 2007 exclusively on DVD and ported over to Blu-Ray in 2009. Take a look at what you get…

• The Unrated, Uncensored feature film
• An alternate pre-release version of the film, never before seen
• Full length audio commentary with Malcolm McDowell
• Full length audio commentary with Helen Mirren
• Audio commentary with writer/reporter Ernest Volkman
• Video interview with director Tinto Brass
• Video interview with supporting star John Steiner
• Video interview with supporting star and Penthouse Pet Lori Wagner
• 2 Making of Caligula documentaries from the original release
• Hundreds of photographs
• Gore Vidal’s original screenplay (DVD-ROM)
• 3 Penthouse magazine features (DVD-ROM)
• Print interview with Bob Guccione (DVD-ROM)
• Deleted and alternate scenes
• Theatrical Trailers and more

In terms of the feature itself, the greatest addition to this release is the 153 minute alternate version, which does not include the hardcore sex, but does correct some continuity issues the unrated version has. For example, the scene that opens the unrated version with Caligula and his sister frolicking in the woods doesn’t appear until about an hour into the alternate version where it belongs. This alternate cut really shows Caligula in its best light, with focus on the narrative while maintaining much of the bits that make it so notorious.

The commentaries are played over the alternate cut, and are themselves worth the price of this collection.

Moderated very well by Alan Jones and James Chaffin, Helen Mirren’s commentary is an absolute joy. Informative and fun, Mirren appears to have many pleasant memories of the production which she seemed to see as an opportunity to make some of the best money she had ever made while hanging out with pal Malcolm McDowell and touring around Italy, seeing the sights. Mirren is very non-plussed by the sexuality and nudity in the film, taking it all in stride, yet had to look away during the killing machine scene. Her memories are startlingly crisp and detailed, even inferring that the alleged "secret" night porn shoots that all of her co-stars maintain their ignorance of knowing about, was perhaps not such a big secret after all. What really struck my interest was when she would speak of the inevitable censorship problems Caligula would face, she also talks about the tribulations The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover faced in comparison – one of my all time favorite films.

Malcolm McDowell’s commentary, moderated by Nick Redman, is less detailed, as McDowell’s memories seem more vague than Mirren’s regarding parts of the production, but makes up for these lapses with some great stories about the senior members of the cast; John Geilgud and Peter O’Toole. McDowell’s attitudes toward the film are more strained. Considering McDowell’s body of work he comes off quite prudish, though he has moments of … I dunno… passive lewdishness? Wrap your head around that one. ¦¬) His distain for Guccione comes across loud and clear though and it seems he has not made his peace with the film as yet.

Moderated by Nathaniel Thompson, Ernest Volkman’s commentary seems less a commentary per se than it is a phone interview played over the the first 95 minutes of the film. Volkman was hired by Guccione to document the making of the film for later articles in Penthouse, and seemed to have access to all participants of the production. This is definitely an entertaining and informative piece of the disk, and gives insight to the motivations and machinations of Guccione in particular whose voice is absent from the new materials on the collection.

John Steiner, in his interview, gives a much different perspective on the production than those aforementioned. Playing the supporting role of Longinus, Steiner was not garnered the same star treatment as the above-the-title actors and thus the production comes off more laboured from his stance.

Penthouse Pet Lori Wagner chimes in about her experiences on the film. Playing Agrippina, her biggest contributions to the film was pretty much to be naked as often as possible, and to film the lesbian scene with fellow Pet, Anneka Di Lorenzo. Feeling she was not getting as much screen time as she deserved, she volunteered to urinate on the corpse of Proculus after he is murdered by Caligula’s guards. Now that’s acting!!! As tempting as it is to lay into this piece of work, let’s just say “bimbo” and move on.

Director Tinto Brass gives an excellent, candid interview about the making of the film, and the personal ordeal that followed when the film was taken from him. Brass comes off very likable and engaging – a full audio commentary with him would have been an outstanding addition to this collection.

"Caligula: The Imperial Edition" does what collections like the "Alien Quadrilogy" or the "Blade Runner: Ultimate Collector’s Edition" do… show the importance of Home Video, whatever your format of choice may be… It provides a 360 degree oral history of the making of the film, with the people that were involved in the making and candidly sharing their unique perspectives and recollections.

Caligula: Unrated – BAD

Caligula: Alternate Cut – Oh-so-close to GOOD

Caligula: The Imperial Edition as a whole – blows the roof off GOOD