Movie Man
When film critic Will Pfeifer isn’t watching movies, he’s reading about movies, talking about movies, thinking about movies or dreaming about movies. Now he shares that unhealthy obsession with you. From Hollywood hits to Japanese obscurities, from Oscar night to the summer season, he’s got movies on the brain — and on this blog. |
 |
6 comments May 8th, 2008
Want to see the first seven minutes of SPEED RACER? Click here.
Two observations:
1. It looks amazing. Like no other movie I’ve ever seen. Candy-colored, crystal-clear and the closest a live-action movie has ever come to capturing the visual craziness of a cartoon.
2. I’m not sure I could withstand 2 hours and 9 minutes of this — especially considering this is the (comparatively) quiet part.
3 comments May 5th, 2008
IRON MAN earned a whopping $104 million domestically in its opening weekend (and it was a real weekend, not one of those artifically stretched out holiday weekends, either). If you count the foreign bucks, the Marvel Comics movie snagged $201 million dollars, Euros, yen and other bits of cash. In other words, it can be considered a success.
The critics seemed to like it too, praising Robert Downey Jr.’s performance (like the character of Iron Man, he’s had a few well-publicized substance-abuse issues, too) and Jon Favreau’s direction (hard to believe he was the shy schmuck from Swingers).
I didn’t get a chance to see it this weekend, with child and lawn care taking top priority. But I’m sure some of you did. So…what did you think?
4 comments May 1st, 2008
Right here.
So what do you think? Strong cast, lots of action, pretty decent computer effects. One thing they don’t show is the reported cameo by Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark (aka Iron Man’s alter ego). That short scene hints that Marvel wants to create a shared universe in its movies just like in its comic books. Maybe that’ll pave the way for the long-rumored AVENGERS film one of these years.
It’s a great time to be a comic book geek, isn’t it?
Add comment April 30th, 2008
The whole point of the summer movie season is to make money (and yes, I realize the point of any movie season is to make money, but during the summer we’re talking about a lot of money), so here – before the first summer movies have even hit screens — are the predictions from Entertainment Weekly regarding the top earners. Drum roll, please…
1. INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL: $355.9 million. As long as the movie doesn’t disappoint audiences and the word of mouth is good, this sounds right. It could run all summer long if it has half the wit and excitement of RAIDERS.
2. THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN: $310.8 million. Really? I guess the first one was a hit, but I haven’t heard any buzz about this sequel.
3. HANCOCK: $280.4 million. If not more. I mean, I’m not really a Will Smith fan, but this dark comic take on superhero action looks pretty damn great to me, and plus it re-teams the ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT couple of Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron.
4. WALL-E: $280.3 million. Sure, if not more. So far, Pixar has a perfect batting record in both the quality and money columns, and the previews of this robot tale prove they’ve inched ever-closer to photo-flawless realism in their technique. Plus, it’s going to be the first movie I take my daughter too, and I’ll bet I’m not alone. With Disney animation MIA, Pixar is the go-to studio for parent-child bonding experiences.
5. IRON MAN: $262.7 million. Heck, I’d go higher. Great buzz, solid reviews and the first would-be blockbuster out of the gate. I think this is more than a movie people want to see; it’s a movie they want to like. Guess we’ll known by Monday, eh?
The other five predictions – including THE DARK KNIGHT, a movie I can’t wait to see – can be found here.
6 comments April 28th, 2008
With SPEED RACER opening this weekend, IRON MAN out the next and INDIANA JONES following up on May 22, it’s obvious: Despite the snow in the skies of Rockford, the summer movie season is almost here.
With studios banking (literally) on making most of their profits during the next few months, it’s hard to believe that just a few short decades ago, the big movies came out in the spring (THE GODFATHER debuted in March) or near Christmas (TOWERING INFERNO arrived in December) with kid flicks and low-budget nonsense (as opposed to big budget nonsense) arriving while the kids were out of school. JAWS changed all that, of course, hitting theaters at the end of June 1975 and riding that summer wave of fear and excitement straight to the top of the all-time box office. It was a movie about a shark terrorizing the beach, which meant it was made for summer viewing, but the studios realized that young audiences with lots of free time would go see would-be blockbusters again and again, a theory proved two years later by a little art film called STAR WARS that knocked JAWS off the top of the box office stack and pretty much changed all the rules, including release dates.
STAR WARS, not so coincidentally, is the first movie on the Onion AV Club’s new list, “Part Hype, Part Art, All Movie: 18 Pretty Great Summer Blockbusters Not Directed by Steven Spielberg.” Also included are CON AIR, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, X-MEN 2, BATMAN BEGINS and a personal favorite, FACE/OFF (also the first movie I saw at Rockford’s ShowPlace 16, screened for a public preview of the then state-of-the-art stadium-style theater.) John Woo’s bravura direction, a big budget (that must’ve gone mostly toward ammunition, doves and slow-motion film stock and a pair of hilariously over-the-top performances by John Travolta and Nicolas Cage made it one of the craziest, biggest and strangely most personal action movies ever made. If you’ve never seen it, check it out — on the biggest screen you can find.
Another movie on the list proves how set-in-stone the summer release plan had become by 1984. GREMLINS, directed by Joe Dante, is actually set at Christmas, with snow, lights and the whole holiday bag (including Phoebe Cates’ dad getting stuck in a chimney dressed as Santa), but it was released in June. And it was a huge hit, too. Not even carols and candy canes could keep shorts-wearing moviegoers away.
Coming tomorrow: The big summer movies of this year, and my take. I expect all of you movie fans to toss in your two cents, too.
Bonus quiz: Can anyone tell me what movie (released during the summer, of course) had the title of this blog entry on its soundtrack?
5 comments April 16th, 2008
INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is set to debut at the upcoming Cannes film festival, and the reported length of the movie is a whopping 2 hours and 20 minutes. Now I’m a big believer in Roger Ebert’s axiom that “no good movie is too long, and no bad movie is too short,” but even so, this seems a tad on the lengthy side. Let’s compare to the other three Indy films:
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK: 1 hour, 55 minutes
INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM: 1 hour, 58 minutes
INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE: 2 hours, 7 minutes.
Sure, there’s not much difference between CRUSADE’s running time and CRYSTAL SKULL’s, but these movies should be as tightly-paced as possible, and CRUSADE definitely had its slow spots. RAIDERS, on the other hand, remains one of the most perfectly paced action films ever made, jumping from thrill to thrill with barely a moment to breathe — and yet, somehow avoiding the exhaustion and overkill of many modern action movies.
What do you think? Is CRYSTAL SKULL going to suffer from the same sort of bloat that the recent STAR WARS movies succumbed to?
I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
14 comments April 14th, 2008
In the comments section of last week’s post about THE INCREDIBLE HULK, reader Brian put the upcoming SPEED RACER movie way at the bottom of the summer movie list, saying it would only appeal to “young kids and masochistic viewers.” You might be right, Brian — some of that dialogue is beyond lame, and I question the use of Matthew “I’m acting as woodenly as I can” Fox in the pivotal role of the ultra-cool Racer X.
But as a boy who spent his formative years watching the high speed thrills and crashing carnage of the original SPEED RACER cartoon, I have to admit I’m looking forward to this one, and not just out of some warped sense of nostalgia (though that’s part of it). Looking at the trailers, I see a very real possibility that — at least on a purely visual level –this could be a groundbreaking movie. I can’t think of a time that the bright, pop-off-the-screen, candy-colored punch of cartoons has been brought to live-action with such zip and zing. Just check out this trailer…
I think we’re looking at something new here, something that takes the comic book physics of THE MATRIX movies (the Wachowski brothers’ last cinematic effort) and throws it right out the window, replacing it with something even wilder (and a heck of a lot more colorful). The way those cars bounce around mirrors the original cartoon perfectly, and even the quiet scenes pop right off the screen. Personally, I can’t wait to see this one, and on the biggest screen possible.
It is interesting to see Emile Hirsch, who starred in the ultra-serious INTO THE WILD, take on the role of Speed, but he seems to have the right wide-eyed wonder to carry it off. (Something he had, in fact, during INTO THE WILD, too.) And speaking of wide-eyed, if there’s a better casting choice for Trixie (Speed’s girlfriend) than Christina Ricci, I can’t think of it. She’s practically an anime character come to life. Not since her early work as Wednesday Addams has a role fit her this well. Even Matthew Fox seems well-used, with a digital boost making his voice even more robotic — and more fitting for the mysterious Racer X.
And if you need one more reason to be hopeful, there’s this: With all the computer-generated imagery packed into every frame of this film, they used a real chimp to play Chim Chim. Now that’s entertainment.
8 comments April 10th, 2008
There’s trouble in Hulk-land, according to this article from the New York Times.
For one thing, the recently unveiled trailer got a decidedly mixed reaction from fans and critics. As the article says, “The look of the new Hulk — meaner and greener — won praise from some fans online, but several influential tastemakers held their noses. Entertainment Weekly pronounced the computer-generated effects ‘totally fake-looking,’ while obsessedwithfilm.com deemed the project ‘just hideous.’ “
To add to the troubles, the movie stars Edward Norton — a very talented actor, but apparently not the easiest guy to work with when the movie isn’t what he wants it to be. (See also AMERICAN HISTORY X and THE ITALIAN JOB). Asked to respond to reports of friction between the studio and Norton (who is also working on the script), the Times article quotes Marvel Studios chairman David Maisel, then offers a helpful explanantion of Hollywood-ese:
“When you get to this point in the process, there are always lots of passionate discussions,” he said. “Edward is very passionate. He is as passionate about the Hulk as we are.” (For those unaccustomed to Hollywood speak, “very passionate” roughly translates to a seven on the “he’s a difficult person” scale.)
THE INCREDIBLE HULK is set to open on June 13, and it’s far from the only game in town. THE DARK KNIGHT (the new Batman movie), IRON MAN (also based on a Marvel Comics character), SPEED RACER (from the Matrix boys, the Wachowski brothers), HANCOCK (Will Smith’s movie about a down-and-out superhero) and, of course, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL will all be competing for the same audience, and bad word of mouth combined with the lackluster reception to Ang Lee’s 2003 HULK movie could spell Doom for this Marvel movie, and I’m not talking about Dr. Doom.
Here’s the trailer. What do you think?
11 comments March 31st, 2008
Yes, that’s Robert Downey Jr. between Ben Stiller and Jack Black.
Heard about TROPIC THUNDER, the upcoming movie written and directed (and starring) Ben Stiller? The plot has great potential — a group of self-obsessed actors filming an APOCALYPSE NOW-type war movie wind up in an actual war zone — but the most intriguing part of the movie is Robert Downey Jr.’s role: He plays a dedicated (white) method actor who undergoes an elaborate physical change to play a black character (in the movie within the movie). Here’s what Downey himself says about the role:
““At the end of the day, it’s always about how well you commit to the character,” he says. “I dove in with both feet. If I didn’t feel it was morally sound, or that it would be easily misinterpreted that I’m just C. Thomas Howell in SOUL MAN, I would’ve stayed home.”
Downey is, of course, referring to the awful 1986 “comedy” where Howell played a student who pretended to be black to get into college. The premise was offensive and, even worse, the movie wasn’t funny. TROPIC THUNDER looks like it’s going to be a lot funnier — and address the racial issue in an intelligent, amusing way. Here’s the trailer…
4 comments March 21st, 2008
Today, FUNNY GAMES opens in Rockford (at Colonial Village Art, specifically). It’s a remake of a 1997 Austrian film by the same director (Michael Haneke) and features the same plot (mom, dad and son are tormented by two young men wearing white) and look (most of the violence occurs offscreen). The only difference this time is the presence of a few name actors (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play mom and dad; Michael Pitt plays one of the young men) and the fact that it’s in English.
It’s also one of the strangest movies to come to a Rockford theater in a long, long time. I haven’t seen it, but I know the plot and, more importantly, I know the plot twists. Anyone who strolls into this one thinking they’re going to sit back and see another SAW is in for a surprise. A big one.
So here’s my request: If you see FUNNY GAMES, whether you love it, hate it or are indifferent, stop by this site and post your reaction in the comments. I’m dying to hear what people think. Also, even if you don’t see it, let me know what the strangest movie you’ve ever seen in a Rockford theater is — something miles away from the usual COLLEGE ROAD TRIP, SEMI-PRO, DRILLBIT TAYLOR fare. I remember watching THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE & HER LOVER at Colonial Village way back in 1990 and having a hard time believing what I was seeing on the big screen. Good movie, but odd. Darned odd.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Apr | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
