I decided it might be a good idea to make what’s known as a “sticky post” here on the front page for those coming in who might be concerned about spoilers. In these posts I’m going to be talking about varying aspects of movies that I’ve been watching, This may include writing about things that some would consider spoilers, including, at times, the endings of these movies. Those who are particularly spoiler averse may want to avoid reading these posts if they are planning to watch the movie in question. In certain circumstances where I will be discussing events towards the end of the movie, including the ending in at least a vague way, or when a movie contains a particular plot twist that might be considered major, I will try to post a more specific spoiler warning, because I do recognize that even though I may be writing about a movie that is decades old, it’s still going to be new to some people. Okay, with that out of the way, let’s get on with it, shall we?
Let’s get this part out of the way quickly: Yes, somewhere in the past I have watched all three of the earlier Mad Max movies, but I do not consider myself a huge fan of them. They’ve always just kind of been in that crop of movies about which I’ve just kind of felt indifferent. So my decision to go see the latest installment, Mad Max: Fury Road, this past Friday was not one, like some people I know, built on months of anticipation and a feeling of “I can’t wait to watch this!” but more “Well, I’ve got some time this afternoon before I have to do anything else, so why not?”
Which is why I’m rather surprised to be sitting here writing this and telling you not only to go see the movie, but to see it in theaters, on the big screen, and in the highest quality possible – yes, I’m even suggesting you spring extra for the 3D version.
Let’s get this out of the way part 2: I’m inclined to say there is absolutely no plot whatsoever to this movie, but that’s not quite true. There is a plot, or at least a very rudimentary one, but it really doesn’t matter what it is, because it really only exists as a reason for the characters to be going from point A to point B. Actually, Fury Road is, in it’s way quite reminiscent of the road movies of the 70s such as Vanishing Point or even Smokey and the Bandit – odd comparisons, I’ll admit where the entire point of the exercise is to see how far down the road one can get the protagonist either gets caught by pursuing forces or is simply so lost in the mayhem of the road that they can go no further.
“Mayhem.” Yeah, that really is the word to describe what occurs in this movie. Except that we’re not Just talking mayhem. We’re not even talking what some people might call “capital ‘M’ Mayhem. No, we’re actually talking more along the lines of “capital ‘MAY’ capital ‘HEM’ followed by about a half dozen exclamation points. MAYHEM!!!!!!
That’s what this movie is really all about.
Yet despite that fact, this is not a movie that winds up descending into chaos. What do I mean by that? Simple. Though Fury Road is full of all kinds of insane stunts and explosions and car crashes and people killing each other and being killed in more and more violent ways, due to the sure and steady guiding hand of director George Miller and his careful planning and vision – along with some amazing work by editor Margaret Sixel, there are very few times when one is unable to very clearly follow every bit of what is happening on the screen or when the focus is lost and the action simply becomes a blur.
Simply put, Fury Road is truly an action film masterpiece, and that is not a word that I am inclined to use lightly.
There are a few other positive notes that I’d like to point out about the film. Much has – and deservedly so – been made of Charlize Theron‘s role in the movie, and it’s true, she does dominate a lot of what happens onscreen to the point that yes, it can very well be called her movie as much as titular star Tom Hardy. But there are also secondary female characters that in almost any other film of this sort would be included purely as “eye candy” or as “damsels in distress” who exist only to be rescued. and when they are first introduced, that is exactly the role they seem to be intended to take. However it is not long before they prove themselves to be if not perhaps as capable as the main stars, at least integral parts of the ensuing action and just a willing to participate in and do their best to hold their own in everything that is going on around them.
Also, I made note above that this is a movie that has a decidedly old-school feel to it, and a huge part of the reason for that is the incredible number of stunts that are either purely practical and done in camera or that involve very little in the way of CGI. That’s not to say that Miller doesn’t take advantage of every trick and technology advance that is available to him – he certainly does – but there is never that point where one gets the feeling that he is simply saying “let’s show ’em how we can do this now!” or “let’s leave that one to be done in post”. No, this movie is all about getting the shot at the time and that results in a visceral feel to the movie that serves to raise the stakes even further because while watching it one does get the feeling that at any moment someone really could get injured or killed or that the entire production could come crashing down or descend into that state of chaos that I described above.
Which brings me to another positive point about this movie. When I mentioned “raised stakes” above, I didn’t just mean in terms of the stunt work involved, but also with the characters. Fury Road is one of those rare movies where it really feels as though characters that we have come to care about are in danger, and not everyone that one might otherwise expect to is going to make it out the other end of the film alive, and that proves to be true. There are even a couple of deaths that are shocking not just because they occur, but in the way that they take place.
All in all, I have to say that for a movie that I really just went to see on a “why not” whim, I’m surprised at how impressed I was by it, and the enthusiastic support that I find myself giving it. If you are at all an action movie fan, and you want to see a prime example of what can be made when a film maker clearly has his sights set simply on giving his audience what they want and delivering exactly the movie that he wants, then you owe it to yourself to go see Fury Road, because you are not likely to have an opportunity like this again for a long time.
I’ve said it here many times before, and I’ll say it again: short films are not easy. Not only do you have to set up the story that you want to tell and establish your characters, but then you also have to carry that premise through to a (hopefully) satisfying conclusion. Of course, from a personal perspective it makes it even harder for me to really enjoy a short film that is simply trying to “depict a moment”, rather than actually tell a narrative story, but that’s simply my own bias. Since I am a story-teller, I prefer films that have an actual narrative to share.
As an added obstacle, the short film maker then has to try to do something to really set his film apart in a way that often times those making longer movies don’t. Because so many beginning film makers think of short films as a gateway to bigger things, and especially with the cost of entry into creating your own film being so much lower today than it ever has been in the past, the number of short movies being made today is exponentially larger than ever before.
That’s why I’m always thrilled to run across a short film like All Your Favorite Shows. Created by Ornana Films, this short is a triumph not only of story telling, but especially of editing as during its 5 minute running time it uses clips from roughly 160 movies to move its story along at an extremely wild pace and yet never gets lost, and it really is a showcase of just how much can be done working with so little. I highly recommend giving this one a look, and if you like what you see, you can check out some of their other shorts at Ornana.com.
- The Best Short Film Festivals You Should Send Your Short To! (jamuura.com)
- Students show off film making skills (kimt.com)
I have to admit I’m not a very big fan of Eli Roth. His films really tend to be more graphically gory than I prefer. Not that I don’t like a bit of gore in my horror films when it’s appropriate, but I tend to prefer when the movie takes a bit of a step back and remembers that its purpose is to entertain rather than to simply – as Ross seems to have a tendency to do – revel in the most realistic portrayal of gore and body torture that it possibly can muster.
Nonetheless, one thing that I always find interesting is to look back and see just what today’s film makers – or really, film makers from any era, but it’s a much easier task today with the proliferation of this kind of thing to be found all over the internet – were doing in their early years.
That’s one reason I found this film from Roth’s film school days so fascinating. Another is the sheer creativity on exhibit, especially considering what must have been an extremely limited budget that he was obviously working with. Of course, again, that’s another thing that usually sets this kind of short film apart. The fact that during these early years these creators didn’t have a lot of money to work with, nor did they have access to the latest technology or effects houses such as ILM to create their effects, so they had to come up with some kind of work around or other way to get their vision to the screen, and since, as the old saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention, I’m always curious to see just what kind of inventiveness they come up with.
Anyway, it’s in that spirit that I thought I’d share with you this video, complete with an introduction by Mr. Roth himself explaining not just the origins of the film, but its rather disastrous reception, of Restaurant Dogs from all the way back in 1994.
(Y’know, in a way I almost feel it’s a shame he ever did get a big budget to work with. There’s actually a lot more thought and inventiveness going on here than in a lot of his full-length efforts. At least that’s my opinion anyway)
In 1955, NBC produced their live version of Peter Pan starring Mary Martin which is probably the best known of the television movie musicals from that period, but it is far from the only one. As a matter of fact, there were quite a few musicals which were produced for TV during that period, some of them done live, others shot on tape or film but shown exclusively on television. Examples of this include Annie Get Your Gun, Anything Goes, Kiss Me, Kate, and today’s subject, Cinderella.
By 1957, Julie Andrews was beginning to get some recognition on Broadway and had been nominated for a Tony Award for her portrayal of Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady on the stage, but she was years away from really becoming the household name that she would be after starring in 1964’s Mary Poppins and 1965’s The Sound of Music.
That did not stop CBS from signing her to a contract to do some kind of musical production for the network. They then approached Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein to come up with an appropriate vehicle to showcase the talents of Miss Andrews. After casting about a bit for ideas, the duo eventually settled on Cinderella.
Originally airing live at 8pm Eastern Time on March 31, 1957, Cinderella was broadcast live in the Eastern, Central and Mountain time zones both in black and white and in color for those stations that could handle the new technology. The West Coast received a delayed black and white-only broadcast starting at 8pm Pacific time. Beyond the continental United States, it was carried by CBS affiliates in the U.S. territories of Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico; in Canada it was broadcast on CBC.
According to reports, the show was watched by 107 million viewers, or over 60% of the US population at the time, making it the most viewed television program in history at the time.
Along with Ms. Andrews, who was nominated for an Emmy Award for the performance, the production also starred Jon Cypher as The Prince, Howard Lindsay as The King, Dorothy Stickney as The Queen, Edith Adams as the Fairy Godmother, Kaye Ballard and Alice Ghostley as stepsisters Portia and Joy, Ilka Chase as the Stepmother, and Iggie Wolfington as The Steward. The show was directed by Ralph Nelson and choreographed by Jonathan Lucas.
Unfortunately, it appears that the only surviving recording of the production is a black and white kinescope, as it was not recorded on videotape, nor in color. That surviving recording is available on DVD, and in parts on YouTube, so here, for your enjoyment are the first 10 minutes or so of the show, and I highly recommend you seeking out the rest.
When it comes to true horror films, there are few that I like better than a good ghost/haunted house movie. Then when you take that and put it in the hands of one of the few directors currently working in the genre who can truly be described as “visionary”, well, you know you’re in for something special.
That much, of course, was obvious as soon as this fall’s Crimson Peak was announced.
Then came the first trailer which showed that yes, del Toro was definitely bringing the atmosphere and tone to the film that he was so obviously capable of.
And now there’s this second trailer which makes me think that as far as this film is concerned October can’t get here soon enough:
I recognize that I’m in the minority, having never been a fan of the original Chevy Chase-starring Vacation movies, but I just never found them funny. So I’m really not that interested in / excited for this year’s upcoming remake.
Actually, I think the best thing about those original movies was the poster art.
Nonetheless, knowing that a lot of you probably are looking forward to it, I figured I’d go ahead and share this latest trailer, if for no other reason than to give you a warning of what you’re in for.
And, I guess to give you Chris Hemsworth fans a little treat.
So here you go.
Oh, and I guess I should note for the record that the trailer is NSFW, but considering the movie it’s promoting, I’d think that could have gone without saying.
- Chris Hemsworth and his, um, assets steal the spotlight in the ‘Vacation’ trailer (entertainthis.usatoday.com)
- The Griswolds Are Back In The New ‘Vacation’ Trailer! (sourcefed.com)
I’ve said it before: Gene Hackman is one of those actors who truly deserve more credit than they are usually given, and whose presence in a movie is usually enough to cause me to at least give it a chance. It’s certainly the sight of his name in the credits that caused me to give 1975’s Night Moves a look, and he definitely didn’t disappoint. Fortunately, the film has much more going for it than just Mr. Hackman.
At its heart, Night Moves truly fits into the tradition of the best films noir, despite its outwardly sunny settings of Los Angeles and the Florida Keys. Like the best examples of the genre, there is a certain sense of despair and inevitability to the proceedings that pervade every moment of what occurs onscreen. That’s not to say that the film is somehow gloomy, far from it, but there is definitely the feeling that no matter how hard Hackman’s character, private detective Harry Moseby might try, he simply cannot escape the doom that fate has in store for him, and in actuality he doesn’t really seem to be trying all that hard to escape as to simply accept and perhaps forestall what is coming long enough to perhaps at least save a few of the lives around him.
Director Arthur Penn – also known for 1967’s Bonnie and Clyde and 1970’s Little Big Man shows in this movie just how much he had his finger on the zeitgeist of the time, as the film he has crafted here fits well not only in his own personal oeuvre, but into the atmosphere that was pervading cinema in the mid 70s. Coming out of the Vietnam War, it seemed that everything was unsettled and that there was a sense of displacement, not just for retuning veterans who were struggling to find their place in the world they were retuning to, but in the nation as a whole which was reeling from and dealing with revelations of scandal and corruption that reached even the highest office in the land and left everyone with a feeling of distrust and questioning that made the time right for a film of just this sort.
Special note should also go to a very young Melanie Griffith – she was only 17 at the time the film was shot -who portrays Delilah “Delly” Grastner, whose disappearance from the mother’s home is the catalyst for everything that follows. Though young, Ms. Griffith shines in the role, showing not only the charm that would soon bring her much greater fame, while also not shying away from the racier aspects of the character. Also of note in the movie is James Woods who, though he had been acting in theater and on Broadway for quite a while at this point, was only really beginning his transition to the silver screen.
Earlier I noted that along with this movie fitting into the time that it is set, it also, for me at least, fits into the tradition of the films noir of the late 40s and early 50s, and while I know there are traditionalists who would debate my use of that term as outwardly the movie – since it takes place largely in the daytime, is in color, is not set in the heart of the big city – seems to defy many of the accepted conventions of the genre, my argument for describing it that way comes largely down to the atmosphere and tone of the film. Of course, it really doesn’t matter what tag you wish to put upon it, if you’re looking for good, suspenseful dark detective fiction, well played by its stars and well directed by Mr. Penn, then I think you’ll be well satisfied with this somewhat hidden dark gem.
- ‘Night Moves’ vs. ‘The Long Goodbye’ (moviemorlocks.com)