Planet Utah

Not as bad as you've heard

I went to see "The Happening" last night, primarily out of a desire to see just how low M. Night Shyamalan had sunk. I was expecting the movie to be bad--really bad. And it was bad. Or at least not good. But it wasn't terrible...not "one of the worst movies of the year" bad...not so-bad-it's-good bad. Just plain old bad, maybe even verging on so-so.

The movie actually has two interesting ideas at its heart: 1) what if nature started to defend itself against man?; and 2) what if the safest response to a crisis were not to come together, as we humans instinctively do, but to isolate ourselves and get as far away from one another as possible?

The main problem with the movie is that it has no place interesting to go with these ideas. So it goes nowhere. Really. There's no narrative arc, no real tension that has to be resolved, no payoff. It doesn't make for an entertaining 90 minutes.

P.S. Also, the performance by Zooey Deschanel is one of the weirdest by a leading lady that I can remember.

Movie notes

I saw "The Promotion" last night, pretty much on a whim. I knew almost nothing about it. But I like Seann William Scott, and John C. Reilly, and Jenna Fischer, and it looked like it might be a hidden gem, so off I went. I was the only one in the theater, which is never a good sign. HOWEVER, I really enjoyed the movie. I laughed a lot, which means something when your laughter is not being egged on by the laughter of others. There were no moments that made me shake my head, either, and say, "Oh come on...", and nothing that seemed like a kowtow to audience expectations or the needs of a Hollywood studio. It was just a good, funny, realistic, low-key comedy about some decent, average Americans (and one Canadian, and a Scots-woman) trying to deal as best they can with an uncomfortable situation at work.

When I got home, I looked up the movie on Rotten Tomatoes. I expected it would be a critical darling, but instead it was rated only 46 percent fresh. Critics were VERY divided. One guy said this:

All in all, The Promotion deserves to be remembered fondly when this year’s award season comes rolling around. At last, we have a completely and profoundly American movie with all the classical skills of timing, editing and character development that we associate nostalgically with some Hollywood golden age.

Another guy said this: "This is easily the worst movie I've seen so far this year."

So, I guess you see it at your own risk. But if your sensibilities are anything like mine, you'll really enjoy it.

***

There's nothing healthy to eat at the movie theater. I feel guilty, though, about not buying anything. Why? Well, theater owners only break even on ticket sales. The money comes from concessions. At least that's what I've heard. So, I feel bad about buying my ticket, blowing past the concession stand, watching my movie, and leaving. Last night, therefore, I stopped at the concession, as I normally do. About the healthiest thing I saw was one of those big soft pretzels, so that's what I got. Unfortunately, this one came with some nutrition information. (They re-heated it for me in a plastic pouch that had all the info printed on the side.) Brace yourselves--480 calories! It had almost no fat, which is good, but 500 calories are still 500 calories. One of those big movie hot dogs would have been about half as much. (I need to look up movie popcorn, too. If you get it without any butter flavoring, it might be in the tolerable range, calorie-wise.)

Intra-post footnote: do you know why the sizes of things at the concession are so large? I mean, if you want a popcorn or a Coke, there's Super-Colossal, Just Plain Colossal, Ginormous, Huge but not Quite Ginormous, Really Big, Just Plain Big, and (in very small print up on the food marquee), Tiny Penis Size. I think the reason for this is that, because of the aforementioned business model, they have to charge a lot on concessions to make a buck. And if they're going to charge a lot, they have to seem to justify it by giving you a lot. Because the marginal cost of a little more Coke or a little more popcorn is next to nothing, they can, in fact, give you a lot without cutting into profit margins too much. Hence, the ridiculously large sizes. That's my theory, anyway.

***

Back on the subject of "The Promotion," I found an interview last night in which Jenna Fischer, who I think is very cute, and sometimes downright sexy, said the following about Seann William Scott, who I don't think is particularly attractive:

He’s gorgeous. When I’m looking at him I need a 15 minute break before I look in a mirror because it would just depress me. His features are so perfectly, wonderfully defined. He’s like a Greek God, and he’s got tattoos and muscles.

Really? Stifler? Okay, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Speaking of which, Lili Taylor was also in "The Promotion," and there were moments in which she looked--dare I say?--beautiful. Here's a picture of her looking the way I think she normally looks. Not bad, but certainly not beautiful. Here's a picture, though, where maybe you can see the beauty starting to emerge. And here's a bonus picture, not of Lili Taylor, but of Seann William Scott, a.k.a., Stifler. I'll admit that he looks like a reasonably handsome guy in that pic, but "gorgeous"? "Greek god"? Ladies, where do you stand on this?

***

Check out this chart depicting the critics' view of M. Night Shyamalan's post--"Sixth Sense" pics. (You'll need to scroll down just a bit.) He peaked at 74 percent with "Signs," and has been in free fall ever since: 43 percent for "The Village," 24 percent for "Lady in the Water," and 20 percent for "The Happening." How could a guy who showed such a deft hand for creepy mass entertainment in "The Sixth Sense" be turning out such crap in the last few years? Let's just hope he gets his mojo back.

***

And finally, I saw "You Don't Mess with the Zohan" this weekend as well. I think this is the first time I've ever seen an Adam Sandler movie in the theater. Just not a fan. BUT, I've been reading so much about the Middle East, and Israel, and Judaism, and Islam, and Arabs, I needed a little cinematic fix, no matter how far afield of my substantive interests. My reaction? I'm still not a Sandler fan. The comedy is much too broad for me. However, Sandler was surprisingly good. I think of him as being a terrible actor, with only two notes (rage and man-childishness), but he's obviously expanded his range and gotten much more comfortable on screen. Rob Schneider was fine, despite one critic referring to him as the "comedy tax" you have to pay when you see a Sandler movie. And there were laughs scattered throughout--not a lot of big ones, and not a lot that were particularly hard-earned, but laughs nonetheless. If you can find a date to take, then go ahead, enjoy yourselves. Otherwise, save it for a Saturday night at home.

Three things missing from Indiana Jones IV

I saw the movie late last night and enjoyed it. I would, however, rate it as my least favorite Indiana Jones movie. Let me tell you what was missing.

First of all, fun. Indy doesn't have the same smirk and swagger that he had in the earlier movies. Yeah, I know he's older, but that doesn't slow him down at all in the movie. So why not invest him with a little more of that hotshot spirit he used to have? Also, there are few moments of deliberate humor in the movie. Finally, the set pieces just aren't as much of a kick as the earlier ones were. There's nothing nearly as much fun as Indy trying to outrun a giant boulder, or cutting a rope bridge in its middle and hanging on for dear life.

Second, the bad guys aren't loathsome enough. Everyone hates Nazis because everyone knows what they did in the 1930s and 1940s. That's why they make great bad guys; they're so easy to hate. The bad guys in this one, though, are Russians. They slaughtered a lot more people than the Nazis did, but somehow they're just harder to hate. Sure, you dislike them, but you don't necessarily feel like applauding when they get theirs.

Third, the supernatural element in this movie is just too much. I don't want to spoil it for you, so I won't tell you what that element is. But think back to the first movie and the third movie. In those two movies, the supernatural figured prominently, but it was connected to something most people believe in: God. In this movie, the supernatural figures prominently, and it's connected to something that I not only don't believe in, I've never even heard of. It may have been invented for the movie, for all I know. In any event, it makes the movie a bit ridiculous at the end, and makes you retroactively care much less about what has come before.

All of that being said, there was one thing that made the movie worth the price of admission: seeing Harrison Ford look like a movie star again. Whatever he had back in the days of Han Solo and the first Indiana Jones movie, he's still got, and it's on display here. Nice to have him back.

Austin Power 4

For those of you who have been waiting for another Austin Powers movie, looks like you've got it. Only this time, it's called The Love Guru. Watch the trailer. Same basic formula: fish out of water, midget, hot chick, sight gags, physical comedy, sex, wiener jokes. If anybody but Mike Myers were involved, there would be a lawsuit for copyright infringement. But I guess you can't really sue yourself.

There Will Be Blood (oh yes, there will be blood)

Saw this tonight. Looooooong. Also, pretty much your standard Paul Thomas Anderson film -- some great moments, some beautiful images, one outstanding performance, but not a great movie. Way too self-indulgent; not nearly disciplined enough. Obviously, no one was around to say, "Excuse me, Mr. Anderson? This would be a much better movie if you cut out about a half-hour here, and if you didn't flog this point to death there." I imagine, though, that Anderson thinks he's operating on a film-making plane that mere mortals cannot understand. His every film is a masterpiece...just ask him.

American Movie Classics -- says who?

Are you familiar with the AMC channel -- American Movie Classics? If you Google the channel to get a quick description, you'll learn that AMC shows "classic films from the 1930s to the 1980s." If you check their programming schedule, you'll find such classics as:

• Lionheart (that's a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie);
• Lara Croft, Tomb Raider;
• Sniper (Tom Berenger and Billy Zane);
• Red Dawn (Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen); and
• The Wedding Planner.

Yup, a classic, each and every one. I think there were something like 40 or 50 Oscar nominations among them. (All these years later, "Red Dawn" still holds me in its thrall. I will be forever haunted by the imprisoned Harry Dean Stanton's plaintive cries for vengeance, and moved by the tender depiction of brotherly love between Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen, two characters who know that while they may lose everything, at least they will lose it together.)

Believe me, I didn't have to scrape the bottom of the AMC barrel to find these films. They're standard fare on this channel.

I would really enjoy a classic movie channel, but this ain't it. Anybody know of a better option?

Bill the Butcher

When I went to see "No Country for Old Men" (which was good but not great, though it certainly had some great moments), there was a preview for "There Will Be Blood," starring Daniel Day-Lewis. I realized how little he's been on-screen lately. Still, he usually makes a pretty big impression when he takes on a role. Did you see "Gangs of New York"? His performance as Bill the Butcher was...I'm gonna say it...PERFECT. Flawless. I'm not kidding. He should have won every award ever invented for that performance, plus a few they haven't  thought of yet. It was just SO much better than anything you'd see from the biggest "movie stars" we've got these days -- Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Jim Carrey, Nicolage Cage, Brad Pitt, whoever. I really wish Day-Lewis would work more and those other guys would work less.

"The Mist"

I'm perplexed by the generally positive reviews for this movie. It may be that most horror films are so rotten, so dominated by gore and the conventions that were lampooned in "Scream," that when something a bit different comes along people will heap praise on it.

There is something different about this movie, but it's not the threat. In fact, the threat is pretty conventional -- man-eating monsters from another world that arrive in town under cover of a creepy mist. Here's what is different: the human stories and interactions spawned by the threat. They are much more complicated than in your standard horror film, and much, much, MUCH stupider. Characters actually debate human nature as they size up their prospects for survival. (Does that sort of thing ever happen outside of movies?). One character thinks the whole thing about man-eating monsters is just a put-on to make him look foolish, and therefore refuses to consider the evidence (pools of blood, a severed tentacle, a missing stock boy, eyewitness accounts). Other characters revert to a "Lord of the Flies"-style state of nature, engaging in ruthless acts of violence -- not to survive, but just to satisfy their newly-discovered blood lust. (They go from civilized to savage in the span of about 36 hours.)

And so on.

You may have heard about the ending, and about how shocking it is. It's far too stupid to be shocking. It's entirely consistent with the examples I've given above, that is, it's based on an absurd caricature of human nature.

There are, however, three good reasons to see this movie: 1) Thomas Jane, who deserves to be a bigger star than he is; 2) Toby Jones, who is great in everything; and 3) Laurie Holden, who is unconventionally gorgeous.

What the hell? (quoting Tom Servo)

Let me tell you about two movies.

The first is called "Deathtrap." It was directed by Sidney Lumet. Christopher Reeve and Michael Caine were the stars. Caine is a washed up playwright. Reeve is his student. Reeve writes a brilliant play and submits it to Caine for  review. Caine sees his redemption in the manuscript: he will kill Reeve and claim the manuscript as his own, recapturing his former fame and glory. The thrills proceed from there.

The second is called "Night Shift." It was directed by Ron Howard. Henry Winkler and Michael Keaton were the stars. Henry Winkler is a milquetoast mortician who works the night shift. Michael Keaton is a fast-talking, wise-cracking, big-thinking guy who joins the mortuary staff and quickly becomes yin to Winkler's yang. Together, they establish and operate a prostitution ring out of the mortuary. The comedy proceeds from there.


Okay, so these two movies have about as much in common as, say, Rutger Hauer and a goose feather. So who in God's name decided to package them together in a two-disc DVD set?

P.S. And now you know what I want--no, what I absolutely MUST have--for Christmas.

Spooky! (Part 2)

From Slate magazine:

Clooney is very popular in Hollywood, but he cannot be counted on to open a movie. It's happened for Ocean's 11-12-13, but when you're in a movie with Matt Damon and Brad Pitt, you don't get bragging rights. There was The Perfect Storm, but that kind of co-starred the wave.