Browsing Category Feature Films

The Best Worst Christmas Film: Santa Claus Conquers the Martians

Posted on December 20, 2011 by Doug Luberts

It never fails that when someone brings up a list of “Worst Christmas Films of All Time“, or, in many cases, worst films of all time, period, ”Santa Claus Conquers the Martians” is usually on the top of the list, and I’m here to say it doesn’t deserve the title.

Sure, the 1964 film is a low budget disaster with bad sets, bad costumes, bad acting, and spectacularly bad writing, but aside from that, and, in fact, because of that, it’s a lot of fun to watch. The truth be told, this film is very near and dear to my heart, as it’s one my Dad took me to see, in the theater, as a kid, and probably resulted in my first utterance of, “Gee, Dad, the movie really sucked, but that Pia Zadora kid was kind of cute …”, a statement to be repeated, with frequency, in the ’70s and ’80s.

If we only new then that little Pia would grow up to be, now nearly forgotten, star of stage screen, and half-a-dozen adult magazines, while being famous for pretty much nothing outside of being kinda’ hot and having a husband with more money than god to pay for her career (I think there’s a potential for a Citizen Kane/W.R. Hearst/Marion Davies riff to go on here, but I’m trying to keep this about the Christmas stuff …)

The film keeps coming up, year after year, and I’ve gotta’ believe that anything with this much staying power in the public eye has gotta’ be better than it’s been getting credit for.

The story revolves around a Martian dad, Kimar, and his wife, Momar (no relation to Qaddafi), and their two kids Bomar and Girmar (played by the 8-year old mother-of-all-trophy-wives-in-training, Pia Zadora.) Kimar is concerned that his whacky kids have been watching too much Earth TV, and are becoming too much like Earth Kids, especially after they start asking questions laced with too much interest in human emotion like, ”What is ‘tender, loving care?’”

An outrage!

Kimar consults with Chochem, an old Martian equivalent of Yoda, but with better grammar and sentence structure skills (He’s green, 800 years old, and …Hey, do you think? Nah, must just be a coincidence), and decides he needs to put an end to the situation by going to Earth and kidnapping Santa. Naturally, hilarity ensues …

On the way to the all-too-predictable end, where Kimar’s plans are undone and Santa manages to melt everyone’s green hearts, the film is just one non-stop bad gag after the other, including the martians superior ‘weaponry’ which was the result of some kind of product placement deal with Wham-0, makers of the hula hoop, the Frisbee, slinkys, and the Air Blaster, a favorite ’60s toy that was the Martians’ primary weapon throughout the film.

You guys, this is fun stuff. There is a double-edge to this film that is filled with wild-eyed innocence, while at the same time living on the knife’s-edge of the cold-war inspired nuclear terror, and related xenophobia, of the time. It’s a reflection of the World of the 1960s and it’s kind of like a nostalgic joyride with an aftertaste of the darkside…One with parallels to our World today.

The thing you have to put into context was the strange times during which this film was released. It came out less than a month after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and only a few months after the Bay of Pigs fiasco…The entire World was on the edge of nuclear war, and were it not for the chemically-enhanced bravado of President John F. Kennedy, who was being held together by cocaine and cortico-steroid injections, we might have well found ourselves trading nukes with the Soviets. This was a period where, despite global tensions, the citizenry of the United States was still basking in the glow of the wide-eyed optimism of the Eisenhower era that would only end, the following November, when Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

This film is a direct reflection of a very strange time in this Country’s national character and mindset, and because of that I believe it is a classic bit of Americana.

You can pick this up “Santa Claus Conquers the Martians” for about $8 on Amazon, or, if you prefer, there’s a Mystery Science Theater 3000 version available starting at about $50, used.

My recommendation for a Holiday Fun-Fest would be to host an XBox Live streaming party with the Netflix version, and do your own commentary with friends and loved ones. Preferably one that involves lots and lots of adult beverages.

There’s also a full-length version available on YouTube, which is linked. Also, I just cut a new music video version of ‘Hooray for Santa Claus’.

Here’s a few geeky facts about the film:

This was Pia Zadora’s film debut and, quite possibly, her best performance. Ever.
“Chochem”, the Yoda-esque Martian sage, got his name from the Yiddish word for ‘Genius’. (Cough.)
The film’s theme song, “Hooray for Santa Claus” is a surf-rock classic written by Milton DeLugg, a veteran Hollywood composer who also did the music for a bunch of Chuck Barris game shows including “The Newlywed Game” and “The Gong Show“
The trumpet player on “Hooray for Santa Claus” is none other than the legendary Al Hirt
Costumes for the film were designed by Ramsey Mostoller, the costume designer for the cult hit soap, “Dark Shadows“. In the film, his credit is listed as “Custume Designer”
The role of “Dropo” was played by veteran comedic character actor, Bill McCutcheon, whose 50+ year career spanned from early TV, such as “Johnny Jupiter“, to Sesame Street and feature films, such as 1990′s, “Mr. Destiny“
The same Air Force footage used in the film can be seen in the classic Kubrick film, “Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb“, starring Peter Sellars, also from 1964

Holiday Movie List: 2011 Edition

Posted on November 24, 2011 by Doug Luberts

He’s got ‘em on the list — he’s got ‘em on the list;
And they’ll none of ‘em be missed — they’ll none of ‘em be missed.

The Holiday Movie Season has kicked off, and is in full gear, so I thought I’d start compiling a list of what I’ve seen and liked. I’m putting these in alphabetical order,

Hugo

Absolutely Magnificient. All the stuff you hear about this being a masterpiece is absolutely true.

I wasn’t really prepared for a “kids” movie from Scorsese, let alone his first 3D offering. Frankly, I was a little worried about how Scorsese’s typically dark, NYC-centric view would translate into a fantasy genre film about an orphan growing up in a train station in Paris, and was pleasantly surprised, no, blown away, but this film. Forget “Raging Bull” and “Good Fellas”, “Hugo” is Scorsese’s masterwork.

Also, not a huge fan of 3D heretofore, but the stereo work in this here is equally mind-blowing. The visual style of this film reminds me of a pop-up book, and the high-stylized look of the film is enhanced with the 3D rendition. (Even Jim Cameron is saying this is be best use of 3D in a film to date.

The Muppet Movie

There’s been a lot of talk about the Muppet Movie, Jason Segel, and the complete non-involvement of Frank Oz, and some of the other Henson Company stalwarts, casting doubts as to whether Segel and company could deliver a product worthy of the Henson Muppet Legacy.

… and all of it is crap as far as I’m concerned.

I was completely enchanted by this movie. No, it’s not your ’80s Henson fare, but it is a love letter to the legacy that Henson and Company built, that gives the rich history of the Muppets due reverence, but also taking a fresh approach that will give Kermit, Piggy, and the rest, a new lease on live in the 21st Century. In fact, I think it’s actually better than any of the original Muppet features.

Make no mistake, this is a WONDERFUL film.

A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas

Best Harold and Kumar flick yet … If you are into Harold and Kumar movies, which I am.

There’s no shortage of sick, twisted, off-the-wall humor in the latest installment, and it was non-stop laughter. NPH kills as usual.

You may never be able to see Jean Shepherd’s “A Christmas Story” in the same light, but as a huge Shep fan, I found the hommage enjoyable.

The film also made me more than just a bit homesick for NYC at this time of year. Christmas in New York City is magic.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

I wasn’t too sure about including this one, but it’s definitely worth catching.

My main issues are that they’ve sort of removed the Conan Doyle from Sherlock and Watson, and turned it into a British Steampunk version of “The Wild Wild West” (The original TV show, not the dreadful remake with Will Smith.)

That said, “The Wild Wild West” was insanely great Steampunk decades before anyone thought of establishing it as a genre, so I guess I can’t complain too much about the new Sherlock Holmes, as it is decent Steampunk. I’m just more of a traditionalist where Holmes is concerned, and find Steven Moffett’s TV adaptation, Sherlock, to be far closer to Conan Doyle’s sensibilities, even in a thoroughly modern re-think.

Anyway, it’s good fun, and Downey is a genius…Even if his character plays to me more like Artemus Gordon than Sherlock Holmes.

The Artist

The Artist is a delightful movie…Mostly a silent film, presented in black and white, it’s a riches to rags, boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, girl-gets-boy back in the end story. It’s a simple tale, told in beautiful, silvery, visual detail.

I don’t see this as the Oscar contender that many folks are talking about…But it’s a wonderful film, and something that everyone who isn’t totally affected by a Millennial Attention Deficit Disorder should go and see (you have to pay attention to this one, you can’t just listen along …)

If there are Oscars to be handed out for this film, no one is more deserving than Uggie, the dog … He pretty much steals the show, and is the coolest canine on four paws. I would like this dog for my personal best friend. We would totally hang.

The Descendants

The Descendants is kind of an odd movie, and not real holiday fare by any means, but I’m including it because it is a good film, and one that will be talked about quite a bit during Awards Season, as it’s already been nominated for 11 Golden Globes.

Directed by Alexander Payne (Sideways, and the brilliant, Election), there’s a basic family drama premise…The wife of a Hawaiian Lawyer/Real Estate Mogul, played by George Clooney, has a boating accident, is pronounced brain-dead, and he proceeds to deal with breaking the news to his two rebellious daughters, families, and friends, while finding out his wife had been hiding many things from him, and may not have been the woman he thought he knew … But …

There’s are the usual assortment of twists and turns, including a lot of humor, most of it of the bitingly dark and ironic kind. In a way this movie has a kind of Hawaiian-ized “Five Easy Pieces vibe to it at times, except not at all (and if anyone reading this blog sees this movie and gets what I mean, that will make two of us.)

I respect this film more than I like it, but it was worth the investment in time.

More to come …

Bobby Fischer Against the World

Posted on June 10, 2011 by Doug Luberts

Director Liz Garbus’ documentary, Bobby Fischer Against the World, debuted this week on HBO, after garnering critical acclaim at The Sundance Film Festival earlier this year.

The film ostensibly sets out to depict the life of the chess prodigy from from his earliest days as a club player in New York City, to his victory in the 1972 FIDE World Championship match against Boris Spassky that established Fischer as a household name, to his degeneration into mental illness and paranoid delusions in later life that brought him to a tragic, and untimely, end.

It is a riveting film, it is an engrossing film, and it is a compelling film. It is also a very one-sided portrayal of a troubled genius that chooses to focus, almost exclusively, on the eccentricities in Bobby Fischer’s character, and the mental illness that, going unchecked, came to dominate his life in his later years after winning the World Championship. It is a film that diminishes what Bobby Fischer achieved, both in terms of his own accomplishments and how he served as an inspiration to a generation of chess players that lead to a renaissance in American chess, paving the way for a national movement in scholastic chess programs that exists today.

While Garbus interviews a number of chess notables from Fischer’s peers, and other experts, the film’s narrative point of view steers away from the more positive side of Fischer’s nature and accomplishments.

There is no debating that Fischer, in his final years, was an extremely disturbed individual. The opinions he was allowed to express on Philippine radio where heinous, and clearly the product of a mind that had long been in need of psychiatric care. A mind fueled by paranoid delusions, raging anti-semitism, and bitterness towards the American Government for pursuing him as a fugitive. (That fugitive status coming after Fischer chose to ignore State Department demand that he not travel to Yugoslavia to play in a re-match against Boris Spassky in 1992.) At the same time it is rather sad to see such an otherwise remarkable life characterized solely in terms of the negative aspects of his later years.

There is so much that could be said/written/filmed about the whole Fischer phenomenon of the early ’70s, that it could easily provide enough material for a feature-length film. Garbus makes little attempt to reconcile the two sides of Fischer’s life in her documentary, choosing instead to focus almost exclusively on the darker, and more provocative side.

While it is said that, in the long run, there is no such thing as bad publicity there is still a lot more that could be written, said, and filmed, about Bobby Fischer’s life than was presented in “Bobby Fischer Against the World“.

At the top of this post is a short video with Chess Master and noted chess teacher, Bruce Pandolfini, who has been a fixture on the New York City chess scene since the ’60s. As as a member of the Marshall Chess Club, Bruce had occasion to know Bobby very well. Pandolfini paints another picture of Bobby Fischer, one whose love for the game drove him to greatness, and inspired countless others to follow in his path.

Another interesting look at Bobby Fischer can been seen in the YouTube video, A Very Different Bobby Bobby Fischer. The Fischer seen here, in an interview with Dick Cavett, is far from the completely under-socialized nebbish portrayed in the film.

All of that aside, ”Bobby Fischer Against the World” is well worth watching, especially for those who only have a vague idea of what chess is all about, or may not have experienced those turbulent times of the Cold War and the ’70s.

Photo: Tal (USSR) against Fischer (USA), 1960 Chess Olympiad, Leipzig, Germany – by Karpouzi, Licensed under Creative Commons.

“Thor”, and some new Netflix watchables

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Doug Luberts

Here’s a probably too-late-to-be-useful not-review of “Thor“, but first …

Lots o’ cool stuff coming to Netflix Streaming these days. They just announced a deal with Miramax today that will have a host of new titles, including my favorite flick of the ’90s, “Pulp Fiction”, streaming to your TV.

A couple of cool items on Netflix right now:

“Kick-Ass“

If you haven’t seen it, in which case I’m wondering if you spent the last year in a coma, or being held in suspended animation in Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, it’s a great, fun, flick. A tale about the adventures of a wanna-be superhero, the film draws a lot of its win via a show-stealing performance from Chloe Moretz, as the incredibly bad-ass, and hilariously potty-mouthed, Hit Girl.

“Sherlock“, Season One

A modern re-imagining of Conan-Doyle’s detective, starring Benedict Cumberbatch as a young, brilliant, and unbelievably eccentric Holmes (“I’m not a psychopath, I’m a high-functioning sociopath; do your research”.) This 3-parter aired late last year on PBS Masterpiece. It was pretty much a universal hit, and a second series is filming now.

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

Sorkin’s failed, semi-autobiographical, series about a recovering coke addict/TV Producer (Bradley Whitford) getting back on his feet with a new TV show, and an old production partner (Matthew Perry.) It’s smart, it’s funny, and is a must-see for anyone who works, or wants to work, in the Entertainment Industry. It also one season before NBC pulled the plug. I totally ❤ the Christmas show, featuring a mind-bending brass version of “O, Holy Night” performed by a bunch of Katrina survivors, as well as Whitford’s running attempts at trying to ❤ Amanda Peet’s character.

Now, on to “Thor” …

I loved Thor. Thor was brilliant (mostly), and the seemingly strange decision to have Kenneth Branagh direct the film was an added bit of brilliance on the part of the studio.

Branagh seemed like an odd choice to direct a comic book adaptation like “Thor”, until you take into consideration his early efforts at adapting and directing Shakespeare for the screen, particularly his instant-classic “Henry V” … The worlds of Asgard and 15th Century England really have a lot in common, and Branagh knows how bring these worlds, and their inhabitants, to life.

The cast is great, the script well written, and Patrick Doyle’s score is regal without being over-the-top.

Doyle and Branagh’s working relationship goes back to “Henry V”, where wrote an amazing score, including the breathtaking “Non Nobis Domini”, for the epic 4-minute tracking shot that Shakespeare only WISHED he could have written. None of this has anything to do with “Thor”, exactly, but I’m a huge fan of Branagh’s “Henry V”, which is the Shakespearean equivalent of “The Godfather”, and will refer to it at the drop of a hat.

The film looks amazing, and the visualization of everything from the powers of Mjolnir to Asgaard were brilliantly executed. (I had some serious doubts about Hollywood’s ability to create a Rainbow Bridge that didn’t look like something out of Rainbow Brite or My Little Pony, but, like every other aspect of the film’s visual treatment, it was stunning.)

Visually, the only downside of the film is the crappy 3D conversion process (I wouldn’t have wasted the money, but it was the only screening available that night.) The stereo effect is barely noticeable, except in the closing credit sequence, and doesn’t make the trade off in image brightness and clarity worth it. See the 2D version instead, if you haven’t already.

There were a couple of WTF moments in the film … Such as Thor’s sudden evolution from a self-absorbed jerk to a selfless hero of the people in what amounts to a New York minute, but I guess there is only so much story you can cram into an action/adventure huge VFX summer tentpole, and the action adventure wins.

Likewise the chemistry between Natalie Portman’s character, scientist Jane Foster, and Chris Hemsworth’s Thor, developed almost instantly (well, okay … This IS Natalie Portman we’re talking about, but still…)

And then there’s Kat Dennings character, who is to Jane what Dawn was to Buffy. (“Get out!, Get Out!!, GET OUT!!!”)

The story will be a bit different from the one fans of the original comic will remember. Thor’s secret identity of “Donald Blake” evolved in a completely different way in the original telling. Likewise, the new spin of the Asgardians being an advanced race of beings, as opposed to true gods, is different, but maybe more believable to a 21st Century audience.

Marvel keeps delivering on the best comic book-inspired movies ever, and the build towards Joss Whedon’s “Avengers” promises to bring quite a payoff.

Also, stay until the credits are over … It’s worth it.

Weekend Entertainment Roundup: Movies to see and avoid.

Posted on April 16, 2011 by Doug Luberts

Finally caught up on what’s in the theaters today, and have two movie recommends and one rant:

Scream 4

The latest installment in the Kevin Williamson/Wes Craven slasher series.

Is it great? Hells no. Is it watchable? Yep.

We know the schtick … A lot of self-referential jokes about the slasher flick genre and its stereotypes in a film that goes on to break all the established rules and conventions while turning pretty girls into fillet o’ Hollywood Starlet.

The good … Emma Roberts has a break-out performance in this movie, and clearly establishes her place in the Roberts family acting heritage. She’s got massive acting chops and uses them. The film also features a list of ingenue eye-candy that will guarantee to draw guys from 14 to the grave.

The not-so-good: Phoned-in performances from David Arquette and Courteney Cox.

Look, this isn’t Truffaut … It’s a decent date-night flick that will have your honey clinging to your armpit for about 90 minutes (so please groom yourselves accordingly because, like, eew …)

Hanna

I really wanted to like this film a lot. Great cast, interesting story. Competently-enough directed, and with great production values, especially in the cinematography department.

The writing, on the other hand, is kind of bipolar. The movie takes forever to get going, and then bursts into periods of manic action before lapsing back into a coma for 10-15 minutes.

Worth seeing, but … Meh.

And now for the rant …

Arthur

The 1981 version of “Arthur” is, to my mind, a cinematic treasure. It is one of the greatest romantic comedies of all time. A movie that was certainly greater than the sum of its parts, even though its parts were pretty damn impressive.

To me, “Arthur” was to the romantic comedy in the early ’80s what “Citizen Kane” was to dramatic narratives in the ’30s … It redefined the genre, although, unlike “Kane”, it was a box office hit from day one.

The film featured an outstanding cast headed by the genius of Dudley Moore in the title role, along with Sir John Gielgud, as Arthur’s butler and surrogate father, Hobson, as well as Geraldine Page, as the iron-fisted matriarch of the Bach family, Arthur’s grandmother Martha. Every one of these actors a bona fide legend and master of their craft. All three of these performances were positively awe-inspiring.

Back that up with a brilliant script from Writer/Director Steve Gordon, and a score from Burt Bacharach, Carole Bayer-Sager, Chris Cross, and Peter Allen that, along with the cast, lifted, the entire film to a sublime level.

The film played in theaters for close to three years from its opening, and it re-defined the rom-com genre that had pretty much lost its fizzle in the late ’70s.

When I heard that the film was being remade, the only thing came to mind was, “Why?”

To borrow a quote from Neve Campbell’s character in “Scream 4″, “The first rule about making a sequel is: Don’t fuck with the original” … And there was no better illustration of this rule than when the studio decided to follow the ’81 film with the release of “Arthur 2: On the Rocks”, which was a total dud, despite the best efforts of the original cast. You can’t always trap lightening in a bottle.

There was absolutely nothing, well almost absolutely nothing, that could stand to be improved by re-making this film. It was a remake that could never, ever, hope to come close to matching the ground-breaking originality of the 1981 film. At least that was my expectation, and the new version of “Arthur” met that expectation.

“Arthur” is a complete and total travesty.

Russell Brand is an excellent comedic actor in his own right. He was absolutely brilliant in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”, and his stand-up act is scathingly, and equally, brilliant. He is, however, no Dudley Moore, and that’s the crux of the problem in his portrayal.

Brand approaches the character with such obvious reverence for Moore’s Arthur Bach, that from the outset he appears to be attempting to channel the dead actor in what may have been envisioned as an homage, but plays out more like a bad impersonation.

The only time Brand shines is when he is playing material that is unique to the remake, such as Arthur’s sharing at an AA meeting. Without Moore’s performance looming over him, he delivers a very engaging performance … One that is unfortunately limited to about three scenes in the film.

The same could be said for Helen Mirren in the gender-bended role of Hobson, who is now Arthur’s Nanny and surrogate mother. Dame Helen is a fine actress, who showcased her considerable comedic skills in the role of a retired contract killer in last year’s “Red”. But the material she is given in this film is nowhere near the quality of the script that Sir John Gielgud had to work with in the original, nor does she have the dour attitude or capacity for droll, ironic, wit that Gielgud had … Because she isn’t an old English gentleman, and the gender switch just flat-out doesn’t work.

And this could also be said of the revamped role of Arthur’s mother, which replaced the Geraldine Page role from the original. Although the role has been made so insignificant in this version that it’s hardly worth mentioning.

The entire film is an awkward re-hash that misses its mark by miles, and just doesn’t have the level of wit, or heart, that the Moore version has.

The one shining exception to this is Greta Gerwig in the role of Naomi Quinn, the girl from the wrong side of the tracks who Arthur falls in love with, but must forsake to marry Susan Johnson (soullessly played by Jennifer Garner), or lose his inheritance and the family fortune.

Gerwig is the sweetheart of Indie Cinema, whose portrayal of the neurotic-but-lovable Florence Marr in last year’s “Greenberg” single-handedly saved the movie from being just another shitty, obtuse, Ben Stiller flick.

Gerwig is a breath of fresh air and charm in a movie that otherwise lays there like a breakfast of yesterday’s bagels and lox.

She is bright, engaging, and utterly adorable in a totally not-Hollywood sort of way. In fact, if I could get in a time machine and go back to change the 1981 movie, I would grab Greta Gerwig and replace her in the Liza Minnelli role (which is the one thing in the original film I never got to begin with … I never understood Minnelli’s charm or appeal.)

This film is another pathetic effort from the Hollywood Big-Money Machine to make a safe bet guaranteed to pay dividends. You see, according to the Hollywood Suits, there is no more sure-fire way to box office gold than to take a classic film and remake it into some gutted shadow of the original, because audiences are too damn dumb to accept and embrace an original idea.

Sorry if I forgot the <sarcasm> tags.

So … If you were at all inclined to see this film, do yourself a favor and find the original on Netflix, or the VOD source of your choice, order some Chinese, and watch it with someone you love, or would like to love. It’s the best date flick around.

</rant>

Also up for viewage this weekend:

“A Game of Thrones” – HBO, starting Sunday, 4/17 George R.R. Martin’s Swords and Sorcery saga comes to HBO
“The Borgias” – Showtime, Sundays. The story of a notorious pope, his wife, three kids, and assorted mistresses. Good, family-oriented, stuff.

Favorite Films, 2009 Edition

Posted on January 10, 2010 by Doug Luberts

We’re still in that annoying time of year when everyone is putting together their best/worst lists for 2009. Never one to miss an opportunity for additional bloggage, I’m going to follow the herd and lay out my top 8 favorite films for 2009. Yes, you read right … Top 8. There just weren’t enough good films to motivate me to want to fight off all the rabid Twilight fans at the box office for the movie theater experience this year.

So here you have it:

1. Zombieland

This super-smart send-up of the zombie genre was my favorite film of the year, and a complete laugh riot. A great cast including Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, and (a very badass) Abigail Breslin all kicking zombie butt while trying to hold on to their brains. Bill Murray appears as himself in a short, but extremely memorable role.

2. Whip-It

Director Drew Barrymore really stepped out of the box with this Roller Derby/coming of age story starring Juno’s Ellen Page. Smart and funny.

3. Star Trek

J.J. Abrams brilliant re-boot of the Classic Trek that both preserves the integrity of the original series and opens up possibilities for a whole new world of Star Trek storylines. Awesome writing, directing, acting and VFX.

4. Sherlock Holmes

I loved Guy Ritchie’s re-imagining of the Sherlock Holmes-verse. Well written, visually stunning, with great direction and performances, I felt this film was the total experience that “Avatar” was not. While Downey’s Holmes seems more like a Victorian Tony Stark than Conan-Doyle’s character, it brings some comedy to a character who has had a tendency to come across a bit stiff in previous incarnations. I’m looking forward to the sequel.

5. James Cameron’s Avatar

Rarely does a big-budget, all-VFX-all-the-time, Hollywood tent pole live up to all the hype. Cameron takes immersive storytelling to a new place in creating this world and the creatures living in it. Better not to look at it as a VFX film, but an animated feature with occasional humans. As a film it is revolutionary.

So why is it so far down on my list? Story. While understanding JC keeps his stories simple and focuses on the visual telling of it, that didn’t put it in the same league as some of the other films on my list. Also, while the VFX were stunning, the humanoids just didn’t work for me. They were flawed just enough, relative to the photorealism of the environments in the film, to pull me out of the story time and again.

6. District 9

This film raised a lot of buzz for being a low-budget, high-quality, VFX flick featuring a cast of unknowns (well, unless you’re South African.) The real story though was the story. Original, different, not an “American” film, but a great story told well.

7. Law Abiding Citizen

This is a straight-up revenge flick that makes Walking Tall (the original Walking Tall, not that bullshit remake with The Rock) look like Little Red Riding Hood. Gerard Butler’s a former government agency “brain” who’s family is killed in front of him by a bunch of, well, murderous thugs. Things go from bad to badass when the prosecutor, played by Jamie Fox cuts a plea deal with one of the murderers in exchange for his testimony against the other guys. This drive’s Butler’s character over the top, and a rain of terror commences against the system. This film is a wild roller-coaster ride.

8. Taken

Not a lot to say here … A bunch of Albanian’s kidnapping young women tourists in Paris for trafficking as sex slaves make the mistake of pissing-off ex-CIA agent Liam Neeson by grabbing his kid. He proceeds to tear Paris apart following a trail of crime and corruption, and leaving a trail of dead bodies in his wake. Very violent, very bloody, and a helluva good potboiler. If nothing else 2009 was a great year for revenge flicks.

If you were expecting to find Lesbian Vampire Killers on the list, sorry … I didn’t see it. But the poster looked like it would grab some attention, and I’m actually looking forward to seeing it on Blu-Ray. If it ever comes out on Blu-Ray.

Inglourious Basterds – Am I the only person who has issues with this film?

Posted on December 18, 2009 by Doug Luberts

There’s something that’s been bugging me about “Inglorious Basterds” since it first came out. It bugged the crap out of me when Tarentino came to speak at work a few weeks ago, and I just saw a tweet about the film that sort of opened up the question for me again.

I’m really interested in hearing from other people as to whether there are those out there who share my concerns about the film, or if I’m just the proverbial lone voice crying in the wilderness.

Let’s get something straight here first … I really love Tarentino flicks. I’ve seen “Pulp Fiction” more times than I can count, own it on two, soon to be three, types of media, and can pretty much recite long parts of it from memory.

“The path of the righteous man …”

Likewise the “Kill Bill” movies. I love these films … It’s like visual mind candy and more fun than just about anything that doesn’t involve a feather boa and the theme from “A Summer Place” ($1 to Joss Whedon.)

I’ve got a big problem with “Inglorious Basterds” though, and I’m not sure if it’s just my bleeding heart, former Democratic-but-becoming-more-Libertarian-by-the-day, sensibilities getting in the way of another badass Tarentino flick. So I’m laying it out there and asking for commentary.

I hate “Inglorious Basterds”. Flat-out.

It’s not that it’s a bad movie, or the writing or acting sucks … And the blonde French chick who owns the movie theatre is about as gorgeous as Tarentino ingenues get. All of that stuff is Quentin at his genre-flick, let’s objectify the hot chick and make everyone drool-loving best.

It’s all about the morality of the thing.

In the shadow of Abu Gharib, and discussions of whether or not waterboarding is torture, and whether or not the United States practices, or allows 3rd party providers, to engage in torture on our behalf, we have a film that is basically the feel-good film of the year about a platoon of U.S. Soldiers committing terrorist acts and atrocities behind enemy lines.

Look, war sucks. The Nazis sucked … and Adolph Hitler sucked beyond just about anyone else in the last 100 years, but I don’t find this film acceptable just because it was about a bunch of Jewish American Soldiers getting revenge on Nazis.

The behaviour expressed in this film should be reviled. Period. End-of-case. It represents the U.S. sinking to the level of the enemy and becoming that which we despise.

Noam Chomsky would say we’ve been there for a long time … I’m not going to get into that right now.

What I’d like to get into is some debate about this film.

What do you think? Am I overreacting to just another over-the-top Tarentino flick, or is there a bigger picture we need to be paying attention to?

Talk to me, people. I really need some help here.

That Thing Tom Hanks Do!

Posted on November 7, 2008 by Doug Luberts

Over the years I’ve had this really strange relationship with Tom Hanks. No dudes, I’m straight, okay? And get your minds out of the friggin’ gutter. This is an audience/performer kind of thing that’s strange because, while I’m not necessarily a Tom Hanks fan, his films are at the top of my favorites lists in a number of genres.

It probably took a while for me to recognize Hanks as a major talent because I just never really liked most of his early work … Bosom Buddies (1980), Splash (1984), Big (1988), weren’t projects I could get into. It wasn’t until Sleepless in Seattle (1993) that I really started warming to his films. Tom’s work with Nora Ephron and Meg Ryan will be the topic of another article, but I just wanted to reference the work where I really started feeling a connection with his acting talents.

In the years since then he’s done some amazing, and incredibly diverse, work in films such as Philadelphia (1993), Forrest Gump (1994) and The Green Mile (1999) to name but a few.

My favorite of Tom Hanks’ contributions to the Cinema came in the form of a sweet little packaged confection that he wrote and directed in 1996, called That Thing You Do!

Continue reading “That Thing Tom Hanks Do!” »

Films about Theatre People

Posted on November 5, 2004 by Doug Luberts

After last leaving off with my assertions that Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 version of Henry V, and not The Godfather, represents the sum total of all worldy wisdom, let’s take a look at another of my favorite kind of movie … Films about people in the Theatre.

Now just from looking at the source material, it’s easy to see that there’s a lot of fodder for really good stories here … Theatre folks, particularly actors, are the stuff that cinematic legend can be built upon. They’re tough, they’re steadfast, they are of singular resolve to never let the forces of man or god prevent them from realizing their dreams … And they also have been known to be, in not just a few cases, neurotic as hell, self-absorbed and utterly narcissistic. What writer couldn’t have a field day with these kinds of characters? Or director for that matter? Or actor? Jeez, can you just imagine all the choice neuroses you could have picked up from hanging these types as part of a life in acting?

All kidding aside, Theatre people tend to be just a bit larger than life, and that is reflected in the stories about them.

Continue reading “Films about Theatre People” »

Twitter Feed
- FCP Guru @LarryJordanFCP talks about nex #FCPX features @lafcpug. http://t.co/3B3Z8nc3 5 hours ago
- Andrew Balis' tips for delivering materials for color correction @lafcpug. http://t.co/XqURvNqQ 7 hours ago
- Mike Horton kicking off tonight's @lafcpug meeting. http://t.co/xBuMIp48 8 hours ago
- RT @tonilynh: Grooviest house in LA http://t.co/FjxwerzZ 9 hours ago
- <raises left eyebrow> Fascinating. “@georgeruiz: Spock Dog finds you highly illogical http://t.co/mjiWe72e” 9 hours ago
- RT @lafcpug: At the Gallery Theatre setting up for tonights lafcpu meet. Oh dear.We are already set up. Time for wine. http://t.co/lKIhxjXp 9 hours ago
The Geektastic Nebula
TurboMandala Entertainment
Xtra News and Resources
Archives