We get mail. And some of you seem to really like the less-than-reverent way we treat the publicity stills that the studios put out to promote their films on our Movie Smackdown! sister site.
Armed only with an iMac, some Comic Life Magiq software, and a serious authority issue, we've been giving them the treatment for a few months now.
The idea is to take these common photos and spin the hell out of them so they make their own artistic statement independent of the reviews. We want to present them in a way that you can't get anywhere else. And we want to make movie stars and the characters they play say what we want them to say for a change, okay?
So now we've collected our first batch all in one place where you can look at them full-screen, download them or -- and this is the hot tip -- even play them as a slide-show(the button's right underneath the banner). Click on the photo to the left or the link below and see for yourself. The actual Comix take a few seconds to load because they're high res (like we said, it's art, baby)... but it's worth it...
The Smackdown. This may turn out to be our All-Time Heavyweight Smackdown -- the equivalent of Ali versus Frasier -- where both of the fighters are at the top of their games and both deserve to wear the champion's belt even though only one can. The DC/Warner "The Dark Knight" in the ring against the Marvel/Columbia "Spider-Man 2" pits two comic book film sequels against each other, both of which are considered better than what preceded them, and what preceded them was considered fantastic. Both are directed by the same men who were trusted with the franchise a second time after they had shed themselves of the responsibility of an "origin" story and could get deeper into their redefinition of what makes the character really come alive. Because this Smackdown is bigger than life to begin with, we're handling it in a different way, too. Each film will be represented by a separate critic who passionately advocates victory for his client. To up the stakes even higher, our two critics are father and son -- a real life family feud. Then, at the end, you will be the jury. You will vote to determine the winner. Let's get the fight started...
The Challenger - The Dark Knight."The Dark Knight" picks up where "Batman Begins" left off. Millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne has literally gone to the dark side, prowling the streets battling crime using his new Batman alter-ego as his cover. The way the new film tells it, he's been pretty successful: criminals are afraid to come out at night, he's got a cozy relationship with the cops, and most people are pretty happy he's getting the job done. With the crime lords looking for a new move to counter the Batman, they find an unstable, but powerful, ally in the Joker.
We saw this film at a DGA (Directors Guild of America) screening at Howard Hughes Center here in LA on an IMAX theater. Given that director Christopher Nolan was there for the Q&A afterward, I have to assume it was projected to the highest technical standards. It was breathtaking.
Nolan said that the thing that drove him to do this sequel was his desire, after creating such a vivid new re-imagining in "Batman Begins," was to answer the question: "Who is the Joker in this world?" He has done that, and more.
You'll hear that Heath Ledger is
phenomenal in this role and he is. Literally every second he is on the
screen, you're simply afraid to look away because you'll something
unique and special about this final performance given by Ledger before
he died.
Something else that Nolan has done differently here is to give us Gotham City as it's meant to be. He admitted that his first take was a little art-directed and that in this case he went for a "slight genre shift" by shooting a great deal more on location (mostly Chicago) and to give us a crime story that is more in the tradition of Michael Mann than Tim Burton's first time out with Batman.
The Smackdown. With the U.S. Olympic Team Trials in Track & Field coming up in Eugene, more than a few people will be thinking about the runner who pretty much owned Hayward Field back in the day, Steve Prefontaine. It's been a decade since Hollywood made two films back-to-back about the legendary distance runner, and you may be tempted to go rent one of them to see for yourself what the fuss was all about.
Track's been on my mind for other reasons, too. My wife and I have a film that just finished filming in Los Angeles last Friday, "Miles from Nowhere," about a high-school athlete who decides to go for a sub-four minute mile. During the time we were polishing up our screenplay's last draft before production, we looked for a little inspiration and watched both "Prefontaine" and "Without Limits" within a couple of days of each other. It was like a film school assignment to see what different production teams and actors could do with essentially the same source material. But there was another element here, for me, that put even this challenge through a separate creative filter.
Steve Prefontaine wasn't actually a legend to me, you see, because I was there when he was breaking all these incredible records.
As a native Oregonian I had seen him win the state high school two-mile in a barn-burning race when I was just a kid, then I had gone to the University of Oregon at the same time he attended and ran, and was working at a local TV station as an intern at the time of his death. Later, I used to log a lot of miles running on the wood-chip trail dedicated to him, "Pre's Trail." I can't claim that I knew him, but I saw him on campus (vividly remember watching him chug some beer at Duffy's Tavern) and when he ran at Hayward field during my freshman year, my dorm (Douglass-Walton) faced the track and we literally watched and cheered from our room window.
I don't imagine too many people are ever going to watch both of these films so our Smackdown answers a practical question: if you want to see one single film that captures the essence of Steve Prefontaine, which one should you see?
Summertime and there’s action aplenty inside the MOVIE SMACKDOWN ring...
One thing you’ll notice immediately is our look is changing. Graphic designer Nancy Tokos is working her magic for us on our banners and we’re experimenting to see which one we like the best. Plus, we’ve upgraded our photos and captions to make them bigger and more fun using the great new Comic Life Magiq program. We’re planning to get into the podcast, YouTube and even TV business as we grow.
We just heard from the United States Patent and Trademark Office that they have approved the registration of our service mark. This means we are the one, true and only MOVIE SMACKDOWN!® Accept no substitutes. That’s a greenlight for us to really step on the gas promotion-wise.
Also, AMC has picked us as the “Site of the Week” and features us prominently on their site. So here’s a shout-out to writer Christine Fall for finding us and seeing our quality.
Plus, we’re busy gearing up for more summer fun by adding new critics. This month we’ll be welcoming Stephen Bell and Lorianne Tibbets to our already outstanding SmackRefs.
Coming up over tonight and tomorrow: Beau DeMayo smacks "The
Incredible Hulk -vs- Hulk" and Stephen Bell smacks "The Happening -vs-
The Sixth Sense."
Why do we do this? Because some movies just need a good Smackin’...
The Smackdown. Only HBO had the courage to give us the behind-the-scenes truth about the two greatest contests affecting our civilization in recent memory: the battle to decide the election between George Bush and Al Gore and, perhaps more importantly, the NBC decision about whether Jay Leno or David Letterman would get to host the Tonight Show and, thus, change life as we know it in America. The question is: if you're just watching
these films as films and not metaphors or cautionary tales, which
one's the best investment of a couple of hours?
The Challenger. The PR buzz for "Recount" is only just now building on the sides of buses, premiere parties, ET mentions and in interstitial spots on HBO itself. "Recount" came into my life last month, as a TV academy member, in the form of a "For Your Consideration" DVD. I've already written about this millenial political period on the "Instant History" site and remember, vividly, how transfixed we all were for that month of misery in 2000. Now, of course, we have the Clinton/Obama tie to bring us together on cable news channels and we may start to forget how many twists and turns there were in the Florida recount. HBO turned director Jay Roach ("Meet the Parents") loose on the project after Sidney Pollack turned them down, and Roach has done a fine job here making us re-live the headlines. I remember most vividly that the entire campaign was a debate about what to do with a budget surplus that disappeared after 9/11 never to be seen again and that both Gore and Bush were universally loathed by the electorate, accounting for their dead heat as much as the blue state-red state divide.
The Defending Champion. Back in the day, Johnny Carson ruled late night until he decided to quit in 1992, and then all hell broke loose as NBC managed to publicly court and humiliate the two princes who would be king: David Letterman and Jay Leno. The smoke eventually cleared in Leno's favor but the story behind the story became a book by Bill Carter that skewered all the characters involved for being true-to-life Hollywood sharks. As directed by Betty Thomas ("The Brady Bunch Movie"), this film stirred up all kinds of "inside baseball" controversy for HBO -- from its portrayals of Leno (Daniel Roebuck) and Letterman (John Michael Higgins) themselves to Leno's insane manager Helen Kushnick (Kathy Bates) and Letterman's insane agent (Michael Ovitz). This movie amused me a lot because I actually knew some of the players -- I'd been at Ovitz's agency CAA for a few years earlier in my career, I did a TV series with NBC's Warren Littlefield (Bob Balaban), and my son, Jonathan, had actually been a child actor portraying young Jay Leno on the Tonight Show for eight or nine appearances.
The Scorecard. Political junkies will love "Recount" in the same way that TV junkies loved "The Late Shift." They are insider pieces with real people being portrayed by some familiar actors. Tom Wilkinson, for example, does a killer James Baker and Laura Dern turns in a loopy Katerine Harris in "Recount." Bob Balaban's in both films, but he was best in "The Late Shift."
The thing is, we already know how both films turn out. We know that Bush wins in the Supreme Court and goes on to invade Iraq while Gore grows a beard and re-discovers global warming. We also know that Leno gets the NBC gig while Letterman goes to CBS but gets the last laugh because he gets to watch from the sidelines as NBC does it again and publicly elbows Leno out for Conan O'Brien. In any case, though, since we know the endings, our enjoyment has to be all about the ride.
The ride feels less bumpy in "Recount" because the material is more important and is not 100% dependent on that HBO ironic tone in order to succeed. Sometimes it can just settle for telling its story. But the subject matter in "The Late Shift" seems smaller and therefore less compelling. This means it better be funny. It is, but only in fits and starts.
Funny, of course, is in the Eye of the Beholder and if you think you'd like to see Roeback in a latext chin playing Leno or Higgins with a gap-toothed denture playing Letterman, then you're in for a treat. If not, you will spend the film eyeing them the same way you look at formerly hot women with too much plastic surgery. They look mostly right, but something is at least a frame off. To the best of my knowledge, none of the actors in "Recount" are prosthetically enhanced.
"The Late Shift" actually has a few scenes with Dave and Jay together which should have been great, but fall flat. "Recount," on the other hand, has Denis Leary and I'm one of those viewers who can't get enough of this guy's peformances. He and Kevin Spacey share a lot of scenes together, but this is not Spacey's strongest performance. He must have studied the real guy who's potraying and decided he was low-energy but the performance is a mistake.
Another oddball comparison here is that most viewers will watch these films thinking that the wrong guy won. By now, Gore's star has long-eclipsed Bush's with all but the most partisan crowds. At the same time, Johnny Carson always said he'd have picked Letterman if given the chance and it was Letterman's boyhood dream to host "The Tonight Show."
Imagine an America where President Gore fought global warming instead of Iraqi insurgents and "The Tonight Show with David Letterman" ruled the late shift. Dream on...
The Smackdown. With history being made in the Obama-Clinton battle, it seems right to take a glance in the rear-view mirror of our campaign bus and check out two classic election films. "The Candidate" really established the genre 35 years ago, giving us Robert Redford at the height of his charismatic on-screen presence as a JFK-like California senatorial candidate who wants to run on issues but ends up running on great hair and piercing eyes. A quarter of a century later, we got "Primary Colors" with John Travolta standing in for that horny guy who couldn't keep it zipped on the campaign trail or in the Oval Office. So those are the two nominees on our ballot. Let's see who's got the goods to win this cinematic election -- Redford/Kennedy or Travolta/Clinton.
The Challenger. The film comes from quite a pedigree: political writer Joe Klein wrote the book (originally as "Anonymous"), and the film was written by Elaine May and directed by Mike Nichols. Everything inside is paper-thin disguised as being about the 1992 Clinton campaign for the White House. John Travolta's Jack Stanton loves politics just like the real character he's based on and really cares about people, some of them so much he can't resist having sex with them. The reason to watch the film today, of course, is for insight into the Hillary character, Susan Stanton, as played by Emma Thompson (if you can get past how her repression of her British accent seems to give her Susan a sort of non-American blandness). Travolta's impression of our former president is a little too slow and scratchy and never quite nails down this character as someone who could win the presidency despite some huge errors in personal judgment. There's a great moment when Susan Stanton up and slaps the hell out of her husband's face after his latest infidelity: it's surprising and it's what you would hope Hill actually did to Bill at some point. However, this is a film that doesn't actually pick sides: Clinton haters will see it as proof that Bill was barely a moral level above pond scum, and Clinton lovers will see it as proof of his humanity, however flawed and imperfect.
The Incumbent. If our challenger film is about a candidate who loves politics too much, our champion -- "The Candidate" -- is about a candidate who doesn't love it enough, or even at all. Redford plays Bill McKay as a liberal lawyer fighting local battles for civil rights and environmental protection who is drafted into running a hopeless campaign, told he can say what he wants as a result and then starts to get close enough to victory to feel the need to compromise on his ideals. It illustrates the Catch-22 we have often put on American politics: namely, if a candidate wants to win, he must be suspect, and the best man has to lose or he can't be the best man after all. Written by Jeremy Larner and directed by Michael Ritchie, "The Candidate" isn't quite a comedy and it isn't quite a drama and, despite earlier admonitions that films aren't the way to send messages, this film is all about its message. It wants the audience to come away knowing that politics is a bad business that isn't really about governing at all, doesn't focus the issues but sands them down, and the system is so corrupt that the only way a good man or woman can prevail is to become corrupt and play the game. The deck is stacked at every juncture, but the details are beautifully realized and often subtle, throwing away the pay-off rather than ramming it home.
The Debate. The truth is that both these films have been bested by an independent candidate in this election. TV's "The West Wing" is superior to both in terms of laying out the mechanics of a modern political campaign and the show's final season pitting Alan Alda against Jimmy Smits was a great piece of film on an even larger and more complete canvas than either of our two main nominees.
First of all, "The West Wing" actually let its candidates talk about real issues with real answers. Both "Primary Colors" and "The Candidate" stage some of the most banal excuses for televised debates you'll ever see and, I'm not kidding, they actually make the latest round of Democratic and Republican debates look like sharp-edged battles over the issues.
It's also easy to argue that neither Travolta or Redford would ever have actually been elected as the characters they portray. Travolta is too phony and Redford is too removed. Even so, Redford's is the stronger performance. He feels real, within the context of his film, and Travolta feels like the caricature that he is and I didn't believe for a second that real voters would ever have supported him as portrayed.
On the other hand, there are wonderful performances in both films in supporting roles. Peter Boyle is wonderful as the campaign manager in "The Candidate." Billy Bob Thornton steals every scene he's in as the James Carville political guru in "Primary Colors."
By the way, Stanton isn't the only cheater -- McKay also nails a young campaign worker out on the trail. With him, though, it looks like a one-time mistake and with Stanton it's obviously a bad habit he can't break.
Absolute Politics Corrupts Absolutely
Review by Bryce Zabel
The Smackdown. With the political season coming at us even earlier this year than ever before in history, it seems right to take a glance in the rear-view mirror of our campaign bus and check out two classic election films. "The Candidate" really established the genre 35 years ago, giving us Robert Redford at the height of his charismatic on-screen presence as a JFK-like California senatorial candidate who wants to run on issues but ends up running on great hair and piercing eyes. A quarter of a century later, we got "Primary Colors" with John Travolta standing in for that horny guy who couldn't keep it zipped on the campaign trail or in the Oval Office. So those are the two nominees on our ballot. Let's see who's got the goods to win this cinematic election -- Redford/Kennedy or Travolta/Clinton.
The Challenger. The film comes from quite a pedigree: political writer Joe Klein wrote the book (originally as "Anonymous"), and the film was written by Elaine May and directed by Mike Nichols. Everything inside is paper-thin disguised as being about the 1992 Clinton campaign for the White House. John Travolta's Jack Stanton loves politics just like the real character he's based on and really cares about people, some of them so much he can't resist having sex with them. The reason to watch the film today, of course, is for insight into the Hillary character, Susan Stanton, as played by Emma Thompson (if you can get past how her repression of her British accent seems to give her Susan a sort of non-American blandness). Travolta's impression of our former president is a little too slow and scratchy and never quite nails down this character as someone who could win the presidency despite some huge errors in personal judgment. There's a great moment when Susan Stanton up and slaps the hell out of her husband's face after his latest infidelity: it's surprising and it's what you would hope Hill actually did to Bill at some point. However, this is a film that doesn't actually pick sides: Clinton haters will see it as proof that Bill was barely a moral level above pond scum, and Clinton lovers will see it as proof of his humanity, however flawed and imperfect.
The Incumbent. If our challenger film is about a candidate who loves politics too much, our champion -- "The Candidate" -- is about a candidate who doesn't love it enough, or even at all. Redford plays Bill McKay as a liberal lawyer fighting local battles for civil rights and environmental protection who is drafted into running a hopeless campaign, told he can say what he wants as a result and then starts to get close enough to victory to feel the need to compromise on his ideals. It illustrates the Catch-22 we have often put on American politics: namely, if a candidate wants to win, he must be suspect, and the best man has to lose or he can't be the best man after all. Written by Jeremy Larner and directed by Michael Ritchie, "The Candidate" isn't quite a comedy and it isn't quite a drama and, despite earlier admonitions that films aren't the way to send messages, this film is all about its message. It wants the audience to come away knowing that politics is a bad business that isn't really about governing at all, doesn't focus the issues but sands them down, and the system is so corrupt that the only way a good man or woman can prevail is to become corrupt and play the game. The deck is stacked at every juncture, but the details are beautifully realized and often subtle, throwing away the pay-off rather than ramming it home.
The Debate. The truth is that both these films have been bested by an independent candidate in this election. TV's "The West Wing" is superior to both in terms of laying out the mechanics of a modern political campaign and the show's final season pitting Alan Alda against Jimmy Smits was a great piece of film on an even larger and more complete canvas than either of our two main nominees.
First of all, "The West Wing" actually let its candidates talk about real issues with real answers. Both "Primary Colors" and "The Candidate" stage some of the most banal excuses for televised debates you'll ever see and, I'm not kidding, they actually make the latest round of Democratic and Republican debates look like sharp-edged battles over the issues.
It's also easy to argue that neither Travolta or Redford would ever have actually been elected as the characters they portray. Travolta is too phony and Redford is too removed. Even so, Redford's is the stronger performance. He feels real, within the context of his film, and Travolta feels like the caricature that he is and I didn't believe for a second that real voters would ever have supported him as portrayed.
On the other hand, there are wonderful performances in both films in supporting roles. Peter Boyle is wonderful as the campaign manager in "The Candidate." Billy Bob Thornton steals every scene he's in as the James Carville political guru in "Primary Colors."
By the way, Stanton isn't the only cheater -- McKay also nails a young campaign worker out on the trail. With him, though, it looks like a one-time mistake and with Stanton it's obviously a bad habit he can't break.
The Smackdown. You certainly don't need to believe in Santa Claus to take inspiration from a good film that is either about the holiday or uses it as its backdrop. So over at our companion blog Movie Smackdown! we asked each of our critics to write a short blurb about a Christmas film that they have a special fondness for and submitted those choices and others to the dreaded blog poll treatment. Which holiday film or films do you think are worth repeat viewing to get in the holiday spirit? Humbug, you say? Read on...
No, we don't think that you will likely choose "Fred Claus" as the Christmas film you'd want to recommend to your friends to see every year or even, maybe, this year. On the other hand, the breadth of Christmas films out there is wide and many have their passionate defenders and detractors. We think Movie Smackdown! is the perfect place to sort this out.
Here are the films that our critics have decided to advocate as the one Christmas movie they think you should either see for the first time or re-visit during the holidays. We have, as you'll see, a wide diversity of opinion.
By the way, if you're one of those people who simply want to vote and get it over with, you can go to the bottom of this post and you'll find the polls there.
When I think of classic lines from Christmas movies, "Every time a bell
rings an angel gets his wings" isn't the first one that comes to mind.
And neither is "God bless us, every one." No, for me, the most
memorable line ever in a holiday movie is "You'll shoot your eye out,
kid!" from 1983's "A Christmas Story" -- novelist and screenwriter Jean
Shepherd's giddily cynical look at growing up in small-town Indiana in
the 1940s.
The
story line may not, at first blush, strike you as proper Christmas
movie fodder. It's all about a kid named Ralphie who passionately wants
to own... tin drum-roll, please... a Daisy Red Ryder 200-shot Carbine
Action BB gun. Oddly, everybody he talks to seems incapable of
discussing this potential possession without using those words, "shoot
your eye out." The world this film lives in no longer exists and that's
part of the reason it's so much fun to visit for a couple of hours.
This is truly the Little Engine That Could of holiday flicks. A
low-budget box-office flop featuring minor stars Peter Billingsley,
Melinda Dillon and Darren McGavin, and directed by Bob Clark of
"Porky's" infamy, "A Christmas Story" began to pick up steam with
audiences when Ted Turner's WTBS began broadcasting it in the late
'80s. By the mid-'90s, Turner was airing 24-hour marathons of the film
on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. The reason for the success? The
movie has an ear for how kids talk, and a heart for how they feel. It
manages to be nostalgic without being sentimental. And that's no mean
trick.
Our family tried to make "It's A
Wonderful Life" a Christmas tradition, but it never quite caught on.
Then, in 2003, writer Richard Curtis ("Four Weddings and a Funeral,"
"Bridget Jones's Diary") gave us the Christmas gift of "Love Actually"
as his directorial debut and it's been a once-a-year screening ever
since. The film is an ensemble romantic comedy set against the backdrop
of the holiday season and, by my count, there are over 20 main
characters and about nine separate romances. Some play out better than
others but, overall, it's like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates, you
never know what you're going to get.
Hugh Grant is wonderful, as usual, playing the newly elected Prime
Minister of Britain who happens to fall for a crumpet working for the
household staff (played by Martine McCutcheon). He's as appealing as
ever and his story really is the spine of the piece, if you think about
it. But you never really have the time because there's so much going
on. My second favorite bit is with Bill Nighy who plays an
over-the-hill rocker who's just scored a big hit by putting an old rock
standard "Love Is All Around" to Christmas lyrics and knows it's not
his finest work.
It works as a Christmas movie,
though, because Christmas really is all around. It's in the presents
people buy each other in this film, in the songs they sing, in the
plays they attend. It's about people who realize how much they need
other people and, even though this message begins the movie as a 9/11
reference, it's clearly developed as a holiday theme. Some critics have
tried to slam this film as being too busy but that has never bothered
me on the repeated viewings. I love these characters and if I could buy
them all a present, I would. Instead, just vote for them in our poll
and I'll be happy.
"Bad Santa" follows hapless Santa Claus impersonator
Willie (Billy Bob Thornton) and his elf impersonating sidekick Marcus
(Tony Cox). Every year the pair get hired at a new department store
only to rob the place blind after it closes on Christmas Eve. The scam
always goes off without a hitch, but this year things get a little
sticky. Willie's severe alcoholic indulgences are getting him into
more trouble than he can handle and store investigator Gin (Bernie Mac)
is hot on their trail. Also added to the mix is The Kid (Brett Kelly),
a young boy who befriends Willie and slowly manages to pull at his
heart strings.
When I first watched "Santa" a few years ago I could
not believe some of the things that came out of Thornton's mouth. I
certainly expected a bit of raunchiness, but this movie still managed
to surprise me with its verbal freedom. What I appreciated most was
that Thornton's Santa did not hold anything back -- characterizing, above
all, that Christmas is not always festive and cheerful. At some point
we have to recognize that it has become a colossal machine and the once
undulterated idea of Christmas is now buried somewhere between a stack
of Pokemon cards and a monogrammed money clip.
If you really think about it, Christmas is just
another day on the calendar. Just because it's the holiday season does
not mean that normal life is at standstill. That's where "Santa" steps
in. In my opinion this film details (in a rather exaggerated fashion)
that even though the holiday season is special and should be savored,
"raw" life continues to move forward. Even though that "raw" life
includes theft, gunshots, bullies, jail, sexual relations, and absent
fathers, "Santa" shows that everyone still has a motive and not
everything is picture perfect just because Santa Claus is coming to
town.
Though it has a tough exterior, "Santa" does manage
to expose its soft underbelly mostly via the relationship between
Willie and The Kid. What I truly love about "Santa" is that despite
it's very dark humor, the film still manages to teach a little lesson
at the end without making it an overly sappy encounter: Even the
biggest Scrooge has a heart that can be touched.
So if you want to forget about gifts and money for a
few hours and instead watch a Christmas flick that is not as much about
the fanciful idea of Christmas as it is about real people and their
relationships, then go out and rent "Bad Santa''... and don't forget to
give it a vote afterwards.
Ho...Ho...Horrors! I recommend this film unreservedly for all the contrary, hilarious impulses it throws at the holiday season. Hard luck cat burglar Gus (Denis Leary) decides to evade the cops on Christmas Eve night by abducting Lloyd and Caroline Chasseur (Kevin Spacey and Judy Davis). Really bad idea. Lloyd and Caroline won't stop arguing, even at gunpoint: Spiky, lacerating, unrelenting. "I hijacked my f*****g parents!" Gus sputters.
For Gus, it's all downhill. Every member of the dysfunctional family comes for dinner: Lloyd's mousy brother brings his smug wife Connie (Christine Baranski), their kids and the matriarch from hell, Rose Chasseur (Glynis Johns). Even Lloyd and Caroline's son sneaks in from military school. Gus cannot maintain the fiction he's the marriage counselor, Dr. Wong. Cut by cut the adults are emotionally filleted as the forced holiday gaiety is scraped away. All resent Rose and it's payback time for years of toxic maternal abuse. She's tied up when there's a knock on the door, and the in-laws lay it on: "Go on, Mary.. gag your grandma" Connie tells her daughter.
The Ref offers an upbeat ending that gives story balance and acknowledges the obvious: That few people have the Christmas you'll see in It's a Wonderful Life or A Christmas Carol or Gift of the Magi. Sharp dialogue and a superior cast give the movie its zing. Ted Demme directed the script from Marie Weiss and Richard LaGravenese. Above all, The Ref suggests we can use a dose of honesty and forgiveness. That may be the best Christmas present of all.
Up until I saw Christian Carion’s French film, "Joyeux Noel," two years ago, Bob Clark’s "A Christmas Story" was my favorite Christmas movie –- ever, as my five-year-old loves to say. I never tired of seeing it, sharing it with my kids, or warning them not to shoot their eyes out with a Red Ryder Rifle! "Joyeux Noel," however, has stayed with me and become my favorite Christmas film, even if it’s too rough in places to yet share with my kids. Its story is simple and based on a real event too impossible to believe yet too irresistible to ignore. The log line might read, "On Christmas Eve 1914, a German opera star and his lover sing Christmas carols on a World War I battlefield resulting in French, Scottish and German troops calling a brief truce to erect Christmas trees along their respective trenches and share a moment of solidarity and simple joy before continuing on with the task of killing one another.”
The fact that this is absolutely true and that the opera star and his beloved, also an opera star, choreographed the event so that they would have one night together before his possible death, is even more amazing. That such a sequence of events could actually transpire during the middle of a brutal and demoralizing battle is the key to the film’s success. Writer/director Carion overcomes any obvious sentimentality or emotional overload by assuring us that even in the darkest hour, our own human need for love will not only triumph, but become a respite from horror for all those close enough to bathe in its wonder.
Every Christmas film story strives to show the true meaning of Christmas. Usually that's the argument that man’s nature is ultimately noble and that we should love thy neighbor or something like that regardless of who controls our earthly fortunes -- Bush, Allah, Time-Warner or George Steinbrenner. What is miraculous to me about "Joyeux Noel" is that it really does this. And does it by recreating the most beautiful “concert” in the middle of a devastated battlefield splattered with corpses representative of all the living participants who are now listening, enrapt and in tears, on Christmas Eve. This scene enabled me to appreciate my own nature as a man (in the universal sense); that love and beauty, in this instance in the guise of sublime voices and music, can not only reverse the cruelty of man but also convert it to compassion. No other Christmas film that I have seen conveys that simple tome in such a magisterial and compelling way.
To add a coda, the next morning, Christmas Day, each of the combatants agree to delay the killing a bit longer to give the other time to pick up their dead and comfort one another in their loss. It’s a scene of overwhelming sadness because we know, within hours, the field will once again be littered with bodies. We know that soon Christmas and this miraculous event will be a footnote to history and things will return, again, to horrific normalcy because of “orders” from above. "Joyuex Noel" should be required viewing of all leaders of all countries that require the sacrifice of their peoples for the greater good. Perhaps they should all be reminded that the greater good is, ultimately, man (in the universal sense). For that reason, more than any other, "Joyeux Noel" is now my favorite Christmas film. And in a few years I will let my children experience it. And in the future, my hope is that they will share it with their children. And so it goes.
If you were alive during the 1990 Christmas movie season, you saw this family comedy without the family, maybe even a couple of times, and can probably still conjure up the image of 8-year-old Macaulay Culkin, as Kevin, with his hands to his face. Definitely an indelible image. Culkin was a break-out in this film, and he was never as good in anything since. His believable, smart-ass kid attitude is endearing to the max.
Chris Columbus directs from a John Hughes script that focuses on a picked-on youngest of five kid who, with his large family bustling and hustling to make a Christmas flight to Paris, ends up getting overlooked and left... home... alone. Although Kevin initially gets off on his time to himself with no adults to bug him, the story is really about him having to fight off the efforts of two house burglars by booby-trapping his home. Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern are the self-proclaimed "Wet Bandits" who think it'll be easy duty stealing from a house where the family's in Europe. The plot isn't really plausible and it does get taken over by stunts and special effects, but it doesn't really matter. This film also supplies some unexpected charm, like mom (Catherine O'Hara) flying stand-by economy to get home, ending up stranded outside of Chicago, and needing to hitch a ride with a polka band led by John Candy. Ask any parent who's seen this movie: we've all been there in spirit, if not in deed.
Christmas infuses the film with its music and imagery but that could be said of many lesser films and imitations. "Home Alone" is a great Christmas film because, in addition to getting the emotion right, it's also got the spirit of our times all through it. As a little girl asks in this film, "Does Santa Claus have to go through customs?" You wouldn't find her asking that in Bedford Falls.
Like a lot of Americans, Frank Capra had just returned from World War II and he wanted this picture (based on a story by Philip Van Doren Stern) to be a celebration of our country's ordinary citizens. It wasn't really all that successful at the time nor was it perceived as a "Christmas movie." That happened when it fell starting in the 1970s when PBS stations used it as counter-programming to big network Christmas specials and gathered steam when a clerical error allowed it to fall out of copyright in 1974.
The audience has grown over the years and many families make it an annual holiday viewing, something that Capra himself in 1984 called "the damndest thing." In the 80s, a colorized version was released which, ironically, had no problem being copyrighted by has been savaged by film critics although average viewers seem to not be so bothered by.
The film takes place in the fictional town of Bedford Falls shortly after World War II and stars James Stewart as George Bailey, a man whose attempted suicide on Christmas Eve gains the attention of his guardian angel, Clarence who is sent to help him in his hour of need. Most of the film is told through flashbacks spanning George's entire life and narrated by Franklin and Joseph, unseen Angels who are preparing Clarence for his mission to save George. Through these flashbacks we see all the people whose lives have been touched by George and the difference he has made to the community in which he lives.
Jay Amicarella recommends "A CHILD'S CHRISTMAS IN WALES"
Does your local newspaper publish a special "Holiday"
pull-out of "seasonal" films and TV specials each year? (Sorry, the
tough, protect-free-speech-at all-costs print industry can't publish
the word "Christmas" any more.) Flipping through the pages of listings
and reading the synopses is just one of many of the Christmas rituals
I've developed over the years. "A selfish ad executive learns the true
meaning of The Holidays..." "A selfish stockbroker learns the true
meaning of the The Holidays..." "A selfish serial-killer learns the
true meaning of The Holidays."
The only things worse are the bizarre,
creepy "Specials," obviously filmed in mid-June, with titles like "A
Sweeny Todd Country Christmas, On Ice!" "The cast of 'Todd' joins Tim
McGraw, Faith Hill, and David Copperfield at the Tonya Harding
Memorial Rink for a true Country Christmas." This is not the sort of
fare that will give you any comfort when you stumble home from
gift-shopping, exhausted and irritable and hating humanity, ready to
chuck December and move right on to New Year's Day.
What will offer
solace, and renew your faith in the basic goodness of people is the
film version of poet Dylan Thomas' "A Child's Christmas in Wales," a
quiet treat starring Denholm Elliot as 'Old Geraint,' an aging Welshman
recalling for his grandson the warm delights of the Christmases of his
youth. Thomas' beautiful poetic imagery, perfectly voiced by Elliot,
and complemented by on-location filming in Wales and Canada, whisks you
away from email greetings and electronic cards to a quaint, bygone
world of mulled wine, hearth-roasted chestnuts, handmade ornaments, and
familial bliss.
At just around sixty minutes in length, this a perfect
family film, with none of the morbid, ghost-story trappings of "A
Christmas Carol," that I believe Dickens put in just to scare the crap
out of kids (It certainly did me, 'though I love four separate movie
versions of that story.) Troubled genius Thomas reminds us that
Christmas is not about neurotic adults, full of life regrets, but about
faith, family, and the uncomplicated joys of childhood. Whether it's
hurling snowballs at neighborhood cats, or pretending to smoke candy
cigarettes, or simply waking up in the morning to a world gone suddenly
white, "A Child's Christmas in Wales" encourages us to embrace the
simple joys of the season, as a child. And it employs the most perfect
use of one of my favorite hymns, "All Through the Night."
Christmas Night, when you're starting to languish
from the excesses of the day and the physical and emotional demands of
the season, is the perfect time to view this gem.
Randal Cohen recommends "A CHRISTMAS CAROL" (1984)
This Charles Dickens novella was first published in
1843. No other piece of literature better captures the pure spirit of
the holiday. Deeply emotional without being sentimental; deeply
spiritual without condesencion or preaching. Obviously, the tale is
part of our cultural lexicon and doesn't need much recitation beyond the obvious: this is the one where Scrooge gets visited by the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future and gets in the spirit of things by the end.
This "A Christmas Carol" is my
favorite adaptation of a story that's been filmed many times over the years and is a tradition in our house. Released theatrically in the U.K. in 1984 and
first aired on CBS television on December 17, 1984, it features a tour
de force performance by the late, great George C. Scott who received
an Emmy nomination for his turn as Ebeneezer Scrooge. Truly, this film is a wonderfully instructive experience for
older children dulled by the commercialism of the holiday (it may
frighten the very young). Forget Tim Allen's shallow comedies, this is
the ultimate cinematic Christmas experience.
To give you some perspective as to how this story has stood the test of time, back in 1843, the man in the red suit we're so fond of was wearing green and going by the name Father Christmas. Back then, Dickens was also feuding with his publishers so the very first edition of the novella was self-published, complete with lavish binding and hand-colored illustrations. He priced it at five shillings so everybody could afford it. These days the technology has changed, but the story remains the same, and this is the version you should see during the holiday season.
The film expands a story that can be read in under three minutes into a ninety-nine-minute movie, while remaining true to the visual style of the original. The "Hot Chocolate" production number was derived from a single sentence and a single illustration. The "Hobo," "Lonely Boy," and "Know-it-All" characters, the scenes on rooftops and on the locomotive, and the runaway observation car sequence were all new to the film.
"The Polar Express" tells the story of a young boy on Christmas Eve who is hoping for belief in the true spirit of Christmas. After falling asleep, a magical train called the Polar Express pulls up in front of his house and he is invited to journey to the North Pole. After reaching the North Pole, the boy is handpicked by Santa Claus to receive the first present of Christmas. He chooses a bright silver bell from Santa's sleigh which makes a beautiful sound. As the years go by, people around him notice that they can no longer hear the beautiful sound, even his parents and sister. But there are those who still can, those who still truly believe.
I don't know if you'll believe after you see this, but you'll remember what it was like when you did.
The Decision. Now for a little audience participation. You'll find two separate polls below.
Poll #1 from Vizu puts our critics' choices up against each other to see which of our favorites gets the nod. You can only vote once, and for one movie.
Some of you, of course, demand more choice in your life. For you we have another option:
Poll #2 from Poll Daddy lets you vote for as many films
as you want and as many times as you wish. It also includes films that
aren't in our critics' picks. It's a good way to measure passion, we
figure...
Of course, we know there is absolutely zero scientific validity to either of these polls, but we never claimed to be the Gallup organization anyway. Both polls will stay open until Christmas Day. However, we'll have some of our respective critics weigh in individually with their reactions to the winning film or films the week before.
The Smackdown. Yesterday, my wife and I went with six other couples to an afternoon showing of the new "The
Heartbreak Kid" at our local cineplex. Then we went out for a nice
Italian dinner, drank a little wine, and got ready for part two. That
involved going back to our place and watching the original "The
Heartbreak Kid" in our home theater. I've been doing this kind of
comparison viewing for these Smackdowns for a while now, but never quite so organized
and never with so many other voices in the mix. We definitely came up with a consensus winner -- more on that at the end.
Basically, both pictures share the basic plot points and it will spoil nothing to say them out loud. Start with a male character who's desperate to end his prolonged bachelor status and let him rush into a bad marriage. Send him off on a honeymoon with a woman who quickly becomes unbearable to him. Give that woman a world-class sunburn so that she has to go to ground, allowing him to roam the nearby beaches and meet the real woman of his dreams. Let our guy fall in love and have to confess to this new woman that he's... well... married. It's a good comic problem and, really, at its most basic level, this is a very painful situation for people to be in. There's a phrase I hear a lot in my rounds out here in Hollywood, in various contexts, but it clearly applies to films, sports, sex and damn near all pursuits: execution is everything. So let's see who executes best:
"I'm putting the aloe on now, honey. Let me know if it hurts."
The Challenger (2007). There are a lot of cooks in this kitchen. Not only do Peter and Bobby Farrelly make up two directors where one is usually enough for most movies, but the writing credit needs a translation key. According to the credits, this film is "Based on a Screenplay by Neil Simon" which was "Based on the Short Story 'A Change of Plans' by Bruce Jay Friedman" and has been constructed from a "Screenplay by Scot Armstrong and Leslie Dixon and Bobby Farrelly & Peter Farrelly & Kevin Barnett." This means that it started as a short story, Neil Simon turned it into the original movie, then this re-make was first attempted by Scot Armstrong who got replaced by Leslie Dixon who got replaced by the Farrelly Brothers who worked on the final draft with Kevin Barnett. Stephanie Zacharek over at Salon called the picture a "veritable Volkswagen stuffed with writers" and it's an apt metaphor here.
Clearly, the Farrelly Brothers are betting that this long and winding road would put a new successful film on their resume that includes "Dumb and Dumber," "Shallow Hal" and "Me, Myself and Irene" -- all comedies that are over-the-top affairs that provoke laughter often through their sheer uncomfortableness. Who can forget screaming out loud in the theater when Ben Stiller gets his manhood caught in his zipper in "Something About Mary"? The Farrelly's latest film, though, puts a spin on the characters that's new. The people in "The Heartbreak Kid" aren't just people who have bad or uncomfortable things happen to them, in many cases they are the cause of these events.
Ben Stiller's Eddie is another of his tormented normal guy characters that is maybe getting a little familiar, but it's still a comic invention seemingly as reliable as the Little Tramp was almost a century ago. The revelation in this film, though, is actress Malin Akerman, who plays his new bride, Lila, and suffers through more indignity than any actress in recent comic movie making. By the end of the film, your eyes narrow when she comes on the screen, you want to shut her out, because she makes you so damn uncomfortable which is, after all, her role in the film. Loved Rob Corddry, didn't like Ben's dad, Jerry Stiller, who plays his dad here in an unfunny imitation of the Alan Arkin character from "Little Miss Sunshine." The woman of Stiller's dreams is Miranda, played by Michelle Monaghan who comes with a complete wacked-out family of her own misfits.
"You see, sir, when that other girl and I decided to get married, I honestly had no idea how annoying she could be. But I don't see that being a problem with your own daughter."
The Defending Champion (1972). Back when he reviewed the original in 1972, New York Times critic Vincent Canby called this film "a first-class American comedy, as startling in its way as was 'The Graduate.'" I'd bet that most -- if not all -- of our film group last night had actually seen this film before, either as kids in the theaters or on some late night TV showing in the decade or so after. Memories dim. I knew the basics of the plot, and remembered that Cybill Shepherd totally ruled as a WASP goddess.
She's not that clearly drawn as a character as I had remembered. She's blonde and beautiful, yes, but in her own way she may have her own set of deficiencies. If Lila, the first wife, is unexpectedly obnoxious, it begins to look like Shepherd's Kelly is unexpectedly detached and lacking in passion.
Even getting to screen, this film had its share of writers: first came the article, then Neil Simon's adaptation and, as history records it, a fairly extensive uncredited work-over by director Elaine May. Yet its tone manages to be consistent throughout. It is not a farce; it is a comedy that wants to be seen as a drama.
At its core is Charles Grodin whose deadpan acting works perfectly here. He quickly goes to default lying and cheating. Nobody in a story meeting on this film ever said, "I'm afraid he's not likable." He actually does come off with some of the same aura of alienation that Dustin Hoffman carried with him in "The Graduate." Even the storyline has Grodin following his true love to her college campus just like Hoffman did before him.
The ending here is awesome. It's the kind that causes 70s films to now be looked at with great longing by film buffs who hate how Hollywood has over-studied everything in its risk aversion and made studio films such safe by-the-numbers affairs. The original is ambiguous, thoughtful, not-so-tidy, and fascinating.
The Scorecard. On at least a superficial level, the re-make of "The Heartbreak Kid" is certainly in the
wheelhouse of the original, but it's been twisted and contorted to supposedly appeal to the
sensibilities of today's audiences. Obviously studio execs
greenlit this project with the hope Ben Stiller will get young audiences who weren't even
born when the original was made into the theaters and that the Farrellys could deliver the kind of ranch that made "Superbad" a super-hit.
Let's go to the core character, the actual "Heartbreak Kid" in each of these. Ben Stiller is given an Eddie to play who is a surface-deep, desperate fellow who really isn't all that likable. At least his pal, the Rob Corddry character, may be a hen-pecked lout, but he's trying to just keep an even strain on things. Flashing back to 1972, though, Charles Grodin has a character in Lenny who has definite social climber tendencies, and his performance is inside, not outside, the character. Both Lenny and Eddie are people who find out in this story that they can't be trusted by others, or themselves, but Grodin makes it real and Stiller makes it broad, content to go with borrowing a bit of all his suffering, grimacing characters who have gone before. Obviously, the Farrellys and their writing posse decided that Ben Stiller needed to be a
little less complicit in his own deception in the latest film, and that
decision robs their latest film of spice and uniqueness.
Even though it's true that on a macro level both of
these films share the same plot, they do deviate widely in their
sensibilities and approach to it.There's one huge difference in the plot between the two movies. In the 1972 original, Lenny actually comes clean with Kelly and tells her he's married. In the 2007 re-make, Eddie keeps the news from Miranda through a series of misunderstandings. The first looks to character for its comedy, the second looks to farce.
This is true all the way to the ending which, as mentioned, is thoughtful and poignant in the original and ridiculous in the re-make. In 1972, Lenny had problems. In 2007, Eddie is the problem.
According to SiteMeter, our companion site, Movie Smackdown, has set a new record for site traffic for the eighth month in a row!
This screen capture which follows shows that every month this year has set a significant new record. Naturally, there are places that get what we get traffic-wise in a month in a day or an hour, but the trend's good. If we were a stock, we'd be on the cover of "Forbes."
If you're one of our regular readers (and SiteMeter says you come from all over the world), thanks for dropping by and making us part of your entertainment experience. And tell your friends that "Movie Smackdown" is the freshest way to review movies since thumbs and stars.
We get mail. And some of you seem to really like the less-than-reverent way we treat the publicity stills that the studios put out to promote their films on our Movie Smackdown! sister site.
Recent Comments