IN BRUGES & More Film Babble Follow-up Fun!

In the spirit of continuing the pre-Spring cleaning I started last post I thought I'd go through my email bag and follow-up on some past threads but first let me tell you about another fine film that is in limited release and unfortunately being overlooked:

IN BRUGES (Dir. Martin McDonagh, 2008)

When I saw the trailer I feared that this would be one in a long line of Quentin Tarentino/Guy Ritchie ripoffs - you know, with wisecracking pop culture savvy figures of the underworld caught up in a series of crafty quirky possibly silly scenarios but IN BRUGES is so much better than that.

Sure, it does have those elements but the restraint in flash and the edgy funny screenplay fuels a sweetly character driven piece that expertly balances dark comedy with a solid suspense yarn.

Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell are two hitmen who after botching a job in London are sent to the medieval city of Bruges in Belgium to lie low. Gleeson makes the best of the situation to take in some of the local sights but Farrell, in one of his best performances as the daft put-upon Ray, grumbles "If I'd grown up on a farm and was retarded, Bruges might impress me, but I didn't, so it doesn't." He even remarks: "Maybe that's what hell is, an entire eternity spent in Bruges."

As they wait for further instructions from their boss Harry (an energized and hilariously intense Ralph Fiennes) their lives become intertwined with a few colorful characters including French actress Clémence Poésy as Farrell's love interest and Jordan Prentice as a racist dwarf actor named Jimmy.

It would be wrong to spill any more about the plot - the swift surprises in the film's crafty construction should not be spoiled. Everything seems to have nicely aligned in every department for this sure to be a future cult film.

Even the score by Coen Brothers regular Carter Burwell should be noted as exceptional. It is incredibly encouraging that a new filmmaker can take the tired stale crime caper and reinvigorate it into something as satisfyingly fresh and vital as IN BRUGES.

As the new to the scene writer/director Martin McDonagh is definitely a name to remember. I'm sure that as word of mouth spreads his next movie-film will have a much wider release. You would have had to grown up on a farm or be retarded to dismiss this as another PULP FICTION wannabe or a LOCK, STOCK... look-alike - this is no such pretender.

Okay, so now it's time to look back over Film Babble Blog past and follow-up on some of those much commented on lists. In my post 10 Movie Moments That Broke The 4th Wall (August 22, 2007) I told by many fine film loving folk that I missed a really crucial and much loved Movie Moment:
                                                                   

HAROLD AND MAUDE (Dir. Hal Ashby, 1971)

I can't believe I left this one off! It's one of my favorite films ever and it's such a wonderful example of "breaking the frame". Harold (Bud Cort) having successfully scared off another computer dating candidate by staging another of his phony suicide attempts looks directly at us in a "see what I just did?" manner. His sly satisifaction is short lived however as he recoils into timid submission upon turning and see his Mother's disapproving glare. The passionate piano plucking intro of Cat Steven's "I Think I See The Light" perfectly punctuates the shot and takes us into the next scene. Just about as good as film making gets.

I got a lot of feedback about my post 20 Great Modern Movie Cameos (June 5, 2007) - so much that I already did a follow-up - The Cameo Countdown Continues (June 20, 2007) but there was one delicious guest appearance that a bunch of people have called me on - Frank Zappa in the beautifully bizarre Monkees movie HEAD (Dir. Bob Rafelson, 1968). It's another favorite of mine so boy is my face beet red! 

After Davy Jones's "Daddy's Boy" dance number Zappa, who for some reason is walking a cow on a leash, appears (credited as "The Critic") from out of a crowd of extras on the studio back lot to offer his comments: "That song was pretty white." Davy responds: "So am I; what can I tell you?" Zappa continues "You've been working on your dancing though...doesn't leave much time for your music. You should spend more time on it because the youth of America depends on you to show the way." 

To this, Zappa's cow with an imposed cartoon mouth says in a weird accent: "Monkees is the craziest people!" That aside was to the camera so the scene counts as both a cameo and a moment that broke the 4th wall. Thanks to Sarah R., Stephanie W., Tim Murcer, George F., and especially Everette K. for not letting this issue go!

This one came from a recent email from Michael E. of Illinois referring to a post I did last summer called Those Damn DirecTV Movie Tie-In Ads - Offensive To Film Buffs? (July 19, 2007). Michael alerted me to a new DirecTV ad that 

features Kathy Bates reprising her Oscar winning role as Annie Wilkes from MISERY. Depicting the setup to the most horrific scene in the movie - the one where Bates cripples James Caan (who only appears from the original footage) with a sledgehammer - this commercial is the most misguided by far. Bates must have felt some hesitation to exploit her breakthrough performance for a satellite dish outfit. I guess on the other hand it was just another day's work and one that most likely got her an awesome high def TV hook-up. 

For my post 10 Self Referential Moments In The Films Of George Lucas/Steven Spielberg (Oct. 18th, 2007) I really missed a doozey! In RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK on the wall in the background of the Egyptian temple that Indian Jones finds the Ark in you can see C3PO and R2D2 illustrated in Hieroglyphic form - like Club Obi Wan in TEMPLE OF DOOM this definitely ties together the...hey, wait! 

I never did a post about self referential moments in Lucas/Spielberg movies! Hmm, maybe I should.

That new INDIANA JONES and the long ass title nobody will use * is going to be out soon so it may be a good idea...

* Actually INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL - but c'mon! Nobody is gonna to use it - it'll be like "2 tickets to Indy 4."

More later...

Starting Out In The Evening & Some Pre-Spring Cleaning

This, of course is the post prestige Oscars season - a downtime in which theaters are so cluttered with crap that the occasional worthwhile film can get easily overlooked.

This is such a film: 
STARTING OUT IN THE THE EVENING (Dir. Andrew Wagner, 2007)

Wagner's directorial debut is impressive for its purposely minimal staging methods as well as its crafty casting. The masterful Frank Langella plays Leonard Schiller - a reclusive writer whose time is seemingly past.

His acclaimed 4 novels are long out of print and he has struggled for over a decade to complete a new work and create one final lasting impression in the world of literature despite being told that the market is dominated by "celebrity confessions and self-help books."

Langella's relationship with his daughter Ariel (Lili Taylor) doesn't help matters as she is fiercely protective of him and intensely defensive about the loud ticking of her biological clock. Coming into the picture is the young glowing Heather Wolfe (Lauren Ambrose) who fashions herself as Schiller's protégé and wants to help republish his work and re-establish his place in the pantheons of New York literary society. 

Trouble is she is a bit too interested in the touchy possibly painful autobiographical sources of his earlier work which cause the agitated author to cut short their first sit-down interview. 

Schiller does however offer: "I'll concede this, I have occasionally drawn from my own life but I have I only done so in the spirit of objectivity." 

As to whether anything develops between them I'll plead my no Spoilers defense. In the best sense of a 'filmed play' STARTING OUT... is a meticulous machine of a movie; every scene is exactly as long as it should be and every beat whether a solid point of action or a floating notion feels natural as can be in the construct. Langella, in what has to be called a "career best performance", has an enhanced elegance to his every gesture even when on the verge of emotional collapse. 

Ambrose (pictured to the left) and Taylor, who appeared on Six Feet Under as remarkably different but just as strained characters, both deflect different shards of the dying light from their powerful patriarch, each hitting their stage marks with aplomb. 

As Taylor's hesitant to be a Baby-Daddy boyfriend, Adrian Lester also has a well chosen charismatic demeanor and is refreshingly likable especially when considering that the stock disagreeing partner character usually is an asshole set up for audience disapproval. That's one of many well nuanced thoughtful touches in this moving film. 

When Heather questions Leonard accusing him of abandoning his characters, the crux of the ginormous "does art imitate life or vice versa" question hits hard. As one noted New York poet once observed "between thought and expression, lies a lifetime." 

Now I thought I'd do some pre-Spring cleaning out of my notebook and Word files and post some reviews of recent flicks I've seen over the last few weeks - both new and old: 

MARGOT AT THE WEDDING (Dir. Noah Baumbach, 2007)

                                                 

Another film about exasperated literary minded folk uncertain of what their choices are, let alone if they are the right or wrong ones. Nicole Kidman, as the title character, is a recently separated successful writer who travels with her son Claude (Zane Pais) to her family's old home in Long Island for her sister's (Jennifer Jason Leigh) wedding. It is immediately obvious that she doesn't approve of her sibling's groom to be - Jack Black, shaggy as ever with a mustache that he claims he's wearing 'ironically'. 

As Black is an unemployed rock musician and aspiring artist we can see why. There are other concerns for Margot - the clichéd backwoods looking neighbors who menacingly demand that a tree on the property's line be cut down, her nearby lover (Ciaran Hinds) who she may have really come to see with the wedding as a cover, and her ex-husband's (John Turturro) constant phoning all drained her and me as I waded through. 

It's a movie in which every character exasperates every other character - Black even says: "I have the emotional version of whatever bad Feng Shui would be!" 

Every actor is capable and has engaging moments but the malaise that inhabits their lives fills the screen and I was left wondering why I should care for these people. When sister Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh) asks Margot: "What was it about Dad that had us fucking so many guys? " 

I really wanted to leave the room rather than hear the answer. Like Leonard Schiller in STARTING OUT... (or more aptly Harry Block in DECONSTRUCTING HARRY) both Margot and her creator - director/writer Noah Baumbach have mined their lives for their art (Baumbach in real life much more successfully before in KICKING AND SCREAMING, MR. JEALOUSY, and THE SQUID AND THE WHALE), but even with that illustrative insight this proceeding suffers from a severe lack of wit. 

And to truly ad insult to injury MARGOT AT THE WEDDING doesn't even have a wedding in it! And I don't care if that's a Spoiler! 

MARTIAN CHILD (Dir. Menno Meyjes, 2007) 

                            

Remember K-PAX? That lame ass movie with Kevin Spacey claiming to be from another planet? Jeff Bridges spends the whole film trying to figure out if he's crazy or actually telling the truth? No you don't remember it? Lucky you. 

Well anyway this is the kids version. John Cusack plays a successful science fiction novelist and a widower who is going ahead with his and his deceased spouse's plans to adopt. He is told by the adoption agency that they have a match, a reclusive six year old (Bobby Coleman) who thinks that he hails from the red planet. 

Coleman wears what he calls a "hold me down" weight belt made out of batteries and duct tape because he feels the Earth's gravity is weak and he could float away without it. Cusack, who was an oddball outsider himself as a child, takes to the kid but worries about the mental celestial angle. 

Cusack is encouraged by his dead wife's sister (Amanda Peet in an extremely undeveloped role) and his own sister (once again real life sibling Joan Cusack) who is justifiably cynical about the situation. Don't worry I won't tell if the kid really turns out to be a Martian or not.

I read on the internets that Cusack was not happy with how this picture turned out and I can see why. The editing creates an awkward mood with many stilted scenes. 

The DVD has 27 minutes of deleted scenes that expose dropped plot-points and reveal how much trouble the filmmakers had shaping this material. Still it's hard to be completely hating on this movie it looks like there's a good script with plenty of spunk in there somewhere with many good lines like Joan Cusack's about her own kids - "I've got to take Omen I and Omen II to soccer practice!" 

The crisp chemistry of the supporting cast helps too - Oliver Platt as Cusack's smarmy agent, the reliable stern Richard Schiff (Toby from The West Wing) as a case worker, the underused Howard Hesseman as a child psychologist, and Cusack's THE GRIFTERS co-star Anjelica Huston as a literary publishing giant in a short but sweet part. As the kid in question, Coleman is cute and affective like in the scene where he reacts to a museum Mars landscape: "This is not how I remembered it."

As I wrote before about Cusack, he gets a film geek free pass for his work in the seminal SAY ANYTHING and HIGH FIDELITY among others so he can do rom com crap for the rest of his life if he wants and I'll look the other way but it's just that a film like this could've been so much more. 

It is such a lightweight movie that it needs its own "hold me down" weight belt to keep it from floating away. With its lack of real emotional impact it's just future Lifetime Channel afternoon fodder. You could do a lot worse than to rent MARTIAN CHILD but just like Cusack you could do a whole lot better.

SORCERER (Dir. William Friedkin, 1977)

                                  

When actor Roy Scheider died a month ago I posted a top 5 Essential Sharkless Roy Scheider Roles list. I got a few comments and a slew of email calling me on not having seen SORCERER. I put it in my NetFlix queue and just watched it so I'm happy to finally chime in on this underrated '70s spectacle. 

Well, first I'll say I hated that the only DVD version available is full screen and that it takes almost an hour to establish the premise that was as Peter Biskind's "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" book puts it "SORCERER revolves around the attempt of a small group of desperate men to drive a couple of trucks loaded with nitroglycerine across treacherous mountain terrain." 

To get to that we have to see each of the group, along with Scheider - Bruno Cremer, Amidou, and Fransico Rabal's violent and sometimes nonsensical background to gather somewhat why they are in exile in South America. Once we get going though it's quite a ride - that is, if you can get past the cryptic trappings. SORCERER is horribly titled; of course when you first hear it you think of wizards 'n goblins 'n such. 

Well, there's nothing like that here - in fact it is so named because well, I'm not sure why it's named SORCERER. I think I read it was because that name is on the side of a truck but I watched it with that in mind and didn't see such. Tangerine Dream's score as noted by Jim DeRogatis as his favorite progressive rock movie music on a recent Sound Opinions (the NPR rock radio talk show) episode about great soundtracks is definitely a synthesized symphonic wonder. 

Anyway as the tale goes this film opened a week after STAR WARS at the famous Chinese Theater in Los Angeles in 1977 then was again replaced by STAR WARS the week afterwards with Friedkin lamenting "I dunno, little sweet robots and stuff, maybe we're on the wrong horse." 

Maybe it was the wrong horse but Friedkin's crazy literally off the rails (the truck on the wildly frailing wood bridge in the storm sequence is monumental in the annals of Hollywood 'how the Hell did they do they do that?'") movie is not one to be forgotten. I hope it gets a deluxe treatment on DVD or Blue Ray or whatever. At least let's get a wide screen version out there. Just sayin'. 

More later...

10 Of The Most Misleading & Mis-Representing Movie Posters Ever!

In this interview with Pitchfork Academy Award-winning Irish songwriter Glen Hansard complains about the photoshopped makeover the poster for his film ONCE got on its recent DVD release:



"They have us holding hands, which we never do in the film! 

Those legs aren't mine. Those legs are like three times longer than my legs. It's a completely new body. They literally just used my face...If you look at my head, my head looks totally weird, because whoever did the Photoshop job was sh-t. My head looks really weird, they took my hat off, and they gave me an entirely new body. It's completely bizarre. 

 And they made Mar [co-writer/performer Markéta Irglová] much taller than she really is. You can look at the original cover and then what they did to it and spot all the crappy differences. It's awful. It's a real shame." 

Hansard is understandably upset because he designed the original poster and DVD cover himself. Some of the changes are more annoying than offensive but the "holding hands" deal - anybody who has seen the film knows how freakin' misleading that is! Also Hansard's comment illustrates how wide the gap is between who makes the art and who martkets it so it got me to thinking about misleading and downright mis-representing movie posters. 

Many have irritated me throughtout my years as a film fan. Now, it can be argued that most movie posters are misleading because that's their job - to make the movie look bigger and better than it is so it's a bit silly to pinpoint such offenses so call me silly as I make another patented Film Babble Blog list: 

10 Of The Most Misleading & Mis-Representing Movie Posters Ever!

1. KING KONG (Dir. John Guillermin, 1976) As for trying to make the movie look bigger and better than it is, this one really takes the cake! Sure, there was a lot that was bogus about the 70's remake of the 1933 classic but the overblown spectacle depicted on this poster doesn't resemble what happens on screen at all. 

First off, Kong looks to be 5 times his size in the film - large enough to stand balanced between both World Trade Center Towers - he had to make a running leap from one to the other in the actual scene. Second, there were only helicopters in the movie so his crushing a jet plane (notice the size of it in perspective as well). Third, this sequence takes place at night. Fourth, this was not "the most exciting original motion picture event of all time."

Okay, so those last 2 were nit picking but no less than Saturday Night Live pointed the former offenses out in a Tom Snyder show sketch with John Belushi as Dino De Laurentiis. Snyder (Dan Aykroyd) questions the producer: "Sir, the advertising for your movie, the billboards and so on, depict King Kong crushing jet planes in his hands, but, sir, there is not one jet plane in the movie...isn't that kind of a hype?" 

The elusive De Laurentiis by way of a slick slimey Belushi impression avoids the question by bringing up the hype of his competition - Jon Peter's A STAR IS BORN ("your monkey can sing!" De Laurentiis says he told Peters) but we all know that he's been satirically called out.

2. STAR WARS (Dir. George Lucas, 1977) This one always irked me as a kid. None of the characters look right - even Darth Vader looks a bit off. The image, while I'm sure some will grumble at it's inclusion here because it is inarguably iconic, doesn't really reflect the look and style of the record breaking blockbuster.

Resembling '70s sci-fi pulp novel jackets with it's overly ripped muscular hero, overly sexy heroine (neither of which look anthing remotely like Mark Hamil nor Carrie Fisher), against a backdrop of battle, this poster most likely bugged me back in the day because the exact concept was redone a few times by other artists and never really improved upon. 

In the next few years when STAR WARS * was re-released several new poster designs appeared which were better in concept and presentation of the leads. Han Solo was even allowed to show his mug. Seems like it was only after it was a big hit with audiences did they figure how to market the movie. Or more accurately re-market the movie. * Again, I'm not calling it EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE dammit! 

3. THIS IS SPINAL TAP (Dir. Rob Reiner, 1984) This one is especially off-putting. Rob Reiner's debut film is made to look like a sight-gag filled laugh-a-minute spoof, and while it did have some of that to it - it was really a different comic model than the film its poster was referencing. Reiner in an interview from Mojo magazine (Nov. 2000) recalled how he hated the concept: "They marketed it with a guitar flying in the air with a twisted neck which looked like the poster for AIRPLANE! It looked like it was trading on another film. It was one of the reasons why I started Castle Rock because I wanted control over marketing." The image remained on the first video release of THIS IS SPINAL TAP (pictured to the left) but was replaced later but a plain black cover for the DVD releases. Glad to see it's gone. 


4. BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (Dir. David Lean, 1957) The excellent blog Cinemania called this one to my attention. Dan Jardine wrote: "And could there be a more misleading movie poster?" It is pretty absurd in that it mis-represents the feel and focus of said Best Picture Winner. Not sure why Holden is billed above Alec Guiness either. I just saw this film for the first time all the way through (seems like it's been on TV my whole life but I never sat down and watched it all) so this caught my eye as being pretty notably non-complimentary. 


5. SOYLENT GREEN (Dir. Richard Fleisher, 1973) Actually I think I like this poster better than the movie! It's more exciting and I can understand why they would want to draw attention to population controling monster trucks to fake moviegoers out about what SOYLENT GREEN really is. In fact you've got to give them credit because without all the misleads in the marketing and the film itself the quotable twist ending would not have been as effective and this would not be the sci-fi cult classic that it is. 


6. CLASS (Dir. Lewis John Carlino, 1983) This may be a fairly insubstantial film, especially in the company on this list, being a mostly forgotten 80's drama/comedy (hate the word 'dramedy') but I think it makes a good point about mis-marketing. 

A popular genre of the Reagan era was the teen sex comedy (epitomized by such schlock as PORKY'S, THE LAST AMERICAN VIRGIN, PRIVATE LESSONS *, etc.) and while this film did contain some college party shenanigans it really didn't fit into that genre. That didn't mean that it couldn't be marketed as such - with a stupid poster that not only mis-represented the characters it gave away the only interesting plot-twist! 

The poster image may be hard to read - it says: "The good news is Jonathan is having his First Affair. The bad news is she's his roommate's mother!" Makes it seem like wackiness ensues, huh? Well, let me tell you - it doesn't. * Not linking to any of that crap. 


Dishonorable Mention From The Same Era:

FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH (Dir. Amy Heckerling, 1982) This also mis-represents majorly by making it look like Sean Penn's character Jeff Spicoli is the protagonist when he is a small player in an ensemble. 

Penn's head appears to be cut from another picture as he is joined by two models who don't appear in the film at all. Like CLASS, the film had a good bit of depressing drama so the over selling of the sex really didn't clue in audiences. It also has a stupid tagline: "At Ridgemont High, Only the Rules get Busted!" 

7. SCARY MOVIE (Dir. Keenan Ivory Wayans, 2000) This one is here for one reason only - the worthless promise of its tagline: "No mercy. No shame. No sequel." Did you get that? "NO SEQUEL!" There were 3 damn sequels to this should've been a one-off throwaway. 

Sure, you can argue that they didn't plan on a sequel until the movie became a hit but that's a possibility you know they were aware of. For the SCARY MOVIE 2 they ad campaign addressed this: "look, we lied!" but the damage was done. I liked it better when Mel Brooks' lame Python rip-off HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART I didn't gather enough acclaim or box office to warrant a sequel. Ah, those were the days... 

8. THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (Dir. Robert Wise, 1951) 

This one is great as a piece of '50s sci-fi B-movie pop art but incredibly misleading on all fronts. Hell, some even complain that the title of the film is misleading but I won't go there. I won't bitch about a color image for a black and white film, that was pretty much the norm then, but the depicting of action that never occurs and that, uh, what looks like a monkey's hand on top of the Earth image is, well, just plain dumb. I do love the tagline though "From Out Of Space...."

9. JABBERWOCKY (Dir. Terry Gilliam, 1977) 

Another from my childhood that really pissed me off. Although it followed the likewise Medieval MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL and had and had Michael Palin as the star this was not a Python project - it was Terry Gilliam's solo directorial debut but was not billed as such. Wikipedia says: "For its American premiere the film was initially advertised as 'Monty Python's Jabberwocky', but this was dropped following protests from Gilliam."

It wasn't immediately dropped though - for years posters and videocassette releases and many international showings had the Python credit. It confused me back in the pre-internet 80's when I was devouring all things Python. 

Watching it without the proper info that it wasn't really a Monty Python movie I felt like I was a victim of cinematic false advertising. Gilliam seems to have been successful in ridding the world of the inaccurate billing - The only image I could find was the Greek one-sheet (available from MoviePictureArt.com for $45.50!) above. 


10. 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE (Dir. Michael Winterbottom, 2002) 

This is a more recent title that annoys me terribly. It's one of my favorite films of the last 10 years and it's extremely rewatchable so I see the DVD cover a lot and hate that it has a close-up of a girl dancing showing off her tongue-stud when no such image is in the film. 

Maybe I blinked and missed it so if you saw such please let me know. Otherwise the image makes the film look more like a modern era ecstasy-rave movie than the spunky smart-ass 80's Manchester rock portrait it really is. So, since there are zillions of misleading mis-representin' movie posters out there - please let me know your personal choices.

More later...