Craig's MovieBlog

My Final Funny Games Post

I've ranted enough about Funny Games, and I feel wrong giving it any more attention, but I saw an interview with Michael Pitt over at New York Magazine's Vulture blog, and this section jumped out at me, probably because it's precisely how I feel when reading about the film or seeing the trailers:

When we saw [Funny Games], we have to admit that we felt like we were going to throw up the entire time.
Yeah. It’s a really hard film to watch. I find that parents in particular have a really difficult time to watch it, which is understandable. For Tim [Roth], especially, making the film was really difficult. He’s got a little boy about that age.

Also, over at Hollywood Elsewhere, Jeff Wells is very conflicted.  He says:

Michael Haneke's Funny Games is simultaneously the ugliest and most repulsive violent melodrama I've ever seen (including the thoroughly disgusting I Spit On Your Grave) and the smartest and nerviest critique of sexy-violent movies in the bang-flash vein of Quentin Tarantino, Tony Scott, Oliver Stone, Eli Roth and other purveyors and marketers of homicidal style.

A fair percentage of those brave enough to see this Warner Independent release this weekend are going to walk out on it -- trust me. It's a hateful and infuriating film, no question, and yet it has a worthwhile point. And you can't not respect Haneke for this.

It's certainly one of the ballsiest movies ever released by Warner Bros. (technically Warner Independent) in its 90 year history. I mean this in a sense that average people might come out of showings feeling enormous hate for Warner Bros. for having done so. Seriously. If the final effect wasn't so stunning and dispiriting I could imagine people beating up ushers on the way out.

I actually commented on his site (something I almost never do... what is this film doing to me?!?!) with, "I have no desire to watch a young boy tortured for two hours, and I have no desire to see that boy watch his parents get tortured either.  Maybe it's because I have two young sons, but if that makes me a film wuss, so be it."

David Poland Hated Cloverfield

David Poland hated Cloverfield:

"I'm never going to waste the time to review this magical marketing scam because it isn't even worthy of the blog-umn inches. Besides, I will be in Sundance when this one drops... into the toilet bowl of movie history. That said, it will open to over $40 million, breaking the record for January openings."

Jeff Wells liked Cloverfield

Jeff Wells liked Cloverfield:

Cloverfield is a monster film unlike any other -- a complete original, but no less of a rock' em-sock 'em for that. It's amazing in that it's so short (by my watch about 74 minutes without credits), and yet so fierce. If Allen Ginsberg hadn't already used this I would suggest that they call it Howl. This is not your father's Ray Harryhausen rampaging monster flick. Those movies, comparatively, were parlor dramas for the tame of mind. This movie is REM madness. It is Guillermo del Toro on a tab of brown acid with a little crack thrown in.

Critics

Classic.  To me, this just defines the state of the entertainment blogosphere circa late-2007:

• Film Critics are Too Snooty
• Film Critics aren't Snooty Enough
• Jeff Wells takes a position
• Vulture covers both sides of the issue

No Country For Old Men Debates

I mentioned a few days ago (twice) how much I loved No Country For Old Men, until the ending just kind of took me out of the whole fantasy, leaving me with a big, "huh?"

Well, I don't want to go so far as to say that the film blogosphere elite has labeled me a "dullard" for not understanding what the Coen brothers were trying to do (well, they wouldn't be the first), but there is a spirited debate about the ending of the film going on at a variety of sites.  You can find people arguing over on Glenn Kenny's blog (from Premiere Magazine), David Poland's site, and Jeff Wells' Hollywood Elsewhere

If you saw No Country and were completely fulfilled by the ending, or if you were left wanting, there's definitely something to be learned from these conversations happening as we speak.

Oh, and if you haven't seen the film yet, don't you dare read these pages, as they are chock full of spoilerific goodness.

No Country For Old Men... and Rambling About Funny Games Again

Tonight I ran out to see No Country For Old Men, which had me hooked for two-thirds of the movie, and then the Coens decided to just throw any convention to the wind and go all philosophical on us.  I know I'm supposed to just go with their flow and not expect an ending all tied up nicely in a bow, but perhaps any package at all would have been nice.  It's beautifully lit, incredibly suspenseful at times, and Tommy Lee Jones' character has a wonderful way with words.  But for me, it fell apart as soon as they got to Vegas.

Completely digressing, however, the theater I attended showed the trailer for Funny Games, and I just get angrier than ever watching that thing.  Last week their PR agency sent me an email pointing to a clip from the film, which I reluctantly watched.  I'm going to be a jerk, not link to it, and spoil it for you, because it involved the killers murdering the family's dog.  Don't read the next paragraph if you don't want to have the part about the family's dead dog ruined for you.  Consider that my spoiler alert.

One of the killers is playing the "Warmer, Colder" game that we used to play as children.  Naomi Watts wanders around her yard based on the young man's warmer or colder commands, until she gets to the back of her car.  She opens it up, and her dead dog sickeningly spills out onto the ground.  Oh, and in other parts of the film, everyone in this innocent family is tortured and murdered, including their young boy... maybe 7 years old?  And the killers get away. The End.

Nice.  Spoilers are all finished.

I love the first amendment, and Michael Haneke can make (and remake) this film if he wants, but I reserve the right to have the opinion that the content is despicable.  Maybe the ends don't justify the means this time.  I don't say this lightly; I'm never the one saying Tarantino is evil, or rap music and internet porn will ruin our children, and I can't believe I'm saying these things without even having seen the film.  (I’ve read enough reviews of the original film to know what happens, I know the big twist, and I do know what Haneke is trying to comment upon.)

Look, I'm as liberal, jaded, and cynical as you get, and maybe Haneke is trying to snap me out of it.  Something about just the basic construct of this movie has crossed a line with me though, and this probably has more to do with me than the film… but it still turns my stomach.

Michael Clayton - My Favorite of 2007 So Far

I can't emphasize enough how much I loved Michael Clayton.  When I make a movie, I want Clooney and Sydney Pollack involved... and probably Tony Gilroy.  Three-dimensional characters, terrific dialog, amazing visual and sound editing (watch the layers of almost any scene, as you're seeing one thing but hearing another). 

My favorite moment?  Clooney and Tom Wilkinson are arguing in a Milwaukee jail, verbally jabbing back and forth at each other, getting more and more heated, until Wilkinson finally pronounces, "I am Shiva, the God of Death."  There's a pregnant pause, and this seems to be the dramatic moment that everyone remembers.

Me though?  I remember the next line.  Michael Clayton, ever the pragmatist, responds almost sarcastically:

"Let's get out of Milwaukee first, and then we'll talk about it."

Loved it.

It's The Marketing, Stupid

I've written about this issue before, but as usual, David Poland says it much better than I ever can:

"...the Number One reason for the diminishment of the critic has nothing to do with the web or bad decisions by editors or box office chatter… it’s marketing dollars.  Period.  End of discussion.

Twenty years ago, spending $50 million marketing a movie domestically was virtually unheard of… and now it is fairly average for a major studio movie.  When Disney’s Armageddon was marketed domestically at a cost of almost $100 million in 1998, it was front page news in the Wall Street Journal. 

That kind of money blanketing awareness of and interest in a movie is inherently more powerful than reviews or any other publicity tool.  It has nothing to do with how many “bloggers” are writing about a movie or when.  It has nothing to do with the quality of the coverage or the criticism.  It has to do with human nature. 

People have used critics as arbiters of their choices because quality criticism was one of the few tools available to a civilian in making a choice about a movie or other ticket buying choice.  And people still build relationships with certain critics whose opinions they either agree or disagree with, but rely on to offer them insight into what buying choice they might make.  However, they have more content that is not opinion-based than ever.  They see more ads.  They have easier access to trailers, long the #1 determiner of choice in theatrical ticket buying.  And while they used to wait until a day or two before a movie to read criticism and/or features in their local media, they now have a treasure trove (or slush pile, depending on your POV) from which to choose before the local paper lands on the front porch."

Ebert Gives Shoot 'Em Up Three 1/2 Stars

"I don't need a lot of research to be confident in stating that never before have I seen a movie open with the hero delivering a baby during a gun battle, severing the umbilical cord with a gunshot, and then killing a villain by penetrating his brain with a raw carrot."

Maybe Ben Should Stay Behind the Camera?

Gone Baby Gone among top crime movies of decade says Kirk Honeycutt of the Hollywood Reporter.

Michael Bay Has Free Time

This has to be a joke, right?

Apparently, making movies about Giant Freaking Robots, or sleeping with a different Playboy Playmate every year isn't as time consuming as we would all think.  I say this, because Michael Bay is apparently a regular reader of the Northwest Herald.  Not familiar with the Northwest Herald?  It's the source for "local news and video for McHenry County, Illinois." 

Today's homepage leads with "Red tape threatens organic farmer" and there's not one mention of Lindsay Lohan's arrest anywhere.  How dare they call themselves a legitimate news source?

Me?  I let my subscription lapse after they shelved their swimsuit issue.

Anyway, Mike didn't like what their movie reviewer wrote about his Transformers movie, so he took the time to write a letter to the editor. 

Let me repeat that slightly differently.  Michael Bay actually gives a crap about what the movie reviewer for the Northwest Herald said about his movie, which as of today, has now grossed over $458 million worldwide.  Apparently not sure how to spend all his money, he decided to send them a letter telling them how much he cares about what the Northwest Herald thinks:

“To the Editor:

The Northwest Herald’s movie critic, Jeffrey Westhoff, seems to be woefully out of touch with pop culture.

The Transformers movie’s $155 million seven-day haul is the biggest non-sequel opening in box office history. Numbers like that usually mean positive word of mouth on the film is huge, and people are going back.

A friend of mine, Steven Spielberg, he’s pretty smart about film, said Westhoff’s review was idiotic. Westhoff’s a critic who actually reviewed his dislike for the director, rather then reviewing the movie, like his job description prescribes. Westhoff talks about the director being an “egomaniacal hack.” Well I don’t believe I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting Westhoff, though it sounds like he knows me. If Westhoff actually did know me, he would find me to be a pretty down-to-earth, nice guy.

I implore the editor to give Westhoff a little relaxation and sunshine, clear his head, let him rediscover that movie-going is supposed to be a fun experience.

Maybe even help him get rid of his hatred.

Michael Bay
Director of Transformers
Los Angeles, Ca.”

"Dude... relax... get some sun... and be a down-to-earth multi-millionaire that hangs with Spielberg, just like me... another down-to-earth guy."

Or, maybe I shouldn't be surprised, since Joe Carnahan sent me email... and I'm pretty sure my readership is smaller than the Northwest Herald.

The Bourne Ultimatum Might Be Good

Can't.  Freaking.  Wait.

David Poland, The Hot Button - "The Bourne Ultimatum is ultimately one the three best films of the year"

Kristopher Tapley, In Contention - "The Bourne Ultimatum is the most riveting, most creative, most stimulating film of what has already proven itself to be a thoroughly engaging series of films."

Jeff Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere - "I think it's an action movie milestone"

Todd McCarthy, Variety Magazine - "If they could bottle what gives The Bourne Ultimatum its rush, it would probably be illegal. The third and purportedly final installment in the mountingly exciting series is a pounding, pulsating thriller that provides an almost constant adrenaline surge for nearly two hours."

David Loves Hairspray

"I liked the movie the first time I saw it.  I loved it the second time."

Choosing Your Words Carefully

Perhaps movie critics wouldn't constantly be accused of becoming irrelevant if they started writing like the author of uncov.com.  This group reviews applications built on the web, and uses, um, descriptive words to describe something they don't like. 

If you don't understand the beginning of the paragraph, that's okay.  Just hang around for the punch line:

"Customized start pages for corporations? Maybe, but I don't see why any paying customer would want this kind of content hosted externally, beyond their control. Then there's the whole problem of authentication and authorization, and you don't want to get yourself into that mess. You'll be giving head to a 12-gauge within a week."

I love this writer.

Early Oceans 13 Feedback

Jeff Wells says, "okay, yeah... meh."

Variety's Todd McCarthy says it "continues the breezy good times of the first two series entries without missing a beat."