Best Coen Bros. Characters...

via Television Without Pity (which has been going steadily downhill since it was purchased by Bravo, but still is worth an occasional read, particularly once real TV starts up again and they can write about things other than fake TV, ie, crappy Bravo reality shows)

This is a list that inspires endless debate, and would probably end up leaving no one happy. I think it might fall into the category of politics and religion, under things that you shouldn't bring up in polite company. Most people would probably agree with some of the biggies (Marge Gunderson, El Dudarino), but one thing that the Coens do so so well is craft and give incredible life to so many of their secondary characters that it makes it difficult to choose between them.

For my money, I can never have too much John Goodman, especially in a Coen Bros. role, and he's certainly had a bunch of them. TWoP includes him twice (Charlie Meadows in Barton Fink, and of course Walter, in The Big Lebowski), but I would have been happy to see him substituted for George Clooney for his role as the Cyclops stand-in Big Dan Teague in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, as well as his work in Raising Arizona. He's got to be one of the more underrated comedic actors out there.

Come to think of it, with the incredible wealth of Coen Bros. characters, maybe it would have made a lot more sense to make one list of "main" characters, and another of secondary players. I could go on and on here about the supporting players who have left indelible marks (The Hell Biker from Raising Arizona, Daniel von Bargen's aviator-shaded Sheriff Cooley in O Brother, even despite the blatant rip-off/homage to Cool Hand Luke, anyone played by Steve Buscemi, etc...). It's too much to go into here.

If there's time later, I'll make up a list.

Superman Returns Returns

News from Variety, via Dirty Harry, re a sequel to Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, a film which, while entertaining, could have been so much more.

(Related, see my earlier review of the wonderful Superman Returns trailer)

However, I'm not sure, as Harry seems to think, that more studio control with regards to the sequel is a good thing. Granted, he expresses his reservations, which are well-founded, that the studio will misinterpret what has made The Dark Knight that runaway smash that it is, and just try to make Superman Returns 2 (Superman 6?) darker, instead of focusing on all the solid allegorical good vs. evil stuff that is just waiting to be explored.

Obviously I can't say for sure what happened with the first film, but there definitely was a problem with deciding whether the film would be a straight homage to the original movies, or a true franchise reboot, and it suffered greatly for this. Again, I have no idea who was to blame for this, but having seen what Singer is capable of when given the reins (The Usual Suspects, X-Men 2, one of my all-time favorite comic book movies, and a great movie in its own right), I'd have a lot more faith in his judgement than in those of studio heads.

Either way, at least we probably won't end up with the same muddled, but entertaining mess that was Superman Returns, unsure of what it wanted to be.

Ebert's 300 Review

Roger Ebert has finally gotten around to reviewing 300. Thank god.

To be honest, I'm not sure why I still even bother reading his reviews. He can't seem to help but inject his political viewpoints into pretty much everything he writes, and combined with his questionable take on "humor," reading his work becomes old, quickly. I guess really the only reason I go to his page anymore is for his occasionally interesting "Answer Man" section, but even that has become tedious and juvenile. It's a shame, he used to be one of the reviewers that I would read religiously, someone whose opinion I would actively seek out when deciding whether or not to see a film, someone whose writing I enjoyed enough that I would go back and reread his review after seeing a movie, just to better appreciate his commentary.

However, with this work on 300, I believe the time has come to swear off Ebert.

In the interest of full disclosure, I love 300. I think it's an incredibly unique film, with a great message about the superiority of Western Civilization. Hopefully I'll get around to writing about it in detail some day soon. But Ebert's review is very strange, particularly given his previous affinities.


Ebert's primary complaint about 300 seems to be that it's unrealistic and over the top. He devotes four of the ten paragraphs of the review to detailing the various aspects of the film that he finds unbelievable, including the muscles of the Spartan warriors, the failure to detail the logistics of a Persian supply convoy, and the extreme scale of Xerxes and his throne (and his makeup). Ebert also takes issue multiple times with the overblown nature of the Spartan dialogue, twice likening it to pro wrestlers taunting their opponents.

These observations are all completely accurate. The majority of the film is overblown and exaggerated. But, as shown multiple times throughout the movie, the story, as shown, is basically one giant pep talk! It is being related by the lone survivor of Thermopylae to an army of 10,000 Spartans, about to go into battle against the Persians at the Battle of Plataea. The events depicted are not intended to be taken literally, they are purposefully exaggerated in order to amp up the Spartan warriors, to inspire them with the sacrifices of their king and their countrymen. For Ebert to spend nearly half his review complaining about the lack of realism is to completely ignore a rather obvious aspect of the film. It's not supposed to be taken literally.

Furthermore, Ebert takes issue with the overly excessive spectacle, the unrealistic proportions, the presumed overuse of CGI and special effects. This is a man who gave three and a half stars to the CGI-laden crapfest that was The Phantom Menace, largely based upon the excessive spectacle. I could actually forgive him for giving 300 only two stars, it's certainly not for everyone. But to do so, for the reasons stated in the review, after giving The Phantom Menace just under his highest rating, is dishonest.

This ignorance is only emphasized by Ebert's final two paragraphs:

But my deepest objection to the movie is that it is so blood-soaked. When dialogue arrives to interrupt the carnage, it's like the seventh-inning stretch. In slow motion, blood and body parts spraying through the air, the movie shows dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands, of horrible deaths. This can get depressing.

"Thousands"? The movie is a depiction of a group of ancient warriors fighting for their lives against an innumerable hoard with spears, arrows, and swords. It's gonna get bloody. For the majority of the review Ebert is complaining about the unrealistic nature of the movie, and then he wraps it up by complaining the that the film is too realistic. Make up your mind.

In old movies, ancient Greeks were usually sort of noble. Now they have become lager louts. They celebrate a fascist ideal. They assume a bloodthirsty audience, or one suffering from attention deficit (how many disembowelings do you have to see to get the idea?). They have no grace and wisdom in their speech. Nor dignity in their bearing: They strut with arrogant pride. They are a nasty bunch.

I'm sorry, "a fascist ideal"? The only aspect of Spartan society, as depicted in the film, that I could see as fascist would be the brutal eugenics of killing malformed or feeble infants at birth. Yes, this is a terrible terrible thing, as difficult to rationlize then as it is today, when it's done regularly in America and around the world, and called abortion. At least in ancient Greece is was done in order to produce warriors better able to defend their country and families from the constant threat of war and enslavement, as opposed to now, when it's done for convenience. And surely Roger Ebert doesn't think abortion is fascist.

Other than that, where does Ebert see fascism? In the voluntary and completely aware self-sacrifice of a group of volunteers on behalf of the greater good? That, and the beauty of freedom, are the only ideals I see being celebrated by the Greeks in 300.

At least, at the very last, Ebert is correct about one thing:

They strut with arrogant pride. They are a nasty bunch.

Damn right.

Good Grief

Nationwide ‘Thunder’ Boycott in the Works from the NYT, via Dirty Harry
(Like Harry, I have yet to see the film in question, but I'm not going to let that hold my tongue. He's a better man than I am)

There are so many things about this article to ridicule that I'm not sure where to start, but the beginning is always a good place:

A coalition of disabilities groups is expected as early as Monday to call for a national boycott of the film “Tropic Thunder” because of what the groups consider the movie’s open ridicule of the intellectually disabled. (All emphasis mine)

"Intellectually disabled"? I don't think I've heard that euphemism before, but I can't imagine a more offensive way to describe a person's mental capacities. Whomever came up with that apparently went so far out of their way to avoid being specifically rude that they've come full circle. It basically conveys a sense of absolute lack of potential or hope, as if the portions of a person's mind that control thought or intelligence are basically broken beyond repair, shut down.

“Not only might it happen, it will happen,” Timothy P. Shriver, chairman of the Special Olympics, said of the expected push for a boycott.

Mr. Shriver said that he had also begun to ask members of Congress for a resolution condemning what he called the movie’s “hate speech” and calling for stronger federal support of the intellectually disabled.

“The most disappointing thing, the most incredible thing, is that nobody caught it,” said Mr. Shriver, who, as a co-producer of the DreamWorks film Amistad, is no stranger to the studio. He spoke of what he described as the studio’s and the filmmakers’ blatant disregard for the disabled even as they stepped carefully around other potentially offensive references, notably in a story line that has Robert Downey, Jr. playing a white actor who changes his skin color to play a black soldier.

A particular sore point has been the film’s repeated use of the term “retard” in referring to a character, Simple Jack, who is played by Mr. Stiller in a subplot about an actor who chases an Oscar by portraying a mindless dolt.

In my mind, the money quote is the one accented above, in which Tim Shriver seems to assume that somehow he is gifted with this spectacular insight, that everyone else is apparently so daft that they failed to notice this supposedly ridiculously offensive material. Maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't that everyone else isn't sensitive enough to potentially offensive material, maybe the problem is actually that Mr. Shriver is way, way over the top sensitive.

Maybe the the problem is that Mr. Shriver is completely ignorant of the concept of satire, and fails to realize that by lampooning the tried-and-true Hollywood ploy of casting a respected actor as a so-called "intellectually disabled" person in order to secure at least an Oscar nomination.

In earlier interviews with The New York Times, Mr. Stiller and Stacey Snider, chief executive of the DreamWorks unit, said the movie’s humor was aimed not at the disabled but at the foolishness of actors who will go to any length in advancing their careers.

At least on the surface, this seems like a pretty clear case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," in that even if the film isn't necessarily treating mentally handicapped (is that still an acceptable term?) people with the utmost respect, it is definitely also mocking those in Hollywood who exploit the mentally handicapped population for their own personal gain.

“I came out feeling like I had been assaulted,” said David C. Tolleson, executive director of the Down syndrome group who saw the movie.

It's a comedic satire. If I had a dollar (what's a nickel worth these days) for every film that blatantly attacked white, conservative Christians and that offended me and my beliefs and who I am as a person that wasn't a comedy or wasn't satirical, I'd be a rich man.

Morgan Freeman In Car Accident

Jaws of Life used to free Morgan Freeman after accident

In terms of the news cycle these days, this story is almost "old news" at this point, but I wanted to try to wait until it was determined whether or not Morgan Freeman was ok before commenting. Apparently he sustained a number of broken bones and injuries, but is conscious and lucid, even at the time of the accident, so good news.

It goes almost without saying, but perhaps not quite, so I'll say it anyway, that Morgan Freeman is one of the great actors of this age, and probably of all time. He's certainly one of my personal favorites. Every role he takes on immediately acquires legitimacy, and he defines screen presence and gravitas. His presence in a film assures that the movie in question will have at least something to offer. Even when his particular role is basically a throwaway part, something he could play in his sleep (Sum of All Fears, Bruce Almighty, etc.) he still manages to bring a smile to my face with a simple grin or nod of his head.

How he has won only a single Oscar in his career is beyond me. The list of roles for which he could, or should have won is a lengthy one, but the fact that he's been nominated four different times is a testament to his abilities. If I could pick an actor to provide narration for my life, it would be Morgan Freeman.

Acting aside, Freeman seems likes a good person, and perhaps that which I like most about him is that I know very little about him, aside from his performances. He stays out of the spotlight, keeps his private life private, and basically doesn't act like the enormous movie star that he is.

My prayers go out for his speedy recovery, going to the movies would be a much less interesting thing without him.

Top Five Clint Eastwood Films

In tribute to Dirty Harry and in celebration of his graciously bestowed, below-mentioned First Blogroll Addition, I give you my top five favorite (starring and/or directed by) Clint Eastwood films:

The Good, the Bad & the Ugly - An easy choice, would have a definite place in my top 10 favorite movies of all time for more reasons than I can name here. For starters, I'm a sucker for a great score, and this is one of the best ever. "The Ecstasy of Gold" and "The Trio" (the two pieces played back-to-back in the cemetery climax) have permanent spots in my Ipod's Top 25 Most Played list. The action is gritty and brutal, the scope is breathtaking, the characters unforgettable. A perfect example of what a Western and an epic should be.

For a Few Dollars More - Chosen over A Fistful of Dollars for two reasons. For a Few Dollars More is more polished, and it seems to take place in more of a real world, whereas A Fistful of Dollars has always felt trapped, like the titular locale in Dark City or the village in Jerome Bixby's "It's a Good Life," a town unto itself. This claustrophobic quality has always bothered me a bit.

Beyond that, while Fistful is basically a hackneyed, recycled (i.e. stolen) plot, FaFDM has some depth to it, some mystery in its characters, found not only in the motives of Lee Van Cleef's stoic, deadly Col. Mortimer, but in the tormented misery of Gian Maria Volante's psychotic but equally deadly El Indio.

While the film is without doubt a Clint Eastwood movie, he's almost just along for the ride, the catalyst to ensure a "fair" climax between the two killers, one seemingly as eager to die as the other is to kill him.

Side note: The movie trivia buff in me can't help but point out a relatively subtle but really cool inclusion. Eastwood's character is credited and referred to as "Monco" (he's also called "Joe," neither of which constitutes a name, per se, in this instance both are nicknames, so he's still "the Man with No Name"). Monco (or "manco," in Spanish) is an Italian word that translates to "one armed" or "one handed." Eastwood's character earns the nickname by using only his left hand throughout the movie, always leaving his gun hand unoccupied and ready to draw. This is particularly noticeable in his opening scene, when he lights a cigar, deals poker and wins a fistfight, all with one hand, before finally employing his right hand to kill four men.

"Monco" introduced (now with some sort of Scandanavian subtitles!) via YouTube

Like I said, cool. But I digress...

The Outlaw Josey Wales - In my mind, has always represented something of a transition between the Spaghetti Western portion of Eastwood's career, and his modern era. It's as brutal, bloody, and action-packed as the Sergio Leone films, but it also showcases the much more contemporary mentality and ideals that Eastwood would begin to inject into his own directorial efforts. The film is readily identifiable as a Clint Eastwood Movie, not just because he stars, but because the hero is flawed, single-minded and uncontrollable, yet sensitive and vulnerable.

And for someone who saw Animal House long before ever seeing this film, John "Dean Wormer" Vernon as the complex, principled bounty hunter was rather strange.

High Plains Drifter - ***Spoiler alert*** (having said that, the film came out in 1973, and airs about once a week on cable - if you haven't seen it by now, that's not my fault) The only Eastwood film I can come up with that contains an element of the supernatural, although it's subtle enough that I didn't really get it until I had seen it for about the 3rd or 4th time. Granted, I was about 12 when I first saw it, so don't hold my ignorance against me.

Eastwood is, again, bloody, single-minded, and out for revenge, but this time, it's...from beyond the grave!!! In the beginning, the film appears to be a twisted take on High Noon, with Eastwood playing a much, much less reluctant Will Kane, subjecting the fearful townspeople to increasingly exorbitant demands and mockery, as the price of protecting them from three criminals just released from jail.

However, as the tale unwinds, it becomes apparent (at least to those older than I was) that something more is at work. Gradually, the viewer comes to realize that this is not High Noon with a contemporary twist. This is High Noon if the bad guys won. This is High Noon if the townspeople not only refused to help their Sheriff, but actively betrayed him to his death. This is High Noon if Gary Cooper got really, really pissed off and sent Clint Eastwood as his angel of wrath to wreak vengeance upon everyone. Plus a midget.

Kelly's Heroes - I was torn between In the Line of Fire and Kelly's Heroes for
my guilty pleasure choice. I went with Kelly's Heroes because it's that much more guilty. If High Plains Drifter is High Noon from Hell, then Kelly's Heroes is The Dirty Dozen and a dozen other WWII movies on weed. Sorry to mix my metaphors, or whatever I did there. But it's an odd movie.

And yet, somehow, between the hijinks and the shenanigans and the WWII-era hippies(?), Eastwood manages to keep a straight face and lead his ragtag bunch of GIs through Europe to liberate a cache of Nazi gold. It's ridiculous, it makes a mockery of any sort of history, and it's a lot of fun, particularly on a Saturday afternoon. Come for Donald Sutherland, but be sure to stick around for the closing credits song, "Burning Bridges." It's amazing.

And yes, I realize it's very odd, and perhaps somewhat blasephemous to have a Top 5 Clint Eastwood Movie/tribute to Dirty Harry without a single Dirty Harry movie on the list, but what can I say, I'm a sucker for Westerns.

Trailer Park - Superman Returns

Another recurring feature that I hope I'll have time to update regularly is the completely unoriginal "Trailer Park," in which I'll share and discuss movie trailers, past and contemporary.

I'm one of those people who insists upon getting to a movie in time to catch the previews, and who gets antsy if I'm running late. I love it when the lights go down and the green preview screen pops up, anticipating what's coming next, often even more than the actual movie that I'm there to see.

In my opinion, one of the best trailers to come along in recent years is the teaser trailer for Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. I downloaded it to my Ipod after seeing it for the first time, and it's still there, for whenever I need a little burst of adrenaline, a shot of optimism.

Superman Returns Teaser Trailer (via Google Video)

The film, and therefore the trailer, has the advantage of a well-established history, both with the background story and with the preceding films in the series. There is no need to convey anything about the plot. Everyone knows the Superman story, and the title of the film conveys pretty much everything one needs to know about the plot. The brilliance of this trailer is the use of the symbols, the reminders, the callbacks to the comic books and the movies.

The Marlon Brando voiceover from the original Superman is the first thing heard or seen after the studio credits, over a dark screen, and for the viewer it is hard to escape the immediate symbolism, the Christ story that is the essence of the Superman tale. Brando's authoritative, fatherly voice booming in the darkness is God, speaking to his son. In the beginning...

The darkness of space and time is shattered with a quick shot of a young Clark Kent falling through the roof of the Kent barn and stopping himself inches short of the ground, his first foray into flying, and the transition is jarring, but we are soon back to peace and quiet, with a perfect shot of an old, beaten mailbox, simply inscribed with the name "Kent." The sun rises over a farm as the majestic few notes of the famous score swell, and I get choked up, every time.

As the music builds, we are given one iconic image after another, a fifteen-second montage of the ultimate origin story: Martha Kent approaching a smoking crater in the ground, a silhouette of Kal-El's famous forelock slowly moving into frame, a young Clark standing in front of his alien capsule, then soaring over corn fields, gleefully covering miles in a single bound. The trumpets begin their fanfare as we pan up the facade of what can only be the Daily Planet building, Superman, fully grown, approaches Lois on a rooftop and then soars upwards towards the viewer.

Then Brando's voiceover returns at the one minute mark, over a shot of a gathered crowd, staring up in the air, motionless, and the Christ symbolism becomes explicit.

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, if they wish to be, they only lack the light to show the way."

Superman slowly soars upwards, breaking through the barrier of the clouds, brilliant sunbeams cascading over him, bringing light into the darkness.

"For this reason above all, their capacity for good..." The music reaches its triumphant crescendo, Superman is shown hovering, motionless, miles above the Earth, above the atmosphere, poised effortlessly, his cape billowing behind him, Christ on the cross, returning to Earth to be the savior of humanity, even those unwilling to admit their need for him.

The camera pivots around his still body, coming to rest on his closed eyes, beseeching his father, Christ in Gethsemane, "Father, if thou are willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will but thine be done."

And his father continues, "...I have given them you, my only son." The allegory is almost too obvious. Kal-El's eyes snap open, he accepts his destiny, and rockets to Earth as the music climaxes. Tears in my eyes.

For my money, this is as good as it gets, trailer-wise. It features fantastic music, iconic imagery, it doesn't rush its clips, and it conveys the essence of the movie without giving away anything about the plot. It's perfect.

There are some other great ones, that I'll talk about in the future, but they will all be measured against this, and I'm guessing they will all come up wanting. It's truly unfortunate the actual film couldn't measure up to the trailer. Oh well.

But Zombies Can't Drive Cars...Or Can They?

It's probably just me, I tend to remember and associate music with the movie in which I first heard it, but the ad below, for the Dodge Journey, kinda startles me each time it comes on TV, especially if I'm not actually looking at the screen at the time. It features the song "A.M. 180" by Grandaddy, which, if you'll recall, is also memorably featured (at least for me) during the shopping scene in the 2002 neo-zombie flick 28 Days Later.





When I first saw the movie in the theater, this was the first point in the film, and perhaps the only point, during which I actually relaxed. For me, pretty much the rest of the running time involved me with the armrest in a death grip, waiting for the next blood-spurting freak to pop out and kill poor Jim.

Having said that, perhaps the song choice makes perfect sense. The bouncy, poppy tune is apparently drilled into my brain as an indicator of safety, of a brief respite in an otherwise terrifying, unsafe world to which I will soon return. And perhaps this is the perfect tagline for the new Dodge Journey.

A brief respite, an island of tranquility and safety in an otherwise terrifying, unsafe world. Filled with zombies.

Well done, Dodge Journey, well done.