*(but should definitely see)
As some of you may have heard, I recently had the honour of being appointed as the Assistant Returning Officer for Halton with Elections Canada. It's a tremendous opportunity for me, but unfortunately it also means that, in the interest of non-partisanship, my career as a political blogger is on hiatus for the interim.
Happily, this blog is also my film and television review forum, so I thought this would be a good time to resurrect my pre-Oscar round-up of film gems you may have overlooked this past year.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Monday, March 29, 2010
My Canada 150 Presentation: "The Creative and Competitive Economy"
What follows is an expanded version of what was supposed to be a five minute presentation at the Canada 150: Halton conference - and a MUCH expanded version of the 2 1/2 minutes I actually got to speak.
____________________________
Canadian Culture in the Digital Age
Canada has always faced unique challenges to establishing our cultural identity. We are geographically vast, culturally diverse, sparsely populated, multi-lingual... and we sit right next door to one of the most prolific producers of film, television and music in the world.
All we have to unite us as a people and as a culture across such vast divides are our stories, whether told through film, television, literature, music or journalism. But we need two things: the ability to create those stories, and the space to share them.
Looking at the rather vague subject of this challenge as a creative person, two questions interest me:
1) How do we develop funding models for the arts, film, television, and journalism in the digital age?
This is a problem not unique to Canada. The cultural industries and institutions of countries all around the world - especially in North America - are facing a crisis due to advances in technology and profound changes in how people access information, entertainment and culture.
Up until recently, reproduction and distribution of books, newspapers, music, film and television programming has been an expensive endeavor, requiring the participation of record companies, book and newspaper publishers, television broadcasters, film studios and so on.
Today, the function of these entities is eroding as technology enables many artists to produce and distribute their own work, and for their audience to access that work directly, all for minimal cost.
The problem is, people are used to the idea that they are paying for physical media. They buy records or CDs, not music. They buy DVDs, not films; books, not words; newspapers, not news.
Without physical media, how do we value these works, and how do we ensure that artists and writers are compensated for their work? Can we continue to use advertising and sponsorship as the primary means of monetizing broadcasting and news, or will we need to find more direct means as the functions of television and print media are increasingly transfered to the internet?
2) Is there still a need to protect Canadian culture?
The sad fact is, we know more about American history and American democracy than our own because these things aren't just taught in schools - they are taught by the movies and TV shows we watch and the books we read.
One example: my son's grade 9 Canadian History class did a unit on World War II, and spent 11 hours of class time watching 'Band of Brothers' because the teacher couldn't find any film or television productions which depicted the Canadian experience in that war. I find that horrifying.
Another example: during the coalition 'crisis', many Canadians were under the impression that they had elected our Prime Minister directly - possibly because they were influenced by watching the electoral goings on south of the border.
When I was a kid, I lived in the suburbs. But I knew about downtown Toronto by watching King of Kensington, where people of many cultures, races and ethnicities all lived and worked peaceably together. This contrasted sharply with what I was seeing on American shows like 'All in the Family'.
I had never travelled to the west coast, but I knew what it was like there from watching The Beachcombers. In fact, my first impression of Native Canadians was from watching that show.
I have never travelled to Canada's arctic, but I feel that I know what life is like there from watching 'North of 60'. The U.S. show 'Northern Exposure' aired during the same period, and I remember watching it and thinking, "what's with all the white people? I thought this was the North!"
Ensuring that Canadian stories are told in film and television isn't just about nationalism or patriotism - in a country this vast and disparate, this is fundamental to how we know ourselves and understand each other. Short of moving into someone's house, film and television are perhaps the most powerful means of generating understanding between people because they allow us to see through another's eyes and walk a few miles in their shoes.
Without that ability, misunderstandings arise and soon fester. If 'King of Kensington' had been set in Calgary, we might not have some of the problems we have today.
So, what do we do about it? To start, here are three practical things I would recommend:
1) Abolish simultaneous substitution in television broadcasting.
2) Don't take the punitive copyright protection approach.
3) Focus on funding Canadian film promotion as well as production.
The digital revolution has created both challenges and opportunities fo Canadian culture. While technology has broken down many of the barriers we once used to protect our culture, it has also removed many of the financial barriers our creative community has faced relative to other countries by making production and distribution of their work affordable and accessible to all.
In a sense, digital technology and the internet have leveled the playing field. Musicians can create and sell digital copies of their own music without the need for studios or music labels. Film makers can finance relatively high quality films on a couple of credit cards and promote them independantly. Bloggers are challenging traditional journalism as the line between the two continues to blur.
Even television broadcasting is being transformed by PVRs and streaming video, destroying traditional restrictions of scheduling and dial position, opening up the potential for quality programming - Canadian programming - to finally break through the static.
With the right policies in place, 2017 will be a good year to be a creative Canadian.
____________________________
Canadian Culture in the Digital Age
Canada has always faced unique challenges to establishing our cultural identity. We are geographically vast, culturally diverse, sparsely populated, multi-lingual... and we sit right next door to one of the most prolific producers of film, television and music in the world.
All we have to unite us as a people and as a culture across such vast divides are our stories, whether told through film, television, literature, music or journalism. But we need two things: the ability to create those stories, and the space to share them.
Looking at the rather vague subject of this challenge as a creative person, two questions interest me:
1) How do we develop funding models for the arts, film, television, and journalism in the digital age?
This is a problem not unique to Canada. The cultural industries and institutions of countries all around the world - especially in North America - are facing a crisis due to advances in technology and profound changes in how people access information, entertainment and culture.
Up until recently, reproduction and distribution of books, newspapers, music, film and television programming has been an expensive endeavor, requiring the participation of record companies, book and newspaper publishers, television broadcasters, film studios and so on.
Today, the function of these entities is eroding as technology enables many artists to produce and distribute their own work, and for their audience to access that work directly, all for minimal cost.
The problem is, people are used to the idea that they are paying for physical media. They buy records or CDs, not music. They buy DVDs, not films; books, not words; newspapers, not news.
Without physical media, how do we value these works, and how do we ensure that artists and writers are compensated for their work? Can we continue to use advertising and sponsorship as the primary means of monetizing broadcasting and news, or will we need to find more direct means as the functions of television and print media are increasingly transfered to the internet?
2) Is there still a need to protect Canadian culture?
The sad fact is, we know more about American history and American democracy than our own because these things aren't just taught in schools - they are taught by the movies and TV shows we watch and the books we read.
One example: my son's grade 9 Canadian History class did a unit on World War II, and spent 11 hours of class time watching 'Band of Brothers' because the teacher couldn't find any film or television productions which depicted the Canadian experience in that war. I find that horrifying.
Another example: during the coalition 'crisis', many Canadians were under the impression that they had elected our Prime Minister directly - possibly because they were influenced by watching the electoral goings on south of the border.
When I was a kid, I lived in the suburbs. But I knew about downtown Toronto by watching King of Kensington, where people of many cultures, races and ethnicities all lived and worked peaceably together. This contrasted sharply with what I was seeing on American shows like 'All in the Family'.
I had never travelled to the west coast, but I knew what it was like there from watching The Beachcombers. In fact, my first impression of Native Canadians was from watching that show.
I have never travelled to Canada's arctic, but I feel that I know what life is like there from watching 'North of 60'. The U.S. show 'Northern Exposure' aired during the same period, and I remember watching it and thinking, "what's with all the white people? I thought this was the North!"
Ensuring that Canadian stories are told in film and television isn't just about nationalism or patriotism - in a country this vast and disparate, this is fundamental to how we know ourselves and understand each other. Short of moving into someone's house, film and television are perhaps the most powerful means of generating understanding between people because they allow us to see through another's eyes and walk a few miles in their shoes.
Without that ability, misunderstandings arise and soon fester. If 'King of Kensington' had been set in Calgary, we might not have some of the problems we have today.
So, what do we do about it? To start, here are three practical things I would recommend:
1) Abolish simultaneous substitution in television broadcasting.
When you watch a show on NBC or CBS that is also being shown on CTV at the same time, CTV overrides the signal coming in from the U.S. and substitutes their own - including their own commercials. In other words, Canadian broadcasters are double dipping, and are therefore rewarded for re-broadcasting hit US shows all night long.
Our private broadcasters have long claimed that Canadian content regulations prevent them from being competitive, and lower the quality of Canadian productions by shielding them from competition with American shows. But in reality, it is simultaneous substitution that is in fact protecting and shielding the broadcasters from having to compete.
By doing away with simultaneous substitution, Canada's private broadcasters will no longer have a monopoly on the airing of U.S. programming in Canada, and will therefore have an incentive to create something different from what the U.S. networks are airing. Something, perhaps, Canadian.
2) Don't take the punitive copyright protection approach.
Copyright doesn't protect artists - it was never intended to. It was originally designed to protect the state's licensing and control of publishing and theatre, and today serves mainly to protect publishers, broadcasters and film producers.
One example: a member of my family who shall remain nameless does props and wardrobe work in the film and television industry, mainly as an independent contractor. On one recent production, he decided to make a duplicate of one of the pieces for himself on his own time.
When he tried to sell this piece online, he immediately heard from the studio lawyers who informed him that despite the fact that he had designed and made the piece himself, had never sold it to the studio, and had never signed anything giving them rights to his creation, it nevertheless was their intellectual property.
He was told to not just remove it from sale, but to physically destroy it and submit photographs as evidence of its destruction. Which of course he did, immediately, because we're just not the kind of people who can afford to hire a team of lawyers.
So no, copyright law is not generally designed to protect artists.
Instead of following the U.S. example of locking up teenagers for downloading movies and music, or digitally locking down media so that it cannot be transfered or converted by the person who bought it, look at alternative ways of compensating artists such as levies on recordable media including IPods and MP3 players.
3) Focus on funding Canadian film promotion as well as production.
Your average Hollywood film production spends nearly as much on advertising and promotion as on making the film itself. In this country, Passchendaele succeeded largely because they spent money promoting it, but most other Canadian films are produced on such minimal budgets they can't afford any form of promotion or advertising at all.
The result is that even the best films this country produces cannot begin to compete at the box office or even the video store because no one has ever heard of them.
Case in point: the two most nominated films for this year's Genie Awards are 'Polytechnique' and 'Nurse. Fighter. Boy.' You may have heard of 'Polytechnique' because there was some controversy about making a film about the Montreal Massacre, but most of you probably aren't aware of 'Nurse. Fighter. Boy.'
I can almost guarantee that you didn't see either of them in a movie theatre, unless you live in Quebec.
I went to Blockbuster recently to look for 'Nurse. Fighter. Boy.' hoping that the multiple Genie nominations might have inspired them to get at least one copy. I spoke to the manager, and not only had she never heard of the movie - she didn't even know what a Genie Award was.
While tax incentives and program funding are essential to film production in this country, more funding needs to be channelled into promotion and distribution. The government should also look into creative ways of promoting Canadian film and television in more general terms, as there continues to be an absurd stigma attached to our homegrown productions.
The digital revolution has created both challenges and opportunities fo Canadian culture. While technology has broken down many of the barriers we once used to protect our culture, it has also removed many of the financial barriers our creative community has faced relative to other countries by making production and distribution of their work affordable and accessible to all.
In a sense, digital technology and the internet have leveled the playing field. Musicians can create and sell digital copies of their own music without the need for studios or music labels. Film makers can finance relatively high quality films on a couple of credit cards and promote them independantly. Bloggers are challenging traditional journalism as the line between the two continues to blur.
Even television broadcasting is being transformed by PVRs and streaming video, destroying traditional restrictions of scheduling and dial position, opening up the potential for quality programming - Canadian programming - to finally break through the static.
With the right policies in place, 2017 will be a good year to be a creative Canadian.
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Roger Ebert in my Head
There's a lovely movie that came out last year called "Julie & Julia", about one woman writing a cookbook, and another woman writing a blog about her 50 years later.
A movie about cooking AND blogging? How could I not love it?
The young blogger Julie develops a special bond with Julia Child, a writer she has never met but comes to know through her work and by reading about her life. One person suggests that Julia is her 'pretend friend', and Julie agrees. After all, she is the audience Julie is writing for and hopes to emulate. She fantasizes about meeting her idol, but in the end her husband observes that it isn't necessary for the two to meet because she already knows her, and that the Julia Child that lives in her head is perfect.
Roger Ebert is my imaginary friend. Roger Ebert lives in my head.
We have long conversations in there - about movies, about religion, about democracy, about the health care systems in our respective countries. We've attended numerous imaginary screenings together, and I've explained to him many times exactly why his criticism of Spielberg's 'Artificial Intelligence' is based on an assumption that completely ignores the facts presented in the first five minutes of the film and is therefore fundamentally flawed.
He reluctantly agrees.
The Roger in my head looks and sounds just like he did the last time I saw him on television, and when I read his blog, that's the voice I hear. Of course I know that he doesn't look or sound like that anymore - not since cancer surgery and a series of near fatal complications left him without a lower jaw and without a voice. I had seen a couple of more recent photos, but Roger has generally kept his physical self to the shadows these past four years, so the old photo that graces his website was still the one in my head.
That all changed this week when I read a profile of Roger from Esquire magazine, which opened with an uncompromising full page photo.
The article is wonderful, and discusses a lot of the issues Roger himself has talked about in his blog - the things he's lost, the things he misses, the surprising things he's gained or rediscovered in the process, including his newfound passion for blogging. It talks about his amazing wife Chaz, about the new routine of their lives, and it describes his physical state in unflinching detail. It's not sappy, or maudlin, or voyeuristic, and after reading it I got over the momentary shock of the photo and started to feel like the Roger in my head had gained another dimension or two.
The article was followed by an appearance on an Oprah Winfrey special the other night which I didn't like quite so much. I'm not sure why, but it all seemed a little condescending to me, a little too much like trotting out the crippled kid at a tent revival for a bit of pity and inspiration. Hallelujah!
The one moment that redeemed the whole episode was when Roger got to demonstrate his brand new computer voice to his wife. The voice, which replaces the generic Stephen Hawking-like one he's been using, was created by a company in Scotland and uses actual samples of his own voice culled from hours of his DVD commentary tracks.
The result was so startling, it brought Chaz to tears.
So now the Roger in my head has a voice again. A real voice - not one half remembered with the 'At the Movies' theme music playing under it. It's still not the real Roger, but that's just as well. If I ever did meet Roger Ebert in the flesh I would probably fall all over my own tongue and embarrass myself utterly.
When I started this blog three years ago (God it's been three years?!), my first full post was entitled "Just Call me Roger". At the time, I fantasized about becoming Canada's Roger Ebert, or at least some brand of Professional Journalist, waiting to be discovered sitting at my own virtual Schwab's lunch counter.
It didn't quite work out that way.
Instead, my little blog transformed from being a place to post my reviews and work on my writing skills into a reasonably well respected (albeit minor league) political blog. That in turn led to attending a couple of political events, meeting some of the local players in the Liberal Party, diving head first into a political campaign, and eventually getting in up to my neck in riding politics. Meanwhile, I started writing about other subjects, from environmental sustainability to foreign policy to local issues and politics.
And now I'm running for Town Council.
Like Roger, and like Julie, blogging opened up a whole world for me that I never imagined I would be walking in at this point in my life.
Like them, I found my voice.
Thanks, Roger.
A movie about cooking AND blogging? How could I not love it?
The young blogger Julie develops a special bond with Julia Child, a writer she has never met but comes to know through her work and by reading about her life. One person suggests that Julia is her 'pretend friend', and Julie agrees. After all, she is the audience Julie is writing for and hopes to emulate. She fantasizes about meeting her idol, but in the end her husband observes that it isn't necessary for the two to meet because she already knows her, and that the Julia Child that lives in her head is perfect.
Roger Ebert is my imaginary friend. Roger Ebert lives in my head.
We have long conversations in there - about movies, about religion, about democracy, about the health care systems in our respective countries. We've attended numerous imaginary screenings together, and I've explained to him many times exactly why his criticism of Spielberg's 'Artificial Intelligence' is based on an assumption that completely ignores the facts presented in the first five minutes of the film and is therefore fundamentally flawed.
He reluctantly agrees.
The Roger in my head looks and sounds just like he did the last time I saw him on television, and when I read his blog, that's the voice I hear. Of course I know that he doesn't look or sound like that anymore - not since cancer surgery and a series of near fatal complications left him without a lower jaw and without a voice. I had seen a couple of more recent photos, but Roger has generally kept his physical self to the shadows these past four years, so the old photo that graces his website was still the one in my head.
That all changed this week when I read a profile of Roger from Esquire magazine, which opened with an uncompromising full page photo.
The article is wonderful, and discusses a lot of the issues Roger himself has talked about in his blog - the things he's lost, the things he misses, the surprising things he's gained or rediscovered in the process, including his newfound passion for blogging. It talks about his amazing wife Chaz, about the new routine of their lives, and it describes his physical state in unflinching detail. It's not sappy, or maudlin, or voyeuristic, and after reading it I got over the momentary shock of the photo and started to feel like the Roger in my head had gained another dimension or two.
The article was followed by an appearance on an Oprah Winfrey special the other night which I didn't like quite so much. I'm not sure why, but it all seemed a little condescending to me, a little too much like trotting out the crippled kid at a tent revival for a bit of pity and inspiration. Hallelujah!
The one moment that redeemed the whole episode was when Roger got to demonstrate his brand new computer voice to his wife. The voice, which replaces the generic Stephen Hawking-like one he's been using, was created by a company in Scotland and uses actual samples of his own voice culled from hours of his DVD commentary tracks.
The result was so startling, it brought Chaz to tears.
So now the Roger in my head has a voice again. A real voice - not one half remembered with the 'At the Movies' theme music playing under it. It's still not the real Roger, but that's just as well. If I ever did meet Roger Ebert in the flesh I would probably fall all over my own tongue and embarrass myself utterly.
When I started this blog three years ago (God it's been three years?!), my first full post was entitled "Just Call me Roger". At the time, I fantasized about becoming Canada's Roger Ebert, or at least some brand of Professional Journalist, waiting to be discovered sitting at my own virtual Schwab's lunch counter.
It didn't quite work out that way.
Instead, my little blog transformed from being a place to post my reviews and work on my writing skills into a reasonably well respected (albeit minor league) political blog. That in turn led to attending a couple of political events, meeting some of the local players in the Liberal Party, diving head first into a political campaign, and eventually getting in up to my neck in riding politics. Meanwhile, I started writing about other subjects, from environmental sustainability to foreign policy to local issues and politics.
And now I'm running for Town Council.
Like Roger, and like Julie, blogging opened up a whole world for me that I never imagined I would be walking in at this point in my life.
Like them, I found my voice.
Thanks, Roger.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Leap Year
Among the dozens of formulaic chick flicks Murray has forced me to watch, there seems to be a rather popular sub-genre that I have affectionately dubbed 'The Travelogue Rom-Com'. 'Leap Year' may well be the perfect example.
The plot is identical to nearly every other romantic comedy where the heroine has her sights set on some seemingly perfect but dull fellow, then finds herself falling for some obnoxious but charming lout instead. Jane Austin wrote a few of these. So did Shakespeare.
The Travelogue version simply takes these standard characters and arbitrarily ships them off to an exotic locale, usually in the Mediterranean, thus adding a 'fish out of water' element to liven things up a bit.
'Leap Year' flawlessly incorporates every element of this formula without offering a single surprise or twist. However, it does have the great advantage of being set in Ireland and thus giving us a tall, scruffy, utterly charming Irish lout to root for.
That's good enough for me. Three stars out of five.
(This will be my last review until after the October 25th election. Apparently critiquing films in the local paper once a month gives me 'unfair exposure'. Just as well - it seems that Murray and I really are starting to share taste in movies.)
The plot is identical to nearly every other romantic comedy where the heroine has her sights set on some seemingly perfect but dull fellow, then finds herself falling for some obnoxious but charming lout instead. Jane Austin wrote a few of these. So did Shakespeare.
The Travelogue version simply takes these standard characters and arbitrarily ships them off to an exotic locale, usually in the Mediterranean, thus adding a 'fish out of water' element to liven things up a bit.
'Leap Year' flawlessly incorporates every element of this formula without offering a single surprise or twist. However, it does have the great advantage of being set in Ireland and thus giving us a tall, scruffy, utterly charming Irish lout to root for.
That's good enough for me. Three stars out of five.
(This will be my last review until after the October 25th election. Apparently critiquing films in the local paper once a month gives me 'unfair exposure'. Just as well - it seems that Murray and I really are starting to share taste in movies.)
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Avatar
You're going to hear this a lot, but there's really no other way to say it: 'Avatar' is a mind-blowing and thoroughly entertaining immersion into another world, unlike anything you have ever seen before.
Much has been said about the groundbreaking 3-D technology created for the film, but what makes it so astonishing is that the effects are utterly seamless - so much so that after a while you are barely even conscious of them. The real breakthrough comes when the Na'vi and the creatures that inhabit their world become just as real to us as the humans.
Yes, the story is overly earnest at times, and the dialogue could really have used a few shots of Cameron's trademark humour. But in the end, Avatar has everything you could want from a movie plus a few things you never even imagined possible.
Even with the script's flaws, I'll give it five stars.
(Wow. It seems that, despite his best efforts to hate it, Murray loved Avatar as much as I did!)
Much has been said about the groundbreaking 3-D technology created for the film, but what makes it so astonishing is that the effects are utterly seamless - so much so that after a while you are barely even conscious of them. The real breakthrough comes when the Na'vi and the creatures that inhabit their world become just as real to us as the humans.
Yes, the story is overly earnest at times, and the dialogue could really have used a few shots of Cameron's trademark humour. But in the end, Avatar has everything you could want from a movie plus a few things you never even imagined possible.
Even with the script's flaws, I'll give it five stars.
(Wow. It seems that, despite his best efforts to hate it, Murray loved Avatar as much as I did!)
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Blind Side
I was a little concerned when Murray picked 'The Blind Side' this month. I'm not keen on sports movies, especially those about football - a game I understand just slightly better than cricket.
Happily, 'The Blind Side' isn't really a football movie, and what football there is is explained in a very helpful "Football for Dummies" voice-over.
In most ways this is a pretty conventional feel-good movie, but a few things save it from becoming too saccharine. One is the understated but intense performance of Quinton Aaron as "Big Mike" Oher, whose gentle introversion makes for a startling contrast to his massive six foot ten inch frame.
Another is the careful attention paid to the relationships which develop between Mike and each member of his new family, giving us four unique stories of how disparate lives can intersect in unexpected ways.
For avoiding at least some of the expected stereotypes and leaving me with a smile at the end, I'll give it three and a half stars.
(Murray liked it even more.)
Happily, 'The Blind Side' isn't really a football movie, and what football there is is explained in a very helpful "Football for Dummies" voice-over.
In most ways this is a pretty conventional feel-good movie, but a few things save it from becoming too saccharine. One is the understated but intense performance of Quinton Aaron as "Big Mike" Oher, whose gentle introversion makes for a startling contrast to his massive six foot ten inch frame.
Another is the careful attention paid to the relationships which develop between Mike and each member of his new family, giving us four unique stories of how disparate lives can intersect in unexpected ways.
For avoiding at least some of the expected stereotypes and leaving me with a smile at the end, I'll give it three and a half stars.
(Murray liked it even more.)
Friday, October 30, 2009
Paranormal Activity
Scary movies aren't what they used to be.
Sure, the body count is higher, the gore is gorier, and the special effects are better at showing you exactly what the inside of a human body looks like. But while all this has made horror movies more horrifying, they have somehow become less scary. And less fun.
Paranormal Activity is the perfect antidote to a decade of vapid 'dead teenager' and 'torture porn' sequels: an old fashioned ghost story that reminds you just how much fun a good scare can be.
Shot on a budget that could have been financed with a couple of credit cards, the movie has a cast of four and takes place entirely within one house. There are no visible monsters, no serial killers, and very little blood. And it's the scariest movie I've seen since The Blair Witch Project.
Four and a half stars out of five.
(I told Murray I'd try to find something he'd hate this time. It worked.)
Sure, the body count is higher, the gore is gorier, and the special effects are better at showing you exactly what the inside of a human body looks like. But while all this has made horror movies more horrifying, they have somehow become less scary. And less fun.
Paranormal Activity is the perfect antidote to a decade of vapid 'dead teenager' and 'torture porn' sequels: an old fashioned ghost story that reminds you just how much fun a good scare can be.
Shot on a budget that could have been financed with a couple of credit cards, the movie has a cast of four and takes place entirely within one house. There are no visible monsters, no serial killers, and very little blood. And it's the scariest movie I've seen since The Blair Witch Project.
Four and a half stars out of five.
(I told Murray I'd try to find something he'd hate this time. It worked.)
Friday, October 2, 2009
Love Happens
'Love Happens' is a romantic comedy that manages to be neither romantic nor comedic. In fact, all the funniest lines go to the cockatoo.
It took me a while to figure out exactly what was wrong with this movie besides the endless travelogue shots of Seattle and the painfully obvious product placements. It started off tolerably well as a rather lightweight 'love/hate at first sight' story, and Eckhart at least showed some promise of depth.
But as the story grew more serious, I kept expecting the emotional stakes to get a little higher. A tragic setback. A dreadful secret. Something.
Instead, every sharp corner had been removed. The tragic setback is easily averted, the not-so-dreadful secret is revealed and resolved in three minutes flat, and everyone lives happily ever after. The end.
There. I just saved you an hour and forty-nine minutes. Two stars. Go rent 'Away We Go' instead.
(Murray didn't think much of it either. We've got to stop agreeing like this.)
It took me a while to figure out exactly what was wrong with this movie besides the endless travelogue shots of Seattle and the painfully obvious product placements. It started off tolerably well as a rather lightweight 'love/hate at first sight' story, and Eckhart at least showed some promise of depth.
But as the story grew more serious, I kept expecting the emotional stakes to get a little higher. A tragic setback. A dreadful secret. Something.
Instead, every sharp corner had been removed. The tragic setback is easily averted, the not-so-dreadful secret is revealed and resolved in three minutes flat, and everyone lives happily ever after. The end.
There. I just saved you an hour and forty-nine minutes. Two stars. Go rent 'Away We Go' instead.
(Murray didn't think much of it either. We've got to stop agreeing like this.)
Friday, September 4, 2009
Inglourious Basterds
Anyone familiar with the work of Quentin Tarantino will expect three things from his films: black humour, brutal violence, and a great deal of brilliant, often long-winded dialogue. Sometimes the combination works (Pulp Fiction), sometimes it doesn't (Deathproof). This time, it works.
'Inglourious Basterds' is a great guilty pleasure of a film that completely reinvents the war movie. There's no heroism or higher purpose here - there's just the biggest bad guys of all time getting their comeuppance. Tarantino even re-writes history to give World War II a more satisfactory ending.
From the sounds they were making, I suspect the two older ladies seated behind me had never heard of Quentin Tarantino. If you are as squeamish as they, I'd give this one a pass. But if you want a big, rolicking story with some of the most memorable cinematic characters of the past decade, go and enjoy. Guilt free. Four and a half stars out of five.
(Murray loved it too! And yet he still manages to complain about how long it was.)
'Inglourious Basterds' is a great guilty pleasure of a film that completely reinvents the war movie. There's no heroism or higher purpose here - there's just the biggest bad guys of all time getting their comeuppance. Tarantino even re-writes history to give World War II a more satisfactory ending.
From the sounds they were making, I suspect the two older ladies seated behind me had never heard of Quentin Tarantino. If you are as squeamish as they, I'd give this one a pass. But if you want a big, rolicking story with some of the most memorable cinematic characters of the past decade, go and enjoy. Guilt free. Four and a half stars out of five.
(Murray loved it too! And yet he still manages to complain about how long it was.)
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Funny People
When I heard that Judd Apatow was going to be making a movie with Adam Sandler and Seth Rogan, I couldn't decide if this was the best idea I'd ever heard or the worst.
It turned out to be a pretty good idea, but the combination didn't result in the kind of movie I think most people might be expecting.
'Funny People' manages to deal with issues like mortality, happiness, and the meaning of life in a way that is... well, funny. We are talking about a bunch of comedians after all. But it's also an introspective film that asks us to think about our own life choices and whether they have really led us where we hoped they would.
If all that sounds a bit heavy, it's not. It's funny and touching and not at all your typical Adam Sandler or Seth Rogan movie. I'll give it 3 1/2 stars for exceeding the sum of its parts.
(Murray found it overly long. Murray has the attention span of an eight year-old.)
ADDENDUM: Go read Roger's review. He gets more words to say it in, but we're on the same page here. Oddly, I'm beginning to wonder if writer / directors are starting to create movies dealing with mortality and the meaning of life just to get a glowing, poetic review out of him.
It turned out to be a pretty good idea, but the combination didn't result in the kind of movie I think most people might be expecting.
'Funny People' manages to deal with issues like mortality, happiness, and the meaning of life in a way that is... well, funny. We are talking about a bunch of comedians after all. But it's also an introspective film that asks us to think about our own life choices and whether they have really led us where we hoped they would.
If all that sounds a bit heavy, it's not. It's funny and touching and not at all your typical Adam Sandler or Seth Rogan movie. I'll give it 3 1/2 stars for exceeding the sum of its parts.
(Murray found it overly long. Murray has the attention span of an eight year-old.)
ADDENDUM: Go read Roger's review. He gets more words to say it in, but we're on the same page here. Oddly, I'm beginning to wonder if writer / directors are starting to create movies dealing with mortality and the meaning of life just to get a glowing, poetic review out of him.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Public Enemies
'Public Enemies' is the latest in a long string of films about John Dillinger's life and brutal death. In many ways it's a pretty standard 30s gangster flick, but several things set it apart.
One is the performances. Johnny Depp is exceptional as always, and Marion Cotillard ("La Vie en Rose") brings a special humanity and hard-edged grace as Dillinger's girlfriend Billie.
What also makes this film a little different is it's focus on the FBI investigation and the implementation of J. Edgar Hoover's 'modern methods' such as wire tapping and surveillance. These techniques are presented as a counterpoint to Dillinger's own unique methods and style.
Some of the other historical details were apparently fudged, but even if you don't care about the history, 'Pubic Enemies' still has plenty of action and strong characters to keep you entertained. I give it 3 1/2 stars.
(and Murray liked it too.)
One is the performances. Johnny Depp is exceptional as always, and Marion Cotillard ("La Vie en Rose") brings a special humanity and hard-edged grace as Dillinger's girlfriend Billie.
What also makes this film a little different is it's focus on the FBI investigation and the implementation of J. Edgar Hoover's 'modern methods' such as wire tapping and surveillance. These techniques are presented as a counterpoint to Dillinger's own unique methods and style.
Some of the other historical details were apparently fudged, but even if you don't care about the history, 'Pubic Enemies' still has plenty of action and strong characters to keep you entertained. I give it 3 1/2 stars.
(and Murray liked it too.)
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The Hangover
I cringed inwardly when Murray told me what his selection was for this month. Ok, I cringed outwardly too. So the best thing I can think to say about 'The Hangover' is that it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.
The movie is a bit of a departure from the usual 'buddy road trip' flick in that we get to follow the main characters trying to re-trace their steps after their night of debauchery instead of just watching them stagger straight through it. And the three men - the geek, the freak and the hot guy - are such an unlikely trio that you can't help but laugh.
So I laughed. I did. It was funny. It wasn't really, REALLY funny, but it was funny enough I guess. And it certainly exceeded the low expectations I went in with, which I suppose is something. So for being somewhat more funny than not, I'll give it two and three quarter stars.
(not the most glowing review, but Murray thought I'd hate it.)
The movie is a bit of a departure from the usual 'buddy road trip' flick in that we get to follow the main characters trying to re-trace their steps after their night of debauchery instead of just watching them stagger straight through it. And the three men - the geek, the freak and the hot guy - are such an unlikely trio that you can't help but laugh.
So I laughed. I did. It was funny. It wasn't really, REALLY funny, but it was funny enough I guess. And it certainly exceeded the low expectations I went in with, which I suppose is something. So for being somewhat more funny than not, I'll give it two and three quarter stars.
(not the most glowing review, but Murray thought I'd hate it.)
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Sherlock Holmes. Robert Downey Jr.
'Nuff said.
I'm sorry, I think I need a moment. Is it a little warm in here? Anybody got a cigarette?
I'm sorry, I think I need a moment. Is it a little warm in here? Anybody got a cigarette?
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Soloist
'The Soloist' takes us on a journey into a world that most of us don't even care to think about, let alone enter. If we do think about the homeless it is as an annoyance, or a poverty issue, or a mental health issue. Rarely, if ever, do we see these people as individuals.
In this film, we are granted entry into their world through the unique friendship between columnist Steve Lopez and musician Nathaniel Ayers, whose extraordinary talent has been ravaged by mental illness. As he tries to help, Lopez is drawn into not only Ayers' life but the lives of others, less gifted but no less unique, who are on the streets because of addiction, mental illness, poverty, and a host of other reasons.
'The Soloist' pulls no punches and offers no easy solutions. Instead, it celebrates the simple humanity of reaching out a hand of friendship as an alternative to simply dropping change in a cup and walking away. That message, brought home through a pair of extraordinary performances, makes this film worth four and a half stars.
(Even Murray liked it!)
In this film, we are granted entry into their world through the unique friendship between columnist Steve Lopez and musician Nathaniel Ayers, whose extraordinary talent has been ravaged by mental illness. As he tries to help, Lopez is drawn into not only Ayers' life but the lives of others, less gifted but no less unique, who are on the streets because of addiction, mental illness, poverty, and a host of other reasons.
'The Soloist' pulls no punches and offers no easy solutions. Instead, it celebrates the simple humanity of reaching out a hand of friendship as an alternative to simply dropping change in a cup and walking away. That message, brought home through a pair of extraordinary performances, makes this film worth four and a half stars.
(Even Murray liked it!)
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Denis McGrath on Canadian Identity
I think I've mentioned Denis McGrath before. Television writer, producer, blogger, occasional activist, and one of the most passionate and eloquent defenders of Canadian television, Canadian culture, and... well, Canada, that I have ever read.
Maybe it's because he used to be an American that he can see things clearly that we are too blinded by our own ludicrous, obsessive self-loathing to see.
Right now, dear Denis is out on the Rock working as an honest to God showrunner on the new CBC series, 'Republic of Doyle', and took some time out to knock some sense into the rest of us:
The difference between Denis McGrath and the politicians who make lovely speeches and pretty words about Canadian identity and culture is that Denis GETS IT. He LIVES IT. He's one of the people who creates it and reflects it back to us every day. He understands that without our own stories and storytellers, there is nothing holding us together as a nation and a people.
Nothing at all.
Think of this, oh ye haters of Canadian television: imagine if there wasn't any. What if there had never been a CBC? What if there were no requirements for Canadian content at all? What would we know of each other, and why would we care?
I remember when I used to watch Sesame Street when I was little, I often wondered about that house. You know, the tall narrow one with the steps up the front? I had never seen a house like that in Toronto, but I thought it was neat that those steps were a sort of social centre. I never knew that there were even more interesting houses in Montreal that had those ornate fire escape-like stairs going up the front to the second floor.
I had never been to British Columbia, and wouldn't until 2008, but I kind of knew what it was like from 'The Beachcombers'. That was also the first TV show where I'd ever seen Native people in a modern setting - i.e. not getting shot at. Later, I'd watch 'All in the Family' and wonder why there were people who had a problem with people of other races and religions when everyone on 'King of Kensington' seemed to get along so well.
Still later, I learned a great deal about what life is like in Canada's Arctic by watching 'North of 60'. 'Northern Exposure' was on around the same time, but watching it and comparing, I always wondered why there were so few Native people in Alaska. I never did learn much about our Maritime provinces from TV, except for Anne Murray and the erroneous notion that the Irish Rovers were from Newfoundland. But now I know that all the very best music and comedy in Canada comes from down East, and I look forward to learning more from 'Republic of Doyle'.
I hadn't travelled to any of these places when I watched these shows, but somehow I understood them. Their lives, their issues. If I hadn't had that to go on, I might really have thought that towns in the Canadian Arctic all looked like Gold Rush movie sets filled with eccentric white people. I might have imagined that people in our cities were all either black or white and only barely tolerated each other. And I would never have given a second thought to our western provinces at all. Why would I, when the television was filled with the shiny, polished lives of people in California and New York and Texas?
What goes for geography and culture goes doubly so for history and politics. How many Prime Ministers can you name? How many U.S. Presidents? What do you know more about - the story of Confederation, or the American Revolution? The Canadian parliamentary system, or the workings of the U.S. government ("I am a Bill, I am only a Bill, and I'm sitting here on Capital Hill...")? The Upper Canada Rebellion, or the U.S. Civil War?
This is not a failure of education - it is a failure of culture. Our children are taught Canadian history and Canadian civics in school until their eyes glaze over, but when the teacher gets lazy and needs a movie to show in class, what do they get? 'Band of Brothers'. Which is an excellent series about America's involvement in WWII, but not at all relevant for my son's grade 10 Canadian History class. Happily we now have 'Passchendaele' to show in schools, because otherwise the pickings are pretty slim.
All of these things we know about America - their history, their culture, their government - were not taught to us in school. No. We learned them by watching American TV and movies. That is the reality of this media-saturated century, and yet we seem perfectly content to hand over more and more of our cultural education to a foreign land because we tell ourselves it's 'better quality', or 'more entertaining'.
What it really is is exactly what we've been conditioned to believe, through constant exposure, that movies and TV shows are supposed to look like. It just doesn't look anything like us.
Maybe I should have written in 'Denis McGrath' on that ballot.
Maybe it's because he used to be an American that he can see things clearly that we are too blinded by our own ludicrous, obsessive self-loathing to see.
Right now, dear Denis is out on the Rock working as an honest to God showrunner on the new CBC series, 'Republic of Doyle', and took some time out to knock some sense into the rest of us:
The exciting becomes transcendant when you find yourself in a place that's new and exciting to you. I felt this way when I first went to South Africa. I feel it again here in St. John's.
It happens in little ways, as you peel back and discover other elements of the culture that makes this rugged land and this beautiful city so very, very different. It happens when you drive winding roads and look out to sea and see your first Iceberg. It happens when your charismatic lead actor and Executive Producer reminds you that he's a first-generation Canadian; the son of people born into the separate nation of Newfoundland. It happens as you contemplate the hundred different little ways the culture here is different, yet undeniably alive. It makes you think, think of all the other places you've been in this great nation -- Alberta, where they never met a U.S. idea they didn't like, and where they hate the CBC like it's a religious rite. I think of the Calgarians I know who seem as surrounded as liberals in Austin, Texas. I think of Vancouver, aloof and a little smug about its beauty and wonder; as I stare now out the window at its easy equal. I think of winding stone streets in Vieux Montreal, the steps leading up to the Chateau in Quebec City. I think of the few days I spent up in Thunder Bay, another few in Halifax, the sunny times spent on Parliament Hill or wandering the Byward Market in Ottawa. I close my eyes and picture the ferry ride to Vancouver Island, lovely and still through the summer fog of morning. I recall my own teeming, shiny, stinky and occasionally humid Toronto, and how beautiful and majestic the Legislature looked at night the one time I visited Regina, and viewed the place where Medicare began. I think of this wonderful, different, vibrant country -- its parts seemingly ever at war or resentment with each other.
And as I prepare to help craft stories that show off one beautiful part the way it hasn't been shown before, all I can think of is what a gift Canadians miss by not being able to see stories told about all the funky, silly, crazy, wondrous, scary, nifty and puzzling people I've met in all these wonderful cities in this great and vast and puzzling land.
The difference between Denis McGrath and the politicians who make lovely speeches and pretty words about Canadian identity and culture is that Denis GETS IT. He LIVES IT. He's one of the people who creates it and reflects it back to us every day. He understands that without our own stories and storytellers, there is nothing holding us together as a nation and a people.
Nothing at all.
Think of this, oh ye haters of Canadian television: imagine if there wasn't any. What if there had never been a CBC? What if there were no requirements for Canadian content at all? What would we know of each other, and why would we care?
I remember when I used to watch Sesame Street when I was little, I often wondered about that house. You know, the tall narrow one with the steps up the front? I had never seen a house like that in Toronto, but I thought it was neat that those steps were a sort of social centre. I never knew that there were even more interesting houses in Montreal that had those ornate fire escape-like stairs going up the front to the second floor.
I had never been to British Columbia, and wouldn't until 2008, but I kind of knew what it was like from 'The Beachcombers'. That was also the first TV show where I'd ever seen Native people in a modern setting - i.e. not getting shot at. Later, I'd watch 'All in the Family' and wonder why there were people who had a problem with people of other races and religions when everyone on 'King of Kensington' seemed to get along so well.Still later, I learned a great deal about what life is like in Canada's Arctic by watching 'North of 60'. 'Northern Exposure' was on around the same time, but watching it and comparing, I always wondered why there were so few Native people in Alaska. I never did learn much about our Maritime provinces from TV, except for Anne Murray and the erroneous notion that the Irish Rovers were from Newfoundland. But now I know that all the very best music and comedy in Canada comes from down East, and I look forward to learning more from 'Republic of Doyle'.
I hadn't travelled to any of these places when I watched these shows, but somehow I understood them. Their lives, their issues. If I hadn't had that to go on, I might really have thought that towns in the Canadian Arctic all looked like Gold Rush movie sets filled with eccentric white people. I might have imagined that people in our cities were all either black or white and only barely tolerated each other. And I would never have given a second thought to our western provinces at all. Why would I, when the television was filled with the shiny, polished lives of people in California and New York and Texas?
What goes for geography and culture goes doubly so for history and politics. How many Prime Ministers can you name? How many U.S. Presidents? What do you know more about - the story of Confederation, or the American Revolution? The Canadian parliamentary system, or the workings of the U.S. government ("I am a Bill, I am only a Bill, and I'm sitting here on Capital Hill...")? The Upper Canada Rebellion, or the U.S. Civil War?This is not a failure of education - it is a failure of culture. Our children are taught Canadian history and Canadian civics in school until their eyes glaze over, but when the teacher gets lazy and needs a movie to show in class, what do they get? 'Band of Brothers'. Which is an excellent series about America's involvement in WWII, but not at all relevant for my son's grade 10 Canadian History class. Happily we now have 'Passchendaele' to show in schools, because otherwise the pickings are pretty slim.
All of these things we know about America - their history, their culture, their government - were not taught to us in school. No. We learned them by watching American TV and movies. That is the reality of this media-saturated century, and yet we seem perfectly content to hand over more and more of our cultural education to a foreign land because we tell ourselves it's 'better quality', or 'more entertaining'.
What it really is is exactly what we've been conditioned to believe, through constant exposure, that movies and TV shows are supposed to look like. It just doesn't look anything like us.
Maybe I should have written in 'Denis McGrath' on that ballot.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
I Love You, Man
There seems to be a bit of a gender divide with comedies these days. Between sticky-sweet romantic comedies and the 'American Pie' genre, rarely will one find a man and a woman in a theatre together without one or the other groaning and squirming and wishing it was all over.
'I Love You, Man' may have managed to bridge that gap by presenting a male version of the typical "finding a man for your single girlfriend/daughter/sister" chick-flick plot. The gender twist is actually quite clever, and offers more insight into male relationships than most 'frathouse' comedies. It helps that the two male leads are wonderfully funny and appealing - especially Jason Segel, who proved to be a very pleasant surprise after the abysmal 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall'.
'I Love You, Man' may still be a little too relationship-oriented for some guys, but all in all it just might be the perfect date movie. Three and a half stars.
(Murray, of course, liked it even more.)
'I Love You, Man' may have managed to bridge that gap by presenting a male version of the typical "finding a man for your single girlfriend/daughter/sister" chick-flick plot. The gender twist is actually quite clever, and offers more insight into male relationships than most 'frathouse' comedies. It helps that the two male leads are wonderfully funny and appealing - especially Jason Segel, who proved to be a very pleasant surprise after the abysmal 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall'.
'I Love You, Man' may still be a little too relationship-oriented for some guys, but all in all it just might be the perfect date movie. Three and a half stars.
(Murray, of course, liked it even more.)
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Watchmen
I haven't read the graphic novel that Watchmen was adapted from, but I am told that the film is utterly faithful to its source. So faithful, in fact, that director Zack Snyder is said to have used the comic as his storyboard.
Maybe that wasn't such a good idea.
Watchmen is a grand visual spectacle, filled with action, style, and deep philosophical observations on the moral implications of power. The concept is incredibly original, but that originality stems entirely from graphic novel. Unfortunately, in making such a meticulous transition from page to screen, the filmmakers have added absolutely nothing.
The result is a curiously flat, emotionally uninvolving film. It's a little like having someone read a book to you - an effect exacerbated by some pretty mediocre performances, with the exception of Rorschach and perhaps The Comedian.
Watchmen is still a pretty good movie, worthy of three stars and the price of admission. It's just a shame that it wasn't great.
(shockingly, Murray liked it more that I did!)
(and the Champion TOTALLY butchered my review! grrrr!!!)
Maybe that wasn't such a good idea.
Watchmen is a grand visual spectacle, filled with action, style, and deep philosophical observations on the moral implications of power. The concept is incredibly original, but that originality stems entirely from graphic novel. Unfortunately, in making such a meticulous transition from page to screen, the filmmakers have added absolutely nothing.
The result is a curiously flat, emotionally uninvolving film. It's a little like having someone read a book to you - an effect exacerbated by some pretty mediocre performances, with the exception of Rorschach and perhaps The Comedian.
Watchmen is still a pretty good movie, worthy of three stars and the price of admission. It's just a shame that it wasn't great.
(shockingly, Murray liked it more that I did!)
(and the Champion TOTALLY butchered my review! grrrr!!!)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Leonard Maltin Likes Repo!!!
I've spoken of the Repo! The Genetic Opera phenomena on this blog before. Now the film gets its biggest endorsement yet - from Leonard Maltin!
Yes, you heard it right - a rave review from a film critic who doesn't work for a publication or website with the words "Bloody", "Fan" or "Gore" in its title. Eat that, LionsGate.
Time to send a review copy to Roger Ebert.
Yes, you heard it right - a rave review from a film critic who doesn't work for a publication or website with the words "Bloody", "Fan" or "Gore" in its title. Eat that, LionsGate.
Time to send a review copy to Roger Ebert.
Friday, February 13, 2009
He's Just Not That Into You
You know that Hollywood has reached the bottom of the creative barrel when they present us with a movie based on a self-help book based on a single episode of a TV show based on a newspaper column.
Perhaps because of this pedigree, "He's Just Not That Into You" suffers from an excess of gimmickry. There are at least one too many story lines, the interwoven relationships are overly contrived, and the randomly inserted 'gal on the street' interviews bring what little momentum the film has to a screeching halt every twenty minutes or so. They are such a bad idea, in fact, that even 'Sex in the City' gave up on them after the first season or so.
That said, the movie isn't a complete disaster. What saves it is a talented and appealing cast - especially Justin "The Mac Guy" Long as the bartender who bestows his cynical wisdom upon the hapless but adorable Ginnifer Goodwin.
Just for them, I'll give it two and a half stars.
(for once, Murray agrees - but for reasons all his own.)
Perhaps because of this pedigree, "He's Just Not That Into You" suffers from an excess of gimmickry. There are at least one too many story lines, the interwoven relationships are overly contrived, and the randomly inserted 'gal on the street' interviews bring what little momentum the film has to a screeching halt every twenty minutes or so. They are such a bad idea, in fact, that even 'Sex in the City' gave up on them after the first season or so.
That said, the movie isn't a complete disaster. What saves it is a talented and appealing cast - especially Justin "The Mac Guy" Long as the bartender who bestows his cynical wisdom upon the hapless but adorable Ginnifer Goodwin.
Just for them, I'll give it two and a half stars.
(for once, Murray agrees - but for reasons all his own.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)