22 December, 1932

The Mummy strikes!

The Mummy, starring Boris Karloff, is released.

10 December, 2001

The world premiere of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.

30 November, 1993

Schindler’s List released. I haven’t watched that movie in forever. I should watch it again.

Schindler's List is a 1993 American epic historical drama film directed and produced by Steven Spielberg and written by Steven Zaillian. It is based on the 1982 historical fiction novel Schindler's Ark by Australian novelist Thomas Keneally. The film follows Oskar Schindler, a German industrialist who saved more than a thousand mostly Polish-Jewish refugees from the Holocaust by employing them in his factories during World War II. It stars Liam Neeson as Schindler, Ralph Fiennes as SS officer Amon Göth and Ben Kingsley as Schindler's Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern.

26 November, 1942

Here’s looking at you, kid.

Casablanca premieres in the U.S.

Possibly the best movie ever made.

21 November, 1931

Frankenstein!

Horror film "Frankenstein" is released, starring Boris Karloff as the monster, directed by James Whale and based on Mary Shelley's 1818 novel "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus"

16 November, 2001

The film version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (still hate that title) was released in the United States.

13 November, 1940

Fantasia! Released on this day in 1940.

 

“The Rock” Is a James Bond Film?

Interesting. I’d never heard this fan theory before, but apparently it’s all the rage.

The Rock's Wild James Bond Theory Possibly Proven True on Reddit (cbr.com)

This guy thinks he’s proven it.

It’s an interesting video. I watched the whole thing. There are two flaws in his reasoning.

1. He excludes Never Say Never Again from his analysis because it’s not an EON production like all of the “legitimate” Bond films. Ok, but The Rock isn’t an EON film either. I can let that slide, though.
2. This problem is worse for him. Another fan theory for ages has always been that “James Bond” is an alias. It’s the alias that goes with the number 007. That’s why we have so many Bonds. They are, in fact, different people. Our videographer rather lazily tosses that theory aside. He shouldn’t do so. In fact, i would say that the rest of his premise depends upon that being true. He shows how the timeline works for the Connery Bond to sync perfectly with what we know about The Rock and even the Bond films themselves. But the timeline doesn’t work if George Lazenby, Roger Moore, et al, are all the same Bond, because they’re out doing their Bond things while John Mason is in prison. It only works if during the period that Mason is in prison, the Bonds out their doing their Bond things isn’t him.

Still, it’s an interesting video, and I am impressed with how he ties everything together.

17 October, 1968

Bullitt is released.

October 6, 1927

"The Jazz Singer", directed by Alan Crosland, starring Al Jolson and May McAvoy, released, 1st film with a soundtrack (Honorary Academy Award 1928)

Of course, he wore blackface in the film, which is a serious no-no these days. So, the film probably isn’t respected anymore.

October 3, 1941

"The Maltese Falcon" directed by John Huston and based off Dashiell Hammett's 1929 novel of the same name, starring Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor, premieres in New York City

I Saw Zack Snyder’s ‘Justice League’—That’s Four Hours of my Life that I’ll Never Get Back

Yes, Zack Snyder's 'Justice League' Was Worth the Wait - Hollywood in Toto

No, it really wasn’t. But let’s see what Toto has to say before I give my thoughts. The movie wasn’t wholly bad.

We now have director Zack Snyder’s version of “Justice League,” the movie he tried to tell in 2017 before a personal tragedy consumed his world.

This four-hour behemoth is bloated, no doubt, with moments that scream cutting room floor. In a way that’s not the point. The film exists to placate fans, the group who helped will the project into existence.

For them, “Zack Snyder’s Justice League” may be nirvana. For everyone else it’s a rich improvement over the Joss Whedon version but a tale that can’t measure up to the best Marvel movies.

Hmm. I can’t disagree with too much here. I think the moments that scream cutting room floor is the point, so I’d have to quibble on that one, but let’s move on.

The film, rendered in full screen, gives us a far richer villain in Steppenwolf, at least visually speaking. He’s no Thanos, to be clear, but his power and presence make him a worthy foe for our assembled heroes.

Of course Superman returns, again, with Cavill showing once more he doesn’t just look the part. Too bad Hollywood isn’t always sure how to convey a Boy Scout in our anti-hero age.

The point about Superman is a great one, and is one of the key problems with the DC films, frankly since about Superman II, back in the early 80s. Superman is the ultimate Boy Scout. He is the goody two shoes of goody two shoes. And the directors and writers of the DC films can’t figure out how to make that work. They try to make him darker & edgier, and more human. But it never quite works out right. They lose the “superhero” in him when they try. Here is a place that DC can take a cue from Marvel. Captain America is similar, but Marvel makes his “aww shucks” good guy image play. He’s the most heroic of the Avengers, the one character that constantly stands up for what he believes in, and when they need him to, his boyish outlook on the world makes for good humor.

As in these cuts from Avengers: Age of Ultron:

Amazingly enough, DC has the exact opposite problem with Batman. Batman really is dark and edgy. In fact, let’s be honest with ourselves. Bruce Wayne is a sociopath. He’s seriously mentally disturbed and walks a fine line between vigilante and villain. But movie super heroes that are that dark don’t work either. Look at what Marvel has done with Deadpool and also to Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow.

Deadpool is just as crazy as Batman, and Romanoff has the dark history that is at least somewhat similar to Bruce Wayne’s. Romanoff is a better example, so I’ll stick with her. They don’t play her dark except when they need to. The hint around the darkness “I have red on my leger” and show glimpses of it (I’m sure we’ll see more in Black Widow when it’s released), but mostly she and Hawkeye are there to remind us of the humanity of the Avengers.  DC could do something similar with Bruce.

(Side note: another Marvel character that’s dark and edgy is Wolverine, and again, Marvel usually manages to balance the light and the dark with him, again by showing us his humanity)

These are the two biggest characters in the DC universe, maybe the two biggest characters in all of comic book superheroes, and the DC folks cannot figure out how to portray them on screen. This is DC’s biggest problem.

But enough about DC movies in general, we’re talking about Zack Snyder’s Justice League.

Back to Toto:

Mild spoiler -- the film caps with a half-hour epilogue that feels like pure fan service.

Then again, had Snyder resisted his passion for slo-mo sequences the entire project could come in at a neat three hours.

Maybe two.

Oh God, the epilogue. After 3 1/2 hours, a half hour epilogue is a killer. By that time you’re long past looking at your watch wondering when this movie is ever going to end. And Toto nails it here. The many slo-mo sequences just kill things. They’re too long, and there are too many of them.

The biggest problem with this film in particular is that 4 hours is both way too short and way too long. There is far too much packed into this one film. The extra details on Cyborg are wonderful. Deserving of their own film, in fact. And Marvel would never have done this as just one movie. It would have been at least 3, probably more like 5 or 6.

Despite that, there are scenes that are Star Trek: The Motion Picture slow. There’s a slo-mo sequence with the Flash that is just agonizing to watch. When watching the epilogue, you’re looking around for Sharon Stone’s ice pick from Basic Instinct to use on yourself.

I’m glad I finally got to see it. I don’t know if I’ll ever watch it again. Is it better than the version that was released in theaters? Parts of it are. I liked the extended Cyborg storyline. I liked Da’saad and Darkseid, but their parts were too short (back to that whole “Marvel would have done this in 5 or 6 films” thing). But there are too many parts that I’d frankly have to fast forward through to watch it again.

March 5, 1970

Airport!

The first of the 70s “disaster movies”. To be followed by such classics as “Earthquake”, “The Poseidon Adventure”, and “The Towering Inferno”, a string of sequels, and the parody “Airplane!”.

March 4, 1922

Nosferatu!

The first vampire film is released, an adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

March 2, 1933

KONG!

King Kong premieres in theaters.

February 14, 1931

Dracula!

The original “Dracula” film starring Bela Lugosi is released.

No. Just…No.

Remake of 'Wizard of Oz' Announced by New Line Cinema (breitbart.com)

Director Nicole Kassell has been joined by New Line Cinema to announce a new production of The Wizard Of Oz is now being planned.

More than 80 years have passed since the original film premiered, however Hollywood now appears ready for a revisit of the much-loced classsic, with Kassell saying she is well aware of the care needed when dealing with a piece of movie history.

“While the 1939 musical is part of my DNA, I am exhilarated and humbled by the responsibility of reimagining such a legendary tale,” Kassell said, according to Variety. “The opportunity to examine the original themes – the quest for courage, love, wisdom and home – feels more timely and urgent than ever.

Just…don’t. Don’t walk away. Run. No good can come of this.

The Undefeated

As I mentioned in my last post, I saw two films yesterday. The second one was the documentary about former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), The Undefeated.

A few points need to be mentioned before I start. The fact that I’m an unabashed Palin supporter, and have been since even before she appeared on the national stage almost 3 years ago is common knowledge. She was the person I was hoping Senator John McCain (R-AZ) would pick as his running mate. I had researched her and was impressed with what I discovered. Also, the movie is based somewhat upon her first book, Going Rogue: An American Life, which I had read enthusiastically. Finally, in an attempt to generate buzz, the movie has been shown to various pundits and limited audience for the last couple months. There’s been plenty of information made public about the film for those willing to look.

So, given all that, you’d think that I would have been prepared for the film. You’d think that I would have nothing to learn from going to see it.

You’d be wrong. Stephen Bannon’s film is a masterpiece. He reminded me why I became a follower of Sarah Palin in the first place.

If you’ve been reading other reviews, you know that this is a documentary in 3 acts. I’m not going to hit much on the substance of the individual parts of the film. Others have done that already. See some reviews here, here, here, and here, if you’re interested. I will take umbrage with part of Ed Morrissey’s review. He said that he loved the material of the film, but thought the style was off and the music was too heavy-handed and overwhelming. I couldn’t disagree more. The music fits well, and directors have long known of the importance of adding music to a film to control pacing (hence the accolades constantly thrown at the master, John Williams). The music in this film works. It helps keep the movie flowing through what is, admittedly, a history book on film.

What the film does, is show why the left fears and hates Sarah Palin so much. Some of it is just who they are. The opening sequence is a montage of Palin-hate from the left. And it’s important to remember, that a lot of this was from the first few weeks after she’d been announced as McCain’s running mate. These people were telling us that she was the worst human being alive, despite knowing almost nothing about her. All they knew was that she was a pro life conservative woman, a governor, and quite obviously a happy wife and mother to 5. Just that little bit was enough to send the left into apoplexy.

But even that’s not the biggest problem with Palin from the left’s standpoint.

I have said this often, that the biggest difference between Palin and President Barack Obama (D-USA) isn’t their politics, it’s that Palin clearly gets America, and Obama, just as clearly, doesn’t. I realized during the film that I was understating the case. Not only does Palin get America, she gets Americans. When she gives a speech, she’s not just speaking to us, she’s speaking with us and for us.

That is quite different from any politician on the left, and most politicians on the right. And it scares the living daylights out of them. It also terrifies the media, because she is so capable of talking directly with us, without the need for media interpretation or amplification. She makes them unnecessary.

The sequencing of the film is no accident.  It deliberately shows Palin dealing with and conquering issues in AK that are very similar to the issues that we face as a nation today. The whole point of the film is not “Palin’s an effective leader”, but “Palin knows how to deal with the issues we’re facing and has dealt successfully with them before”. It’s also no accident that the film brings up Palin’s knowledge and successes at energy production and delivery, nor her successes in dealing with the energy barons. To those that just think they know Palin, and don’t actually know her, this part, Act 2, will be the most eye opening part of the film, as it was to Ben Howe of RedState.

Hint folks: there’s a reason why Rush Limbaugh, Tammy Bruce, and Mark Levin sing this woman’s praises constantly. And it’s not because they’re crushing on her (well, maybe Tammy a little bit ). These people do their research. They wouldn’t tell you that she’s the real deal if she wasn’t. She’s possibly the most “genuine” person in the American political arena today. Period.

Act 2 is terrific, there’s no doubt. It should be required viewing for those who want to “report” or “expound” on Sarah Palin. But to me, Act 3 was the most amazing part of the film. It’s here where we see Palin at her “coming out party” the Republican National Convention in 2008. We see the genesis of the Tea Party movement and her help in it. We see clips from several of her speeches at Tea Party events and at other venues. And what we see is a woman that’s a natural at giving a stump speech. I’d forgotten that. It’s amazing to watch. We have a President now that is so politically tone deaf, and she’s the exact opposite. And she doesn’t just speak what the crowd wants to hear. She speaks from her heart, which is what makes the message so powerful and dynamic. She will absolutely change the dynamic of the Presidential race if she enters it. Whether she will, and whether she can win the nomination, I don’t know. I’m not trying to guess at the moment.

The other thing that’s important in Act 3 is that Andrew Breitbart calls me out. I’m going to steal Ben Howe’s words here because he says them far better than I could.

As Breitbart points out in the film, the greatest shame is that while this woman was savaged to degrees you may not even realize yet, some of us sat back and let it happen. For me to buy into the media template and not defend someone who’s only offense was being a conservative, is the absolute antithesis of what I stand for, and something that I shall never allow to happen again.

I haven’t made that mistake with Palin. But, I’ve said often that the personal destruction politics used against Palin were just a test run for 2012. I’ve repeated that the GOP nominee will go through just as bad, if not worse. I’ve repeated that often, but I haven’t done anything about it. I owe a personal apology to the candidates, particularly Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) and to Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) who are already getting the Palin treatment. I’ve defended neither. That ends today.

John Nolte at BigHollywood is constantly reminding us that we need to fight back against not only the Democrats, but also (especially) the media, if we’re going to win. Palin has been terrific at this, but she can’t do it alone. Others, like Bachmann and Perry are still learning this. Breitbart and Nolte have reminded me that I have a voice in this effort also, and I will be using it.

I was also left with one other impression. It hit me in the final 10-15 minutes of the film. My wife and I are currently raising two wonderful daughters. My wife is a wonderful role model for them, and I salute her for that. But Palin’s story, this movie, is a remarkable exhibit of what one woman can do if she has guts and determination and sticks to her core beliefs. I found myself wishing that my daughters were just a bit older so I could show this to them. Maybe after her first term is over.

As I said at the top of this post, I saw two movies yesterday, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, and The Undefeated.

Harry Potter was terrific. The Undefeated was better.

And finally, if you don’t click through on any of the other links on this post (and I encourage you to read them all), please at least read the Ben Howe piece and listen to his interview with Stephen Bannon, the director of the film. It is definitely worth your time.

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2

I saw two movies yesterday. This was the first. My moviegoing experience was tainted somewhat as the woman in the row in front of me decided everyone else would love it if she brought her 15 month old to a 3D Harry Potter film.

Grrr…inconsiderate people drive me crazy.

But, anyway, on to the film. Yes, it’s the last. Harry Potter haters just have to put up with talk about it for another couple months or so, and then they won’t have to hear much about it ever again.

For those of you not in that category…

Warner Brothers released this look back earlier this week:

This is the film we’ve been waiting for since we first saw Harry trying to prevent Voldemort from acquiring the Philosopher’s/Sorcerer’s Stone 10 years ago. We finally get to see both Harry and Voldemort face their destinies. But it’s how they face them that determines the outcome of the film. As Harry learned while sitting under the Sorting Hat 10 years ago, and is repeated to us in the epilogue, it is our choices that define us.

In the 10 years since, we’ve seen the three main actors and their characters grow and develop. Chris Columbus, director of the first film, made some excellent choices for his actors, and for the settings and tones of the films. Later directors have much to thank him for.

The penultimate film in the series, Part 1 of the Deathly Hallows, was not well received. Many people complained about the pace and the lack of action. If it’s any consolation, the same complaints were made about the book when it was released. There’s no doubt about it. The pace is slooooooow. I’ve reread the book a couple times now, and I understand that’s deliberate, but knowledge of that doesn’t help in a movie theatre.

People that had that complaint will find much less to complain about in the final installment in the series. Apart from a couple pauses to let you catch your breath, the action is mostly non-stop in this one.

For the most part, I think the actors delivered their best performances in this one as well, which adds to the enjoyment. I did think that Maggie Smith was a little weak, but while physically she’s perfect for McGonagall, I’ve never been all that impressed with Smith as an actress. Two performances stand out though. Alan Rickman reminds us why he was the perfect foil for Bruce Willis in Die Hard, so many years ago now. And Rupert Grint shines as Ron Weasley, Harry’s best friend. In many ways, I think Grint has had the hardest role to play of the three, and this is the film where the he gets the payoff from all his earlier hard work.

Seriously, watching Rickman and Grint in this film is worth the price of admission by itself.

Yes, the film is a special effects extravaganza. But that’s not what it’s all about. In the end it’s about good vs. evil and about faith and love, i.e. Harry’s faith in himself and those he has trusted, and Harry’s love and those who love him.

I have a few minor quibbles about changes from the book, but over all, fans of the book as well as the film series should be happy about the conclusion. The film meets and exceeds expectations. I’ll be seeing it again. Soon.

Actually my biggest gripe about the entire film is related to the first minute. Why did we not start with the well known phrase of music from Hedwig’s Theme (commonly called Harry’s Theme)? What, doing that 8 times in a row was just too much? 7 is the limit? Stupid choice by the director, Yates. Sets the tone wrong for the entire beginning of the film.

But that’s my biggest gripe. So, yes, I enjoyed it immensely.

One final thing…

Minor spoiler alert!

Seriously, stop here if you don’t want to learn anything!

This means you!

This is your last warning!

Michael Gambon also gives his best performance of the series, IMO. I’ve always thought he was a bit of a step down from Richard Harris has Dumbledore, but he finally fills the role here and for the first time makes you forget about Harris. The “Kings Cross” scene with him and Harry has always made me think of Harris when I read it, so I was anxious as to how Gambon would handle it. I needn’t have worried. He was flawless.

And there was a scene missing that I felt deserved to be part of the film. The death of one of the major characters. We know the character dies, but we don’t see it happen. I think that was a wrong decision, because I think that adds to the emotional impact of one of the concluding battles. Just my opinion.

Happy Birthday, Norma Jean

An incredibly beautiful and tragic figure.

And I can’t say happy birthday to this woman without including this:

What, you thought it was going to be something else?

 

Oh yeah, happy birthday wishes to CNN, too.