E.R. Torre's Blog, page 175

Sensible or silly…?

After the stunning terrorist attack in Paris, France has put in place new rules halting action movie productions in the city:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/02/05/action-movies-halted-in-paris-after-post-terror-new-rules/21139396/

To some degree I can’t blame them for wanting to halt these productions.  As stated in the article, the fear is that a) the productions might become targets themselves, and b) people might be confused by the productions and, given the heightened sensitivity, might mistake a movie production for something “real”.

As I’m currently not working on any action film set in Paris (!), it doesn’t affect me at all, but there have been some interesting action set pieces filmed in the city before and its a shame there may, at least for the near future, be no more such sequences filmed now.

Perhaps when the world calms down and becomes just a little more sane things might go back to how they were.

Though that might be asking a lot…

Tintin Cover Sells For Near Record 2.8 Million…

I’ve made my love for the Tintin graphic novels by Herge known before.  I guess I’m not the only one.

Someone just bought the original artwork for the cover of the 1942 Tintin graphic novel The Shooting Star for a whopping 2.8 million…

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2015/02/tintin-cover-sells-for-near-record-2-8-million-at-auction/

This is the actual printed/colored cover as seen in the graphic novels:

And here’s the original artwork that was sold:

Not much to add here, just noting how popular the character and the original works of author/artist Herge remain.

Mysteries and Disappearances…

I’m a sucker for mysteries.  Grim though the subject matter may be, the disappearances of people are particularly intriguing.  Here then, from io9, are 8 Mysterious Disappearances (And The Clues That Keep People Guessing):

http://io9.com/8-mysterious-disappearances-and-the-clues-that-keep-pe-1683740875

The mystery of the Lost Colony of Roanoke Island is a personal favorite, though one can guess what happened to them.  What makes it more intriguing is what the colonists left behind, scrawled on trees.

Not to be outdone, Cracked.com offers several intriguing mysteries of their own.  First up, 5 Creepiest Disappearances:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19765_the-5-creepiest-disappearances-that-nobody-can-explain.html

The one I find most intriguing is Jean Spangler (#3) and her ties to, of all people, Kirk Douglas!

Next up, 5 Creepy Unsolved Disappearances That Nobody Can Explain (although the article has almost the very same title as the one above, it is a different):

http://www.cracked.com/article_21624_5-creepy-unsolved-disappearances-that-nobody-can-explain.html

Next, 5 Creepiest Unsolved Crimes Nobody Can Explain:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18459_the-5-creepiest-unsolved-crimes-nobody-can-explain.html

Check out #1, The Lead Masks Case.  While I suspect that the capsules eaten were indeed poison, the rest of the case is just so damn bizarre.

Finally, 6 People Who Just Fucking Disappeared:

http://www.cracked.com/article_16501_6-people-who-just-fucking-disappeared.html

If all those links don’t give you goosebumps, I don’t know what will!

John Wick (2014) a (mildly) belated review

When John Wick was released last year, I was really intrigued.  The critics were for the most part warm to the film, noting it featured terrific stunts and a driving, hard edged plot.

Sounded like my cup of tea!

Though I tried hard to catch the film in theaters, my free time remains very tight and there simply was no chance to catch it.  The inevitable wait followed as the film left theaters and, eventually, made it to home video.  Yesterday, finally, I got a chance to see it.

And for the most part, I wasn’t disappointed.

John Wick is indeed a hard charging, lean and mean action film.  The plot is incredibly simple: John Wick () is an ex-assassin and general bad-ass who left behind his life of crime for the love of his life.  Unfortunately, his wife succumbed to one of those trademark Love Story-type movie diseases that kill you slowly yet leave you looking absolutely beautiful.  In anticipation of her eventual death, Mrs. Wick has a puppy delivered to her husband after her passing.  The puppy punctures Wick’s sadness (and possible suicidal feelings following his wife’s death) and gives him a small amount of joy in a dark time.

Unfortunately, while out to get gas for his screamin’ 69 Mustang (oh the troubles that might have been avoided had Mr. Wick opted for a Prius!), the car catches the eyes of a trio of unsavory Russian mobster types.  They approach Wick and ask him how much he wants for the vehicle.  He tells them he isn’t selling it.  The leader of the group, unaccustomed to not getting his way, then says something profane in Russian and Wick surprises the man by responding in kind…in Russian.

Later that night, Wick’s house is broken into and Wick is beaten and his puppy killed.  This is done to rob him of his Mustang.

As the saying goes, these guys messed with the wrong man.  What follows is Wick’s journey back into his old environs where he takes revenge on the man (and, eventually father of the man and his one-time boss) who robbed him of his car and killed his puppy.

The best thing about John Wick is that the movie doesn’t waste time.  As mentioned before, this film is a lean machine, propelled from one set piece to another with almost no filler.  The action sequences are for the most part terrific, with my personal favorite perhaps being the confrontation between Wick and Ms. Perkins (), a very adept femme fatale assassin.

The film builds on and on, reaching its climax and conclusion and leaving at least me hoping to see more (word is, a sequel will be made).

Having said all those positive things, the movie does have a couple of problems that, frankly, irritated me.

First up, it seems awfully coincidental and hard to believe the people who initially assaulted John Wick so soon after his wife’s funeral happen to be related to the man Wick worked for up until his retirement…and neither knew the other!  In terms of coincidences, that’s a pretty big one to swallow.

My second issue is with the fate of the already mentioned Ms. Perkins.  Without giving too much away, I thought the filmmakers missed out with her character.  She deserved far better than the fate given within the film.  At the very least, there should have been a re-match, right?  If not in this movie, then perhaps in the sequel?

Anyway, apart from these two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed John Wick.  No, the film isn’t Citizen Kane or The Godfather.  No, it won’t scare away any other Oscar contenders, but it is a pure escapist action/adventure film that delivers on the goods.  Recommended.

Silent Movie (1976) a (incredibly) belated review

I have a great deal of fondness for the works of writer/director/actor .  Many of them, anyway.

I loved the original movie version of The Producers (1967) and found myself roaring with laughter at the scheming of Zero Mostel’s Max Bialystock and the nebbish performance of Gene Wilder.  Seven years later in 1974, Mr. Brooks co-wrote and directed not one but two absolutely fantastic comedies: Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles.  Just those three films alone raise Mr. Brooks -in my humble opinion- to the upper echelons of movie producing comics, even as I have to admit to not being a big fan of the works he did afterwards.

Mind you, I haven’t see them all.  I saw both History of the World Part 1 (1981) and Spaceballs (1987) and thought they were decent comedies with some inspired bits but weren’t quite on the level of those earlier works.  Of the films he made that remain, I’ve heard enough bad things about Life Stinks, Robin Hood: Men in Tights, and Dracula Dead and Loving It to know these are probably not for me.  If I catch ‘em, fine, but if I don’t…

Which leaves the two “in between” films (not counting The Twelve Chairs) that were released between Mr. Brooks’ peak and his later works.  I’m referring to Silent Movie (1976) and his parody of Alfred Hitchcock films, High Anxiety (1977).  I saw bits and pieces of both films but never quite got to see the whole thing.  So when TCM offered a block of Mel Brooks films a couple of weeks ago and those two films were part of it, I set the DVR to record.  Thus far, I’ve seen Silent Movie aaaaannnnnndddd…

…it wasn’t my cup of tea.

Mind you, there were some very clever jokes scattered here and there, but overall this film, a homage to the silent comedies of yesterday, fell very flat.

Silent Movie is a silent movie about making a silent movie.  Mel Brooks, in his first actual starring role in one of his films, plays Mel Funn, a washed up director who had an alcohol problem but has cleaned up his act and now, with his companions Marty Eggs (Marty Feldman) and Dom Bell (Dom DeLouise) at his side, wants to make a comeback with a (you guessed it) silent movie.

His first step is to convince the head of the movie studio (Sid Ceasar) to go along with his scheme.  Naturally, this being 1976 and the last silent film was released an awful long time ago, the Studio Chief is completely against the idea.  However, things are tough for the studio and there is a threat they might be taken over by a large conglomorate.  After Funn promises to get a bunch of A-List actors to appear in his movie, which may help it be a success, the Studio Chief accepts and we’re off to find the stars.

What follows is the bulk of the film, where our three leads bump into several at that time very big name stars, including Burt Reynolds, James Caan, Liza Minnelli, Marcel Marceau, Anne Bancroft, and Paul Newman.  Each star has a humorous encounter with our leads but, frankly, other than a very clever gag involving Marcel Marceau and a more energetic meeting involving Paul Newman, I found the whole thing rather flat.

Perhaps part of the fault lies in the passage of time.  Sometimes comedy (and action) is like that.  While there are many delightful and hilarious comedies from the silent era, there are others that show their age.  In the case of Silent Movie, this now nearly forty year old film simply doesn’t work for me.  I found the slapstick lacking and the star appearances, which I’m certain at the time were incredible to see, today don’t have quite the same resonance.

On the plus side and as mentioned before, there are some very clever jokes, particularly the one involving famous mime Marcel Marceau.  I also like the meta nature of the film, where Mr. Brooks plays a man who is trying hard to make a silent film, something I’m certain must have been hard to convince the studios to allow him to do despite his previous successes.  And how best to sell your silent movie than by having a bunch of stars show up in it?

Despite this, the film just didn’t do all that much for me and I can’t recommend you go see this Silent Movie.

Disney Takes Action Against Leaker…

Interesting article from io9.com:

http://io9.com/disney-takes-action-against-a-possible-star-wars-vii-le-1683436351

I can’t help but think about the changes that have come to the entertainment industry since the arrival of the internet.

For music, the effects have been pretty devastating.  Pirate copies of songs are all over the place (should you be so inclined to find them) and what was once a staple of malls, the music store, is long gone.

For reading material, a similar thing is happening.  With computers and tablets and smartphones, we now have more and more people reading books/newspapers through their personal devices.  Piracy is a threat, again.

With movies, we have essentially eliminated the video store (Blockbuster, R.I.P.).  But a bigger problem is the fact that it takes a while to make movies and, again because of the proliferation of tablets/smartphones/etc. leaks are becoming far too prevalent.  Spoilers regarding storylines or guest stars are becoming an issue to the point where there seems to be no movie released that you don’t have at least some idea of what’s going on, if not the entire plot.  Screenplay leaks are particularly damaging, but so too are sequences filmed by passerbys who witness something being made.

I pointed out before how I first learned about films like Escape From New York and Robocop (the original) by seeing their posters at a movie theater.  These films were literally a week or so from being released and that was the very first I ever heard of either!  I’m sure there were articles regarding the features released beforehand, but back in those pre-internet days, unless you actually had the articles/magazines, you didn’t know about the features until you either saw the previews or the posters.

Hell, I recall going in to see Raiders of the Lost Ark when it was first released back in 1981.  At that time, I lived outside the USA and when I traveled back and noted there was a new film by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg released, a film I had seen absolutely no commercials and knew nothing about, given the talents behind it I assumed it had to be a cosmic saga, perhaps a mash up of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind.  Boy was I surprised when the film’s opening crawl noted it took place in the 1930’s!

This kind of cinematic surprise is practically unknown today.  Getting the word out on your film can be a good thing, but at what point does it become too much spoiler information?

And more importantly, is there anything we can do about it?

I doubt it.  We’re in the rapid information age and every one of us quite literally has the world at our fingertips, for better or worse.

The Other Woman (2014) a (sorta/kinda and mildly belated) review

There was a time, briefly, that I imagined it would be absolutely great to have a career as a movie critic.  I absolutely loved going to the movies back then and had plenty of free time to do so.  In those pre-internet days I devoured reviews in various newspapers and books and would regularly watch Siskel and Ebert on TV.

As I grew older, I realized I’d make a terrible movie critic.  The fact is that I like certain types of films and, conversely, don’t like others.  While I’m sure every critic out there has their personal likes and dislikes, the best movie critics -one hopes!- should enter a film with as neutral a stance toward the material they’re about to see as possible.  Their review, therefore, should be about what they saw and how they felt about it and remove any potential prejudices.

I couldn’t do that.

Yesterday evening, my wife and I were sitting in the living room considering what to watch.  Though I had several shows waiting to be seen on the DVR, I wasn’t in the mood to watch them, even though we needed to free up some memory in the DVR (is it me or does there never seem to be enough space?!).  I pointed out to her we had the 2014 // movie The Other Woman and asked her if she wanted to see it.  Unlike me, she doesn’t mind watching romantic comedies and so we started the sucker up, even though I had a pretty good feeling what my opinion of the movie would be.

I wasn’t wrong.

The first forty or so minutes of this film were…how to put it kindly?…not very good.  One could see where the movie was going but it felt like you were watching a early screenplay draft pushed into film.  Plain and simply, this section of the film could have used some judicious trimming to get to the point faster.  I also realized that the movie’s storyline was somewhat given away by the commercials and movie posters which were eager to point out Kate Upton’s role (and, more importantly, the fact that she’s in a bikini!) in the film, as you can see here:

Watching that commercial, you have the first forty minutes of the movie condensed into the first fifty seconds and it works much better!

Despite a sluggish start, things got cooking when the movie’s three stars were (finally) brought together and the central point of the plot, that of taking revenge on the husband/cheater, was initiated.  Much of it was juvenile stuff but it wasn’t the worst I’ve seen and at least things were moving.

I missed some ten or so minutes toward the movie’s later half (which is why this is a sorta/kinda review) just before coming back to see the movie’s rather violent and bloody (!!!) end (I half expected the women pull out a gun and shoot the bastard!).  I don’t think I missed all that much.  By the time I briefly left the film, it was obvious where things were headed and they pretty much got there as I expected.

As I said before, I have my prejudices regarding feature films and going into The Other Woman I knew this wasn’t a film made for someone like me.  And that’s ok.  I wouldn’t want all movies to fit my definition of “good”.  My wife liked it fine, though she thought the opening act was as tedious as I did, so at least we were in agreement there.

In conclusion, if you’re into romantic comedies and are willing to sit through a dull and too prolonged opening act, you may find some fun in The Other Woman.  If, like me, you’re not really into these modern romantic comedies, steer clear.

Super Bowl XLIX post-mortem…

Now that this year’s SuperBowl is over (seriously, Seattle, WTF was that last play all about?!) we get to discuss what’s important: The commercials.

Here’s Seth Stevenson’s best and worst of, via Slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ad_report_card/2015/02/super-bowl-ads-the-best-and-worst-commercials-of-xlix.html

For myself, the ads this year were…not all that great, frankly.  But there were some that had me laughing.  Yes, I’m into the humorous ads.  Forget the “inspiring” or “emotional” ones, I’ll take the ones that make me laugh.  Like this one:

Lindsay Lohan poking fun at her image?  Yes please!  Speaking of which, the next two ads, also favorites, follow this same pattern of stars poking fun at their images.

First up, Pierce Brosnan considering a new role…

Then, Liam Neeson not about to let someone defeat him and take his gold in…a video game?

Finally, this commercial features Danny Trejo in probably the best “you’re not yourself when you’re hungry” Snickers commercial:

Funny, funny stuff.

Now, about that last play by the Seattle Seahawks…

A little more on Deflategate…

There are three kinds of lies:  Lies, damn lies, and statistics.  Mark Twain, attributing the quote to Benjamin Disraeli

Nearly two weeks ago the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts played each other in the semifinal football game and, during that game, a curious thing happened: It was found that the Patriots’ footballs (each team provides their own for a game, in hindsight a very stupid concept) were under-inflated.

This caused an uproar.  The Patriots, who had already been fined heavily a few years back for cheating, were accused of the “same-ol’ same-ol'”.  Others came to the team’s defense, alternately wondering if maybe the weather had an effect on the ball’s inflation (I suspect that was easily disproven as the Colts’ balls, all of them, were properly inflated while a whopping 11 of the 12 balls the Patriots provided were under-inflated) or saying that under-inflating the balls wouldn’t create any noticeable advantage for the team.

A few days back (you can read it here) I pointed out the research of Warren Sharp into what he felt was the “impossible” low numbers of fumbles New England has made since roughly 2007, when a change in rules favored by, among others, New England’s quarterback Tom Brady allowed individual teams to bring their own balls into games.

Since that article came out, there of course appeared counterarguments (hence the reason I posted the above quote).  Some of the counter-analysis has been curt to the point of insulting both the research of Mr. Sharp and as well as the person and claiming he and his statistics are a scam.

Here, however, Jordan Ellenberg for Slate Magazine examines the pro and con points and comes up with a decidedly middle of the road reading: the low number of fumbles produced by New England might not be “impossible” as Mr. Sharp claims, but they aren’t meaningless:

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/new-england-fumbles-the-patriots-incredible-ball-security-is-not-impossible.single.html

Perhaps the payoff line in the article is this one:

New England may not be an all-time outlier in the history of fumbles. But no one disputes that they went from average to very, very good (with number of fumbles), and it happened suddenly, and it happened one season after the NFL allowed each team to provide its own game balls and the same season they were caught violating the rules in another controversy that had opposing fans alleging long-running wrongdoing. This might have happened because the Patriots acquired more sure-handed players in 2007 and moved to a spread offense, as Fustin suggests. Or it might have happened because the Patriots have had squishy balls for years, as everyone outside of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts suggests. The fumble stats alone are consistent with both theories.

For me, the proof lies in what happens from here on in.  You just know the NFL will be a lot more careful about the balls being brought into games.  There will be a level of scrutiny towards them as never before to make sure all the balls in any given game are exactly as they should be.

I’ll be very curious once that happens to see what New England’s fumble statistics look like and if the period from 2007 to 2015 will prove to be a statistical “aberration” and their fumbles fall more in line with your average team’s fumbles.  If so, this should prove that under-inflated balls did prove to be an advantage.

We’ll see.

The November Man (2014) a (mildly) belated review

I feel for actor  though I probably shouldn’t.  He’s handsome, well known, and keeps busy.  I’m pretty sure he also makes/has made a very decent living as an actor.  Still…

I first came to know of Mr. Brosnan, like many of my age, through his work in the TV show Remington Steele (1982-87).  The show was popular enough for people to notice Mr. Brosnan and, given that at that time Roger Moore was showing his age and it was clear he wouldn’t be able to continue playing James Bond for much longer, it became a foregone conclusion that Mr. Brosnan would be taking over the role.

Which made the by then faltering Remington Steele show get a second wind, ratings wise and be renewed for the 1987 TV season.  Because Mr. Brosnan was still under contract for the show, he was unable to move on into the James Bond role for the 1987 film The Living Daylights.  The role went to Timothy Dalton and with that movie’s success, it seemed Mr. Brosnan had missed his opportunity.  However, the second (and it turned out, last) Timothy Dalton outing, License to Kill, was something of a flop and, for a while, it appeared that the James Bond franchise was teetering on the edge of collapse.

Mr. Brosnan got his second chance to play Bond a full eight years after the cancellation of Remington Steel with 1995’s Goldeneye.  I recall being very excited to see him in the movie though I never was one of those who hated Timothy Dalton’s take on the character.  In fact, I felt Mr. Dalton was quite good in the two films he participated in.  But License to Kill, Timothy Dalton or not, was a terrible film, one of my least favorite Bond features, and it didn’t surprise me when the producers didn’t want Dalton back.

When Goldeneye was released, I was so there at the theater, dying to see Mr. Brosnan’s take on the character.

Turned out, I was incredibly disappointed.

Many consider Goldeneye the best of the four Brosnan Bond films.  I feel all four of the films committed the greatest sin any Bond film could commit: They were all so terribly, terribly mediocre.  Forgettable even.  So much so that I have to actually check to see how many films he made because the movies’ plots, to my mind, bleed into each other with little cohesion.

Disappointment led to inevitability.  When Mr. Brosnan’s last Bond outing, Die Another Day, was released in 2002, it felt like this was the end of the beloved spy.  It wasn’t of course, but that’s recent history I’m sure most are aware of.

When I first heard about the 2014 feature The November Man, I felt that old excitement coming back.  The idea of seeing Mr. Brosnan take up the “superspy” mantle once again was irresistible.  And as I put the film into the DVD player and watched the first half hour or so, I was in bliss.

Here we had Pierce Brosnan playing Deveraux, effectively an R-rated version of Bond and a take on that character I’ve been dying to see.  He’s older and wiser, crankier and more foul mouthed, but deep inside he has a code of conduct and despite the foul business involving his job, he tries to let a little light into the world with his actions.

I was loving what I was seeing.

But after a while, the film let me down.  Like the Bond films he participated in, not because of Mr. Brosnan.  His superspy carried the film well despite its obvious low budget (much of the filming was done in the economically friendly countries of Serbia and Montenegro) and some of the plot twists in the story were fascinating to watch, but what killed The November Man for me was that at some point the film simply lost all credibility.

One scene in particular, involving Brosnan’s Deveraux confronting the prime candidate for Russia’s presidency, proved laughable in its improbability.  Without giving too much away, it strains credibility to think even a superspy as good as Deveraux could somehow and all alone make a frontal assault on such an important man, mow past his army of security guards, and actually get to him!  Then, afterwards, despite all the gunplay in the Hotel he’s staying at, it seems no staff in the Hotel (particularly one -she had to be- deaf cleaning woman) has noticed the assault!

It was from that point on that the film heaped incredulity upon incredulity and, frankly, the movie limped to its conclusion with our main character essentially hoping others would miraculously come save his bacon (if you’ve seen the movie think about the ending…what exactly was Deveroux’s plan at that point?  He had none).

In sum, and despite a very game and pleasing performance from Mr. Brosnan, I cannot recommend The November Man.  A true shame.