#why are you as a NATIONAL CINEMA CHAIN not showing all the films I want to see | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

weekendwarriorblog · 4 years ago

Text

The Weekend Warrior 10/16/20: SYNCHRONIC, FRENCH EXIT, TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7, LOVE AND MONSTERS, HONEST THIEF, THE KID DETECTIVE and More!

After the last couple weeks, I really need a break, which is why I’m writing most of this in transit to Columbus, Ohio to see my mother, sister and all (or some) of the friends that I made during my sabbatical to the city seven years ago for cancer treatment.

On, and look... Variety wrote about the movie theater chains and NATO lobbying Governor Cuomo to reopen movie theaters, showing that there’s been no proof of any cases leading back to movie theaters. (And more from The Hollywood Reporter…) New York leads and the world follows? More like ED leads and the world follows. Been saying this shit for months now and putting up with all sorts of needless abuse for it.

This week’s “Featured Flick” is actually a movie coming to theaters on October 23, but since I’m not sure I’m writing a column next week, I’m gonna review it this week! Cool? The movie is SYNCHRONIC (Well Go USA), and it’s the follow-up to Aaron Moorehead and Justin Benson’s amazing sci-fi film The Endless from a few years back. This ome stars Anthony Mackie and Jamie Dornan as parademics in New Orleans who have been coming across a series of bodies that have died in gruesome ways, all connected by a designer drug they were all taking.

I’ll just say right from the start that I loved almost everything about this movie from the amazing performances by Mackie and Dornan to the entire look and tone of the movie, which shows the duo taking huge steps forward as filmmakers, particularly Benson as a screenwriter. Unfortunately, I’m not sure what I can say about the movie and its plot without spoiling other’s enjoyment. I will say that it involves a designer drug and time travel and Mackie’s character has something odd about his brain that makes him better suited to figure out what is happening to the victims than others might be. Also, Dornan’s character Dennis has family issues, particularly with his daughter Brianna (Ally Ioannides), who disappears mysteriously, but it’s so nice seeing Katie Aselton as Dennis’ wife, as well as in another movie out this week.

I’ll also say that people who watch this movie will inevitably make comparisons to the work of Alex Garland and maybe even the more-versed ones might see a little of David Cronenberg’s Videodrome in the film’s trippy nature. The thing is that the movie is super-smart, and it’s obvious that Moorehead and Benson must have done a lot of research to make every aspect of it feel authentic. It’s just amazing what this duo can do with a small fraction of the money that Christopher Nolan had to make Tenet, and yet, they can create a complex and unique premise that’s actually easy to understand. Things like the camerawork, the music and sound design all add to the amazing tone and the mood that the duo have created.

I also think it’s Mackie’s best role and performance in many years, maybe even going back to The Hurt Locker, so as a long-time fan, I’m glad he connected with Moorehead/Benson to show that he’s more than capable of leading a movie like this.

Again, Synchronic will be in movie theaters and drive-ins NEXT Friday, October 23, but I want to give you an advance heads up, because Synchronic is likely to be the most original sci-fi or genre film you see this year. If you can’t get to the drive-in and don’t feel comfortable going to a movie theater, then I’m sure it will be on digital soon enough, but you definitely shouldn’t miss it!

Next up is Aaron Sorkin’s THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO SEVEN, streaming on Netflix starting Friday and the movie I was most looking forward to seeing this week. I was such a huge fan of Brett Morgen’s Chicago 10 documentary, which opened Sundance in 2007, especially with how he recreated the court trials using animation and a talented roster of voice actors including Hank Azaria, Mark Ruffalo and Geoffrey Wright. Sorkin has just as an impressive list of actors for his version, including Mark Rylance, Eddie Redmayne, Sacha Baron Cohen, Frank Langella, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and many more.

If you don’t know about the protests outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago – you see, back in those days, the Democrats were the bad guys… how times have changed!! Those protests led to a number of arrests but a few years later, the federal government charged a number of individuals with inciting the riot. The accused include Black Panther leader Bobby Seale, played by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from Aquaman and Watchmen, Abbie Hoffman (Cohen), FBI agent Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne), Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch) and two more. The six white guys are defended by Mark Rylance’s William Kunstler, who faces the tough Judge Hoffman (Langella) who is not putting up with any guff from these young revolutionaries.

All of the characters are quickly introduced with a quick-cut opening montage with actual newsreel footage, but then we’re quickly moved to a meeting to the Attorney General (Keaton) with the trial’s prosecutor (Gordon-Levitt). From there, we’re right into the trial about 16 minutes into the movie, although Sorkin frequently cuts back to the actual day of the Chicago protest to recreate what happened as testimony is given. Probably the part that will have the most impact and resonance is the way Seale was mistreated compared to the others, getting so riled up at the judge that the judge orders him chained and gagged. The trial would end up taking place for almost 7 months even though the results were eventually overturned.

This really is perfect material for Sorkin, and maybe if I hadn’t seen Chicago 10 first, I would have been a lot more fascinated by the trial sequences, though Morgen did an equally great job working from the transcripts. Basically, what happened happened. Where Sorkin’s screenplay and film excels is showing what’s going on outside the courtroom, whether it’s the recreations or just conversations taking place between the plaintiffs. As might be expected from Sorkin, the screenplay is great with lots of fast talking, making for a movie that moves at a kinetic pace for its two hours.

If I had to pick a few of the best performances, I’d probably focus on Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman, which is more than just an accent, he and Strong’s Rubin bantering back and forth like a seasoned Vaudeville act; Rylance’s Kunstler is spot-on, and Langella is just great as the crusty judge, the film’s only true antagonist. I also appreciated John Carroll Lynch and in fact, all the performances, although I felt that with so many characters, Sorkin wasn’t able to give Bobby Seale the time his story truly needed. Still, I would be shocked if this isn’t considered a SAG Ensemble frontrunner.

Ultimately, The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a fine recreation of a certain moment in history that still feels relevant and timely fifty years later, even if it’s so heavy at times you either need to focus or, like me, watch it on Netflix in two sittings. I still liked Steve McQueen’s movie Mangrove that takes place in a similar era and also culminates in a trial just a little bit better.

Before we get to the rest of this week’s new movies, I have one last review from the New York Film Festival, and it’s the closing night film, FRENCH EXIT, from director Azazel Jacobs and writer Patrick Dewitt, who has adapted his own book. The film stars Michelle Pfeiffer as Frances Price, a Manhattan widow from wealth who discovers she has no more money, just as her son Malcolm (Lucas Hedges with longer hair than usual) has decided to marry his girlfriend Susan (Imogen Poots) though he hasn’t told his mother that yet. With no other options, Francis takes her son on a ship to live in Paris for a while at the home of one Mme. Renard (Valarie Mahaffey), an elderly woman who is a genuine fan of Francis and welcomes them as her guests.

This is one of those ensemble character dramedies that I wouldn’t even be able to begin to tell you why you should see it unless you miss seeing Pfeiffer in a semi-decent performance, but one that doesn’t do much as the film itself is so boring and insufferably pretentious most of the time I’m not sure I can even recommend it for that.

Jacobs and Dewitt previous made the movie Teri maybe ten years ago, and I was never really a fan, so I’m not sure why I thought that Dewitt adapting his own book would bear better results. Once Frances and Malcolm get to Paris, there’s just an influx of odd characters who show up, some who have more impact than others. I liked seeing Danielle Macdonald as a psychic medium the duo meet on the ship across the Atlantic who Malcolm bonks. She’s brought back when Frances wants her to conduct a séance to communicate with her late husband who she thinks is now inhabiting an omni-present cat. Like everything else, the relationship between Malcolm and Susan and how that’s affected by her meeting a new guy just never goes anywhere.

For the most part, the whole thing is just dull and uninteresting, and so pretentious it never really leads to anything even remotely memorable. I have no idea why the New York Film Festival would decide to close with this one. (Although the 58th NYFF is over, some of the movies will hit its Virtual Cinema soon, so keep an eye out! For instance, this Friday, FilmLinc begins a Pietro Marcello retrospective as well as showing his latest film Martin Eden in FilmLInc’s Virtual Cinema.)

Liam Neeson stars in Mark Williams’ HONEST THIEF (Open Road), a crime-thriller in which he plays Tom Carter, the uncaught robber behind 12 bank robberies who decides to settle down with Kate (Grey’s Anatomy) Walsh’s Annie Wilkins, who he meets while renting a storage space to hide all the money he’s stolen. After a year of things getting serious with Annie, Tom decides to retire so he calls the FBI and says he’s ready to give back the 9 million, but two crooked FBI agents (one played by Jai Courtenay, the other by Anthony Ramos) decide they’re going to take the money instead. Their plan to steal the money Tom’s trying to return leads to a number of deaths, including putting Annie in the hospital. When that happens, Tom has had enough, and honestly, there’s no one better at getting revenge than Neeson. (Did we mention that Carter is ex-Marine? I mean, of course he is!)

Many will go into Honest Thief expecting the typical Neeson action revenge flick ala Taken or maybe one of his high-concept thrillers, but Honest Thief isn’t nearly that exciting. It starts out fairly slow and dry with no real crime or action elements, although Williams does throw them in from time to time. The whole thing is pretty dry, and it’s a good 54 minutes before we get to the revenge aspect of the story and that’s after a lot of bad decisions being made across the board. Anyone who is still wondering how Jai Courtney has a career won’t be changing that decision by his turn as the villain, and it’s a lot odd when the movie tries to make a sympathetic character out of his partner, played by Ramos.

Regardless, any elements that make Honest Thief unique from other Neeson action movies are quickly tossed aside for the same usual cliches, and the action scenes aren’t even that great. While Honest Thief may not be an awful or unwatchable movie, it’s probably not the action movie you might be expecting from Neeson – more like a bargain basement The Fugitive with one plot decision that almost kills the whole movie.

Delayed a number of times and now dumped to PVOD (with minimal theatrical) is Paramount’s LOVE AND MONSTERS, which is written by the prolific Bryan Duffield (The Babysitter, Spontaneous), directed by Michael Matthews and produced by Shawn Levy’s 21 Laps Entertainment. In the movie, Dylan O’Brien plays Joel Dawson, a young man surviving the apocalypse with a small community after the government’s plot to blast a couple asteroids heading to earth backfires. Instead, it creates giant, carnivorous monsters out of the earth’s animals who eliminate 95% of the earth’s human population. (We learn all of this through a Zombieland-like animated prequel getting us up to speed.) Before the earth fell into disarray, Joel was in love with Jessica Henwick’s Aimee, but they were separated by the fateful events. Seven years later, they’re reconnected via radio and Joel has sworn to travel the 85 miles across the creature-covered wasteland to reunite with her. Hence, the title “Love and Monsters.” Get it?

I actually didn’t hate this movie, although it’s not really a family film or one meant for young kids, because it’s PG-13 for a reason, including mild violence i.e. people being chomped by monsters, and some sexuality. Dylan O’Brien does a decent job carrying it, but it relies just as much on the other people he meets, particularly Michael Rooker’s Clyde and his young ward Minnow, played by Ariana Greenblatt, the latter who is such a scene-stealer that it’s disappointing they’re only in the movie for a small chunk. They’re probably the funniest part of the movie.

I like giant monsters and these ones are certainly … interesting. They seem to have been toned down a bit maybe to be more kid-friendly, more like the kid-friend Godzilla than the terror we’ve seen in recent incarnations. There are also a number of great action set-pieces, and some good post-Apocalyptic ideas we haven’t seen, especially when Duffield’s dark sense of humor is able to come out and keep things fun.

Still, Love and Monsters is not a kids’ movie, and there’s something about it that might make people wish the filmmaker just went full-on R, because going further towards PG would have made even the best parts quite painful to get through. As it is, Love and Monsters is a suitably fine boy and his dog adventure – oh, did I mention the dog? – that would make a perfectly fine streaming movie.

We’ll get back to some of the other theatrical releases in a bit, but I wanted to get to two movies that were pleasant surprises, maybe because I went into them with absolutely zero expectations.

I wasn’t really sure what to think about Cooper Raiff’s SH#!%HOUSE (IFC Films) at first, maybe because it’s title is a little off-putting and not really particularly representative of what the movie is. Raiff himself plays Alex Malmquist, a fairly new arrival at his college but already missing home and his mother (Amy Landecker) and not really adjusting to the crazy college lifestyle as exemplified by his roommate Sam (Logan Miller). After a party at a frat called “Shithouse” (hence the title), Alex meets and connects with his dorm’s R.A. Maggie (Dylan Gelula) and the two spend the night bonding and hanging out.

Obviously, someone at IFC Films loves these platonic indie two-handers about people meeting and hanging out over the course of a night, because Shithouse is the second such movie after Olympic Dreams earlier in the year. They also must know that I’m a sucker for these kinds of semi-rom-coms, because just like with that other movie, I totally ate up everything Raiff was trying to do and say with his movie. The chemistry between the two leads is undeniable, and maybe it won’t be a surprise that Gelula also appeared in Raiff’s previous movie.

As with any relationship, things do come to an end, and this one crashes and burns in a very sad way for Alex the very next day. Maggie starts to pretend she doesn’t even know him, and she ignores his incessant texts saying how much he enjoyed their night together. Boy, I have been there back in my reckless and romantic days of youth.

At first, I wasn’t that into Raiff as an actor – remember what I’ve said about filmmakers casting themselves? – but Alex definitely grew on me. Gelula is absolutely amazing, and frankly, I can see someone “discovering” her in ten years and becoming a new Parker Posey, Kate Lynn Sheil or other similar indie ingenue.

The combination of the two is what makes Shithouse such a special experience, since their situations are quite relatable and Raiff does a great job with the characterization in his writing to make this quite enjoyable to see how things will resolve themselves.

I also wasn’t quite prepared for how much I’d enjoy Steve Byrne’s THE OPENING ACT (RLJEfilms), maybe because I was unfamiliar with Byrne, and as usual, I didn’t read the description of the movie before sitting down to watch it. If I did, I would have known that Byrne is a stand-up comic and presumably this movie is somewhat based on situations that have happened to him. It stars Jimmy O. Yang from Crazy Rich Asians (a great comic in his own right) as Willy Chu, a young comic who has always dreamed of making it in stand-up but instead, has been stuck trying to get slots at an open mic night, while holding down a day job working at an insurance company. One day, his friend (Ken Jeong) sets him up for an MC gig in Pennsylvania at the Improv where his idol Billy G (Cedric the Entertainer) will be performing, so Willy quits his job to pursue his dream.

Much of Byrne’s movie deals with Billy’s “adventure” in Pennsylvania with the club’s womanizing featured act (played by SNL’s Alex Moffatt) and trying to face the struggles of stand-up in hopes of getting to the next level. There have been better movies about the subject, like Mike Birbiglia’s Sleepwalk with You, but Byrne’s film is a nice addition, particularly because Yang plays such a likeable, benevolent character you want to see him do well even after he crashes and bombs on a Saturday night and is at risk of losing the Improv gig.

It’s obvious that Byrne pulled in a lot of favors from friends to get such a great cast of comics – even getting Whitney Cumming to make a cameo – but the likes of Bill Burr actually take on key roles, like Willy’s boss in that case. Moffatt is particularly hilarious expanding on some of his outrageous SNL characters to play a stand-up who actually does help Willy, even as he puts him in pretty awful situations. Cedric also gives another fantastic performance as Willy’s idol who gives him the cold shoulder at first but eventually comes around and offers him the mentoring that Willy needs.

The Opening Act isn’t anything particularly revelatory, but it is thoroughly entertaining, and a nice little indie that I hope people will discover for themselves, especially those who like (or perform) stand-up.

Edward James Olmos directs THE DEVIL HAS A NAME (Momentum Releasing) starring the great Oscar-nominated David Strathairn as almond farmer Fred Stern, who has been running his orchard for three decades with trusty second Santiago, played by Olmos himself. Things are going well until they notice that some of the trees are rotting. It turns out they’re being poisoned by the water that’s been sullied by crude oil run-off from the nearby Shore Oil rigs. Around the same time, an opportunist named Alex Gardner, played by Haley Joel Osment, offers Fred a very low-ball offer to buy the farm, though Fred suspects something is up, and sure enough, Shore Oil is responsible.

Another movie I didn’t know what to expect other than a few cursory elements is this movie “based on a true story” movie about the little farmer taking on “The Man.” In this case, Shore Oil is represented by Kate Bosworth’s Gigi Cutler, a tough exec. at the corporation who thinks their lawyers (one of them played by Katie Aselton!) can crush this local troublemaker. When Stern’s lawyer (Martin Sheen) sues the oil company for 2 billion, they need to start taking things seriously, bringing in a tough “fixer” played by Pablo Schreiber.

I’m not sure where to begin with this movie that certainly has noble intentions in telling this story but suffers from quite a few issues, mostly coming from the script. I was a little concerned once I knew the premise, because I was not a huge fan of Todd Haynes’ Dark Water from last year, although I did enjoy the Krasinski-Damon-Van Sant ecological venture, Promised Land. This one falls somewhere in between, and probably its biggest issue is that it tries to create some humor out of the erratic behavior of the characters played by Bosworth and Schreiber; both performances are so off-the-rails at times it regularly takes you out of Fred’s story. (Osment is also pretty crazy but at least he fits better into his role.) Strathairn is great and well-cast, and Olmos is equally good, and I imagine that it’s partially because many of their scenes are together, allowing Olmos to direct with his acting. Aselton and Sheen are also decent, especially in the courtroom scenes.

Oh, and did I mention that Alfred Molina plays the Big Boss, who is interrogating Cutler as a needless framing device? Yeah, there’s a lot of characters, and when you hold this up against something like The Trial of Chicago 7, it’s just obvious that the film has too many elements for any filmmaker to be able to juggle at once.

Because of this, The Devil Has A Name is an erratic real-life dramedy that’s too all over the place in terms of tone, it ends up shooting itself in the foot by trying (and failing) to be funny despite the serious subject matter.

Next up is 2 HEARTS (Silver Lion Films/ Freestyle Releasing), another movie based on a true story from the Hool Brothers, who I really wasn’t very familiar with. I assumed this was going to be a faith-based movie, and maybe in some ways it is, but not really. It essentially tells two stories set in different time periods that you assume will somehow be connected. Ooh, boy.

First, there’s Jacob Elordi of Euphoria and The Kissing Booth – neither of which I’ve seen, mind you – who plays Chris Gregory, a college kid who connects in a meet-cute way with Tiera Skovbye’s Sam. Before we get too far into their story, we cut back to what looks like Cuba in the ‘50s and 60s, and meet Jorge Bolivar (Adan Canto), the son of an alcohol magnate, a soccer player who suffers a serious lung issue that puts him in the hospital. Years later, Jorge is travelling to Miami when he meets Radha Mitchell’s Leslie working as a flight attendant.

Both guys are pretty suave smooth-talking pick-up artists, and the movie spends almost an hour cutting between two very corny and cheesy romance stories that really don’t offer much in terms of story. Instead, it keeps following Chris and Sam’s life as they have kids, taking forever to get to the connection between the stories. I was getting pretty bored of the movie, but I felt like I had to stick it out to see what happens.

When you call a movie “2 Hearts,” you kind of expect it to be about a heart transplant of some kind, right? But no, it’s actually about a dual lung transplant that Jorge receives. Want to take a wild guess who the donor is? I certainly don’t want to spoil what happens, but for a movie that spends a good hour setting up the relationships between the two men and their pretty blondes with ups and downs that makes it seem like a Nicholas Sparks movie, it really throws a spanner into the fairy tale with all the melodrama that’s to come. It’s such a whiplash in terms of tone it pretty much destroys any chance of one enjoying the movie for what it is. It also loses a lot without Elordi, since the actors who play his family aren’t very good at all.

I had to actually look up the story to see how much if it was true, only to learn that Jorge was based on Jorge Bacardi who actually received a double lung transplant from one Christopher Gregory, inspiring him to create the Gabriel House of Care. The problem is that the time periods get so messed up by setting one story decades in the past. Using the same actors to play the people over that time with pretty shabby make-up just makes things that much more confusing. The big problem is that it spends so much time avoiding the actual plot and point of making the movie that by the time it gets to it, you just don’t care about the characters anymore.

The whole thing is very by the books and predictable, but ultimately, it’s hard to believe any of it, despite it being based on a true story. If you go into this movie expecting love and romance and all that kind of mushy stuff from the title, you’re likely to be disappointed when the movie finally gets to its point. (In other words, it could have used some giant monsters.)

Here’s another movie that I didn’t really know what to expect going in and that probably should have helped me enjoy it more… if it was anything resembling a good movie. Picked up at the Toronto Film Festival where it premiered last month, Evan Morgan’s THE KID DETECTIVE (Sony) stars Adam Brody as Abe Appelbaum, the “kid detective” of the titles, who as a child was one of those super-smart kids who have the deductive powers to help the people in his community, but as a 32-year-old, he just isn’t taken as seriously any more. When a high school girl named Caroline (Sophie Nélisse) comes to Abe to find out who murdered her boyfriend, Abe finally realizes that he has his first grown-up case, though he’s still obsessed with the disappearance of the mayor’s daughter (and his kid receptionist) Gracie many years earlier.

I’m sure there’s gonna be people out there who watch and appreciate The Kid Detective for what it is, a wry and slightly clever noir pastiche pseudo-comedy, but anyone who has seen Rian Johnson’s first film Brick or the underrated Mystery Team (starring Donald Glover very early in his career) might feel that this doesn’t live up to either. Besides the fact that Brody really hasn’t developed much personality as an actor, the film rolls along with a fairly flat, deadpan tone that just never gets remotely exciting. The humor is subdued and yet it feels like everyone is constantly trying too hard, particularly Morgan, while at the same time not really taking any chances. This is a movie that could have been edgier but instead, it milks its flimsy high-concept premise as long as possible before giving up.

Like Love and Monsters, Sony is releasing The Kid Detective into theaters on Friday, and hopefully parents will check that rating before assuming it’s a kid flick. Although there isn’t so much bad language or anything that wouldn’t warrant a PG… other than the fact that it’s not particularly funny or even entertaining and kids will be super-bored.

I can’t believe there’s still more! Amazon’s “Welcome to the Blumhouse” anthology series continues this week with two more movies in the series of eight, which you can now watch on Prime Video:

Easily my favorite of the four movies I’ve seen is Zu Quirke’s NOCTURNE (Amazon), which follows a pair of twins, Julie (Sidney Sweeney) and Vivian (Madison Iseman), who are both competitive concert pianists at the Lindberg Academy, although Vivian is clearly the better, as she’s heading off to Julliard while Julian is taking a gap year.

Before we meet them, we see a young violist jumping off the balcony to her death for some reason, and we learn that she was the finalist to play a concerto, so now that slot is open and both Julie and her sister desperately want it.

Nocturne is certainly more like the horror movies we expect from Blumhouse, which is both good and bad. The good is that it is indeed quite scary as Quirke’s team uses really eerie lighting effects and other things to create suspense. But there’s also an artiness to what Quirke does that elevates Nocturne above the normal high-concept horror-thriller.

Quirke, who also wrote the film, delivers all the characterization you expect from a good horror film so that you really care about the characters, and she’s put together such a fine cast, particularly Sweeney who has to run a gamut of emotions as Julie. I also like Rodney To as Julie’s tough instructor Wilkins

Again, I won’t say too much more about the actual plot, although if you can imagine a Faustian bargain and how that plays out for those around Julie, you can probably understand why a super-fan of The Omen might dig what Quirke did in this environment.

The fourth movie in the “Welcome to the Blumouse” series is EVIL EYE (Amazon), from Indo-American filmmakers Elan and Rajeev Dassani, a relatively innocuous thriller based around the relationship between Pallavi (Sunita Mani from last week’s Save Yourselves! and GLOW) and her mother Usha, played by Sarita Choudhury. Pallavi is in her late 20s and single and her mother keeps wanting to get her set-up with a nice man, as a good Indian mother is wont to do. When Pallavi meets Sandeep (Omar Maskati), things are going well since he has money and her mother thinks her daughter has hit the jackpot, until she realizes that Sandeep has a dark secret.

Here’s another thriller where it’s really tough to talk about the plot, because obviously the filmmakers want the story to unfold in the specific way it was written. Apparently, this one was once an Audible story, and the first thing I noticed was how amazing Sunita Mani looks from her fairly glammed down roles in other things. I think she’s just wearing make-up and has her styled different but I’m not sure I would have known it was the same actor in Save Yourselves! Because I had to do a double take.

The problem with Evil Eye, and it’s been a problem with some of the other “Welcome to the Blumhouse” movies, is that it isn’t necessarily what I’d consider horror. It really plays a lot more like a romantic drama, other than the fact that Pallavi’s mother has visions and believes in astrology enough to send her daughter trinkets to protect her from the “evil eye.” In fact, the movie just gets weirder and weirder, as it starts introducing supernatural elements, and without giving the big plot twist away, it does expect one to believe in reincarnation.

I wish I could have liked this more, but it really seems like it would be better suited for a show like “The Outer Limits” or “The Twilight Zone,” since the premise is stretched so think for about 30 minutes longer than necessary. I think the filmmakers did perfectly fine with what they had to work with – the two main actresses are just fab – but I think I’d need to see some of their other work to see if the issues I had were just cause the story isn’t that interesting or by their limitations in making it.

(And I promise that I do have a feature on all the filmmakers from the first four “Welcome to the Blumhouse” series coming over at Below the Line, but it’s been a pretty tough piece to write.)

I reviewed Alex Gibney’s new doc Totally Under Control (Neon/Participant), co-directed with Ophelia Harutyunyan and Suzanne Hillinger, in last week’s column but it’s now available to watch On Demand and then it will be on Hulu starting next Tuesday, October 20. Obviously, everyone wanted to get this out there and make sure people see it before they get too in-deep with the election.

I also reviewed David Byrne’s American Utopia (HBO), directed by Spike Lee, a few weeks back, but it will be on HBO and presumably HBO Max on Sunday night. Not as big an event as Disney+’s Hamilton but still worth watching, especially if you’re a fan of Byrne or his band the Talking Heads, because it actually acts as a nice counterpoint bookend to the late Jonathan Demme’s fantastic Stop Making Sense, one of the best concert documentaries ever made, or at least top 5. I’m bummed I missed Byrne’s show on Broadway, and it doesn’t sound like Broadway will be coming back anytime soon so I guess this HBO documentation is the best any of us can wish for.

Of the movies I didn’t have time to watch this week, the two that I’m hoping to still get to are two docs: Inna Blockhina’s SHE IS THE OCEAN (Blue Fox Entertainment) and Rick Korn’s HARRY CHAPIN: WHEN IN DOUBT, DO SOMETHING (Greenwich). She Is the Ocean explores the lives of nine women who all have a passion for the ocean. The Harry Chapin doc may be more self-explanatory, and I wish I was a bigger fan of Chapin, the famed singer/songwriter/activist, because maybe I would have watched this movie earlier. (But seriously, look at how many movies came out this week, when I was hoping it would be “slower”!) Also, I’m a little bit interested in the K-Pop doc #BlackPinkLightUpTheSky that will air on Netflix, just because, I dunno, I like adorable, young Asian women, so sue me?

Premiering on Disney+ this Friday is Justin Baldoni’s CLOUDS, starring Fin Argus as musician Zach Sobiech, who has only months to live when his cancer starts spreading, but he follows his dream to make an album and becomes a viral music phenomenon. I’m not sure if this is a true story but it certainly sounds a lot like a faith-based film called I Still Believe that hit theaters just before they all shut down due to the pandemic. Coincidence? I think not.

Also this week, the 32nd ANNUAL NEWFEST LGBTQ FILM FESTIVAL begins on Friday, running through October 27 with opening night being the well-regarded Ammonite, starring Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan, but it will be done as a drive-in, so I’m out. Over in Los Angeles, the AFI FEST starts on Thursday and runs through October 22, and that’s also showing a lot of cool festival/awards films that I haven’t had a chance to watch yet like The Father, I’m Your Woman and more. I missed my chance to get press accreditation, so yeah, I guess I’ll be waiting on that.

And then we get to all the movies that I didn’t have time to see or didn’t receive a screener, so here we go. This week’s unfortunate dumping ground:

Lupin III: The First (GKIDS) (This anime film is being released as a Fathom event on Oct. 18 – dubbed, and Oct. 21 – subtitled)

Belly of the Beast (I’ve actually heard good things about Erika Cohn’s doc about illegal sterilizations being conducted in a woman’s prison.)

Don’t Look Back (Gravitas Ventures)

Rom Boys: 40 Years of Rad (101 Films)

The Antidote (Cinetic/Brand New Story)

Monochrome: The Chromism (Tempest)

J.R “Bob” Dobbs and the Church of the Subgenius (Uncork’d)

Monster Force Zero (WildEye Releasing)

Ghabe (GVN Releasing)

The Accidental President (Intervention)

In Case of Emergency (Kino Lorber)

I’m not sure how much of a column I’m gonna write next week since I won’t have nearly as much time to watch movies or write about them in the coming week, while I’m in Colmbus. There are a couple high profile movies I hope to get to, so we’ll see what happens.

By the way, if you read this week’s column and have bothered to read this far down, feel free to drop me some thoughts at Edward dot Douglas at Gmail dot Com or drop me a note or tweet on Twitter. I love hearing from readers … honest!

#TheWeekendWarrior #Movies #Reviews #VOD #Streaming #Synchronic #TrialOfTheChicago7 #FrenchExit #LoveANdMonsters TheKidDetective #Nocturne #2Hearts #Shithout #THeDevilHasAName #TheOpeningAct

1 note · View note

asphodelsandpomegranates · 6 years ago

Text

Reunited at Long Last (Hans Landa x Reader)

You'd been working for the French Resistance for four years. Now, you'd all heard about a group called the 'Inglourious Basterds' that were infiltrating a French cinema. The cinema was hosting a film night for an event called Nation's Pride. So, you and a few fellow members of the Resistance had decided to 'enter' the cinema with the Basterds to get inside and help.

So, here you were on a beautiful night of 'Nation's Pride' and were surrounded by Nazi soldiers. Angelique, the leader of the French Resistance, stood beside you with Aldo Raine and two of his men who were acting as Italian film makers.

Angelique looked to you and you sauntered through the crowd as though you were getting drinks even though it was to keep an ear to the ground about the news of the Fuhrer coming into the theatre. You spotted the infamous German war hero, Frederick Zoller, standing with Hermann and a few other people. You reached a waitress and took two glasses of champagne and proceeded to where Angelique and the others were.

You glanced up at the balconies. You recognised some of the colonels and generals by reputation and having crossed their paths when you were on duty. Your eyes, however, suddenly met someone else who was looking down on the scene before him with curiosity.

Your eyes widened. “No.” you breathed.

It couldn't be.

Was it?

Looking at him, you knew then who he was. He looked older now than what he did years and years ago, but the shape of his jawline, his eyes and the crooked smile on his lips was something you had not forgotten.

“Look this way.” you said under your breath. “Please, look this way.”

The man looked over to your side of the room but not directly at you, more like at something else.

It is. It was.

It was him!

Slamming the glasses down onto a table, you turned and hurried up the stairs to the balcony. You moved a little way along the balcony and kept your gaze on the colonel. He took a sip of his champagne and glanced over at you.

You could feel your heart beating fast in your chest and your whole body shaking as he stared at you. It seemed as though at that moment or for those long several minutes, that you two were only ones in that room.

Walk over here. Move towards me, you thought. Move you, bastard!

Hans Landa stared at you a little while longer before breaking his gaze and striding off from the balcony.

Oh, no, he wasn't getting away that easily. You strode forwards, following the infamous Jew Hunter. You looked down to see Angelique staring at you, bewildered. You signalled to her that there had been a change of plans and you were now going solo, before disappearing down a corridor of the cinema.

Keeping your gaze focused on Landa and your distance, you followed him as he entered a random office and closed the door. You quickened your pace and stopped in front of the door when you reached it.

You were hesitating and your heart was beating rapidly. You were going to do this. Come on, you had to do this. It was now or never. At a time like this, you had to see if it was him or else one of you or both of you would be dead before the war was over.

Gripping hard on the door handle, you opened the door and stepped inside.

“Ah, finally made it, yes? I wondered how long it would take you to show up. After all these years.”

Hans was leaning against a desk, still holding his glass of champagne. You closed the door behind you, keeping your gaze on him.

“So it is you.” you whispered.

“It's me, darling.” Hans smiled. “It may have been a while, but its me.”

“Too long, Hans. This is what you've been doing since we last saw each other.”

“I can say the same about you, mein liebechen. You, become part of the Resistance and I, a detective.”

“More like the Jew Hunter.” you said, taking a few steps forward.

“I didn't give myself that name, just for clearance.” he said, with a smile.

“Is this why you disappeared? Because you decided to work for Hitler?”

“No, my darling. I had left because I needed to find a way to keep you safe. And when I heard you'd gone to France, I had to see if you were safe.”

“I thought you had abandoned me. I thought you were dead.” you spat.

Tears were welling up in your eyes at this point. The man you'd loved – still loved – was alive and treating this whole situation like it was all fun and games.

“I often thought the same about you, liebe. But when I heard the rumour of you being in this quaint, little French town, I had to see if it was true. That's the thing about rumours, my dear (Y/N), there's always the chance of truth or falsehood in them. But I had no idea that you were here as a member of the Resistance.”

“Four years, now. Who knew that it would lead me to you?”

“Isn't fate a fickle thing, darling?”

“That's fame, but you're right, it is fickle.”

The two of you fell into silence – a comfortable one at that – where the two of you just stared at one another. The tears were now falling from your eyes. Hans moved forward. When he got close to you, he brushed them away. Your skin tingled at his touch; it had been far too long since you felt his fingers your skin. You moved closer to the Jew Hunter and leaned into him. Your hands clutching at his uniform. You didn't want to let go. You didn't care which sides you were both on, you just couldn't let go of the man who you thought to have left you behind. His arms came around you, pulling you close to him. A tender hand brushed against your locks and a kiss was planted there.

Small sobs escaped your lips, your hands moved up to his shoulders so that you could wrap your arms around them. You both stayed like that for a while. A long while. There was no cinema. No plot to stop Hitler. No 'Nation's Pride', no nazi soldiers, no Resistance, no war. Only you two.

It just felt like it had been all them years ago. Both of you standing in a meadow, standing on top of a cliff, looking out at the beautiful scenery below. Lying in Hans' bed after hours of intimacy with each other. Him promising you that you would marry him one day.

Why couldn't it be like it was all them years ago?

“Do you still have it, liebechen? Hans asked, pulling back a little to wipe away even tears.

You reached into the neckline of your dress and pulled out a golden chain with an emerald cut diamond nestled on the gold band. Hans smiled.

“Good girl.”

“It's the only thing I have to remind me of you.” you left the ring out for him to see. “Will you becoming home? After this is all done?”

Hans stared at you and you wondered if asking those questions was a big mistake. Finally, he answered.

“I haven't really thought about it. To be honest, I was thinking about just going to America and starting a new life there.” A smile came up onto his face. “But now that I found you. I suppose it will all change now. You can come with me.”

You sniffled and cleared your throat. “Hans, you are such a dummkopf.”

“True, true. But I am your dummkopf.”

You laughed at his words, placing a hand on his cheek. You leaned in and kissed him. He moaned into the kiss and pulled you close so that you were pressed against him.

All the memories came flooding back to you at that moment. Those memories of you being together before this god forsake war, you'd held onto for so long. Your life with Hans, the life you wanted back had been the only thing that you lived for, that kept you alive.

You whimpered as Hans pulled away. His hands rested on your cheeks.

“Ich liebe dich, mein katzchen.”

“I love you, too.” you sobbed.

#inglorious bastards #inglorious basterds #Quentin Tarantino #christoph waltz #christoph waltz x reader #colonel hans landa #hans landa #hans landa imagine #hans landa x reader #christoph waltz imagine #colonel hans landa x reader

536 notes · View notes

anythingstephenking · 6 years ago

Text

The Morally Grey Mile

Strap in for another grim tale. At least men are the ones getting fucked in The Green Mile, amirite ladies? No, still not cool? Ok then.

I suppose it is a disservice to call The Green Mile solely a “grim” tale, but because the core story focuses on an innocent man headed to the electric chair, it is pretty damn grim. If you haven’t read the book you’ve seen the movie but spoilers anyway - the innocent man dies and it sucks for the reader. It’s certainly more complicated than “bad wins” but a real bummer all the same.

Backing up a bit. The Green Mile was King’s first attempt at a serialized story release. In the book’s forward, King tells us it’s story of inception. Through a series of fortuitous events and a conversation with business associates about Charles Dickens, King concocted the idea to release a story in a series of “chapbooks”. Apparently Dickens released some of his stories that way, and they were so fervently popular that a band of dingdongs pushed each other off a dock and drowned while awaiting a shipment of Dickens into Baltimore Harbor. I imagine if the Harry Potter books were released that way I would have ended up in the harbor too. No judgement, zealous Dickens readers, I get it.

Logically, if it worked for 19th century Dickens, it would surely work for 20th century Stephen King, right?

(cue Mr. Burns fingers).

A single book released in installments monthly, garnering 3-4x the cost of a single paperback. Good for you SK, good for you. Cause turns out, the constant reader ate it up and bought ‘em like hotcakes.

Cause that’s the thing - this is a really really good story. Not because it’s beautifully written like Cujo or Firestarter or mind-bending like The Dark Tower books, but because it is a real page turner. I credit the format for that - you can tell it was written in a plot-driven, cliffhanger kinda way. In the same way serialized TV (before binging took this joy away) would leave you wanting more week to week, The Green Mile leaves each installment in a way where you can’t imagine not picking up the next one.

Per my contractual agreement with myself, I am required to reach each and every page of this story, but I’m a strange bird and the rest of the world isn’t a weirdo like me. At the end of the day, the narrative structure here really works and I plowed through all 6 installments in a day or so. Those reading in real-time (and not binging like me) waited a month between each publishing, from March through August 1996. There was no dock delivery in Baltimore in 1996 but I imagine if there was, the crowd waiting for each would be large.

So the narrative approach works, but what about the story itself? My analysis comes back slightly muddy but mostly positive despite some hard to swallow flaws.

I can’t claim to know what death row would have been like in 1932, but I’ve watched enough PBS documentaries to know what it’s like now. The group held at Cold Mountain are described as killers, yes. As rapists and wife beaters and arsonists. But they also come across like a rag-tag group of buds that should have their own reality TV show. One of the prisoners, Del, raped and murdered a young girl then accidentally killed a bunch of other people trying to cover his tracks by setting the building on fire. But he’s got this cute, somewhat supernatural mouse named Mr. Jingles that does tricks. Ain’t it cute? Then he fries and literally catches on fire in the electric chair.

I understand the intention of the tale - humanity lives in all of us. Empathy shouldn’t be reserved just for some. Death is final and it comes for all of us. What I struggled with was trying to understand if this was blatant reference to King’s personal stance on the Death Penalty (against it, obvs) or something more subtle. Should we take away that killing is wrong no matter what? Or that there is more nuance at play here?

Because there’s more happening on the green mile than just murderers dying (no matter how dramatically) in the chair comically nicknamed “ol’ sparky”. We’ve got John Coffey in chains, convicted of raping and murdering two 9 year old girls. JFC. I just can’t.

But he did, and he will die for his crimes. Here’s where the controversy around this novel begins. John Coffey is a large black man with magical powers. Spike Lee specifically calls out King publicly for this “magical negro” trope, which honestly I can’t disagree with. Dick Halloran from The Shining and Mother Abigail from The Stand fall neatly in this bucket as well. But even as I type this I know I am cherry-picking; I’ve read plenty of King stories with mystical beings and they’re mostly white (or more often other worldly). But King’s repeated use of the n-word and other racial slurs in his writing is real cringeworthy. As I move further towards his 21st century writing I keep hoping this will stop. It hasn’t yet, as of 1996. But King and writing about race is an entirely separate post for another day.

Back to The Green Mile; we learn that John Coffey has special healing powers when he cures the head guard, Paul Edgecomb of a UTI by grabbing his crotch. Normally this type of behavior will get ya thrown in the hole, but Paul’s so grateful he lets it slide.

Once we learn of the healing powers of Coffey, it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery. While getting arrested he cries “I tried to stop it but it was too late.” Everyone involved in the investigation assumes he means he tried to stop himself from murder but couldn’t; anyone with half a brain can deduce that someone else killed the girls; he tried to heal them. He was too late.

We’re set off to learn who really murdered the girls, but this revelation takes a backseat, at least in my mind. For me, the big mystery is; will John Coffey get executed? I’ll be honest, I hadn’t seen this movie, so I didn’t know. The phone the governor used to phone in stays-of-execution was mentioned early, so my Chekhov’s Gun senses lead me to believe it was possible. Why bother if not? Well the phone is mentioned at execution time, only to say it won’t ring. And of course it never really was a question - Coffey is a black man in the south, convicted of murdering two girls in 1932. Of course no one’s coming to save him. It’s sad. Real sad.

We’re given solace in the fact that Coffey claims he’s ready to go - his powers are too much and he’s tired. This is a nonsense cop out that provides relief to all those that understand the truth, allowing them to go on living, loving their wives and kids and casseroles. John Coffey should not have died. The end.

Things are wrapped up in a bow with the end stories of everyone involved and their timely and untimely deaths. I guess that’s it; life sucks, then you die; death can come for you in any way, without discrimination.

I earmarked what is one of my favorite lines I’ve encountered so far in King’s work.

“We had once again succeeded in destroying what we could not create.”

Executing anyone (murderer or not) takes a toll on most of the prison staff. I just loved this so much on so many levels; they are men without the ability to create life; they are not god; they are mortals stealing mortality. So beautiful.

So, it’s no stretch to call this the brother of Shawshank, but at least we get a female character in Paul Edgecomb’s wife. I don’t remember her name so that’s not great. But she was a woman and she at least was there, so it gets knocked up a few rungs from Shawshank IMHO.

I’d have to say this is one King novel that really perplexed me. I suppose I got into the routine of enjoying typical good-vs-evil tales where the good guys eventually overcome. For me, The Green Mile wasn’t green at all but a wavering shade of grey I still can’t see properly.

(Side note: As I sat down to write this, I thought to myself “I’m not sure what I’ll say about The Green Mile.” Turns out, quite a bit, this is probably one of my longest entries. Who knew?)

8/10

First Line: This happened in 1932, when the state penitentiary was still at Cold Mountain.

Last Line: I know that, but sometimes, oh God, the Green Mile is so long.

Adaptations:

Like it’s brother Shawshank Redemption, I had never seen this movie before. It made it’s run through awards season in 1999, mostly for Michael Clarke Duncan’s portrayal of John Coffey. Who later tragically died of a heart attack with his girlfriend Omarosa (of Trump WH fame) which I didn’t know, but good golly, that is another sad story for another day.

Listen, this is a highly regarded movie that’s on many top lists, so I won’t stab into it too hard. But it is SO LONG.

Frank Darabont got his panties all in a bunch when folks told him a 3 hour running time was too long, claiming that if 2 hours was the correct length of a film that cinema classics like Lawrence of Arabia were invalidated. Well guess what? I’ve seen Lawrence of Arabia, and yes that shit is too. damn. long. As is The Green Mile.

One would think that with 3+ hours of material, the character development would be on point. It’s not really; the prisoners are mostly glossed over (even more so than in the book) as lovable murders. Wild Bill is the exception (overacted by Sam Rockwell), and he serves as the sole real “bad guy”.

Edgecomb and his other prison guards are painted as saints (again, minus one guard who takes on the “bad guy of the good guys” role). If the book was grey the movie is much more black and white. Tom Hanks for president for sure, the guy is a national treasure. But they were one step away from giving him an actual halo. As someone complicit in the murder of an innocent man, I just can’t declare his character for sainthood. The real Tom Hanks, a million times yes. Paul Edgecomb? Nah.

The movie is fine. I approve of Darabont’s relationship with King and have thoroughly enjoyed their previous collaborations. I was sad to see that he let his film rights to The Long Walk expire last year, picked up by New Line and James Vanderbilt (of Vanderbilt fortune... old money... sigh) who penned Zodiac, which leaves me slightly hopeful but assume it’ll trickle back into development limbo for the remainder of eternity.

I’ve already finished my next read, Desperation and after I slog through the 2.5 hour ABC miniseries (UGH) I will keep trucking. New Year, more pressure placed on myself to plow through the back half of King’s bibliography.

#book review #movie review #the green mile

1 note · View note

analogscum · 6 years ago

Text

HELLS ANGELS ON WHEELS (1967, d. Richard Rush)

Way back in 1966, before he was reduced to a Johnny Depp caricature and the personal hero of that one libertarian douchebag in your college Philosophy 101 class, Hunter S. Thompson burst onto the literary scene with his debut book, Hell’s Angels: The Strange and Terrible Saga of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gang. Expanded from a 1965 article for The Nation, Hell’s Angels introduced America to not only the Doctor’s freewheeling, lysergic brand of prose, but this new underground culture of the motorcycle gang. No longer the leather-bound toughs of The Wild Ones, these bikers were hairier, freakier, and ten times more drugged up. They didn’t even bother to ask what you had for them to rebel against, they let their chains to the talkin’, maaaaaaan.

Hells Angels on Wheels roared into movie theaters the following year, when the Summer of Love had cooled down into the Winter of…I guess still Love? I dunno. I imagine the film must’ve been very shocking in its day and age, but for today’s viewer, Hells Angels on Wheels is notable for other reasons, namely its nascency. It represents ground zero for an entire sub-genre which played a major part in cementing the explosion of creativity that was American cinema in the 1970s, and provided a launching pad for a number of players who would go on to become indispensable cornerstones of that scene. But, before they could do that, they had to shoot a bunch of establishing shots of bikes parking in places.

In the spirit of the Peace movement, why don’t we be generous and describe the narrative structure of Hells Angels on Wheels as…episodic? Yeah, that’s the ticket! Basically every scene in the movie follows this structure: the Hells Angels show up somewhere and park their bikes for like five minutes, go into a place where everyone hates them, get into a fight with the people who hate them, then leave when either they kill someone or the cops show up. That’s it. That’s the whole movie. The audience’s surrogate is a young man named Poet, who quits his job at a gas station when a customer is a total jerk to him. Then his bike gets sideswiped by one of the Angels, who has, shall we say, questionable facial hair. Either this guy’s mustache just grows weird, or they did a terrible makeup job on him, anyway, you be the judge:

So Poet’s headlight is damaged, and he proceeds to start a fight with the Angel with the questionable facial hair. Now, instead of just beating him to death with some wrenches, the lead Angel, Buddy, appreciates Poet’s ability to scrap. They all hang out for awhile. They get into a fight in a bar with a rival biker gang. They get into a fight at a carnival with some sailors. Then they all go back to a swingin’ pad full of groovy wall decor and have a drug orgy for what feels like nine hours. At one point, a painter who looks and talks suspiciously like Hunter S. Thompson — floppy hat, sunglasses, gruff mumble — begins doing body paint on all the women, which takes up roughly six hours of this nine hour scene. But most importantly, Poet falls for Shrill, one of the biker mamas who he can tell is a little too smart to be around this scene, because so is he. Just one problem: Shrill is Buddy’s woman. I’m sure this won’t lead to awkward, poorly choreographed violence at all!

Speaking of, kudos to the filmmakers for going for realism; there’s a lot of handheld camerawork, plenty of Nouvelle Vague-influenced jump cuts, and the film seems to feature quite a few actual Hells Angels. In fact, Sonny Barger, the president of the Angels’ Oakland chapter, gets his own title card in the opening credits, even though he appears on camera for less than two seconds. Surely this title was properly earned, and not the result of any threats against studio people with switchblades. However, we’re talking about an era where filmmakers still hadn’t quite figured out how to properly choreograph a fight scene, so every scuffle still kinda looks like drunken acrobatics. And the death scenes are even worse. Here’s a short list of how people die in this movie: they’re awkwardly knocked down and punched once; their car is run off the road but otherwise totally unharmed; and their bike runs into a two by four, slowly tilts over, and catches on fire for no discernible reason. It’s a shame that the one thing that reads as hokey in a movie dedicated to portraying the reality of this violent lifestyle is, well, the violence.

Eventually Poet is made a “prospect” by Buddy, and the whole gang hits the road. One of the bikers and his woman get married at a Catholic Church in Nevada. There are more fights with people who don’t like them. In once scene a biker drives his bike up a real tall hill for awhile. One biker gets arrested on a murder beef, but the gang busts him loose less than a minute later, because stakes or tension is for squares, I guess. By far the most interesting part of this movie is watching the relationship between Poet and Shrill develop, and how that begins to threaten Buddy. These two are joined together by their discontent: they both want something outside of the ordinary from life, but are paralyzed by their self-destructive tendencies. This is especially true of Shrill, who isn’t happy unless she is causing unhappiness all around her, which leads her to play Poet and Buddy off of one another, until it all blows up in a powerful final confrontation that is unfortunately capped off by a truly stupid coda that never should’ve happened.

Hells Angels on Wheels was directed by a gentleman named Richard Rush. Though he wouldn’t be as prolific after the sixties, and hasn’t directed a feature film since 1994’s Color of Night (speaking of truly stupid codas that never should’ve happened), this film helped propel him to greater artistic heights: 1970’s Getting Straight was a critical darling and called the “best American film of the decade” by none other than Ingmar Bergman; 1974’s Freebie and the Bean was a box office smash and more or less invented the buddy cop movie; and 1980’s The Stunt Man earned him two Oscar nominations. Richard Rush has kinda been forgotten these days, but, I mean, François Truffaut called this guy his favorite American director. Have YOU ever been François Truffaut’s favorite anything? I doubt it, he’s been dead since 1984, genius.

Eagle-eyed viewers may have noticed that the cinematography on Hells Angels on Wheels was credited to one “Leslie Kovacs.” If you’re a hopeless dork like me, you probably whispered to yourself, “I bet that’s Lázló Kovacs.” Well, fellow hopeless dork, we were both right: this was one of Kovacs’s first American feature jobs, after shooting commercials and nature documentaries for much of the early sixties. He continued to collaborate with Rush throughout the seventies, as well as lensing classic films by the likes of Peter Bogdanovich, Bob Rafelson, Martin Scorsese, Dennis Hopper, and Norman Jewison. Shockingly, he never won an Oscar, but odds are if you paint a mental picture of American cinema in the seventies, you’re imagining an image shot by Lázló Kovacs.

That finally brings us to Poet, who was played by a young upstart named Jack Nicholson. Is it even necessary to point out that he’s the best actor in the film? Well, he is. The character is a bit underwritten, but he makes the most out of it. Nicholson can do more with a smile or a glance than other actors in the film attempt with an entire monologue. Best of all, he still hadn’t gone full on bug-eyed, jive talkin’, scenery chewin’, Lakers court side Jaaaaaaaack yet. There’s a vulnerable, wounded quality to his acting here that is incredibly compelling, I would argue that he perfected it in Five Easy Pieces, one of yours truly’s favorite films of all time, before moving on to the more ostentatious work that would net him 3 Oscars and turn him into a tabloid playboy.

Hells Angels on Wheels would help establish the counterculture motorcycle gang as a cinematic force to be reckoned with, at least on the drive-in circuit. More quick and dirty films of that ilk followed in its wake, such as The Wild Angels, Born Losers, and Hells Angels ’69, before one such film broke on through to the other side: an acid-soaked exploration that pitted the battle between the bikers and normal society as the struggle for the very soul of America in the Vietnam age. Oh, and they brought Kovacs and Nicholson along too. Obviously I’m talking about Otto Preminger’s Skidoo.

Nah, just kidding, I’m talking about Easy Rider. Released in 1969, the film proved to be the flashpoint for the most artistically fertile decade in the history of American cinema. And to think, it all may not have happened if it wasn’t for a little movie that’s mostly establishing shots of bikes being parked.

youtube

#ANALOG SCUM #analogscum #VHS #vhsishappiness #bekindrewind #tapehead #tapeheads #bikers #hells angels #genre #exploitation #exploitationfilm #hellsangelsonwheels #1967 #jack nicholson #lazlo kovacs #richard rush #new american cinema

4 notes · View notes

dang-the-bird · 4 years ago

Text

AMC, the largest theater chain in the world, reached a deal with investors to save the ship from sinking. I find this investment to be a complete waste and an idiotic attempt to revive this company that seems to consistently practices bad business.

If you can’t read the Wall Street Journal article linked at the top here’s the TLDR:

AMC investors pumped $300 million into the company despite being owed $1.6 billion. That massive debt was swapped for a discount (about “73 cents on the dollar,” so to my understanding that cuts out about 500 million on the debt? unsure how this debt discount thing works on this scale) and more added debt after this recent investment.

Obviously COVID-19 was a huge financial hit for the company, forcing AMC to shut down about 1,000 theaters and lay off about 600 employees, but the pandemic extenuated problems that already existed. The chain has been struggling to hold on to an industry that’s dying on a big corporate scale. Smaller chains with more of an emphasis on having a high quality experience (like Alamo Drafthouse... I love them) with events, good food, a real bar service and etc should be able to compete in their respective areas instead of being eclipsed by these larger chains. “Free market” and all that, ya know? AMC focuses more on getting as many people in the theater as possible with gross sticky floors, overly-expensive garbage food, bad quality audio and visual presentations, etc. General audiences can get a better movie watching experience in their own homes now, and AMC knows it.

Remember that Trolls movie drama? AMC boycotted Universal Pictures films for they decided to release their movies on streaming services before theaters. When Universal released Trolls, they made a LOT of money. Record-breaking cash moolah we’re talking. This of course pissed off AMC, but banning Universal was an unbelievably stupid decision. It wasn’t even that long ago that Jurassic World was a record-breaking hit, so that’s a massive money maker that they got rid of in a business “strategy” that shows pettiness more than anything imo. I guess it was a way of threatening other studios, saying “don’t push your stuff online or you’ll lose out on this big, profitable theater market!!” which is hilarious since Trolls did so well, and it’s f**king TROLLS. If Disney decided to release Avengers: Endgame on streaming services first, I imagine it would have been an even bigger financial hit than it already was. Overall, bad idea, dying service getting owned by the at-home factor.

And then the mask stuff. AMC initially wasn’t going to require customers to wear masks as they reopen, stating they don’t want to be the center of a “political controversy.” Nice job there, team. AMC is pushing reopening so they can save their own asses and it doesn’t seem like they’re interested in taking the proper precautions to do so. They’re requiring masks now after the pressure since they literally cannot take any more beatings, but they have not yet made any announcements as to how they’ll manage habitual cleanings. Social distancing will reportedly be enforced by signs. What particularly concerns me here is that staying in a room with several others for 1-2 hours with recycled air doesn’t seem like it’ll be appealing to customers fearing of the virus at all (which Should be everybody, but y’know... americans).

To make an overly-long ramble story short, why did these dumbass investors pump hundreds of millions of dollars into a massive dying company monopolizing a dying industry? Let it die. C’mon.

#us politics #politics #movies #covid19 #coronavirus #capitalism #capitalist hell #wall streeet journal #political #ramble #articles #complaining

0 notes

tigy-the-gaymer · 4 years ago

Text

Why Are Modern Movie Posters Not As Good As the Classic B Movie Posters of the Past?

Current film banners are junk. They have no life, shading, innovativeness or imaginative claims. They simply have one occupation to do:- obviously and succinctly show a film in ordinary banner organization to promote the reality it is appearing at a film close to you now or sooner rather than later. Full stop. Enough said. Exhausting! How has the film business permitted the nature of film banners to tumble to such a parlous state https://putlocker-online.com/golden-collection/movie2k There was a period not very numerous years prior when films were energizing spots to take a gander at and be in. Film chains were littler and more far reaching than they are today and thus every film had a specific character to it, be it in the ostentatiously brilliant and smelly, cover upholstered seats or the frozen yogurt woman touting for business at the stretch. Goodness, and the films in those days really indicated x evaluated films (for the most part b motion pictures and loads of them!) that grown-ups would watch, none of this dribbly MOR 12 testament waste in those days, gee golly!

These days, pretty much the main spot to see a film is at solid carbuncle multiplex where 6 or 7 movies are shown over a gigantic measure of screens, a large portion of the movies including grown-up subjects, watered down to a 12a for agreeable tweenage utilization and re-utilization (and grown-ups may likewise like them). One size fits all - and not an entirely agreeable fit at that. Also, that reminds me, in spite of being more extensive than they used to be, the seats appear to make my derrière hurt with significantly more brio than in the past times. So what has this have to do with the crash in nature of current film banners?

Right off the bat, there simply aren't the same number of free cinemas and films around today. The main spot I can helpfully observe a film is at a huge solid multiplex - an entrepreneur house of prayer. This isn't the way it used to be. 40 years prior I would have had the decision of 4 free films to go to inside one mile of one another in my neighborhood town. I'm talking as a UK inhabitant despite the fact that I am certain the circumstance is the equivalent in numerous different nations in the western world. There is an unmistakable absence of rivalry at current cinemas on the grounds that the enormous studios manage everything now - there are just a set number of movies appearing at any one time in light of the fact that the studios buy numerous screens to show a similar film and guarantee greatest presentation. In the previous long periods of film, until the late 80's, there were more studios, increasingly autonomous films and a framework that was not directed by a couple of amazing movie studios. There was a substantially more level playing field among movies and studios over which movies played. To what extent a film played for was an alternate story. On the off chance that a film didn't do well during its first week it would get pulled mercilessly and another shoehorned in to have its spot. On the off chance that it did well it could save its place for a considerable length of time (I recall when I was young man when star wars came out and it appeared as though it was playing at my neighborhood film for a considerable length of time!) Some films even changed motion pictures two times per week meaning a gigantic turnover of movies. The film banner was in this manner a crucial device for getting bums on seats and guaranteeing a film had as long a run as it could. On the off chance that individuals were in the film lobby and uncertain whether to watch Scanners or Table for Five, a brief glance at the separate film banners would rapidly make their brains up. What's more, this carries me to my subsequent point.

In prior decades individuals seldom understood what they needed to see when they went to the film. My dad said he would go each Saturday and frequently during the week for the basic explanation there was very little else to do in the nighttimes in a commonplace town back then. So he would go to the film for something to do and afterward decide what film to observe later when he arrived. Today, individuals definitely know which film they are going to see before they go to the film. Why the change? Simply, the media. Media advancement of movies is currently overwhelmed by the web where we can without much of a stretch view trailers, see and read film star interviews, creation of recordings, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. Also, the promotion begins prior. There is dribble, trickle, at that point a stream, finishing in a tsunami of media inclusion when a film's discharge is unavoidable. What chance does some other film have despite such a media downpour? Furthermore, when the objective segment these days is prevalently the guileless and naïve minuscule market the film studios are scouring their hands with merriment. Who needs an awful film banner to sell a film at the film? You don't! It's as of now been sold.

This leads me to another point - the changing segment of film goers. In prior years there were a lot a larger number of grown-ups heading off to the film than there are today and along these lines a lot increasingly grown-up situated movies, b motion pictures and abuse motion pictures. This brought about better topic for film banners (despite the fact that the movies were frequently unsatisfactory). I figure it would be exceptionally hard not to make a decent banner for a b-film on the off chance that it was an exploitative nazisploitation film like "Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS"!

At long last, and however it torments me to state it, films at the film today are for the most part of a greatly improved quality than those in years passed by. Combined with substantially more sweeping media inclusion, the film banner's significance as an instrument to sell a film is fundamentally decreased. As I have referenced over, an a lot more extensive assortment of movies, regarding both quality and topic, used to show up at your nearby film - including b-motion pictures. It was a sort of a dissipate weapon approach. A "Lets appear whatever number movies as could reasonably be expected and see what works" approach. Also, that implied there were a great deal of awful movies about. This is the place the film banner turns into a crucial limited time instrument. In the event that the film sounds intriguing and the banner looks fascinating, its got the chance to be a decent film right? Wrong! Because the banner has had a touch of cash spent on it, it doesn't really follow the film did! Yet, a decent quality film banner consistently gives that suggestion. Most movies that show up at cinemas today are large spending studio undertakings and consistently have high creation esteems regardless of whether the film content still routinely misses the mark concerning great quality.

So in what manner can film banners be spared? All things considered, excellent film banners are as yet being created for new movies on the off chance that you want to search for them. For instance, the new Darren Aronofsky film Black Swan has had various splendid banners delivered for it. In any case, for each Black Swan there are scores of Toy Story 3's. I think I need to infer that the nature of a film banner is simply not significant in the film business any longer. It simply should be practical and except if the Internet unexpectedly detonates and the open forsake the film multiplex for autonomous craftsmanship house films (on the off chance that they can discover one), that is the manner in which it will remain.

0 notes

esonetwork · 5 years ago

Text

Why movie theaters are worth saving

New Post has been published on https://esonetwork.com/why-movie-theaters-are-worth-saving/

Why movie theaters are worth saving

I’ll never forget the last movie I went to see before the coronavirus quarantine started.

There wasn’t necessarily a movie I was desperate to see that weekend, but I just really needed to get out of the house. I’d just learned my favorite regional con had been cancelled due to COVID-19, and I was feeling sad and discouraged.

I ended up seeing the movie “Emma” (which was an absolute delight, by the way). I treated myself to a huge bucket of popcorn and then settled in for the show. The theater wasn’t very crowded, but the people that were there seemed to be enjoying the movie as much as I was. I walked out of the theater feeling a little lighter and a little more hopeful.

Going to the movie theater has been one of the things I’ve missed most about being in quarantine. Sometimes I feel guilty about how much I miss going to movies, because it seems like such a small, trivial thing in the scope of everything going on. But for me, there’s something absolutely magical about sitting in the dark and watching a film on a giant screen. It sparks my imagination and reduces my stress, immersing me completely in the story and helping me escape to another world for a couple of hours.

I’ve been closely watching the headlines about how AMC, one of the nation’s primary theater chains, is struggling in the midst of the pandemic, and some analysts worry the chain’s theaters won’t even reopen after the crisis.

I have one theater in my Midwestern town (population 50,000), and it’s owned by AMC. If this theater closed down for good, I would be heartbroken. I know that life will be forever changed once we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, but I hope that theaters will be among the businesses that remain in operation.

Everyone likes to experience film in different ways, and if your preference is to watch stories from within the comfort of your own home, on your own TV, that’s totally okay. The rising cost of cinema tickets is a concern, and I know that going to the theater is a privilege. Subscription programs like AMC’s A-List made the experience more affordable for me, allowing me to see up to three movies a week for about $20 a month.

Affordability and access to art is an important topic, and I hope it’s something people continue to discuss as we all experience unexpected hardships due to the coronavirus pandemic. Maybe the future of film will shift more to streaming services; that change had already begun to occur, even before COVID-19.

However, I hope that theaters will still play a role in society, and here’s why.

To me, there’s just no replacement for the movie theater experience. Although I’m really thankful for technology like flat screen TVs that dramatically improve picture quality at home, it’s just not the same as a theater.

At least for me, film is an artistic medium that’s best experienced on as big a screen as possible. Watching a movie at home is something I do to pass the time, but going to the theater feels like more of an event. Life’s distractions are stripped away; you have to turn off your cell phone and put it away, and your focus is completely on the story playing out in front of you.

Going to the theater is also a uniquely communal experience in our increasingly disconnected world. When a big geek movie comes out, I always try to go see it on opening weekend. There’s something extra special about watching a blockbuster for the first time in a room crowded with other fans. You really do feel a sense of camaraderie.

As I think back to my first time watching “Star Wars: Episode IX” last December, it just wouldn’t have been the same if I’d seen it sitting in my pajamas on my couch in the basement. Going to the theater with my friends and family, dressing up in my Dark Rey cosplay, and getting the commemorative Star Wars popcorn buckets was such a fun memory that I’ll always treasure.

Lastly, and as strange as it sounds, signing up for an AMC A-List plan was a significant boost to my mental health. I’ve been struggling off and on since May 2019, for a variety of reasons, and going to the movies became an important “happy place” for me.

Maybe on a rough day, I wouldn’t have enough energy to socialize with other people, but going to the movie theater got me out of the house, broke me out of my own negative head-space, and got me around other people, even if I wasn’t interacting with them directly. I always felt better after going to the movies.

I don’t know what the future holds, but as soon as the quarantine is safely lifted, one of the first things I want to do is go back to the movie theater — at this point, I don’t even care what movie is playing. I love going to the movies, and hopefully it’s a pastime I’ll be able to return to soon.

#AMC #bigscreen #Movie #pandemic #quarantine #theater

0 notes

bigyack-com · 5 years ago

Text

Movie Crowds Stay Away. Theaters Hope It’s Not for Good.

LOS ANGELES — For most of last week, movie theater executives clung grimly on.At issue, among other things, was CinemaCon, an annual Las Vegas event intended to bolster the most fragile part of the film business: leaving the house, buying a ticket and sitting in the dark with strangers to watch stories unfold on big screens. The National Association of Theater Owners was under pressure to call off the convention because of the coronavirus pandemic, but worries abounded about potential consumer fallout.What message would canceling the confab send to potential ticket buyers, including those increasingly likely to skip cinemas — even in the best of times — and watch films on streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney Plus? American cinemas, after all, were staying open in the face of the pandemic.Reality eventually made the association pull the plug on CinemaCon, another example of how seemingly every part of American life has been disrupted because of the coronavirus. For movie theaters, however, the pandemic could be a point of no return.The National Association of Theater Owners has insisted that streaming services are not a threat. “Through every challenge, through every new technology innovation over the last twenty years, theatrical admissions have been stable and box office has consistently grown,” John Fithian, the association’s chief executive, said in a January news release titled “theater owners celebrate a robust 2019 box office.” Ticket sales in North America totaled $11.4 billion, down 4 percent from a record-setting 2018.Many analysts, however, see a very different picture. Looking at the last 20 years of attendance figures, the number of tickets sold in North America peaked in 2002, when cinemas sold about 1.6 billion. In 2019, attendance totaled roughly 1.2 billion, a 25 percent drop — even as the population of the United States increased roughly 15 percent. Cinemas have kept ticket revenue high by raising prices, but studio executives say there is limited room for continued escalation. Offerings in theaters may also grow more constrained. Even before the pandemic, major studios were starting to route smaller dramas and comedies toward streaming services instead of theaters.And now comes the coronavirus, which has prompted people to bivouac in their homes, theaters to put in place social-distancing restrictions and studios to postpone most theatrical releases through the end of April. Rich Greenfield, a founder of the LightShed Partners media research firm, predicted that the disruption would speed the ascendance of streaming.“The behavior was already shifting, but this hits the accelerator pedal,” Mr. Greenfield said. “I think most of the global exhibition business will be in bankruptcy by the end of the year.”He added, “Now studios are going to think more and more about why they are relying on third parties to distribute their content.”As studios have postponed theatrical releases like “Mulan” and “No Time to Die,” they have been careful to express loyalty for theaters. “We believe in and support the theatrical experience,” Paramount Pictures said in a statement on Thursday, when it announced that “A Quiet Place Part II” would no longer arrive in theaters on March 20. But a question looms: Could the pandemic hasten long-brewing changes in the way that new movies roll out?Most movies still arrive the same way they have for decades. They appear first in theaters, for an exclusive run of about 90 days, and then in homes. Theater chains, including AMC, Regal and Cinemark, have fought off efforts to shorten the exclusivity period. They worry that people will be reluctant to buy tickets if they can see the same film on their living room television set or iPad screen just a few weeks (or days) later.Many entertainment companies, however, are eager to shorten that exclusive window and make some films available on their streaming platforms, in part to reduce marketing costs.The biggest studios declined to comment. A senior Disney executive, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to a reporter, said that rerouting “Mulan” to the company’s Disney Plus streaming service was not currently under discussion, in part because of piracy concerns. (Disney Plus is not yet available outside the United States.) Even so, Disney is clearly mindful of the power of its video platform. The company brought “Frozen II” to Disney Plus on Sunday — three months earlier than planned. (The musical was released in theaters on Nov. 22.) Disney described that move as “surprising families with some fun and joy during this challenging period.”With the masses staying at home, ticket sales dropped precipitously over the weekend, even though two high-profile new films, “Bloodshot” and “The Hunt,” arrived in wide release. Each was supported by a marketing campaign costing tens of millions of dollars, and the money had already been spent by early last week, when the pandemic intensified in the United States and studios started to postpone releases planned for later in the month.“Bloodshot,” starring Vin Diesel as a superhero, collected roughly $9.3 million, according to Comscore. It cost Sony and several financing partners about $45 million to make. “The Hunt” (Universal Pictures), a satirical horror film about elites killing “deplorables,” cost about $15 million to make and took in $5.3 million.The No. 1 movie was a holdover, “Onward” (Disney-Pixar), which sold about $10.5 million in tickets in its second weekend — a 73 percent decline from its first three days in theaters. Pixar movies typically decline 30 percent to 45 percent from their first to second weekends, demonstrating the impact of coronavirus fears on moviegoing. Cinemas will soon run out of high-profile new films to show. Studios like Disney, Universal, Sony and Paramount all postponed films scheduled for release this spring, including “The New Mutants,” “Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway” and “F9,” the ninth chapter in the “Fast and Furious” series.“The core audience for our film is older moviegoers, and we want them to be able to see it at a time that’s safe,” said Tom Dolby, who directed “The Artist’s Wife,” a drama that was set for limited release starting on April 3 but was postponed.Theater chains in the United States are doing anything they can to avoid shutting down. AMC Entertainment, the No. 1 multiplex operator in North America, said on Friday that it would reduce the number of theatergoers allowed in all of its auditoriums by 50 percent so that people could leave at least one empty seat between each other. No auditorium would offer a capacity beyond 250, the company said — a threshold that some states, including California, have said group activities should not exceed until the pandemic eases.AMC said its restrictions would last until April 30. The company seemed to indicate that it was making the move to avoid possible government intervention; some chains in Europe have been forced to close entirely. AMC said it was “reducing the availability of tickets to comply with any current or future federal, state or local governmental order.” AMC’s stock price has fallen 59 percent over the last month; it closed on Friday at $3.22.The Cineworld Group, which owns Regal Entertainment, followed AMC and reduced its auditorium capacity by half. In a statement, Regal said it was “complying, where applicable, with state mandates on social gathering limits. We welcome moviegoers into our theaters!” Mooky Greidinger, Cineworld’s chief executive, told analysts on Thursday during a year-end earnings discussion that the company had so far experienced a “minimal” impact from the pandemic but that Cineworld would be unable to pay its debts if people started to stay home in droves.Cinemark, the No. 3 chain in the United States behind Regal, referred questions to the National Association of Theater Owners, which declined to comment. Alamo Drafthouse, a Texas-based chain with about 40 locations, required social distancing at some theaters while closing others outright.With most finished live-action films pulled off the release calendar — “Black Widow” from Marvel-Disney remains scheduled for May 1 — film companies have started to halt or slow their assembly lines. Disney, for instance, temporarily stopped production on a new version of “The Little Mermaid,” which was supposed to begin shooting in London; “The Last Duel,” a period epic starring Ben Affleck and Matt Damon; and “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” a Marvel superhero film.As a result, even films scheduled for release at Christmas, like “The Last Duel,” will most likely be delayed. (“The Little Mermaid” and “Shang-Chi” were never expected before 2021.)Reached by phone in Budapest on Friday, moments after the announcement that the World War II drama “The Nightingale” was being shut down because of fears of the coronavirus and the European travel ban put into place by President Trump, its producer, Elizabeth Cantillon, said she was heartbroken.“If you can’t produce content, then I don’t know what to say,” she said. “Movie theaters, television networks, Netflix — they all need content all the time. If we can’t produce it because we can’t be next to each other, what happens? It’s just going to be a lot of YouTube videos of people in their bedrooms.”Kyle Buchanan contributed reporting. Read the full article

0 notes

oscopelabs · 8 years ago

Text

‘The Counselor’: No Movie for Most Men (or Women) by Mike D’Angelo

[This month, Musings pays homage to Produced and Abandoned: The Best Films You’ve Never Seen, a review anthology from the National Society of Film Critics that championed studio orphans from the ‘70s and ‘80s. In the days before the Internet, young cinephiles like myself relied on reference books and anthologies to lead us to film we might not have discovered otherwise. Released in 1990, Produced and Abandoned was a foundational piece of work, introducing me to such wonders as Cutter’s Way, Lost in America, High Tide, Choose Me, Housekeeping, and Fat City. (You can find the full list of entries here.) Over the next four weeks, Musings will offer its own selection of tarnished gems, in the hope they’ll get a second look. Or, more likely, a first. —Scott Tobias, editor.]

Most people prefer movies to be affirming, in some way. Life-affirming, love-affirming, norm-affirming—just so long as something we believe (or want to believe) gets reinforced, everybody’s happy. Declining to satisfy that desire is step one en route to making an art film, or what publicists who are nervous about the word “art” like to call a specialty release. These, too, cater to viewers’ preconceived notions about the world (good luck finding something that doesn’t), but they target notions that are less commonly held, which makes them less commercially viable. Deriving enjoyment from genuinely despairing or pessimistic movies is a taste that must be acquired, and only a small subset of the population has the time or the inclination. These are the folks who’ll go see a Moonlight, say, or a Manchester By The Sea. They’re game.

It’s possible to alienate these adventurous, open-minded viewers, too, though, by making a movie that’s not just challenging or upsetting, but flat-out nihilistic. A movie that assumes the worst about human nature, with few (if any) mollifying grace notes. A movie that, at least to some extent, glorifies venality and ugliness. “Alienate” is too mild a word for the common reaction, actually. They will be pissed off.

Such was the reception that greeted The Counselor back in 2013. Expectations for the film were sky high: It features a superb cast (Michael Fassbender, Pénélope Cruz, Javier Bardem, Cameron Diaz, and Brad Pitt); was directed by Ridley Scott (a decidedly erratic talent, but still capable of greatness); and, most exciting of all, boasts a screenplay from Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Cormac McCarthy. McCarthy’s books had been adapted several times—most notably by the Coen Brothers, whose version of No Country for Old Men won multiple Oscars—but he’d never before written an original story expressly for the big screen. Had The Counselor been made available intravenously, many would have mainlined it without hesitation.

Cue the adrenaline-shot scene from Pulp Fiction. Not all of the Counselor reviews were negative, by any means, but the critics who hated it really, really hated it. “Meet the Worst Movie Ever Made” ran the headline on Andrew O’Hehir’s savage takedown at Salon, and that wasn’t some editor’s hype; in the actual piece, O’Hehir expands his assessment to “the worst movie in the history of the universe,” thereby dismissing the possibility that alien life forms in faraway galaxies may possibly have committed an even greater sin against cinema. Other reviews in major publications deemed the film “lethally pretentious,” “a jaw-dropping misfire,” and “unforgivably phony, talky and dull.” (Characters do indeed talky on the phony sometimes.) Audiences were similarly repulsed: The Counselor got a dismal D in Cinemascore’s survey, which generally skews so positive that you can currently find an A- assigned to the likes of Assassin's Creed (Metacritic score: 36/100) and Collateral Beauty (Metacritic score: 23/100). It’s not a popular title.

Here are a few reasons why many people seem to hate it:

The narrative is ludicrously convoluted.

All of the characters speak primarily in lengthy philosophical monologues.

It’s just a catalogue of horrible things happening to people who mostly deserve them.

Cameron Diaz fucks a car.

We’ll come back to that last one. Let’s start at the beginning, with the basic story McCarthy wants to tell. The Counselor is about a drug deal that goes horrifically wrong, mostly because the title character (played by Fassbender; we never learn the guy’s name), who’s never done this before and just wants to make some quick cash, has not the slightest clue what he’s doing. That’s essentially all you need to know, as far as making sense of events is concerned. McCarthy lays out some essential details—how the drugs are transported, and by whom, and who’s looking for a way to intercept the shipment—but only in the service of making it clear that what befalls the counselor is to some degree just very bad luck. What matters is that he was completely unprepared for the possibility that some random misfortune could cost multiple people their lives. Indeed, even the characters, like Brad Pitt’s Westray, who consider themselves prepared, and keep warning the counselor that he’s unprepared, are not themselves really prepared.

Think for a moment about Jurassic Park. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t much matter exactly why the dinosaurs get loose—that Wayne Knight’s programmer was planning to steal embryos, and that he got killed by a dinosaur in the attempt, and that his death left the fences unelectrified, and etc. It could just as easily have been some other series of seemingly random deviations from expected outcomes. (Indeed, Ian Malcolm, the chaos theory-obsessed mathematician played by Jeff Goldblum, would argue that it surely would have been.) Jurassic Park is a simple tale of hubris: Various smart people foolishly imagine that they can control the uncontrollable, but something utterly unforeseen occurs, and all hell breaks loose. Nobody complains that the chain of events leading to disaster is overly complicated, because it’s all just a means of providing the exciting sequences of people being menaced by dinosaurs that we want to see.

The Counselor is basically the same movie, aimed at a different sensibility—one that doesn’t necessarily require some of the threatened characters to be sympathetic, and that appreciates a more detached approach to carnage. About halfway through the movie, a man about whom we know nothing shows up at a motorcycle dealership, waves off the salesperson, and proceeds to measure the height of a particular bike. For those on the right wavelength, curiosity about this anonymous character’s purpose is its own reward, and the gruesome payoff constitutes just as much “fun” as does watching a dude cowering on a toilet get chomped by a Tyrannosaurus rex. It’s not even wholly clear to me why the latter is almost universally perceived as entertainment, while the former got widely dismissed as empty grotesquerie. Both involve a benignly sadistic voyeurism that’s always been at the core of the moviegoing experience.

Granted, The Counselor’s nihilism might be less off-putting to many if the characters didn’t keep openly discussing it, often in speeches that occupy several minutes of screen time. (And that’s after they've been trimmed—the unrated extended cut of the film, available on the Blu-ray release, runs an extra 21 minutes, with most of that consisting of additional monologue.) This is a natural reaction, as most screenwriters would hesitate to include even one such blatant exegesis in a screenplay, much less a baker’s dozen of ‘em. There’s something strangely liberating, though, about seeing this dramaturgical rule violated with such gleeful excess. Almost every character in The Counselor, including those who drop in for just a scene or two, is ludicrously verbose, prone to bloviating. The first couple of times, it’s a weird distraction; by the end, it’s become an even weirder form of gallows humor. How many different ways can this movie’s pitiless thesis be openly analyzed by the very people who are doomed to be spared its pity?

If McCarthy were Joe Eszterhas, sure, it’d be a problem. But the speeches are beautifully written and performed, and the ordinary give-and-take dialogue is even better. There are admittedly some howlers, like Malkina, the femme fatale, being asked if she’s really that cold (emotionally) and replying “Truth has no temperature.” (Though even that line might have worked with a different actor; I'll get to Diaz shortly.) The stuff that makes me cringe is handily outweighed, however, by the stuff that makes me chortle.

“Is this place secure?” “Who knows? I don’t speak in arraignable phrases anywhere.”

“I want to give her a diamond so big she’ll be afraid to wear it.” “She’s probably more courageous than you imagine.”

“Cheers.” “A plague of pustulent boils upon all their scurvid asses.” “Is that your normal toast?” “Increasingly.”

As far as I can determine, McCarthy invented the adjective “scurvid,” but it sounds suitably noxious. In any case, the notion that a movie chock-full of pungent exchanges like these offers nothing of value is absurd. Certainly the actors relish them. Pitt, who’s usually at his best when he goes over the top (Twelve Monkeys, Burn After Reading), finds just the right degree of languid sangfroid for his cautious middleman, and Bardem turns in a performance as amusingly eccentric as the wardrobe his character sports. The one weak link is Diaz, for whom Malkina’s predatory nature proves just too much of a stretch. (It doesn’t help that she reportedly performed the role with a Bajan accent, then was asked to overdub it.) The infamous scene in which Malkina intimidates Bardem’s Reiner by rubbing herself against the windshield of his Ferrari was always meant to be ludicrous—although McCarthy’s screenplay conceived it entirely as a story that Reiner tells the counselor, not something that we’re meant to actually see. With Diaz visibly straining to look depraved, it comes across even sillier than was intended; imagine Charlize Theron in her place, and see if it doesn’t suddenly shift into focus, along with the rest of Malkina’s presence in the movie.

Even with these undeniable flaws, McCarthy’s offbeat vision for the movie survives mostly intact. Scott wisely stays out of his way, choosing to serve the text, though he declines to indulge some of the screenplay’s most experimental ideas. The opening scene, for example, depicting the counselor and his girlfriend (Cruz) in bed, begins with the two of them hidden entirely beneath white sheets, suggesting two corpses. As scripted, they were supposed to remain hidden from view the entire time, for what was originally going to be six or seven minutes. What’s more, McCarthy specifies that all their dialogue should be subtitled, despite being spoken in English, as it’ll be too muffled to hear. (Said dialogue is also considerably more blue in its original form.) The decision to shoot the scene more conventionally seems perfectly defensible, but I do wonder whether the more extreme version McCarthy intended might have at least helped to signal that The Counselor doesn’t operate like a traditional thriller. Its subsequent discursiveness and single-mindedness wouldn’t have seemed so thoroughly out of character.

Ultimately, what made this film an object of ridicule—see also everything from Ishtar to Drive—is the enormous gap between the size of the audience it courted and the size of the audience predisposed to appreciate it. Not many people would salivate at a description like “what you might get if you gene-spliced a slow-motion multi-car accident with a freshman comparative philosophy seminar.” (That’s not from a negative review—it's my own best précis.) But not every movie needs to appeal to every taste. And a movie that makes a lot of folks mad is always more interesting than a movie that makes everyone shrug.

#the counselor #brad pitt #michael fassbender #penelope cruz #cameron diaz #javier bardem #ridley scott #cormac mccarthy #cheetah #musings #oscilloscope laboratories #mike d'angelo

9 notes · View notes

placetobenation · 4 years ago

Link

Movie theaters in the USA are indeed making plans to reopen again and thank the Lord!! I know I’ve missed them dearly. The big issue though, is what they said in their opening statements or tweets.

No Masks Required.

Hold up. No masks required? 200 people in a movie theatre, not counting the whole building, just the one room, and no one needs to wear a mask? That ain’t right. When pressed on why the idiocy, the theaters retorted, “we don’t want to make this a political issue”.

Oh boy, here we go, Trump has done it again. Trump plants ideas into the world and Americans pick them up like they were taken from the bible. When players knelt against police brutality, Trump convinced America they were kneeling to disrespect the flag and the national anthem. Now when we want to wear masks to stay alive, Trump divides us once again. Since Trump has asked his supporters to not wear masks during his Tulsa rally, Americans think – oh, if you wear a mask, you’re going against our President and therefore this country and the Constitution. If you don’t wear a mask, you’re a true American and a Trump supporter and you love this country. What?

So pushed again, citing things like the amazing rise of cases and deaths in Arizona and the situation in Florida, where they have been experiencing 2,000 new cases every single day since the beaches opened and they refused to wear masks, movie theaters have come to their senses.

“This is not a political issue” AMC now says, and will require all who enter to wear a mask, including employees. “If a patron does not have one, they will be supplied with one.” Now that is good to hear. Finally science prevails and lives can be saved and life may try and go on.

450 theaters of AMC will open in USA on July 15. All 600 chains should be fully open and operational by July 24. (Just in time for Disney’s Mulan. Coincidence?) You know the first movie shown will be probably the biggest hit of all time. Not seeing a film in over 4 months here in NYC, I know it’s gonna be packed in every viewing, if it’s Ishtar.

What made AMC change their minds – well we think it was not only the social media backlash but a small independent movie chain, The Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas.

After AMC made their statement about not enforcing the masks, Alamo released their statement – “When we open, the safety of our teammates and guests cannot be compromised. This is not political. We will require that guests wear masks at the theater. Those without a mask will be given one” Since that statement seemed to go over very well and without backlash, I think AMC saw that it was ok to do it. I guess they were gonna see if Trump went after them. Morons.

All movie chains were shut down in mid-March because of the virus. Now they are all seem to be planning their glorious openings. Regal and Cinemark have left the decision up to the local authorities – let’s see if they change their minds.

Now we got all that settled – here’s another concern – what about the old people. 55 and up, are going to be a major concern, not only for safety but for marketing. Films like The Biggest Liar, Book Club, Hope Springs, all were marketed for the senior crowd. Now with that age group being the most vulnerable, do studios market toward them, release films geared toward them? Probably not. Data shows 41% of tickets sold in North America went to those 40 and up. In a recent poll, the majority of ages 55 and up said they were in no hurry to return to the theaters. 60% percent of 25 or younger said they will return “as soon as possible”. So you kind of have your demographic and your audience already set. Disney’s Mulan is really set to have a historic opening and box office run. Their film is directed at kids and that film will probably be the first movie to open up the movie houses. They got the right demographic, and the right timing. Still the 40 and up age group accounts for a large part of the box office. So films may not do as well as they used for a few months more, until that age group feels it’s safe enough to returns, and that there is a movie they are interested enough to return to see. I know I’m not waiting for Indiana Jones 5 or anything like that. But I’m certainly not rushing back into the fire to see a remake of a remake like Mulan. I already own it, why dive into the cesspool and spend all that money to see something I already have.

“It makes more sense for a cinema to program for the “invincibles” those 18-25 who believe nothing can happen to them” says a movie distributor. He’s right, because those kids are the ones who will be filling up the theaters. The kids who have been cooped up for 4 months with nowhere to go and nothing to do. They certainly do not want to rush in and see Bridges of Madison County. So studios will most likely schedule releases accordingly.

The main point here is that we reopen, and we do it safely. Our well being is not political, our safety measures are not political. Trump is scaring businesses into doing his bidding or he will tweet against you. It’s not right and puts every American in danger. Movie theaters, as Spike Lee said, Do The Right Thing. Make masks a requirement, so we can all return to our lives safely. No one wants to be like Mookie, where they go out and deliver a pizza, and never come back.

Follow Paul on Twitter: @pauliek2003

The views expressed in this column are that of the author and does not reflect those of Place To Be Nation.com.

#IFTTT #Place to Be Nation

0 notes

weekendwarriorblog · 5 years ago

Text

WHAT TO WATCH THIS WEEKEND September 20, 2019 - VILLAINS, BLOODLINE, DOWNTON ABBEY, AD ASTRA, RAMBO: LAST BLOOD

It’s hard to believe that September is almost over, and we’re just sailing through the September festival season with the New York Film Festival starting (for real) next week. There are three wide releases, but I will only have seen one of them before writing this, so instead, I’ll talk about a couple genre movies opening Friday, both of which played at Lincoln Center’s “Scary Movies XII” last month.

I remember writing quite extensively about VILLAINS (Alter/Gunpowder and Sky) when I was over at the Tracking Board, mainly about the casting of Bill Skarsgard from It, Maika Monroe from It Follows, as well as Jeffrey Donovan and Kyra Sedgwick. It’s the new movie from Dan Berk and Robert Olsen, who directed the horror sequel The Stakelander and have written a pretty amazing comedy-thriller twist on the home invasion movie. Skarsgard and Monroe play a young couple who hide out in a seemingly abandoned house after robbing a store. They soon learn that not only is it not abandoned, but there is a young girl chained in the basement. The owners of the home, played by Kyra Sedgwick and Jeffrey Donovan, then return and things go sideways for the young couple as they find that maybe their petty crimes make them the good guys in this scenario. Villains is getting a fairly hearty release into roughly 100 theaters across the country, so check your listings to see if/where it will be playing near you. (It mainly seems to be playing in Regal theaters across the country.)

Another interesting genre film opening Friday is Henry Jacobson’s psychological thriller BLOODLINE (Momentum Pictures), starring Seann William Scott as Evan, a high school social worker with a secret – he’s also a serial killer who tries to help his patients by ridding them of their issues. Evan is also experiencing a new baby with his wife, which might keep him from his killing habits, except that his mother (Dale Dickey) has shown up to help them, and she was the one who taught him his ways. This is a really dark and gory film that I quite enjoyed in a similar way as some of my favorite serial killer thrillers, from Hitchcock’s Psychoto Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer and others. It honestly can’t be a better time for this with all the true crime television we’re getting, and I was pretty blown away by Scott’s performance in this. Bloodlineisplaying at the IFC Center for Friday and Saturday late night screenings and probably will be available On Demand as well.

You can read my interview with Seann William Scott and the directors of VILLAINS over at The Beat, the latter posting Friday.

The one wide release I have seen this weekend is Focus Features’ DOWNTOWN ABBEY, a continuation of the PBS series with an absolutely amazing British cast that includes Dame Maggie Smith, Penelope Wilton and so many more that I won’t name all of them. I feel that I’m not the best person to properly review the movie since I haven’t seen a second of the series, but I generally liked what I saw and might give it a look if I can find a good streaming source on which to binge it. I actually liked the movie enough to recommend it without having any previous knowledge of the series.

Probably my biggest disappointment of this week is that I didn’t have a chance to see James Gray’s AD ASTRA (20thCentury Fox), starring Brad Pitt, before Thursday night, because I wasn’t able to get to the press screening. It’s been one of my more anticipated movies of the year, mainly because I generally love outer space movies, but I also have been interested in seeing what Gray and Pitt do with the material, especially with such a great supporting cast.

Another movie that I only got to see just before this column posts is Sylvester Stallone’s RAMBO: LAST BLOOD (Lionsgate), which I reviewed over at The Beat. I had very few expectations for the movie, as I’ve never been a huge Rambo fan. I’m not sure why, but I guess I just never got into the Rah! Rah! USA! Stuff that permeated the United States in the ‘80s, and I was more into music than movies at the time. Reading my review, it’s obvious that Stallone’s latest attempt to revive a franchise didn’t do much for me.

You can read what I think of the above’s box office prospects over at The Beat, as well.

LIMITED RELEASES

I’m not quite sure why there are so many limited releases this weekend –I count almost 30 (!!!!) over on Rotten Tomatoes– but I’ll see what I can get to this week since I’m already a little behind. If you missed, Rob Zombie’s 3 FROM HELL on Monday and Tuesday night and more importantly, missed my scathing review of it over at The Beat, well, then you’ve missed it since this column is posting after it played its last night before its blu-ray release next month. Sorry!

A fantastic documentary opening at the Metrograph this week is Jacqueline Olive’s directorial debut ALWAYS IN SEASON (Multitude Films), a stirring film about the history of lynching, circling around the death of 17-year-old Lennon Lacy from Bladenboro, North Carolina, which is ruled as a suicide but his mother Claudia is convince that her son was lynched. Olive’s powerful film provides a background for how lynching became so prevalent in the early part of the 20thCentury, including an eerie annual reenactment by the town of Monroe, Georgia that wants to make sure that the county’s atrocities aren’t forgiven or forgotten. Narrated by Danny Glover, Olive’s directorial debut is powerful and moving and a film that must not be missed – maybe it’s no surprise that it won a Special Jury prize at Sundance Film Festival for “Moral Urgency” earlier this year. I was pretty shaken up when I saw it at this year’s Oxford Film Festival.

The Metrograph is also screening two National Geographic shorts, Alexander A. Mora’s The Night Crawlers and Orlando von Einsiedel’sLost and Found, over the next week. The Night Crawlers looks at a group of Filipino journalists known as the “Manila Nightcrawlers” who seek to expose the truth about President Duterte’s war on drugs and the number of people who lost their lives over it. Lost and Foundi s a new doc short from the director of the Netflix doc The White Helmets which looks at the Myanmar’s ethnic violence against the Rohingya people through the eyes of a man in a refugee camp seeking to reunite children with parents.

Japanese animation house Studio TRIGGER’s first feature film PROMARE (GKIDS) will get a limited release on Friday, following Fathom Events showings on Tuesday (already passed) and Thursday (tonight). It will then be opening in New York at the Metrograph and AMC Empire on Friday for a one-week run. It’s an apocalyptic sci-fi thriller set in a world thirty years after a race of flame-wielding mutant beings called the Burnish set half the world on fire an the battle between the anti-Burnish Burning Rescue and Lio Fotia, leader of the aggressive new “Mad Burnish” mutants.

Paolo Sorrentino, director of the Oscar-winning The Great Beauty and its follow-up Youth, returns with LORO (Sundance Selects), about a young hustler named Sergio (Riccardo Scamarcio) managing an escort service who sets his sights on the egotistical billionaire Italian ex-Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (Tony Servillo) who is trying to bribe his way back into power. It will open at the IFC Center Friday.

A couple other docs opening this weekend, the first two opening at New York’s Film Forum…

Now playing is Hassan Fazili’s Midnight Traveler (Oscilloscope) about how the filmmaker received death threats from the Taliban in 2015 for running Kabul, Afghanistan’s Art Café, a progressive meeting place, so he, his wife and two young daughters must travel 3,500 miles over 3 years across four countries to get to Hungary, a journey documented via mobile phone cameras. It will open in L.A. on October 4.

Then on Friday, there’s Matt Tyrnauer’s new film WHERE’S MY ROY COHN? (Sony Pictures Classics) looks at the lawyer and power broker who was part of Joe McCarthy’s anti-Communist activities and who was pivotal in molding a young Queens developer named Donald Trump. I wanted to like this movie more because Roy Cohn is such an interesting human being in such a despicable way, but this doc really didn’t do much for me.

Opening in New York (Cinema Village) and L.A. (Laemmle Glendale) is DIEGO MARADONA (HBO Sports), the new doc from Asif Kapadia (Amy, Senna), which will show on HBO on October 1. If you don’t know international football (or soccer), the Argentine Maradona is one of the most famous footballers of all time, a bit of a legend since signing to Naples in 1984 for a record-setting fee. I haven’t watched this yet but hope to soon.

Opening at New York’s IFC Center Friday is Max Powers’ Don’t Be Nice (Juno Films), focusing on the Bowery Slam Poetry Team as they head to the national championships, and there will be QnAs almost every night in its week-long run, and then it will open in L.A. on September 27.

Completely unrelated but also at the IFC Center is a full-week run of National Theatre Live: Fleabag, screening a pre-recorded performance of Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s one-woman show that inspired her hit Emmy-nominated show from the Soho Playhousein London’s West End. Heck, I might try to get to one of these since it won’t be on television or any other format for at least a year.

After opening for “one night only” on Tuesday, Louie (The Cove) Psihoyos’ new movie The Game Changers will get a release on New York this Friday and L.A. the 27th. Exec. produced by James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jackie Chan, it explores the rise of plant-based eating in professional sports along with Special Forces trainer James Wilks and features segments on Schwarzenegger, Formula One racer Lewis Hamilton, tennis player Novak Djokovic and NBA star Chris Paul.

Demi Moore, Ed Helms, Karan Soni (from the “Deadpool” movies) and Jessica Williams star in the horror-comedy Corporate Animals (Screen Media), the new comedy from Patrick Brice (Creep, The Overnight) about a corporate team-building adventure that turns to cannibalism when an office group find themselves trapped in a cave system. The movie has a great cast but the strange concept and weak screenplay really keeps the movie from delivering.

Other movies out this weekend include James Franco’s Zeroville (MyCinema), co-starring Megan Fox and Seth Rogen; Nicolas Cage’s new movie Running with the Devil (Quiver DIstribution), a drug thriller co-starring Laurence Fishburne, Barry Pepper, Leslie Bibb and more; and the award-winning Chinese drama Send Me to the Clouds (Cheng Cheng Films), opening in L.A., NY, Toronto and Vancouver.

STREAMING AND CABLE

Maybe the movie I’m most excited for this week is Zak Galifianakis’ BETWEEN TWO FERNS: THE MOVIE (Netflix), which I’m sure is going to be silly, maybe even stupid, but I’m still amused by his style of humor. I also haven’t seen the new Netflix doc Inside Bill’s Brain: Decoding Bill Gates, and I also no absolutely nothing about the movie other than what’s in the title.

REPERTORY

METROGRAPH (NYC):

On Tuesday, the Metrograph began a series called “Bleecker Street: The First Five Years” running through Thursday withsingle screenings of Debra Granik’s Leave No Trace, Sebastian Lelio’s Disobediance and Brett Haley’s I’ll See You in My Dreams with talent doing QnAs. On the weekend, the theater has special screenings of the dance film The Red Shoes (1948) on Saturday with an introduction by Jillian McManemin – I honestly have no idea who that is. On Saturday, the Academy is back with its monthly series, this month showing Milos Forman’s 1979 musical Hair with actor Treat Williams and Annie Golden in person. On Sunday, there’s a similarly special screening of Martin Scorsese’s 1990 crime classic Goodfellas with producer Irwin Winkler and screenwriter Nick Pileggi -- $35 tickets, a little pricey for me. You also have just two more days (today and tomorrow) to see Satoshi Kon’s Millennium Actress on the big screen.

This weekend’s Welcome To Metrograph: Redux offering is Jean Vigo’s 1934 film L’Atalante, Late Nites at Metrograph is showing Fantastic Planet(again) and the Japanese horror film Hausu (1977). This weekend’s Playtime: Family Matinees is Alfonso Cuaron’s fantasy A Little Princess (1995)

ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE BROOKLYN (NYC)

The Alamo is also celebrating “Arthouse Theater Day” on Wednesday with Robert Downey Sr.’s Putney Swope. They’re also doing a “Rambo Marathon” on Sunday to tie-in with Stallone’s latest Rambo movie -- $35 for all five Rambo movies. Now THAT is a great deal, and there are a few tickets left. On Saturday afternoon, the Alamo is showing Almodovar’s 2000 classic All About My Mother to celebrate the Spanish filmmaker before the release of his newest film Pain and Glory. Monday’s “Out of Tune” is Lars von Trier’s 2000 film Dancer in the Dark, starring Bjork. Next week’s “Terror Tuesday” is the amazing Vera Farmiga thriller Orphan from 2009, and the Alamo is also playing Almodovar’s Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown from 1988. Next week’s “Weird Wednesday” is 1995’s Tank Girl, starring Lori Petty.

AERO (LA):

Wednesday is (or rather, was) a screening of the 1969 film Putney Swope as part of Art House Theater Day 2019, Thursday is a screening of the 1984 adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke’s 2010: The Year We Made Contact. In honor of Downton Abbey (I guess?), the Aero is beginning a series called “Upstairs, Downstairs,” beginning Friday with a 70mm print of 1993’s The Remains of the Day, starring Anthony Hopkins an Emma Thompson, then Saturday is a double feature of Hitchcock’s Rebecca (1940) and Carol Reed’s The Fallen Idol (1948), and then on Sunday is a double feature of Ruggles of Red Cap (1935) and By Candlelight (1933), as well as a separate free member screening of Downton Abbey with some of the cast in person.

FILM FORUM (NYC):

Robert Altman’s classic 1975 film Nashville will screen as a new 4k restoration for the next week with screenwriter Joan Tewkesbury appearing on Saturday night. This weekend’s “Film Forum Jr.” is Howard Hawk’s 1940 movie His Girl Friday, starring Cary Grant. Joseph Losey’s Holocaust drama Mr. Klein ends on Thursday.

QUAD CINEMA (NYC):

The Quad is back with another great series called “Laws of Desire: The Films of Antonio Banderas” beginning Wednesday, showing so many films starring the Spanish actor who is likely to get nominated for his first Oscar for Almodovar’s Pain and Glory. It will even show Steven Soderbergh’s upcoming The Laundromat, which premieres on Netflix next week. Instead of going through all 13 of the movies, click on the link above and get ready to be Banderasized!

IFC CENTER (NYC)

Weekend Classics: Staff Picks Summer 2019 is Tony Scott’s vampire flick The Hunger (1983), chosen by “Todd,” Waverly Midnights: Staff Picks Summer 2019 is the anime classic Akira, chosen by “Katie,” and Late Night Favorites: Summer 2019 is Satoshi Kon’s Paprika(again?)

MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE (NYC):

This weekend begins a “See It Big! Ghost Stories” series with the Japanese horror Ugetsu from 1953, then Saturday is The Phantom Carriage (1921) – this is with live piano accompaniment! --The Ghost and Mrs. Muir(1947), and then Sunday they’re screening Olivier Assayas’ more recent Personal Shopper (2006) with Kristen Stewart.

FILM AT LINCOLN CENTER (NYC):

Although Lincoln Center is preparing for next week’s New York Film Festival, this weekend it’s holding special screenings of two Gershwin films, Otto Preminger’s 1959 musical Porgy and Bess on Thursday (with panel) and then Vincente Minelli’s An American in Paris on Friday.

BAM CINEMATEK (NYC):

“The Purpose and Passion: the Cinema of John Singleton” ends on Friday, but there are screenings of his 2000 Shaft movie, starring Samuel L. Jackson, and another screening of Boyz n the Hood before then.

EGYPTIAN THEATRE (LA):

Thursday night is a screening of David Lean’s The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), but the rest of the weekend is the “Guadalajara Film Festival.”

LANDMARK THEATRES NUART (LA):

Friday night’s midnight offering is John Waters’ 2004 movie A Dirty Shame, starring Tracey Ullman, Johnny Knoxville and Selma Blair.

THE NEW BEVERLY (L.A.):

The New Bev continues its “time out” at the bottom of this section as long as Tarantino uses his repertory theater to show Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood, and currently it’s booked through the end of September. Since this week’s column is late, you already missed the 1952 film The Narrow Marginas the Weds. matinee, the New Bev will also show the Hanna/Barbera animated feature Hey There, It’s Yogi Bear (1964) as this weekend’s “Kiddee Matinee.” Tarantino’s Jackie Brown is the Saturday night midnight movie, and then on Monday, the theater will show David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (2000) in two matinees (the 2pm is already sold out).

A quieter week with only one wide release, the Universal/DreamWorks animation fantasy-adventure Abominable.

#WhatToWatchThisWeekend Movies Reviews Villains Bloodline Downton Abbey AlwaysInSeason

2 notes · View notes

mkdimasacat-blog · 5 years ago

Text

MIDTERMS PART 2

Dimasacat Michael Kim

MAYNILA, SA KUKO NG LIWANAG by Lino Brocka

For a long period of existence of Film Industry in the Philippines, a lot of movies were released with different storyline, genre and theme. Almost forty years ago, a masterpiece was created which considered as one of the greatest film in the field of Philippine cinema.

A film which directed by an influential filmmaker Cartalino Ortiz Brocka or famously known as Lino Brocka. He conquered filmmaking industry with the concept of social issues and reality happens to the Filipinos. He had much great works that put significance not only to film industry but also to have awareness in the society we belong and its actual scenario. One of that is Maynila sa Kuko ng Liwanag. It was based on the written work of Edgardo Reyes entitled Manila, In the Claws of Brightness. This film revealed the face of Manila during mid 70's especially labor issues and how Filipinos were embraced the pain of being a worker in order to survived from poverty. It was led by legendary actors and actresses such as Mr. Mr. Rafael Aranda "Bembol" Rocco Jr. who portrayed the main character Julio Madiaga with Ms. Hilda Koronel as Ligaya Paraiso. The story is about to a life of a fisher man who went to manila to find his lover who first went and adventured for her and family’s dreams.

In the very beginning, the mood of the story set through the help of colors and texture of the film. The black and white represent how Manila will be an instrument that suffer pain and society’s illnesses affects to the main character. It was associated by audio which sounds like dramatic and served as hint for the next scenerios. Julio followed Ligaya to manila. Ligaya took by a woman and offered a very flowery description of work and future for her family. Julio met different people but sadly he was still looking for Ligaya. But he found the woman who took Ligaya in manila and this woman who calls Julio as Mrs. Cruz, entered in a establishment owned by Chinese. He suspected that Ligaya was inside this establishment. In order to survive, he work as construction man somewhere in Cubao but suddenly he was needed to find new job because the contract was almost done. The town where Julio came from has a simple living. Fishing was a decent and traditional kind of work yet doesn't have huge amount money that's why it was looked as not professional just like white collar job. In manila, there are many kinds of immorality and indecent work. This comparison of the town where Julio came from and to Manila were reflection of the Filipinos who take risk and go to Manila without assurance to better opportunity. As a Manila boy, I really want to have changes especially to the injustice system and immoral things of society. In my personal experience, I am very scared about deteriorating happenings of society's unrighteous system. Sometimes I being attentive when I walk on the streets because of different news about crimes and worse case is murdering.

On the next scenarios, he found a construction site and hired him by a cruel and greedy foreman. He worked very hard yet his salary was very low and insufficient for his daily living. Until he met Atong, one of his co-workers who have helpful heart, he gave

Julio instruction and advice. Atong represent the laborers who followed the system because he needs money more that the rights they need. In his mind, he knew and wanted to escape the rules and system of his work but he didn’t know how to. He also met Imo who work and study for his future. Imo is the character who always enlighten the Filipinos especially laborers that education will lead them to a better future. Suddenly, the construction site he works for, needed to cut down the numbers of their workers and he was one of the workers who eliminated. Julio remained hopeful to find Ligaya until one day he saw her in a church. Yes, it was during Martial Law when the film was released, yet the status of society was not even closed to the law that enforced to the nation. Still, many people were losing their jobs and suffered more poverty. Just like when the two main character talked about life of both of them in Manila. It sounds horrible when they realized that going to Manila made your life worse than living in their town. The possibilities of having a better future was denied due to the greediness of powerful person without considering the beneficial effects to majority Filipinos. They only think about the money and wealthiness of their lives. This is the reason why many Filipinos who are in the lower class of society force to do unrightfully things. As a result, the entire nation is like a forest where the strongest will survive and the weak will die. The poor are prey while rich are predators that in a glimpse of an eye, the society become a food chain.

As continuously revealing of the face society, it was shown when they planned to escape whatever miserable happenings to their life by going back to their town. But in that night, Ligaya was died. Julio felt mixed emotions. The Chinese man who was being in love with Ligaya was the same man who killed her. That pushed Julio to revenge and planned how to kill him. In the very last part, the scene showed reminiscence of Julio and Ligaya’ loved in their town. In that scene, the idea of social status of the nation was well-defined as not opportunity of better future of one's life when you go to Manila. In fact, many lives became worsen because the battle ground makes little more than living in a province. It is just like in education; many students might graduate but not everyone will become rich or having a prosperous life.

Later on, Julio saw the Manila’s dark side. He found many issues and problematic situation of life in Manila. In that several scenarios, the film became realization of how’s system in labors work in the manner of inequality, lack of rights as workers and injustice treatment of the people above of the system. The society in the year 1975 was fully showed in the film. But until now, we really see and feel it. In accordance to the technical matters, the flexibility of the characters’ mode of portrayal was delivered with deep connection to the audience. It was effectively conveyed to the viewers because of the diverse style and attack of screenplay such as presenting the humor of the workers’ despite of the hardship in their life. The dialogues with different emotions and expression provided by the writers were properly carried by the actors. Even the facial expression was very convincing on their roles and single scene’s message.

Aside from that, the social context of the film precisely involves to the issues and happenings in the current society. The persuasive and the influences of the film were beneficial to open the eyes of many Filipinos and to thrive to be waked. Another tackled

issue was the prostitution. It was huge and problematic of our society. Either with consent or not, forced or willing to do prostitution, still it is a sign of destitution. They need to survive so even if it is truly wrong, they still do it. For the sake of little amount, they neglect and swallow their dignity and pride.

As a whole, the film is a huge realization of Manila then and now. Brocka and Reyes are the person who open our eyes and spirit to the society we have. We really need to find ways how to change the injustice system and make more rightful things. It is also a slapped to us about mislead and misconception that Manila is the opportunity arena for everyone's life. Maybe some on us will stay on what they think about Manila, still we need to accept the truth. MANILA is just a place. But success is on our hands with enough skill, and proper manner.

INSIANG MOVIE REVIEW by Lino Brocka

At the very beginning of the movie, we could see pigs that are being slaughtered right in front of our eyes. It was a bold and raw thing to see since we had no idea why did the director of the movie put that over there in the movie and why in the very start. For me I thought it was just like a normal fill for the movie or just a stabilizing shot. Little did I know that in the end of the movie I would know the reason why the director put that gore scene at the first sequence of the movie. Moments later, the movie starts to show a family who are eating in a small house and by the looks of it, they are living in poverty and their struggle is how to survive on a day to day basis without having any problems.

As the movie progresses, they slowly showed that there were two families living on that house. The mother of Insiang, and a family friend who needed a place to stay in so the mother of Insiang insisted of taking them all in their house. There were stabilizing shots in the movie which showed the slums/ hood part of Manila. The side that the few doesn’t want to see and they want to forget about the people living in that place since that place is like a waste land and filled with garbage. Because of this, Most people living there had make shift houses from scraps like old pieces of wood , rusty metal wires, bent nails and old spare tires to add weight to their roof so when the rain comes and strong winds blow, their roof tops wont fly because of the strong wind currents. For me, this scene should be more put into focus since this is one of the many main problems here on our country. Also the point that most people there are over populated which makes them have a harder time to earn money since the quantity of people eating on their homes are a lot. There was this scene in which one of the sub characters was drunk with friends early in the morning and because of this, they had a little thing on almost raping this innocent girl who was just there to sell them food and drinks in the sari sari store they were staying at. This problem could still be seen in current events. But the difference today from before the time they shot the movie was today the voice of the women are now being heard by a lot of people and by the looks of it, there is a lot of improvement in this issue. Women can now report this to the police and the people who cat called/ disrespect them would be fined 15,000 pesos from what I have heard from the news.

Another issue from the movie that they showed was the abusive mother/parent of Insiang. Her own mother didn’t believed her and chose to side with her “boyfriend” who was clearly just using her to get near to Insiang. The abusive step father thing today could still be considered as one of the problems in the country but they are not that so publicly shown. Sadly I know people who struggle with their abusive step parents. In the end of the movie , I remember that Insiang finally had her revenge on all of the people who hurt her and it was all strategically planned from the very beginning. She used her mothers’ anger to kill the step father who clearly raped her while she slept.

BATCH 81 FILM REVIEW

At the very first part of the movie, there was this bubbly type of music which is kind of misleading to the dark truth of this film. It was like taken from a carnival or an old cartoon in which the scene would be the main antagonist would chase the protagonist in a loop.

After watching the movie, I realized that the stories of my friends who joined fraternities like tau gamma , apo , and tbs were real. The things that they would do to you before you could enter or join their botherhood. To be honest I really don’t know why do people want to join fraternities so bad just like Sid Lucero in the movie. Is it because they lack the love of their parents? Or just simply because they want to be “cool” in the eyes of their co-leagues. When I was still in highschool, I remember a close friend of mine who is a high academic achiever student asked me if I wanted to join a frat near our school. He said that if we would join, we would be untouchable to bullies since the original members of the frat would help us beat anyone who disrespects us. I respectfully declined the offer of my friend. Months later I heard a news that he had a trouble with a professor who bad mouthed him and disrespected him in front of the whole class and days later, the car of our professor was stabbed with a knife on the tires and on the side was a spray paint message stating “do not mess with us”. Things like this on our school are not ignored and they took responsibility as soon as possible. My friend who was now a member of the frat got kicked out of the school with a penalty of paying our professor a new set of wheels and a new paintjob. Till this day, I won’t forget the way our professor looked because that was the first time I saw a professor being afraid of his student. After this incident I knew that the reason why my friend joined that frat was because he had enemies outside the school due to his easily angered personality.

He has this war freak attitude which made him a violent person and because of this, he easily crosses paths with other students or people who are near to him. But to me, he is just a misunderstood person.

To me he was my brother. Like a big brother to me who just wants things to be done in his own way but due to his personality, it doesn’t always work the way he wants it to be. In the modern day life, we could still see the strive for dominance in this society. An example for that would be, who wants to sit in the presidency table to lead their country and people who want to enter the congress just so that they could get a hand of the money laundering happening under the table of the people who are living in the country. In the end of this film, the protagonists finally got what they wanted and they are now part of the brotherhood and is now considered as a “master” to the next batches who also want to join the Alpha Kappa Omega fraternity. For me, this cycle for dominance has been already around for thousands of years. Imagine life before us and during the times of the Jurassic times. The top predators compete for their next meal and for some, they fight for their territory.

As time progresses, the fight for dominance would always be there ever present to what ever era or generation it is. People want to be the star or leader to a specific group. Like who would not want to become the high command of people willing to do anything what the high tables say.

KAKABAKABA KA BA film review

The movie for me was a lot trippy and kind of odd to the other films that we have watched since the movie had a spice of comedy and a lot more racism than the other ones.

The movie showed how the stereotypical people portrayed the Chinese people and the Japanese people before or during the 80’s times. They mimicked how the Chinese people talked and how they were seen in the movie playing and gambling with friends and while the Japanese as Yakuza mafia people. How they used people to transfer their cash and how would they cut the fingers of the mule if they would get caught.

Another scene that would hit us would be how they showed that the people who are running the churches are just using that as a front but they are actually earing more money behind the scenes because of what the people are. This shows us how the higher countries are just using the Filipinos as victims of the underground forces of the Japanese and the Chinese people and the religious people. There were also scenes there that showed the nuns and the priests singing and dancing mimicking what they do during the mass hours inside the churches but that is just a distraction so that the Filipinos wouldn’t see or understand what they are really doing under the tables. There is no doubt that the movie shows a lot of cultural and racial problems such as stereotypes and racism. If the movie was shown to us today, it would be highly unaccepted and most likely it would receive a lot of bashes in the social media and the producer would probably have a lot of death threats and hate mail or worse, a time at the jail for showing an explicit movie plot.

But during the time it was shot and directed, I believe that it was the main reason why the movie was created and the whole story of the movie was just a mask so that it could get the message covered and the director just wanted the viewers to understand and grasp the hidden message of the movie. The offensive points of the story back then was really impactful to the viewers point of view. But in the end, this movie should be seen by a lot of people today since the main message of the movie could still be implied to today’s world problems. If only directors and script writters would still write movies as bold as the movies before during the 80’s to todays time not just some random stand up comedy movies as we could see on today’s movie genres and movie titles. We need more films like this that would really make the viewers think of the scenarios and on why would the director put that on the movie script. Is he or she thinking of something or it was just simply for entertainment. Before what I also noticed was that most of the films before was musical and I think a reason for that is because Filipinos love to dance and sing a lot. And to get the approval of most viewers, the directors used that factor to get the attention of most of the viewers. That musical vibe to the theme. A part of all of the things added to the film, the thing that really hit me was the movie showed how in the early 80’s they made films so trippy that even in the movie scenes the main characters got a chance to be high. During one of the times the group of protagonists visited a friend, they tried on getting high on one of the vhs tapes that they brought to the groups friend. In the next few minutes of the movie, it showed how the three of them were tripping and even had the visuals of getting high to mix with the scenes being portrayed in the movie. Its funny because during the 80s from what ive heard, that was the time cocaine was booming in business with the whole world and it was the next thing people tried after weed/ pot sessions.

0 notes

kinetic-elaboration · 5 years ago

Text

August 28: Liveblogging at McCarran Airport

The Las Vegas airport is way more intimidating than anticipated. I felt weirdly rattled when I arrived and tbh I know this is pathetic but I’m glad I’m meeting my mom and not, like, trying to find the taxis by myself. It took me an hour just to figure out our flights were coming into different gates. I’m still not in the right place but I have time. Lots.

Good news is that Mom’s flight is getting in early, and with all my wandering, that means I have only about 2 hours to kill. I’ve found a Starbucks with chairs and have a large indulgent drink. I’ll kill maybe an hour here, then find the right gate and just... chill there until she shows up.

I feel VERY confused and truly don’t know why. I’m usually more at ease in airports. Is it the time difference? The desert? The slot machines? Tbh I think I felt like Vegas wouldn’t be disorienting because I’ve seen it on TV. That sounds dumb when I say it in so many words.

There are SO MANY Starbucks here. Dunkin Donuts is my go-to airport indulgent-drink place but I guess that’s an east coast thing. Hudson News, which I always thought was a NY thing, has turned out to be a national chain. Anyway, this mocha cookie crumble frappuccino is surprisingly good. Can’t inhale it, need to make this last an hour.

The big sign I saw at Gate D said Spirit Airlines come in at Gate B. But now I’m at B and I see Mom’s flight is coming in at A. I’m not really sure where A is from here but I think I’ll find it if I just double back and find where the A signs branched off from A, B, and C.

Blah. I’ve done enough for today lol. I got up early, I traveled across the country, I watched most of Avengers: Endgame. And it’s 5:30 in my head. My personal slowdown time. Why must I be called upon to do yet more? While I like purposefully stalking through an airport by myself, following signage, a part of me truly cannot wait to find my mom so we can find the taxis and the hotel and dinner together.

Looool I still have 55 minutes. How will I pass the time? I could read. Won’t be able to concentrate. could plan out a writing project but I can’t think of anything--honestly not in a creative mood. Also this drink is starting to taste like pure sugar.

I feel so gross and I’m just trying to think of anything other than the grossness and the time.

I have, despite myself, seen Avengers: Endgame. The total saturation of the media by the MCU turned me from Marvel neutral to subtly anti-Marvel, and while there are a few films I vaguely want to see (the Thors, upon a recommendation; Black Panther, for the cultural significance; the Iron Men, for RDJ and because I have see the first two), what I really can’t stand is the sheer fucking NUMBER of characters, so I never planed to watch the real clusterfuck ones like Endgame or anything with the word “war” in it. No offense to Marvel fans ut truly you must know how the summaries of some of these ensemble films sound to a non-initiate: [list of 20 characters with superpowers derived from technology, money, mutation, aliens, and/or Norse Mythology--all of which come down to being strong, good at hand to hand combat and/or inexplicable glowing] go on a mission across multiple countries and/or planets in order to find [shiny McGuffin] and avert [variant of the apocalypse].

Anyway now that I’ve ragged on Marvel unfairly (truly, like what you like--but in my defense the MCU has left very little room in pop cinema or even pop culture for fans of non-superheroes)--I must say it wasn’t bad. At first, I was only watching it, not listening (there were no subtitles, which was A Pain), but eventually I decided I’d pass the time faster if I was actually following the plot. I started listening about the time RDJ said he wouldn’t help them time travel.

First impression: the movie was funnier than I was expecting. I kinda figured it would be very full of its own importance but often, it felt like a comedy and I liked that. It was enjoyable, because I really did like the jokes, and also encouraging, that the creative mind at play here recognize that “search for the Infinity Stones to undo the random disappearance of 50% of the world” is a ridiculous premise and that a film built on such a premise should be light and enjoyable. Also, while I could have done with even MORE jokes and fewer almost-anything-else (dramatic speeches, solemn moments), I was impressed by how few action sequences there were. I was under the impression these were action movies. That said, that finale “everyone and his dog fighting in the pitch black for 30 straight minutes” sequence was, though inevitable (see what I did there), also an embarrassment.

Again, I mock the whole culture that has come up with a 20+ movie, decade-long, cash cow “universe” and I don’t like that this exists BUT I was nevertheless impressed by how the movie balanced all its characters (that half of them had been conveniently dusted probably helped). It definitely didn’t have what I would call “a plot” but it structured its various mini-plots well, it was surprisingly easy to follow, and, I must say, I actually cared about most of the characters even though I’m only familiar with them through tumblr. And being alive in this world.

My favorites were probably Iron Man and Thor. Roughly as anticipated. I liked the Hulk quite a bit, too. Captain America I found weirdly annoying. Ant Man was endearing, the Raccoon was kind of--also annoying, and most everyone else interested me enough at the time but has left no impression at this point at all.

All the actors were find and I don’t mean to insult them by saying this but it was also very obvious to me that RDJ just exists on a different plane.

It’s 3:15. I’m almost done with my drink and I need to wash my hands. I have found a sign leading to Gate A. Might be time to leave soon and just mosey my way over. I’m not sure how far it is or where the nearest bathroom is anyway.

This drink is basically just ice--not even flavored ice. Why are these so popular?

#the year 2019 #2019: rl #i rag on mar vel a little bit here so dont read if that would bother you #i mean it's not very mean but i am skeptical #also i'm not a starbucks fan

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years ago

Link

Popcorn and movies, movies and popcorn — it’s an eternal pairing. For decades, the two have seemed as inseparable as peanut butter and jelly, peas and carrots, Bonnie and Clyde.

But that’s all changing. Movie theaters are increasingly distinguished from one another not just by which movies they’re playing, but also by the food and beverage that’s on offer. At most places you can still get popcorn, of course. But your neighbor might be munching on a panini, drinking a boozy milkshake, or snacking on a dessert specially created to accompany the movie you’re about to see.

That’s not surprising. The percentage of theaters’ revenue attributable to concession sales has climbed steadily over the past few years, even as ticket sales have fallen. In 2016, AMC’s concessions sales crossed the $1 billion mark, up 12 percent from 2015 and 28 percent from 2014. In the same time period, ticket sales sank, with poorly reviewed films, ticket costs, and myriad at-home viewing options all contributing to the downturn.

Popcorn isn’t always king at the movies anymore. Rob Kim/Getty Images for Showtime

So concessions are an increasingly important part of the movie exhibition business, especially as experiments like MoviePass and movie ticket subscriptions change people’s viewing habits. How we watch movies on the big screen is changing, and along with it, the way we eat at the movies is changing, too. Customers want to customize their experience — not just the movies they see, but the food they eat while they’re seeing them.

And if that increased focus on concessions helps save the movie theater business from going under, it won’t be the first time.

In the 1930s, the movie theater business — once a booming industry — found itself on hard times, crippled by the Depression. People didn’t have money even for the relatively cheap form of entertainment they were peddling. Theaters started to close.

But one type of theater survived: the kind that sold concessions. Some owners of fancier, higher-class movie theaters banned food, considering it to be beneath their business. But it turned out that theaters that peddled things like popcorn and candy were the ones that survived the Depression.

This seems counterintuitive: Why were people spending more at the theater if money was tight? But those who could afford a ticket apparently liked the cheap snack, and the relatively low cost of the reigning king of the concession stand — popcorn — meant that theaters made a huge profit, which kept them afloat. By 1945, half of all popcorn in America was consumed in movie theaters.

The movie theater business has had its highs and lows since then, of course — and right now, it’s in one of its slower periods. Movie theater attendance in the US hit a 25-year low in 2017, a drop likely attributable to a few factors: the soaring price of movie tickets, poor turnout during the blockbuster summer season, and the ever-present threat of streaming entertainment services like Netflix, which provide an inexpensive alternative to the theater.

The Blue Startlite Mini Urban Drive-In in Miami offers some traditional concessions, with a twist. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

So it’s probably no surprise that movie theaters have been reinventing the ways they sell concessions, too — especially since they pocket about 85 cents on the dollar, at least for conventional concessions. Not every food item can be sold at the sort of markup that cheap-to-make popcorn brings in, but the profit margin is still enticing (particularly for theaters that add alcohol to their menus).

And that’s why, around the country, you can find independent theaters selling specialty cocktails and fancy snacks in the lobby; franchise chains like the Alamo Drafthouse cinemas, which serve up a full menu including alcohol during the meal; and even fancier fare at multiplex megachains like AMC and Regal, which in some locations are supplementing their standard popcorn and nachos routines with chicken and waffles, sliders, and paninis.

If you want to see how these trends are playing out — and interacting with the shifting ways people attend theaters — New York City is the perfect test lab. There are plenty of standard multiplex cinemas scattered around the city, but they cohabitate with a new crop of independent theaters and repertory houses that have lately made it feel like New York movie culture is entering a new golden age.

And as many of New York’s theaters tinker with the ways they sell food and drink to their customers, a few trends emerge. Cinemas are looking to larger, more complicated menus and innovating in the ways they use their spaces to not just feed patrons differently, but lure them into the theater itself.

I exchanged emails with a number of people who create, manage, and implement menus at both chains and independent cinemas around New York City. Most of them noted that while people have always enjoyed eating at the movies, something has shifted in the past decade or so: Theaters started thinking in new ways about what kinds of foods they could offer. Instead of sticking with the same traditional snack foods — popcorn, Junior Mints, Reese’s Pieces, Sour Patch Kids, fountain sodas — they’ve seen a huge expansion in what counts as movie food.

“‘Dinner and a movie’ has been the go-to date night for decades, but it is only recently that exhibitors really embraced the idea of being the ones offering the dinner,” Ken Gillich, who is the senior director of food and beverage at Reading International and oversees the concessions at theaters including New York’s Angelika and City Cinemas locations, some of which offer cafe-style food as well as more traditional in-cinema concessions.

At the Alamo Drafthouse, where the food options are served in the theater by waiters, salads and a vegan menu are available alongside more traditional fare. Jeff Mann, Alamo’s vice president for food and beverage, noted that their guests are looking for healthier options these days — though they “still like to indulge when they go out, so we offer comfort food, like milkshakes and scratch-made pizzas with homemade toppings.”

What about a gourmet pizza with your movie? Heather Leah Kennedy/Alamo Drafthouse

Both big multiplex chains and smaller independent theaters have widened their focus from snacks to full-on meals in recent years. AMC, for instance, launched its “Dine-In” brand about a decade ago, partly to compete with theaters like Alamo. In the past couple years, AMC theaters have also started offering upgraded concessions (like flatbread pizzas and sliders) and, in some locations, alcoholic beverages.

Some Regal Cinemas have also gotten in on the act, offering alcohol and fast-food staples like burgers and wings. This has resulted in a sizable profit bump for the chain as well, which helped smooth over the losses from plummeting ticket sales.

But while chains like AMC and Regal have been testing concepts and varying the menu in locations around the country, it’s independent cinemas that have the most room for innovation and the ability to cater to their local community. Ragtag Cinemas in Columbia, Missouri — which helps host the highly respected True/False Film Festival every March — has two theaters, one small theater with couches and one a bit larger with more traditional seating.

The theater is attached to a restaurant area that serves everything from banh mi and vegan baked goods to soup and kombucha, as well as a full bar with local and national beers and wines. Patrons can eat at the restaurants or on the patio, or bring their food and drink into the cinema. “It reminded me of a ‘larger’ home theater completed with couches … delicious snacks, food and drinks from Uprise Bakery on the way in, and human(!) announcer for upcoming shows. Hipster indeed!” one Yelp reviewer wrote.

Alamo Drafthouse is technically a chain, but its theaters around the country are franchises and are independently operated. So while the theaters have some common menu items, they vary their menus slightly from location to location, based partly on regional tastes.

In Woodbury, Minnesota, for instance, Mann says the newest Drafthouse location came up with a Juicy Lucy, a “cheeseburger with cheese inside the meat instead of on top, resulting in a melted core of cheese — it’s a Minnesota classic.” They also have an “amazing” cheese curd starter on the menu. In locations like Brooklyn and San Francisco, the company hires a local chef to innovate within the Drafthouse framework: About 80 percent of the menu remains consistent from market to market, while 20 percent changes based on the location.

Even movie theaters that still mostly focus on traditional popcorn-and-candy offerings have thrown in a bit of their own flair. The cinemas at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, for instance, which show both first-run theatrical releases and repertory films, offer brownies and cookies from a local bakery as well as ice cream bars. And cinemas such as IFC, Film Forum, and Lincoln Center’s Walter Reade Theater supplement their offerings with baked goods, fancy ice cream sandwiches, and other offerings.

When Manhattan’s Quad Cinema relaunched in 2007 under a new owner, it opted for the traditional route, too — “classic, but with a few luxurious flourishes,” as general manager Barbara G. Vásconez told me. The ubiquitous popcorn got an upgrade: “We did a lot of research on popcorn brands and wanted to choose one that tasted natural and fresh,” Vásconez said, noting that “the smell of freshly popped popcorn that hits you when you walk into the lobby is an essential part of the moviegoing experience.” (Both the Quad and IFC also pride themselves on using real butter on the popcorn.)

The Michelin-rated restaurant at the Metrograph cinema in New York City serves a full meal and bar menu outside the theater. Metrograph LLC

The Metrograph theater — which is probably the most self-consciously gourmand-focused of New York’s theaters, with high-end concessions and a Michelin-rated restaurant — launched in 2016 with the goal of reminding moviegoers of an older golden age of Hollywood, with a distinctly local twist.

“I wanted to activate the feelings that I had as a little kid falling in love with the movies as I went to theaters in New York when I was 8 or 9 or 10 years old,” Alexander Olch, Metrograph’s founder and president, said. Olch noted that the concessions in the theater’s lobby include specialty flavors of popcorn created in the theater’s kitchens, candy imported from Asia and Europe, and more. “It has become a place where people also like to get their picture taken,” he said.

This wide variety of offerings at various theaters all within a few miles of one another — from traditional concessions to full-out dining menus — wasn’t part of most people’s moviegoing experience just a decade ago. But now, it’s common, and the industry seems to keep innovating. And for many cinemas, the offerings aren’t just a way of bringing in revenue; they’re a way of branding a theater, bolstering its aesthetic, and signaling to customers what kind of moviegoing experience they’re about to have.

That said, in-cinema dining presents a special set of challenges, since the food has to play second fiddle to the movie — but can also enhance it. “There is something cool about finishing off a chimichanga while watching Deadpool on the big screen say, ‘It’s time to make the chimichangas,’” Alamo’s Gillich wrote. “Or eating green eggs and ham while watching The Grinch.”

Brooklyn’s Nitehawk cinema also creates specials for its first-run films. But that’s easier in some cases than others. “We know that films that have to do with a lot of food and drinks or anything ‘fun’ lends themselves to more eating and drinking,” Jess Giesenkirchen, director of operations at Nitehawk, said in an email. “Films with subtitles or anything on the darker side won’t.”

As a hat-tip to Eighth Grade this summer, Nitehawk drew on a scene in which two characters eat chicken nuggets with “all of the sauces,” with a rum-based cocktail called “Things That Look Like a Banana,” a sly nod to one of the movie’s funniest scenes. The indie drama Skate Kitchen, set on New York’s Lower East Side, got a bourbon-based “Skate or Die” cocktail and an everything bagel-spiced arepa with smoked salmon and cream cheese named “Losaida,” a Spanglish slang term for the Hispanic section of the Lower East Side.

The Alamo Drafthouse enlisted Kumail Nanjiani to devise a Pakistani-themed menu to accompany screenings of his film The Big Sick in 2017. Alamo Drafthouse/Heather Leah Kennedy

Themed in-cinema menus are part of Alamo’s business as well. “One of our most challenging and rewarding experiences was last summer with The Big Sick,” Mann wrote. “It’s not a movie specifically about food or cooking, but with the Pakistani culture and family meals playing such a large role in the film, it felt like a way to really enhance the film experience — and provide our guests a taste of something they’d never had before.”

So they got some help. “We reached out to the star and co-writer Kumail Nanjiani, who helped curate a menu of his Pakistani favorites, and these specials ran for over a month in theaters across the country,” Mann wrote. “They were really, really popular. And we got Kumail’s seal of approval.”

Other cinemas have elected to make their full-dining or bar offerings a separate experience from the movie-watching. That may seem like a familiar concept to people accustomed to going to the movies in a shopping mall and stopping by a food court, a Ruby Tuesday, or a Johnny Rockets beforehand.

But those restaurants aren’t directly associated with the theater. And cinemas around the country have been innovating in how they offer food outside the theater, too. In addition to Alamo, chains like Movie Tavern and Cinebistro offer food and drinks both in the theater and in the adjacent restaurant, depending on the location. Some restaurants even repurpose spaces that existed already — for instance, the St. Johns Theater & Pub in Portland, Oregon, was first built in 1905 for the World’s Fair; now they serve up food and drinks in the pub and show movies in the theater.

In New York, Metrograph has a cocktail bar in its first-floor lobby and a full restaurant on the second floor, both of which can be visited without buying a movie ticket. The restaurant, which Metrograph calls the Commissary, was inspired by old-school Hollywood commissaries on studio lots. The restaurant is also meant to be “a place that people come to work, to hang out, to drink, to have parties, without necessarily regard for what the showtimes are” — and then, maybe, decide to stick around for a movie.

The bar at the Quad is a place for patrons to hang out before or after a movie. Quad Cinema/Yekaterina Gyadu

A similar idea is behind the bar at the Quad, which serves up coffee, wine, and beer in a space adjacent to the theater’s lobby, Vásconez says the bar was intended to be a space for cinephiles to congregate before and after films. “Moviegoers could discuss and debate a film they just saw, and also engage in conversation that might inspire them to go see something they might not have otherwise,” she said.

But they’ve discovered that the bar has become a bit more. “While the majority of our patrons are film lovers on their way in or out of a screening, we have made plenty of cinephiles out of wandering barflies, due in no small part to our awesome bartenders who know as much about movies as they do about our rotating wine and beer offerings,” Vásconez said.

Having a separate, stand-alone space for eating and drinking at a cinema may seem only tangentially related to the moviegoing. But it’s interesting to note that both the Metrograph and the Quad say people sometimes come for the food, then decide to go to the movie. Certainly part of this is due to the foot-traffic patterns of New York City moviegoers — without having to drive to the movie theater and park the car, spur-of-the-moment decisions to see a film can come easily.

This was especially important in the heyday of MoviePass, when a person might have been more likely to decide to see an old, foreign, or obscure film since they didn’t pay the cost of the ticket. MoviePass seems to be headed for its demise, so this may change in the future.

Yet it seems likely that having people near a cinema as they eat, drink, and relax — particularly in cinemas that specialize in movies that aren’t being advertised widely on billboards or in trailers — may direct more people into the actual theater. That’s everyone’s end goal: to get people to buy tickets to the movies.

Whether cinemas have been tweaking their traditional offerings or going full upscale, it’s clear that the biggest factor has been thinking about how to distinguish the moviegoing experience at their establishment — and food and beverages play a big role. People want to customize their moviegoing experiences, and what they eat is part of that.

That matters, because cinemas are struggling once again with how to stay viable. This summer, theater attendance broke records, but the same period in 2017 saw the lowest attendance ever. The rise of MoviePass helped show that people really do want to go to the theater but that movie ticket costs are a hurdle for many.

A patron at Metrograph enjoys a drink before a movie. Metrograph LLC

Although adding even more ways to spend money may seem counterintuitive, it’s worked. And that has everything to do with why people go to the movie theater. In the age of streaming, for most people, a trip to the theater isn’t just an excuse to watch a movie. It’s an excursion, a night out, an event. The same, for many people, goes for eating out. So combining the two in ultimately complementary ways has been a success for businesses and customers alike.

Most people seem to agree, however, that while a snack or a meal or a cocktail is connected to the cinema experience, the primary focus is still getting people to see and enjoy what’s on offer on the big screen. (And that’s likely true even for those who sidle up to the bar at a place like Metrograph or the Quad.)

“Ultimately, we believe the movies should be the main attraction,” Wells said. “Everything else is there to enhance the experience of the film, not to distract or overshadow.”

Want more stories from The Goods by Vox? Sign up for our newsletter here.

Original Source -> Why movie theaters are trading popcorn and soda for chimichangas and custom cocktails

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes