Critics & Current Film 8/8: LORD OF WAR, ELEVATOR

I did miss "Matchstick Men" but if it's every bit as good as "The Grifters" then it's worth it.

Don't tout Jay Leno as a reliable movie critic -- he said on Wednesday night's show that this was the best film of the year: "Man on Fire."
There's a deluge of revenge films this year (including "Passion of the Christ" which takes it's revenge out on the moviegoer) and it's pulling in lukewarm reviews. I won't be trudging down to the cineplex for this one (already heard from my Hollywood buddies that it's unimaginative and for all the bravura violence, basically lifeless).

random question alert:

"Roger Ebert has the physique of a slave trader"

which movie related person said that?

Not sure -- who said it, beatoswald? Or, for that matter, what the hell is a "physique of a slave trader?"

it was vincent gallo. ebert descibed gallo's newest film 'the brown bunny' as the worst film he'd ever seen at the cannes film festival. gallo, whos a utter nutcase, verbal attacked in retribution calling ebert "a fat pig who has the physique of a slave trader". i think "physique of a slave trader" means basically out of shape but plays on the imagery of a over weight person sitting around (like a film critic) while slaves do all his manual work. gallo also claimed he hexed ebert's colon.

ebert, wittily replied "Yes, I am fat. But one day I will be thin, and Mr. Gallo will still be the director of The Brown Bunny."

That one I missed. A clever response by Mr. Ebert.
The few reviews that are in are not favorable.

A stunning new movie: Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring
I dont know if it is playing at very many places, it is only at one theatre near me, but it is certainly worth searching out. It is a Korean film, and is stunningly shot. It's plot is very simplistic, and akin to the story of Siddhartha. It is beautifully acted and very touching.
Here is a link:
http://64.4.48.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=6ab29f4c2e623e5ad3e8bed0e9b71b28&lat=1083634806&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2esonyclassics%2ecom%2fspring

Didn't Gallo get <literally> laughed out of Cannes for the Brown Bunny, and intone he would never return?

How bad could a movie be?

Know anything about it?

I liked Buffalo '66. I thought Gallo was on his way to something...quirky and successful.

<Now, I've got to see the Brown Bunny.>

Hi, singingintent -- when using "post reply" you can click on the URL button at the top and reduce your really long links to a short descriptive line.

Thanks for the link, though!~

I'm not sure "Brown Bunny" is getting any kind of distribution in the states but maybe it will show up on DVD. Hardly something Blockbuster would carry so NetFlix may be the only place to find it. Not sure it's worth it.

Yep. I read some reviews and a synopsis.

...and a weird interview with Gallo.

Don't think I'll look for it.

The first major critical responses to the first two big budget Summer (okay, late Spring -- Sprimmer?) blockbusters (?):


The Hollywood Reporter "Van Helsing" LINK
l
The Hollywood Report "Troy" LINK

"Van Helsing" looks like a typical special effects extravaganza with no real story or substance. I might ride a roller coaster more than once for the genuine thrill but I wonder if this isn't another Hollywood disposable entertainment.

"Troy" may only make money on the Brad Pitt factor. I agree with the critic about trying to duplicate the success of "Gladiator" and so much will depend on the production design (the best part of that film). As historical drama, well one has to consider that although the city of Troy was located that "The Iliad" is a likely mixture of myth and history (like the Bible) and films seldom get it right. Loved his comment about the battle scenes looking like Rugby pileups (not a good sign and that's what the previews look like). The CGI "artists" can sometimes really blow it.

I expect nothing from Van Helsing as it was made by the same dude who desecrated the whole Mummy legend with his absurd action flicks of last year and the year before. This is, sight unseen, schlock for thrill-crazed teen-agers, going agog at the special effects. As you say, Wizard, a roller-coaster ride tends to get boring after you've been up a few times.

I distrust most historical movies, even if they do star Brad Pitt. Gladiator was a fairly decent flick, but so many of the historic details, including visuals, were wayy wrong. And that movie covered a historical period that's fairly well documented. All we know about Troy is what Homer wrote, and 75 percent of that seems to be mythology.

Well, not a great coaster like the Ghost Rider which is near my house at Knott's and the most thrilling wooden coaster ride I've ever been on. I want to go right now. If the imagination is there and abstains mostly from being derivitive, I'm likely to appreciate the film. The previews already show that Sommers has seen the "Night on Bare Mountain" sequence in "Fantasia," already paid homage to by Spielberg in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." There's so much good fantasy out there. I hope Peter Jackson doesn't muck up "King Kong." It is true that audiences are becoming jaded with the CGI effects.

It seems they have more wiggle room with interpreting "The Iliad" than Roman history which is very well documented and attested to by histories written in other areas like Egypt. I did appreciate the architectural detail in "Gladiator" like the marvelous awning that circled the arena at the Colosseum.

I was disappointed in Big Fish. It wasn't really bad-- Just didn't meet expectations.

I think I'll save Van Helsing for a bored night rental. The first look I got enthused me, but the more I see the trailers, the less interested I am.

(However, I thought the special effects in Mummy were pretty good, though I didn't like the movie.)

Doesn't look like there'll be anything really fab this summer.

<sigh>

"Troy" did manage to break the 60% barrier for a "fresh" rating by the cream-of-the-crop film critics:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Troy-1132530/

Besides the Ebert 4-1/2 star review, the new Harry Potter is garnering extremely good reviews:


Review: 'Azkaban' top of the Potters
New film has magical sweep, magnetic performances

By Paul Clinton
CNN Reviewer
Friday, June 4, 2004 Posted: 10:53 AM EDT (1453 GMT)

Hermione (Emma Watson), Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and Ron (Rupert Grint) are back in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban."


(CNN) -- I'm just wild about Harry.

"Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban," the third in the series of movie adaptations of J.K. Rowling's wildly successful Harry Potter books, is an utter delight.

"Azkaban" leaps into a much darker universe while still retaining all the mystery, magic and charm of the first two movies. This is due, in large part, to the presence of a new creative force in the director's chair, Alfonso Cuaron.

BALANCE OF REVIEW

A nearly 90% favorable reading at Rotten Tomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/HarryPotterandthePrisonerofAzkaban-1132921/

I didn't run to the theater for the first two preferring to watch them at home on cable or DVD rental. I just might make it to the cineplex for this one (I'm addicted to the Century THX certified theaters near Disneyland).

The LA Times critic (can't remember his name) gave a mixed review on NPR's "Morning Edition" this a.m. He liked the movie, recommended it, but not without reservations. His main peeves seemed to be with what he considered overdone digital special effects and, in the matter of content, what he called gratuitious insertion of some stock series regular character who, he said, are getting pretty boring and unnecesary to the plot line. But, with all that criticism, he ended up saying it's the best of the Potter flicks so far. Praised the director, too.

I might find the same drawbacks he's talking about as some found drawbacks who were not fans of LOTR. I found the first two movies of Harry Potter to be a bit lightweight and the menacing suspense was about as thick as an ocean haze. This was may have some real scary suspense. I don't begrudge using CGI however if that is the only way to present fantastic creatures and impossible fantasy action.

A. O. Scott of the NYT whose reviews I have a great deal of respect for (ditto, Ebert) seems to say it all:

(Registration Required for link)

A.O.SCOTT REVIEW