Summer of Jan Brady

Poor, poor summer of 2010. You’re like the Jan Brady of summers; a complete disappointment to everyone. You don’t yet have a Marcia’s-nose-sized box office explosion like Dark Knight, Finding Nemo, or Transformers 2, nor do you have an adorable Cindy-indie (500) Days of Summer or Little Miss Sunshine. Even your two biggest hits so far, Iron Man 2 and Shrek Forever After, did not perform nearly as well as was hoped and were not met all too favorably by critics. Sex in the City 2 has people questioning if the sequel is dying, Robin Hood was considered a success because it didn’t bomb, and I feel like finishing the title MacGr___ would be like rubbing salt and vinegar chips in a wound.

Though, to be fair, I personally am not all too disappointed. Of the five successful summer films I listed, one of them is my whipping boy, one is a backup for the first, one I would hate if I could muster the energy, and two I’m lukewarm on (for those of you who don’t know and clearly this is your first entry, first off, hi, and secondly, in order, Dark Knight, (500) Days of Summer, Transformers 2, and Finding Nemo and Little Miss Sunshine). Last summer delivered hits like Star Trek and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. One was good, one wasn’t so good, neither were great, and I’d probably place Iron Man 2 in their ball park. Whether or not they grossed more does not mean that I had a better or worse summer. If millions of people saw Terminator Salvation but I didn’t, then it really has not effect on my film experience of the season.

Sure, last summer delivered some amazing films such as Inglourious Basterds, Up, and The Hurt Locker (I still contend that 2009 was a tremendously underrated year for film, especially within the last decade), but only Up would have been seen as characterizing the summer before Oscar season hit.

But I digress. The summer has just stared. Actually, despite the fact that former students of mine are posting “Done with high school” as their statuses and it is a sweltering, humid 95 degrees outside (or was when I started writing this entry), it is not even summer yet. So let’s take a look as I weigh in on some big films that the summer still has in store for us. NOTE: I’ll only be looking at bigger “summer” pictures. I also left out any I just had nothing interesting to say or that were too much of shooting fish in a barrel (see: Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore)

The Karate Kid (6/11) – starting off on a low note: I don’t care. It’s a remake of a movie for which I have no nostalgia anyway. I somehow do not see people who know or have seen the original being all that interested, nor do I think the karate/ninja craze holds this generation like it did for kids of the 90s. It will flop, and good thing because my hatred of Will Smith extends to his entire family’s acting career.

WILL I SEE IT: Take a guess

The A-Team (6/11) – AKA SWAT: Part Deux. Oh, by the way, I liked SWAT. It completely satisfied everything I needed from a blow-em-all-up film. Is it classic cinema? No, but it’s unfairly maligned. This film will probably be very similar and get similar critical/fan reception. And I forget how SWAT did at the box office, but it will do that.

WILL I SEE IT: Probably, but on a Tuesday, so it’s free.

Toy Story 3 (6/18) – I like the fact that Pixar is really starting to sell themselves on the fact that they will make grown men weep at their films. Is there anybody out there who thinks his or her eyes will stay dry throughout the film? Hell, do you think most people will make it past the opening few minutes? The only potential pitfall this film can make is that it will open just as Up did, but for some reason, I trust Pixar enough that they will do it so well that it will just work.

Now people are complaining that they fear this movie is a sign of a Pixar getting lazy. In most cases of sequels I would agree, but here I am not so sure. The Toy Story sequels seem to be pushing the envelope on the ideas of “The End” and “Happily Ever After.” The first film opened up the concept of being forgotten, only to shut it up again quickly and assure us everything would be okay. The second film reopens the box, and while it shuts it, we know that the box cannot stay closed forever and the best we can do is enjoy the time we have. This film seems to be going the next step. Andy is leaving the toys behind. Sure, they are going to find him, and sure Andy is a bit out of touch with reality (talking about how Woody is a brave toy), but ultimately, if I may echo Stinky Pete, can Andy really take all his toys to college?

A semi-happy solution may be found, but I feel it will be bittersweet. And with that, it adds a more foreboding “For Now” at the end of those prior ideas than any horror movie ever could.

WILL I SEE IT: Yes. And I’ll bring tissues.

Knight and Day (6/25) – What’s the appeal of this movie? Can someone let me know? Because people I respect keep talking about wanting to see this film, and personally, I think rewatching Letters to Juliet would be a better investment of my time.

WILL I SEE IT: Take a guess, part deux.

Twilight: Eclipse (7/2) – the marketing for this film is pretty brilliant actually, or it is if they are doing what I think they are doing. If you haven’t seen the theatrical trailer, it essentially is selling this movie as a Lord of the Rings-esque vampires vs. warewolves fight, instead of as another 2 hours of Bella-Edward-Jacob angst with a side of sparkles and shirtlessness. Why? Either A) the book is actually like that, B) they severely changed the story for the film, or, my guess, C) they already know that (generalization and gender stereotyping time!) every teenage girl is already going to see the movie even were the trailer a shot of a jar of mayonnaise for two and a half minutes. They therefore are trying to entice some guys to see it as well, by showing “Hey! It’s an awesome action movie!” It may not completely destroy the already-existing stigma, but it may work at least in turning it into a compromise for a date movie.

WILL I SEE IT: I see through your ploy marketers. Nope.

The Last Airbender (7/2) – originally, Avatar, then Avatar: The Last Airbender, then it lost the invitation to comparison all-together. The film looks incredibly average, but almost charmingly so, like an incredibly average film that was made in 2002 after The Matrix and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon craze and then got lost in the sands of Egypt for 8 years before being discovered by Heinrich Schliemann. Oh, and it’s directed by M. Night Shyamalan, who is clearly making an action, kid-orientated film as part of his penance for the past 10 years of his career, particularly The Happening. Zach Snyder is doing the same currently with the film where the owls fly around and shout “Oh no!” and that’s basically the 90 minutes.

WILL I SEE IT: Most likely not. The aforementioned charm can get me through 5 minutes. Then I have a movie to watch.

Despicable Me (7/9) – I am upset that “supervillainy jokes” are becoming passé. Thanks Dr. Horrible’s Sing-A-Long Blog (aka yet another reason NPH bugs me)! I fear that this movie may be the nail in the coffin of those jokes. And, unlike Zombieland with humor of the undead, the final note will not even be a deliciously triumphant one.

WILL I SEE IT: NO!

Predators (7/9) – yet another entry in the rebooted horror film genre. It joins the proud ranks of Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and now I’m even more excited to see what Scream 4 has to say about this trend. However, the really interesting aspect of this film is how I have heard nothing about it until glossing over summer movies on IMDB. I am always amazed how some seemingly big films have so little buzz around them.

WILL I SEE IT: No

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice (7/16) – this movie may win my “dumb but I gotta see it” prize. Plot looks standard and driven by special effects. Dialogue is probably exposition interspersed with typical summer movie attempts at wit. And, er, is there anything else in the film? No. But I gotta see it.

WILL I SEE IT: Yes, but again, on a Tuesday. I will not pay for this.

Inception (7/16) – A lot of people seem to think this movie will be the savior of cinema this summer. Of course, I think there will be a tug of war over people wanting Nolan to be the next great director and the fact that this film does not have a dead actor in it. At least not yet. Leo, I’d watch out if I were you. Hire a bodyguard and don't linger in front of exposed windows too much.

But, my typical thoughts on Dark Knight aside, let me talk about this film as impartially as I can. The trailer seems to present an interesting concept, even if it is not exactly clear as to what the concept is. But I think the film may have the wrong director, and not just because the last work I liked by him was Memento. I adore Quentin Tarantino, but I would never have picked him to direct Requiem for a Dream. Certain styles do not fit certain contents. Nolan goes for a more realistic, stark tone. This film is one about dreams. I fear that Nolan will cop out with dreams, and only go so far as to have water fill up a house or something hang in midair. The necessary surrealism will be forgotten and a phoned-in replacement will take the job for the purposes of story. Perhaps I have been watching too much Luis Bunuel, but I would prefer to see a director more attune to indulging in the unreal.

WILL I SEE IT: Ultimately, this film falls into Star Trek/Terminator Salvation status. If I’m bored on a Tuesday or if some friends are seeing it, I’ll go. But I can’t see myself in most cases going to the movies to buy a ticket. So it’s 50/50. I saw Star Trek, never saw Terminator Salvation.

The Expendables (8/13) – whereas A-Team is SWAT: Part Deux, I fear this blow-em-up may be Snakes on a Plane: Part Deux. It has a lot of hype and a lot of internet geek buzz, but ultimately, it is selling itself on being ridiculous. Just like Snakes on a Plane. And many people like to think that they enjoy bad or ridiculous films, when in fact, they really do not. And they certainly do not want to pay $12 for one when they could just download it or wait for DVD. It will deliver exactly what it promises (as did SoaP), but people will still be disappointed (because they never really wanted to see what was promised anyway) and it will flop.

WILL I SEE IT: Probably. Though I will have just relocated to LA, so that will be an issue. It’s a movie I would like to see, but will not rearrange my life to see.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (8/13) – Michael Cera backlash is so 2008. Seriously, you might as well be cheering for Hilary Clinton in the primaries whenever you unleash a Cera complaint. I'm officially declaring myself post Cera backlash. Which is very good since this movie looks hilarious and fun and even the trailers excite me and puts me in a good mood. It probably is actually the summer movie for which I’m most excited. Sure, it has a QuirkyIndieGirl but the film seems to really not care that much about her aside from being a MacGuffin and she actually seems relatively unquirky aside from her hair. Furthermore, in the anime-video-game setting of this world, that trait may actually be quite normal. Nobody thinks Sailor Mercury is actually punk, despite rocking her blue locks.

WILL I SEE IT: YES.

Okay, so the summer doesn’t look all that promising, but hey, there’s always beach reading. And summer beers. I think I’ll be okay.

The BAH!scars #8: Salute the Shorts

In a supreme act of nerdiness and/or unemployedness, today I watched all the shorts that were nominated for Oscars, both live and animated. A local Clearview was playing both and since I get two free tickets to Clearviews thanks to my Optimum account, I decided I might as well watch.

Watching shorts in a theater is a bit odd. You are both less cogniscent of time (since you’re following smaller story arcs) and more aware of time (since after each short you know that X amount of minutes have passed, as they tell you the length of each short beforehand). Overall though, it was an interesting, different experience and something I’d like to do next year as possible. Now, for my thoughts on the nominees (in order they showed them):

Short Film (Live Action)

“Kavi” — Gregg Helvey

This felt a bit like Slumdog Millionaire (abridged), though I probably preferred it to its chai-walling predecessor. Granted, there’s no gameshow and the kid doesn’t grow up, but there’s still the adorable young boy amidst that distinctly horrid poverty that only India can supply.
Thankfully, this time there’s no great tale of half-assed romance and a lack of fetishization on how exotic such Indian destitution looks. The movie hits a bit hard with its message, but at least it’s so blatant and honest about it, that I can’t fault it too much. Overall, this movie feels, well, exactly like a movie I would expect to be nominated for best short film (Live Action). This was also the first one they played and I was almost certain I was in for another ninety minutes of this. This film stands a great chance of winning though because of A) the coattails of Slumdog and B) it has such a nice, relevant Academic message and the whole Academy can feel like they made a difference.

Where I’d rank it: 3 of 5
Where it stands in chance of winning: 2 of 5.

“The New Tenants” — Joachim Back and Tivi Magnusson

I loved this short film/one-act play. I loved loved loved it. It occupies the same territory as In the Loop: it’s so rude, vulgar, well-written, odd, and untidy in its ending that I am still in shock that the Academy nominated it. I’d go again (though 15 minutes late to skip Kavi) just to see this film again. It’s funny, tense, surprising, and engrossing. I can’t remember the last time I found something that dark that funny (and because it got so dark). Furthermore, lo and behold: well-written gay characters! They exist!

Of course, this same adoration also comes with the price tag that this does not stand all that great of a chance of winning. It doesn’t stand a horrible chance (I’d be it just behind Miracle Fish…to the point where I almost had it in 3), but the two front-runners are indeed quite the front-runners.

Where I’d rank it: 1 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 4 of 5.

“Miracle Fish” — Luke Doolan and Drew Bailey

I just was not feeling this film. It was horribly slow (of course, where I say “drawn-out,” others say “Kurosawa”) and did not seem to have much of a point or pay-off. The child protagonist did not attract as much empathy as he required and I really did not see all that much of a reason to the final confrontation. But, it seems dark and brooding and contemplative and "hurray for child actors!", so I’m placing it at three for odds.



Where I’d rank it: 5 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 3 of 5.

“The Door” — Juanita Wilson and James Flynn

This film was beautifully done. The first minute or so, nearly every shot wowed me. The job remained strong throughout the rest of it. I would love to see the director and cinematographer work on a full-length film.

The script, however, was not the best. So, I’m tempted to say “SPOILER ALERT,” but I think this film would actually be better if you knew the twist at the onset of the it. But, if you want to see it as the filmmakers intended it, please skip down to the next entry.

I'm in the midst of post-apocalyptic exhaustion. Or at least, with very run of the mill stories of what happens after the end of the world as we know it. Yes, the apocalypse sucks. Yes, it shows a dissolution of society and your bonds are stripped down to a few people who truly matter/you can trust and something about materialism. I blame The Road. It felt so abysmally standard that I think it obliterated my ability to enjoy an entire genre. Or maybe, on a more positive level, Jasper Fforde’s own post-apocalyptic setting in his novel Shades of Grey was so odd, unique, and refreshing (his theory is that the end of the world will be very British and vanish in a poof of politeness) that I now find it difficult to buy into catastrophic works that take themselves so seriously.

So, this short film leads us down a, er, road where we first believe it’s a totalitarian, post-apocaltypic futuristic society. Then we flash back to an incident that seems increasingly Chernobylish. At the end, we discover it was about Chernobyl. I really don’t think the movie gained all that much from hiding such information. If anything, it got itself lost in an increasingly hackneyed genre before finding its way out.

But this film is both beautifully shot and has a nice important message. One is a good reason to choose it, another is an Academic one.

Where I’d rank it: 2 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 1 of 5.

“Instead of Abracadabra” — Patrik Eklund and Mathias Fjellström

This was mildly funny, mildly clever, but overall felt like a forgettable mini-indie film. This by all means is the winner of the “Littler Little Miss Juno Award.” Also, the “failing magician” joke is so much harder to make after Arrested Development. I’m not saying you can’t make that joke…but if you do, you have to realize it’s like writing a novel about a man in love with a 12-year-old girl…you have gargantuan clodhoppers to fill.

Where I’d rank it: 4 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 5 of 5.



Short Film (Animated)

Before I go into the nominees, I’m going to describe a few thoughts on the overall experience. Firstly, unlike the live action ones, these nominees also came with three “highly commended” short animated films. I’m guessing this was because of the fact that three of the nominees were six to eight minutes long and one of the longer two was for Mature Audiences only, so if you were a parent who came with children, you would’ve shelled out about 10 bucks for under an hour of viewing time. One of the shorts was the Pixar one that came before up ("Partly Cloudy"), the other two ("Runaway" and "The Kinematograph") were clear cases of “interesting but not great.” While I would have put "Partly Cloudy" in the running, the Academy actually chose wisely with the other two.

I noticed that all of the films were either wordless or in English. “French Roast,” “The Lady and the Reaper,” “Runaway,” and “Partly Cloudy” were all silent, which I appreciated. Such a choice really allowed for the emphasis of animation as a truly visual medium and also hearkened back to Chuck Jones's toons such as “One Froggy Evening” or the majority of “Rabbit of Seville.” I’m wondering if the other ones (as in, “The Kinematograph” and “Logorama”) were simply dubbed (since there would be more children in the audience) or if they were made for an English-speaking audience despite being made around the globe. I assume the former.

“French Roast” Fabrice O. Joubert

This film was cute. I literally have nothing else to say about it that deserves mention.



Wait, I was wrong. I did like how the “camera” was placed in pretty much one location/dealt with the window/reflection. That was interesting and nifty.

Okay, that’s it.

Where I’d rank it: 5 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 3 of 5.

“The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)” Javier Recio Gracia

This cartoon truly felt like the lovechild of Tex Avery and Chuck Jones. It had the craziness you can only get in a cartoon but tempered a bit by the higher concepts of animation to which Jones was partial. I mean, I can’t give this film higher praise than to say that it felt like it would belong in the good ol’ days when animated shorts preceded any movie.

However, the morbid nature of this film will probably be its undoing in voting time.

Where I’d rank it: 1 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 4 of 5.

“A Matter of Loaf and Death” Nick Park

This felt like standard “Wallace and Gromit” fare. Which is still very good. Okay, I’m going to attract some hate now. I like Wallace and Gromit. I really respect what it is and what it does…but I don’t love it. This case is not even one of “I don’t get the love/adoration.” I get it. I can’t even say I disagree with the logic behind it. But something in "Wallace and Gromit" doesn’t click as much with me as it does with others. I enjoyed this film, I found parts very clever and enjoyable, but overall it did not make too great of a lasting impression on me.

The namebrand nature of this short is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it is definitely the safe pick for those who do not know anything about animation. They at least know it’ll make a lot of people happy and no one will really denounce them for it (of course, no one really cares all much about this category anyway). On the other hand, it may have the Meryl-Streep curse. Wallace and Gromit are always in the public mind that voting for them does not seem all that special.

Where I’d rank it: 3 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 2 of 5.

“Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty” Nicky Phelan and Darragh O’Connell

This movie was delightfully odd. Even in the frantic category of animation, it stood out like a cellphone playing Monty Python's "Sperm Song" going off in the middle of a eulogy. I was guessing this film would go one way, and it sort of did, but in the way that one orders a cheese burger and gets a halfpounder triple stacked burger with four types of cheeses, bacon, and barbeque sauce. It took “fairy tale retelling” to a whole new level. Six minutes of insanity.

As for odds, this is one of those cases where I’m surprised it was even nominated.

Where I’d rank it: 2 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning:5 of 5.

“Logorama” Nicolas Schmerkin

There’s a part in Romeo and Juliet where one character keeps asking questions to a group of musicians. After each witty response, he exclaims “Pretty!” and “Pretty too!” Everything is very clever, an enjoyable little trinket that is nothing of real substance by the point in the play when corpses are beginning to pile up and the stars are really starting to cross.

I fear that my reaction to much of this short was “Pretty!...Pretty too!” Every use of a logo was clever and cute and enjoyable…but I felt an overall lack of substance. Now, were I to suspect that the overall message of this film was that, in the face of all this need for meaning, there is none and all you need is a bunch of “Pretty!”s, I’d be much impressed. However, I could not help but think that this was trying to make a point. And I worry that the majority of its point was a tired one about corporate America or globalization or the evils of the prevalence of marketing. It huffs and puffs with much gusto, but does not blow me over.

This movie has the pretentions and the buzz. Game, set, and match.

Where I’d rank it: 4 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 1 of 5.



I'm sorry. I know I promised a lighter entry for the BAH!scars. That'll come on Thursday.