Wonderful Christmastime

It's Christmas and it's my favorite time of year. Christmas decorations are everywhere, so is Christmas music, and on TV there are plenty of Christmas movies (some of them are actually good movies). Tonight I will continue a tradition of mine and watch It's a Wonderful Life, one of my essential Christmas movies. It may very well be, for me at least, the perfect Christmas movie. It's such a well established classic there's really not much I can say about it hasn't already been said. Dare I say it warms my heart, it really does. It's just not Christmas without my friend George Bailey and his friend Clarence.


And it's not Christmas for me without Love Actually which slipped it's way into my Christmas tradition only a few years ago. I have to admit I am partial to multi-story lined movies and romantic comedies so it may be only natural that I am very fond of this movie. The stories about different kinds of love amongst different people in London, with some help from a wonderful score by Craig Armstrong, are all very endearing (even the ones I don't care for). What I really like about this movie about so many different people in somewhat overlapping circles of friends, families, and coworkers is though there are scenes at the beginning and end with many of them in the same building there's no forced meeting of any of these different stories. There's about 3 different climaxes that happen more or less at the same time. They don't converge to be solved all at once, though there is that nice epilogue at Heathrow Airport. It may be sentimental and mushy but by then I won't care; I'm overwhelmed with good feelings from these characters that were inspired by the kindness and hope and love that really is all around at Christmas.

Christmas with Bing

Each year I look forward to spending the holidays with one of my favorite leading men, crooner/innkeeper/ex-G.I./priest Bing Crosby. He stars and sings in four of my favorite films to watch at Christmastime.

Holiday Inn (1942): Bing stars with Fred Astaire as former song and dance partners who have a nasty habit of chasing the same women. After Bing moves to Connecticut to open a themed boutique hotel which is only open on national holidays, a.k.a. "Holiday Inn," the two men reluctantly reunite. Though it takes place over the course of a year, with a musical number for each holiday, Holiday Inn really feels like a Christmas movie because it introduced the now-classic carol "White Christmas" by Irving Berlin.

White Christmas (1954): Bing and Danny Kaye play Army buddies turned successful entertainers who follow a sister act (Rosemary Clooney and Vera Ellen) to Vermont during an unseasonably warm winter. Vera Ellen is one of my favorite dancing ladies and when she teams with Danny Kaye for "The Best Things Happen While You're Dancing," it is pure joy.

And speaking of that song...it's interesting to see how differently "White Christmas" is treated in Holiday Inn and this film which shares its title. In Holiday Inn, the song is melancholy, sung by a man who is lonely at Christmas. Twelve years later, the song has become a standard. When it is performed by Bing and the rest of the cast (at the beginnning and at the finale) it's no longer a lament, but an expression of nostalgia.

Going My Way (1944) and The Bells of St. Mary's (1945): Bing portrays Father O'Malley, the newly arrived priest who shakes things up at a failing parish. The delightful Barry Fitzgerald plays an old-fashioned elder priest. In 1944, Going My Way was awarded Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director (Leo McCarey), Best Actor (Bing Crosby), Best Supporting Actor (Barry Fitzgerald), Best Song ("Swingin' on a Star"), as well as two other awards.

This film was so popular it warranted a sequel the next year, The Bells of St. Mary's. This time, liberal Father O'Malley finds himself butting heads with strict nun Ingrid Bergman (also an Oscar winner in 1944 for Gaslight) over how best to run the St. Mary's school.

Again, these films do not take place exclusively during the holidays; however, the "holiday spirit" is at the core of each one. The stories may seem corny to "modern" audiences, but I contend that if you can't enjoy these two sweet films then you have no heart.

AMC is showing Holiday Inn during December (check listings on http://www.amctv.com/) and a White Christmas marathon on Christmas Eve. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any scheduled showings of Going My Way or The Bells of St. Mary's this month. However, all four of these films are available on DVD.

Happy Holidays!

Gone With the Wind at 70

Yesterday marked the 70th anniversary of the premiere of Gone With the Wind. Earlier in the week, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Why We Give a Damn About Scarlett," which described the film's enduring popularity and the conflicted emotions it has inspired.

I must admit that my appreciation for this film grows upon each viewing. The first time I saw it was in elementary school; for some reason my classmates and I were required to watch it. It took two days. After the first day, I dreaded watching the second half of the film because I hated Scarlett. She was such a horrible brat, I couldn't understand why Rhett, Melanie, and the others kept hanging around her. After this viewing experience, I decided that I hated Gone With the Wind.

However, subsequent viewings have allowed me to see past the brattiness and appreciate Scarlett's full character, as well as the subtleties of the story. However, her single-minded pursuit of Ashley Wilkes continues to vex me, no matter how many times I've seen it. As the film apporaches the end of its running time, without fail I will start to think, "Surely she has gotten over this Ashley fixation by now." Then, she approaches him in the lumber office with that intense look in her eye and I have to exclaim, "Still?!" I suppose this reaction illustrates how powerfully the film draws in even the casual viewer. Despite a 4 hour running time, once I've started I find it hard not to watch the whole thing.

Will any films from 2009 be so well remembered 70 years from now? My personal experience has been that this was not a great year for the movies; and it certainly can't hold a candle to 1939, when Gone With the Wind as well as many other classics were released. The 2009 Golden Globe nominations were also announced this week, and just looking over the list of nominated films proves that this was a year of slim pickings. I hate to make lofty predictions, but I doubt we'll be celebrating the anniversary of It's Complicated in 70 years.

On other websites...

Here are some links to interesting recent articles about film...

From The Onion AV Club, their list of 50 best films of the last decade: http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-films-of-the-00s,35931/
I can't say I agree with every choice, but they also included a lot of films (foreign or small arthouse flicks) that I haven't had the chance to see. On the same site they have other "Best of the Decade" articles including the best bad movies, favorite scenes, and the best performances of the '00s.

For another take on the "best of the decade," a list of the best films from 1900-1910 courtesy of the Movie Morlocks blog on TCM.com: http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/12/08/the-decade-list-1900-1910/#more-16854.

And from Slate.com, an amusing article about how a shirt buttoned all the way up has become costuming shorthand for "special": http://www.slate.com/id/2237378/.
*Disclaimer: there is no mention of something being the best of the decade in this article.

Now is the winter of our discontent...

This opening line seems appropriate as I now have Richard III, starring Ian McKellan, in my possession while the weather reports warn of incoming snow storms. Perhaps I'll get snowed in, and then I can check this one off my Great Movies list (hopefully with little to no discontent).

I remember watching Siskel & Ebert review this film back in 1996. I think this was the first time I had heard of someone adapting one of Shakespeare's plays to another time period and setting. In this case, from the Middle Ages when Richard III lived (or the Elizabethan period in which Shakespeare wrote and staged the play) to an alternate England of the 1930s, one ruled by fascism.

Of course, the same year would bring Romeo + Juliet, directed by Baz Luhrmann and set in modern-day "Verona Beach." Though Shakespeare had never truly gone out of style, Luhrmann's film made The Bard suddenly hip. There followed a slew of film adaptations set in present day: 10 Things I Hate About You (based on The Taming of the Shrew) in 1999, then Michael Almereyda's Hamlet a year later, then O (Othello) and Scotland, Pa. (Macbeth) in 2001. (Incidentally, why was the exceedingly bland Julia Stiles cast as Kate, Desdemona, and Ophelia? Who anointed her as the leading interpreter of The Bard for an entire generation?)

Of course there was also A Midsummer Night's Dream, set in the Victorian era for no discernible reason except that it allowed the characters to ride bicycles and wear a lot of extra clothing, and Titus (Titus Andronicus), both from 1999. It seems wrong to call Titus, or anything directed by Julie Taymor, "traditional," but the fact that this film adaptation retained the play's historical setting would make it seem so. There was, too, Love's Labours Lost in 2000, which was also set in the 1930s, but this time with considerably fewer fascists and a lot more dance numbers.

I could keep listing films, but the simple fact is that while Shakespeare may not always be as hot as he was in the late 90s, his work will never grow stale as long as creative writers and directors find new ways to present them and to make them relevant to modern audiences. It's not always successful (She's the Man a.k.a. Twelfth Night for Teens), but sometimes you get something Great.

Read Ebert's "Great Movies" review of Richard III here.

Classic Movie Picks: December

Each month, I scour the Turner Classic Movies Now Playing guide for upcoming films that I can't miss. The highlights are posted here for your reading and viewing pleasure! (All listed times are Eastern Standard, check your local listings or TCM.com for actual air times in your area. Each day's schedule begins at 6:00 a.m.; if a film airs between midnight and 6 a.m. it is listed on the previous day's programming schedule.)

12/4: If you only know him as the director of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, then tonight's line-up is a lovely introduction to the wider filmography of Mike Newell. (My only complaint is that they aren't showing my favorite Newell film, Donnie Brasco, an excellent film about the mob, as told through the eyes of an undercover FBI agent. Bonus pick for December: rent Donnie Brasco!) Enchanted April (8:00 PM) and Four Weddings and a Funeral (10:00 PM) are charming glimpses of the British upper middle class during two very different time periods and Amazing Grace and Chuck (12:00 AM) is a somewhat forgotten movie from the end of the Cold War era with an intriguing premise - can a little league boycott serve as a catalyst for global nuclear disarmament?

12/6: All of Me (8:00 PM)
In January, I was repeatedly subjected to the trailer for The Pink Panther 2, starring Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin. Each time I saw that trailer I had two reactions: "Wow, this movie looks stupid," followed by, "I wish I was watching All of Me."

12/25-26: "Holmes for Christmas" (12/15, 8:00 PM - 12/26, 6:30 PM)
To coincide with the Christmas Day release of Sherlock Holmes, TCM presents a marathon of 17 Sherlock Holmes films. The evening of the 25th will provide a variety of interpretations of the Holmes mysteries, including the first two films starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Watson, respectively, Billy Wilder's The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, and the British Hammer Film Productions version of The Hound of the Baskervilles starring Peter Cushing as Holmes and Christopher Lee as Sir Henry Baskerville. The 26th offers a day of the definitive detecting duo of Rathbone and Bruce; their series of films from the 1940s will play in chronological order.

Throughout the month, TCM will be showing holiday-themed films. To find all scheduled showings, I suggest you go to TCM.com. Here are a few that I am looking forward to watching while sipping a mug of cocoa:
Fitzwilly - starring Dick Van Dyke as a butler who steals in order to keep his beloved, but clueless, mistress in the black. Also with Barbara Feldon and her hypnotically soothing voice.
Christmas in Connecticut - no, not the one directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is the original, with Barbara Stanwyck getting a lesson in how to flip pancakes and falling in love with the dreamy Dennis Morgan.
In the Good Old Summertime - I actually prefer this musical remake of The Shop Around the Corner, starring Judy Garland and Van Johnson, to the excellent original. I suppose I am a sucker for all the singing, dancing, and beautiful costumes, which are unfortunately absent from the older film. And despite the name, it can be considered a Christmas movie.
Meet Me in St. Louis - another Judy Garland musical in glorious Technicolor which has key sequences set during Christmas. This is the film which gave us the classic carol "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas."

Giving thanks for foxes, Ed Asner, and the fact we're not living in an Emmerich film

I've said it before, Roland Emmerich hates Earth.

If his filmography to date was not proof enough of this grudge, take a look at this still from his latest special effects showcase, 2012.

Yep, right there above the plane's wing, that cloud of smoke is giving us all the finger. As if the premise of the film weren't already a big-enough "F--- you" to the human race, he's actually flipping off the audience while they watch!

Ok, I need a palate cleanser.

Aww, those adorable scamps! I feel better already.

Now, I must confess that the blog will be taking a short hiatus. I promise it's not because we at Cinema Then and Now harbor an Emmerich-esque contempt for our audience. Rather, we are taking a holiday break and will return after the Thanksgiving weekend with classic film picks for December and other sure-to-be illuminating film commentary.

But, until then, here are some wonderful time-wasters!

Film clips from UP, one of my favorite films of 2009, courtesy of The New York Times, as well as trailers for 2012 and The Fantastic Mr. Fox. And if you haven't decided which film to see over the holiday weekend check out the NY Times Critic's Picks. Based soley on the photos above, I'm definitely planning a date with Mr. Fox and his friends.

The Great Ones

So, the other night I sat down to watch Vertigo for the first time. (I realize this calls into question my earlier claim about having seen most of Hitchcock's films, but I promise that I have! Vertigo was the only really famous film of Hitchcock's that I hadn't seen.) I was already familiar with the plot of the film, I even knew the characters' names, because Vertigo is one of those films often classified as "Great." The "Great" films are the ones in the canon, the ones that get dissected in college courses, the ones that always show up on the "ten best..." lists.

I started thinking, what other "greats" have I missed. First, I thought of the canonical films I had seen: Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey... I concluded I had seen most of the obvious titles, so I tried to think of the ones I hadn't seen that are also considered great. The titles that came to mind first were Bride of Frankenstein, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, and The Shining.

Of course, I have reasonable excuses for never watching these movies. Bride of Frankenstein, and Frankenstein for that matter, are so affliated with Halloween that they seem like seasonal films. I never feel like watching them until October, but by then they are checked out from the video store - because apparently everyone else has the same inclination. As for McCabe, well I'm not a big Julie Christie fan, so I've just never been motivated to see it. And The Shining is obviously far too scary for me to actually watch.

There are many places to find a list of great films. Some lists, like AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies or past winners of the Best Picture Academy Award, have slightly more credibility than others like IMDB's Top 250 . I decided to peruse Roger Ebert's The Great Movies because I thought there would be a variety of foreign and American films, as well as old and new films. I was pleased to see that out of the 315 movies on Ebert's list, I had seen 137. While that is a pretty respectable number, I still hadn't seen over half of the list.

It's not quite time for New Year's Resolutions, but I'm making one for 2010. Starting now and throughout next year, I will attempt to watch as many of The Great Movies as I can. Some will be easy - that Apocalypse Now DVD has been sitting on my bookcase for years. Others will be more difficult - I really don't want to watch El Topo. I think the real challenge will be choosing to rent Bergman's Winter Light (Great) when I actually feel like renting Cockfighter (non-Great). There may be almost 200 of Ebert's Greats left for me to choose from, but there are thousands of non-Greats begging to be watched, calling out to me with their Siren song.

New Film Festival for Classic Movie Lovers!

Exciting news for classic movie fans: Turner Classic Movies will host their first Classic Film Festival in Hollywood April 22-25, 2010!
No information yet on what films they'll be showing, but with historic venues like Grauman's Chinese and Egyptian theatres, almost any film would be worth watching.
Passes go on sale November 18. Hopefully there will be more programming information by then.
Needless to say, I have a deep interest in this festival. Can't wait to see more details!

http://www.tcm.com/festival.jsp

Classic Movie Picks: November

Each month, I scour the Turner Classic Movies Now Playing guide for upcoming films that I can't miss. The highlights are posted here for your reading and viewing pleasure!
(All listed times are Eastern Standard, check your local listings or TCM.com for actual air times in your area. Each day's schedule begins at 6:00 a.m.; if a film airs between midnight and 6 a.m. it is listed on the previous day's programming schedule.)

This month TCM is showing two of their original documentaries from 2009. First up is Johnny Mercer: The Dream's on Me, featuring archival footage and film clips tracing the career of the famous lyricist. The doc debuts on 11/4 followed by Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, for which Mercer wrote the lyrics; it replays on 11/18 in honor of Mercer's birthday, along with 24 hours of films containing his songs. On 11/14, TCM will replay the excellent 1939: Hollywood's Greatest Year, an original doc about that legendary year in film which produced Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, and many other beloved films.

Unofficially, TCM is also spotlighting Alfred Hitchcock this month. Catch thirteen Hitch classics, including all three collaborations with the ultimate "cool blonde" (and TCM Star of the Month) Grace Kelly.
11/2: Vertigo (8:00 PM), North by Northwest (10:15 PM)
11/7: Family Plot (10:00 AM)
11/9: Topaz (8:00 PM)
11/12: Dial M for Murder (8:00 PM), Rear Window (10:00 PM)
11/13: To Catch a Thief (8:00 AM)
11/14: Saboteur (8:00 PM)
11/16: Mr. and Mrs. Smith (4:15 PM)
11/23: The Man Who Knew Too Much [1934] (1:30 AM), Blackmail (3:00 AM), Jamaica Inn (4:30 AM)
11/26: To Catch a Thief (8:00 PM)
11/28: The Man Who Knew Too Much [1956] (2:00 PM)
11/30: Rear Window (2:15 AM)

Also this month:
11/7: Tonight's line-up highlights directorial debuts. I'm especially interested in The Duellists (1978) directed by Ridley Scott at 10 PM followed by Gumshoe (1971) directed by Stephen Frears.
11/15: Stay up late or wake up early to see A Matter of Life and Death (1947) at 4:00 AM. David Niven stars as an injured aviator who must argue before a heavenly court for the chance to go on living. Directors Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger bring a wonderful sense of fantasy and romance to this truly unique film.
11/20: An 11-film marathon dedicated to "society sleuth" The Falcon starts at 6:00 AM. The Falcon was first portrayed by the debonair George Sanders and the role was later taken over by Sanders's brother Tom Conway. The marathon includes 4 films starring Sanders and 7 starring Conway; however, they look and sound so alike that you may not notice the switch.

Horror Movie Month: The Supernatural

The movies that always scared me the most as a kid, and even now, were not about killers with knives and agendas, but the ones about things you cannot see, things that were not of this world—the supernatural. As a kid the things everyone told you weren’t real always felt like they could be real. Was there really a way to prove there wasn’t anything under the bed, or outside the window? How did you know for sure that the time you went into the house all the other kids said was haunted wouldn’t be the one time something out of this world really happened? There’s nothing there in the dark that isn’t there in the light, but how do you know? It’s too dark to see that.

In my search for good horror movies John Carpenter has come up more than a few times. He directed the original Halloween, which is, for my money, the best of the slasher sub-genre. But he has also made some very effective and spooky supernatural horror movies. In the Mouth of Madness is a movie I wanted to see but was too afraid of when it was released in 1994 and I was 9 years old. When I finally saw the movie, it gave me the creeps, but it a good way. In the Mouth of Madness is based on the works of H.P. Lovecraft though no specific work is credited. The story is about an insurance investigator John Trent, played by Sam Neill, who is hired to investigate the disappearance of the ultra popular horror novelist Sutter Cane. Sutter Cane is a combination of Steven King, Clive Barker, and, of course, H.P. Lovecraft. His macabre works seem to be driving people insane and the further Trent investigates he finds that things from Cane’s books appear to be real, and he appears to be a character in Cane’s latest book. The movie has a dated soundtrack and some obvious spooky music cues, but the visual effects, all practical as far as I can tell, are still realistic and effective. The movie plays on the line between reality and fiction, sanity and madness.

11 years after making a movie about a book that makes people insane, John Carpenter took on the next logical step, a movie about a movie that makes people insane, or rather a short film. John Carpenter's contribution to the short lived Showtime series Masters of Horror in 2005 is called Cigarette Burns. It's only an hour long, but it's a very spooky, creepy 60 minutes. In the movie, a young theater owner, who also finds prints of rare films, is hired by a wealthy, and creepy, film buff and collector to find a print of the rarest film in the world, "Le Fin Absolue du Monde." The rare few times that the film was shown all those who saw it when insane. It might be hard to find at the local video store, but if you are able to find a copy I highly recommend it for a great spooky night.

Of course there are a number of other sub-genres that fall into the category of the Supernatural, but I wanted to highlight these two particular films because I feel that they're largely unseen but very effective, well-made scary movies. Ghosts and demons are two other supernatural creatures featured in many movies. The best haunted house/ghost movie, in my opinion, is, of course, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. People will say, and I agree, that The Shinning isn't so scary as it is creepy, but that's all this movie needs to be. Rather than going for easy scares Kubrick sets a tone of dread and fear best exemplified in the scene that follows. Steven Spielberg said that in this scene if Kubrick had not used the point-of-view shot and instead had Jack Nicholson just appear over Shelly Duvall's shoulder, he'd have had people jumping out of their seats. But Kubrick used the point-of-view shot to created that feeling of impending danger. It's not meant to create mystery, we know that Danny is in their room, so it must be Jack. This shot means that her husband, whom she is trapped with in this hotel, is now a predator.

Horror Movie Month: The Slasher Film

“I didn’t mean to put an end to the sexual revolution, and for that I deeply apologize.”
-- John Carpenter, on Halloween

It’s hard to find praise for a subgenre that became such a crystallized formula in the 80’s and has since devolved into what has been dubbed “torture porn.” The formula is simple: a masked man (sometimes a woman) with a knife or bladed weapon kills young adults one by one until only the lead female character (whom pop culture has dubbed “The Virgin”) is left alive and she kills the slasher, or the male lead comes in saves her. From the plethora of films that simply followed this formula it became just a fact that the teenagers that did drugs and had sex were the ones to get killed and only the “good girl” would get to live. This led to these movies being likened to campy urban legends intended to keep teens away from premarital sex. But these 80’s slasher movies weren’t aiming for any kind of moral commentary; they just lifted the plot of Friday the 13th. In Friday the 13th Mrs. Voorhees is killing the counselors having sex and doing drugs because Jason drowned while the counselors were having sex and doing drugs. Her motivations make sense in the story of the movie. In Halloween Michael Myers is a psychopath obsessed with killing his sister; the other teens he kills were just doing what teens do- having sex and doing drugs.

Pop culture has also erroneously dubbed Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho the first slasher movie. I can only pretend to see links between Psycho and the slasher genre: the killer uses a knife, that’s it. Prototypes for the slasher movie come with Wes Craven’s The Last House on the Left (1972), Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), and Bob Clark’s Black Christmas (1974), all of which are good, effective movies, but it wasn’t until John Carpenter’s Halloween in 1978 that the slasher film as we know it came to be. Not only was Halloween the first real slasher movie but it may also be the only one of real quality. John Carpenter, rather than going for blood and effects, uses almost Hitchcockian techniques to set tone and atmosphere and build suspense.

The structure of Halloween was taken and used effectively, though on a campier level, a couple years later in Friday the 13th. That movie went more for shocks and thrills, but it did its own thing. That’s more than can be said for Sleepaway Camp; My Bloody Valentine; Silent Night, Deadly Night; Prom Night; He Knows You’re Alone; Happy Birthday to Me (which actually has a great final image and closing titles song); and the anti-slasher movie April Fool’s Day. Most of those have been remade and most were named after dates.

Slasher movies have since turned into geek shows like the Saw and Final Destination series where gore effects and gruesome scenes of horrendous violence are more pivotal than story or characters. As much as Eli Roth’s Hostel is reviled I believe it’s a well made film and has a story that unfolds, like a movie should. Unlike in the Saw franchise where the slim plot exists only to frame the scenes of torture and gore. Slasher movies have always walked a fine line between campy entertainment and exploitation, but in the last decade they've lacked such quality and merit that they can only be exploitation films. I think my friend Gene Siskel would agree.

I think the appeal of slasher movies is that for all the slicing and dicing at the end of the day the villain is just a person wearing a mask. If you get close enough to take the mask off you’ll find a flesh and blood person that can be killed just like anyone else. Even Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger can be killed, till the next movie anyway, and that, for what it’s worth, can be comforting.

For the completist...

I was browsing my local video store with AJ, looking for something Halloween-ish (i.e. featuring ghosts, vampires, pumpkins, etc. or just any "scary" or suspenseful movie). I don't really enjoy horror movies, so I was on the lookout for something that could be more correctly classified as a thriller. I walked along the wall devoted to famous directors until I came to the Alfred Hitchcock shelves. Aah, Hitch - the king of the thriller, this is exactly what I was looking for! But as I surveyed the selection, I realized I had already seen all of these films. And as much as I love Hitchcock, I wanted to use my precious rental money for a "new-to-me" movie. (By the way, we ended up with The Monster Squad-kind of lame, honestly; The Parallax View-kind of boring, unfortunately; and Death on the Nile, really good, surprisingly.)

I had a similar experience last month while looking over the schedule for a film series of Billy Wilder's comedies. Wilder is a favorite director of mine, and he is especially adept at comedy, so of course I was excited. However, I had seen all of the films in the series except one, Avanti!. (I finally saw it last night. This film has alluded me for years as it seems to play exclusively in the 3 a.m. timeslot on Turner Classic Movies and I can never seem to stay up that late).

I love old films. Since my appetite for cinema first blossomed when I was a teenager, I have been devouring the classics. And since I tend to be a completist, if I happen to like a certain director or actor I will seek out all their films. So maybe it was inevitable that eventually I would watch all of Billy Wilder's films. But I had always thought about my completism in terms of the chase and discovery, rather than the end of the journey. Now I realize that if I've seen all of Billy Wilder's films, I'll never see a "new" Billy Wilder film again - and that makes me a little sad. While I will always enjoy watching his films again (and again, and again), there's no longer any mystery lying behind the title or that wonderful feeling of what-happens-next.

So, maybe I'll put off watching Buddy, Buddy for a little bit longer...

Horror Movie Month: Intro

October is one of my favorite months. The weather begins to cool, the seasons are changing, and it’s time for Halloween, which means it’s time for scary movies. I am definitely a fan of horror movies; the problem with that is I like good horror movies and the great majority of horror films made today are schlock, dreck, geek shows, gore fests…etc. However, there are still several high points in the genre, past and present.

I think all horror films fall into 3 general categories: the Slasher movie, the Supernatural, and the Monster movie. Each week in October I’ll go over what I think are some of the highlights from each horror category and give my own thoughts on the genre as a whole. I’ll also name some titles I think are can’t miss movies for Halloween.

Ride the Movies!

I am not much of a Harry Potter fan, and certainly not a fanatic, so it surprised me when I became near giddy with excitement upon hearing that a Harry Potter theme park, The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, will open next year at Universal Studios Florida. I suppose my excitement comes from being a fan of the Harry Potter movies, but more so because now I’ll be able to enter a world that previously existed only on the screen.

For me, a great part of the thrill and excitement of visiting Disney World and Universal Studios came from seeing scenes and characters from cartoons and movies come to life. Baloo the bear isn’t just a cartoon, I got his autograph and took a picture with him. I could visit the world of Brer Rabbit at Splash Mountain, explore the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse, and at Disney’s MGM studios I could watch an Indiana Jones stunt show and go on the Great Movie Ride and ride through scenes from classic movies.

Disney’s MGM Studios was fun, but Universal Studios was a real thrill for me. I could ride in a DeLorean (the time traveling kind), be attacked by the shark from JAWS, be attacked by King Kong, see the Ghostbusters and the Blues Brothers, and visit a wonderful exhibit on Alfred Hitchcock. I was 10 years old the first time I visited these parks and 21 the last time was at either park and though childhood excitement about Mickey Mouse and Disney World had faded, I was still excited to be in an immersive world created from scenes from movies from my childhood.

As excited as I am for the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, it reminds me that my own childhood has long since ended. Harry Potter belongs to a different, younger generation and some of the rides and attractions from my generation are starting to fade. The Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse is now the Tarzan Treehouse, the Pirates of the Caribbean is still there but now it’s known because of the movie franchise. At Universal Studios; the Ghostbusters are around only as part of a ridiculous musical show with Beetlejuice, King Kong is gone, Alfred Hitchcock is gone (replaced by Shrek 4-D), and, my personal favorite, the Back to the Future Ride has been replaced by a Simpsons 3-D ride.

I’ll be excited to go inside Hogwarts but I don’t think I’ll feel the same way as when I walked through the giant wooden gates of Jurassic Park at Islands of Adventure. When I was a kid I fantasized about traveling through time in a DeLorean, and I was lucky enough for that to come true, as much as it could come true anyway. Now it's time for a new generation to get their childhood fantasies fulfilled, in the most realistic way possible. I'll be excited but they'll be thrilled.

Once Upon A Time...

Inglourious Basterds has been in theaters for about a month and the movie is still very much on my mind. I wonder if Quentin Tarantino had not included a disclaimer at the beginning of Inglourious Basterds declaring the movie “NOT based on/inspired by a true story/actual events” if anyone would’ve made such a big deal about the ending. We all know that unless those words “based on” or “inspired by” are tagged to movie that what we’re about to see is a made up story. But even when a fictional story is set against a historical event, we expect certain things to play out in a certain way. Perhaps what surprised us most of all about Inglourious Basterds was that we saw a fictional ending to a fictional film.

Tarantino has said (I’m paraphrasing) that he has never predestined his characters; the actions of the characters determine the plot. Following that logic, the final scenes of Inglourious Basterds make sense, in the world of the Inglourious Basterds. I think it’s important to remember that as much as Inglourious is a “violent revenge fantasy” it’s also about movies and people that love movies. The film itself is a movie that loves movies. Like always, Tarantino loads this film with subtle and obvious references to other movies. The character Shosanna owns a movie theater, she’s the object of a young Nazi war hero turned propaganda movie star’s affection, a German movie star is also spy for the Allies, British Lt. Hicox is chosen for a secret mission because he was a film critic before the war, and, of course, the ending centers around a movie premiere.

Even the Basterds are movie fans

Last year’s Valkyrie also concerned a plot to kill Hitler, except that one was based on a true story. It was a very reverent telling of a true event and as a thriller it’s a modest success. It’s hard to make a good thriller when everyone already knows how it will end. On the other end of the spectrum, I remember hearing that the makers of One Million Years B.C. were well aware that the title was inaccurate, as was the depiction of humans and dinosaurs coexisting, but the filmmakers figured that it was a just a movie, an entertainment not meant to be taken seriously.

A true cinephile like Tarantino wants to give us the most interesting and entertaining movie possible. He does this through long, almost drawn out, scenes to build tension, top-notch (and sometimes eccentric) acting, and, most important in a Tarantino movie, interesting characters that drive the story. It doesn’t matter if what we see is true or not because it’s all meant to be fun, enjoyed, and leave the audience satisfied.

R.I.P. Patrick Swayze

This Christmas, like always, I'll decorate a barstool, gather 'round, and sing one of my favorite holiday songs: "Let's Have a Patrick Swayze Christmas." Then I'll settle in with a DVD of Roadhouse because if Patrick Swayze has taught me anything, it's that a good action sequence does belong at Christmas.

I was going to write about something else this week, but I decided to comment on the unfortunate passing of Patrick Swayze. I'm sure that anything I have to say has already been written elsewhere, but I think he's someone who deserves to have nice things written about him. The outpouring of sentiment this week has had as much to do with Swayze's memorable moments on screen, as with the fact that off screen he seemed like a truly decent guy. He was married to the same woman for over 30 years, promoted dance (before it was cool again), and possessed a refreshing sense of humor about himself and his films.

Swayze is not my favorite actor, but he is someone whose films I simply enjoy watching - someone I am glad to spend a couple of hours with on a rainy day. There are a lot of talented and popular actors for whom I can't say the same. Though he had a sense of humor about his image, when he was on screen he was totally committed to each role and that makes him worth watching.

He played a lover (Ghost) and a fighter (Red Dawn), and occasionally something completely off the radar (Donnie Darko). I think that if he had been born a couple of decades earlier, he could have been a musical star at MGM. For some, Swayze is best remembered as the "sensitive man of action" he portrayed in films such as Roadhouse and Point Break. However, I'll always identify him first and foremost as Johnny Castle in Dirty Dancing. (I'm sure this is a gender and/or generational distinction since most women my age have had Dirty Dancing tattooed on their conciousness, whether wittingly or not!)

As a tribute to Swayze's talent, I'm going to recommend a couple of films I have not yet mentioned in this post: Three Wishes and To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, both from 1995. Neither of these films typecasts Swayze in the sensitive lover or sensitive fighter roles he was known for, but they are both quite charming and perfect for watching on a rainy day.

Roland Emmerich's grudge against Earth and other cinematic disasters

Roland Emmerich is intent on destroying Earth one way or another - be it global warming, alien invasion, or Mayan prophecy. The latest bit of evidence in my case against Emmerich is the trailer for his new film, 2012. In this trailer you can see that while Emmerich hates planet Earth in general, he reserves a particular hatred toward international landmarks.

The mid 1990s resurgence of the disaster film feels like it has never completely gone away, with Roland Emmerich carrying the torch. Of course, I can't really blame him - as CGI keeps getting better, the potential destruction keeps getting more awesome! Just witness the special effects test reel that is the 2012 trailer. However, even with John Cusack attempting to protect a couple of adorable moppets, the film seems pretty soulless and for that reason I'm not really inclined to go see 2012.

If you look back on the disaster film heyday of the 1970s, it is obvious that the evolution of special effects has fundamentally changed the genre. Without the non-stop explosions/tidal waves/disinegration of the Earth's crust, these older films could seem a bit boring to the modern viewer. Large casts of name actors, who each get their own story line, are what drive the films forward rather than visual effects. These films also tend to focus on one major "disaster" and its build-up and/or aftermath, such as the fire in The Towering Inferno (1974) or the capsized ship in The Poseidon Adventure (1972), instead of showing one catastrophe after another.

However, I would definitely recommend checking out some of the classics of the genre. Earthquake (1974) has a definite kitsch appeal, if not just for the chance to see Charlton Heston growl his way across Los Angeles (I believe "GODDAMMIT!" is the opening line of the film.). And, if you've ever been on the Universal Studios tram tour, you have experienced the 8.5 quake depicted in the film - a jolt of such magnitude, not even Heston's renegade cop could stop it!

The Cassandra Crossing (1976) is an interesting, though not completely successful, entry into the genre. The main problem is that the focus switches midway through the film from the threat of a deadly disease to the threat of a train accident. However, I would say it is worth seeing for its odd international cast, including Richard Harris, Sophia Loren, Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner, Martin Sheen, Alida Valli, and O.J. Simpson.

You can see the 2012 trailer here: http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/2012/

Slate.com did an entertaining slide show on disaster films throughout history and the preoccupation with destroying famous landmarks. It has some great video clips, including some impressive footage from the 1933 film Deluge.

Welcome to Cinema Then and Now

Welcome to Cinema Then and Now!

Though we may make film recommendations, our posts are not intended as film reviews. We have created this blog as an outlet for opinions, reactions, and thoughts on film, from classic cinema to current releases.