Predicting the winners at this Sunday's Oscars
RICHARD CROUSE AND STEVE GOW
METRO CANADA
March 05, 2010

Richard Crouse

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Mo’Nique (Precious)
I think this is as close to a ‘gimme’ as you are going to get this year.

BEST SUPPPORTING ACTOR: Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)
Again, this is a category where the winner is rather obvious. I love how Christopher Plummer says ‘I am happy to be nominated,’ but Christoph Waltz takes this one.

BEST ACTRESS: Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia) or Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
It’s a flip of the coin for me. I would like to see Meryl Streep win because I think she took Julia Child and turned her into an actual person rather than a caricature, but Sandra Bullock has been making amazing speeches. She took a movie that was deeply average and turned it into something that was Oscar-worthy.

BEST ACTOR: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
He is Hollywood royalty. He has put in an unbelievable performance that has thrown vanity out the window.

BEST DIRECTOR: Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
This is a race between the first two: James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow, and I think Kathryn Bigelow is going to take this one.

BEST PICTURE: Avatar
It has been living at the very centre of popular culture since it came out, and not only has it made billions of dollars, but it has also changed the way Hollywood is doing business now.

Steve Gow

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Mo’Nique (Precious)
She really is a fantastic character in this movie. Great villain, which Hollywood really loves.

BEST SUPPPORTING ACTOR: Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)
The only chance that he won’t get it is that maybe some of the voters out there are sort of thinking that everyone else is going to vote for him so they kind of pick a secondary person.

BEST ACTRESS: Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia) or Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
This is a really interesting category. Some might vote for Meryl, some for Sandra. And up the middle you might see someone like Carey Mulligan.

BEST ACTOR: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
(The Academy) loves these kinds of roles where you see the star acting outside their element and a little grungy.

BEST DIRECTOR: Katherine Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
I think voters really like that there is that ex-husband factor as well in James Cameron (he and Bigelow were married) … I think they really want to see her sort of beat him.

BEST PICTURE: Avatar
Maybe it is my heart here, but I kind of hope The Hurt Locker wins.

Defendor an undeniable, genre-busting good time
RICHARD CROUSE
METRO CANADA
February 19, 2010

In Defendor, Woody Harrelson plays a man whose rich inner life spills out into his real life. By day he is dead-end-job-Arthur, but by night he is Defendor, a masked superhero do-gooder.
His task? To clean up the streets of Hamilton, Ont. It sounds like the kind of thing we’ve seen before, but Canadian actor-turned-director Peter Stebbings puts a unique spin on Arthur’s story.

His goal is to infiltrate the lair of Captain Industry, the crime king-pin Defendor believes to be responsible for all of Hammer Town’s civic woes.
On his journey he befriends a drug addict with a heart of gold (Kat Dennings) and battles a corrupt cop (Elias Koteas).

On paper Woody Harrelson’s role looks unpromising. He’s a disillusioned man with mental health issues who sinks into a fantasy world to help deal with the pain of a troubled past.

We’ve seen this before, but Harrelson’s mix of sincerity and pathos in the reading of the character breathes life into a role that could easily have fallen into cliché.

He’s aided by a script—written by Stebbings—which gives him room to firmly establish the character, both as a superhero who believes guns are for cowards and as a real person who is tormented by his mother’s descent into a world of prostitution and drug abuse.

It’s a solid performance that provides an anchor for the entire movie.

Gritty and very funny, Defendor is a hard movie to categorize. It’s not exactly a comedy, nor is it a crime drama.

It’s somewhere in between. I’m not sure if that indefinable quality will make this a harder sell at the box office or not — people like to pigeonhole their movies — but for those willing to be go along for the ride, the movie is an enjoyably genre-busting good time.

Like its main character, Defendor is a bit delusional — it’s a low budget superhero flick going up against the Spidermans and Iron Men of the world — but like its main character, I like its spunk. 

Harrelson goes to battle with Captain Industry
RICHARD CROUSE
METRO CANADA
February 16, 2010

Just 24 hours before going into production on Defendor, a funny, genre-busting superhero movie, director Peter Stebbings got a mixed message from his star Woody Harrelson.

“Woody invited me to his place and said ‘I have never been more unsure about what I’m going to do on a movie as I am on Defendor, and I’ve never been as OK with that as I am on Defendor,’” says the director.  

Harrelson was prepping himself to play Arthur, an emotionally stunted man who, with the help of a homemade costume and makeshift weapons, embarks on a crime fighting spree to bring down his arch enemy, Captain Industry, in his hometown of Hamilton, Ont.

“My nerves were a jangle,” says Harrelson.

“I felt like I was out of my turf. It’s one of those things that you can study and look at it from a lot of angles, which I did, but that doesn’t mean you know what you’re doing on the day they say ‘Action!’”

Turns out the pre-game jitters were dispelled on the first day when Harrelson shot some of the film’s most difficult, emotional scenes — a series of psychological interviews opposite actress Sandra Oh.

“I’m glad it happened like that,” he says. “It pushed me. I didn’t know what I was doing but at the end of that day I told my buddy, ‘Rudy, I think I’m getting it.’”

Stebbings courted Harrelson for the part after seeing him in No Country for Old Men.

“I had two thoughts,” he says. “One: Where has he been? He took a six-year hiatus, and secondly, what a great jaw line. I thought he’s never been bad in anything he’s done and he’s always a sympathetic character so I was thrilled when he was excited to be a part of it.”

Despite his initial anxiety Harrelson is pleased with the result.

“I like the fact that Arthur is going after Captain Industry because, to me, I look at what’s wrong with the world and it’s the captains of industry — the greedy bastards who control the politicians.” 

A HARRISON FORD STORY FOR YOU: On January 14, 2010 Richard hosted a screening of Extraordinary Measures the new medical drama starring Harrison Ford, Brendan Fraser and Keri Russell. Backstage before the intro Ford jokes to Richard, "If you say nice things about me in the intro I'll say nice things about you." Richard nodded enthusiastically. "What would you like me to say?" Ford continued."Say whatever you want," Richard joked back, but if you can use the words 'brilliant' and 'beloved.'"

On stage Richard read the intro for Ford: "Our guest tonight is a master carpenter, a licensed pilot and ranked #1 in Empire magazine's "The Top 100 Movie Stars of All Time" list… his films have grossed approximately $5.65 billion worldwide… he has a species of Central American ant and spider named after him in honor of his conservation work (Peidole harrisonfordi) (Calponia Harrisonfordi)… but you know him better as CIA man Jack Ryan, as Indiana Jones, as Rick Deckard and Han Solo… tonight in Extraordinary Measures, a film he executive produces, he plays the gruff Dr. Robert Stonehill, a real life doctor who saved countless lives with his discovery of a treatment for Pompe disease… Would you help me welcome one of our favorite movie stars… Harrison Ford!"

Returning the favor Ford began his speech with, "Before I talk about my film I want to thank Richard for his 'brilliant' introduction... I know he is the most 'beloved' film critic in Canada... what he doesn't know about films ain't worth knowing..." then continued into his regular speech about film's ability to create a “common humanity” before wrapping things up with another joke about his "real" reason for making the film. “I’m in this," he said, "as always... for the money...” Awesome. Thanks Han Solo...

Hoodie hearthrob Michael Cera takes a step forward in Youth In Revolt
RICHARD CROUSE
METRO CANADA
January 08, 2010
Rating: ***1/2

Youth in Revolt is the new Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. It’s a film about the benefits of behaving badly and, like the famous 1986 John Hughes movie, it is headlined by an actor who brings charm and wit to the role of the rebel.

Hoodie heartthrob Michael Cera plays fourteen-year-old Nick Twisp, a mild mannered collection of raging hormones and quirky personality traits who loves Sinatra and foreign films.

When his family relocated to a Christian trailer park, he meets his dream girl, Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday), a similarly anachronistic teenager with a taste for anything French and a dream of being swept off her feet by a bad boy named Francois.

When circumstance steps in to keep them apart he (with the help of an imaginary friend named Francois Dillinger) reverses his goody-two-shoes image and becomes a rebel with a cause — he wants to impress her.

Cera has a corner on the awkward coming-of-age movie, and as Twisp he doesn’t do anything he didn’t do in Juno or Superbad, but he’s charming and easy to watch. His work takes on a different dimension, however, when he slips into alter ego mode.

As the mustachioed Francois, he’s a refugee from a Belmondo film, equipped with a cigarette, and too tight white trousers. It’s not often that an actor gets to show his range playing two characters in one film, but this is a step forward for Cera, who has been locked into the wisecracking virgin stereotype since he left the small screen’s Arrested Development, grew some peach fuzz and started chasing girls on the big screen.

Michael Cera nervous about bringing Youth in Revolt to silver screen
RICHARD CROUSE
METRO CANADA
January 06, 2010

In Youth in Revolt, Brampton, Ontario-born actor Michael Cera plays an anachronistic Frank Sinatra fan who falls for the anachronistic Jean-Paul Belmondo loving girl who lives next door at the trailer park.

When circumstance steps in to keep them apart he -- with the help of an imaginary friend named Francois Dillinger -- changes his life to be with her.

Cera admits the idea of having one of his favourite books pared down from 500 pages to a 90-minute script made him nervous, but he couldn’t resist the opportunity to sign on to the project.

“I just love the book,” he says. “It’s very cinematic and I thought the humour of the book would work very well on screen. That was the thought behind the movie; to capture the humour on screen.

“You can’t tell the whole story of the book because it is so huge, but the book exists for that reason. The book is its own enjoyment.”

His character, Nick Twisp, appealed to the actor because it had a ring of authenticity often missing from teen comedies.

“I love the voice of the character,” he said, “and it’s nice when you’re reading the book because you’re reading his journal, so you are really tapping right into his mind. It feels like you are feeling the thought process of the author. I connected with that.

“The character was real,” he said. “C.D. Payne wrote it really personally. It felt like he wrote it in his own voice. He wasn’t trying to write like a fourteen year old kid. He didn’t add in any false naiveté or didn’t try and sound less intelligent he was just writing and it was personal. I think that’s why people connect to things; when they feel personal.”    

Cera hopes audiences will relate to Youth in Revolt. “I hope maybe people will feel inspired,” he says. “That would be the best case scenario. That’s the best feeling I have walking out of the movies. That’s a hard thing to accomplish but it is special when it happens.”

Recession leaves only a small dent in Hollywood
RICHARD CROUSE
METRO CANADA
January 04, 2010

In a year when “bailout” and “layoff” became buzzwords in everyday conversation there was good news in Hollywood.  Attendance at US theatres actually increased by five percent and research firm OTX reported consumers ranked movie going as the best value for their entertainment dollar.

That’s the good news, but even though movie money doesn’t seem to be in short supply it isn’t business as usual in Tinsel Town. The average moviegoer, however, probably won’t see a difference.

“In the end I don’t think the consumers will notice the difference at all,” says MovieCityNews.com editor David Poland. “It’s gotten to the point that there are so many studio movies in any given week there is often a lost movie or two. Customers may find it a little less frustrating [next year] because there may be fewer titles being advertised and fewer titles that make them think ‘I wish I could have gone to that if it was still in the theatres three weeks after I first saw the ad.’”   

The business, however, is changing. The buzzwords of the biz is “risk displacement.”

“My sense isn't that lower budget or riskier movies will dry up; instead, I see the big budget and low budget films continuing, but the middle dropping out,” says Cameron Bailey, Co-Director, Toronto International Film Festival. “Paramount's recently announced start-up of an ultra low-budget digital division on the heels of Paranormal Activity is one sign. Avatar is another. What I think we'll see much less of is the $15-$40 million star-driven drama, the kind that wins awards.”

2009 confirmed Bailey’s theory. Among the victims of downsizing were the $30 million Cate Blanchett vehicle Indian Summer and a film adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear, starring Anthony Hopkins, Gwyneth Paltrow, Naomi Watts and Keira Knightley.

“I don't like that hollowing out sound I hear in the industry,” says Bailey, “and I hope it's just a stage in an ongoing evolution.”

Maple Pictures Co-President Brad Pelman has a more sanguine viewpoint.  “The economic conditions will be challenging for film makers to get their projects financed, but as can be expected, the cream will rise to the top, and the best projects will always stand out.  This year’s crop includes Precious and The Hurt Locker, two films Maple distributes in Canada. Our team will continue to focus on building relationships with film makers who clearly understand the end game of this business: entertaining the audience.”

SIDEBAR: MOVIES TO KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR IN 2010

Nightmare on Elm Street: Robert Englund is out but that’s OK, Watchmen’s creepy Jackie Earle Haley is in.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse:  The third part of the series and one of only two guaranteed hits of the year.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I: Harry, Ron, and Hermione star in the year’s other guaranteed hit, the penultimate Potter movie.

The Three Stooges: Not a biopic, ynuk, ynuk, ynuk, it’s a brand new Three Stooges comedy starring Jim Carrey, Sean Penn and Benicio Del Toro.

Grown Ups: Former SNLers Adam Sandler, Chris Rock and David Spade play reunited high school friends.

The Last Airbender: Slumdog Millionaire’s Dev Patel stars in this M. Night Shyamalan film based on the popular anime television series.

The Book of Eli: Based on the trailer this Denzel Washington movie will be the coolest action picture of 2010.

Alice in Wonderland: Tim Burton directs Johnny Depp in what should be the trippiest fairy tale of the year. 

Inception: “A contemporary sci-fi actioner set within the architecture of the mind” is Christopher Nolan’s description of his first post Dark Knight project. Cool.

Date Night: TV’s funniest actors, Steve Carell and Tina Fey, team-up for this story of a romantic night out gone wrong.

Doctor Parnassus more surrealist art than a traditional movie
RICHARD CROUSE
METRO CANADA
December 24, 2009

Director: Terry Gilliam
Stars: Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp
Classification: PG

As you may have guessed from the title, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is an odd movie. Directed by Terry Gilliam, it’s the strange tale of a mysterious immortal who complicates his life by making deals with the devil.

Complicating Gilliam’s life during production was the unexpected death of his star, Heath Ledger, but, the show, as they say, must go on and here we are after the untimely January 2008 passing of the young actor with a completed film. How did Gilliam finish the movie? A new credit, A Film from Heath Ledger and Friends tells the tale.

Three of Ledger’s buddies, Johnny Depp (seen dancing on a leaf!), Colin Farrell and Jude Law, stepped in to play “through the looking glass” versions of the late actor.

Set in present day London, the film begins with a look at Doctor Parnassus’ (Christopher Plummer) bizarre travelling show that offers people a chance to step through Dr. P’s magical mirror into an alternate reality. He’s selling imagination, but his gift of mind’s eye manipulation came with a heavy price.

Eons before, he made a trade with the devil (Tom Waits): Remarkable power in exchange for his first born daughter on her sixteenth birthday. That anniversary is now days away but with the help of a mysterious stranger named Tony (played by Ledger, Depp, Law and Farrell) and the magic mirror, Dr. P just may be able to save her.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is more a piece of surrealist art than a traditional movie. Imagine watching a Salvador Dali painting come to life and you’ll get the idea. Gilliam, who co-wrote the script as well as directed, has allowed his imagination to run riot.

While the story meanders to and fro he fills the screen with unforgettable images; Old Nick dangling Dr. P from the end of a branch or a multi-eyed hot air balloon shaped like a man’s head or the ensemble of skirt-wearing, dancing Bobbies. Visually, it’ll make your eyeballs do the Watusi.

The story, however, may leave some a bit baffled, but so what if it warps the brain a bit? The film oozes Gilliam’s trademarked anarchic spirit — he might be the only filmmaker who could replace his leading man with three other actors and actually pull it off — and is the most original movie of the year.

Terry Gilliam’s homage to Heath Ledger
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
December 18, 2009

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a flight of fancy that was very nearly grounded in mid production. The untimely death of star Heath Ledger in January 2008 almost put the brakes on the film until Terry Gilliam had an idea: Why not continue filming with three of the late actor’s friends taking his place?

“I just started calling friends of Heath,” Gilliam said. “It’s as simple as that. Johnny (Depp), Colin (Farrell) and Jude (Law) turned up. It was important that they were friends, because I wanted to keep it in the family. I wanted people who were close to him because, as Colin said when he was doing his part, he was channelling Heath part of the time, so Heath was very much still alive in some sense.

“I didn’t know whether this would work until I got back to London. We were working on autopilot. Working because that’s what we decided to do and we got back to London and I showed the first cut to the post-sound guy, who hadn’t been involved in the process, and he just assumed it was written that way. I thought, ‘It works.’”

Co-star Christopher Plummer says he thinks it works better than the original script.

“The audience needs to be rejuvenated at the eleventh hour and they are by the presence of the three guys,” he said. “I think Heath would have thoroughly approved of that and probably have been relieved not to go, ‘OK fellas, it’s time I had a break.’”

One of Heath’s co-stars, however, had a harder time accepting the loss and the replacements. Lily Cole says she cried on the first day of shooting without Ledger, but soon realized that by stepping in Depp, Farrell and Law were doing a “brave and lovely thing” to honor the late actor.

Gilliam agrees, viewing the finished film as homage to Ledger. A credit where the director’s name usually sits is a tribute to the late actor and the respect he earned.

“Contractually, it was supposed to be a Terry Gilliam Film,” he said. “That’s what the lawyers said, but I said, ‘No way it’s going to be that. It’s going to be a film from Heath Ledger and friends.’ The cast sat around one night and that idea came up and I said, ‘This is it. Perfect. That’s how we do it.’” 

Scrooge reborn ... again
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
November 04, 2009

IMDB lists 70 entries for the character Ebenezer Scrooge. Everyone from Jack Palance to Vanessa Williams (her character was called Ebony Scrooge) have “bah humbugged” their way through the role.

This weekend Jim Carrey joins that list in a big budget Disney motion capture version of A Christmas Carol. But why have the character and the story of the man who hated Christmas stayed popular since Charles Dickens penned it 166 years ago?

The first reason may have appealed to old Scrooge’s frugal nature. The story is in public domain, meaning there are no pesky payments to the Dickens family for using the character, but to be made (the first film came in 1901) remade (21 times on film and dozens more made for TV) then turned on its head and remade again and again, there must be something else about the story’s humbuggery that resonates with viewers.  The Life and Times of Ebenezer Scrooge author Paul Davis says the story is one of those rarities that is so familiar it’s almost part of our collective DNA.

“My acquaintance with Scrooge seems preliterate,” he wrote, “different from my sense of ... Dr. Doolittle or Robinson Crusoe. I remember when I first met the Hardy Boys, but I feel as though I’ve always known Scrooge and Tiny Tim.”

Some scholars think the story’s ability to seem current, no matter when it is restaged, is a major selling point.  

“What it all boils down to is that A Christmas Carol is that rare and precious thing, a story for the ages,” said the Washington Post’s Jonathan Yardley, “like other such stories — the Bible ... the plays of Shakespeare — becomes a distinct and different entity in each age.”

Perhaps these days of  economic uncertainty have given the story a timely slant as Scrooge’s penny-pinching ways could be seen as something to be emulated. The bottom line, however, may be the simplest explanation of all; A Christmas Carol is a tale of redemption that confirms the fundamental spiritual nature of Christmas itself. In other words, it makes us feel good.

Horror Top Ten - Richard Crouse
From The Horror Blog

Canadian film critic Richard Crouse seems to have his hands full with regular gigs in mainstream television, radio and print journalism, yet still manages to find the time to indulge in his lifelong passion for cult cinema. His most recent tome is The Son of the 100 Best Movies You’ve Never Seen, a follow-up to The 100 Best Movies You’ve Never Seen, both of them containing a heavy amount of the macabre.

Making up a list like this is tough. I’m sure I’ll remember a classic or two that I should have included after I hit the send button, but, off the top of my head, here are my faves…

1. The Exorcist 1973, Directed by William Friedkin. The single scariest night at the movies this ten year old ever experienced.
2. Let the Right One In 2008, Directed by Tomas Alfredson. A vampire film without a castle, a cape or coffin. Loved it.
3. Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein 1948, Directed by Charles Barton. Perfect mix of corny laughs and scary stuff.
4. Ginger Snaps 2000, Directed by John Fawcett. Great reinvention of the werewolf myth.
5. Frankenstein 1931, Directed by James Whale. For my money the best of the classic Universal monster movies.
6. Dawn of the Dead 1978, Directed by George A. Romero. Probably the greatest zombie flick ever.
7. Rosemary’s Baby 1968, Directed by Roman Polanski. Evil atmosphere you could cut with a knife.
8. Psycho 1960, Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. I still get creeped out in the shower.
9. May 2002, Directed by Lucky McKee. Really underrated horror film that deserves to be better known than it is.
10. The Host 2006, Directed by Joon-ho Bong. Big bug movies don’t get much better than this.

More than just hair
Click here to find out more!
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
October 15, 2009

Tomorrow comedian Chris Rock adds a new entry on his resume: Documentary filmmaker.

After a career spent making people laugh, in Good Hair, Rock is tackling a subject that sounds light hearted, but has deeper roots — the relationship African-American women have with their hair.

“When people first heard I was doing it they kind of thought it was going to be frivolous,” he says. “They thought it would be some version of Punk’d where I exposed people for not having their own hair or whatever and they see the movie and they are surprised.”

Surprised perhaps that Rock uses the subject of a cultural obsession with hair as a starting point to address larger issues.

“It’s hair,” he says. “It’s self esteem. It’s race. It’s how we look at ourselves. It’s the beauty industry. It’s a black movie. It’s a white movie. It’s an American movie. It’s a world movie. It’s a really gay movie. It’s a lot of movie.”

Rock’s formal foray into the culture of hair was inspired by a question his daughter asked — “Daddy, how come I don’t have good hair?”— but he had his own experience with toxic hair relaxers years before.

“I’ve had my hair relaxed and it burned,” he said. “It feels like having your head set on fire. I stopped when I got Lethal Weapon. It was literally like, ‘I got a million dollars and burning my scalp ... that is not being rich.’ I dreaded it. I thought if I can’t make money without doing this then I’m just not going to make any money.”

He has, of course, made money without sacrificing his scalp.

His career is thriving — he has two features coming out next year, including Grown Ups opposite his old SNL partner Adam Sandler — and, he says, Good Hair may not be his last documentary.

“I just have to find the right topic,” he says. “You can’t just do it because you have a slot. ‘OK, it’s been a year!’ That doesn’t work for me. This one was really from my heart.

“I’m not gonna get rich off of this, but this really, really came from heart.”

Movies give thanks
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
October 07, 2009

If aliens learned about Thanksgiving from movies and television, they’d get a skewed idea of what the day is all about. In real life we express our gratitude for life’s bounty, but on screen it’s a different story.

“Thanksgiving is an emotional holiday,” joked Johnny Carson. “People travel thousands of miles to be with people they only see once a year and then discover once a year is way too often.”

Being less than thankful for family is a common theme in entertainment. The House of Yes saw queen of quirk Parker Posey ruin Thanksgiving when her favourite brother brings home his fiancée, and in Pieces of April a pre-Cruisized Katie Holmes not only has to deal with a broken stove but a broken family as well.

Home for the Holidays has a heart warming title that promises sweetness and light but director Jody Foster’s Thanksgiving tale is anything but an ode to the holiday. It’s the family reunion from hell for the Larson family, culminating in fist fights and emotional distress. The film’s tone is summed up by Robert Downey Jr. who invites everyone to the dinner table with the words, “Let’s eat dead bird!”

The Larsons didn’t gel on Turkey Day, but as James D. Turner remarked in Trading Places, “It ain’t cool being no jive turkey so close to Thanksgiving,” so I dug deeper for examples of film families enjoying the holiday.

No luck.

The Ice Storm’s backdrop of ’70s suburban ennui sets the tone for a tragic climax on Thanksgiving Day and Christina Ricci’s acidic prayer. “Dear Lord,” she says, “thank you for this Thanksgiving holiday. And for letting us white people kill all the Indians and steal their tribal lands. And stuff ourselves like pigs, even though children in Asia are being napalmed.”

Cheery stuff! But not as grim as the Thanksgiving horror trailer from Grindhouse. “White meat, dark meat,” cackles the announcer. “All will be carved.”

At least Planes, Trains and Automobiles, about odd couple Steve Martin and John Candy trying to get home for Thanksgiving, is jammed packed with laughs, even if Martin isn’t the most thankful man.

Also grin worthy is Hannah and Her Sisters, the Woody Allen film book ended by Central Park West Thanksgiving dinners.

If Thanksgiving really was like it is in the movies the only thing we’d be giving thanks for is that it only comes around once a year.

70 years on, back to Oz in Blu Ray
Original Munchkins celebrate release
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
September 29, 2009

“We always say the age range for The Wizard of Oz is from fetal to fatal,” jokes Oz expert John Fricke. It’s a funny line, but there is a ring of truth to it.

The movie, whose birthday is being commemorated by the lovingly restored Wizard of Oz: 70th Anniversary Ultimate Collector’s Edition Blu Ray, is beloved by old and young. For the surviving cast members the appeal is easy to define.

“Everybody can enjoy it,” says Karl Slover, age 91, who was just two feet tall when he played the first trumpeter. “There’s no filthy language in it. I don’t see no bikinis! No nudist colonies! Kids can watch it and parents don’t have to worry because there’s nothing bad in there.”

Slover is one of just six actors left of the 124 “little people” assembled to play the Munchkins in the film. He had some previous film experience but not all the actors were Hollywood regulars.

“I was in the movie because I was the right size and that’s all they wanted,” says Villager Munchkin Ruth Duccini, age 91, who adds that she can’t sing or dance very well.

“I grew up in a small town in Minnesota and I didn’t know there were other little people.” But once she got on set she found she wasn’t alone. “I remember all the little people and that was so great; 123 people that you could stand and talk to without talking to a bellybutton.”

Ruth adds that star Judy Garland was just as excited about having all little people in one place as she was and Munchkin Flowerpot Hat dancer Margaret Pellegrini (age 86) says Garland treated all the Munchkins to candy and a keepsake at Christmas.

“On Christmas Eve morning when she came to work she opened the door to her (dressing room) and there she had a whole stack of black and white pictures and she invited each and every one of us in and gave each a picture. Mine says ‘To Margaret from your pal Judy.’ I still have it.”

Garland’s daughter Lorna Luft says her mom loved working on The Wizard of Oz. “This movie was special for her. She told me the hardest thing about the film was being afraid of (Wicked Witch) Margaret Hamilton because she was very sweet. She also told me that unfortunately the dog had the worst breath.”

A tribute to Heath
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
September 17, 2009

The TIFF film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is destined to become best known as Heath Ledger’s last movie.

The young actor passed away midway through production, but rather than scrap the film, director Terry Gilliam pressed on, replacing the Aussie actor with three famous faces.

“I just started calling friends of Heath,” Gilliam said. “It’s as simple as that. Johnny (Depp), Colin (Farrell) and Jude (Law) turned up. It was important that they were friends, because I wanted to keep it in the family. I wanted people who were close to him because, as Colin said when he was doing his part, he was channelling Heath part of the time, so Heath was very much still alive in some sense.

“I didn’t know whether this would work until I got back to London. We were working on autopilot. Working because that’s what we decided to do and we got back to London and I showed the first cut to the post-sound guy, who hadn’t been involved in the process, and he just assumed it was written that way. I thought, ‘It works.’”

It works not because Gilliam changed the script, but because of a quirk of the original story — a mirror that acts as an entry to a magical world of imagination.

“Nothing was changed from the original script after Heath died,” he said. “It was that lucky element of a magic mirror. Once you decide that faces could change as you go through the mirror, we were free. I’m simplifying it, but that’s effectively what happened. There was some kind of movie god, and the problem with gods is that they’re both evil and wondrous. There was one that got it made and one that punished us.”

Gilliam sees the finished film as a tribute to Heath, both as an actor and a man with many friends who stepped in to complete the film. A credit where the director’s name usually sits is a tribute to the late actor and the respect he earned.

“Contractually, it was supposed to be a Terry Gilliam Film,” he said. “That’s what the lawyers said, but I said, ‘No way it’s going to be that. It’s going to be a film from Heath Ledger and friends.’ The cast sat around one night and that idea came up and I said, ‘This is it. Perfect. That’s how we do it.’”

Cera hopes Revolt will be inspiring
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
September 16, 2009

Hoodie heartthrob Michael Cera doesn’t know who Jack Benny is. When I mention that Cera’s style puts me in the mind of Benny’s trademarked deadpan comedy the Brampton-born actor says, politely, “I’ve never gotten too familiar with Jack Benny.”

After a description of Benny’s low-key approach to selling a joke, Cera chimes in, “That’s such a secret in comedy. Charles Grodin is such an inspiration to me because he is so small, and yet you see everything he does. It’s really perfect and just enough.”  

In Youth in Revolt, his third TIFF film (he was here with Juno in ’07, and with Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist in ’08), Cera again displays his knack for subtle, gentle humour. He plays an anachronistic Sinatra-loving teenager who falls for the anachronistic Belmondo-loving girl who lives next door. When circumstance steps in to keep them apart, he changes his life to be with her.

For Cera the movie is a passion project.

“I just love the book,” he says. “It’s very cinematic and I thought the humour of the book would work very well on screen. That was the thought behind the movie; to capture the humour on screen. You can’t tell the whole story of the book because it is so huge, but the book exists for that reason. The book is its own enjoyment.”

His character, Nick Twisp, appealed to Cera because it had a ring of authenticity often missing from teen comedies.

“The character was real,” he said. “C.D. Payne wrote it really personally. It felt like he wrote it in his own voice. He wasn’t trying to write like a 14-year-old kid. He didn’t add in any false naiveté or didn’t try and sound less intelligent; he was just writing and it was personal. I think that’s why people connect to things; when they feel personal.”   

Cera hopes audiences will connect with Youth in Revolt. “I hope maybe people will feel inspired,” he says. “That would be the best-case scenario ... That’s a hard thing to accomplish but it is special when it happens.”

Seyfried’s dual roles
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
September 15, 2009

Since shooting her breakout performance in Mama Mia! in Greece, 24-year-old actress Amanda Seyfried has spent a lot of time in Canada.

Her two TIFF films this year were both shot in Maple Leaf land, but on opposite ends of the country. Jennifer’s Body was lensed in Vancouver and Chloe, her film with director Atom Egoyan, in Toronto.

“We actually got to use Toronto as a real setting,” she said. “You don’t normally get to do that because you’re usually using it to cover for another town or masking it as a made up town.

“(Using Toronto as Toronto) makes everything feel more real. It’s difficult for anything to seem completely authentic when you’re on a movie set but this is as real as it has ever gotten for me.”

In Chloe, Seyfried plays an escort hired by Catherine (Julianne Moore) to test her husband’s (Liam Neeson) fidelity. It’s her first real adult role and one that proves she’s capable of more than teen musicals or comedies.

She credits working with Egoyan with pushing her to deepen the character by exploring every facet of Chloe’s life.

“I’ve never worked with anyone who has discussed the character so in-depth with me,” she says. “Atom would reiterate things to me with different descriptions and with a twist from what he had said last time. Every time we’d go for dinner or have lunch or sit down for coffee the first thing he would go to was, ‘I was thinking that Chloe would do this or that.’

“It was almost completely overwhelming in the beginning but he couldn’t have said less because I don’t think I would have captured it otherwise.”

Chloe is a complicated character with many notes to her personality but with Egoyan’s help Seyfried brings her vividly to life on screen.

“It’s a broad spectrum of emotions the audience feels about her,” she says, “and in order to make the audience feel that way you have to play it right and in order for me to pay it right I had to have Atom Egoyan.

In order for a movie like this to work you have to have someone like Atom Egoyan and there aren’t many people out there like him.

“Mr. Egoyan is a genius and he’s what good filmmaking is all about. I know it’s going to be difficult for me to choose my next project based on what I just went through with him. It has raised the bar into a very high place.”

Brown ‘changed me’: Caine
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
September 15, 2009

In the TIFF film Harry Brown, Michael Caine plays a widowed man who strikes back at the hoodlums who have terrorizing his community. It’s close to a British take on Gran Torino, but don’t suggest to Sir Michael that it’s Death Wish U.K.

“It’s not like that at all,” he said. “It’s a complete work on its own. It was made by a young director named Daniel Barber. The first film of his I saw was The Tonto Woman, which got an Academy Award nomination for best short film. I liked it. It was a western and this is kind of like a western. It’s Gary Cooper in High Noon.”

So you could call it a Teabag Western if you like, but instead of being set on the wide open plain, the action in Harry Brown takes place in the decidedly more urban terrain of the Elephant and Castle section of London, an area Caine knows well.

“I always said I come from the slums,” he said of the E&C neighbourhood where he was born, “and I do, but when I went back I didn’t realize how lucky I was. Because when we were shooting late at night, I’d talk to the neighbourhood boys, ... I realized was I was quite lucky because I had two thing they didn’t have: I had a happy family life and I got an education. So I had two valuable things they didn’t have, and one thing they did have that I didn’t. That was drugs.”

Caine blames drugs for the rise in hoodlum culture that Harry Brown portrays. “In the end,” he says, “they wipe out all feeling for the other person.”

But despite strong feelings on the subject, Caine believes making Harry Brown taught him something.

“This movie changed me,” he said “in as much as I started out thinking, ‘Let’s go out and make a movie about killing all these scumbags,’ and then I met these people and realized they were helpless just as much as the victims and they had been neglected and they need help.”

It’s been a long time since Caine lived in Elephant and Castle. After six decades of making films, he’s a film icon, which, true to his humble roots, is a title he has trouble accepting.

“There’s not a special icon bar where you go, meet up and learn what to do,” he says. “I just consider myself lucky.” 

Q: How does one get their non-celebrity, non-media behind into a (good) TIFF film?

Richard: It helps if you strongly resemble someone famous. A few years ago a Bono look-a-like talked his way into screenings and parties and it wasn’t until much later that everyone realized he was an imposter. If you are not genetically blessed enough to look like Brad Pitt, however, you have to plan in advance and be prepared to stand in lines.

Q: So then what should we wear to the premiere (men and women)?

Richard: For men, a tuxedo. What, were you raised in a barn or something? For women, go on-line and see what Lindsay Lohan is wearing, then dress completely the opposite.

Q: What sort of persona should one adopt to make one self appear cooler and far wittier than they actually are?

Richard: Mine. It’s worked very well for me for years. Actually, I’ve always found that NOT adopting a persona works the best. Be yourself and don’t try too hard to impress and you’ll be fine. If that doesn’t work talk in film critic speak to get noticed. Say things like “Daybreakers is a meditation on violence,” and pepper your speech with words like “trope” and “zeitgeist.” You’ll fit in with the babbling festival party crowd. Don’t worry if you don’t understand what you’re saying, everyone will be too tired to notice.

Q: What are three things one must bring to the premiere?

Richard: A good attitude, a willingness to be swept away by the movie and, on a less ephemeral note, a snack. These things never start on time and there is nothing worse than watching a movie on an empty stomach.

Three things NOT to bring: a cell phone (unless you promise to turn it off before the movie stars), a snack wrapped in crinkly paper and a bad attitude.  

Q: What do you say to the stars if their movie is horrible?

Richard: Most people know when they’ve made a bad movie and don’t need to hear it from you at the after party when trying to enjoy their Apple Martini. If you must say anything refer to my comments above and fall into meaningless movie-speak. Label the film a “tone poem” or tell them it was “quirky but inspiring” or use any of the following in any way that seems appropriate at the time: avant-garde, unconventional, innovational or causative. You’ll have kept the conversation going without offending anyone or actually saying anything worth repeating. Perfect for the party circuit.

Q: What's the most indelible TIFF premiere memory you have?

Richard: There have been many. Falling asleep while sitting next to a very famous director during a screening of his film rates way up there. (I’m not saying who it was, but I was tired after seeing four other films that day and he was fine with it.) I think the most indelible memory I have from the TIFF premiers I’ve attended has to do with someone who is not a household name, but made a huge impression on me.

His name is Paul Rusesabagina and he was the real life inspiration for the movie Hotel Rwanda. I was tired and grumpy after a long festival stint of watching movies and doing interviews and a bit jaded by the whole affair but his uplifting attitude, particularly in light of everything he had been through in his life, wiped away all the world-weariness I was feeling. Chatting with him and watching him interact with others made me glad to be part of TIFF that year.

Seeing New York City through the eyes of Woody Allen
Richard Crouse
24 June 2009

Long before I saw the Statue of Liberty in person I felt like a New Yorker. Woody Allen’s movies were my initiation and his romantic, idealized view of the Big Apple planted the seed for my longtime love of the city.

His latest film, Whatever Works, is the first of Allen’s films to be set in Manhattan in four years, and you get the sense he’s glad to be home. It’s his love letter to the city, showcasing only-in-New-York locations like Chinatown’s fish markets and the Yonah Schimmel Knishery (137 E. Houston St. near 1st Ave., 212-477-2858).

The movie will make you want to jump on a NYC-bound plane ASAP, which is exactly what I did.

There are no official Woody Allen tours of Manhattan, so I created my own daytrip to see Allen’s New York with my own eyes. With a good pair of runners, a map, a Metrocard (get a 1-Day Fun Pass for $7.50 US at MetroCard Vending Machines and neighborhood stores) and some determination you should be able to do this tour in about six hours.

The first stop serves a double purpose. The Dean & Deluca Café (560 Broadway at Prince St. in SoHo, 212-226-6800) is the perfect place to fuel up on coffee to get the day started — it’s also where Mia Farrow has lunch with the newly-single Judy Davis in Husbands and Wives.

Now that you’re in a caffeinated, New York state of mind, exit Soho for the funkier streets of Greenwich Village.

You’ll pass the former home of The Bleecker Street Cinema (144 Bleecker St.) — where Allen’s character takes his niece to see movies that will improve her mind in Crimes and Misdemeanors — on your way to his favorite pizza joint, John’s Pizzeria (278 Bleecker St. in Greenwich Village, 212-243-1680).

John’s Pizzeria is also the place where Allen and his much younger girlfriend, played by Mariel Hemingway, have the “in six months you’ll be a completely different person” conversation in 1979’s Manhattan.

Moving north, our next stop is in midtown. The Carnegie Deli (854 Seventh Ave. between 54th and 55th streets, 212-757-9889) is virtually unchanged since Woody shot much of Broadway Danny Rose here in 1984.

In fact it hasn’t changed much since it opened in 1937 and Henny Youngman was a regular.

Take some time to check out the autographed pictures of celebrities have eaten there, and if you have the appetite of three people order The Woody Allen — “Lotsa corned beef plus lotsa pastrami; for the dedicated fresser only!” says the menu, and it’s not kidding. There’s over a pound of meat between two slices of rye.

Next, walk off the sandwich with a jaunt to the The St. Regis-Sheraton Hotel (2 E. 55th St., 212-753-4500). Woody has used this location twice. This is where Michael Caine and Barbara Hershey carried on their covert love affair in Hannah and Her Sisters and, in Radio Days, the hotel’s King Cole Room (with its Maxfield Parrish Art Nouveau mural behind the bar) was the site of the swanky New Year’s celebration Joe Needleman listened to on the wireless.

The next stop is the location of one of Allen’s most iconic New York images. The poster for Manhattan showing Woody and Diane Keaton sitting in silhouette on a bench was shot at Riverview Terrace on Sutton Square, just beneath the 59th Street Bridge.

It looks a little different than it did in 1979. The bench is gone (stolen by Woody fans perhaps?) and the landscape is a little different but the view is still spectacular.

You’ve seen the movies and the sights, now catch a glimpse of the Wood-man in person. Allen and his clarinet have been blowing up a Dixieland storm on Monday nights (from September to June) at the Café Carlyle (35 E. 76th St. on the northeast corner of Madison Avenue, 212-744-1600) since 1996. Reservations and jackets are required and tickets ($100 for the show, dinner is extra) go quickly so book ahead for the toe-tapping fun.

Not quite as exclusive or as pricey is Elaine’s (1703 Second Ave. between E. 88th and E. 89th St., 212-534-8103), which restaurant writer A. E. Hotchner  summed up with the words, “What Rick’s place was to Casablanca, Elaine’s is to New York.”

On film it’s the location of one of Allen’s most famous one-liners: In Manhattan, he’s at Elaine’s complaining about the difficulties of seeing a 17-year-old. “I’m dating a girl who does homework,” he says.

Off-screen, it’s one of his favorite restaurants. “I ate at Elaine’s every night for about 10 years,” he said. “I’ve eaten alongside everyone from Don King to Simone de Beauvoir. There was no celebrity that didn’t show up there.”

One of the celebrities who ate there was Mia Farrow, who asked Michael Caine to introduce her to Woody one night at the restaurant, thus beginning their long and tumultuous affair. Soak in that storied atmosphere for the price of an entrée.

The tour finishes up with a trip to Pomander Walk, (260-266 W. 95th St. through to 94th Street between Broadway and West End Avenue). This beautiful village — built to resemble the London stage set from a romantic 1910 play — is made up of 27 Tudor-style houses and is the location of the architectural tour Sam Waterston gives Dianne Wiest and Carrie Fisher in Hannah and Her Sisters.

You’ll have to peek through the gate (it’s locked to the public) but its Alice in Wonderland aura and the fact that Humphrey Bogart used to live there make it a must-see for movie fans.

By the tour’s end you’ll see why Isaac Davis, Woody Allen’s character in Manhattan, famously said, “This is really a great city. I don’t care what anybody says, it’s really a knockout, you know?”

The world’s most wonderful film set
Angels & Demons joins the many films that use Rome as a backdrop
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
May 13, 2009

From Anita Ekberg and Marcello Mastroianni splashing around in the waters of the Trevi Fountain in La Dolce Vita to Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck’s romantic street tour in Roman Holiday the Eternal City has provided some of the cinema’s most unforgettable images.

According to Italian director Federico Fellini, “Rome is the most wonderful movie set in the world.” Now with the release of Angels & Demons, shot on location in Rome, a new industry has emerged from the ancient city — movie tourism.

Patrizia Prestipino, head of Rome’s provincial department of tourism told the New York Times that “a film like this could re-launch American tourism. For us it’s like free advertising.” And it’s marketing that seems to be working. Tour groups like the Angels & Demons Path of Illumination Tour, angelsanddemons.it, Sienna Reid’s Angels and Demons Tour, italyhotline.com, and the Rome Angels and Demons Half-Day Tour, viatour.com, have been enjoying brisk business with packages that range from $75 per person to $550 for a personal excursion.

If you’re not a tour group kind of person you can arrange your own expedition of Rome’s Angels and Demons locations and other cinematic sites with a good map from your hotel’s concierge.

(Take note that several of the places mentioned in the book are not geographically accurate. It’s best to do some internet research before hitting the streets.) Here are some good starting points:
 
Castel Sant’Angelo
Built between 135 and 139 by the Roman Emperor Hadrian Castel Sant’ Angelo not only figures in the climax of Angels & Demons, but also has a spectacular panoramic view of Rome. The castle can also be seen in Roman Holiday’s barge scene.

Santa Maria della Vittoria
Santa Maria Della Vittoria is the setting for Angels &?Demons’ most gruesome and exciting scene — the “fire” killing — but in reality is the home to the beautiful Bernini sculpture of the ecstasy of St. Theresa.

Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi
Located at the center of Piazza Navona the ornate The Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi (“Fountain of the Four Rivers”) is one of Bernini’s most famous works and the backdrop for the film’s “water” assassination.

Other Rome movie must-sees include:

Mouth of Truth
The Mouth of Truth located in the portico of the church of Santa Maria in Cosmedin. The carved, grinning stone face which purportedly bites off the hands of liars most famously appeared in Roman Holiday but can also be seen in Only You starring Robert Downey Jr.

Trevi Fountain
At almost 26 metres high the Trevi Fountain is the largest Baroque fount in Rome and the inspiration for the 1954 hit song and movie Three Coins in the Fountain. Every day tourists throw almost 3,300 euros into the fountain — legend says that visitors who toss a coin into the fountain are guaranteed a return to Rome—money that is donated to charity.

Movie lovers will find much to see in Rome and many memories to take home. As Audrey Hepburn said in Roman Holiday, “I will cherish my visit here in memory for as long as I live.”

The Vatican rebuilt
Landmarks replicated on L.A. soundstage for Angels &?Demons
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
May 12, 2009

While sitting atop the Castel Saint Angelo in Rome waiting to interview Angels & Demons star Ewan McGregor, I had a panoramic view of the city and the beautiful chaos that makes life in the Eternal City tick.

The traffic is crazy and there are people everywhere. It’s an intense place, even more so, I imagined, if you were shooting a big budget Hollywood picture that takes place in some of the city’s busiest spots.

“The funny thing is I didn’t shoot any of it in Rome,” McGregor said when asked. “I shot in this place called Caserta. There’s a palace in Caserta that I thought it sounded really romantic, so I arranged for my wife to come over and spend a weekend with me, but it’s a dump, a horrible place. I’m sorry but it’s just a suburb of Naples that’s exploded around this old palace. It’s really nasty. Not a good place.

“Apart from that I did most of my stuff in L.A. because my character is mainly inside the Vatican and of course, the Vatican didn’t want us to shoot inside their buildings so they built the Sistine Chapel on the Sony soundstages in L.A. They also built the exterior of St. Peter’s Square, this huge, huge set, in the parking lot of Hollywood Park Racetrack in south L.A. That was cool. I saw it from an airplane. I was landing at LAX and I looked down and thought, ‘God, that’s a big set… look at that.’ Then I realized it was ours.”

Despite never having stepped foot in an actual church during the shoot, McGregor convincingly pulls off the roll of Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, a priest who acts as the pope’s right hand man in the film adaptation of Dan Brown’s novel.

“We had a priest from New Jersey who came over and was our religious advisor for any of the technical things,” McGregor said, “the ceremonies and the ritual stuff. But he also gave us a kind of idea of what would be going on behind the scenes during those ceremonies and humanized it for us.

“It looks so precise from the congregation’s point of view but in actual fact behind the table there is a guy with matches trying to light the incense. He put that into it for me which was great.”

The training paid off, he says, at least superficially.

“I didn’t get to understand the meaning of all the ceremonies; why everything is in a certain order, but I did learn enough to look like I knew what I was doing, hopefully.”

Demons 'a different beast'
Director Howard dishes on follow-up to record-breaking Da Vinci Code
RICHARD CROUSE
FOR METRO CANADA
May 08, 2009

Ron Howard, the flame-haired actor turned director of The Da Vinci Code, wasn’t surprised by the success of his adaptation of the best selling Dan Brown suspense novel.

“The idea at the centre of The Da Vinci Code was so provocative and such a hot button issue it really lived at the centre of popular culture for almost two years,” he said this week in Rome before the premiere of Angels & Demons, the follow-up to the record-breaking Da Vinci Code.

“Angels & Demons is a popular novel,” the director says, although he acknowledges that it isn’t as notorious as the other book. “What I’m finding, however, is if you like The Da Vinci Code you’re going to really like Angels & Demons. I feel like it could be a thrilling and exciting experience for audiences in of itself; separating itself from The Da Vinci Code movie or the novel.”

The new film, starring Tom Hanks in a reprise of his Da Vinci role as symbologist Robert Langdon, sees the Harvard professor work to solve a murder, unravel the mystery of an ancient secret brotherhood called the Illuminati and prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican.

The mix of intrigue and religious may sound familiar to Da Vinci Code fans but Howard maintains Angels & Demons is a different beast. “If I felt like it was a cookie cutter situation and I was being asked to repeat myself then it wouldn’t interest me,” he said, “but I just didn’t want to miss this next Robert Langdon adventure.

“I like the uniqueness of these Dan Brown stories. Sure they use the murder mystery genre, but in a way that is so fresh that these films stand on their own as something brand new.”

Something that certainly is new in Angels & Demons is the setting. Shot on location in Rome, the movie is a love letter to the Eternal City.

“For scheduling reasons we had to shoot in June,” Howard says.

“Everyone in Italy kept saying that we couldn’t have chosen a worse month but I’m very glad in a way it was so hectic and intense because it energized everything.”

• Angels & Demons opens across Canada next Friday.

Passion of the Christian Audience
National Post
Friday, December 08, 2006

Quentin Tarantino has said the sign of a good film is that it makes you want to go home, eat some pie and talk about it.
With that in mind, our Popcorn Panel features film buffs feuding in this space each week.

This week's panel
- Craig Courtice, a short filmmaker who isn't very tall
- Christa Oancia, mom of five, religion teacher and amateur movie critic
- Richard Crouse, host of Rogers Television's Reel to Real, Canada's longest-running movie review show and the author of The 100 Best Movies You've Never Seen (ECWPress, 2003). His Web site is www.richardcrouse.ca This week's pie Shepherd's

This week's subject: The Nativity Story

Craig: Whatever you might think of The Passion of the Christ, it was the work of an auteur. Director Catherine Hardwicke is a talented filmmaker, but she lacks the leverage and the ego of Mel Gibson, and as a result I'm not sure The Nativity Story is her vision. For one, there is nothing of the realism she made her name with in Thirteen. Part of the reason the birth of Christ still fascinates us today is the overwhelming odds Mary and Joseph overcame. Certainly, in their journey to Bethlehem, they must have forged an incredible bond, yet there are few scenes that give us a sense of their relationship. Instead, we are subjected to a history lesson featuring King Herod, Zechariah and Elizabeth in the first act and requisite scenes with shepherds and wise men in the third.

Christa: I don't think Mel Gibson is a good comparison because The Passion was truly his vision. Hardwicke was hired to direct someone else's vision. It appears that the team behind The Nativity relied primarily on the very limited two Gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus. There was a strong effort to show the evolution of Mary and Joseph's relationship from one of obligation to one of deep mutual caring and respect. I think Hardwicke did a great job making this story more realistic than most. This account is usually so romanticized that we rarely think beyond the basic details of that holy night. I didn't go to the movie with the same expectations as I did with The Passion, probably because I didn't expect the same quality from someone who doesn't completely live and breathe this story in their life.

Richard: Perhaps Hardwicke doesn't live and breathe this story, but she is a filmmaker charged with creating a compelling and interesting movie, and I think she let her audience down. Her last two films, Thirteen and The Lords of Dogtown, were edgy examinations of teenage life that dealt with young people in crisis. The Nativity Story covers the same ground, but this time her young protagonists, Mary and Joseph, have larger issues than acne or a spotty report card.

Craig: I think we can all agree The Nativity Story won't go down in history as a cinematic masterpiece with the likes of The Ten Commandments or The Passion. But just the fact this movie got made seems like a minor miracle. Although 77% of Americans identified themselves as Christian in 2001, Jesus-friendly titles aren't exactly flooding the multiplexes. Are most Christians just not interested in watching movies about their religion or is Hollywood not willing to back up these films? Let's not forget, that for all of The Passion's success, Gibson financed the project himself.

Christa: It won't hit page one of the paper that Hollywood is not exactly pro-Christian. A quick glance at the top all-time movies shows that Star Wars, Shrek, E.T. and Finding Nemo are the home runs in theatres, yet Hollywood keeps showing its love of R-rated releases. Not sure if it's about artistic dreams, shock value, Oscar envy or all of the above. Lately, the business side is figuring out that family-friendly, and yes, even Christian movies (thanks Mel) can be moneymakers. I think it's not really about whether Christians are interested in watching family-friendly movies as much as it is about the lack of interest of filmmakers in making them. Mel has helped raise the bar with artistic merit, quality and morality all in one -- what a concept! It's not a guarantee, however, and the Christian audience will still expect high quality for their movie dollar.

Richard: The success of The Passion should have paved the way for a tsunami of Christian themed films at the theatres, because the only thing Hollywood really understands is success. If a documentary about penguins can make a lot of money then why not make a kids' series about the little furry birds? But I think studio heads realized The Passion's success was a fluke. It was a great marketing strategy coupled with enough controversy to get people who hadn't gone to the movies in years interested to see what all the fuss was about. It is hard to capture that kind of lightning in a bottle twice, which is why we haven't seen a cavalcade of Christian films in mainstream theatres.
________________________________________
In Soviet Russia, Yakov Smirnoff would've killed for this publicity
National Post
Friday, November 10, 2006

Quentin Tarantino has said the sign of a good film is that it makes you want to go home, eat some pie and talk about it. With that in mind, our Popcorn Panel features film buffs feuding in this space each week.

THIS WEEK'S PANEL
- Basem Boshra, associate editor of Weekend Post
- Craig Courtice, a short filmmaker who isn't very tall
- Richard Crouse, host of Rogers Television's Reel to Real, Canada's longest-running movie review show, and the author of The 100 Best Movies You've Never Seen (ECW Press, 2003). His Web site is www.richardcrouse.ca

THIS WEEK'S PIE Chiburekki (a deep-fried dough cake from Borat's homeland)

THIS WEEK'S SUBJECT Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

BASEM: As a guy who used to download clips of the British version of Da Ali G Show long before it made its way to the colonies, I'd like to think my Borat bona fides are unimpeachable, and I couldn't have been more excited about his big-screen debut. That anticipation was stoked even further by the rapturous reviews that preceded its release. But while the film made me laugh so hard at times that I hope the theatre staff steam-cleaned my seat after I left, I couldn't help feeling a bit let down by all the hype (which I allowed myself to be sucked into). Borat: Superfluously Long Title that Stopped Being Funny After I Read It the First Time is, in essence, some good-to-great Borat sketches strung together by a flimsy excuse for a plot. Then it dawned on me: The people penning those glowing notices must not have been all that familiar with Borat's small-screen oeuvre, the best of which, I'd argue, is stronger than anything in this movie. (If it sounds like I'm down on Borat, I'm not; it's hilarious, if a tad overlong, even at 84 minutes. It just served as another reminder to keep my expectations measured even in the face of such cheerleading reviews.)

CRAIG: In a nice bit of programming, Showcase had a Da Ali G Show marathon on last weekend, and I caught four or five episodes after watching Borat. Hard to fault Sacha Baron Cohen for going after the big bucks and exposure this film will bring him, but you're right, Basem, the material fits the TV format better. But I'm more interested in the hype machine that accompanied this baby. Kudos to the producers for a witty PR campaign: having Cohen appear as Borat, inviting George Bush to a screening -- this was like old-time hucksterism, and obviously the movie-going public loved it. But I have to admit I'm ashamed (again) of the pack mentality of entertainment journalists. In the Canadian media, just last week, we had stories comparing Borat to Archie Bunker (Maclean's) and Andy Kaufman (Toronto Star). I'm sure some hack somewhere pulled out the post-9/11 angle. It's a shame Yakov Smirnoff, Borat's comedic predecessor (sample joke: "In Soviet Russia, if a male athlete loses, he becomes a female athlete"), didn't get the same kind of PR in the '80s. He might have made it beyond guest starring on Night Court.

RICHARD: Hey Craig, you forgot to mention The Wild and Crazy Guys from vintage Saturday Night Live. Their accents and attitudes toward women predated Borat by a few decades. The Borat family tree branches off to include guerilla comics who specialize in accosting unsuspecting civilians -- Allen Funt is Borat's great granddaddy, Tom Green the red-haired stepchild, while the fish-out-of-water routine, the ethnic humour, mockumentary style and total immersion in the character owes thanks to The Beverly Hillbillies, Redd Foxx, Christopher Guest and Andy Kaufman respectively. So the character of Borat isn't a completely new thing. What is new is the way the film was promoted. Having Borat arrive at a red-carpet event in a rustic wagon pulled by peasant women was a stroke of genius. The stunt at the White House and Borat's offer to sell his grandchild to Madonna were as gut-busting as anything (except maybe the nude wrestling) in the movie and put to shame more conventional attempts at movie hucksterism. When you have risked the wrath of the White House, having a junket at the Four Seasons seems a little tame. What may have seemed like a series of frat-boy hijinks was actually a carefully orchestrated campaign. In terms of the future of the character the campaign may have worked too well -- the popularity of the movie and the public awareness of the character has destroyed any chance that Borat will return in his present form. He'd have to go to Mars and pull pranks on unsuspecting aliens because everyone on Earth knows who he is.

BASEM Another critical reference point I've heard thrown around (which makes no sense to me) is Jackass. Granted, there's one prolonged physical gag in Borat -- those who have seen it will know the one I'm referring to -- that's as excruciating to sit through as anything Johnny Knoxville and his depraved cohorts have ever conjured up. But that's where the similarities end. Cohen's much-dissected brand of social satire -- which he ingeniously wraps inside just enough wacky shtick to keep even the frattiest boys engaged -- operates on a level the Jackasses couldn't begin to fathom. (And I thought Number Two was one of the most cathartic and invigorating movie experiences of the year.) In any case, I think much of the (over?) analysis of Borat will soon be rendered moot. Unless Hollywood backs the Brink's truck up to Cohen's door -- a definite possibility, given the film's sensational box office -- I can't imagine he would ever want, or have any reason to, revisit Borat. B:CLOAFMBGNOK is about as far as you can take a character before self-parody sets in, and Cohen seems just too savvy to let that happen (he says hopefully).

CRAIG It's funny you mention Jackass because in the notes I scratched down after watching Borat I wrote: "Expectations too big for what is basically small-screen experience; at least Jackass has some truly big-screen moments." Which is to say that most Jackass watchers went in expecting video-shot stunts, but came out surprised, whereas most of the patrons who go to see Borat go without knowing it is a digital experience. Borat may top Jackass at the box office, but it will be in DVD sales that these expectations play themselves out. I would guess that those who watched Jackass in the theatre would be more likely to pay a second time to see it, whereas with Borat once you've seen it, you've seen it. You have to admit by the end of Borat the gags are as original as a Rick Mercer segment. Except for the nude wrestling, of course.

RICHARD Borat may be a boob-tube experience blown up for the big screen, but at least it's a good one. Jackass: Number Two has its moments but mostly reeks of Ben-Gay and "Look at me!" desperation. Borat, on the other hand, provokes real laughs and perhaps -- gasp! -- even some real thought. The Jackass oeuvre only makes us chuckle because it is so stupidly brutal. While brutal can be funny, on the big screen I find the act of watching these movies as punishing as participating in one of Johnny Knoxville's more sadistic stunts. At just 84 minutes, Borat does what good movies do; it doesn't overstay its welcome and leaves the audience wanting more. With such a lean running time the jokes don't have time to get stale and, while some of the gags may be from the Rick Mercer school of comedy, most aren't. Mr. Mercer might attempt to see how much gas 17 cents will buy, but has he ever offered a dignitary cheese made with milk from his wife's tit? I don't think so. As for DVD sales, who knows, but I think the extras and outtakes on the Borat disc will be worth the 20 bucks.

NEXT WEEK'S PIE Dark chocolate macadamia nut wedge

Unpopped kernels: More on Borat flick
National Post

Basem: You know what. I officially think I'm Borat-ed out. (I knew that would happen, but not so soon.) So how about this news that Universal is shelling out US$42.5-million for the distribution rights to Cohen's next project, a Bruno movie, featuring the third and, to my eyes, least interesting of his Da Ali G Show triumvirate. The one accusation you regularly hear levelled at Borat is that he's a one-note character — although I prefer to think of sexism, racism and anti-Semitism as three separate notes, thank you very much — but he's a complex comic creation next to Bruno, who's an aggressively gay fashion reporter and ... er, that's about it, as far as I can tell. He has his moments, don't get me wrong, but are there enough of them (say, 80 or so) to string together for a feature film? I hate to doubt Cohen, who's certainly one of the most nimble comic minds in the business today, but I just don't think so. Actually, what I'd love to see him do one day is revisit Ali G in a Borat-style mockumentary, if only to wash away the bad taste left by his atrocious Ali G Indahouse film, hands-down the lamest thing SBC's been affiliated with (give or take a Madonna video.)

Craig: Maybe I’m just farther to the right on the Kinsey scale, but I look forward to a more in-depth, er, exploration of Bruno. There’s certainly enough homoeroticism in Borat, I figure why not just get it all out there. Besides, while every Bruno segment isn’t comedy gold, there is something much darker, and to my mind, more interesting in probing (there I go again) the not-so-hidden homophobia that runs rampant in North America. I’m thinking of the segment in which Bruno goes to a gun show and interviews an aficionado. The redneck-meets-rainbow shtick is just as savvy as Cohen’s other stuff, but it has something more — danger. It’s all fun-and-games when the gun guy goes off about his love of big calibres, but the punch line here is just that — when Bruno tells him he’s from Gay TV, Colt .45 threatens to knock his teeth out if he mentions the word “gay” one more time. My point is, Bruno’s a lot edgier than Borat or Ali G because of the less-accepted subject matter. It wouldn’t be as popular as Borat, but it could be better.

Richard: Edgy, schmedgy. I fear a Bruno movie would be more of the same. He's funny enough, but I always thought his segments were the weakest on the television show. Having said that I don't really want more Borat either. I agree with Basem. The more people quote him to me, the more people say "Nice!" in that Kazakhstani lilt the more I realize very soon I'm going to need a rest from it. I look forward to spending some time with Bruno, but not just yet. I need time. I'm not ready for another SBC essay into America's heart of darkness whether it is from a gay perspective, a British-Jamaican b-boy standpoint or the point of view of SBC in a bear suit. Let's allow him to take some time off, recharge and come up with a new idea, perhaps one that doesn't see him doing another mock doc with a different character.
________________________________________
Watch out, guys! It's all a set-up!
Craig Courtice, Richard Crouse, Jason Chow 
National Post
Friday, August 04, 2006

Quentin Tarantino has said the sign of a good film is that it makes you want to go home, eat some pie and talk about it. With that in mind, our Popcorn Panel features film buffs feuding in this space each week.

THIS WEEK'S PANEL:

- Craig Courtice, a short filmmaker who isn't very tall
- Richard Crouse, host of Rogers Television's Reel to Real, Canada's longest-running movie review show, and the author of The 100 Best Movies You've Never Seen (ECW Press, 2003). His Web site is www.richardcrouse.ca
- Jason Chow, a TV columnist for the Ottawa Citizen and axe man for pop rockers The Good Soldiers (www.myspace.com/thegoodsoldiers)

THIS WEEK'S PIE: Key Lime

THIS WEEK'S SUBJECT: Miami Vice

CRAIG: Vice is like a drug bust gone wrong. That's not to say it's not an interesting picture; all the parts are here, it's just that they don't add up. Literally, there is no way Michael Mann's latest will make back its US$125-million budget at the box office. Sure, it opened in first place last weekend with just over US$25-million. But that's about the same number Collateral, Mann's previous effort, opened at during the summer of 2004. That movie ended up with just over US$100-million in ticket sales, but cost only US$65-million to make. Vice won't even make it that high, and here's why.
1) Collateral featured studio golden boy Tom Cruise playing against type as a villain. People wanted to see Scientology's mouthpiece get killed, even if it was only his character. Vice stars Colin Farrell, who has never proved himself as a big draw. The most popular film he was in was Minority Report (US$132-million), in which he played second fiddle to Cruise.
2) Jamie Foxx is in both pictures, but while he played a cab driver with a heart of gold forced into action in Collateral, here he plays Ricardo Tubbs, a mean mutha vice cop who already got the girl.
3) Collateral was a high-concept movie with a Crash-like ending in which everything ties up neatly. Vice drops you immediately into the headspace of a south Florida undercover police officer, which means lots of adrenaline, but also lots of disorientation and tedium.

RICHARD: Wow, Craig, I'm guessing you were disappointed by the movie. I agree with you that the individual parts of Vice don't seem to add up to much -- the lead actors have little chemistry, the story is unoriginal, convoluted and borders on not making much sense -- but the beauty of the movie is in the telling, not the story itself. Mann makes cool-looking movies. Unlike the television show, the movie is dark, grainy and jumpy. He has turned the Sunshine State's emblematic city into a dark, menacing paradise where the good guys don't always win and the bad guys don't completely lose.

JASON: Dark and menacing, sure, but you can't just categorically exclude sunshine and heat when you're in Florida. The film is stylish, indeed, but Mann's relentless intent on making a noirish antithesis to the TV series made the movie so one-dimensional that things got left by the wayside, like, as Craig said, character and story. To that list, I'd add location -- the film could have been shot anywhere (e.g. Los Angeles). I expected an in-depth look at Miami-as-faux-paradise, but instead all I learned is that the town's an hour's speedboat ride away from Havana. Chico, Scarface is more Miami than Vice.

CRAIG: Like Alonzo, the informant played with harrowing elan by Deadwood's John Hawkes, you two have been set up. I actually thought the picture was an excellent piece of art. I was just pointing out that it will be a bitter disappointment for fans expecting an easy blockbuster. The International Movie Database user rating, for example, is only 6.3 out of ten.
But on to a new topic. Scott Holleran of Boxofficemojo.com writes of Vice: "this dark, grainy picture needs subtitles to be understood. That's not just because actress Gong Li (Crockett's love interest) struggles with the English language in each scene, though that is a problem. As an Asian stereotype, she juts her head like a 16-year-old gangbanger flashing signs at the mall." Normally, I'd just ignore this as the ramblings of some hack, but the criticism shows up in many reviews. News to the English-speaking press: Most people in the world don't speak your language as their mother tongue. Is Mann trying to say something with this casting choice or was it a mistake?

RICHARD: Was casting a beautiful, talented actress in a major role a mistake? I don't think so. Her performance oozes sensuality and the obvious age difference between Gong and Farrell makes their relationship even more interesting. Usually Hollywood tries to sell the idea that it's perfectly normal for ancient, wrinkled men to date young women, but casting Gong turns that idea on its head, although she is far from ancient and wrinkled.
My issue is not with the casting, but with the underuse of other actors. Mann has assembled a great cast -- Foxx, Ciaran Hinds, Justin Theroux, to name a few --and given them very little to do other than brood. Farrell shines, in an unshaven kind of way, because at least his character has some spunk. He gives a performance of mock seriousness that sometimes borders on camp, barking his tough-guy lines in a way that would knock the pastel off the original Crockett. Don Johnson's Crockett was unhappy and angry, but in this movie seems to have turned his life around. Now he's angry and unhappy.

JASON: The problem isn't Gong; the problem is the premise of her character: A pseudo-femme fatale who is the child of a diplomatic translator from Angola who somehow is hooked up with a Castro look-alike drug mogul with whom she communicates in stilted English while reading the business sections of Spanish newspapers? I admit I made the same comments about subtitles after I left the theatre. I had to strain to hear some of the lines uttered by the ESL actors. That said, Mann deserves credit for attempting to cast a global village for his movie -- not because I believe in affirmative action but because he's breaking out of the regular Hollywood racial cliches. Crockett and Tubbs aren't the only multi-ethnic working couple in play here; bad guys can be racially cool, too.

© National Post 2006

Unpopped kernels 
National Post
Published: Friday, August 04, 2006

First Tom Arnold in McHale’s Navy now Miami Vice. The boys broach the best and worst of movie adaptations of TV shows and make the case for programs that haven’t been given the big-screen treatment. (Hint: Mr. T, we’re ready for your closeup)

Craig: It appears for better or worse that movie adaptations of TV show are here to stay. Compared to such winners as Bewitched, and the Tom Arnold-in-a-sea-captain's-outfit McHale's Navy, Miami Vice looks like a masterpiece. Are there any other adaptations you would make the case for that worked (Starsky & Hutch?)? More importantly what shows haven't been done that you would like to see? My choice is The A Team — and pronto while Mr. T can still reprise his role as B.A. Baracus. In lieu of the deceased George Peppard I suggest another suave George for Colonel "Hannibal" Smith. “If you have a problem and no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the Clooney…” Cue the best theme song in TV history!

Richard: The leap from the small to big screen is usually quite painful, although when the people involved in the television show are left in the loop the results can be OK. I thought the South Park movie worked well and the recent sci-fi film Serenity was actually better than the show it was based on, Firefly. In both cases the guiding hands on the movies had also created and directed the television shows. The most prolific of the television based movies, the Star Trek series, really has only two winners out of the bunch — Wrath of Khan and First Contact, both of which were based on stories that originated on the small screen (Space Seed, and Best of Both Worlds). But for every Untouchables that works, there's a S*W*A*T that sucks the life out of its source material. For every Fugitive, there's a Dragnet — you get the idea. They are the ying and yang of television-to-film adaptations.
Craig wants to see The A-Team revived. I'm not so sure. I survived that one as a youth and I'm not sure I'm up to it again. I'd rather see Bosom Buddies, starring Eddie Izzard and the guy that played Angel in Rent. Or maybe WKRP with Paris Hilton as Jennifer Marlowe, Bart the Bear as Mr. Carlson and an IKEA swivel chair as Johnny Fever. Actually I'd rather see someone in Hollywood flick off the TV and come up with an original idea.

Chow: The studios are apparently working on a movie adaptation of Knight Rider with David Hasselhoff reprising his character, Michael Knight, and KITT, once again, as the rational talking car. According to IMDb.com, it's slated for 2008 release, but keep in mind this project has been in the making for four years and no script has been agreed upon just yet, so sit tight, boys. As for past remakes, I thought the Brady Bunch was fantastic and Starsky & Hutch was pure turkey. My vote for a movie adaptation: Rockford Files. Starring, of course, George Clooney.

More film jaune than noir?
Craig Courtice, Richard Crouse and J. Kelly Nestruck
National Post
Friday, September 22, 2006

Quentin Tarantino has said the sign of a good film is that it makes you want to go home, eat some pie and talk about it. With that in mind, our Popcorn Panel features film buffs feuding in this space each week.

THIS WEEK'S PANEL
- Craig Courtice, a short filmmaker who isn't very tall
- Richard Crouse, host of Rogers Television's Reel to Real, Canada's longest-running movie review show, and the author of The 100 Best Movies You've Never Seen (ECW Press, 2003). His Web site is www.richardcrouse.ca
- J. Kelly Nestruck, National Post Arts & Life reporter

THIS WEEK'S PIE Whoopee

THIS WEEK'S SUBJECT The Black Dahlia

CRAIG I'll be honest, I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on the plot of The Black Dahlia because after the banana truck drove by during the first shootout, I spent the entire film trying to decipher the meaning of yellow. Now I don't have ADD, so I'm guessing this was intentional on director Brain De Palma's part. If you see this movie just for the art direction and cinematography, you won't be disappointed. (Yellow means caution, by the way.) Of course, the film critics who panned Dahlia are almost all failed English majors, not sensualists. They might very well have a point about the story; the whodunit of this movie is more like a whatthef---? But the same is true of David Lynch's Mulholland Drive, which was universally praised for its sensuality and creepy tone. Then again, who amongst us wants to make love to a film critic?

RICHARD You'd be surprised. Where do you think all those little film-critic kids come from? I think it is possible to be a sensualist and film critic, but watching The Black Dahlia taxed both the corporal and analytical sides of my brain. Without a doubt the movie is stunning to look at, filled with beautiful crane shots and even more beautiful people, but De Palma forgot one thing -- to get his actors to act. I don't expect much from Josh Hartnett other to stand around and look good, but Scarlett Johansson and Hilary Swank are two performers who usually rise above their good looks and deliver the one-two punch of being gorgeous and talented. Here they both seem to be on autopilot. That's the film critic side of my personality. My sensualist side admires De Palma's aesthetic choices, but beauty without brains leaves me cold.

KELLY I don't even know if I admire De Palma's aesthetic choices here. The point-of-view shot when we met Swank's family was jarring, and the gory bits were over-the-top, especially for a movie otherwise filmed like a fairy tale. Even the long crane shot from Elizabeth Short's murder scene to the first shootout was a bit disappointing. If I can defend something about this incredibly bizarre movie it would be Hartnett's performance. He gets dumped on a lot, but there's a reason why directors like Sofia Coppola, Ridley Scott and De Palma cast him in their flicks. Hartnett's blank demeanour and beady little eyes were perfect for a character called Mr. Ice. He was the calm amidst a storm of scenery chomping, the anchor on this banana boat.

CRAIG I'm willing to admit I might have missed what was so bad about this film. How about you two? Is it possible you guys are in the dark about what this movie is saying about noir? Because like Mulholland Drive, I think Dahlia is working on a completely different level, referencing shots and even acting styles from the genre. Let's not forget that one of De Palma's most famous scenes, the baby-carriage-on-the-stairs scene from The Untouchables, was heavily inspired by Russian film pioneer Sergei Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin.

RICHARD De Palma has always borrowed heavily from other filmmakers, most notably Hitchcock, but usually with more success than is on display here. The baby-carriage-on-the-stairs scene is a classic, but I didn't see anything in The Black Dahlia that matched the excitement or beauty of that scene. If he is trying to reference classic film noir in visual and acting style, I don't see it. The film isn't structured like a classic noir, which usually worked backwards from a murder, and the femmes in the classic noirs were more believably fatale than Swank and Johansson.

KELLY What's the big deal about directors referencing other movies in their shots, anyway? If the result holds together like, say, The Big Lebowski, another noir homage full of inside jokes, then that's great. But your first duty as director is to tell a coherent story in a compelling manner, not impress everyone with your winks to Raging Bull and Lady in the Lake. If you want to know why I liked being confused by Mulholland Drive, but not The Black Dahlia, Craig, you only have to look as far as the directors' intentions. I bet dimes to doughnuts to Dahlia dames that De Palma was trying to make a movie that made sense -- as James Ellroy's novel does -- not trying to emulate Lynch's lush lunacy.

© National Post 2006

Unpopped kernels: Return to the print review?
National Post
Published: Friday, September 22, 2006

Craig: One of the reasons we started the Popcorn Panel was to have a different forum for film comment. The idea was that conversations about movies are often more revealing (and entertaining) than reviews. With Web sites such as RottenTomatoes and IMDb, often films are reduced to a raw number without a serious discussion of the merits. These ratings certainly serve a purpose, but too often distract from the message a film is trying to convey. My question to you two Web-savvy gents is that in this era of DVDs with making-of features and insta-pundits is it time to revisit the traditional print movie review? One thing I’d like to see is retractions by reviewers who might have had a chance to reflect on a movie after their deadline and realize they might have missed the mark. There is no shame in this, newspapers print clarifications every day, and I think it would humanize the reviewer. Maybe they had a headache, maybe they talked about the film at a dinner party and came to a different conclusion, the point is to encourage dialogue with the reader not polarize. For example, when I walked out of Caché earlier this year I was angry. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that’s exactly what director Michael Haneke wanted me to feel; just because the feeling you have is not the one you wanted to have or expected to have should not cloud your judgment as to the filmmaker’s success. Caché made me want to read more about it, to hear other opinions, to see if I might have missed something. In the end, I admit, I did.

Richard: We live in an era where everything is reduced to a soundbite, a headline or in the case of reviews, often just a star rating and that's a shame. In the quest to be first with entertainment stories and reviews media outlets are too quick to print or air stories that haven't been thought through properly. I'm not sure that the speed at which we consume information nowadays will allow for really thoughtful reviews. I would prefer to read reviews that were well thought through, not just first, but when five, six or seven movies are being released each week it is impossible to give each of them the time they deserve to write a meaningful review before you have to run off to see another one and then write another review. The days of long Pauline Kael style pieces are gone, and I don't think that's a good thing.

Kelly: If a critic does decide that he or she has made an egregious error in judgment in a review, I don't see anything wrong with them revisiting the subject in a future column. But, you know, a daily newspaper is just a daily newspaper and a review is just a review. People who read critics should understand that what they are reading is a first attempt to grapple with a film, often under a tight deadline. For 95% of film fare that does that trick — I have yet to hear any convincing arguments on the merits of Little Man — but, as New Yorker critic Anthony Lane titled his book of reviews, nobody's perfect. No one should expect the definitive assessment of a film to be written the week it is released, just as we don't expect the full significance of a political event to become apparent for days, if not years, if not decades. We're just the first draft of film history and it's not really our job to second-guess ourselves all the time. That's what blogs are for.
National Post
________________________________________
Forget it Jack, it's Beantown
National Post
Friday, October 20, 2006

This week's film: The Departed

THIS WEEK'S PANEL
- Craig Courtice, a short filmmaker who isn't very tall.
- Tracey Lazos, former deputy Arts editor at the Post who now works at the Boston Herald.
- Richard Crouse, host of Rogers Television's Reel to Real, Canada's longest-running movie review show, and the author of The 100 Best Movies You've Never Seen (ECW Press, 2003). His Web site is www.richardcrouse.ca

This week's pie Boston cream

This week's subject The Departed

Craig An open letter to Jack Nicholson: Dear Jack, The Departed was a great film -- too bad you missed it. Your performance was so off base I wonder if you even read the script. You took, for example, a wonderfully designed scene in a porno theatre and turned it into an improv blooper from Anger Management. A dildo? Seriously? This isn't The Witches of Eastwick or Batman, buddy. You're supposed to become the character, not a caricature. All I could think of after watching this was "Was Brian Cox too busy to play this part?" Because if he had played this Irish crime boss, he would have paid the same attention to craft that Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio did to their roles.
Those two were revelations, as was Mark Wahlberg. Honestly, if Marky Mark is out-acting you, don't you think it's time to devote yourself full-time to something you're actually passionate about -- after all, the Lakers should be pretty good this year.

Tracey You'd think that Nicholson, finally getting to work with Scorsese, would have thought to himself, "Now here's a chance to do something really important." Instead, he devours a big plateful of ham and lets his hair do all the acting. But I didn't think his performance was as egregious as you did, Craig -- the guy can still command a scene, and you have to admit, he was menacingly hilarious at times and a pretty scary villain. I wouldn't want to run into him in Southie. The one thing he failed to bring to this movie that the other players contributed in huge dollops of Boston cream was class. Damon as the smooth-talking rat was a standout for me. That guy has cornered the market on duplicitous nasties you still want to take home to meet your mum.
But back to Jack. The Boston media is in a huge tizzy over the fact that Nicholson appears to channel Beantown's most obsessed-over mobster-cum-fugitive, Whitey Bulger. Methinks they need to get out more.

Richard I'm with you Tracey. Nicholson's performance is kind of cockamamie, but it shows that the old coot can still blow younger, prettier actors off the screen. His Costello is a modern day King Lear, an autocrat very much aware of his importance in the world and who uses that knowledge as a licence to behave badly. He's at least partly crazy, but he's no Boob McNutt. His madness is used like a parlour trick to unbalance those around him. Like Lear, it appears Costello made the decision to go 5150 to preserve command over his own life and the lives of those around him. The dildo and eating-the-fly scenes are ridiculous, but they are ridiculous on a grand scale. They show Costello's volatility. I thought Nicholson's blazing eyes captured that unhinged quality really well. There is a reason why some people are legends and in The Departed we are reminded why Nicholson is acting royalty.

Craig There's no doubt Nicholson could act -- in the '70s. But now he seems content with shtick rather than the nuance he brought to films like Five Easy Pieces and Chinatown. Heck, if you really want to see what Nicholson is capable of you don't even have to go back that far; The Pledge (2001) represents some of his finest work. There is a reason this guy has won three Oscars.
And speaking of Oscars, will The Departed finally win Scorsese his? As a huge fan, I'm of two minds on this. First, I think he obviously deserves one, and The Departed is good enough that it wouldn't be a total sympathy trophy. Marty could also get back to making more artistic pictures like Kundun instead of pandering to the Academy with schlock like The Aviator. On the other hand, while the first 30 minutes of The Departed is the best film I saw this year and the last 30 ain't half bad either, the middle hour-plus drags. I'm not saying it's as painful as watching DiCaprio spell out "quarantine" in The Aviator, I'm just saying the whole erectile dysfunction theme was a little limp. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Tracey I'm almost ashamed to admit this, but I'm not a Scorsese connoisseur. I mean really not. A quick check of IMDb revealed that I've seen exactly four-and-a-half of his films. (I never made it through Raging Bull, but I think that's because the sound on my rental was horrible.) Perhaps I'm just a big girlie-girl, but I've just never had much interest in Scorsese's mean streets. And I enjoyed The Aviator a lot. (Told you -- big girlie-girl.) So I was a bit hesitant about watching The Departed. But I loved this film. I loved that it was at once charming and shocking. I loved the fact that there was an intricate story but I didn't need to wheel out the Universal Plot Explainer to figure out what the hell was going on. I love that Scorsese left his New York comfort zone, came to Boston and captured it so well -- rats and all. Sure, there were a couple of scenes that bordered on farce, but we'll just go ahead and blame Nicholson for those. I think Scorsese should win an Oscar for this movie, regardless of whether he deserves one for his body of work. But with Clint Eastwood breathing down his neck again with his latest epic, who knows?

Richard It would be a cruel twist worthy of a Paul Haggis script if Eastwood beat Scorsese again this year. I was weaned on Scorsese -- one of my earliest film memories is sneaking into Boxcar Bertha when I was nine -- and as much as I admired his last couple of movies, I didn't love them, and Scorsese is the kind of filmmaker who should inspire fanatical praise. The last two were handsome, big-budget epics but it felt like he was making movies to please Academy voters and not himself. The Departed is a departure from those sleek studio efforts and places the director firmly back where he belongs -- on the mean streets surrounded by gangsters, duplicity and violence. He's comfortable there among the sleazoids and crazies, and it is that comfort level, and not the sympathy vote, that will earn him at least a best director nomination if not a win. The Departed is Scorsese in top form -- effortless, (although I'd guess he watched Pulp Fiction a time or two during production) and brutally cool.
© National Post 2006

Unpopped kernels
Craig Courtice
Friday, October 20, 2006

Craig: The Post's Vanessa Farquharson said of the 2004 film, which The Departed is based on: "Infernal Affairs may be the lamest-titled film to hit theatres this year, but will probably be the only one of its kind that doesn't sell out with psychological melodrama and clichéd copspeak — if anything, it at least deserves bigger profits than the upcoming Hollywood remake."
This remake business is always a bit tricky. On the one hand I remember being horrified at Bridget Fonda and Dermot McDumbass in Point of No Return, a truly awful remake of La Femme Nikita, one of my favourite films. But I liked what Cameron Crowe did with Vanilla Sky, a remake of Abre Los Ojos, which oddly also starred Penelope Cruz. Scorsese, of course, updated Cape Fear and paid homage to a number of classic Hollywood films in The Aviator. But this is the first time he's tried his hand at remaking a film from another country and culture. Since I haven't yet seen Infernal Affairs I can't really comment, but I'd still like to hear your comments about whether this was a good idea. I suppose you could make the case that The Departed will get more people to watch the original, but isn't this a bit backward? What is the recipe for good remakes? Is simply switching the setting from Hong Kong to Boston enough?

Tracey: What, no mention of director Leonard Nimoy's stellar work turning Trois Hommes et un Couffin into Three Men and a Baby? It's interesting that we focus on The Departed as a remake. I'm not suggesting it's anything else, but I wonder how many people in the multiplex, cinema buffs aside, realize Scorsese's flick is based on an apparently great Hong King thriller (I haven't seen it either).
And even if they do know, does that affect the way they rate the movie? I came to The Departed having heard of Infernal Affairs and that's about it. And I can't say I'm any more interested in seeing it now, although I'm sure it's no less deserving of praise. Perhaps if The Departed hadn't been such a triumph, I'd be more inclined to rent its precursor. There's obviously more to foreign-film remakes than location switching, although Scorsese's decision to cast Boston in this case proved insightful. But how do you judge when the originals are seen so seldom here? And is there really any point in doing so anyway?
Ultimately, Scorsese has made a thrilling genre piece that stands on its own.

Richard: Remakes are a Hollywood tradition. Moviemakers have been recycling ideas and remaking movies for almost as long as they have been threading film through cameras. The Maltese Falcon's story was a two-time hand-me-down before a third version made Bogart a star, proving that while most remakes aren't successful — think The Omen, Mighty Joe Young or Psycho — they can occasionally triumph. I think Scorsese's re-do of Infernal Affairs actually outdoes the original.
William Monahan's script borrows heavily on the Hong Kong film for structure, but ups the ante in almost every other way. His dialogue is sharp, acerbic and funny. Scorsese seems really connected to the material and his actors, in several cases drawing surprising award- calibre performances out of them — I'm thinking Marky Mark here. The movie hits all the right re-make notes. It's well cast, well directed and uses the source material as a starting point, paying homage to it, with slavishly adhering to it. Will it get more people to rent Infernal Affairs? I don't know, but perhaps it will lead to a Martin Scorsese renaissance in Hong Kong.
© National Post
________________________________________
ELVIS’ TCB RING
Excerpt from a story originally published in Elvis International Forum, Summer 1994

Elvis Presley lived by the maxim that it is better to give than to receive. He loved to give presents. Very expensive presents. Lowell Hays (Elvis’ favorite jeweler), remembers that the singer spent a fortune on other people. “Elvis,” he said, “would take rings right off his fingers and give them to people.” Mr. Hays owns a fine jewelry shop in Memphis and for the last ten years of Elvis’ life was the only man the rock legend would buy jewelry from. “Elvis had done business with other jewelers,” Lowell says, “but I don’t think he was very happy with them.”

Hays often traveled as part of Elvis’ entourage. On tour, he would bring a case stuffed with trinkets which Elvis would purchase and dole out to friends and fans. “Money was not an object with him. To Elvis money was to be spent for his enjoyment and he liked big jewelry pieces. Elvis bought considerable amounts of platinum rings, baguettes and colored stones like sapphires, rubies and diamonds—he loved colored diamonds.”

One night, while on the road Hays was sitting on the side of the stage taking in the show when Elvis requested to see the case. “I set the case up on this big black speaker and Elvis started taking jewelry out of the case and handing it people in the front row,” said Hays. “Elvis gave away two hundred and fifty thousand dollars worth of jewelry that night.” As Hays sat and watched Elvis hand out dozens of diamond rings and rubies he became upset. He told the singer that he felt he was taking advantage of his money and good nature. Elvis looked at him reassuringly and told him not to worry. “I’ll only have to sing five minutes longer tomorrow night to pay for that.”

The only thing Elvis loved more than giving away jewelry was occasionally treating himself to an expensive bauble. His most famous—and outrageous— piece was the TCB ring—an acronym for Elvis’ favorite saying, “Taking Care of Business.”

Elvis asked Hays to design a TCB ring to wear on-stage. He wanted an eye-catcher of a ring that could be seen from the third row. “I have never made anything, or even seen anything the equal of the TCB ring as it finally turned out,” said Hays. “It is still the number one best looking ring I have ever made.”

The Crown Jewel of the Presley Collection, it was encrusted with diamonds and rare stones, and took months to design. Hays won’t divulge how much the ring cost, but will allow that the price tag was astronomical. When the ring was ready Hays took it to show Elvis. Under the chandelier in the dining room at Graceland Hays opened the box and watched as Elvis’ eyes grew wide. “Man,” the singer said, “Sammy Davis Jr. is going to shit when he sees this.”

“Elvis didn’t get excited about too many things, but he just went crazy over the ring,” said Hays.
________________________________
Word on the Street Speech Excerpt: September 2003

Introduction: Hello and welcome to the Great Books Tent at Word on the Street... I thought I'd start by telling you a bit about why we're all here today...
In addition to having just written The 100 Best Movies You’ve Never Seen for ECW Press, I also host a movie review show called Reel to Real… it's Canada's longest running show about movies, and each year my co-hosts (Geoff Pevere and Katrina Onstad) review 200 plus movies, which means that I spend most of my time alone, and in the dark... and then, when I emerge into the light, I have to come up with -- hopefully -- clever things to say about them, which is harder sometimes than you would think...

I find the top 10% of movies and the bottom 10% the easiest to discuss... in other words the best and the worst are easy to review, but it is the middle 80% of mediocre films that are really, really hard to discuss... so when I was choosing the movies in the book I dismissed about 80% of the movies I have ever seen... much like most of the movies that were released this summer... so many  sequels, it seemed like every movie that came out this summer had a number in the title... Charlie's Angel's 2... Legally Blonde 2... Bad Boys 2... Jeeper's Creepers 2... there was a lot of number two at the theatres this year, if you know what I mean... anyway, I ruled out sequels from the book...

It seems that we are surrounded by bad movies... so to remedy that we go to the video store to find alternatives and generally all we find are more bad movies! Stats say that most people spend about 12 minutes in the video store when searching for something to rent, and never even make it past the new releases rack... so where do you think the chain stores put most of their energy???

So, keeping this in mind, and considering my job as a film critic, although I prefer "consumer advocate"... the Ralph Nader of cinephiles... I decided to put this book together, to help people choose good movies to rent... but keep in mind you must choose your video store very carefully!!! If everyone in the store is wearing the same colour t-shirt -- a uniform -- you're probably in the wrong place... The corporate stores aren't likely to embrace the movies contained within...

Look for the mom and pop shows and stores run by people who try and engage you in some kind of conversation... IE: When you try and rent Pearl Harbour... if the video store clerk doesn't look at with a disappointed look on his or her face and then try and steer you toward maybe picking up Tora! Tora! Tora! instead then you are in the wrong store... anyway… 

There are other reasons I wrote this book, and one of them is detailed in the introduction to the book...