Super 8 | Directed by J.J. Abrams
J.J. Abrams new film Super 8 is a throwback to the blockbuster summer fare Steven Spielberg used to make, and it’s not just because the movie is set in the late Seventies, features a bunch of kids, and Spielberg serves as producer. No, it evokes favorable Spielberg comparisons because it tells a compelling story with a generous mix of humor, thrills and heart. There are plenty of special effects, but, like Spielberg’s best work, they’re not the centerpiece but contextual and employed to amp up the action and deliver a few moments of awe. At it’s core, Super 8 is exciting family entertainment.
Much of Spielberg’s work is alluded to here, most obviously E.T. and Close Encounters. But it also recalls the small town paranoia of Jaws, elicits a few Poltergeist-like scares, and features the kind of dysfunctional family dynamics present in all of Spielberg’s early films. Oh, and there’s more than a little Goonies in the core group of children who lead the action (all of whom deliver solid performances, free of precociousness or pretension).
Abrams’ movie is not the equal of E.T., Jaws or Close Encounters; few films are. But it’s a fun and welcome diversion in this age of the prepackaged blockbuster. It has many flaws (it kind of falls apart at the end), but they’re ultimately forgivable because it takes you on a heartfelt, suspense-filled ride.
All right. Enough of that. I’ve got the urge to spin some ELO. I think I’ll start with Fire on High.
Update: A quick look at Rotten Tomatoes reveals Super 8 has received mostly positive reviews. The few detractors all seem to share a common theme: that Abrams’ film is less an homage to Spielberg and more a poor facsimile with little originality of its own. This is true to a degree but greatly misses the point. The audience for this film did not grow up with Spielberg’s films. It’s a new generation, one whose experience with the summer blockbuster has consisted almost entirely of kinetic comic book adaptations, disaster porn, and movies based on toys and rides. That Super 8 is derivative is immaterial. What’s important is that it introduces a new audience to a different kind of blockbuster, the sort that inspired the concept of the summer movie in the first place and had not yet been spoiled by the idea that these sorts of movies need be pre-sold and based on existing material with built-in fan bases.
Best of BTS | Angus R. Shamal Blog
A selection of some of the most awesome Behind-the-scenes shots I’ve seen from some famous movies found at aintitcool.com. Back when set designs were huge and hand made, when special effects where mechanic and photographic and film stars were risking their lives on the set.
via Daring Fireball
Making True Grit | by Jeff Bridges
A collection of black and white photographs from the set of True Grit — taken by Rooster Cogburn himself.
The Adjustment Bureau | Directed by George Nolfi
The first time I saw a trailer for The Adjustment Bureau I immediately thought, “Well, that looks pretty much like Dark City.” And on a superficial level they are similar. They’re both high concept science fiction with a shared premise: there exists a mysterious group which more or less controls the lives of its world’s inhabitants. Both films use a lead character — who by way of a glitch in the system sees behind the curtain and attempts to change his fate — to consider what it means to be human when all is preordained. Where they ultimately differ (beyond general differences in the respective stories) is in the execution, and sadly, The Adjustment Bureau doesn’t deliver nearly as well as the Alex Proyas film.
After a sort of clumsy start, The Adjustment Bureau regains its footing by the time the characters played by Matt Damon and Emily Blunt meet some 15 minutes in. It’s genuinely interesting and even intriguing for much of the first two acts. Unfortunately it devolves greatly in the third act, the entire film undermined by an incredibly silly plot device used to generate some late action. I won’t get into it because it would 1) be very difficult to explain and 2) give away a bit too much of the story. Let’s just say it involves hats. That’s probably all you need to know, and it’s just as ridiculous as it sounds.
It’s too bad because in here somewhere is a genuinely good film. It’s very well acted and nearly all of the characters are likable - both the good guys and the baddies (Terence Stamp is as always great - Kneel before Zod!). Damon and Blunt deliver solid performances and have real chemistry. But oddly enough the love story, the primary focus in Bureau, isn’t nearly as affecting as the one in Dark City. And Dark City was a more squarely sci-fi noir thriller.
All this isn’t to say Bureau is bad, just that it isn’t nearly as good as it could have been and probably not worth a trip to the theater.
There is no way this winter is ever going to end, as long as this groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don’t see any other way out. He’s got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.
Everything is a Remix: Part 2 | A film by Kirby Ferguson
The second part in the “Everything is a Remix” series (see Part One here) has arrived. Whereas part one examined the “remix” in a musical context, this installment focuses on film. I put “remix” in quotes because the filmmaker has a very broad definition of the term - one that includes everything from covers and adaptations to homage. Many of the techniques explored would not fit most people’s definition of a remix.*
But the terminology really is beside the point. “Remix” is just useful handle to address what the series is really concerned: how influences shape creative direction and how very little art is wholly original. There is little in this thesis to argue with, and the films are so well crafted, they can be forgiven for a certain lack of nuance.
For more information on the series, click here.
* The first part caused something of a stir with Zeppelin fans who objected to Ferguson’s contention that much of the band’s work wasn’t just a remix but a “rip off” of other songwriters. In part two, the filmmaker avoids confrontation and focuses entirely on technique — primarily “homage” though he doesn’t call it that.
The Thomas Beale Cipher | A Short Film by Andrew Allen
Using pioneering animation techniques to create a look never seen on film before, this 10-minute award-winning film tells the true legend of history’s most challenging cipher. Professor White, cryptographer extraordinaire, is on the trail of the notoriously uncrackable Thomas Beale cipher—a century-old riddle hiding the location of a fortune in gold that has tormented its pursuers since inception. But White is not alone—shadowy forces are tight on his tail.
The film contains 16 hidden messages that hold clues to the characters’ secrets. Eight are fairly easy and require only a close eye. Six are moderately difficult using various encryption methods. Two are extremely difficult and will require a genius mind to decrypt.
So, I’m probably going to waste a hundred hours watching this film over and over again in a fruitless effort to prove I’m a genius.
Orson Welles’s “Unseen Masterpiece”
Speaking of movies, I came cross this Guardian article, “Orson Welles’s Unseen Masterpiece Set for Release,” via John Gruber. Gruber highlights the key passage:
The Other Side of the Wind portrays the last hours of an ageing film director. Welles is said to have told John Huston, who plays the lead role: “It’s about a bastard director… full of himself, who catches people and creates and destroys them. It’s about us, John.”
The unedited film has been hidden away in a vault until now amid doubts that it could ever be shown.
Rumours of its release have surfaced repeatedly since it was shot in 1972, but an ownership dispute has always scuppered any plans. However, a Los Angeles lawyer told the Observer last week that the film will finally be seen.
Forget for a moment that something “unseen” by definition can’t be called a “masterpiece.” It might be, but it would take seeing it first. No, the big elephant in the room is that “unedited” word in there. The success or failure of a film probably hinges most on its editing. I find it hard to believe a film could be a masterpiece without having gone through the editing process.
According to the story, Welles left behind “editing notes” for his friend, fellow director, and featured actor in the film, Peter Bogdonavich, and apparently he’s “involved in efforts to bring” the movie to the masses. So there’s at least some hope that something close to Welles’s original vision will be achieved. It might even earn “masterpiece” status when all is said and done.
Still there are a number of people who believe the film should not be touched an exhibited unedited.
Françoise Widhoff, a producer who collaborated with Welles on his F for Fake, spent a month on set of the unedited film, which she described as a masterpiece – “the way it’s shot, the way it’s acted. It’s very modern and free.”
However, Widhoff has reservations about anyone editing the film; she says the raw footage should be seen.
Andrés Vicente Gómez, a Spanish film-maker who worked with Welles on various productions, including the unedited film, agreed that its completion would be an “act of betrayal”.
I understand the sentiment, but outside of a minority of cinephiles, watching the raw footage wouldn’t likely be very compelling. It might be interesting, sure, but it wouldn’t be a movie per se. I mean, how much raw footage is there? Wouldn’t it include multiple takes of every scene? What about coverage shots? An edited movie is about 2 hours. You have to assume the raw footage clocks in at least five times that — probably closer to ten.
Given the unique nature of this film, they should release both the raw footage and an edited version based on the late director’s notes. It’s the perfect approach for a special edition DVD. They could have commentaries from the editors explaining the process, and perhaps even from those against the idea giving their perspective.
In my opinion, the finest DVD ever made was the 3-disc Criterion Collection set of Brazil, which featured multiple different edits of the movie — including one the studio did against Terry Gilliam’s wishes and without his input. The Criterion DVD showed how a film really is composed in the editing room. Gilliam’s cut and the “Love Conquers All” version (as the director calls it) are fundamentally different films despite using the same raw footage. I could see a similar treatment for The Other Side of the Wind.
They Were There | Directed by Errol Morris with music by Philip Glass
What does it mean to be an IBMer? Every employee experiences the company in different ways, but the global impact IBM has made on business and society over the last 100 years gives us all a common framework. “They Were There” is told by first-hand witnesses—current and retired employees and clients—who were there when IBM helped to change the way world works.
Errol Morris and Philip Glass give IBM the Fog of War treatment for the company’s centennial celebration. Sure, it’s corporate hagiography, but when it’s this well done, who cares?
Tron: Legacy | Directed by Joseph Kosinski
I was excited to see this movie, so much so I performed a thorough search to find the original film on DVD — you know, just to be properly prepared. It’d been years since I’d seen it after all. But after discovering that the original is out of print, I got to thinking, “Did I even like this movie?” I can only recall a couple of scenes — the moment when Jeff Bridges was zapped into the computer and the cycle race. That’s pretty much it. And the more I considered it, the more I came to the realization that the original Tron wasn’t much good and whatever fondness I had for the movie was actually more attributable to the titular arcade game and its sister Tron Deadly Discs.
I went to see it anyway, and it was pretty much what I expected — visually interesting, occasionally exciting and generally fair. It’s one of those movies about which there is little to say. It’s decent enough while you’re watching it and completely forgettable upon exiting the theater.
That said, I do have a couple of comments:
1) It goes without saying that the entire premise of Tron is completely ridiculous. That’s fine, suspension of disbelief and all. But why make artistic choices that draw attention to the absurdity of the story and explode the internal logic?
Case in point: When the characters go “off the grid” why is this area some sort of wilderness off-road environment? Can you even go off grid in a computer world? And if so, shouldn’t off grid just be pure empty space or something? Or did the programmers, design the outlands to be like that, and if that’s the case, is it really off the grid? Yeah, while watching the movie, I found myself considering these things. But that’s what happens when you insert something into a movie the defies the basic logic of the premise.
2) 3-D. I’ve written about the trend to make every movie 3-D before. I’m not the format’s biggest fan, but it’s more indifference than dislike. I just feel it rarely adds much to the experience. And in the case of Tron, it offered precisely nothing from what I could tell. A few times I even took off my glasses to see if it actually was in 3-D. It’s that subtle. (At the beginning of the movie there’s even a disclaimer to the effect that “some of the film is in 2-D and that’s how these scenes are intended to be seen, so don’t be alarmed.” At the time my brother made the astute observation that any technology that requires a disclaimer isn’t ready for primetime.)
All I’m saying is that if you haven’t seen Tron yet, but plan to, go see it in 2-D. You won’t be missing anything, the picture will be far brighter and detailed, and you won’t have to wear those cheapo glasses.
