The first movie I ever saw at Walter Reade's Ziegfeld Theatre was Gandhi.
It was Christmas break between my first and second semesters in college. It was a sold-out show. There were a lot of those at the Ziegfeld in the 1980s and 1990s. I was not one of the first to arrive, and I found my way to a seat on the far right side of the theatre, fairly near to the front. The theatre smelled of food; Gandhi was a very long movie, and people were prepared with more than popcorn.
The Ziegfeld and Gandhi turned out to be very similar to one another. They were worthy. You couldn't not like Gandhi, could you? I mean, it was a long epic biopic about an incredibly important historical figure, You could learn so much of such importance about such an important personage. Of course, it wasn't actually a good movie. It was a quintessential biopic. The actual filmmaking by Richard Attenborough was kind of plodding.
So it was with the Ziegfeld. It was a single screen movie theatre with over 1000 seats, and a reasonably large screen. But the rake was practically non-existent, making it difficult to see over the head of anyone sitting in front of you. Long and narrow isn't the best dimension for a movie theatre, but that was the Ziegfeld. A whole city block long. From the raised mezzanine at the back, a very long way to the screen, which didn't dominate the field of vision from such a distance. Four urinals, three stalls, two sinks for the men's restroom; imagine the lines after a full house. Small lobby and concession area. No accessibility for the handicapped. There were lots of chandeliers, and some exhibits on the original Ziegfeld Follies theatre.
The Loews Astor Plaza, built just a few years later, was much better. Great rake. Better dimensions. Bigger screen. Bigger lobby. Nicer everything, just not as fancy. I came to be very frustrated that many more people knew about the Ziegfeld, which got better press and was more often booked for Hollywood premieres and exclusive general releases.
As it turns out, I've likely seen more movies at the Ziegfeld than on any other screen (emphasis on "screen," because some multiplexes I've gone to more often, but spread out over many screens). But going to the Astor Plaza always exhilarated me, and I never felt that way about the Ziegfeld. I was often as happy to see a movie on the big screens at the multiplexes than at the Ziegfeld, and I never felt that way about the Astor Plaza. Looking at the long list of movies I saw at the Ziegfeld, and at full lists of movies that played the Ziegfeld that are on Cinema Treasures, I'm as impressed with the list if movies I could have seen there and didn't.
When I read in 2004 that the Astor Plaza was closing, I cried. When I read in 2016 that the Ziegfeld was closing, it was more "sigh, I guess I'll have to go see Star Wars: The Force Awakens yet again."
Nonetheless, an era passes with the closing of the Ziegfeld. It was the next-to-last single screen movie palace to open in Manhattan, with the Astor Plaza the only that came after, and it was the very last large single screen movie theatre to close. I decided to treat the entire office to the final 2D show at the theatre so that they'd all have a chance to experience it before it closed for good.
The last show at the Astor Plaza, opening weekend for The Village, had a few dozen people on a Sunday night. The Friday night show had hundreds and hundreds of people, but the quick falloff showed how difficult it was to make money running a really large movie theatre. Of those few dozen people, no more than a dozen were there to bid farewell to the Astor Plaza itself. And even as the opening credits were rolling, a few workmen came in to begin disassembling.
The last 2D show at the Ziegfeld, with three more 3D to go, had 200, maybe 250 (anyone on the internet saying 500 is lying). Half of them were still in line to buy tickets. Three ticket windows, but only one had an actual computer to sell tickets, because they rarely needed even that many. People stayed. They took pictures. It was a scene. And Star Wars: The Force Awakens, gets worse and worse with each viewing.
At some point maybe I'll append a reasonably accurate list of the movies I saw at the Ziegfeld to this post. But the bottom line is that I won't miss the Ziegfeld, while I miss the Loews Astor Plaza often.
The Paris Theatre is the last of the holdouts. The link takes you to the Cinema Treasures website, which makes the Paris seem much nicer than it actually is. Almost 600 seats, and it does have a balcony. But the leg room isn't good. The rake isn't good. The screen isn't very big. The lobby area is practically non-existent. Some commenters on Cinema Treasures are trying to say the Paris isn't the last single screen theatre in Manhattan, but they are as wrong as the ones saying I saw Force Awakens with 500 other people. The other single screen theatres like the Walter Reade aren't commercial theatres showing first run movies. And if the Paris closes. I won't miss it very much, either.
Showing posts with label Ziegfeld. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ziegfeld. Show all posts
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Saturday, September 20, 2014
The Maze Runner
It isn't often that I get to see a movie based on a huge bestselling novel that I had the good taste to turn down, but I got to do it tonight, when I headed off to the Ziegfeld after work for the 7:15 of The Maze Runner, based on James Dashner's novel of the same name.
Which is worth your time.
Spoilers follow:
I think I might've liked the movie less if I'd read the book. One of the things I enjoyed about the movie was that it held surprises. I was able to make some educated guesses about what would happen in certain instances based on my experiences as a reader of fiction and a viewer of films. When a group of 15 people heads off somewhere, and half of two-thirds of them are characters who haven't had a line of dialogue, it is safe to say that a good number of those characters aren't going to be around for the end of the movie. Cannon fodder, they've got cannon fodder. And if the arch nemesis is left behind someplace, the suspense is in wondering whether the arch nemesis will return in the sequel or before the end of the film at hand. Also, when characters walk in front of something that looks like the door to a loading dock, it might be a door.
But if I had a general idea of what was going to happen at points throughout, the movie held my attention, interest and curiosity. I was never entirely sure what was behind the door, or who might be coming up on the elevator, or the exact point in time when the climax was going to be set in motion.
Casting was a definite plus. Not a single complaint about any of the kids in the Glade, and their roles weren't all easy ones to play. As an example, the role of the Doubting Thomas (and this movie does have not just a Thomas but a Doubting Thomas) is kind of cliche and very functional and full of pronouncement, but all those lines are delivered with fervor and self-belief by Will Poulter, in a very different role than his equally excellent performance as the son in We're The Millers. And Dylan O'Brien as Thomas makes his character's actions seem perfectly natural even when, really, they're not, when it takes a lot of gumption or a job with McKinsey to arrive in a situation and start shaking things up like you've been doing it all along.
Well, maybe one false note in the cast. Blake Cooper has the task of playing the analog to Piggy in Lord of the Flies, and he doesn't manage to surmount that burden.
One false note in the physical production, which is generally impressive, and which false note occurred to me in real time as I was watching, and not with thought afterward. There isn't some giant dome over the Glade, like there is in the arena in Catching Fire. Yet the weather in the Glade seems entirely and completely different than the weather beyond the Glade and its immediate environs. I don't think it can work that way.
But on the whole, it's a movie that kept me interested all the way through, that didn't have me looking at my watch, that kept me awake and alert.
And as the Washington Post critic said, if I could've stayed around to see the sequel right afterwards, I would have. It's a great ending. A couple other reviews made it seem like this movie was a giant set-up for the next one. And it is. But it's also a quite entertaining movie in its own right.
Which is worth your time.
Spoilers follow:
I think I might've liked the movie less if I'd read the book. One of the things I enjoyed about the movie was that it held surprises. I was able to make some educated guesses about what would happen in certain instances based on my experiences as a reader of fiction and a viewer of films. When a group of 15 people heads off somewhere, and half of two-thirds of them are characters who haven't had a line of dialogue, it is safe to say that a good number of those characters aren't going to be around for the end of the movie. Cannon fodder, they've got cannon fodder. And if the arch nemesis is left behind someplace, the suspense is in wondering whether the arch nemesis will return in the sequel or before the end of the film at hand. Also, when characters walk in front of something that looks like the door to a loading dock, it might be a door.
But if I had a general idea of what was going to happen at points throughout, the movie held my attention, interest and curiosity. I was never entirely sure what was behind the door, or who might be coming up on the elevator, or the exact point in time when the climax was going to be set in motion.
Casting was a definite plus. Not a single complaint about any of the kids in the Glade, and their roles weren't all easy ones to play. As an example, the role of the Doubting Thomas (and this movie does have not just a Thomas but a Doubting Thomas) is kind of cliche and very functional and full of pronouncement, but all those lines are delivered with fervor and self-belief by Will Poulter, in a very different role than his equally excellent performance as the son in We're The Millers. And Dylan O'Brien as Thomas makes his character's actions seem perfectly natural even when, really, they're not, when it takes a lot of gumption or a job with McKinsey to arrive in a situation and start shaking things up like you've been doing it all along.
Well, maybe one false note in the cast. Blake Cooper has the task of playing the analog to Piggy in Lord of the Flies, and he doesn't manage to surmount that burden.
One false note in the physical production, which is generally impressive, and which false note occurred to me in real time as I was watching, and not with thought afterward. There isn't some giant dome over the Glade, like there is in the arena in Catching Fire. Yet the weather in the Glade seems entirely and completely different than the weather beyond the Glade and its immediate environs. I don't think it can work that way.
But on the whole, it's a movie that kept me interested all the way through, that didn't have me looking at my watch, that kept me awake and alert.
And as the Washington Post critic said, if I could've stayed around to see the sequel right afterwards, I would have. It's a great ending. A couple other reviews made it seem like this movie was a giant set-up for the next one. And it is. But it's also a quite entertaining movie in its own right.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
I Have a Buzz Up My Woody
Toy Story 3 may be the best movie I've seen so far in 2010.
It demonstrates that if Hollywood were to try, if it were to care, that it could make movies that were actually good. The people at Pixar care. They don't always succeed, and I haven't been as big a fan of Up or Wall-E as others. Not that either of them was bad, but I just didn't think they were as good as some of the fuss and bother had them to be. And when I see Toy Story 3, I'm seeing the difference between true greatness and some nice tries.
Why do I love this movie so much?
Well, the most important thing might be the characters. They're toys, but we really and truly and deeply care about them. There's something about the performances of the voice actors that goes a little bit deeper than the usual. Way back when the first Toy Story came out not every actor was lined up for these animation voicing jobs like it is now. That's a long time ago, it is, and we were just getting to Robin Williams in Aladdin or to Tom Hanks and Tim Allen in the Toy Story movies. These are real performances with heart and soul, and even so many years after the second Toy Story movie, we fit right in with these people -- yes, people -- kind of like we find the way to our favorite seat in the living room when we go back to the old family homestead.
And Pixar cares about the script, so the characters we care about aren't let down by writing that goes through the motions. The script fot this movie has the same qualities as some of the best scripts for The Simpsons. If you get the cinematic allusions that are thrown around to things like Cool Hand Luke, then you have something added, but you don't have to get the allusions in order to enjoy the script at the basic plot level. If you understand what it means when we're told those might not have been Lincoln Logs in the box, well that's a very nice joke, But the line works at another level even if you're not sure entirely what's meant by it.
With a real story to tell about real people, the film can include a lot of pop culture riffs without just being about them, which is a fault that I think Dreamworks Animation can fall prey to a lot of the time.
Most of you probably know the story from other reviews, but in brief Andy the human owner of our toys is about to go off to college. His toys end up donated to a daycare center, and there is disagreement amongst the toys over whether they were supposed to end up in the trash as Andy's discards or in the attic for some possible next generation of Andys. But they all know that Woody was going into the college box as one of those childhood memories Andy would keep with him in the next stage of his life. The daycare center turns out to have some issues; the new toys are left to the devices of the youngest toddlers who can play a little rough. So can they escape before Andy goes off to college?
It's not a complex story, but the emotions cut a lot deeper than the description of the plot. I was crying at the end. Yes, me, fortysomething and crying at Toy Story 3.
And because there are real characters, real emotions, a good script... When we get to the overloud overlong climax of a lot of Hollywood extravaganzas these days, let's think Transformers of the 2nd Narnia movie, we don't care. It has all the emotional impact of watching somebody else play a videogame. Here, there's never any doubt that our toys are going to survive but it's still gut-wrenching when it looks like they're going to go to that great trash-to-energy plant in the sky.
As good as that brief bio section at the beginning of Up is -- and is there anyone who doesn't love those opening ten minutes -- Toy Story 3 is that level all the way through.
I saw this at Clearview's Ziegfeld on Saturday June 19, 2010. The Ziegfeld is the last big single screen movie theatre left in New York, and I wish they were showing Toy Story 3 in 2-D. The glasses give an extra dimension on the screen but at the cost of shrinking the dimensions of the screen itself. I'm not sure I'd have lost as much seeing this on some smaller screen for $4 less as I would have on a 2D movie. That being said, for my $20 for the opening weekend at the Ziegfeld, we did get to see Buzz and Woody live in person between the coming attractions and the movie. I could have gotten my picutre taken. I did get a pat on the back from Buzz as he headed down the aisle. And there's that $20 thing. I don't want to pay $20 for a movie on a regular basis, and I think this may come back to bite Hollywood. There are some movies where I might be very happy to save some money, not have the 3-D, and not be paying so much. Hollywood and the theatre owners want us to be able to see movies in 3-D all the time with every screen digitally equipped to do it. But at least for me, there are going to be some movies I might skip if my only choices are the premium-priced 3-D because I'm just not going to think the movie's worth the extra bucks. I'm not sure 3-D should be seen as Hollywood's salvation, because I think they might lose a few admissions here and there that won't be noticed -- it's always hard to miss what you don't know you could have had -- even if they gain a little extra lucre on some of the admissions they do have.
It demonstrates that if Hollywood were to try, if it were to care, that it could make movies that were actually good. The people at Pixar care. They don't always succeed, and I haven't been as big a fan of Up or Wall-E as others. Not that either of them was bad, but I just didn't think they were as good as some of the fuss and bother had them to be. And when I see Toy Story 3, I'm seeing the difference between true greatness and some nice tries.
Why do I love this movie so much?
Well, the most important thing might be the characters. They're toys, but we really and truly and deeply care about them. There's something about the performances of the voice actors that goes a little bit deeper than the usual. Way back when the first Toy Story came out not every actor was lined up for these animation voicing jobs like it is now. That's a long time ago, it is, and we were just getting to Robin Williams in Aladdin or to Tom Hanks and Tim Allen in the Toy Story movies. These are real performances with heart and soul, and even so many years after the second Toy Story movie, we fit right in with these people -- yes, people -- kind of like we find the way to our favorite seat in the living room when we go back to the old family homestead.
And Pixar cares about the script, so the characters we care about aren't let down by writing that goes through the motions. The script fot this movie has the same qualities as some of the best scripts for The Simpsons. If you get the cinematic allusions that are thrown around to things like Cool Hand Luke, then you have something added, but you don't have to get the allusions in order to enjoy the script at the basic plot level. If you understand what it means when we're told those might not have been Lincoln Logs in the box, well that's a very nice joke, But the line works at another level even if you're not sure entirely what's meant by it.
With a real story to tell about real people, the film can include a lot of pop culture riffs without just being about them, which is a fault that I think Dreamworks Animation can fall prey to a lot of the time.
Most of you probably know the story from other reviews, but in brief Andy the human owner of our toys is about to go off to college. His toys end up donated to a daycare center, and there is disagreement amongst the toys over whether they were supposed to end up in the trash as Andy's discards or in the attic for some possible next generation of Andys. But they all know that Woody was going into the college box as one of those childhood memories Andy would keep with him in the next stage of his life. The daycare center turns out to have some issues; the new toys are left to the devices of the youngest toddlers who can play a little rough. So can they escape before Andy goes off to college?
It's not a complex story, but the emotions cut a lot deeper than the description of the plot. I was crying at the end. Yes, me, fortysomething and crying at Toy Story 3.
And because there are real characters, real emotions, a good script... When we get to the overloud overlong climax of a lot of Hollywood extravaganzas these days, let's think Transformers of the 2nd Narnia movie, we don't care. It has all the emotional impact of watching somebody else play a videogame. Here, there's never any doubt that our toys are going to survive but it's still gut-wrenching when it looks like they're going to go to that great trash-to-energy plant in the sky.
As good as that brief bio section at the beginning of Up is -- and is there anyone who doesn't love those opening ten minutes -- Toy Story 3 is that level all the way through.
I saw this at Clearview's Ziegfeld on Saturday June 19, 2010. The Ziegfeld is the last big single screen movie theatre left in New York, and I wish they were showing Toy Story 3 in 2-D. The glasses give an extra dimension on the screen but at the cost of shrinking the dimensions of the screen itself. I'm not sure I'd have lost as much seeing this on some smaller screen for $4 less as I would have on a 2D movie. That being said, for my $20 for the opening weekend at the Ziegfeld, we did get to see Buzz and Woody live in person between the coming attractions and the movie. I could have gotten my picutre taken. I did get a pat on the back from Buzz as he headed down the aisle. And there's that $20 thing. I don't want to pay $20 for a movie on a regular basis, and I think this may come back to bite Hollywood. There are some movies where I might be very happy to save some money, not have the 3-D, and not be paying so much. Hollywood and the theatre owners want us to be able to see movies in 3-D all the time with every screen digitally equipped to do it. But at least for me, there are going to be some movies I might skip if my only choices are the premium-priced 3-D because I'm just not going to think the movie's worth the extra bucks. I'm not sure 3-D should be seen as Hollywood's salvation, because I think they might lose a few admissions here and there that won't be noticed -- it's always hard to miss what you don't know you could have had -- even if they gain a little extra lucre on some of the admissions they do have.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
this little piggy went to the cinema
Wherein I will do a wrap on movies I've seen in recent months without blogging about.
Ring Finger: Changeling, seen Saturday afternoon Nov. 8, 2008, at the AMC Courthouse 8, Aud. #8. 2.5 slithy toads. This is the other Clint Eastwood movie, or the other Angelina Jolie movie, or the other John Malkovich movie, or something like that. It's based on a true story from the earlier years of the century, when the LAPD was under attack and was happy to have reunited a mother with her missing son. The fact that the mother didn't think the boy she was given was hers was not welcome news. Jolie's performance was described alternately as a tour de force by some critics and a monstrous bit of overacting or dis-acting or mis-acting by others. The movie as a whole was brilliant or too long, best for its willingness to look at the large context of things or worst for spending a half hour after the resolution of the underlying mystery of the boy to the aftershocks of the case in LA. And to me, I guess the biggest sin is that I just don't care about the debates. I liked the movie well enough, but I can't muster any passion for arguing any side of it. It's a better movie than Eastwood's other 2008 release, Gran Turino, but at least Gran Turino inspires some passion in me for undercutting it, while the best I can do ith Changeling is give a giant ambivalent "meh" and a lukewarm recommendation. It's not as good as the other Angelina Jolie movie of 2008, Wanted, which is a ton u fun. I mentioned in that post how I left with a smile on my face, and I still have one.
Middle Finger: Valkyrie. Seen Saturday afternoon January 24, 2009 at the AMC Empire 25, Aud. #8. 2 Slithy Toad. Like Changeling, this leaves me with deep ambivalence. Changeling was flat in my heart but at least had a little life on the screen while Valkyrie is flat in both places and garners half a toad less. I've always been a Tom Cruise fun, at least since Top Gun, and there's nothing wrong with his performance but also nothing exciting about it. Or really much of anything else in the movie. It was interesting to see the mechanics of the aborted coup in Berlin. Meh.
Index Finger: Defiance. Seen Saturday evening January 24, 2009 at Clearview's Ziegfeld. 4 slithy toads. I'd been kind of eager to see Valkyrie, being that I'm a big Tom Cruise fan and a real Xmas event release and etc., I'd even tried seeing it a couple weeks before I actually did but gave up because the line at the box office was just too too long. I ended up not caring so much for it at all. I was terribly ambivalent about seeing Defiance, but I've decided to give it my highest rating. I'm not totally sure it deserves, part of me wants to knock it down to a 3.5, but to be honest I can't think of a good reason for deducting any points. Why the ambivalence about seeing it? A lot of that has to do with Edward Zwick. His Blood Diamond was a pleasant surprise, much livelier and interesting than the all-over-map reviews would have suggested, and Courage Under Fire was a delightful pleasant surprise to see when it was sneak previewing at the Uptown in DC, but as a rule I've found his movies like Glory and The Last Sumarai to be worthy but not necessarily good. And it was playing at the Ziegfeld, which I love and resent because it outlasted the superior Loews Astor Plaza as the only single-screen movie-going palace in New York City. But at the end of the day, I decided I should give the movie some Ziegfeld points and be sure if I was seeing it to see it there, and I did get kind of a buzz when I walked in to see that there were actually going to be 400 or maybe even 500 people in the theatre's 1100 seats instead of 20 or 60. And once the movie begin, it caught me up in its spell. It's based on the true story of 3 brothers, played by Daniel Craig, Liev Schrieber and Jamie Bell, who managed to keep a community of Jews safe in the Belarussian forests for several years during World War II, ultimately saving over 1000 lives from the Holocaust. It's full of many of the usual "based on true story" things where you're wondering just how much is true and how much Hollywood; did the Liev brother really come to the rescue like the calvary in a Western the way it's depicted here? But since it isn't yet another sports movie or underdog tale I was willing to cut it a little more slack for helping to bring a different chapter of the WW2 story to wider prominence. It's made with the zestiness of Blood Diamond instead of the worthiness of Last Samurai. David Denby's otherwise very favorable review in The New Yorker singled out the James Newton Howard score for special oppobrium, but I didn't mind it at all. Well, I did, but for personal reasons that the lushly orchestrated violin-focused score here was a little too reminiscent of his score for The Village, which was the last movie to play the Astor Plaza, so I'm sitting trying to enjoy this movie in the Ziegfeld and the score just keeps dragging me back to my sad memories of the last picture show at my beloved Astor Plaza. It's very well acted by all three leads, and if maybe not so much by the supporting cast I'm willing to say it's not so much the acting as the Hollywood-ese of the scripting. When you're caught up in something, a book or a film or a TV show or a whatever, when you're really really really caught up in it, you can overlook things. And when you're not you can pick nits. This is one of those movies that caught me up in its spell, that succeeded at doing what a movie like this is supposed to do, that's probably the best Holocaust movie since Schindler's List, that had be on the edge of my seat wondering how some of the events would play out and then leaning back teary-eyed, and it gets my highest rating.
Thumb: Revolutionary Road, seen Sunday morning/afternoon January 25, 2009 at the AMC Empire 25, Aud. #13. One slithy toad. Pleasant surprise, that management moved some movies around overnight so this was playing on a bigger screen on Sunday than it had been when I was at the same theatre for Valkyrie the day before. Not a surprise, that I didn't really like the movie, though my reasons for not liking it ended up being somewhat different than I had anticipated. From the coming attraction, I'd had the idea that this was going to be another Douglas Sirk melodrama look-alike, totally superfluous for traveling in the tracks of any number of other movies like that such as the 2002 release Far From Heaven. So the good news is that this was aiming much higher than that, but the bad news is that it's one of those serious movies that pretty much drowns in its own pompousness and silliness. Kate Winslet getting a Golden Globe for this? It's like giving Best Actor to John Lovitz's Master Thespian, only here it's a thespianette in high heels. Conceptually, why do you want to take the two great lovers from the wonderful Titanic and then put them back together as miserable lovers in a marriage so completely and totally failed that you can't understand why they ever got married in the first place? Why give the couple two children who are then so conspicuously absent or conveniently present throughout the entire movie to the point that I thought it was a laugh line when Leonardo diCaprio says how nice it is to have a day without the kids when I've spent half the movie thinking they sure do spend an awful lot of time playing with the next door neighbors or doing community service after school or hiding in the basement or something? Why name the movie after the street but then never put the house on that street within the context of the street as a whole? There's one scene when Leonardo storms off and we see Kate in the door of the house and I kept waiting and waiting and waiting for a long shot which would show Kate and the house and the street and tie it all up in a nice visual bow, but after all that waiting we finally get only a medium shot that shows Kate in the door of the house from a bit of a difference but still with the house in isolation. It's pompous, it's unpleasant, it's a shame. If I might be overrating Defiance it's possible I'm underrating this, but I don't think so. Because there's so much talent in this misguided movie that the opportunity cost of the movie is much higher.
With these five reviews I think I've covered pretty much all of the remainder of the fall/winter crop to date. And reviewed the lion's share of the movies I've seen since commencing the blog almost a year ago. I'd still like to do a more detailed post on Towelhead, but I feel as if I've done enough of the spadework that I can think in the days ahead about talking some about my thoughts on the Oscar nominations and otherwise summing up the 2008 film year.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Holy Tzatziki, Batman!
The Dark Night, seen Sunday July 20 at the AMC Empire 25, Screen #6, 4 Slithy Toads
Mamma Mia!, seen Sunday July 20 at Clearview's Ziegfeld. 3 Slithy Toads
After 44 years of waiting, I can finally say I've seen a good Batman movie. And in fact not just a good Batman movie, but a truly great one. Wow!
The first Batman movie of my acquaintance, the '60s one spinning off from the Adam West TV show, is not bad for what it is. It fairly faithfully replicates the considerable pleasures of the TV show. But it's more an extended TV episode than anything else.
The 1989 Batman wasn't very good. I remember it being the launch movie for Dolby Digital sound in New York City, and I saw it at the Toys R Us in Times Square, or the Criterion Theatre as it was known at the time. I've always been very fond of the Dolby Digital "sounders," those spikes being driven into the train tracks and then the train driving thru the theatre.
1992's Batman Returns, I'm pretty sure I saw it, but I can hardly remember a thing about it. Maybe also at the Criterion?
1995, Batman Forever? I guess I saw it?
Batman and Robin, 1997? Now that, my friends, was a true classic. So good that it didn't even get better for having been seen in my late lamented Loews Astor Plaza. It contends for being one of the worst movies I ever saw at the Astor Plaza.
Batman Begins (2005) was a huge disappointment to me. It had so many good ingredients and got so many good reviews but I thought it fell flat on pretty much every level. I particularly disliked Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow, which was Batman villain by way of Bugsy Malone.
Recounting this dismal history, I think I'd enjoy watching 90 minutes of the Dolby Digital Choo Choo Train more. Spike on the back left, spike on the front right, here comes the train. On a double feature or triple bill with SDDS and DTS sounders.
For all the good reviews for The Dark Knight, it is safe to say I went in with trepidation, and almost with duty-bound reluctance. And to say I was pleasantly surprised would be an understatement.
Two small quibbles: did they even attempt to explain the plan regarding Commissioner Gordon's death, and I don't think I've ever liked the way the Batman voice sounds in any of the Batman movies since the 1966, and this one is no exception.
Other than that, what's not to like?
When I commented on Sydney Pollack, one of the elements I praised in Tootsie and The Firm was the across-the-board goodness of the casting, and this has that. The earlier Batman movies had a lot of people doing villainy for a paycheck, and Christopher Nolan has gone well beyond that. If you look at Lucius Fox in an old Batman comic book, can you see anyone but Morgan Freeman in the role? Bill Cosby, maybe? Roscoe Lee Browne? Freeman is Fox, and his put-off when a Wayne Enterprises employee starts sniffing around the accounts that point toward Batman/Bruce, it's the definitive line delivered in a definitive way by the definitive actor for the role. Michael Caine as Alfred? Well, of course! The role of Bruce/Batman has always been an odd duck in these movies because there's so little for an actor to do when he's tucked in the batsuit, and Christian Bale was one of those interesting ideas last time around that didn't quite seem to work. Surrounded by a better movie, it works. However much I disliked Cillian Murphy last time around, the idea of casting him was better than the idea of casting Tommy Lee Jones or Arnold Schwarznegger (I don't dislike Murphy, by the way, I just didn't like him there). Here, the same idea is applied toward casting Aaron Eckhart, and the performance is boffo, bam, excellent. Maggie Gyllenhal, excellent. Eric Roberts and Anthony Michael Hall in small roles? I'm starting to warm to Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon. Enough has been said about Heath Ledger, and I don't need to add to it. This is a well-acted movie.
The music is instrumental. Yay! No superhero rap song over the end credits. See my comments on Indiana Jones.
The special effects are excellent. The movie always looks real. See my comments on SFX here.
But most important, the movie is dark. Batman has often been a darker kind of superhero in the comic books, and sometimes as with Tim Burton or even in Batman Begins, this darkness has played out on the screen as muddy cinematography. Sometimes, that darkness has been wedded to a campy homage to the old TV show. Show how modern you are by showing a "dark" batman, show how you remember Burgess Meredith as the Penguin and Tallulah Bankhead as Black Widow, and it's not a good combination. This is the Dark Knight by way of the Untouchables, and I'm surprised I haven't read more on the similarities. Al Capone gets his point across to other mobsters by killing with baseball bat, the Joker gets his point across by doing magic trick with pencil. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and Batman is challenged if he can really fight with the Joker on his level. But also like De Palma's Untouchables, this is suspenseful film direction with tick-tock precision. One good set piece after another after another, well-acted and well-scored and well-edited and well-photographed and nail-biting.
Maybe I should see it again in Imax!
A short time later I took in Mamma Mia. Talk about seeing two very different movies in one day. Mamma Mia isn't particularly well-crafted. I'm not quite as down on this as some of the other reviews I read, many of which sounded to me like critics who complain about choppily edited musicals with too many close-ups where you can't see the characters' feet now complaining about this for having too many wide shots where you just see everyone dancing. But there's one shot that's so egregiously bad with the sun coming thru a window and drowning out 10% of the image of the screen that does't look like intentional craft. The casting is up-and-down. I don't understand how you do an Abba musical without using Fernando. There was something in the air that night, the moon was white, the stars were bright, Fernando, and if I had to do it all again, I would my friend, Fernando. Though he does get a brief shout-out in the movie in a briefly glimpsed poster. Or were the stars white and the moon bright, and if I had to do it all again I should get the lyrics rght my friend Fernando. The casting is a little bit odd. Meryl Streep I thought was good. No doubt all of the critics who've been criticizing her just wish she'd be doing boring serious movies like Out of Africa or were back in the days when it seemed she just did accents. Pierce Brosnan can't sing. The daughter seems off. The boyfriend/fiancee doesn't have the right chemistry and spends too much of the movie seeming like a best friend, but Julie Walters and Christine Baranski are having the time of their life in their roles. But so what. The movie is fun. It is lively. The music is sweet to listen to. It's fun. And as with Wanted, fun is good.
Mamma Mia!, seen Sunday July 20 at Clearview's Ziegfeld. 3 Slithy Toads
After 44 years of waiting, I can finally say I've seen a good Batman movie. And in fact not just a good Batman movie, but a truly great one. Wow!
The first Batman movie of my acquaintance, the '60s one spinning off from the Adam West TV show, is not bad for what it is. It fairly faithfully replicates the considerable pleasures of the TV show. But it's more an extended TV episode than anything else.
The 1989 Batman wasn't very good. I remember it being the launch movie for Dolby Digital sound in New York City, and I saw it at the Toys R Us in Times Square, or the Criterion Theatre as it was known at the time. I've always been very fond of the Dolby Digital "sounders," those spikes being driven into the train tracks and then the train driving thru the theatre.
1992's Batman Returns, I'm pretty sure I saw it, but I can hardly remember a thing about it. Maybe also at the Criterion?
1995, Batman Forever? I guess I saw it?
Batman and Robin, 1997? Now that, my friends, was a true classic. So good that it didn't even get better for having been seen in my late lamented Loews Astor Plaza. It contends for being one of the worst movies I ever saw at the Astor Plaza.
Batman Begins (2005) was a huge disappointment to me. It had so many good ingredients and got so many good reviews but I thought it fell flat on pretty much every level. I particularly disliked Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow, which was Batman villain by way of Bugsy Malone.
Recounting this dismal history, I think I'd enjoy watching 90 minutes of the Dolby Digital Choo Choo Train more. Spike on the back left, spike on the front right, here comes the train. On a double feature or triple bill with SDDS and DTS sounders.
For all the good reviews for The Dark Knight, it is safe to say I went in with trepidation, and almost with duty-bound reluctance. And to say I was pleasantly surprised would be an understatement.
Two small quibbles: did they even attempt to explain the plan regarding Commissioner Gordon's death, and I don't think I've ever liked the way the Batman voice sounds in any of the Batman movies since the 1966, and this one is no exception.
Other than that, what's not to like?
When I commented on Sydney Pollack, one of the elements I praised in Tootsie and The Firm was the across-the-board goodness of the casting, and this has that. The earlier Batman movies had a lot of people doing villainy for a paycheck, and Christopher Nolan has gone well beyond that. If you look at Lucius Fox in an old Batman comic book, can you see anyone but Morgan Freeman in the role? Bill Cosby, maybe? Roscoe Lee Browne? Freeman is Fox, and his put-off when a Wayne Enterprises employee starts sniffing around the accounts that point toward Batman/Bruce, it's the definitive line delivered in a definitive way by the definitive actor for the role. Michael Caine as Alfred? Well, of course! The role of Bruce/Batman has always been an odd duck in these movies because there's so little for an actor to do when he's tucked in the batsuit, and Christian Bale was one of those interesting ideas last time around that didn't quite seem to work. Surrounded by a better movie, it works. However much I disliked Cillian Murphy last time around, the idea of casting him was better than the idea of casting Tommy Lee Jones or Arnold Schwarznegger (I don't dislike Murphy, by the way, I just didn't like him there). Here, the same idea is applied toward casting Aaron Eckhart, and the performance is boffo, bam, excellent. Maggie Gyllenhal, excellent. Eric Roberts and Anthony Michael Hall in small roles? I'm starting to warm to Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon. Enough has been said about Heath Ledger, and I don't need to add to it. This is a well-acted movie.
The music is instrumental. Yay! No superhero rap song over the end credits. See my comments on Indiana Jones.
The special effects are excellent. The movie always looks real. See my comments on SFX here.
But most important, the movie is dark. Batman has often been a darker kind of superhero in the comic books, and sometimes as with Tim Burton or even in Batman Begins, this darkness has played out on the screen as muddy cinematography. Sometimes, that darkness has been wedded to a campy homage to the old TV show. Show how modern you are by showing a "dark" batman, show how you remember Burgess Meredith as the Penguin and Tallulah Bankhead as Black Widow, and it's not a good combination. This is the Dark Knight by way of the Untouchables, and I'm surprised I haven't read more on the similarities. Al Capone gets his point across to other mobsters by killing with baseball bat, the Joker gets his point across by doing magic trick with pencil. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and Batman is challenged if he can really fight with the Joker on his level. But also like De Palma's Untouchables, this is suspenseful film direction with tick-tock precision. One good set piece after another after another, well-acted and well-scored and well-edited and well-photographed and nail-biting.
Maybe I should see it again in Imax!
A short time later I took in Mamma Mia. Talk about seeing two very different movies in one day. Mamma Mia isn't particularly well-crafted. I'm not quite as down on this as some of the other reviews I read, many of which sounded to me like critics who complain about choppily edited musicals with too many close-ups where you can't see the characters' feet now complaining about this for having too many wide shots where you just see everyone dancing. But there's one shot that's so egregiously bad with the sun coming thru a window and drowning out 10% of the image of the screen that does't look like intentional craft. The casting is up-and-down. I don't understand how you do an Abba musical without using Fernando. There was something in the air that night, the moon was white, the stars were bright, Fernando, and if I had to do it all again, I would my friend, Fernando. Though he does get a brief shout-out in the movie in a briefly glimpsed poster. Or were the stars white and the moon bright, and if I had to do it all again I should get the lyrics rght my friend Fernando. The casting is a little bit odd. Meryl Streep I thought was good. No doubt all of the critics who've been criticizing her just wish she'd be doing boring serious movies like Out of Africa or were back in the days when it seemed she just did accents. Pierce Brosnan can't sing. The daughter seems off. The boyfriend/fiancee doesn't have the right chemistry and spends too much of the movie seeming like a best friend, but Julie Walters and Christine Baranski are having the time of their life in their roles. But so what. The movie is fun. It is lively. The music is sweet to listen to. It's fun. And as with Wanted, fun is good.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Wall-E Wanted Hancock...
... but he couldn't have him.
Wall-E, Seen Sunday June 29, 2008 at the AMC Loews Kips Bay 15, Auditorim #9, 3 Slithy Toads
I might have enjoyed Wall-E a lot more if it hadn't been surrounded by such showers of critical acclaim. It's a very good movie, but I didn't think it was a masterpiece. The animation is glory to behold, achieving more of a filmed quality than anything else I can imagine. Compare what's on the screen here to what I'm seeing in the coming attractions for Disney's upcoming Bolt, and there's just no comparison. They were trying to get the look of the sf masterpieces, and they succeeded. It's different, and it's somewhat daring. How many animated animals are we supposed to endure? The Hello Dolly thing is an example of this. A lot of films harken back to some other film with the poster in the bedroom or the movie showing on late-night TV, but it's never something like Hello Dolly that most of us have forgotten. There's a passionate defense of the choice of Hello Dolly in the Washington Post from Sunday which I kind of agree with, while at the same point agree with the AO Scott NY Times article that this Post piece decries. It's not a safe choice. Just like it's not a safe choice to have a virtually silent movie for such long stretches. I like that. At the same time, safe choices are that way for a reason, and the movie wasn't as involving as a movie with safer choices might have been, and at the same time becomes decidely worse in the second half when it starts to make safer choices becoming a madcap chase with the robots in white hats and the evil people in the background in black hats. One quick example: why does the captain of the ship decide to take the side of righteousness and get his ship going back to Earth? It's not a well-motivated decision, but it's foundational for the second half of the movie.
Wanted, Seen Sunday June 29, 2008 at the AMC Loews Kips Bay 15, Auditorim #7, 3.5 Slithy Toads
And now I'm doing the sacrilege thing and giving a higher rating to this piece of Hollywood action than to the Pixar masterpiece. Sometimes we go to the movies or read a book because we want to have fun, and this is delightful fun from beginning to end. It's toned down stylistically a bit from the director's Night Watch, but in a way that makes it Hollywood accessible instead of neutered. It's very well acted. Angelina Jolie is having a lot of fun, and it shows. Twinkle twinkle Angelina's eye... James McAvoy is as wonderful here as he is in Innocence, only without the pretension and the period costumes. Morgan Freeman is always good. The one thing I didn't really like was the need of having an entire train car or two full of people plummeting to their deaths. It's a little too unnecessarily horrific to fit in with the overall idea of having fun. I left with a smile on my face.
Hancock, Seen Tuesday July 15, 2008 at the Clearview Cinemas Ziegfeld. 3.5 Slithy Toads.
There are a lot of surprises in this one, and I don't want to spoil them because one of the best things about this movie is that you really totally can't predict ahead of time where it's going. Sometimes I'm a sucker for the cliches, sometimes I want to be surprised, and right now I think it's safe to say the summer's filled with so many same-old same-old (how many comic book movies have we had this year) that I am on board for that which retains a capacity to surprise. The movie's short, under 100 minutes, instead of one of those bloated two-hour plus sitathons. There's one weakness in the movie, which is that the bad guy seems to have been left on the cutting room floor or otherwise colossally underdeveloped. But that aside, I was a sucker for Will Smith, and I enjoyed the surprises.
For the sake of completeness, I've also seen in recent weeks: Zohan, which I did not like; and Get Smart, which has its moments and is pleasant enough but no more than that.
Wall-E, Seen Sunday June 29, 2008 at the AMC Loews Kips Bay 15, Auditorim #9, 3 Slithy Toads
I might have enjoyed Wall-E a lot more if it hadn't been surrounded by such showers of critical acclaim. It's a very good movie, but I didn't think it was a masterpiece. The animation is glory to behold, achieving more of a filmed quality than anything else I can imagine. Compare what's on the screen here to what I'm seeing in the coming attractions for Disney's upcoming Bolt, and there's just no comparison. They were trying to get the look of the sf masterpieces, and they succeeded. It's different, and it's somewhat daring. How many animated animals are we supposed to endure? The Hello Dolly thing is an example of this. A lot of films harken back to some other film with the poster in the bedroom or the movie showing on late-night TV, but it's never something like Hello Dolly that most of us have forgotten. There's a passionate defense of the choice of Hello Dolly in the Washington Post from Sunday which I kind of agree with, while at the same point agree with the AO Scott NY Times article that this Post piece decries. It's not a safe choice. Just like it's not a safe choice to have a virtually silent movie for such long stretches. I like that. At the same time, safe choices are that way for a reason, and the movie wasn't as involving as a movie with safer choices might have been, and at the same time becomes decidely worse in the second half when it starts to make safer choices becoming a madcap chase with the robots in white hats and the evil people in the background in black hats. One quick example: why does the captain of the ship decide to take the side of righteousness and get his ship going back to Earth? It's not a well-motivated decision, but it's foundational for the second half of the movie.
Wanted, Seen Sunday June 29, 2008 at the AMC Loews Kips Bay 15, Auditorim #7, 3.5 Slithy Toads
And now I'm doing the sacrilege thing and giving a higher rating to this piece of Hollywood action than to the Pixar masterpiece. Sometimes we go to the movies or read a book because we want to have fun, and this is delightful fun from beginning to end. It's toned down stylistically a bit from the director's Night Watch, but in a way that makes it Hollywood accessible instead of neutered. It's very well acted. Angelina Jolie is having a lot of fun, and it shows. Twinkle twinkle Angelina's eye... James McAvoy is as wonderful here as he is in Innocence, only without the pretension and the period costumes. Morgan Freeman is always good. The one thing I didn't really like was the need of having an entire train car or two full of people plummeting to their deaths. It's a little too unnecessarily horrific to fit in with the overall idea of having fun. I left with a smile on my face.
Hancock, Seen Tuesday July 15, 2008 at the Clearview Cinemas Ziegfeld. 3.5 Slithy Toads.
There are a lot of surprises in this one, and I don't want to spoil them because one of the best things about this movie is that you really totally can't predict ahead of time where it's going. Sometimes I'm a sucker for the cliches, sometimes I want to be surprised, and right now I think it's safe to say the summer's filled with so many same-old same-old (how many comic book movies have we had this year) that I am on board for that which retains a capacity to surprise. The movie's short, under 100 minutes, instead of one of those bloated two-hour plus sitathons. There's one weakness in the movie, which is that the bad guy seems to have been left on the cutting room floor or otherwise colossally underdeveloped. But that aside, I was a sucker for Will Smith, and I enjoyed the surprises.
For the sake of completeness, I've also seen in recent weeks: Zohan, which I did not like; and Get Smart, which has its moments and is pleasant enough but no more than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)