Posted on June 28, 2014 at 7:06 pm
Two writers from Slate couldn’t figure it out, either. Except that “If I’m ever in Hong Kong in the midst of an apocalyptic battle between Dinobots, Autobots, reconstituted Decepticon leaders, evil CIA agents, venal tech CEOs, and Chinese nationals conveniently trained in kung-fu, I can only hope there’s a Bud Light on hand to refresh me.”
Posted on June 28, 2014 at 8:00 am
Cinema Blend reports that a remake of the Matthew Broderick film “Wargames” is in the works, possibly with Ansel Elgort or Tye Sheridan in the lead role. This is an awful idea. What made WarGames
It will also be impossible to top Broderick’s performance. Sheridan and Elgort are terrific actors, but they do not have his comic timing or puppy-dog appeal.
By the way, I recommend The Internet’s Own Boy, which describes one real-life scary consequence of the original “Wargames” film, the enactment of vastly overbroad and poorly constructed laws to prevent the kind of hacking Broderick’s character did.
Posted on June 27, 2014 at 4:28 pm
Clint Eastwood is not a favorite of mine as an actor or a director, though I appreciate some of his work. I think his best performance may have been in Gran Torino
I like “Letters from Iwo Jima,” and think his first film as a director, Play Misty for Me
I give him credit for trying to sing in “Paint Your Wagon.”
He did all right with “Jersey Boys,” but it could have been better. Christy Lemire, who agrees with me that it is only pretty good, has an interesting piece about Eastwood’s own take on his films, commenting on his six favorites. Bilge Ebiri wrote a thoughtful assessment of Eastwood for Rolling Stone.
There are, you could argue, two Clint Eastwoods. One is the strong, near-silent type, the man with no name but a pair of Colt revolvers or a .44 Magnum, the lean avenging angel who asks if you feel lucky, punk, and would care to make his day. Whether he’s a tough cop, a tough cowboy, a tough secret-service agent, a tough military man, a tough experimental-jet-fighter pilot or a tough racist old coot, the part is a variation on Eastwood’s screen persona. His status as a macho icon was cast in immovable granite early on; to many, Eastwood is still the man who wielded suggestively-long barreled guns and doled out ruthless justice to criminals and assorted thugs. He is Dirty Harry, by any other name.
Then there’s the Clint behind the camera, the classicist who evokes old-school filmmakers like John Ford and Eastwood’s mentor Don Siegel, the guy who likes to keep things nice and easy on the set, and never likes to do more than a few takes. The director who makes movies that feel ambivalent about taking the law into your own hands, and biopics about jazz musicians, and a genuine tearjerker about a love between two late-in-life romantics that could not be. The serious gentleman who gets nominated for, and occasionally wins, Oscars. The Clint Eastwood who adapts a megapopular Broadway musical for the big screen.
And Andrew Romano calls him the most overrated director in The Daily Beast.
His style is largely procedural. As Esquire’s Tom Junod has written, “the Clint Movie is itself defined by what he won’t do. He won’t go over budget. He won’t go over schedule. He won’t storyboard. He won’t produce a shot list. He won’t rehearse. He doesn’t say “Action” … and he doesn’t say “Cut.” He won’t, in the words of his friend Morgan Freeman, “shoot a foot of film until the script is done,” and once the script is done, he won’t change it. He doesn’t heed the notes supplied by studio executives…He won’t accept the judgment of test screenings…He is well-known for his first takes—for expecting his actors and crew to be prepared for them and for moving on if he gets what he wants.”
I’m not sure that makes him the most overrated, but I agree that he is more serviceable than inspired.
Posted on June 13, 2014 at 11:25 pm
This week’s two big national releases are both sequels featuring Jonah Hill. But they have something more important in common: Both reflect a wiser, kinder, more just treatment of GLBT characters. It was only a few years ago that I wrote an article about the disturbing prevalence of gender and sexual orientation “jokes” in movies for families that ranged from insensitive to insulting to downright offensive.
These two films show that that Hollywood has made real and gratifying progress.
The very R-rated “22 Jump Street” has some fun with the idea that the two main characters have the dynamics of a romantic couple, and are seen that way by at least one other character. The current cover of Entertainment Weekly reflects that theme as well. This is a core element in many other comedy teams, from Laurel and Hardy (who even played each other’s wives in one film) to Martin and Lewis and Hope and Crosby. As in their last film, “22 Jump Street” has explicit portrayals of characters being schooled about use of anti-gay epithets. In real life, Jonah Hill has recently made a sincere and heartfelt apology for his own comment along those lines when he was provoked by an intrusive photographer. There is still more progress to be made, but this film shows significant and meaningful improvement.
The family film “How to Train Your Dragon 2” has a brief, understated comment by a character that the difficulty of dealing with women is just one reason he isn’t married, reportedly an ad lib by the actor who plays him. Given that nearly half of today’s children live in states where marriage equality is the law, it may be that most of those who pay attention to this line will not recognize that as an indication that the character is gay. It is unlikely to be noticed at all by most children. Even The Catholic Register’s Steven D. Greydanus says it is not intrusive enough to recommend skipping the film in a piece showing admirable respect, though he can’t resist saying that he questions his earlier description of the character in question as “an old-school man’s man.” Movies like this one will help the next generation understand that what makes a man a man is not who he loves but who he is.
Posted on May 15, 2014 at 7:00 am
I am most grateful to Focus on the Family for their very courteous response to my review of their film “Irreplaceable,” one of the harshest I have ever published. I strongly encourage everyone who wants to understand our disagreement to read their response carefully, along with the extensive exchange of comments following the review with people who had a variety of reactions to the film and which have a great deal more detail about what I found offensive.
My primary concern, as I explained in the review’s second paragraph, was the film’s refusal to meet the fundamental requirement of advocacy: stating contrary opinions to the satisfaction of the person whose opinion is being described. They prove my point in this reply, responding, for example, to a charge of being “radical” which no one never made. The problems I had with the film are repeated in their response, where they insist “there is no boogey man in this documentary. There is no ‘other side’ and no ‘them’” but then acknowledge that “some family forms are simply more effective than others at bringing good and essential things to people’s lives than others, regardless of how sincere the people are that create them.” I believe that the way they present the “less effective” family forms in the film is inflammatory and unfair and does create a boogey man.
We agree on a number of issues, starting with the importance of each of us making a renewed commitment to our own families and the families in our communities. And we agree that the best way for people to decide which view of the film is correct is to see the film. They ask people to see the film and make their own judgment, which I endorse entirely. The movie was so successful in its initial one-night showing that it will be in theaters again tonight, so if this debate has piqued your curiosity, or if you share with both Focus on the Family and me the goal of exploring how we can be better and more effective in supporting our own families and others in our community, I encourage you to see it and let me know what you think.
I would just ask Focus on the Family to do the same with the movie I recommended in my review as a supplement, Rosie O’Donnell’s “A Family is a Family is a Family.” Whether they view it or not, I make the same offer to them that I did to my most engaged commenter; if they come to Washington, D.C., I’d be glad to invite them to lunch to discuss my concerns about the film further and explore more effective messages for addressing the concerns we share. Again, my thanks for the respectful response.
