JGL completes path to being the ultimate renaissance man by writing & directing this quirky, funny & semi-interesting film (he also stars).
Spoiler-free Movie Review of Don Jon:
Joseph Gordon-Levitt has slowly been conquering the world, but since he’s charming and been doing it quietly, we haven’t noticed or objected. He has safely navigated the transition from child star to actor as well as anyone and better than most. In addition, he’s started his production company (hitRecord), danced at the Oscars, produced a Broadway show and now adds writer/director to his resume.
This last one isn’t always an impressive credit, as any star is generally given the opportunity to helm a vanity project if they hang around long enough and are so motivated. But he has chosen wisely for his first feature length picture, writing a small, not overly ambitious film in which he can really show off his acting chops while showcasing a quick-moving directorial style. The result is a pretty good movie.
It’s an interesting premise; despite being a total player who can bring home “10”s for one night stands seemingly at will, Jon Martello finds nothing in these relationships to compare with his obsession: pornography. Even when he attempts a lengthy courtship with one of his conquests, Barbara Sugarman (Scarlett Johansson), he remains dissatisfied – real life isn’t as fulfilling as porn. Barbara is a controlling woman, trying to mold him into her idea of perfection, and when he takes a night course at her suggestion, he comes across a fellow student, Esther (Julianne Moore) who will cause him to change his outlook on life and love, and maybe even break his porn obsession.
The subject matter itself isn’t the most captivating, unless you find it fascinating as a sociology topic. It’s the execution that is rewarding. Jon is a shallow character, but his routine and obvious pride in his life is quite interesting. The matter-of-fact narration and self-assessment is refreshing, and if he isn’t the most sympathetic character, he’s certainly engaging and understandable. The acting is unsurprisingly good from the main actors, and the character of Esther really gives Moore something worth her time and talents.
While not a total success, Don Jon is a very well-made film that has plenty to chew on. Even at only 90 minutes, it runs a little long, especially the scenes with Jon’s family, led by Tony Danza and a virtually silent Brie Larson. But it’s very funny, led by the endlessly charming JGL with some really good send-ups of romantic comedies. It’s a unique story and deserves to be seen.
[schema type=”movie” name=”Don Jon” description=”A New Jersey guy dedicated to his family, friends, and church, develops unrealistic expectations from watching porn and works to find happiness and intimacy with his potential true love.” director=”Joseph Gordon-Levitt” actor_1=”Joseph Gordon-Levitt” actor_2=”Scarlett Johansson” actor_3=”Julianne Moore”]
A New Jersey guy dedicated to his family, friends, and church, develops unrealistic expectations from watching porn and works to find happiness and intimacy with his potential true love.
Batman turned 75 years old earlier this year (2014). In recognition, we are rebranding our site for one week to Now Very Bat… and focusing on the blockbusters, the smaller films, the comics and the video games that feature the Dark Knight.
140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW
Released 25 years ago today, Batman kicked off a golden age for comic books & comic book movies that has yet to end. It’s still pretty good.
Spoiler-free Movie Review of Batman:
In 1988-89 I was a sophomore in high school and a huge comic book fan. My friend Bill got me into the hobby by lending me then relatively new copies of the graphic novels Watchmen & The Dark Knight Returns and I was hooked. We would go to local convenience stores and buy whatever titles they stocked, but things didn’t really pick up until he told me about New England Comics (NEC), a local chain based out of Norwood, Massachusetts. We’d pile into our friend Seth’s brown Hornet after school and drive up to their Quincy Center shop, stopping only to buy some very mediocre American Chinese food and then would hit NEC.New England Comics in its first location in Quincy was everything you could want in a comic shop. It was small, narrow and absolutely jammed with longboxes & bins filled with back issues. Things hung on the shelves, on the walls, from the ceiling and seemingly underfoot as well. They would later move to their current location a bit further up on Hancock Street, into a larger and much better space, with more room, organization and good lighting. I retain a fondness for the original spot, though. It was the right amount of overwhelming, with brightly colored displays and covers all vying for your attention (and cash).
I started collecting at the perfect time, as Neil Gaiman’s Sandman comic had just come out – I picked it up simply because it looked promising, along with fistfuls of copies of Aliens, Animal Man, The Demon, and The Tick (an NEC title written by a friend of a friend). (Another friend of ours, Benn, would later run a few different locations – and write a Tick comic.)
But Batman was unquestionably the king. I collected every title he appeared in and as many back issues as I could afford. Simply everyone was excited about the upcoming movie and every other inch of the shop had some promo or reminder about the first big comic book movie we could remember.
Comic books were not well thought of at this point, but had begun to find a respectability with books like Watchmen & Dark Knight. But comic book movies were a non-starter. No one could remember the success of Superman: The Movie after the sequels sputtered to a not early enough grave. The only properties that had made it to film were also-rans that flopped like Sheena, Red Sonja and Wes Craven’s Swamp Thing. The genre wasn’t a genre – it was a death sentence.
And when a Batman film was announced, most everyone’s minds turned immediately to the most indelible portrayal of the character from the camp 1960’s tv show and companion movie Batman (1966). This was not the image the producers wanted potential audiences to fixate on. Instead producers Peter Guber, Jon Peters, Benjamin Melniker & Michael Uslan turned to the recently successful graphic novels The Dark Knight Returns (Frank Miller & Klaus Janson) & The Killing Joke (Alan Moore & Brian Bolland) for the look and tone they were going for: DARK.
When released on June 23, 1989, Batman was a blockbuster success, breaking attendance records everywhere and setting off a worldwide Batman merchandising phenomenon. Bat-saturation would be complete by summer’s end and the comic shop was flooded with new customers. Some of us probably grumbled, but it was great for the industry and launched comic books and their film adaptations into not only viable properties but massive success stories. It was a cultural shift and far from being in danger of shifting back, comics and their film counterparts are more successful now than could have been previously imagined.
So, how is the actual film? How was it then and how is it 25 years later?
Well, at the time, it was an unqualified success. No one had seen anything like it. It was dark and moody and nothing like they had been led to expect from this former Saturday morning cartoon character. Director Tim Burton had created a new vision of the character by enlisting extremely talented creators like production designer Anton Furst, composer Danny Elfman and writer Sam Hamm.
With the confidence that comes from having one of the world’s most famous actors, Jack Nicholson, already in hand as the Joker, Burton made the controversial decision to cast his Beetlejuice star Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight. Everyone thought he had lost his mind, and everyone was proven wrong when Keaton crushed it.
In 1989 it was a hit and an instant classic. In 2014, it shows some wear.Even at the time there was some criticism that the Joker dominated the movie. That probably would have happened with any actor in the role, but with notorious ball-hog Nicholson, it was very nearly a one-man show. He is certainly captivating, and it helps that being over-the-top is actually appropriate for this character. My problem then and now is a simple and perhaps petty one: he’s too old and fat. The Joker of my comics is tall and stick-thin with an angular face. Sorry, that’s what I’m looking for. A younger Nicholson would have been much more pleasing. But he really did deliver here and if the script is gratuitous in its use of him (it is), it’s easy to understand why.
Keaton’s performance is timeless, and Kim Basinger’s didn’t get any worse (if only because it was pretty thin on the ground to begin with). The worst thing about looking at this cast is the slight twinge when you reflect on the missed opportunity with Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent. It would have been so fascinating to see his take on Two-Face, but the producers lost their nerve come sequel-time.
The story was never really that much to write about; it definitely is a style over substance film. While I found it riveting at the time, I have to say I find the movie kind of boring now. There’s a stilted quality to the dialogue and the scene changes are abrupt and jagged.
Also, the film simply looks lousy. It was always a very cold look by DP Roger Pratt, and it hasn’t aged well. It’s very rough and flat, with darkness sitting in for clarity.
The production design is simply marvelous, with the 1940’s era suits and the confused architecture. The look of the production still plays, even if the mattes and effects now look poor by comparison.
Batman was a hugely successful and important film. The best thing about it may be that it set up the sequel Batman Returns, which I consider better in every way. (Although many violently disagree.) In the end it’s more notable for the impact it had than for it’s own merit. But don’t misunderstand – Batman is a very good movie.
[schema type=”movie” name=”Batman” description=”The Dark Knight of Gotham City begins his war on crime with his first major enemy being the clownishly homicidal Joker.” director=”Tim Burton” actor_1=”Jack Nicholson” actor_2=”Michael Keaton”]
About as scary as any movie really needs to be. Yes, most of us prefer Aliens – action, humor & Marines – but the original is terrifying…
Spoiler-free Movie Review of Alien:
I deliberately did not use an image of the Alien as the featured image for the review in the hopes that my daughter wouldn’t accidentally come across it, because I believe the creature conceived of by screenwriter Dan O’Bannon and designed and realized by the late Swiss artist H.R. Giger is the single scariest and most perfect monster ever put on screen.
After 35 years, the movie still works so well for a host (heh, heh) of reasons:
The setting is brilliant. At least as effective as 2001 in establishing the remoteness of the location and the complete isolation from everything else; the limited area makes the setting integral to the story.
Despite being a fantastic bit of science fiction and having this great alien, the film first establishes great human relationships and realism. The horror is genuine because the characters have character. With a relatively low body count, each death must be meaningful, and they are.
The look of the film is incredible. In addition to Giger’s work, which is groundbreaking, inspired, and a wonderful mix of beauty and hideousness, the production design is timeless. The filmmakers took all the right lessons away from the “used universe” of Star Wars and made something new out of it. This is the unglamorous side of space travel; a big, ugly, hulking freighter that moves slowly and breaks down frequently. No one here is gazing at the suns – they’re having a smoke and arguing about their pay.
The film favors suspense over action. This is classic Hitchcockian edge of your seat stuff, but it’s more than that. Because the Alien concept is so fresh and unique, you lean into it, desperately trying for better looks at the ship, the creature, the dark corners. All the better to scare the life out of you. Which leads to:
The Alien itself. There are practical reasons why they chose not to give you a really good look at the creature; Scott wisely realized that extended close-ups or too much clarity would only expose the “guy in a rubber suit” effect. Much better to utilize the shadows. But this technical solution had a much more important result of maintaining the mystery and terror of the creature.
Alien is absolutely terrifying, one of the scariest movies ever made. Watching it this weekend with my dad (another Alien nut) for possibly the 5oth time, it still scared the crap out of me. Not a lot of movies can retain that kind of impact. The Alien is one of the greatest sci-fi inventions of all time. If only one part of the life cycle were introduced, it would still be amazing, but the fully-fleshed out creature from egg to face-hugger to xenomorph makes for the most startlingly original creation. They could make 20 movies based on this creature and it would still be satisfying.
[schema type=”movie” name=”Alien” description=”The commercial vessel Nostromo receives a distress call from an unexplored planet. After searching for survivors, the crew heads home only to realize that a deadly bioform has joined them.” director=”Ridley Scott” actor_1=”Sigourney Weaver” ]
The commercial vessel Nostromo receives a distress call from an unexplored planet. After searching for survivors, the crew heads home only to realize that a deadly bioform has joined them.
Would it be too cutesy to say this movie was “okay”? (That’s a book joke, folks.) You had better have loved the book if you go see this one.
Spoiler-free Movie Review of The Fault in Our Stars:
This review is probably only useful to people who haven’t read this book. It should be fairly simple if you have read the book: you’ll love it. How could you not? It’s essentially an illustrated version of the novel. I can’t believe it actually required two separate people to “adapt” the book into a screenplay. Y’know, there’s a fine line between being faithful and slavish: look behind you…
So, is that a bad thing, this adherence to the source material? Not really; it’s a well written novel and a great story that works well as a movie. But I did sort of wonder why I was bothering to watch the film, since it brought absolutely nothing new to the table.
For those who haven’t read it yet, this may play a lot better. It’s the story of Hazel Grace Lancaster (superbly acted by Shailene Woodley, a mortal lock for a Best Actress nomination), a sixteen-year-old suffering from terminal cancer, who meet cutes cancer survivor Augustus Waters (Ansel Engort) at a support group. The two star-crossed lovers proceed to struggle with their illnesses, help each other, and basically make everyone in the theater cry.
One criticism of the book was that the dialogue was not realistic for teenagers – that teens just didn’t talk this way. As I stated in my review of the book, I disagree with that sentiment. While sometimes stilted and often pretentious, I do find the dialogue authentic; many teenagers are pretentious and use big words to impress people. But the criticism will only feel more justified in the film version, as no actor can deliver some of these lines without them coming off as affected.
The acting is really excellent, led by Woodley but with great performances throughout by Elgort and Nat Wolff. One of the true joys for me was that I was completely unaware of who was in this picture, as every promo image features only the leads, so I found Laura Dern & Sam Trammell as Hazel’s parents a complete surprise. Even more surprising was Willem Dafoe as the mysterious author Peter Van Houten. Odd bit of casting, but not bad at all.
In short, the movie does a very good job of telling this story for those who didn’t read the book, without improving on it in any way. (Exception: the scene at Anne Frank’s home in Amsterdam is wonderfully executed and really much more moving than in the novel.) All of the things you loved about the book you’ll love here; all the things you didn’t like will be amplified, as well, though. So if Augustus made you swoon in print, you’re in luck. If you found him slightly pompous and that affectation with the cigarette annoyingly smarmy and trite, I have some bad news for you.
While I’m not completely convinced this movie needed to be made, The Fault In Our Stars is a good little movie. Probably too long, but I doubt the teenage girls who completely dominate the film’s audience mind. (Side note: Interesting and slightly disturbing conversation between two such teens overheard by my wife after the film ended – “That was so depressing.” “Seriously. I’m going to go home and watch all of the Twilight films to feel better.”)
Poster:
Trailer:
Bechdel Test:
Pass
The Representation Test Score: B (9 pts)
Some on the Representation Test blog comments rated this higher, but I stand by this score – although it was a tough one to judge. It’s tough to say this is representative when everyone is white and thin, and while I don’t think there are negative cultural stereotypes, they do have a bit of fun at the expense of the God-loving support leader. There’s no violence, sure, but why would there be in this story? So some of these things are difficult to answer.
[schema type=”movie” name=”The Fault In Our Stars” description=”Hazel and Gus are two teenagers who share an acerbic wit, a disdain for the conventional, and a love that sweeps them on a journey. Their relationship is all the more miraculous given that Hazel’s other constant companion is an oxygen tank, Gus jokes about his prosthetic leg, and they met and fell in love at a cancer support group.” director=”Josh Boone” actor_1=”Shailene Woodley” ]
Hazel and Gus are two teenagers who share an acerbic wit, a disdain for the conventional, and a love that sweeps them on a journey. Their relationship is all the more miraculous given that Hazel’s other constant companion is an oxygen tank, Gus jokes about his prosthetic leg, and they met and fell in love at a cancer support group.
Wonderful series that would be ripe for a remake. Great use of technology of the time & wonderful art direction bring these tales to life…
Spoiler-free Review of Jim Henson’s The Storyteller:
I remember a few episodes of this series airing on tv when I was in high school. It was on at irregular times and some of the episodes never aired. Many people never saw it. I would tell friends in vain about this amazing tale of a soldier who captured Death, but never could show it to them.
The complete run of nine episodes of the show, plus four more episodes of Greek Myths (in which the Storyteller was played by Michael Gambon) aired in the late 90’s on HBO, but I never saw them. I had to wait for these to come out on dvd in 2003. But it’s probably better this way, since once you’ve seen one episode you can’t wait to start another.
What an amazing series. Conceived of by his daughter Lisa Henson after taking a folklore class in college, it really was an ambitious project. Each episode really is like a mini-movie, far beyond the scope of a tv show back then, and maybe even now.
As was customary with his work, Henson pushed the boundaries of what was possible in storytelling by always exploring new technologies. This led to a truly unique visual look to the series, one that has never been repeated. There are silhouettes, projected images, puppetry, green screen and a host of both in-camera and post production techniques employed. And the most important thing here is that these are all for the advancement of the stories. These were not technical exercises by a skilled filmmaker; all the work serves the stories and communicating in new ways the old tales.
I love the look of The Storyteller, but I wouldn’t be against an update. The series was shot on film, but is not of a high quality due to the post production processing work (I presume). Maybe they could even get John Hurt to reprise his role and film new stories!
An absolute masterwork that I rewatch regularly, save the best place by the fire for The Storyteller…
The nine episodes:
Hans My Hedgehog – the pilot episode
Fearnot
A Story Short
The Luck Child
The Heartless Giant
The Soldier and Death
The True Bride
Sapsorrow
The Three Ravens
Sapsorrow
Trailers for a few of the episodes:
Bechdel Test:
Pass – for the most part. This rating and that of the Representation Test are based on the whole series.
