The local chain of gigundaplexes was bought out/absorbed/seized at gunpoint (hey, I don't know the business aspects of the exhibition industry) a while back, and while change was slow in coming, I'm starting to see some differences in the theater closest to me. I rarely go to the the-AY-ter these days, but just driving by, I can see one big change: The building with that most generic of titles adorning its front, "Multiplex Cinemas," somehow has an even blander appellation now: "Cinemas."
You have to admire the new owners, Rave, for taking down the Multiplex part and not bothering to put up a new sign or at least spring for the letters R-A-V-E. What was the big hurry in taking down the "Multiplex"? Yeah, it was the name of the theaters run by National Amusements, but it's not exactly a hallmark of distinctive brand establishment. Did Rave really worry that people strongly identified with a name as spartan as "Multiplex Cinemas"? Well, at any rate, we can all appreciate this action, or lack of action, because I'm sure by not installing a new sign on the front of the building, Rave is passing the savings on to us in the form of lower ticket and concession prices.
(If you believe that, I have a pair of tickets to "Jonah Hex II" I'd like to sell you.)
The other big change I see is on the vertical marquee-type sign that stands on the property; since it's tall enough to be seen from the highway, passersby can check out the current lineup of movies at the joint while they go to work, school, or their podiatrist appointment. It's kind of like a little billboard and serves as some effective free advertising for the theater.
Or I should say it DID. Rave has replaced the traditional system of putting the movie titles up on that sign with a new system that consists of telling us to go to their website for films and showtimes.
I'm sick of businesses telling me to go to the Internet to get something I used to be able to get offline. Why should I have to fire up my computer and go to some official site just to see what movies are playing right now? Oh, I could go into the theater, but that's hardly as convenient as just driving by it. I could also look at the newspaper for movie listings, but you know what? I stopped getting the newspaper, in part because it moved much of its content to the Internet.
Unlike the major exterior renovations Rave is (so far) avoiding, this inaction doesn't save money. I really don't see the point of taking away that simple marquee feature. In fact, I think only one person benefits from it: the poor sap who would otherwise have to go out there with a pole and a suction cup and change the letters on that sign each week. I can tell you from experience, that guy or gal must be breathing a huge sigh of relief every Thursday night.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Cable Movie Roundup
Duplicity: I enjoyed the hell out of "Duplicity," and I think people need to realize what an entertaining ride it is. You have to enjoy twists--self-conscious twists, even, but in a good way--and spying and having your mind screwed with, but if these characters are all about screwing each others' minds, well, then you the viewer ought to be able to take it, too.
Julia Roberts and Clive Owen make a great screen team, and their back and forth that makes up the heart of the movie is well worth checking out. "Duplicity," with its tale of corporate espionage and the amazing interpersonal dynamics of those in the spy game, is the kind of story that makes your head spin. I expected that, but I did not expect how funny it would be. I was laughing out loud for much of the movie at the absurdity of the escalating paranoia among the characters, and while this isn't quite supposed to be a comedy screenplay, I assure you it was a good kind of laughter, a rollicking, "Hey, this is a fun trip," kind of good humor.
All this and Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson being predictably awesome. This was an extremely pleasant surprise to come across on HBO.
Rachel Getting Married: This movie is a "ride," too, but more like a forced trip to the store when you're little and you don't really want to go because they don't even have toys there and I want to go to McDonald's, and WHY CAN'T WE? I actually think Jonathan Demme's "Rachel Getting Married" is a decent enough watch, but it's not something I want or need to see again.
I can appreciate raw emotion and honesty, which "Rachel" succeeds in delivering for much of its running time. But that running time feels longer than it should, and the whole thing is more a draining experience than a great movie experience. Mrs. Shark put it best when she said she felt like she was at a real wedding--notions of verisimilitude serving art aside, she didn't mean it as a compliment. We see a lot of the climactic wedding. I mean a lot.
Anne Hathaway rightly garnered tons of acclaim for this role, and her performance as an often unpleasant character does anchor the film. Even when playing a self-destructive mess, she's still an appealing presence (that's my overwritten way of saying she's "hot"). But seeing this family work out its many issues is a bit of an ordeal, and the wedding scenes don't offer much reward. Worth seeing...once.
Slumdog Millionaire: I may have out a blurb up about this in the "Shark Bytes" section, but I never really wrote much about this after I finally saw it a few months back, and there's a good reason: I just didn't have much to say about it. Hmm, come to think, I still don't. But it won all those awards and everything, so I feel I ought to say something.
It's quite possible that Mrs. Shark and I would have been more impressed with "Slumdog" had we seen it early on, before all the awards and the hype, instead of afterward. We enjoyed it but felt a little underwhelmed considering.
The gimmick of having star Dev Patel draw from his wild life to answer quiz show questions is a good one, though, and it's well executed by director Danny Boyle. This is another movie filled with depressing events and off-putting characters, and I don't think it all comes together the way it needs to. I'm happy this cast had its moment in the sun, but I don't know what kind of future there is for a lot of them. Still, "Slumdog" was a phenomenon, and I'm glad I saw it, even if I found it more "likable entertainment" than "Oscar winner."
Julia Roberts and Clive Owen make a great screen team, and their back and forth that makes up the heart of the movie is well worth checking out. "Duplicity," with its tale of corporate espionage and the amazing interpersonal dynamics of those in the spy game, is the kind of story that makes your head spin. I expected that, but I did not expect how funny it would be. I was laughing out loud for much of the movie at the absurdity of the escalating paranoia among the characters, and while this isn't quite supposed to be a comedy screenplay, I assure you it was a good kind of laughter, a rollicking, "Hey, this is a fun trip," kind of good humor.
All this and Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson being predictably awesome. This was an extremely pleasant surprise to come across on HBO.
Rachel Getting Married: This movie is a "ride," too, but more like a forced trip to the store when you're little and you don't really want to go because they don't even have toys there and I want to go to McDonald's, and WHY CAN'T WE? I actually think Jonathan Demme's "Rachel Getting Married" is a decent enough watch, but it's not something I want or need to see again.
I can appreciate raw emotion and honesty, which "Rachel" succeeds in delivering for much of its running time. But that running time feels longer than it should, and the whole thing is more a draining experience than a great movie experience. Mrs. Shark put it best when she said she felt like she was at a real wedding--notions of verisimilitude serving art aside, she didn't mean it as a compliment. We see a lot of the climactic wedding. I mean a lot.
Anne Hathaway rightly garnered tons of acclaim for this role, and her performance as an often unpleasant character does anchor the film. Even when playing a self-destructive mess, she's still an appealing presence (that's my overwritten way of saying she's "hot"). But seeing this family work out its many issues is a bit of an ordeal, and the wedding scenes don't offer much reward. Worth seeing...once.
Slumdog Millionaire: I may have out a blurb up about this in the "Shark Bytes" section, but I never really wrote much about this after I finally saw it a few months back, and there's a good reason: I just didn't have much to say about it. Hmm, come to think, I still don't. But it won all those awards and everything, so I feel I ought to say something.
It's quite possible that Mrs. Shark and I would have been more impressed with "Slumdog" had we seen it early on, before all the awards and the hype, instead of afterward. We enjoyed it but felt a little underwhelmed considering.
The gimmick of having star Dev Patel draw from his wild life to answer quiz show questions is a good one, though, and it's well executed by director Danny Boyle. This is another movie filled with depressing events and off-putting characters, and I don't think it all comes together the way it needs to. I'm happy this cast had its moment in the sun, but I don't know what kind of future there is for a lot of them. Still, "Slumdog" was a phenomenon, and I'm glad I saw it, even if I found it more "likable entertainment" than "Oscar winner."
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
DVD Double Feature: Star Trek and Alice in Wonderland
This summer, the missus and I have rediscovered the quaint leisure pastime known as "watching movies on DVD." Recently we saw one big thumbs up and one big "ehhh...."
The disappointment is Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland." Well, the official title is probably My father is a wise man, and he once shared the sage observation that were Mr. Burton to exercise his bowels in a typical fashion, i.e, in the proper receptacle and venue for such a bodily function, then film said activity, that my father himself would gladly view the resulting product were it to be exhibited in a movie theater.
(OK, I tried to write that all fancy-like in the hopes it would sound more sage than it really is.)
Yet my father has not yet seen "Alice in Wonderland," and while I am sure circumstance is the biggest culprit, I wonder if on some level he knows that it ain't one of Burton's best. I usually enjoy the director's output (his MOVIES, that is) quite a bit, often much more than the average guy if a bit less than my dad, but "Alice" just doesn't cut it.
My wife and I were a little tired after a long day of parenting and whatnot, so maybe that had something to do with our experience, but we just never got "into" the movie. There are all sorts of weird touches and visuals and scenes in the film, but there is no solid entryway for us as viewers to immerse ourselves in the story. The bells and whistles feel like distractions meant to cover for the lack of a solid plot.
"Alice" is the first movie in some time where Johnny Depp's Depp-ness feels more like a gimmick than an effective performance. Perhaps it, along with elements such as the typically elaborate Burtonian set design, worked best as spectacle on the big screen. At home, however, "Alice in Wonderland" was just a blah kind of DVD screening.
J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" reboot, on the other hand, excited me enough to keep me in its grip even after another long day of parenting and whatnot. I was prepared to hate it, too. Oh, how I was prepared to hate it. I usually dislike anything "Star Trek" not featuring the old-school original cast, for one thing, and I am not a big fan of Abrams' past work, for another.
Somehow, the combination works for me in this instance, and Mrs. Shark likes the movie, too, though maybe not as much. I'd call it one of our most successful recent movie rentals.
"Star Trek" is a great adventure movie, and that's all it needs to be. I still think maybe some circles overpraised it a bit when it came out, or at least tried too hard to find some greater meanings that weren't there--remember when this was touted as a possible Best Picture choice? But "Trek" is really good at delivering action, and all different types of action, too. I enjoyed the variety of battle scenes, such as spaceship battle, shootouts with weapons, and good, old-fashioned hand-to-hand combat. The action is generally shot well, too, so we can see what's going on and what's about to happen when necessary. This is a basic element of filmmaking that too many directors and editors can't seem to handle, but this "Trek" crew satisfies.
Still, there are enough character moments and emotional scenes to make this more than JUST an action-oriented blockbuster, and the story, while a bit confusing at times, is enough to move things along. Hmm, maybe that Oscar talk wasn't so off base after all.
Most importantly, this movie FEELS like Star Trek. There are a few ridiculous moments that should have been excised long before the final product hit theaters--I'm thinking in particular of one embarrassing sequence with Young Kirk that blares "Sabotage" by the Beastie Boys while the future captain is speeding. Yeah, we get it, he's cool and he's a rebel. But most of the character stuff is not so forced, and it's fun to see the origins of the "Enterprise" crew. The crew itself is well casted and solid in filling the iconic roles.
This "Trek" does something clever in an effort to--well, not appease everyone, exactly, but maybe not drive hardcore fans up a wall. Through a plot involving time travel as an essential component, Abrams and his creative collaborators have in effect created a new universe based on the familiar characters like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Of course, anytime you throw time travel into the mix, you're gonna end up with as many plot holes, or at least head-scratching aspects, as you are wormholes, but this gimmick doesn't hurt the film or the franchise (after all, I think every other episode of the original show had the crew flying back to some century or other) and in fact it's a good way to establish, "We're gonna make new movies with these guys, but we don't want to change anything you've already seen and enjoyed."
I think the best thing I can say about "Star Trek" other than that I had a great time watching it is that I will gladly see those new movies. The cast is fine, the template is there, and I'll see any sequels these folks want to make.
The disappointment is Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland." Well, the official title is probably My father is a wise man, and he once shared the sage observation that were Mr. Burton to exercise his bowels in a typical fashion, i.e, in the proper receptacle and venue for such a bodily function, then film said activity, that my father himself would gladly view the resulting product were it to be exhibited in a movie theater.
(OK, I tried to write that all fancy-like in the hopes it would sound more sage than it really is.)
Yet my father has not yet seen "Alice in Wonderland," and while I am sure circumstance is the biggest culprit, I wonder if on some level he knows that it ain't one of Burton's best. I usually enjoy the director's output (his MOVIES, that is) quite a bit, often much more than the average guy if a bit less than my dad, but "Alice" just doesn't cut it.
My wife and I were a little tired after a long day of parenting and whatnot, so maybe that had something to do with our experience, but we just never got "into" the movie. There are all sorts of weird touches and visuals and scenes in the film, but there is no solid entryway for us as viewers to immerse ourselves in the story. The bells and whistles feel like distractions meant to cover for the lack of a solid plot.
"Alice" is the first movie in some time where Johnny Depp's Depp-ness feels more like a gimmick than an effective performance. Perhaps it, along with elements such as the typically elaborate Burtonian set design, worked best as spectacle on the big screen. At home, however, "Alice in Wonderland" was just a blah kind of DVD screening.
J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" reboot, on the other hand, excited me enough to keep me in its grip even after another long day of parenting and whatnot. I was prepared to hate it, too. Oh, how I was prepared to hate it. I usually dislike anything "Star Trek" not featuring the old-school original cast, for one thing, and I am not a big fan of Abrams' past work, for another.
Somehow, the combination works for me in this instance, and Mrs. Shark likes the movie, too, though maybe not as much. I'd call it one of our most successful recent movie rentals.
"Star Trek" is a great adventure movie, and that's all it needs to be. I still think maybe some circles overpraised it a bit when it came out, or at least tried too hard to find some greater meanings that weren't there--remember when this was touted as a possible Best Picture choice? But "Trek" is really good at delivering action, and all different types of action, too. I enjoyed the variety of battle scenes, such as spaceship battle, shootouts with weapons, and good, old-fashioned hand-to-hand combat. The action is generally shot well, too, so we can see what's going on and what's about to happen when necessary. This is a basic element of filmmaking that too many directors and editors can't seem to handle, but this "Trek" crew satisfies.
Still, there are enough character moments and emotional scenes to make this more than JUST an action-oriented blockbuster, and the story, while a bit confusing at times, is enough to move things along. Hmm, maybe that Oscar talk wasn't so off base after all.
Most importantly, this movie FEELS like Star Trek. There are a few ridiculous moments that should have been excised long before the final product hit theaters--I'm thinking in particular of one embarrassing sequence with Young Kirk that blares "Sabotage" by the Beastie Boys while the future captain is speeding. Yeah, we get it, he's cool and he's a rebel. But most of the character stuff is not so forced, and it's fun to see the origins of the "Enterprise" crew. The crew itself is well casted and solid in filling the iconic roles.
This "Trek" does something clever in an effort to--well, not appease everyone, exactly, but maybe not drive hardcore fans up a wall. Through a plot involving time travel as an essential component, Abrams and his creative collaborators have in effect created a new universe based on the familiar characters like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Of course, anytime you throw time travel into the mix, you're gonna end up with as many plot holes, or at least head-scratching aspects, as you are wormholes, but this gimmick doesn't hurt the film or the franchise (after all, I think every other episode of the original show had the crew flying back to some century or other) and in fact it's a good way to establish, "We're gonna make new movies with these guys, but we don't want to change anything you've already seen and enjoyed."
I think the best thing I can say about "Star Trek" other than that I had a great time watching it is that I will gladly see those new movies. The cast is fine, the template is there, and I'll see any sequels these folks want to make.
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Wonderful World of TCM: The Survivors.
What better way to kick off Movie Week here at Cultureshark than to revisit the Wonderful World of TCM? Our good friends at Turner Classic Movies offered a relative rarity last month in the 1983 Michael Ritchie film "The Survivors," an offbeat comedy co-starring Walter Matthau and Robin Williams, who get a lot of help from Jerry Reed.
I don't have a lot of in-depth analysis on the movie here, but I agree wholeheartedly with Ivan at TODY, who opined...
Yes, I know this movie is uneven and has more holes than Albert Hall. I don’t care.
He calls it one of his own guilty pleasures. Go read Ivan's take on "The Survivors," and then I'll share my own interest here.
Here's where I confess to a little thrill at not just seeing a lesser known but entertaining picture on TCM in the wee hours, but at hearing the magical F-bomb--you know, variations of the word known here as "f***" because I consider this a family blog and in my family we don't know how to spell with asterisks--on Turner Classic.
That's right, call me immature, call me juvenile, Call Me Bwana (sorry, but it was Bob Hope night Sunday on TCM), but I do get a kick out of hearing salty language on The Filthiest Cable Channel Known to Mankind.
Well, it's far from the filthiest channel, of course, but isn't it fun hearing a naughty word or two in there sometimes? I mean, I 'd hate to hear hardcore profanity on the channel all the time, or even often, but as long as it's mostly confined to later hours and special occasions, I have zero problem.
Quite the contrary--I chuckle at the notion of the hip but still basically staid TCM entertaining this kind of language. For all I know, esteemed host Bobby Osbo sounds like mid-1980s Eddie Murphy off camera, but in my mind, he doesn't even think the f-word. Even if Tony Curtis lets it slip during some anecdote about "Some Like It Hot," I believe Bobby's internal filter processes it, automatically changes the letters to asterisks, and only then lets the word pass safely into his noggin.
On a more serious note, seeing and hearing this kind of thing on Turner Classic is a reminder of the network's commitment to screening uncut movies in their original form whenever possible. TCM even showed Jamie Lee Curtis' breasts via "Trading Places" last year. I believe Bobby Osbo's internal filter processes female breasts by...eh, let's not go there.
I don't have a lot of in-depth analysis on the movie here, but I agree wholeheartedly with Ivan at TODY, who opined...
Yes, I know this movie is uneven and has more holes than Albert Hall. I don’t care.
He calls it one of his own guilty pleasures. Go read Ivan's take on "The Survivors," and then I'll share my own interest here.
Here's where I confess to a little thrill at not just seeing a lesser known but entertaining picture on TCM in the wee hours, but at hearing the magical F-bomb--you know, variations of the word known here as "f***" because I consider this a family blog and in my family we don't know how to spell with asterisks--on Turner Classic.
That's right, call me immature, call me juvenile, Call Me Bwana (sorry, but it was Bob Hope night Sunday on TCM), but I do get a kick out of hearing salty language on The Filthiest Cable Channel Known to Mankind.
Well, it's far from the filthiest channel, of course, but isn't it fun hearing a naughty word or two in there sometimes? I mean, I 'd hate to hear hardcore profanity on the channel all the time, or even often, but as long as it's mostly confined to later hours and special occasions, I have zero problem.
Quite the contrary--I chuckle at the notion of the hip but still basically staid TCM entertaining this kind of language. For all I know, esteemed host Bobby Osbo sounds like mid-1980s Eddie Murphy off camera, but in my mind, he doesn't even think the f-word. Even if Tony Curtis lets it slip during some anecdote about "Some Like It Hot," I believe Bobby's internal filter processes it, automatically changes the letters to asterisks, and only then lets the word pass safely into his noggin.
On a more serious note, seeing and hearing this kind of thing on Turner Classic is a reminder of the network's commitment to screening uncut movies in their original form whenever possible. TCM even showed Jamie Lee Curtis' breasts via "Trading Places" last year. I believe Bobby Osbo's internal filter processes female breasts by...eh, let's not go there.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
It was fun while it lasted: Outta Sight Retro Night
Effective September, WGN America drops its Sunday night classic rerun lineup, AKA "Outta Sight Retro Night." Well, it was a good run, and it gave us a few years of good times (though it never actually aired "Good Times"). It's a shame that WGN is going in a different direction with newer sitcoms like "Old Christine," "Curb Your Enthusiasm," shows that are already running other places, but, hey, let's keep it positive here.
Instead of bemoaning the loss of Outta Sight Retro Night and listing it as another reason to yearn for a la carte cable pricing, let me praise WGN for giving a nice treat for classic TV fans on Sunday nights for several years. That's right, it's Sunday, and I feel mellow.
Thanks to WGN, I was able to enjoy virtually the entire run of "Newhart," a show I mostly missed in its original era. I also saw many "Barney Miller" episodes, and WGN made it through a whole cycle of that series.
I wish there were more cable networks showing TV programs from before this decade, but them's the breaks. Most of this stuff is on DVD, anyway. Let's just sit back and appreciate that in this day and age, a national superstation was willing to take a chance and show--gasp--a TV program from the--gasp--1950s! WGN not only showed a black-and-white classic in "The Honeymooners," but it showed the Lost Episodes, which exist in grainy kinescope form that probably makes most modern TV programmers physically gag. That's bold stuff. It was rough-looking (and edited for syndication--hey, WGN wasn't perfect), but it still got on because it was arguably the best sitcom of all time.
Outta Sight Retro Night didn't last forever, but it lasted almost 2 1/2 years, and that's longer than I expected.
Instead of bemoaning the loss of Outta Sight Retro Night and listing it as another reason to yearn for a la carte cable pricing, let me praise WGN for giving a nice treat for classic TV fans on Sunday nights for several years. That's right, it's Sunday, and I feel mellow.
Thanks to WGN, I was able to enjoy virtually the entire run of "Newhart," a show I mostly missed in its original era. I also saw many "Barney Miller" episodes, and WGN made it through a whole cycle of that series.
I wish there were more cable networks showing TV programs from before this decade, but them's the breaks. Most of this stuff is on DVD, anyway. Let's just sit back and appreciate that in this day and age, a national superstation was willing to take a chance and show--gasp--a TV program from the--gasp--1950s! WGN not only showed a black-and-white classic in "The Honeymooners," but it showed the Lost Episodes, which exist in grainy kinescope form that probably makes most modern TV programmers physically gag. That's bold stuff. It was rough-looking (and edited for syndication--hey, WGN wasn't perfect), but it still got on because it was arguably the best sitcom of all time.
Outta Sight Retro Night didn't last forever, but it lasted almost 2 1/2 years, and that's longer than I expected.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Still MORE reasons to yearn for a la carte cable pricing
*Lifetime Networks: If you ever notice the TV schedules, all the original programming that theoretically makes Lifetime as a cable entity distinct--or at least most of that programming--is on spinoff network Lifetime Real Women, while the mothership is loaded with overexposed reruns like Will & Grace, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, Wife Swap, etc. (I exclude "Frasier" because it's possibly the best single series ever aired on Lifetime and I can't believe it's still on, actually). Sure, you can see "Army Wives" and "Project Runway," but why is so much of Lifetime's schedule filled with stuff you can and have seen elsewhere? You have to get expensive digital cable to get most of the originals--granted, many of them are probably reruns by now, too, and many of them are probably lame, but still, this is a prime example of the homogenization of big cable networks, which eventually spills over to the spinoff niche channels that are supposed to supplement the genericized main networks.
And I don't even watch Lifetime!
*ESPN Classic infomercials: None of the ESPN networks should ever show infomercials, ever. Period. Even if it is at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning.
*ABC Family's new sitcom: I realize that ABC Family has moved away from the original concept of "family programming" as defined several regimes ago at the network, but before the debut of "Melissa and Joey," a new sitcom starring Melissa Joan Hart and Joey Lawrence, I kept seeing references to how "edgy" it was. Why does an ABC Family need to be edgy at all, much less brag about it. I mean, Melissa Joan Hart was yakking about its edginess. Apparently, in the premiere episode, there was a joke referencing the word "vagina" and then another joke referencing--without saying--the queen mother of all words not to call a female. It's almost enough to make me wish for more airings of "The 700 Club."
*The existence of "Jersey Shore": Oh, wait. That's not a reason to yearn for a la carte cable pricing. It's a reason to yearn for the quick, merciful destruction of our very civilization by a giant asteroid collision. Sorry.
*ABC Family's new sitcom: I realize that ABC Family has moved away from the original concept of "family programming" as defined several regimes ago at the network, but before the debut of "Melissa and Joey," a new sitcom starring Melissa Joan Hart and Joey Lawrence, I kept seeing references to how "edgy" it was. Why does an ABC Family need to be edgy at all, much less brag about it. I mean, Melissa Joan Hart was yakking about its edginess. Apparently, in the premiere episode, there was a joke referencing the word "vagina" and then another joke referencing--without saying--the queen mother of all words not to call a female. It's almost enough to make me wish for more airings of "The 700 Club."
*The existence of "Jersey Shore": Oh, wait. That's not a reason to yearn for a la carte cable pricing. It's a reason to yearn for the quick, merciful destruction of our very civilization by a giant asteroid collision. Sorry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
