Martin's Musings

I suppose you know what you’re getting when you go to see a Terrence Malick film: beautiful cinematography, sweeping shots of nature (and lots of them), ethereal narration, major actors who have bit parts or who don’t appear until two-thirds of the way through, and a general sense that you’re watching a Very Important Movie and you should just get comfortable because Malick’s in no rush. All that and more is present in The New World, Malick’s latest film — which probably hits a theater near you on January 13 (if it’s not there on Christmas Day). The New World is Malick’s take on the founding of Jamestown in 1607, but instead of it being a historical document of culture clashes, Malick has made an epic love story. And this is not the Disney Pocahontas movie, that’s for sure.

To be honest, I have a hard time reviewing the movie. It’s not that it’s not good — and with sweeping camerawork, a beautiful score, and fine acting by Colin Farrell, it’s quite impressive. I can appreciate the film for what it is, but I just didn’t enjoy it. I just found it hard to connect with. My eyelids were closing at times, the narration got a bit annoying, and I really thought it was quite long — as opposed to Malick’s last film, The Thin Red Line, which was also long, but which I did enjoy. I’m no professional critic, just a frequent moviegoer (this was my 48th film so far this year), so I guess that entitles me to write about the movies I see however I want to. So, I’m not going to give this one a letter grade, because I don’t see how I could give it a B+ or A-, for example, when B+ is the same grade I gave, say, Wedding Crashers, and that movie is in a whole different league from The New World. So let’s leave it at that: The New World is an impressive, beautiful movie, but it didn’t make a connection with me, and I just didn’t enjoy it.

For a change, I bought and actually watched a DVD this past weekend: Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

When I first saw this movie over the summer, I rated it a B/B+, but after a second viewing, I am upgrading my grade to a solid B+. Mr. & Mrs. Smith clearly got a bad rap because of all the Brangelina hype, and too-high expectations from literal movie critics. Now that some time has passed … well, the film is really fun — a great mix of humor and action with some great showpieces, and Brad Pitt gives a typically deadpan funny performance. Continue reading →

The Good News? The Producers is great. Just like the show, it’s funny, the songs are catchy and memorable, there’s priceless chemistry between Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, and you want to leap to your feet with applause throughout.

The Bad News? Did I mention it’s just like the show? More so than even the movie of Chicago was, The Producers is basically a filmed version of the show. It’s like there was a camera on stage documenting the whole thing. There’s no attempt to make it more real by filming in real locations (aside from some quick scenes in Central Park), and with many of the characters performing right to the audience/camera just as they would on stage, there is no pretense that it’s anything more than a film of the show. It’s just bigger (more dancers, larger sets, etc.).

So yeah, that’s the mixed news. But I have to emphasize that while The Producers: the movie is almost exactly like The Producers: the show, it is a really well done filmed version. As I said, it’s bigger in scope, really funny, and I was actually tempted to burst out in applause more than a few times. I mean, let’s be honest: The Producers is a great show (it did win 11 Tony Awards, after all). And what’s different about the movie version — some new jokes, Will Ferrell, fun cameos — is generally really enjoyable. (Then again, Uma Thurman is not so good. The first scene with Leo and Max goes on a bit too long. And by the way, what happened to the “King of Broadway” song?) I really enjoyed the movie, so I’ll give The Producers a B+ and highly recommend it.

(And by the way, when you see the movie, make sure you stay all the way to the end, after the end credits.)

It’s entirely possible that I wasn’t in a movie-going mood yesterday, but despite that, I went to see The Ice Harvest. I’m not sure exactly what the movie was about; it was something about stolen money and Christmas Eve. Oliver Platt was his usual boorish self, there wasn’t enough Billy Bob Thornton, and nor was there enough nasty holiday humor. I was kind of under the assumption that the movie would be more along the lines of Bad Santa, though not so holiday-specific. Anyway, the film really didn’t do anything for me. Still, I’m giving it a C-.

I’m happy to say I liked Walk the Line. I mean, really liked it. Really liked it, as in ran right out to buy the CD At Folsom Prison at the Virgin Megastore when the film was over (and it was on sale — bonus!). But … Continue reading →

Instead of seeing a new movie this weekend (because really, considering I’ve seen 11 movies in the past month, I needed a break), I decided to watch my new DVD of Titanic on Saturday. (And thank you, Rebecca, for sending it to me.) Now, I’m not the world’s biggest Titanic fan, but I did see it twice in the theater back in 1997-98 and had decent memories of its quality. How times change. I’m not sure if it was watching the movie on my 27-inch television or if my taste in movies has changed that drastically, but man was this movie not all that good. (I know. Big shock.) Sure, the effects were (mostly) cool and all, but, um, who was Leonardo DiCaprio kidding when he got all insulted about not being nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor? Talk about an overrated, self-inflated actor. And Kate Winslet was only mildly better. I sat there on my couch trying to figure out why this movie was so popular and for so long. In addition to its big effects, it pandered to the audience, and had lame dialogue and stiff acting — I guess you could say it wasn’t all that different from films like The Day After Tomorrow, except that movie I know I liked. And where was the trailer? Of all the DVD extras to leave off, and there are plenty on the disc, that was one of the most puzzling.

Maybe your heart will go on, but mine remains stone cold — at least as far as this movie is concerned.

[Bonus trivia question: Titanic was the number one movie at the box office for 15 consecutive weeks. What movie dethroned it? Your only hint is that it was released on April 3, 1998.]

Could Chicken Little have been any worse, you may have asked yourself after reading my review last week? Well, check out this story from Sunday’s New York Daily News and make your own decision: Continue reading →

Chicken Little is a cute movie. I don’t necessarily say that as a good thing, but it’s not really a bad thing either. It’s colorful, generally fast-moving, and fun.

Strangely, though, it’s not entirely kid-friendly; many of the jokes went over the heads of the many, many, many kids in the auditorium when I saw it last night. (And don’t get me started about THAT!)

And it’s sort of two movies in one, including a very long, what I can only call homage to Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds. So, if forced to give a grade, I’d give Chicken Little a B. It’s not bad, it’s not great. It’s just fine. Continue reading →