Sex. You know you want it — and I know you’re not getting it from the movies. And I know you’re not because I’ve been looking myself, and coming up empty. Wanted teases with a proudly bare-bottomed shot of a tattooed Angelina Jolie (a digital effect made flesh) and she treats costar James McAvoy to a big lip-lock — but it’s all a part of his score-settling, and he’s more in love with his guns and knives than a deep-woods survivalist. A movie called Sex and the City might have offered more of the former than the latter. Here again, though, the heaviest lust is expressed for a genuine Vuitton bag, and female orgasm achieved over that scarcest of Manhattan commodities — closet space. (Then again, the men on the show, retained for the movie, are pretty unappealing. I’d want a bag, too, to place over their heads during the brief bump-and-grind scenes.)MTV killed sex in the movies. Videos spawned from edgy fashion photography sexualized the culture, but deprived it of genuine eroticism. The video-fueled Flashdance, a quarter-century ago, has a canned sexiness to it; it’s all about display, and peek-a-boo near-nudity, and a heavy-breathing “empowerment,” not human interaction. When it took off at the box office you could hear the studios breathe a collective sigh of relief; the freedoms let loose in the pesky Seventies were being chased back into the bottle. Audiences would settle for this. Aestheticized non-sex, robotic and passionless, became the norm.

In a sense, I was relieved. I will always remember squirming through Dressed to Kill with my mother and my aunt, thinking it would be a “regular” horror picture. We all loved it, but there are certain things, like, you know, Angie Dickinson self-helping herself in the shower in the very first scene, that you shouldn’t have to watch with Mom. (“A mother who takes her son to see Dressed to Kill; that’s the kind of mom I like,” said Brian De Palma when I relayed this anecdote years later.) (more…)

I have violated the covenant between reader and critic. You, the reader, expect me, the critic, to leave his home in Brooklyn, get on the subway, and attend screenings 25 or so minutes away in Manhattan. This I understand. And I do it without complaint. Without public complaint, that is. I mean, I could complain. About the disruption to my other daily tasks: tending the cat litter, say, or rearranging my Netflix queue. (Only two weeks till the unrated version of The Ruins hits the streets. Awesome!) The crowded trains, which have me longing to purchase the biggest, baddest SUV I can find and expand my carbon footprint to Godzilla size. The frisking I endure at “all-media” screenings, where full body cavity searches conducted by ex-cons with “Mother” tattooed on their biceps are the norm lest we in the media sneak in video cameras to record Prince Caspian for Estonian bootleggers. The deprivation at smaller-group indie screenings, where food and drink are strictly prohibited, and a little man taps me on the shoulder when I reach past my concealed video camera for my concealed Poland Spring and says “No water” as I slowly die of thirst between subtitles.

But that is only part of our unspoken agreement. The other part is getting to the point when I tap out my usually sort-of weekly report card. This time, I am duty-bound to say that I wrote part of this piece while actually watching the movies—not on one of those horrid blue-glow devices that pop on and off and make it look like a search party is intermittently erupting in the theater but on my MacBook, which I took with me to bed as I curled up with my beloved Vera Farmiga in Quid Pro Quo and Matthew Broderick in Finding Amanda, which has just opened for real. And for this I can thank my new best friend, Mark Cuban. (more…)

By the calendar it’s not quite summer yet, but the northeast has already wilted under August heat — and the movies already feel spent and depleted, in need of a second wind. The Pixar movie, WALL-E, might do it: a film without dialogue seems like a mighty good idea given the screenwriting of late. But this week’s comedies — I had held out hope for Get Smart, but based on word-of-shoe-phone will likely get it on Netflix or HBO next summer — feel like filler. I’m lukewarm on Will Smith’s latest Fourth of July picture (I’m lukewarm on Will Smith, period). There are indies to be considered, but by and large, I can Rip Van Winkle the hoped-for Hollywood hits till mid-July, when The Dark Knight and, yes, Mamma Mia! open. I have a growing curiosity about Hellboy II, but it’s hard to see a cult-ish sequel getting much traction.

Still, I’m not entirely disenchanted, though you might think me so given last week’s no-show. I went to the press screening of The Incredible Hulk, like a good little critic, and banged out a few paragraphs on it, admittedly a bit late. But WordPress ate my homework, which I didn’t realize till yesterday. Now, I could push the “delete” key, and be done with yesterday’s hit, which you can already scrape mold from. But, no — I made the effort, dammit, so having raged at the machine here it is, slightly freshened as we head to this week’s haul.

The dumb-ass Hulk movie some of you have been waiting for has arrived. Hear me out: While Ang Lee’s much-mocked V.1 of 2003 makes a mountain out of a molehill, digging deep into a simple Marvel concept, it has an abundance of style, and maybe too much of everything, really. There’s a crazily Freudian father-son dynamic, Pop Art editing matched to comic book frames, and loony flights of fancy (the untamable Hulk leaping over mountains) that only a top-flight filmmaker would dare to risk. By contrast, there’s nothing particularly at stake in the new do-over, The Incredible Hulk. It’s an unleavened summer blockbuster, an entertainment machine that blows things up, sputters, grinds, and stops after two hours, then resumes to pick up new passengers at the multiplex.

Hulk left me feeling overstuffed, but I knew I had seen something that departed from the comic book adaptation template. The Incredible Hulk clings to it for dear life, too timid to do anything out of the ordinary and jeopardize the gross and the franchise possibilities. (more…)

You can see the nominees for best foreign-language film at the Oscars coming from a kilometer away. They’re tied to some sort of hot-button issue, or a pivotal historical event in the 20th century (see this year’s winner, The Counterfeiters), or a polyglot of arty and hearty elements that are delivered to us in subtitles. They are also often not the best movies their countries have to offer. Mongol, the 2007 nominee from Kazakhstan (choke on it, Borat), departs from the template. It begins with an ancient Mongolian proverb that might have sustained Conan the Barbarian through his various trials — “Do not scorn the weak cub; he may become the brutal tiger” — and with plates of 12th-century mutton and meat dishes thrust into our faces. Ladies and gentlemen, loosen the ascots you wear when you enter the arthouse for the usual highfalutin fare: There will be blood.

This is the story of Genghis Khan. Or, rather, one-third of it: the Russian director, Sergei Bodrov (of the 1996 Oscar nominee Prisoner of the Mountains, a Tolstoy update) has announced two more parts. Temudgin, the boy who would be Khan, has not been well-served by Hollywood. On Turner Classic Movies recently I came across the 1965 feature Genghis Khan, with all-purpose ethnic Omar Sharif grappling with a usurping Stephen Boyd and the none-too-Chinese James Mason and Robert Morley in yellow face and false eyelashes as onlookers to their quarrel. It was about as good as a Genghis Khan picture from the director of Where the Boys Are and Come Fly with Me could be. It was, however, still better than the legendary-for-the-wrong-reasons The Conqueror (1956), which I read about in The Fifty Worst Films of All Time in 1978 and lived down to its reputation when I saw it 20 years later. Here, red-haired Susan Hayward plays Borte, Genghis Khan’s hot-tempered lady love, and as Temudgin — a scowling John Wayne. “I feel this Tartar woman is for me, and my blood says, take her,” the Duke drawls. “There are moments for wisdom and moments when I listen to my blood; my blood says, take this Tartar woman.” If the subject had been alive during the making of this picture the rebuilding of Hollywood after the wrath of Khan would still be going on. [As it was, it was the cast and crew who suffered from the irradiated soil of the Utah locations, with many, including the two leads, dying in a vicious cancer cluster over the next two decades.]

Mongol has the smell of authenticity. [Dudes, I haven’t forgotten Genghis Khan’s gnarly appearance in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, but we shall pass over that in silence.] (more…)

Like Jack Lemmon in Glengarry Glen Ross, I’m overjoyed to find myself on the big board, with all the cool kids who’ve written “Most Popular” Popdose posts. And I didn’t even have to do anything new; hell, I called in sick last week, and upon my return there was my weeks-old summer-movie-guide entry, #4 with a bullet. Folks, you’ve taken me this far, so I humbly ask that you take me all the way. The heck with those “worst of the ’80s” music posts: what was so bad about Starship and “Kokomo,” anyway? At the very least I should be in the running for the steak knives.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It was the first movie I pre-raved about in my ever-climbing survey, so a word or two about it is in order. I saw it with my parents, which in itself packed a nostalgic charge, back to 1981 and Raiders of the Lost Ark, when you had to get to the theater early and be prepared to wait an hour to see the show. With “event pictures” opening three per summer weekend nowadays and thousands of screens showing them around the clock, we pretty much just breezed in with 15 minutes to go on Memorial Day, which meant we had to endure a fate worse than a temple of doom: Commercials. Didn’t have those back in 1981—but when I first saw them appended to movies in Hong Kong in the late ’80s, and audiences sitting sheeplike through them, my crystal skull prophesied that the practice would jump the Pacific, and so it did.

My sixth sense also told me that there was scant chance of Spielberg and Lucas getting the old-school summer-movie mojo back, 19 years after the last, wearying Last Crusade. I wanted to believe it, and my faith was partly rewarded. The new movie strikes a reasonable balance between CGI (the Dark Star where Lucas lives) and real stunts (Spielberg, keeping the faith), and it has been shot and edited by old Spielberg hands to look like a picture copyrighted in the pre-MTV, pre-Flashdance, and pre-digital effects eras, when everything had to get faster and glitzier. Too much digital hullabaloo regurgitated in three-second bursts on-screen and I start to nod off, my synapses overloaded with visual junk food.

I stayed awake and alert throughout Crystal Skull, however, even during the heavy-going expository bits, which should have been delivered on the fly and off the cuff, like so many Hitchcock “MacGuffins.” More effort, frankly, should have gone into making the plasticized crystal skull itself look a little more imposing. For this I blame Lucas, with whom I have been estranged since the near-debacle of the Star Wars prequels. Actually, I blame Lucas for everything that went wrong; surely, the Caddyshack-ish gophers that pop up in the first sequence, spoiling the action beats, were his idea. I’d blame him for the silly, bendy-twisty contortions Shia LaBeouf endures atop moving vehicles during the big Peru chase, if I hadn’t recalled them from Spielberg’s non-Lucas pictures. Oh well: Boys will be boys.

(more…)

“That’s it,” said my friend, following our Monday evening screening of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. “I’m through with Narnia.” I know the feeling; it’s the same one I get after semi-dozing through the latest Harry Potter picture, which evidence to the contrary I’m told are getting better. That I was back at Narnia at all was kind of a surprise, given my thumbs-down response to the whole idea of sitting through a C.S. Lewis sequel in my summer movies preview last month (“a movie no one over, what, age 14, needs to see,” I sniffed). But I’m a sucker for a free preview for something that, if it got good reviews, I’d be obliged to pay eleven Brooklyn dollars to see.

It turned out to be a long sit: 144 minutes. But my posterior wasn’t too chafed as the last digital effects credit slid down the screen. I found I was in the mood for this kind of swords-clanging adventure, if only for the duration. The problem with The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, the first of a likely seven pictures promised, was that it smacked of opportunism, following in the wake of the terrific Lord of the Rings pictures, my favorite film fantasies. As a series of books, it had its own identity, and act as a sort of Christian “answer” to Tolkien’s more heathen-ish tales, which were published in roughly the same period. [The two had a complex friendship.] Filmically, however, Rings captured the flag first, after false starts and a long gestation, and the Narnia pictures feel a little stale and impoverished by comparison. They follow in massive footsteps, which all but swallowed up the shallower homegrown mythmaking of the Star Wars prequels.

But enough time has elapsed since 2003’s stupendous Return of the King to consider the new Narnia on its own terms. The Christian elements, which Lewis himself downplayed, are further soft-pedaled here, but are likely to be a persistent, if gnat-like, bother to anyone troubled by them. [The messier, unlikely-to-be continued Golden Compass may be more your pagan speed.] Andrew Adamson’s direction is more assured this time, if lacking much of the humor of his first two Shrek pictures; there’s no way to simply shrug off or throw away all this mythology without irking the fan base. [My beef with the Harry Potters is this pathological need to cram in as much of everything as possible, to the extent that two films will be made from the seventh and final book. Works by much finer authors should be so lucky to have such craven adaptors.] The story is more of a straight-ahead swashbuckler for the family crowd, and the talking animals (more gracefully CGI-ed in Compass) are part of the fabric, not the whole show. (more…)

All I know about Speed Racer I learned as a kid, when I watched episodes of the proto-anime between spoonfuls of Cocoa Puffs. There wasn’t much to it — there was a car, a monkey, a bad guy, and once I had my sugar rush I was outta there, its theme song lodged in a tiny corner of my mind. Some 40 years later I wouldn’t have imagined it as a potential new franchise for the makers of The Matrix (1999) to put on the road, but then again I was the guy who said today’s savvy, Wii-playing kids would never, ever go for Alvin and the Chipmunks.

The Speed Racer invite for the press screening said that children over seven would be welcome to attend. Given previews that promised candy-colored joyrides on green-screened Hot Wheels tracks, I thought it should be mandatory to bring one. The goofiest thing about this perplexing enterprise is that it’s only sort of for the over-sevens; the boring parts (and there are a lot of boring parts) are for the 40-year-olds lugging their over-sevens into the theater for this week’s cinematic adrenaline rush. There are two movies going on here, neither with crossover appeal.

This was not the film the Wachowski Brothers needed to rebound with after the embarrassment of the Matrix sequels (2003). They needed to go back to something smaller, more intimate, maybe with Gina Gershon again playing a lesbian (it’s just a thought), as in their debut feature, Bound (1996). V for Vendetta (2006), which they pulled the strings on, was a mess of totalitarian clichés and good intentions. So is this one, when it forgets to be a PG movie for the family, which is often enough.

(more…)

David Mamet can’t commit. His latest Broadway show, November, is an almost-farce in need of bigger laughs. Despite its definitive title, his film Heist couldn’t quite bring itself to be a fulfilling caper picture; likewise, Spartan is a sort-of spy movie. His best work of late has been in adaptation: his film of The Winslow Boy is a fine look back at the Terence Rattigan chestnut, suitably framed for the Clinton scandal years, and his reconsideration of the near-forgotten play The Voysey Inheritance Off Broadway last season commented subtly on the Enron generation. But his tenth movie since 1987’s diamond-hard House of Games, Redbelt, is another coy shell game, a movie about martial arts that doesn’t want to be a martial arts movie.

Mamet knows how to open a picture. We are introduced to Mike Terry, proprietor of a declining L.A. dojo, who teaches Brazilian jujitsu. The magnetic Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Terry, and I will digress briefly to say that if I am scanning my cable channel line-up and hit upon one of his scenes in Kinky Boots I forget where it was I might have been going and tune in. Teaching a cop how to fight with one hand tied in the first scene, Ejiofor repeats, rhythmically, reassuringly, urgently, “There is no situation from which you cannot escape.” This will be the mantra of the story. I was intrigued. The notion of Ejiofor as the leader of a beleaguered Shaolin Temple on the West Coast was a good one; what was needed was some butts to kick.

But Mamet doesn’t want to sully his hands with that kind of picture. The martial-arts strain is crossbred with the noir-ish strands of Forties pictures like Body and Soul and The Set-Up—Mike is loathe to compete in the soulless commercial arena of the sport, and the other characters are pushing him hard to do so, some indirectly, some more bluntly. The can of worms opens when the hysterical Laura Black (a high-strung Emily Mortimer) barges into the dojo as that initial training session ends and, unhinged, fires the policeman’s gun through a window. A woozy chain of events, designed to throw Mike off his principled high horse, transpires. He saves, or seems to save, hack movie star Chet Frank (Tim Allen) from a barroom beating. A film producer (old Mamet hand Joe Mantegna) takes an interest. Business opportunities suddenly open up for his wife Sondra (Alice Braga), a fabrics designer. David Paymer talks tough. Hombres lurk on the sidelines. Ricky Jay sleazes around. (more…)

Last Thursday actor Wesley Snipes (U.S. Marshals, Undisputed) was sentenced to three years in prison after being found guilty in February of three misdemeanor counts for willfully failing to file his tax returns from 1999 to 2001. Snipes and his lawyers had hoped he could avoid prison time, even if he ends up doing that time at a minimum-security “Club Fed”-style prison camp, and went so far as to present three checks totaling $5 million to Judge William Terrell Hodges at the sentencing hearing. Judge Hodges said he didn’t have the authority to accept the checks, and the prosecution wouldn’t accept them either. Was anyone in the courtroom bold enough to cash Blade’s checks? Suddenly, a kindly IRS employee stepped up and said he’d give them a good home at the Treasury Department. Crisis averted.

Snipes’s legal team also presented the court with letters from his family and friends, including former costars Woody Harrelson (White Men Can’t Jump) and Denzel Washington (Mo’ Better Blues), in the hopes that their defense of Snipes’s character could influence Judge Hodges’s decision. Thanks to a friend of mine who works for Homeland Security and owes me a favor, I’ve obtained the transcript of the wiretapped conversation between Snipes and Washington that led to the writing of the two-time Oscar winner’s letter.

DENZEL: (picks up phone) Hello?

WESLEY: Denzel? Hey, this is Wesley.

DENZEL: (pause) Clark?

WESLEY: No. Snipes. Wesley Snipes.

DENZEL: Oh! Wes! Sorry, the reception was bad for a second there, so you sounded like a former military hero who made a failed run at the White House four years ago.

WESLEY: Yeah, I get that a lot. Listen, Denzel, the reason I’m calling is because I’d like to ask you for a favor.

DENZEL: Sure, what do you need? Bruckheimer’s home number? I think I’ve got it right here. Yep, here it is. You got a pen? It’s—

WESLEY: Thanks, but I actually need a bigger favor than that.

DENZEL: Alright. Name it.

WESLEY: Well, as you know, that jury in Florida found me guilty of not filing my taxes for a few years.

DENZEL: You call six years “a few”?

WESLEY: I know, okay? Geeez! Seriously, don’t start, alright?

(more…)

Mention the words “silent movie” and most people will become glassy-eyed or chuckle some comment like “You know they make movies with sound now, don’t you?” It’s not that these people are elitist or snobs about movies. It’s just that the average moviegoer has only seen the occasional silent-film clip that makes it look like people in the early 20th century moved at a very fast pace (films in the silent era were shot at a different speed than modern films), or they expect to hear clunky piano music playing over slapstick-comedy one-reelers. Most people are unfamiliar with the history of motion pictures and fail to realize that many of the techniques we see in films today were originally incubated during that time; they don’t realize that while there were films made for the masses, there were also grand epics shown in glamorous movie palaces with live orchestras accompanying the wonderful images flickering on the screen.

Thankfully, archivists like film historian Kevin Brownlow and director Martin Scorsese continue to educate and inform people about the glorious art made during the birth of cinema. Additionally, Turner Classic Movies continues to air silent films on Sunday nights, and it’s led the way in film preservation by restoring many of the groundbreaking and influential films that have been lost to years of deteriorating film stock. TCM continues its work tonight by airing two epic movies from innovative French director Abel Gance: the pacifist war film J’accuse (8 PM Eastern) and the railroad tragedy La Roue (11 PM).

Gance is considered by many to be one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, but like his contemporaries D.W. Griffith and Sergei Eisenstein, his name is unrecognizable to almost everyone. Gance’s crowning achievement as a director is 1927’s Napoleon, which utilized Polyvision, a three-screen method of film projection. Napoleon was restored in the early ’80s just before Gance died, but his reputation as France’s most important filmmaker grew out of the success of his two earlier masterpieces, J’accuse (1919) and La Roue (1923).

(more…)