In Cinematic Denial

When people ask me what I thought of “Watchmen” I say something like: “There was a lot of great stuff, Jackie Earle Haley was awesome, so was Dr. Manhattan’s origin.  The plot was pretty glossed over since they had to cram everything in so you probably need to read the comic to get it but, overall I thought it was pretty good.”

Now, is this really my opinion?  Or the opinion I’m telling myself to cope with my disappointment?  I honestly don’t know.  It’s only been a few weeks since I saw “Watchmen” which makes me wonder, am I in cinematic denial?

Cinematic denial is a phenomenon that affects millions of movie-goer’s every summer and late fall/holiday season.  It occurs when one’s anticipation to see a film is so high that when it is ultimately horribly disappointing, either because of unreasonable expectations or because it was just plain crap, they tell people they liked the film in attempts to convince themselves, and to spare the pain of a matrix-like-shaking-your-fist-at-the-sun-tantrum.  Being someone who frequently comes down with this condition I can tell you it’s often hard to know when you’ve got it.  Typically, it takes a least 3-4 months to diagnose.   A well documented example of this disease is the case I came down with in the summer of 2006.  Here are the details:

I grew up, as did many others, wanting to be Superman.  I had a Superman shirt, with red cape attached of course, that I probably wore 80% of my waking hours between ages 3-5 (are you calling my bluff about the ages?).  My childhood environment was universally infused with Superman toys, movies, 5th birthday parties and underpants.  And though I’ve outgrown the undergarments with Superman furiously breaking through massive coils of chains (that image has a completely different meaning to me now) I maintain my enthusiasm for the man of steel (Admittedly, John Williams’ theme is one of my iPod’s 25 most played songs).  So, of course, when I heard about the prospect of a new Superman film it was met with giddy screeches of joy.  I was careful not to get too excited because I’d been burned before (I’ll save Phantom Menace for another time), but the hiring of Bryan Singer as director, whose previous efforts with the X-Men franchise had aptly demonstrated his knack for the genre, was very promising.  Hwever, what really sent my anticipation to stratospheric levels was the first trailer.  The music, the spit-curl, and Brando’s Jor-El, I watched it just now and I still got chills.  Not only did this guy know how to make a superhero movie, he clearly understood and deeply respected the material.  Against my better judgment, I was stoked.

Then came the fateful day.  When I look back, this movie could have easily been a home run for me.   I didn’t need it to be good to enjoy it, I just needed it to be Superman.  In the film’s opening credits when the music took off into it’s familiar fanfare and the superman S emblem appeared on screen I honestly welled up.  It had nothing to do with that film in particular, it was just the excitement of seeing Superman, any Superman, on the big screen.  I was the fish, the theatre was the barrel and Bryan Singer had the gun.  I was ready for my life to be changed.

Ok, where do I start?  Kate Bosworth, tragically miscast as Lois Lane.  Kevin Spacey, who let him on set?  Parker Posey, why are you in this movie?   Superman has a kid? What?  And worst of all, only one big action set piece.  ONE.  That freaking movie cost $270 million!   Almost as much as the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy.  All I get is Superman chasing after an airplane?  Don’t get me wrong it’s a good sequence that looked very expensive, but it’s no where near the top 10 actions sequences of all time, and let’s face it, with today’s technology and the limitless possibilities with Superman they should’ve have had no trouble cracking the top 5.  Aside from the airplane all the other action, including the mind-numbing climax, was increasing displays of his Super strength.  Wow superman is strong.  Wow, Superman is really strong!  Wow Superman is really really strong!  The most depressing feeling when watching a big summer movie is thinking “that was it?” (Matrix Revolutions flashback).

The movie was such a pompous substandard letdown I should have walked out of the theatre and immediately started hitchhiking to Hollywood to personally egg Byran Singer’s house (I’m glad I’ve matured).  But, despite the sacrilege, I walked out of the theatre in defiance.   I was not prepared to face the reality that the film I had been waiting to see for basically my entire life was a dull exercise in mediocrity.  Knowing I would be called on to take a stance I subconsciously formed a completely invented opinion.  This fallacy was centered on one of the film’s dim yet bright-ish spots, Brandon Routh’s wooden but not dreadful performance.  I would say things like “Well it was all so meticulously planned, with his costume and his hair having to be perfect, plus acting in front of all those blue screens.  For him to say a line even halfway truthfully is a miracle.”  I’m not exaggerating.  This was the basis of my defense of “Superman Returns.”  What a racket.

I finally came to my senses some months later after the box office drubbing Superman took at the hands of Johnny Depp (pathedic Superman!) and “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” (which I enjoyed due to super low expectations).  I hadn’t thought about “Superman Returns” for a while and was reading about a Q & A Bryan Singer gave regarding prospects for a Superman sequel.  The article talked about how when one of the questioners expressed of his disappointment with Returns it was met with universal applause from the crowd.  And that was when I realized.  If I had been in that audience I would have applauded too.  I couldn’t keep living this lie.  It was time to come out of the cinematic closet and say it, “Superman Returns” sucked.

You’ll be happy to know I made a full recovery and thankfully “Superman Returns” did not soil my memory of the previous entries in the franchise.  But the idea that it could have makes me take this sickness very seriously.  Looking back, I can think of many instances when I’ve been in cinematic denial and I know I’m not alone.  My question is, has it always been like this?  Has cinematic denial always been a cross for movie buffs to bear? Were people in 1930 walking out of “Free and Easy” trying to convince themselves that Buster Keaton was just as good with sound? Or is it a modern mutation caused by too much exposure to George Lucas (yes)?

Whatever the cause, until Hollywood starts making films that are universally awesome – which isn’t happening anytime soon – hopes for a cure remain grim.  But there are many ways to combat the symptoms.  If you or a friend may be suffering from cinematic denail, take solace (not the James Bond movie that will only make it worse), you aren’t alone.  If I survived “Superman Returns” you can survive “The Haunting in Conecticut” (why did you think that would be good?)  Just take a deep breath, throw up your arms and say “Who am I kidding? That was terrible!”  See?  Now doesn’t that feel better?

3D, the Wave of the Futrue…and the Past.

When television took over in the 1950s the Hollywood encountered something previously unthinkable to them. Competition.  “Why should I go to a movie theatre if I can watch moving pictures from my living room?” thought the average movie-goer.  Movies were no longer the universal entertainment medium they once were (at one point 90 million people went to the movies a week).  While television tapped into what the public wanted, Hollywood churned out retread after retread with the same aging, contracted workers who made all those classics in the 40s.  It’s no coincidence that the great films of the 50s and 60s came from Europe, hmmm but they had television back then didn’t they?  Why did their movies still do well?  Whatever the cause, something needed to be done, Hollywood needed a game-changer to get people back into the theatre.  What could studios possibly do?  Make better movies?  Nah, how about gimmicks?

Drive-in movies (clearly a compromise with viewers, “how about you leave your living room but you don’t have to leave your car”), cinemascope (still surviving today), smell-o-vision (how did this not take off?) and 3D (movies, with a third dimension, and killer glasses.)  A flash in the pan when it was first introduced in 1952, 3D all but died out in 1955 because of expenses, maintenance problems, oh, and people didn’t give a crap.  Aside from the early success of some horror flicks (I credit Vincent Price) audiences did not respond. Often films released in both formats were outgrossed by their “lesser” dual dimension versions.  Apparently Hitchcock’s “Dial M for Murder” was filmed in 3D but only released in 2D.

Thankfully, the Americans eventually caught on (or all the old fogies died out) to what the rest of the world already knew out and started making good movies again.  The new Hollywood of the 70s brought a young generation to the cinema, television and movies were able to live in peace and Hollywood was saved.

3D, with the rest of its brethren became forgotten relics of a misguided industry.  By the 90s drive in theatres were all but closed down, smell-o-vision was just a hilarious thing to say and 3D, taking a final stake to the heart with “Jaws 3D” was defunct.  The End.

………or is it?

They thought the movies were safe.
They thought their troubles were behind them.
They.  Thought.  Wrong.

Coming soon to your computer.  The easiest way to waste time and not go the movies.  THE INTERNET!

The powerful, sprawling World Wide Web, again presented an alternative to movie-goers, that, in light of the rising tickets prices they gladly opted for.  This spelled certain doom for Hollywood who once again faced declining ticket sales in the face of their new adversary and once again, they took action.

What new trick would they have up their sleeve this time to send the public to the theatre in droves?  How about the same exact one that didn’t work last time.

3D is back, apparently.  Over the past few years it has slowly crept back into the cinema, at first in children’s films like “Chicken Little” then spreading to higher profile releases like “Beowulf” (the highlight was the IMAX logo, seriously).  Now films are being released in something called “Real D,” which is supposed to be better somehow but I swear is just a different name for marketing purposes.  Regardless, it has had an impact.   Last summer’s dreadful looking “Journey to the Center of the Earth” starring Brendan how-are-you-still-in-movies Fraiser quietly grossed $240 million worldwide, despite being released in the shadow of  “The Dark Knight” (that’s going to be the name of my new band).   And if a Brenden Fraiser movie was a hit something must be working right?

Whether it’s just a marketing tool or people actually like it, 3D seems to be generating some cash and everyday more and more 3D films are put in the pipeline.  Still, with many theatres not equipped with the newer technology needed to screen these films, it has not quite become mainstream.  Though many predict it’s only a matter of time.  The two highest profile 3D films yet will be released this year, Dreamworks “Monsters vs Aliens” later this month and James I’m-the-king-of the-world-for-making-a-movie-that-made teenagers-cry-and-no-one-likes-anymore Cameron’s big budget Sci-Fi film “Avatar”.  The success of these films will likely determine which side of the precipice 3D will fall.

Personally, I find whole thing rather silly.  I don’t have a hatred for 3D movies, but I’ve never had an experience with one that was greatly enhanced by the extra dimension (except at Disney world, that was awesome).  One problem is the glasses.  As soon as they figure out how to do it without that ridiculous eyewear I think 3D will probably take off.  Until then it’s not going to be the way most people see movies anytime soon.

But more than the glasses, it’s the mentality.  I say to Hollywood, just try to make better movies.  I know that’s easier said than done but when a movie is good people will go see it.  Expecting people to show up to see whatever you put out there is just plain lazy.  Plus, as soon as 3D movies take off so will 3D TV and then what?  Smell-o-vision makes a comeback (don’t be surprised)?

Worry about the what’s in the package, not how it’s wrapped.  [Insert slow clap here].

Review: Walking Briskly While Concerned (Taken and The International)

Ok bear with me, last week I saw “Gomarrah,” a film about the terrifying mafia organization, the Camorra, based in Naples.  Shattering the mob movie mold instituted by Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese, the film is devoid of all the glorifying gangster standards and is an incendiary look at the horrific reality of the mafia.  Or that’s what it would have been if I was able to follow it.  I went in so ignorant of the situation being depicted I could barely keep up with what was happening.  It was quite embarrassing watching a film with no exposition or contextualization, practices I have recently praised in reviews of “The Class” and “Medicine For Melancholy,” and wish for some more hand holding.  I couldn’t bring myself to write a review (though I can’t say I enjoyed myself) because I didn’t think I could discuss it intelligently.  I just simply, didn’t get it.

Well, there’s nothing like a bland Hollywood thriller to reassure wounded cinematic intellect.  “The International” is only the second Bourne imitation to hit theatres in the past month, the ridiculous “Taken” being the other.  They’re basically the same film, “The International” is more in the globe trotting political vein while “Taken” is strictly fixed in ass-kicking mode.  Each is anchored by proven leading men.  Clive Owen and Liam Neeson both capably talk sternly into their phones and walk briskly while down the street with appropriate concern (some times both at once).  And their objectives, one retrieving his kidnapped daughter, the other trying to expose a corrupt bank are treated with interchangeable importance.

The biggest difference is “The International” had a much bigger budget.  So does that make it superior?  Let’s compare the film’s finer points.  “The International” includes more helicopter shots of large buildings and sets that look like a tour of the nation’s apple stores.  In comparison “Taken” seems to be set in a series of Verizon outlets.  “The International” could also afford a female lead, regardless of whether it needed one.  Naomi Watts stands around looking likes she’s reading her lines for the first time off a teleprompter.  For someone so incredibly talented she has some brutal scenes.  The closest thing “Taken” has to a major female character is Maggie Grace, who’s biggest claim to fame is a role on “Lost” that was killed off after a season (sorry Maggie but they had the right idea).  25 playing 17, she gives one the most annoying performances I’ve seen in awhile.  Thankfully the film is about her being “Taken,” I just wish she had stayed that way.  “The International” also affords a superior supporting cast.  It’s impressive array of well dressed European businessmen and New York cops (notably a strong turn by Felix Solis in a throwaway role) are an upgrade over the bloody and bruised Albanians.

Now the important stuff.  In terms of action “The International” had the funds for an true set piece and on that front it delivers.  The sequence, set in the Guggenheim, is mildly preposterous.   You’d think there’d be some police on the Upper East Side (then again you’d also think a hired gun would know how to use one).  The building’s spiral design in creatively utilized and things are kept simple, guns, knives and no wire-aided feats.  Instead of isolated action sequences “Taken” maintains a constant stream of smaller fight scenes.  Liam Neeson basically beats the crap out of every person he sees.  Luckily they all happen to be Albanian human traffickers.  I shudder to think what happens when he goes to Trader Joe’s, think of the massacre.

There are much similarities concerning the directors as well. Both are foreign, International’s Tykwer is German, Taken’s Pierre Morel, French.  Both made well received films in their own country.  Tykwer’s “Run Lola Run” is still an elitist dorm room mainstay and Morel’s “Disctrict B13” was a refreshingly inventive action film that employed free-running before Martin Campbell used it in “Casino Royale’s” fantastic opening number (almost as good as Hugh Jackman’s).  Here, each takes a step back.  Morel has more of a future I think.  He seems to do the action thing well, it’d be nice if he were given more leash instead of being forced to watch the Bourne trilogy and then mimic it.  Tykwer was already a red flag in my book and “The International,” while completely watchable, did nothing to remove it.  His previous film “Perfume” was obscene, and by obscene I mean bordering on pornographic and not in the good way.

Though it was much more graceful, all the bells and whistles on the “The International” are just that.  “Taken” is a poor man’s version of the same film.  I say watch “The Bourne Ultimatum” again.  And again.  And again.  Until The Bourne Domination, or whatever, comes out.  If you must, check out these serviceable impostors.  They’re good for a trash fix.  Probably not as good the fix I’m about to get though.  “10,000 BC” just started on HBO, I should probably watch Antonioni’s “L’Ecplise” which is sitting on my on my blu-ray but I don’t think I can resist.  This is going to be good.