Taylor's Bad Year

Poor Taylor Kitsch. It's not been a good year for the young actor, thus far. Best known for the critically acclaimed NBC series "Friday Night Lights" (2006-2011), he also co-starred in "X-men Origins: Wolverine" as Gambit alongside Hugh Jackman and Leiv Schreiber. This year looked great on paper. Early spring 2012 would bring the (very) big budget, and eagerly awaited cinematic arrival of Edgar Rice Boroughs' Kingdom of Mars books where Kitsch would take the title role in "John Carter". It arrived to mixed reviews and low attendance, though it did ultimately pull in over $250 million. However it was reported to have cost the studio over $200 million to make, so disappointing might be an understatement. Then in the early summer came his starring role in "Battleship", a big budget science fiction adventure based on, of all things, the board game of the same name. It sunk rapidly at the box office with dismal reviews, and like "John Carter" barely made back the cost of production.

While both movies were major disappointments to the studios, they are very different in quality. I saw "John Carter" when it hit the theaters and overall, I liked it. It was well acted, the effects were top notch and it was an interesting story. I think what really knee-capped the film was its own PR. The studio spent a lot of money on ads, including a Super Bowl spot, but the problem was that they never really gave you a sense of what the movie was about. The previews showed aliens and snippets of action, but left the viewer scratching his head as to what the hell was going on. They lacked focus and rather than try and sketch out the premise for viewers, they relied on wowing us with special effect shots. It just wasn't enough. I figure it will make up some fiscal ground on DVD and PPV, but it will best be remembered as a flop. In my opinion "John Carter" was a solid movie that was served badly by the studio's marketing department. It deserved better.

I only just saw "Battleship" on PPV the other night. I'd have to say it deserved every empty seat in the house. It's not that it was horrible, exactly. I mean, it wasn't on the scale of the 2011 remake of "The Three Musketeers," but it wasn't good. However, I would say that, like the last Musketeers flick, the writers deserve the lion's share of ridicule. Though, in fairness, the writers were given a truly herculean task. Take Aliens, a major naval presence and a planet in peril and somehow tether it to a simple, grid based, two dimensional guessing game. What you end up with is a plot strewn with holes and WTF moments. In isolation, some of the choices seem to work, but many fall apart when you roll it all together.

!SPOILER ALERT! (A minor one, anyway)

For example, aliens travel to earth from deep space, yet seem incapable of avoiding a simple satellite collision that destroys one of their ships. I guess whoever planned this little intergalactic excursion skimped on radar. Then they submerge in the Pacific Ocean, and from then on seem capable of only moving in small, though cinematically impressive, hops across the ocean surface. Maybe the salt water washed off the special hull coating that allowed them to fly? And the aliens' most used weapon, though cool looking and destructive to naval vessels, really didn't seem like it would be of much use in any other circumstance. This weapon also seemed to have a propulsion and guidance system little better than conventional artillery and only marginally more destructive, shot for shot.  While you can certainly think up a bunch of imaginative reasons for each anomaly, we shouldn't have to and it's making the viewer work way too hard to justify a shoddy screenplay.  I remember thinking that the showiest alien weapon, a sort of self directing sphere, was very Transformer-like. On reflection, I'd say the entire script was reminiscent of "Transformers." Way more flash than substance.

Two big budget movies, two big budget bombs, and both headlined by Taylor Kitsch. Neither was his fault, of course. He did a good job in "John Carter" and did what he could with the dreck he was given for "Battleship" but I still feel for him just a little. Either of these movies could have been his stepping stone to the movie star 'A' list, but it was not to be. Gotta wonder how that will work out for him. Stars that can bring in the crowds with name recognition alone can get movies made, but what happens when your name is associated with financial disasters? Kevin Costner did manage to pull himself back, at least somewhat, from his "Waterworld" and "The Postman" debacles, but it took quite a while and he's never recaptured the heights of "Dances with Wolves". I hope Taylor weathers things, because I think he is a talented actor and deserves to rise or fall on his performance rather than the studios box office expectations. But only time will tell. As to these two films? I recommend "John Carter", but unless you're looking for mindless special effects or a Mystery Science Theater level viewing experience, don't bother with "Battleship".

Underrated & Still a Favorite

There are a lot of films that have come and gone with nary a whimper at the box office, while at the same time taking a substantial chunk of the studio's money with it. Some, with very good reviews, some . . . not so much. One of the latter is a guilty pleasure of mine, 'The Adventures of Ford Fairlane'.

This fine film, circa 1990, was directed by Renny Harlin, best known for'Die Hard 2' and 'Cliffhanger'. It starred Andrew 'Dice' Clay, a standup comic of some fame in the late '80s, along with a well known supporting cast including Priscilla Presley, Gilbert Gottfried, Ed O'Neill, Robert Englund and Wayne Newton. Not to mention cameos from rock, rap and R&B artists of the time like Vince Neill, Morris Day, Tone Loc and a few brief moments of Sheila E. Clay plays the title role, obviously based heavily on his iconic standup character. A sort of 'R' rated Fonzi-style detective in Los Angeles who specializes in cases involving the music business. Whereas Clay's 'Dice' persona has more of a belligerent edge, Fairlane is more easy going. He may make semi-insulting comments, but they come off as more playful than outright mean. The movie is done in a narrative style, with Fairlane giving a running commentary which both moves the plot along and provides some amusing observational quips here and there.

After an introduction scene, where you get a glimpse into Fairlane's style and job, the plot begins to take shape. Back at his office, Fairlane gets a message from an old pal, now a radio shock-jock named Johnny Crunch (Gottfried), who hires him to find a young groupie named ZuZu Petals (Maddie Corman), though Crunch is quite vague as to who she is or why he's looking for her. Shortly thereafter Crunch is dead and Fairlane is left with the mystery of why and what ZuZu has to do with it all. His investigation leads him into the company of record exec Julian Grendal (Newton), a socialite named Colleen Sutton (Presley) and drags along Fairlane's long suffering assistant Jazz (Lauren Holly). The pacing is good, with little time to get bored. The plot certainly isn't without its holes, but nothing that will likely pull you out of the story. As you'd expect, most of the cast play it pretty straight, allowing Fairlane to drive the comedy elements. There are exceptions, such as ZuZu, who is played wonderfully as a somewhat ditzy, but endearing music groupie who is as clueless about her importance as Fairlane is. Robert Englund provides an over the top performance as a thug with a British accent who is probably not quite 'all there'. Ed O'Neill plays a bafoonish police inspector with a disco fetish and a Fairlane sized chip on his shoulder.

Is this high-brow? Not even close. The closest comparison that leaps to mind is "The Hangover', though Ford Fairlane isn't as tight or polished, if that's the word for it. The dialog is where it shines. There are a lot of great one liners that make me chuckle even after multiple viewings. One thing that helps is that the film doesn't take itself too seriously. This movie will never endear itself to critics, but if you are just looking for a light hearted, if occasionally raunchy, ride with some laughs, I think 'The Adventures of Ford Fairlane' will fit the bill.

Entertainment in Three Dimensions

I will state upfront that I have generally been uninterested in 3D movies. Used to be they were mostly schlocky horror movies that used the technology simply to scare viewers by throwing axes at the audience. That has changed. Not to say that there aren't a number of movies that still use 3D as a scare tactic, but it's found more mainstream support over the last few years. Still, I have consciously avoided the 3D versions of movies I've wanted to see.

Over the last year, it seems that every animated flick or adventure movie was released with a 3D version. It had become such a 'must have' thing that Clash of the Titans, originally shot in 2D, had 3D bolted on after the fact. According to some reviews, the result was lackluster, but then most didn't seem charitable about the movie itself either. Until this last weekend I had only seen one major motion picture in 3D and that was Ice Age 3. I only saw the 3D version of that because I was going along with others. If it had been my choice I would have seen it in 2D instead. As the number of movies released in 3D increased I did find my curiosity peaked and wondered about seeing one in 2D then again in 3D, but I never really got around to it. Partly this was not being excited enough about most of them to want to see them twice in the theater. Partly it was the roughly $3 premium the 3D versions commanded. Not a huge sum of money, but added to the regular ticket price and something from the concession stand begins pushing even a matinee towards $20.

This changed for me last weekend. I was in a blah mood and figured a movie was a good idea, so I checked the listings. While scanning the current releases I found myself drawn to the Avatar re-release that was supposed to include additional scenes. Seemed like a good choice. I'd seen it in 2D back in December, so I would have some means of comparison, and there's no doubt that it's a visually impressive movie. After a brief debate I figured 'why not?' So I ponied up over $9 for a matinee show, grabbed some snacks and my 3D specs and headed in.

For some reason I was a little surprised to see the previews in 3D, though I'm not sure why it should have been unexpected. I settled into my usual spot down front and as close to center as possible. My usual preference is to be close enough that the screen pretty much fills my vision. Feels more immersive somehow. Soon after the movie started however I realized that this wasn't ideal for 3D. Why? The glasses have pretty small lenses and I found that sitting that close meant that I was often turning my head a little to see things clearly towards the edges of the screen. I could have moved, but ultimately didn't. The place was just full enough that I wouldn't have gotten a good center seat without going to the back of the theater. After a little time I got used to it and only occasionally noticed the lens issue.

As for the overall experience, I was not overwhelmed. Certainly some scenes were more spectacular and visually stunning in 3D, but I didn't feel that it was enough to overcome the price and the requirement for bulky glasses. In fact I often felt like I was watching the movie through a tube. As long as I looked straight ahead, it was OK. But if I looked down at my drink or snack, what wasn't a fuzzy mess was partially blocked by the heavy frames of the glasses. It really yanked me out of the experience. Another issue was the feeling that the lenses were not very clean. The edges seemed fuzzy to some degree. I didn't think to look closely when I left to see if that was true or if it was just the nature of the small lenses.

In the end, I still feel little if any desire to go 3D. The bulky glasses, with such small lenses make it very easy to be distracted and taken out of the action. They often felt like a barrier, as if I was watching the movie through holes in a wall. If they were lighter and could be made with a more 'Oakley' style wrap-around design it would make a huge difference. However I suspect that one reason the lenses are as small and flat as they are is due to limitations in the current technology. As long as glasses are required it seems to me that 3D is little more than an interesting gimmick. While it can make the visuals pop at times, overall these occasions were not enough to sell me on it. I want to be able to lean back and get lost in the film, not keep shifting my sightline and wondering if the glasses are dirty or not. And it's obvious that I would have been better off farther back, despite my preference for sitting closer. In the end I felt that the limitations of 3D pulled me out of the movie far more than it immersed me in it. This isn't to say I'll never see another movie in 3D, but it's not my first choice. Once the technology finds a way to deliver 3D with no eyewear required, then it will be much more interesting to me.

Hyper Critical

What is it about movie critics? Why do so few 'get it', when it comes to reviewing movies? Year after year I see enjoyable movies ripped to shreds in reviews. Sure, some deserved it. After all, as Huey Lewis said, "Sometimes Bad is Bad." (I've dated myself here, haven't I?) But sometimes it's not so clear cut. The issue, in my opinion, is about what makes a good or even great movie. This is not as simple as many critics like to pretend.

I think part of it is that critics think they have some grand responsibility to only extol the movies that are of breathtaking quality in the mold of 'A Lion in Winter', 'Casablanca', 'Lawrence of Arabia' and all those other Great (with a capital G) movies. You know, the ones that have the epic story, the masterful script, flawless performances and amazing Direction. Sure, those are top end flicks. No argument. But there is more to a movie experience than these pedestal toppers might lead you to believe. 

To me, what makes a good or great movie, is harder to define. I have seen a lot of films that were panned by critics, but I really enjoyed them. In spite of their flaws. It's like a book that has a flawed plot, but engaging characters. Do the plot holes stop me from re-reading it half a dozen times? No! A movie, like a book, is always more than the sum of it's parts.  I've seen movies that rose up solely on the strength of the actor's skills. I have seen movies with lousy Direction still completely engage me. And a great screenplay can make up for all sorts of shortcomings. In other words, a great movie, doesn't have to be Great.

Then there is the question of what kind of movie it is. Someone who adored 'Remains of the Day' might very well hate 'Terminator 2'. Someone who sees the humor of 'Dumb and Dumber' might be bored out of their mind watching 'Amadeus'. And I have seen more than a few critical reviews that were done by critics who obviously don't appreciate a particular genre of film. That drives me nuts. If you rarely, if ever, like Science Fiction then please don't review Joss Whedon's 'Serenity'.  Because you can often feel the under-layer of contempt coloring the entire review. It starts being about the type of film rather than the substance. Picking at things that make perfect sense within the boundaries of the plot and the universe the story inhabits. But to the critic, they are stupid or silly. If you don't like that type of movie, then do us a favor and step away from the keyboard.

The other thing that is a problem, is when critics take a movie like 'Transformers' and review it in the same way as they would 'Forrest Gump'. Look, there are movies designed to pull you into their world, engross you and lead you along the road with them. Then there are moves that throw you into the front row of a roller-coaster and tell you to disengage your logical thought processes and "hang on!" No argument that both 'Transformers' movies had more plot holes and continuity errors than explosions. But, in the end, it was still a pretty good ride, as long as you didn't analyze and just rolled with it. My point is that sometimes you have to take a movie for what it is, not for what you wish it was. Sure, 'Independence Day' got a little silly with the now infamous hacking of an alien spaceship with a laptop and the almost melodramatic patriotism, and yet I really enjoyed the movie. Would I have nominated it for any awards outside the technical sphere? Not a chance. But you don't have to be an Oscar contender to be a good movie. I just caught part of a Biography Channel story that offhandedly ripped the movie 'Van Helsing'. Sure there were plot issues, but I still re-watch that movie occasionally. It's just fun watching Jackman and Beckinsale, not to mention the other actors, swashbuckle their way through the Transylvanian countryside. I find myself returning to movies like that far more often then I queue up 'Rain Man', and I thought that was a Great film.

That's the odd thing, the movies I watch over and over are not the Great Films. The ones I return to most often are the ones that touch me in some way. Either they tickle my funny bone, the cast is especially engaging, there's an emotional connection or maybe it's an action film that just pushes all the right buttons. In some cases, these were, from a purely critical view, not very good Films. But they were great Movies. I'm sure some will laugh to know that I own and re-watch 'The Adventures of Ford Fairlane' from time to time. Critically, well . . . it wasn't much of a Film. But it's a hell of a fun Movie. I love the absurdities, Andrew 'Dice' Clay's turn of phrase and even the low brow humor. When it came out, you would have been hard pressed to find one positive review, but I'm sure I'll continue to pull it out once in a while and chuckle like an idiot the whole time!

Maybe what we need to do is be more specific in our terminology. There are Great Films, like 'Million Dollar Baby' and 'Schindler's List' that deserve their accolades for the high degree of quality at all levels. But there are also Great Movies, like 'St. Elmo's Fire' and 'Underworld'. Movies that, while no masterpiece by many critical measurements make an emotional connection or give a visceral thrill. Both types of movies are Great in their own way and both are deserving of respect for what they do right. After all, when the lights go down and the titles roll it's about being entertained, not about attaining perfection.