Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 13:43:45 GMT -5
Jason Alexander was in Jacob's Ladder and Hunchback of Notre Dame(as the most derided part of the film)
|
|
|
|
Post by Logoboros on Nov 11, 2016 16:59:20 GMT -5
I missed the Gosford Park post (election and all), but I just wanted to add my two cents that it's one of my favorite movies. And I think it's kind of a shame that it seems to have been overshadowed somewhat by the cult of Downton Abbey because, as you point out, it's a much smarter and more closely observed narrative of that same basic manor house scenario. And even though it is ultimately a melodrama with full genre tropes (bumbling detective, secret family members, etc.), it feels much more human to me than the grand soap-operatics of Downton. Perhaps that's Altman making more from Fellowes's source material, but Fellowes's has a great commentary track on the Gosford Park DVD that seems to align pretty well with the feel of the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Nov 11, 2016 18:27:47 GMT -5
Logoboros Maybe there was more creative freedom to be had with film than with television. Downton was a commercial series after all. @matt1 Orange County Lo-ove!
In the citaaay of Anaheim
In the citaaay of good ol' Irvine
In the citaaay, the city of Fullerton
We keep it rockin,' we keep it rockin'
|
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Nov 14, 2016 10:29:28 GMT -5
Desert Dweller MarkInTexas I just realized that Musker and Clements are getting fucked again. Moana is coming out Thanksgiving weekend!
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkInTexas on Nov 14, 2016 11:03:43 GMT -5
Thanksgiving Wednesday has proven to be a solid launching pad for Disney movies. Yes, Fantastic Beasts will probably win the weekend, but unless Moana is lousy, it will probably do very well as well. It also should have solid legs, as there are no other kid appeal movies out until Rouge One on December 16, and no other animated movies until Zootopian Idol--er, I mean Sing--opens on December 21.
For points of reference, in 2013, Frozen opened Thanksgiving Wednesday and finished the weekend second to Catching Fire. In 2010, Tangled opened Thanksgiving weekend and finished the weekend second to Deathly Hallows 1. I'm pretty sure no one at Disney is all that upset about how either of those films went on to perform.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Nov 15, 2016 1:01:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I think Moana is in a different situation. Disney is in a much stronger position now than they were in 2001-2. And I don't think Fantastic Beasts is as scary a competitor as HP and the Chamber of Secrets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Nov 16, 2016 11:40:35 GMT -5
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Dir. Chris Columbus
Premiered November 16, 2001
In 1997, my mom gave me a first-edition copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone for Hanukkah. I was wary of the book, as it was slow to start and (even by the limited life experiences of a second grader) clearly influenced by stuff like Grimm’s fairy tales, Star Wars, and especially Roald Dahl. Eventually though I was hooked, and I subsequently agonized impatiently over the release of each new book in the series for a decade afterward.
A year after discovering Harry Potter, I became good friends with a kid from Cub Scouts who equally loved the books. This was surprising, as my friend was both evangelical and homeschooled, but luckily he wasn’t one of the crazy Kirk Cameron types who sought to ban the books for promoting witchcraft (incidentally, my friend’s father went on to become both a committed socialist and a professional film critic). We read the books together, acted out scenes, and even wrote our own stateside spinoff of the books.
Harry Potter was special to us because he felt like one of us. Unlike Star Wars which preceded our births, or other book series which needed far more time to rise to prominence, Harry’s story was being written as we were reading it, and he grew up along with us. And upon reaching fifth grade, when I realized I wanted to be a filmmaker, I knew I wanted to be the one to one day bring him to the screen– only to be told by a friend, at the very moment of announcing my intentions, that someone had already gotten there first. The studio was Warner Brothers; the director was Chris Columbus, late of the immensely disappointing Bicentennial Man; the star was Daniel Radcliffe; and when the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone opened to American audiences on November 16, 2001, my friend and I, having come to terms with my dashed Hollywood ambitions, attended the Pacific Hastings’ very first screening. I had literally been dreaming of seeing the movie earlier that week and have since been told that I wasn’t the only one.
With an entity as well-established as Harry Potter, it feels almost unnecessary to explain the plot, but as I am planning on eventually reviewing Star Wars on its own merits, I suppose it would be hypocritical of me to elide a basic outline here, and in any case I need the practice: 11-year-old Harry Potter (Radcliffe), an orphan living with his abusive extended family in suburban Surrey, suddenly develops what appear to be magical powers. Soon after, he receives an invitation to a mysterious school called Hogwarts, but is rebuffed by his ferocious, social climbing uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths). Finally, a kindly half-giant named Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) arrives to tell Harry that he is in fact a wizard, and is meant to attend Hogwarts so that he may learn to use his powers.
While befriending eventual lifelong mates Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), Harry discovers that he is something of a celebrity in the wizarding world due to the fact that, as an infant, he survived the attack that killed his parents, itself one of the final shots of a covert war by the wizarding mainstream against the genocidal Lord Voldemort. Because all of this (as well as his late parents’ surprising fortune) is news to Harry, he is refreshingly humble about his origins, but his erstwhile notoriety still puts him at odds with several of his new classmates, notably those in Slytherin House, a fraternity of sorts for type-A personalities which has an unfortunate capacity to produce sociopathic bigots. He also gets a supremely bad vibe off his potions teacher Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), who appears engaged in some shenanigans which may relate to something going on in Hogwarts’ basement, in contrast with the kindly headmaster Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris) and the kind but stern Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith).
In A Year at the Movies, Kevin Murphy (my fellow traveler across the sands of time) notes that Stephen Spielberg was approached to direct the first film adaptation, but turned it down on the grounds that such a project would be uniquely unchallenging. Not only would any adaptation of the books make money regardless of quality, but such a film would have been especially difficult to screw up, not least due to the way the book was written. Author J.K. Rowling may not have written her books with the intent of having them made in to movies; if she had, they would have been shorter. But Rowling certainly writes in a manner not far off from screenwriting– contrast with J.R.R. Tolkien, whose constant descriptions of places and objects reach Tom Clancy levels of mind-numbing density. Philosopher’s Stone is a really straightforward story firmly rooted in the mainstream of popular culture, and any reasonably competent director could have read the book and made a decent film so long as he wasn't compelled to mess with it.
Which Columbus mostly doesn’t. There are a few cosmetic changes, as well as some omissions that conflict with later installments, but most of my issues with the plot of the movie originate with the book. The biggest problem from a storytelling perspective is that the filmmakers seem to have assumed that the audience would have a working familiarity with the source material– they weren’t wrong, but the result is a film that hits all of the major plot points while lacking much of the connective tissue within the story and explaining very little. The biggest issue, however, is film-only. Whereas most book and film series in 2001 were trilogies, Harry Potter was planned to span seven volumes (this is partly why I was surprised the first film was being made when it was– only three of the books had come out). As no single director could be expected to direct seven films, creative differences meant that the films were not only inconsistent with the books but with each other.
Even considered alone, Columbus’ iteration is sadly uninspired. If I could describe Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone in one word, it would be “plain.” Yes, the CGI has aged badly, but that’s par for the course, even in a big-budget film. However, child acting be damned, Columbus is congenitally unable to block or pace a realistic human conversation, in this film or any other he’s directed. The cinematography and colors are strangely flat and affectless, and while John Williams’ fanfare perfectly captures the sense of wonder imparted by the books, the score overall is surprisingly rough around the edges, particularly the incidental music, which is often reminiscent of Williams’ contemporaneous work on the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone oddly enough doesn’t feel like a Harry Potter film. That would have to wait.
Additional Notes
- I must insist on using the British title. The Philosopher’s Stone is an actual concept from alchemy referenced by Isaac Newton, but American publishers assumed that their audience wouldn’t know what a philosopher was. They were wrong.
- Murphy believed that Drew Struzan’s poster of the film deliberately made Radcliffe look like Spielberg (see above). I wouldn’t go so far, but you tell me.
How Did It Do?
Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the highest-grossing film of 2001, domestically and worldwide. Earning $849.8 million against a $125 million budget, the film made more money than the entire American film industry had lost in the previous two months. In two weekends, Warner Brothers and Disney had recovered their finances in the wake of the September 11 Attacks; the other studios would have to wait until December for similar results. Such success ensured that Harry Potter would continue to be a feature of the big screen as well as the bookstore– and beyond.
Critical consensus was surprisingly glowing, though I’m inclined to credit that to hype; two years earlier The Phantom Menace was similarly praised. With Potter spinoff Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them entering theaters this very weekend, some younger professional critics have revisited this film and I’m curious to see what the new majority opinion will be.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is how exactly it came to be made, and how that may have negatively affected the quality of the film. Fantasy films had been around in the late 1970s and 80s, but were mostly unsuccessful and didn’t continue into the following decade. But in 1997, with Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings series already in development, Warner Bros. went looking for a competing franchise, preferably something more kid friendly, just as Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone entered bookstores. The ensuing film may not have been made with passion for the source material, but its success naturally ensured that audiences were ready for the real excitement that fall...
Next Time: The Wash
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Nov 16, 2016 13:03:20 GMT -5
Hi, I liked Bicentennial Man! It's not perfect, but it's a great representation of Asimov's world, using a comedic but subdued Robin Williams and a solid supporting cast. It's certainly the best Asimov adaptation ever brought to screen, not that it has any real competition.
It sure would be cool if the original Foundation trilogy was done for TV, even on SyFy. And it's only a spoiler if you're just halfway through the second book, but we would essentially get to see Jar Jar Binks revealed as a Sith lord taking over the galaxy. I hope somebody here has read the books and can appreciate this observation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Nov 16, 2016 13:18:05 GMT -5
I haven't watched the first HP movie in a long time. They had some great luck with child casting, but only in the sense that they got better. Emma Watson wasn't very good yet, even if she ultimately became the best actor of the the three. Daniel Radcliffe was pretty flat. Rupert Grint was perfect, the best actor out of the gate. It's a shame that the character of Ron grew so superfluous, particularly as the movies needed to be trimmed from the increasingly long source material, because it really robbed Grint of the chance to shine. Tom Felton as Draco was also solid from the beginning, and his role only grew.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Nov 16, 2016 13:26:44 GMT -5
The first HP movie is still the only one I've seen all of. The books were never part of my childhood, because I was in my 20s before the first one came out, and probably my 30s when the last one did. But I did play both of the Lego Harry Potter games.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkInTexas on Nov 16, 2016 14:35:58 GMT -5
I haven't watched the first HP movie in a long time. They had some great luck with child casting, but only in the sense that they got better. Emma Watson wasn't very good yet, even if she ultimately became the best actor of the the three. Daniel Radcliffe was pretty flat. Rupert Grint was perfect, the best actor out of the gate. It's a shame that the character of Ron grew so superfluous, particularly as the movies needed to be trimmed from the increasingly long source material, because it really robbed Grint of the chance to shine. Tom Felton as Draco was also solid from the beginning, and his role only grew. I like Grint in the movies, but have yet to see him play anything other than Ron. He seems mostly interested in doing small, British films that barely get released in the US, though he is apparently currently filming two separate British TV series. |
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Nov 16, 2016 14:40:47 GMT -5
MarkInTexas Don't forget the ice cream truck!
EDIT: What I really want to get into is the Spielberg thing. Minnie doesn't think the poster makes him look like Spielberg, and even if I see it, I doubt it was intentional, but Murphy was convinced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 17:08:34 GMT -5
My favorite two films of the HP series are the first two. In part because they are the most straight up adaptations, not having to cut things out like some of the latter ones. And also the fact that I like the "plainness" to the world. What really connected me to the HP world is that it is our world just with this magical underworld of sorts. And the plainness helped with that feeling.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Nov 17, 2016 9:19:00 GMT -5
When the AVC duplicates an Anniversary Record Club review, it's amusing but not unexpected for albums that are 5-year multiples old. For the HP series article today, which was certainly begun more than a day ago, it's just weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Nov 17, 2016 11:16:39 GMT -5
When the AVC duplicates an Anniversary Record Club review, it's amusing but not unexpected for albums that are 5-year multiples old. For the HP series article today, which was certainly begun more than a day ago, it's just weird. Even though it's the fifteenth anniversary, and Fantastic Beasts is also coming out? |
|
|
|
Post by MarkInTexas on Nov 17, 2016 11:36:38 GMT -5
When the AVC duplicates an Anniversary Record Club review, it's amusing but not unexpected for albums that are 5-year multiples old. For the HP series article today, which was certainly begun more than a day ago, it's just weird. Eh...it's a coincidence, but not really. Monty's writeup on Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone appeared on the 15th anniversary of the release of the film, two days before the first in the prequel series debuts, and the Old Country's review of the original series appears on the day before Fantastic Beasts opens. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 11:47:36 GMT -5
Most underrated of series? Bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Nov 17, 2016 11:49:39 GMT -5
The Wash
Dir. DJ Pooh
Premiered November 16, 2001
While many people of my generation are faintly aware that DJ Pooh’s The Wash exists, very few have actually seen it. I know this because most people who I’ve spoken to about the film labor under the misapprehension that the film is a remake of the 1976 comedy Car Wash. And while both are plotless cameo-fests, I could find no official connection between the two movies– which would be legally necessary for a remake. Instead, The Wash is a painful reminder that if you want to make a watchable stoner comedy, you shouldn’t actually spend the entire production stoned.
The film supposedly begins as Dee-Loc (Snoop Dogg), an unlikable, broke stoner asshole, gets his vastly more responsible roommate Sean (Dr. Dre) fired from his job at Foot Locker. I say “supposedly” because this is “explained” in a black-and-white still photo montage accompanying the opening credits, but I still had to look the film’s summary up on Wikipedia to know what was going on.
From there, Dee gets Sean a new job as manager of the car wash where Dee works. This is a little odd, since Dee works under Sean as a washer, and has possibly committed every conceivable act that would get a man fired. It’s also odd because Dee is a terrible roommate and terrible person who endlessly berates and abuses Sean, who frankly has no reason to know or tolerate this person. But I digress.
For most of the film, nothing happens. Dee buys pot at work from Tommy Chong, who never actually got high during production of his movies and thus should know better. One of the cars belongs to a mafia family who’s keeping a wailing Pauly Shore in the trunk. Sean’s predecessor Chris (Eminem) constantly calls the wash screaming ambiguous threats and bouncing on his bed. There’s a fat security guard (Bruce Bruce). At one point, they start a bikini carwash service in the belief that they can deduct the girls’ tips from their wages (this is amazingly the case in some parts of the United States, but is not and never has been in California, where the film takes place). There are dream and fantasy sequences inserted for maximum padding. And in a vague, last-minute attempt at having a plot, some borderline-mentally challenged gangsters (director DJ Pooh and Shawn Fonteno) who antagonize Sean when they block the exit to his business kidnap owner Mr. Washington (George Wallace) for ransom.
And lest you think any of these scenarios are funny, rest assured that The Wash is shot and filmed with no rhythm or pace, giving the impression of an uncut home video, possibly directed by Horatio Sanz’s Afroman-loving stoner character in the SNL sketch “Jarret's Room.” It even appears to have been shot on 16mm film, a format typically preferred for student films and documentaries, which is weird for a movie with a $7 million budget. Accordingly, it’s listless and meandering, an agonizing ninety minutes of wall-to-wall awkward tedium. I didn’t think it could be bad as Snoop’s most recent star vehicle, the direct-to-DVD Mac & Devin Go to High School– and it probably isn’t. But it’s surprisingly close.
Signs This Was Made in 2001
- Taking a shit is referred to as “taking a booboo.”
- Shawn owns a pager.
- Dee watches a Lakers game with Shaq and Kobe playing (Shaq confusingly also cameos as a character other than himself, but that’s par for the course as most of the rappers “acting” in the movie listen to their own music on the radio).
- Someone makes a reference to Destiny’s Child because the phrase “say my name” was used.
- Sean Combs is currently known as Puffy.
How Did It Do?
The Wash grossed $10.2 million against a $7 million budget, which makes it technically not a flop, but I guarantee it lost money for the distributor. It was absolutely trashed by critics who, like me, found it boring and amateurish. Scott Weinberg said that if the director had been white, this would have been lambasted as a minstrel show, which I don’t disagree with, and, were it actually the case, wouldn’t dispute.
As this project moves further away from the 9/11 attacks, it’s harder to say what impact the events of that September had on smaller movies like this one. The best that can be said here is that it certainly didn’t help.
Next Time: Black Knight
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Nov 17, 2016 12:21:03 GMT -5
The Wash
Dir. DJ Pooh
Premiered November 16, 2001 My college dorm, which I only lived in for one year before getting an apartment, had a TV channel dedicated to showing a rotation of relatively-new movies. Not only do I remember that this awful movie existed, I actually watched it all the way through in the spring of 2002 and remember three scenes: Dre eats a burrito from a food truck and gets diarrhea. Snoop mocks him through the bathroom door. Snoop hooks up with a girl sitting on the bathroom sink of the car wash. Dre listens to them through the door, his hand on his crotch. Eminem rhymes about the guns he has and jumps on his bed. |
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Nov 18, 2016 1:13:26 GMT -5
CORRECTION/APOLOGY: I may have jumped down the throats of the people at Scholastic. Even if I disagree with their decision to re-title the book, the reasoning is slightly more nuanced. The long story is that the Philosopher's Stone is better-known in British history and the British education system, and not at all in the United States except in reference to Isaac Newton. Bereft of historical/cultural connotations, "Philosopher's Stone" sounds fairly boring. It personally puts me in mind of either Socrates or Dick Cavett.
|
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Nov 21, 2016 13:02:42 GMT -5
Black Knight
Dir. Gil Junger
Premiered November 21, 2001
I have no idea where to begin.
According to RottenTomatoes, Black Knight isn’t the worst movie I’ve seen doing this project, but it is by far the one I’ve hated most. If you’ve ever been curious to simulate a two-hour migraine, this is the movie for you.
The story is thus: Jamal “Sky” Walker (Martin Lawrence) is a janitor at a Medieval Times-type theme restaurant. While cleaning garbage out of the moat, he sees a gold medallion floating there and falls in. Suddenly, Jamal is transported into medieval times, which he initially– and it’s a long initially– mistakes for his employer’s rival, Castle World. There, he saves the life of the drunken knight/outlaw Sir Knolte (Tom Wilkinson), who is part of a rebellion to restore England’s deposed queen. However, Jamal accidentally becomes a guest at the court of the new King Leo (Kevin Conway), as he is mistaken for a messenger from Normandy due to mentioning that he lives by the Los Angeles intersection of Florence and Normandie.
Get it? Because he’s black. Jamal is black. He’s a 21st century African-American stereotype in a fictonalized 14th Century, one in which everyone speaks modern English and Normandie and England are politically and culturally separate. He lives in South Central! He wears jerseys! He wants to have his own sport-casual clothing brand! He talks in street slang. He’s black, you guys! He’s so black! He’s Martin Lawrence!
I hate everything.
Anyway, believe it or not, this movie actually has a plot that we’re supposed to care about, as it turns out that King Leo’s chambermaid Victoria (Marsha Thomason), the only black person in Medieval England with its population of 150, is also working for the rebellion. Jamal’s “foreign” ways run him afoul of the villainous knight Percival (Vincent Regan), and somewhere along the line Jamal has to learn a lesson about not being a coward, which was apparently a problem for him.
I’m not even going into the bad history– it’s not supposed to be realistic, and the film gives itself something of an out on that front– but my fucking God is Martin Lawrence annoying. As soon as he realizes he’s not actually at Castle World, he spends the entire rest of the film incessantly mugging, variously twisting his face, screaming, crying, kiaiing, wailing, and making what I can only describe as “walrus noises” directly into the camera (fish eye lens, naturally) at point blank range.
Add to that the most terrible green-screen I’ve seen outside The Worst Witch, sets and costumes that make the ersatz Medieval Times restaurant scene from The Cable Guy look like Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V, an avalanche of cultural references, half of which were laughably dated even then, and you have what may be the most tortuous moviegoing experience of the fall of 2001. Don’t watch this. It will not be fun. I’ve committed myself to watching these, and even attempting to distract myself with my phone (I know) didn’t keep me from harboring a desperate urge to stop the movie, take out the DVD, throw it in the garbage, and jump off the balcony.
Signs This Was Made in 2001
The film straight-up says Jamal comes from 2001. However, it makes a point of showing Jamal drive through the intersection of Florence and Normandie, ground zero of the 1992 Los Angeles Riots; and his boss refers to Medieval World as having gotten through “The Recession” –presumably the Recession of 1991-92. Throw in some passing references to Rodney King (1991), the Three Mile Island disaster (1976) and Exxon-Valdez (1989), and the “present day” doesn’t seem very present, even for the time when it was made. On the other hand, Jamal refers to Sean Combs as Puffy, and Shaq gets namedropped.
How Did It Do?
Black Knight grossed $40 million against a $50 million budget (where all that money went I have no idea) and earned a 14% rating on RottenTomatoes, which isn’t nearly low enough. Director Gil Junger, whose prior film Ten Things I Hate About You is still fondly remembered, made one more theatrical release; everything after has been direct-to-video. Martin Lawrence somehow still had a career after this, though he hasn’t appeared in any film since 2011.
This is the worst movie I’ve ever seen. I have no idea what impact 9/11 had on it, and I don’t ever want to think about it again.
Next Time: Out Cold
|
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Nov 22, 2016 12:10:22 GMT -5
Out Cold
Dir. Emmett and Brendan Malloy
Premiered November 21, 2001
Problem #1: Out Cold is a parody of ski-movies. I know extreme sports were the athletic fad of the slacker era, but most movies (and most media, period) about extreme sports were about road sports like skateboarding. I’m aware that ski movies exist, but only secondhand, through a tossed-off reference on an episode of Community and...well, this movie. Were ski-movies really prevalent or popular enough to warrant a parody film, let alone in 2001?
What’s more, it’s not much of a parody. Yeah, the film opens with Stumpy (David Koechner doing his Bill Brasky voice) explaining how the ski resort where the film is set was founded by a man who loved skiing drunk, and the Electric Booglaloo plot about stopping snobby new owner John (Lee Majors) from taking over reveals the film’s true intentions, but it’s not terribly far removed from the material it parodies. The smirkingly ironic hokey romance between protagonist Rick (Jason London) and Jenny (A.J. Cook), grunge/pop-punk soundtrack, and pornographic depictions of sweet snowboard tricks are all here, all intact. Any attempts at humor are few and far-between; it’s as if the filmmakers thought simply having Zach Galifianakis and Thomas Lennon in their movie would imbue a winking hilarity, and that would be weird because they weren’t famous yet.
Problem #2: Out Cold is set in Alaska. There’s no reason to set it in Alaska, except to create one huge logical problem: how can any single community in Alaska, a state the size of Iran with a smaller population than Vermont, possibly support a popular ski resort? Especially since even the southernmost reaches of Alaska get no more than seven hours of daylight in the winter, some of which must be spent getting there and back? Not to mention that this particular resort takes place in a part of Alaska that has both Eskimos and polar bears. Maybe it’s actually the island from Lost.
To add insult to injury, John plans to turn it into a shi-shi Aspen clone (where Patagonia jackets reign supreme and drunk skiing is forbidden), with Rick telling him that it could be developed into the most popular ski resort in the country. No it fucking couldn’t. You know why not? Because it’s in fucking Alaska. That’s like the most popular surfing spot in the world being in Namibia. Alaska could not have the most popular ski resort in America anymore than it could have justified that giant fucking suspension bridge.
All this talk of fucking leads nicely into...
Problem #3: PG-13 rating. Has there ever been a good film that attempted to be raunchy within the confines of a rating that won’t let you use “fuck” as a verb? Case in point: the film is about six people who work at a resort where drunken skiing is encouraged. During one drunken race, Jenny distracts Pig Pen (Derek Hamilton) off the course by opening her jacket...to reveal her bra. Her thick, utilitarian spandex bra. A conspicuous lack of nipples where they would be expected, such as in a flashback to spring break in Mexico and a topless hot tub scene, pervades the entire film as a reminder that the studio didn’t think Out Cold’s own target audience would be enough to turn a profit.
Speaking of target audience: while extreme sports were largely a ‘90s phenomenon, ski movies, I’m told, go back a bit earlier. As someone who was of approximately PG-13 age at the time of this film’s release, I fail to understand how anyone in Hollywood thought I’d get a kick out of a movie allegedly taking the piss out of a genre that was only briefly and vaguely popular shortly before I was born.
Problem #4: Of all films, why is Casablanca the one film that the darkest corners of Hollywood have seen fit to openly and repeatedly plagiarize? Barb Wire did it, Foodfight! did it, and Out Cold...well, let’s just say the main character is named Rick for a reason. The lines are all there, they’re all painful, and there is no reason for this stupid-ass movie to have this in it. I ask again, why does this keep happening?
Problem #5: How is it that this movie, like most in this project, can simultaneously be so flawed and so boring?
Signs This Was Made in 2001
- Numerous plugs for the music of Jack Johnson, a longtime friend of the Malloys who also featured in their previous film, documentary Thicker Than Water.
- For some reason, several films from late 2001-early 2002 feature obscure Foo Fighters singles that weren’t good enough to be on the band’s next album (which itself wasn’t very good). Out Cold is one of them, and the song is “Win or Lose.”
- The token closeted gay bartender (David Denman) has a mustache and enjoys wearing tank tops.
- Luke’s (Zach Galifianakis) sex interest Inga (Victoria Silvstedt), dressed and made up as she is here, appeals to a very 1990s, very dated brand of sexual desire. The brand that involves a long scene of her riding a mechanical bull.
- Pig Pen and Eric (Thomas Lennon), meanwhile, unknowingly get each other off by posing as women on an erotic chatroom for lesbians.
- In the most bizarre anachronism I’ve yet seen, the film treats the then-new Weezer single “Island in the Sun” as a painful reminder of Rick’s long-past relationship with Anna (Caroline Dhavernas channeling Ingrid Bergman, why is this a thing!?).
How Did It Do?
Out Cold received jack shit in the way of critical or commercial success, grossing $13.9 million against a $24 million budget (though that may have been by design, read below) and earning an 8% rating on RottenTomatoes. Emmett and Brendan Malloy never attempted to make another narrative film, and have since stuck to rock-docs and music videos. Their career trajectory makes me wonder if they were just hired hands for the studio.
After the September 11 Attacks, a handful of films got their release dates pushed back. However, even without the wake of tragedy, it is the rare film that gets its release pushed forward. Originally intended for a winter 2002 release, the Walt Disney Company (yes) buried Out Cold in the notorious dumping ground of Thanksgiving weekend with no advertising. That they did this suggests they recognized its failure. Not only is it convoluted, nonsensical, misaimed, rushed, and unfunny, it’s just rote. Like so many other films of 2001, Out Cold is yet another anonymous, undemanded product for the shelves of shopping mall multiplexes.
Next Time: Spy Game
|
|
|
|
Post by Powerthirteen on Nov 22, 2016 17:56:37 GMT -5
I for one am shocked to discover that Zach Galifianakis was a thing (or at least a failed attempt at a thing) this far in advance of The Hangover.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Nov 22, 2016 18:33:17 GMT -5
I for one am shocked to discover that Zach Galifianakis was a thing (or at least a failed attempt at a thing) this far in advance of The Hangover. I had liked his standup for years before the Hangover. He was popping up in small roles in stuff for ages before he suddenly became famous. |
|
|
|
Post by Powerthirteen on Nov 22, 2016 18:50:52 GMT -5
I for one am shocked to discover that Zach Galifianakis was a thing (or at least a failed attempt at a thing) this far in advance of The Hangover. I had liked his standup for years before the Hangover. He was popping up in small roles in stuff for ages before he suddenly became famous. Well whaddya know. I kind of want to find clips of this movie just to see Very Young him and Caroline Dhavernas. |
|
|
|
Post by Superb Owl 🦉 on Nov 22, 2016 19:12:22 GMT -5
I had liked his standup for years before the Hangover. He was popping up in small roles in stuff for ages before he suddenly became famous. Well whaddya know. I kind of want to find clips of this movie just to see Very Young him and Caroline Dhavernas. The one thing I remember from seeing this (in the theater? Ugh). Is that someone pooped in the cup when the new boss implements drug testing. And maybe someone's penis gets caught in the hot tub? Why yes, I was a high school freshman in 2001. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 19:57:34 GMT -5
I LIKE OUT COLD, THERE I SAID IT. MY DIRTY PAST HAS BEEN LAID BARE FOR ALL OF YOU TO SEE AND SCOFF AT. DRINK IT UP YOU PRETENTIOUS FUCKS AND ENJOY IT WHILE IT LASTS!
|
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Nov 22, 2016 20:53:04 GMT -5
I for one am shocked to discover that Zach Galifianakis was a thing (or at least a failed attempt at a thing) this far in advance of The Hangover. He wasn't. Nobody in the movie was. This is a movie that was banking on the eventual star power of Jason London of all people. The most familiar face at the time would have been David Koechner, and then only as a face, not a name. Galifianakis was around before The Hangover. His show at the Purple Onion was very popular among tastemakers in the late 2000s, and Between Two Ferns was already a thing in 2007. EDIT: Actually, one thing I've noticed about parodies post-1990s is that they really like using unknowns. I guess star power would detract from the joke. The irony of this will come up in three weeks when I get to Not Another Teen Movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Nov 23, 2016 9:41:38 GMT -5
Spy Game
Dir. Tony Scott
Premiered November 21, 2001
Tony Scott’s Spy Game was, by my recollection, the most heavily advertised film of 2001 in print. Pasadena and Los Angeles, I’m told, are unique in how billboards and bus ads are dominated by movie posters. The reason for this is pure vanity– there’s obviously no advantage in heavily in targeting two cities out of a huge country, but producers like to see advertisements for their own work. And this is why, in the fall of 2001, nondescript posters of Robert Redford and Brad Pitt together at last were more common than ads for the only semi-American Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.
Point being that despite being quite so aware of Spy Game, I still knew nothing about it. And of all the films I’ve seen thus far, it is among the most perplexing.
In 1991, CIA agent Tom Bishop (Brad Pitt) is caught attempting to extricate an inmate from a Chinese military prison by posing as a doctor treating a cholera outbreak, and is subsequently sentenced to death within 24 hours. As such an international incident threatens to stall trade negotiations between the US and China, the CIA’s top brass brings in Bishop’s retiring mentor Nathan Muir (Robert Redford) to explain his nearly two-decade working relationship with the idealistic and often emotionally conflicted Bishop. Eventually Muir realizes that he is being deposed as Bishop’s operation in China was actually an unauthorized personal mission, and that they are happy to the Chinese execute him. Muir and Bishop’s history, as well as Bishop’s motivations to go rogue, are explained in flashbacks which, despite being the most compelling part of the film, are not very interesting.
Tony Scott was not a bad director, but few filmmakers would have been less suited to direct a period piece, which Spy Game claims to be. Normally, I would discuss anachronisms in a “Signs This Was Made in 2001” section, but here they are too numerous and too integral to set aside. Initially, I didn’t think the movie was originally set in 1991, presuming that the pretense of a non-contemporary setting was adopted to distance itself from America’s new, non-fictional conflict in Asia. Let’s leave aside Tony Scott’s frantic directorial style and the Drum & Bass score; I thought this because of things like the use of the term “Hong Kong, China.” Or Bishop wearing a 1998 San Diego Padres cap in 1985 Beirut. Or Muir sitting in front of a stack of boxes labeled “1992.” Or the constant presence of technology, fashions, mechanical designs, and security apparatus that didn’t exist in 1991. (Even by 2016 standards, the offices of the CIA are shown to be far more swank and automated than any federal office in real life, but that’s a problem with almost every depiction of government agencies in fiction)
Yet every part of the story confirms that yes, this is supposed to be 1991. By the same token, Robert Redford’s generically, uniformly authoritative performance is numbing. Redford was famously turned down for the role of Benjamin Braddock in The Graduate because he was unable to grasp the concept of being rejected by a woman; and here he certainly carries himself as if he has never heard “no.”
But it gets worse. Through the flashback sequences that comprise the majority of the film, we are led to understand that Muir is by-the-book, and for good reason: Bishop’s tendency to become too attached to his assets put him at risk of being played, and Muir repeatedly warns him that he will not be bailed out if he goes rogue. Yet the main story revolves around Muir’s attempts to do just that, and it’s never clear why. Bishop is doing exactly what Muir taught him not to: attempting to rescue a former asset (Catherine McCormack), who may justifiably be called a terrorist, for whom Bishop harbors romantic feelings. In his efforts to undermine and manipulate the CIA to rescue Bishop, Muir is as much of a rogue, and Redford’s decision to play him like a petty bad-boy who smokes in his office does not mesh with an era when the American public held its authority figures largely in high esteem (compare with Tommy Lee Jones’ character in The Fugitive; even antagonistic authority figures were allowed a measure of nobility). If this story were real, Muir’s unaccountable hijacking of the national security apparatus would be cause for concern; I don’t know why it isn’t here.
That absence of consideration ruins the film, and the all-around lack of effort involved seems to have sapped the energy of anyone who might at least have enlivened it. Spy Game is not without potential, but it squanders that potential in an attempt lionizing its dubious heroes, and sorely lacks the passion or sense of purpose to justify a wannabe epic.
Additional Notes
Spy Game is the second movie in 2001 to claim the US has an “embassy” in Hong Kong (it has a consulate), the second movie in November of that year to feature Robert Redford as a manipulative Vietnam vet with dictatorial levels of informed charisma, the first of at least two films in this project where the antagonistic strawman authority figures are right, and the second film I’ve seen in the last three months to feature Redford lecturing about a protege he led to likely death.
How Did It Do?
Spy Game grossed $143 million against a $115 million budget, and most likely did not recoup the costs of its inescapable advertising. It grossed a respectable 66% on RottenTomatoes, but truly hasn’t aged well. The end of the Cold War dealt a hard blow to spy fiction, and movies like this struggled to find a sense of urgency. Although screenwriters would now struggle to fit the war against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups into the traditional espionage conventions with varying results, the new conflict would give the genre a newfound direction and purpose.
Next Time: The Affair of the Necklace
|
|
|
|
Post by Powerthirteen on Nov 23, 2016 11:41:22 GMT -5
I remember going to a movie night in college where we watched Spy Game and like half the people there fell asleep, including me. I have absolutely zero memory of what happens in the movie.
|
|
