#i think barry has a good chance at comedy series as well

[wecouldstillbegreat]

Pheobe Waller Bridge won Best Actress in a Comedy Series at the Critics Choice Awards. 

So far, Veep has lost every single award it has been nominated for except for the AFI Television Program of the Year (along with Chernobyl, The Crown, Fosse/Verdon, Game of Thrones, Pose, Succession, Unbelievable, Watchmen, When They See Us and a Special Award for Fleabag).

Here are all the awards that are left:

1. Producers Guild Awards (January 18, 2020)

The Danny Thomas Award for Outstanding Producer of Episodic Television

Comedy

●     Barry (Season 2)

Producers: Alec Berg, Bill Hader, Aida Rodgers, Liz Sarnoff, Emily Heller, Julie Camino, Jason Kim

●     Fleabag (Season 2)

Producers: Phoebe Waller‐Bridge, Harry Bradbeer, Lydia Hampson, Harry Williams, Jack Williams, Joe Lewis, Sarah Hammond

●     The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (Season 3) 

Producers: Amy Sherman‐Palladino, Daniel Palladino, Dhana Gilbert, Matthew Shapiro, Daniel Goldfarb, Kate Fodor, Sono Patel

●     Schitt’s Creek (Season 5)

Producers: Eugene Levy, Daniel Levy, Andrew Barnsley, Fred Levy, David West Read, Ben Feigin, Michael Short, Rupinder Gill, Colin Brunton

●     Veep (Season 7)

Producers: David Mandel, Frank Rich, Julia Louis‐Dreyfus, Lew Morton, Morgan Sackett, Peter Huyck, Alex Gregory, Jennifer Crittenden, Gabrielle Allan, Billy Kimball, Rachel Axler, Ted Cohen, Ian Maxtone‐Graham, Dan O'Keefe, Steve Hely, David Hyman, Georgia Pritchett, Erik Kenward, Dan Mintz, Doug Smith

2. Directors Guild Awards (January 25, 2020)

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in a Comedy Series

●    Dan Attias

“The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” “It’s the Sixties, Man!” (Prime Video)

●     Bill Hader

“Barry,” “ronny/lily” (HBO)

●    David Mandel

“Veep,” “Veep” (HBO)

●    Amy Sherman Palladino

“The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” “It’s Comedy or Cabbage” (Prime Video)

●    Daniel Palladino

“The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” “Marvelous Radio” (Prime Video)

3. Writers Guild Awards (February 1, 2020) 

Comedy Series

●   Barry

Written by Alec Berg, Duffy Boudreau, Bill Hader, Emily Heller, Jason Kim, Taofik Kolade, Elizabeth Sarnoff; HBO

●  The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

Written by Kate Fodor, Noah Gardenswartz, Daniel Goldfarb, Alison Leiby, Daniel Palladino, Sono Patel, Amy Sherman-Palladino, Jordan Temple; Prime Video

●  PEN15

Written by Jeff Chan, Maya Erskine, Anna Konkle, Gabe Liedman, Stacy Osei-Kuffour, Andrew Rhymer, Jessica Watson, Sam Zvibleman; Hulu

●   Russian Doll, 

Written by Jocelyn Bioh, Flora Birnbaum, Cirocco Dunlap, Leslye Headland, Natasha Lyonne, Amy Poehler, Tami Sagher, Allison Silverman; Netflix

●   Veep, Written by Gabrielle Allan-Greenberg, Rachel Axler, Emilia Barrosse, Ted Cohen, Jennifer Crittenden, Alex Gregory, Steve Hely, Peter Huyck, Erik Kenward, Billy Kimball, David Mandel, Ian Maxtone-Graham, Dan Mintz, Lew Morton, Dan O'Keefe, Georgia Pritchett, Leila Strachan; HBO

Episodic Comedy 

●  “Here’s Where We Get Off” (Orange Is the New Black)

Written by Jenji Kohan; Netflix

●  “It’s Comedy or Cabbage” (The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel)

Written by Amy Sherman-Palladino; Prime Video

●  “Nice Knowing You” (Living With Yourself)

Written by Timothy Greenberg; Netflix

●  “Pilot” (Dead to Me)

Written by Liz Feldman; Netflix

●  “The Stinker Thinker” (On Becoming a God in Central Florida)

Written by Robert F. Funke & Matt Lutsky; Showtime

●   “Veep” (Veep)

Written by David Mandel; HBO

[adamwatchesmovies]

Beyond Re-Animator (2003)

If you’ve seen all three films in the Re-Animator trilogy, you may find my review of Beyond Re-Animator outrageous. I thought this was the second film in the series. I didn’t see Bride of Re-Animator before this final chapter. There’s a chance that Part 2 would've filled in the gaps; that with it, I would recognize stunning character arcs and subtle nuances around each corner. Either that or, this movie just thoroughly sucks.

For 13 years, Dr. Herbert West (Jeffrey Combs) has been serving a prison sentence after one of his experiments ran amok. That hasn’t stopped him from playing God with the rats wandering in his cell. When a young doctor named Howard Phillips (Jason Barry) comes to work at the prison, he reveals he’s been a fan of West’s work ever since he saw it first hand. The two proceed to experiment with Nano-Plasmic Energy, which should allow them to bring the dead back to life without any ill effects.

I’m not saying everyone was sleepwalking through this production, that they didn't even try... but this horror-comedy is astonishingly poorly acted. It’s unbearable. Nobody is ever convincing in the least, except Jeffrey Combs who seems somewhat enthusiastic at getting a paycheck at the expense of die-hard horror movie fans. Rather than draw your attention away from the film's other flaws, it. highlights them. Beyond Re-Animator becomes a brief glimpse into cinematic hell. You can't even enjoy it as great trash.

There’s not a whole lot of imagination in this script. It’s basically a remake of the original. Dr. Herbert West wants to experiment on the dead but has limited access to equipment thanks to the prison warden (Simón Andreu), who might as well be the dean from the original film. His roommate (in this case, co-worker) Dr. Phillips is enthusiastic about the experiments but wary that something might go wrong, and he’s in love with Laura (Elsa Pataky), the hot reporter who’s doing some kind of exposé on the prison. It’s evident early on that no one knew how to tackle another Herbert West adventure, so they threw in a bunch of clichés to pad out the running time. Make way a boring love plot featuring two actors with no chemistry, a sadistic Warden that is just as bad as the inmates, and a rapist to boot! Will West and Phillips take the proper precautions to ensure their experiments go according to plan, or will the film end in a bloody riot as zombies tear everyone in sight to pieces and devour their flesh? I’ll give you one guess.

This is the kind of film that goes in one ear and out the other immediately. I remember feeling bored and frustrated, but I can’t recall what it is that made me sigh in desperation over and over. If a severed penis sounds like pure hilarity to you, then check it out. Maybe then you’ll learn to raise your standards. Aside from some decent zombie effects, there’s nothing to like in Beyond Re-Animator. I didn’t expect it to be good, but I also didn’t think I’d hate it as much as I did. (On DVD, July 11, 2016)

[thattimdrakeguy]

New 52 TEEN TITANS #3 Read Along - The fact this got made is still shocking.

It’s been a while since I done one of these. It’s probably been since last year or so. This isn’t so much of a formal review where I try my best to explain why something doesn’t work, with tons of back references, or interviews, and contexts, and such. I might do some of that, but I’m mostly just writing this along the same time I continue to read it.

I’ve already done the first two issues, and if I can I’ll link them in the post somewhere.

Basically, this series gets about everything wrong about the returning Core Four for this reboot. They made Cassie the tomboy a “girly” thief, Conner the punky flirt a creepy emotionally numb stalker, Tim the insecure dork a super genius that blew up part of a freaking skyscraper, and Bart the teen with an attention span problem into an arrogant jerkwad loudmouth.

With the origins later given in the series, the boys are revealed to not reaally be the characters we knew at all in a more literal sense. This Conner is a clone of an alternate version of Jon, not Clark and Lex. This Tim Drake, is literally only Tim Drake in name only, as that’s the name this teen got in witness protection. And this Bart Allen, isn’t even related to Barry.

So these are versions of the characters that are them in literally name only, bar Cassie (sadly). Although, they’d later retconned Tim’s origin back (which doesn’t make sense). But what else can I compare them to but the originals?

--

A really common criticism of this series, and one that’s pretty dang valid in my opinion. Is just how unlikable everyone is-- or at least the Core Four, because I feel like we can all be honest and say that most people just read this for the Core Four, and sometimes Bunker. (Like Bart’s condescending here. Like “I’m Kid Flash, girl.” Maybe I’m just reading it too 1940s, but it comes off as really dickish.)

I mean seriously, how many people do you know talk abut Skitter? The original characters that Lobdell came up with are really hit and miss for me, mostly miss. Because I find Skitter so forgettable, that even though I’ve read the first few issues of this series just for entertainment value, I still forget she exists. She could’ve been so much more interesting, but he just doesn’t give her much.

To me, a good character has a personality that you can notice, grab onto, and have lots of unique stories with, that simply work, not even because it causes a great drama, but just because the perspective the character will have in any situation depending on the circumstance will be interesting.

Which is one of the reasons why I find Tim an interesting character, because his perspective is one that’s very interactive with any given circumstances but will still work for me. An insecure, super hero fanboy, that’s doing his best to be brave, but is secretly scared, with the cleverness to do things, but the anxiety that he can’t. Which the circumstances they give him, like having to make sure he proves he should be Robin, having parents at home, not feeling like he’s good enough, constantly seeing others better them him. It’ll just make him an interesting perspective to read from that won’t get too repetitive in any way that interferes with the enjoyment, because there’s a lot of levels you can take his harsh feelings, or things to interact with, that it won’t always be predictable what’s going to happen with him, and you want to read to see more.

With this series and quite a bunch of other original characters made, they have soap opera writing. Which works with fleshed out characters like the iconic 80s incarnation of the Teen Titans, but when the new characters don’t have a well-formed personality that you can really grab onto and gain constant interest and intrigue from, you just have a lame duck.

When your main character’s traits are “I’m angsty and sad”. No one is going to be able to invest themselves with that. They need to be more third dimensional and genuine to make them a character you want to pick up each issue for.

This series even with the old characters fails at that, by making them into absolute butchered heaps of rotted rump rather than their full personalities.

At least the art is pretty creative early on in it’s second page, I will give it that.

--

Then there’s Bunker--

--who I really want to like, but just can’t find myself enjoying.

A lot of these characters I’m unfamiliar with I want to like. They’re minority characters with very interesting concepts, but writing so flat that it ruins any chance of paying attention to them. A common curse when it comes to POC and a bad writer like Lobdell.

But Bunker actually has a personality, but the reason why I can’t find myself attaching myself to him is because he feels like an uncomfortable stereotype character. An outdated one that you’d see in the 80s or 90s to either seem inclusive or use as a joke rather than a true deal character.

Bunker is a flamboyant, religious, fashion involved, gay, Latino. Something that feels like you’d really bet he wouldn’t be if he wasn’t gay or Latino, because it’s just all based in stereotypes. Like if the pages weren’t colored, and you didn’t have the context he was gay, you’d probably still guess what he’s supposed to be just because of how much they involve stereotypes with him.

However, despite the stereotypes, he is the one most people can remember from this series beyond the core four, because he at least has a personality, and they actually try to build up a unique mystery to him, that would make you want to continue to know them.

And there is something about his confidence and religious beliefs, and determination that does feel very genuine, and makes you actually like him despite the stereotypes.

You want to know what makes you able to tell he’s a better made character than the other relatively new, to straight up new characters? You can actually talk about him, and have a lot more to say about them then his backstory, two personality traits, and angst. Even if his personality seems limited at first, they still write it in a way that’s genuine enough that you can get more out of it, a lot like what I was describing with Tim earlier. 

He still feels like a character that you could write a solo about, and with a good enough writer and personal life, would actually make for a very rereadable series, because you just enjoy seeing him on his journey, because it won’t always be the same exact things. He has loyal personality traits about him, but depending on his circumstances, it won’t be the same side of him you’re seeing, and it won’t feel contrived. He has potential to become a true third dimensional character, and not one that just feels like he looks like one, but isn’t really.

But that depends on where the writing goes with him-- and I can’t remember where it goes. But take away the dated stereotypes and there’s actual good potential with Bunker. Making your character feel like another decade’s minority caricature is kind of a turn off when it comes to feeling comfortable reading them.

Which is why some don’t tend to like him.

--

There’s not a lot to say about this quick page of Cassie, besides the fact they make her come across as apathetic and nuts. She’s also mildly sexualized given it looks like she’s posing for a fashion shoot and not just closing a door, which feels pretty typical of the team that made this book.

--

And because of Lobdell’s bizarre writing and tone changes, I don’t know if this is supposed to be taken as serious or comedy, because of how abrupt it is, and how a fight broke out right after and we find out the old guy is Tim somehow convincing someone he isn’t like-- 15? I think he’d be either 14 or 15, not because that’s how Lobdell intended him to be, because I believe in a now lost interview he said Tim was “probably” 16 or 17. However, they didn’t settle on Tim’s age till Damian was near thirteen, meaning Tim would’ve been either fourteen or fifteen here, depending if Damian was eleven as I remember, or ten at the start of the New 52.

And here’s some more out of character Tim, because New 52 is what you get when you skim through Red Robin without any context, and being edgy is still really popular with the teenage demographic at the time.

This is a Tim that blew up a building, is an incel towards Cassie, and is overall an arrogant prick.

How Lobdell thought anyone thought any of a good idea is beyond me, but I figure he’s just not self-aware enough to realize that he just made one of the most unlikable protagonists I’ve ever seen, and absolutely bastardized who was once a mega-fan-favorite.

Although, this is pretty cute and in-character. It’s something that definitely fits in with a classic Tim comic, but down let this make you think Lobdell knows how to write Tim, because he makes it really obvious all the time that he doesn’t really.

--

And that’s basically everything relevant that happens in this issue-- not a lot when you actually read it, and not just me spouting off the proverbial mouth as I try my best to mentally process this freaking comic.

Conner doesn’t even show up, most likely because he was the only one with a solo, that Lobdell was also writing (you can probably guess accurately what the quality of that was too).

A lot of it is just more of the same, and it’s tedious, although it’s tedious nature is not so much on Lobdell, as he’s said in interviews before that it was editorial or a publisher (I can’t remember to be honest) that made him not have them previously know each other. So he had to work from that.

Which goes to show just how much DC knows how their characters and teams work, given the reason why Young Justice worked so well was because Tim, Conner, and Bart, already had stories where they duo’d up, and teamed up before they were even official. Which allowed them to have a preconceived friendship, they could build dynamics that were naturally built off of their unique personalities, which made everything feel natural and good to go when they did have an official team comic.

Here you have a Tim, that’s supposed to be very much a rookie of only one year, acting like he’s the greatest protégé talent ever, searching out for metahumans and coincidentally running into them, just to make some kind of story that would explain them being together for a team.

I’m not saying they have to redo the duo stuff again, because I’m pretty sure most readers already know their dynamics, and as for new readers, it doesn’t take a lot of time to say “We’re just good friends that like hanging out” does it? They have issue zeroes for each comic for a reason, they could’ve easily had a nice summary there if they wanted.

New 52′s obsession with trying to fit everything they can in, but have everyone still be relatively new, made everything a mess.

Like isn’t it weird that Superman only started being a super hero FOUR YEARS before Tim was? Doesn’t that sound entirely too squeezed in?

Then because they messed with the characters so much it works less for old readers as well. Like they have Tim, only a year in, acting like all the out of character elements of Red Robin, with an origin that’s a Bizarro styled mirror of his original one, with nothing that made him the popular character he used to be.

Same for the others.

New 52 is partially scary, because it shows just how little they know about what made them work.

I’m not against reboots in comics as a concept, they do need some modernization, and clean-ups every now and again, but you have to keep what works in there, or else the reboot will be a total failure. And paint-jobs and fan service like Rebirth aren’t gonna work either, when the heart of it all is still just so bad.

All this is a lot easier to say in hindsight, but DC Comics really has to work towards remembering their mistakes if they actually want to get better again. They’re doing a bit better at it, as forced and contrived as it can be sometimes. So they are getting somewhere.

But this is only the start of a Didio-less era. Looking like good things are coming, and little presents that truly make it seem true, is something that’s only going to last for a little bit. They have to still do the work, and learn what worked for their characters in the first place, and reremember who they all are.

Otherwise sales will just get worse again.

But I’m genuinely hoping they’ll at least begin to learn from mistakes. No one gets a win otherwise.

--

Oh, and he’s the entirety of the fight advertised on the cover. “Red Robin vs. Bunker”.

They stop fighting right after this.

It’s the comic book equivalent of clickbait if I’ve ever seen it in my entire life.

[kolbisneat]

MONTHLY MEDIA: January 2020

Hey here’s how I spent the start of this fine new year!

……….FILM……….

Parasite (2019) I was so focused on the plot that I don’t think I fully appreciated the beauty in this film. Watching this video helped a lot. One thing I admit (light spoilers to follow...skip past if you don’t want anything spoiled) is that I assumed there would be some sort of genre/fantastical element to the whole film. Because I’ve only seen The Host and Snowpiercer (loved both), I think I expected there to be a genre component to the whole thing. When they go down into the basement I really thought it was heading in that direction, and I definitely felt a little let down because of it. BUT after seeing the whole film, I feel like the themes and narrative were stronger because of how real it all felt. (END OF SPOILERS) I think it’s a film I’d like to rewatch to better appreciate the layers, but ho boy is it an emotional gutpunch.

Jojo Rabbit (2019) Just the best. The structure and (some) of the characters felt familiar, but it’s that comfort that makes the changes or introduction of an imaginary Hitler all the more interesting. Beautifully directed and the shifts in tone are so seamless that I really have a hard time pointing out where they happen.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) A little late to this but it was as good as I’d heard. It had the pacing, spirit, and lightness of late 90s/early 2000 adventure movies and I hope more films like this are getting the go ahead. Now to wait 3 years before seeing the sequel.

Between Two Ferns: The Movie (2019) A fun road trip movie that dips into scathing commentary on hollywood and talk shows? Absolutely. It worked well in building off of the webseries and the bloopers during the end credits really made it for me. Also I should’ve been playing Comedy Bang Bang Bingo while watching the movie. Anyway it does a great job of balancing the mean with genuine character moments and glimpses of sincerity.

……….TELEVISION……….

The Bachelor (Episode 24.01 to 24.03) It started out so promising (with the Hannah Brown return) that I was really primed for a format-shaking season. Nothing can quite live up to that beginning and it’s doing the show a disservice. Maybe if they just focused on nice reasonable dates and women getting along it would feel more substantial than the contrived fighting and lies we’re getting. I still believe that the most engaging season will actually be the one with the least drama. Perhaps I’m in the majority for thinking this.

The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (Episode 3.01 to 3.03) Reeeeeeally digging this season. Maybe it’s that there isn’t much relationship drama, or because the relationships play a part in the larger plot (as opposed to Riverdale...but that’s another can of worms). The Cthulhu and carnival stuff are offering a nice mix and we’re really getting lots of monster-of-the-week stuff so far. Hopefully there’s more to come!

Swamp Thing (Episode 1.03 to 1.07) It started out strong and moved at a nice pace, but it lost me. Some episodes had a monster-of-the-week, and those were fun but there was a lot more focus on the locals around the town instead of Swamp Thing. I appreciate a Swamp Thing-centric show would cost a looooooot more, but I also think that’s what most of the fans would want, right? Maybe if it was a 4-ep series it could really go all out and make a splash.

……….READING……….

Dracula vs. Hitler by Patrick Sheane Duncan (Complete) The title and back cover allude to a different, pulpier story, and it takes a while to adjust to the less bombastic narrative. The alternate history you DO get is great, and I think it’s because I didn’t mind a story with a hint of vampire set during the second world war. I’d still love to read a pulpy vamps vs. nazis novel, so if you have one then let me know. This wasn’t perfect, but I enjoyed it.

Head Lopper Volume 3: Head Lopper & the Knights of Venora by Andrew Maclean and Jordie Bellaire (Complete) There’s been a shift and a progression across the first three volumes of Head Lopper. It’s gotten more bold with its storytelling, a little more loose with its artwork (sometimes a hit and miss...I frequently go back because I feel like I’ve missed something in a previous panel) and the sheer scale of the world is expanding so quickly. It’s quickly becoming my favourite modern comic that captures the spirit of what I imagine pulp stories to be. Worth checking out vol. 1 if you haven’t already.

The Magicians: Alice’s Story by Lev Grossman, Lilah Sturges, and Pius Bak (Complete) If you haven’t read any of the Magician’s trilogy by Grossman, this is a great point of entry to see if you’d like the tone, characters, and general premise. If you HAVE read the first novel, this doesn’t branch too far the main narrative. I would’ve liked to spend a little more time with Alice on her own outside of what we see from the novel (and Quentin’s point of view) because what we do get is fantastic. I’m not sure it adds a lot of new elements to the novels but take that for what it is.

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - Legendary Edition  by Akira Himekawa (Complete) As far as a comic adaptation of a game, it really retains a lot of the core components. There are fun asides and elements get expanded further and it reads really well. Adaptations across media can be tricky but I think this is worth checking out if you liked the game. With that said, there’s a bonus story at the end that is so unrelated to the game and core world that it felt like a miss. It just felt like the author had a completely different story to tell and tried to shoehorn it into this property and it didn’t work. So if you pick it up, know that the best ending is the one you got in the game.

……….AUDIO……….

Yo, Is This Racist (Podcast) I’ve only recently started listening to this, but I really dig the format and the hosts are fun. Part reflection on current events, part interview, part commentary on society...it’s just all very good and funny and also good again.

……….GAMING……….

Baby Is You (Arvi Teikari) Never have I felt more frustrated, rewarded, and impressed by a game. I originally thought it was a sort of “there are endless ways to solve each stage!” game but it turns out the later levels have very specific solutions and that changed my perspective. It’s challenging but fun and uses lots of logic and creative thinking and I just don’t know how to describe how great this game is. Playing it on Switch is nice for the ease of playing a level or two before quitting, but I’m sure it’s fun elsewhere as well.

Neverland: A Role-Playing Game (Andrews McMeel Publishing) So I wrote a setting based on J. M. Barrie’s works and it’s getting published! The weekly group is taking a break from the megadungeon to try this out and it’s been a lot of fun! I will post more in depth recaps of the party’s adventures but so far, they’ve found a small village and nearly died to crocodiles.

A Red & Pleasant Land (Lamentations of the Flame Princess) It’s been aaaaaaaages since this group has had a chance to get together but it’s always so fantastic when we can make it work. The game is really getting to the point where the party has done enough that their actions are having consequences and the group...is adjusting to this. Right now they need to investigate a murder that they themselves are responsible for and I’m VERY keen to see how they approach it.

And that’s it! As always, let me know if you have any recommendations for what to read or watch or hear or play and happy Friday.

[buzzdixonwriter]

Gene Autry's Horse

Peter David recently posted a short essay on the current brouhaha over Martin Scorsese and Francis Coppola saying the Marvel movies aren’t real cinema, not genuine works of art, but just “thrill rides”.

Before going further, let me state my unabashed respect and admiration for Peter David.  He’s a creator who certainly earned his spurs, he has a massive body of work, he is an all around mensch, and his opinion is hard earned and well informed.

Except in this case, his conclusions are wrong.

To prove my point, let me ask Peter a question:

What was the name of Gene Autry’s horse?

Those of you wondering what Gene’s horse has to do with the Marvel cinematic universe (hence MCU), my explanation is this: The single largest genre of films made before 1960 were Westerns.

Add to that television programs, where Westerns remained a staple until the mid-1970s.

And radio shows.

And pulp novels.

And comic books.

They were the definitive American movie genre from 1903’s The Great Train Robbery until Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid drove a stake through the heart of the standard genre offering in 1969.

There are some who claim Blazing Saddles did the genre in, but Westerns had endured numerous comedy and parody versions in the past.

Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid killed the Western as a popular genre by simply having Butch and Sundance do the most logical thing at the first sign of danger, the thing the real Butch and Sundance did in real life:  They ran away.

And thus a genre trope was forever slain…

This is not to say they’ve never made another film that falls into the broad category of “Western”, but there’s no audience clamor for more of the genre.

Westerns are now simply historical films set in the American west during the period from the fall of the Alamo (1836) to Arizona becoming a state (1912).

There are films that employ Western genre tropes that take place in the contemporary era (Road House and Extreme Prejudice to name two) or transplant the Western genre to other lands (Sukiyaki Western Django and Tampopo, f’r instance), but as a genre it is dead-dead-DEAD.

Yet at one time, Westerns were so popular that not only did everybody know the name of Gene Autry’s horse, but said horse starred in his own TV series!

So what happened?

Well, several things.

I could cite the changing audience in America, going from 80% rural prior to WWII to 80% urban / suburban after WWII (with a corresponding rise in detective and spy genres, as well as sci-fi), or I could cite a huge glut of material made even more accessible by television, but the truth is this:  The overwhelming bulk of American Westerns were nothing but product.

It was actually built into the genre.  I’ve been trying to locate the original essay, but a scholarly study some years back concluded only 8 basic plot conflicts drove Western stories, and only 17 stock characters carried said stories (they can be good, bad, or neutral characters, effectively tripling their number).

The essay went on to liken American Westerns to Japanese noh or kabuki dramas:  Far from familiarity of material being a problem, audiences came expecting certain tropes and stock characters, and gained their enjoyment from how well said tropes and characters were presented.

Sound familiar?

This is not to say there weren’t films that fell into the Western genre that also aspired to art, but you either had to be a Hollywood heavy hitter to get a chance at making a film like that or, at the tail end of the genre, flying so low under the radar that nobody recognized what you were doing until you did it.

Does that sound familiar?

But the overwhelming majority of Westerns, while possessing technical craftsmanship, were just product:  So many feet of gunfights. So many reels of stampedes.

Big budget A-picture or bare bones B-movie, they all fell into the same general patterns, and studios, large or small, promoted them the same way.

And audiences were fine with this.  Tom Mix, Gene Autry, Roy Rogers and Dale Evans frequently wound up among the top 10 box office draws in Hollywood during their careers.

Where are those Westerns now?

I’m a big fan of old B-Westerns, having grown up with them on TV as a kid, and know a fair amount about the personalities and production companies involved, seeking out B-Westerns on Amazon Prime and YouTube and the multi-pack bargain bins at big box stores.

How many of today’s superhero fans could identify William Boyd or Red Barry or Rocky Lane or Buck Jones?

They might remember hearing the names of Roy Rogers or Gene Autry since those stars were involved in mainstream marketing such as fast food restaurants or baseball teams (and Autry donated a museum to Los Angeles that’s named after him), but how many have actually seen any of their movies?

We have two competing superhero universes today, DCU and MCU.

Where are the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents movies?  How come there’s no Dr. Solar or Brain Boy or Magnus, Robot Fighter films?

Answer:  No large corporation stand to make billions promoting those characters and licensing them to toys, video games, vitamin, and Underoos.

Corporations possess no sense of integrity to the original creators’ concepts.  They will change things in the blink of an eye if they think it will boost their profit margin.  They’ll promote the silliest and the most self-damaging ideas if they think it will make them a few extra bucks today.

Superman and Batman and Wonder Woman succeeded at DC bcause nobody there cared what the creators did so long as they turned their work in on time.

Product.

Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko and Jim Steranko blazed exciting new trails at Marvel because Martin Goodman couldn’t have cared less what they were doing so long as they delivered on schedule and under budget.

Product.

They flew under the radar.  They worked in a fast and grungy fashion, knocking the books out as quickly as they could.

To amuse themselves they trafficked in big ideas, eccentric art, outre stories.

That it caught on and blazed a new trail proved a combination of talent and luck.

There was no similar boom for romance comics or nurse comics or Western comics during the same period.

Right now the MCU movies are riding high and they are made with a great deal of technical care and they are amusing and entertaining.

So were Westerns.

MCU movies aim at too specialized an audience.  They appeal to this generation, but there’s no guarantee they’ll appeal to the next.

Indeed, there’s a strong argument that the next generation will reject the previous generation’s entertainment simply because it’s…well…theirs.

The films of Coppola and Scorsese will be watched.

They’re not product.

Oh, there were financed to make money, sure enough, but they were financed to make money by expressing the director’s personal taste and vision.

Further, they tend to transcend genre.

Yeah, two generations from now people who really love gangster movies will probably look up The Godfather and GoodFellas.

But people who love film, people who love art will be watching them as well.

They’ll also watch Public Enemy and Little Caesar, but unless they’re film buffs with specialized tastes, they’re going to skip the dozens of “programmers” cranked out in the 1930s to satisfy fans of that genre.

And the reason?  The Godfather and GoodFellas and Public Enemy and Little Caesar transcend their genres.

They are about people, not thrills and chills.

Consider classic Universal horror films.

James Whale & co. snuck one bona fide brilliant work of art past Carl Laemmle with Bride Of Frankenstein but after that the brakes clamped down hard and fast.

Uncle Carl couldn’t have geniuses running around doing whatever they felt like, thus risking the audience for Universal’s product.

Consistent mediocrity is better than risky genius in the eyes of the corporations.

The classic Universal monsters?  Reduced to The Munsters now; familiar icons, to be sure, but empty jokes, shadows of their former selves.

Replaced by newer monsters who in turn have been replaced by newer monster who in turn have been replaced by newer monsters and who will be replaced by newer monsters still.

‘Twas ever thus.

I begrudge the enjoyment no nobody who enjoys MCU movies.

Have fun.  Knock yourselves out.

But never mistake popcorn for caviar.

    © Buzz Dixon

  Champion was the name of Gene Autry’s horse.

[brandi-the-fine-girl]

76th Golden Globe Awards Predictions

Let’s be real here.  The Golden Globes are the biggest joke of Hollywood (right after the Emmy’s that is).  Remember when they nominated The Tourist in the Comedy/Musical category?  Or when they gave the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress to Jennifer Lawrence instead of Lupita Nyong’o?  Or when Get Out was nominated in Comedy/Musical (even though, yes, it was a dark comedy at times)?

So it comes as no surprise that this year’s list of nominees follows the same path.  The Golden Globes are the biggest wild card of all award shows and the Hollywood Foreign Press loves to throw curveballs.  With that said, here are my predictions for the 76th Golden Globe Awards.

Best Motion Picture - Drama

Will win:  A Star Is Born

Should win:  A Star Is Born

Dark Horse:  Black Panther

Look, I loved Black Panther.  And the fact that it has gained this much momentum during award season is a victory for Marvel Studios.  But I’m expecting a sweep for A Star Is Born.  Now, that doesn’t mean ASIB will maintain this momentum for the rest of award season.  The HFPA likes to play favorites and I’m sure ASIB will be this year’s Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (which won four Golden Globes last year).  But a win for Black Panther would be huge and make it a bigger contender for the Oscars.

Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical

Will win:  Green Book

Should win:  Crazy Rich Asians

Dark Horse:  Mary Poppins Returns

The Comedy/Musical category is always the oddball category (see above about The Tourist and Get Out).  And it’s typically the category where anyone can win.  I’m going to go with Green Book since it won the People’s Choice at TIFF this year but with a diverse voting roster (it is the Hollywood FOREIGN Press after all), I wouldn’t count out Crazy Rich Asians.

Best Director

Will win: Alfonso Cuaron, Roma

Should win:  Alfonso Cuaron, Roma

Dark Horse:  Adam McKay, Vice

For me, I believe this is the only category A Star Is Born will not win.  Cuaron’s beautifully stunning and heartbreaking semi-autobiographical film was featured on Obama’s list of films he saw in 2018.  Bradley Cooper’s first directorial feature is a stunning accomplishment but it doesn’t match Cuaron’s ability to paint the anguish and loss in Roma.

Best Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama

Will win: Bradley Cooper, A Star Is Born

Should win:  Rami Malek, Bohemian Rhapsody

Dark Horse:  John David Washington, BlacKkKlansman

With a possible loss in the Directing category, Bradley will most like scoop up the Actor in a Drama award.  Sure, his character was doomed from the start and it makes for a great challenge for an actor like Bradley.  But Rami’s complete transformation into Freddie Mercury has me convinced he should win.  Don’t count out John David Washington in BlacKkKlansman though.  He’s new to the scene as an actor (he is Denzel Washington’s son) but his performance is definitely one to look out for.

Best Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama

Will win:  Lady Gaga, A Star Is Born

Should win:  Glenn Close, The Wife

Dark Horse:  Melissa McCarthy, Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Once again, I’m predicting a sweep for A Star Is Born but I don’t think Lady Gaga will snag two Oscars come Oscar night (that is, if she is nominated for songwriting and Best Actress).  Glenn Close is well overdue for some awards love and it seems like her time might come.

Best Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical

Will win:  Christian Bale, Vice

Should win:  Christian Bale, Vice

Dark Horse:  Lin-Manuel Miranda, Mary Poppins Returns

It’s hard for me to choose anyone else when Christian Bale is in a category.  This is the man that got rail thin for his roles in The Machinist and The Fighter (the latter of which he did win Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars) and bulked up for Batman Begins (gaining 100 pounds) almost six months after filming The Machinist.  His transformation into the notorious Dick Cheney seems like typical awards bait to me.  But let’s not count out the lovable Lin-Manuel Miranda.  The man works hard on stage and screen.  I’d love to see a win for him

Best Actress in a Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical

Will win:  Olivia Colman, The Favourite

Should win:  Constance Wu, Crazy Rich Asians

Dark Horse:  Emily Blunt, Mary Poppins Returns

The category is such a wild card for me.  I’m sure by the end of 2019, everyone will know who Olivia Colman is.  From the little bit I’ve seen of The Favourite, she’s amazing.  However, I do think Constance Wu is more deserving of the accolades.  This category could really go to anyone and with the lovable Emily Blunt also nominated, it could possibly go to the legendary Mary Poppins herself.

Best Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture

Will win:  Mahershala Ali, Green Book

Should win:  Timothée Chalamet, Beautiful Boy

Dark Horse:  Adam Driver, BlacKkKlansman

Look, before you rip me to shreds, here me out.  I have loved Mahershala Ali since he was on House of Cards and he was painfully robbed in 2017 when the HFPA gave Best Supporting Actor to Aaron Taylor-Johnson instead of Mahershala.  It feels like Mahershala deserves the accolades as a “sorry we gave it to someone else and then you ended up winning the Oscar anyways.”  However, I just watched Beautiful Boy last night and Timothée kills it.  I’m not some crazy fangirl.  I just know a good performance when I see one.  Let’s not count out Adam Driver, though, who knocks it out of the park in BlacKkKlansman.

Best Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture

Will win: Amy Adams, Vice

Should win:  Regina King, If Beale Street Could Talk

Dark Horse:  Claire Foy, First Man

Since Amy Adams most likely won’t win for Best Actress in Mini Series (more on that later), I’m hoping this is where she gets her due.  The woman is long overdue for the awards love (a lot like Glenn Close).  She’s basically the female Leonardo DiCaprio, if you must.  The fact that Regina King did not nab a SAG Award nomination for If Beale Street Could Talk is a little ominous (side note: the acting branch is the largest branch of the Academy and a lack of SAG nomination is very telling).  I like to hope that she can pick up a Globe as recognition for her stunning work.  To me, Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone split the vote so my Dark Horse goes to Claire Foy.  I wouldn’t be surprised if HFPA voters’ obsession with her throws us a curveball in this category.

Best Screenplay

Will win:  Adam McKay, Vice

Should win:  Alfonso Cuaron, Roma

Dark Horse:  Bryan Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly, Nick Vallelonga, Green Book

This is usually a difficult category considering the Oscars split the Screenplay category into Adapted and Original.  The HFPA likes to play it safe by awarding previous winners and nominees so I’m going with Adam McKay who won the Oscar for The Big Short.  Alfonso Cuaron is equally deserving if Best Director doesn’t go his way.  But come Oscar time, I’m expecting a win for Green Book.

Best Original Score

Will win:  Alexandre Desplat, Isle of Dogs

Should win:  Ludwig Goransson, Black Panther

Dark Horse:  Marco Beltrami, A Quiet Place

Alexandre Desplat won last year for The Shape of Water (a well-deserved win if I do say so myself) but I feel Ludwig Goransson may have a chance here.

Best Original Song

Will win:  “Shallow”

Should win:  “Shallow” or “All The Stars”

Dark Horse:  “Girl in the Movies”

Probably the easiest category of the evening.  You can’t turn on any radio station without hearing “Shallow.”  And rightfully so.  The dynamic between Bradley and Gaga is mesmerizing and Gaga’s high note is the most memorable part of it.  However, I wouldn’t mind some recognition to “All The Stars.”  Personally, I feel like “Pray For Me” is the better song but let’s give some love to Kendrick and SZA if we can.

Best Animated Feature Film

Will win: The Incredibles 2

Should win:  The Incredibles 2

Dark Horse:  Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

I mean, no contest, this one goes to The Incredibles 2.  Very rarely does Pixar lose an award (exceptions go to Cars 2 and Monsters University) but if it does, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse might take it.

Best Foreign Language Film

Will win:  Roma

Should win:  Roma

Dark Horse:  Girl

Again, no contest, Roma.  But Girl could take it since it won the Caméra d’Or and the Queer Palm at the Cannes Film Festival in 2018.  Unfortunately, the film did not make the short list for the Best Foreign Language Film category for this year’s Oscars so maybe it may get its due here.

Best Television Series - Drama

Will win:  The Americans

Should win:  The Americans

Dark Horse:  Pose

After six seasons, The Americans ended on a high note.  It felt painfully under-appreciated at the Emmys this year, so maybe this is where it will get its due.  However, don’t overlook Pose since everything Ryan Murphy touches turns to awards gold.

Best Television Series - Comedy/Musical

Will win:  Barry

Should win:  Barry

Dark Horse:  Kidding

After winning big at the Emmys, I’m predicting some major love for Barry.  The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel is last year’s winner which may hinder Barry’s chances but the HFPA does tend to choose different winners every year.

Best Actor in a Television Series - Drama

Will win:  Matthew Rhys, The Americans

Should win:  Matthew Rhys, The Americans

Dark Horse:  Richard Madden, Bodyguard

After scooping up an Emmy, Matthew Rhys will probably continue his awards sweep with a Golden Globe.  Billy Porter may give him a run for his money in Pose (he was also wonderful in American Horror Story: Apocalypse).  If we want a shocker, the HFPA could go with Richard Madden in Bodyguard.  Good looks aside, Madden portrays a former British Army sergeant with PTSD fantastically.  It is unclear if Bodyguard has been greenlit for a second season but a Globes win might cement that status.

Best Actress in a Television Series - Drama

Will win: Sandra Oh, Killing Eve

Should win:  Keri Russell, The Americans

Dark Horse:  Julia Roberts, Homecoming

One half of our emcees for the evening, expect Sandra Oh to pick up a Globe as well.  Keri Russell was horribly robbed at the Emmys so she is more deserving for her final season of The Americans.  America’s Sweetheart Julia Roberts is a threat to these two with the inaugural season of her Amazon Prime series Homecoming.  Here’s where you can possibly expect a big shocker but I’m still sticking with Ms. Christina Yang herself.

Best Actor in a Television Series - Comedy/Musical

Will win:  Bill Hader, Barry

Should win:  Bill Hader, Barry

Dark Horse:  Jim Carrey, Kidding

I’ve always had a soft spot for Bill Hader since he was on Saturday Night Live.  Starring as a former Marine-turned hitman-turned aspiring actor is the most Bill Hader thing that Bill Hader could possibly do.  Jim Carrey has been placing himself more in the comedy/drama (aka “dramedy”) category as of recent years so don’t count him out in this race.

Best Actress in a Television Series - Comedy/Musical

Will win:  Rachel Brosnahan, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

Should win:  Alison Brie, GLOW

Dark Horse:  Kristen Bell, The Good Place

Rachel Brosnahan could possibly be a repeat winner here.  Season two of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel is getting just as great reviews as season one did (if not as great, then better).  Personally, I feel Alison Brie deserves it but Candice Bergen may come through with the win as well.  However, this Kristen Bell’s first-ever Golden Globe nomination so she could very well take it.

Best Actor in a Miniseries or Television Film

Will win:  Darren Criss, The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story

Should win:  Darren Criss, The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story

Dark Horse:  Hugh Grant, A Very English Scandal

We’ve come a long way since A Very Potter Musical, haven’t we?  Darren Criss’s portrayal as Versace’s murderer Andrew Cunanan is one of the best performances I’ve seen in recent years.  The creepy smile underneath his hand as he sees the news that Versace has been killed makes him a lock for this category.

Best Actress in a Miniseries or Television Film

Will win:  Laura Dern, The Tale

Should win:  Amy Adams, Sharp Objects

Dark Horse:  Regina King, Seven Seconds

Like I said above, I’m hoping Amy Adams will get her due in the Best Supporting Actress category because it seems like she won’t get it here.  Laura Dern is a favorite of the HFPA so she most likely will win.  Amy Adams is the more deserving here but if things don’t work out for Best Supporting Actress, I’m hoping the HFPA does a flip-flop gives it to her here.  Regina King won the Emmy for Seven Seconds but she seems like a long shot here.

Best Supporting Actor in a Series, Miniseries, or Television Film

Will win:  Henry Winkler, Barry

Should win:  Edgar Ramirez, The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story

Dark Horse:  Kieran Culkin, Succession

It’s always been odd to me that the Golden Globes don’t split their supporting television categories.  Sure, it makes for great competition but it’s also incredibly unfair.  I’m going with Henry Winkler in Barry (who was well overdue for that Emmy) but Edgar Ramirez definitely should be the winner in my eyes.  Kieran Culkin (the only nominee for HBO’s Succession) could pull a surprise win here.

Best Supporting Actress in a Series, Miniseries, or Television Film

Will win:  Penélope Cruz, The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story

Should win: Penélope Cruz, The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story OR Patricia Clarkson, Sharp Objects OR Thandie Newton, Westworld

Dark Horse:  Yvonne Strahovski, The Handmaid’s Tale

This is, quite possibly, the most competitive category of the entire award show.  And, yet again, another reason why it’s absurd that the Golden Globes don’t split their supporting television categories.  Alex Borstein and Thandie Newton both have the upper hand in this category since they both won Emmys in the supporting actress categories in comedy and drama, respectively. But their recent Emmy wins could cancel them out, making way for either Penélope Cruz or Patricia Clarkson to nab the award.  I’m going with Penélope though since she was robbed of the Emmy.  I am hoping for an Emmy win for Patricia Clarkson come September.

Best Miniseries or Television Film

Will win:  The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story

Should win:  The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story

Dark Horse:  A Very English Scandal

Riveting from start to finish with stunning performances from the cast, Versace is a lock.  In any other year, I’d give it to Sharp Objects but the show also lagged a bit.  If I hadn’t read the book, I might have been bored.  The series was more of a performance piece for the actors instead of being a masterpiece as a whole.  Versace has it all.  And, of course, it’s another Ryan Murphy masterpiece.  

Andy Samberg and Sandra Oh host the 76th Golden Globe Awards on Sunday, January 6 at 8 pm EST/5:00 pm PST.

[found-in-a-crowd]

*mostly* underrated & hidden gem netflix/tv series

N = available on Netflix UK

the vampire diaries (N)- (give it a chance) i guess you could say its not underrated... but i’ve never met anyone else who watched it because it started like 10 years ago. i just think its so watchable and has it all, as well as the acting and writing being good quality. Ngl I've been binge watching it lately and I'm not even halfway through the 8 seasons...

skins (uk) (N)- again, not really underrated... but came out so long ago that i feel like everyone’s forgotten about it or hasn’t actually watched it. i love how it’s messy and real and gritty and the acting is out of this world. also, its set in my home town soo

the killing (season 1) - watched this a while ago when i was probably too young to fully understand all of it, but i remember being captivated and really caring about the characters and the storyline having something special. i remember it being pretty dark and also putting me off of ever visiting Seattle... so maybe not for everyone :/

The Office (UK) (N)- the comedy in this show is like nothing else, even though I feel like it's much more underrated than the US version. It's just so watchable - honestly I love how nothing ever actually happens in it and the drama is light and funny, but the characters are also complex and so believable. Could not praise this iconic & game-changing show any higher 11/10

atypical (N)- i can’t understand why this doesn’t seem to have more attention. i just love a good funny and quirky tv show that isn’t cringey. this one really is special and has all the subplots and complex characters and relatability and all the other good stuff- just give it a try.

peep show (N)- i’ve got to put this one on here just because i was practically raised on it, and i don’t know what my mum was thinking. it’s probably got a lot to do with my sense of humour now and what got me into tv series. its VERY british so the humour’s dry and sarcastic and matter of fact. loved it when i was like 7, before i actually understood any of it, but i’m sure i’d love it just as much now.

outnumbered (N) - if you’re not british you might not have heard of it and that’s such a loss. its so brilliant. its basically funny because its so relatable to boring everyday life, but also clever about it.

sex education (N) - this should win an award if it hasn’t already. this show is so important and has just done it all right. also asa butterfield wow. i can’t even do it justice by writing something here- you’ve probably already seen it lol

girl boss (N) - completely underrated i swear. i can’t believe there’s still only one season- it made me fall in love with san fran, appreciate fashion and reminded me its okay to not be what other people want you to be. it’s got the comedy, the emotion, the good music, the inspiration. wish other people gave it more loove

girls - feel like it’s underappreciated but only in the UK. its one of those shows that so close to real life that it seems crazy that it’s not. its basically all about a group of girl friends and the ups and downs of their lives in nyc as young women, but so much more than that. its a pretty important piece of TV if you ask me

barry - i love how niche this show is, like it’s such a random situation, which is what makes it so perfect. its about an assassin who takes the name ‘barry’ while on a job on someone who does theatre, and barry basically accidentally realises that he loves acting while at the same time trying to recover his humanity and move towards a more normal life. 10/10

years & years - this show is really new and only has a few episodes but I love it so much! It's super quirky and original and it's "futuristic" yet scarily so similar to reality - set in 2025 and honestly looks like a horrifying & believable future. It touches on so many serious and relevant different political topics while also being funny and having brilliant characters. I reckon you'd really like it if you like Black Mirror.

kidding - this is jim carrey’s own show where he stars as the main character. its got a really original idea behind it and shows a whole different side to jim carrey as an actor. it might be too quirky for some people, but i personally love shows that seem authentic to the person/people that made them.

let me know what your favourite shows are and what i’ve missed !!

xox

[britesparc]

Weekend Top Ten #478

Top Ten 1990s Films I’ve Still Never Got Round to Watching

I came of age in the nineties. I was born in 1981, and by the time 1990 rolled round I was already eight years old; you consume a lot in those eight years, as my lifelong devotion to Transformers (which started in 1984, when I was all of two) will attest. But really it was the nineties that shaped me, I think, more than anything. There’s a weird kind of Ground Zero in 1993 which I feel defines so much about different aspects of my psyche, from The X-Files to Jurassic Park; I didn’t know it at the time, but that’s also when Batman was dealing with a broken back and Superman was dealing with being dead. If we stretch it a little either side of ‘93, you get Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, two hugely seminal films from a director whose rise kinda defined the decade in film. And 1993 is the year I started reading Empire magazine, a publication which really cultivated my love of film, turning it from being “I like watching movies” to being a true hobby, probably the biggest and most abiding one of my life. And it’s through the pages of Empire that I was introduced to dozens of films that piqued my interest in lots of ways; quirky American indies, prestige historical dramas, wacky-looking arthouse fair, and loads more besides. Truth be told, as a regular visitor to Ye Olde Video Shoppe, my head was often turned by the exotica on display. Sometimes it was the cover art, delightfully lurid in the eighties; sometimes it was the title; sometimes it was just me wondering what on Earth this film could be about.

So through scenic trips round the HMV video isle and flicking through Empire and listening to the sage wisdom of Sir Barry of Norman, I was exposed to loads of films that just looked interesting; films I wanted to see. Sometimes I was too young, of course, but these films – unseen – expanded my interest in the artform because I knew that they were there. I knew that I’d be able to see them eventually. I dreamed as a young teen of being older and independent, of taking myself to see earnest and adult films; the latest Tarantino or Scorsese, a Naked or a Wild at Heart. I wanted to be a smart-arse cinephile university student, probably with a goatee and a ponytail, the kind of character that I was too young to realise was already a comedy cliché by the mid-nineties.

I got older, and I saw a lot of movies, but I read about a lot more, and quite frankly even back then there just weren’t enough hours in the day or days in the week. I had friends, schoolwork, Red Alert, Red Dwarf, and loads of writing to do. And, even back then, I have to say I’d have chosen Judge Dredd over Before Sunrise, or Godzilla over Pi.

So these films go on your backburner. I read the articles in Empire, I watched the trailers (remember when Empire would stick a VHS full of movie trailers to the front cover? Good times), I scanned the posters in foyers, the boxes in Blockbuster, and the nascent and ever-growing racks of DVDs as the decade wound on. My time became scanter, the blockbusters bigger and more encompassing (Star Wars fever lasted at least three years), and still those quirky-looking indies, those intelligent-looking dramas, those intense-looking B-pictures all went unseen.

No worries; I’ll see them eventually.

And then a funny thing happens. You turn around and you realise that twenty-odd years have passed. That film starring young up-and-comer who was in Schindler’s List? The one with the unknown, good-looking actor who it turns out has a new paranormal sci-fi series starting on BBC2? That was a long time ago, entire series, entire movie franchises have come and gone. And I’ve still not seen these films.

So here we are then; a list of films I’ve not seen, but have wanted to, in some cases for nigh-on three decades. It sounds ridiculous when you say it like that, and it makes me wonder what recent films I’ll end up skipping on till I’m sixty or seventy. And, also, I’m going to take this list as a challenge; I’m going to try, within the next year, to watch all of these films.

Or at least I’ll try to do it before 2051.

There’s actually an added level of relevance this week. My Nanna turned 90 on Saturday. 90! So I was kinda primed to do something to do with the number 90, and as it happened this was a half-written list that I’d not got round to finishing yet. I was actually going to do a revisit of my 90th Top Ten, but as that was actually “Favourite Movies of the 1990s”, this feels like a fitting tribute, both to my grandmother (90!) and to my 90th list.

Oh, one last thing: this week I’ve just decided to do them in chronological order, rather than a “proper” ranking, because I couldn’t really decide which I wanted to see more. I’ve lived with these things for thirty years!

Malcom X (1992): there was no way I knew who Malcolm X was when this came out, but I remember seeing the posters and being curious. As I grew older, the stereotypical narrative of “militant Malcom versus peaceful Dr. King” emerged, and I was even more curious about this film. And then I began to see more films by Spike Lee, or starring Denzel Washington, and I realised just how huge a deal this must have been in the nineties. So here we are, 29 years later, and I still really want to see it.

My Cousin Vinny (1992): I knew Joe Pesci back in 1992 because of Home Alone, and also – if I’m honest – because of Goodfellas, which I’d have watched on video around the same time (shocking, I know). But all the same, I probably wasn’t that interested in a relatively-straight-looking courtroom drama starring the Karate Kid. However, I do remember people talking about it; I think my older cousins may even have rented it. And as I got a bit older, and wondered why people made jokes about Marisa Tomei winning an Oscar, I became really curious. So, by the time I was in my mid-teens, it became an early-90s film I really wanted to see. And I still haven’t. Ahem.

In the Line of Fire (1993): not everything here is going to be some earnest drama or forgotten indie movie; there’s a very good chance I would have seen Fire back in the day. I mean, my dad loves Eastwood, so it could have been something my parents rented. In ’93, I wouldn’t really have known about the political aspect of the film (I remember watching The Bodyguard and being really confused when one character talked about Reagan being shot, something I was utterly clueless about), but all the same, an Eastwood action-thriller is actually something I probably would have enjoyed. As time’s gone on, that feeling has increased.

Kalifornia (1993): weird to think that nowadays, the biggest draw for me with this film is seeing a pre-X-Files David Duchovny. Back then, I kinda had a thing for Juliette Lewis, and Brad Pitt was the epitome of cool. It probably hit me just as I was getting into Tarantino (not that I’d have seen any of his films in ’93 or ’94), and – in my head – it felt like one of those cool adult films that explored themes of violence in America. I’m not sure it reviewed all that well at the time, but all the same, I’ve always wanted to see it.

Quiz Show (1994): I think that, by 1994, I’d fixed Ralph Fiennes in my head as this young up-and-coming English actor who was going to conquer Hollywood. I’m sure by then I’d seen Schindler’s List; too young to go to the pictures, obviously, but it was an immediate rental. And ’94 was when I was really taking movies seriously for the first time; devouring Empire magazine, religiously tuning into The Film Programme. I’d probably never seen a Robert Redford film, but I knew who he was because he was so famous he permeated popular culture; so I knew it was a big deal whenever he directed. I knew nothing (still know hardly anything!) about the scandal the film depicts. But I was phenomenally intrigued. It’s on Disney+ now, I think. I’ve still not got round to it.

Reality Bites (1994): I don’t really know anything about this. It’s, like, Gen-X youngsters getting all angsty, right? And it’s Winona Ryder. If I “kinda” had a thing for Juliette Lewis, I definitely had a thing for Winona Ryder. But I remember seeing the poster in my local Video Emporium. And learning, years later, that it was an early (debut?) Ben Stiller film makes it all the more interesting. I think watching it now would be like opening a time capsule to the early nineties, and it’d be phenomenally interesting; but I know as the decade drew on, I felt this slight disconnect, like I should have watched these young-centric films that critics said “defined” the decade (see also Before Sunrise and Dazed and Confused). Still haven’t!

Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead (1995): if I was just getting “into” Tarantino in ’93, by ’95 I was fully in the tank. And this is when the first wave of “inspired by Tarantino” films crested; see also the phenomenal (but, for me, phenomenally tainted) The Usual Suspects. Denver was one of the first ones I remember being talked about. Truth is, I don’t remember much about it; but it had one of those impossible-to-forget titles which, post-Reservoir Dogs, were very popular in nineties indie crime flicks (see also Killing Zoe, Albino Alligator, and Man Bites Dog). It had a very mid-nineties cast of interesting actors that I liked (Andy Garcia, Steve Buscemi, Christopher Lloyd); I think this was the film where someone told me that a character is shot up the arsehole to slowly bleed to death. That was probably why I wanted to see it, but also the whole post-Pulp American indie vibe played a huge part; these sorts of films just seemed so cool to me.

To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar (1995): mid-nineties I was very much into Patrick Swayze (Ghost! Point Break!) and Wesley Snipes (Demolition Man! Passenger 57!). Despite having seen Super Mario Bros, I’m afraid I did not at all recognise John Leguizamo, for which I can only apologise; by the time Spawn came round, he was a huge draw for me, if that helps (I imagine it don’t). anyway, I’ve gone off on a tangent. Seeing these three big macho dudes play drag queens was a big deal for me; even back then, I felt that it was good for them to do something that seemed progressive, or ran counter to outdated notions of masculinity. Was it really that progressive? I’m not sure; obviously I’ve not seen the film, but it seemed that way to me as a kid. It probably helped normalise the idea of non-heteronormative performance, in the same way The Birdcage or Philadelphia did. I’m not saying these are ideal interpretations of diverse sexuality, but when all you know is utter straightness, they were a window into a wider world. Also it’s got a hell of a title.

The People Versus Larry Flynt (1996): we’re now getting very deep into reading-Empire-religiously territory, and also David-is-old-enough-to-see-a-15 territory (the first 18 I saw was Face/Off the following year). We’re also – and I want to put this delicately – in an era where the discussion or depiction of pornography in a film was, shall we say, intriguing. Sue me; I was 14. The thought of taking a porn publisher and making him a good guy in a freedom of speech battle meant that, not only might it feature a bit of filth, but I could also root for him against the forces of censorship. I loved Woody Harrelson, too; and the insanely controversial (and banned!) poster is hilarious, if a bit much nowadays. Anyway, I wanted to see what I hoped was an intelligent and funny biopic that might also be a little bit rude; it made me feel grown-up and sophisticated. I wonder if I’d still feel the same if I watched in 2021.

Gods and Monsters (1999): jumping to the end of the decade and whilst I know full well why I’d be so excited to see Brendan Fraser in a more serious role, I’m not sure why I’d have know Ian McKellen; maybe The Keep? Or just reading about Richard III (I’d not seen it at that point)? Certainly I was very excited for his casting both in X-Men and Lord of the Rings, so I must have known who he was. Anyway, this film sounded great; a biopic of the director of Frankenstein, and also what appeared to be a rather tragic romance. I loved stories about old Hollywood, and – paging Wong Foo – stories about LGBTQ+ characters, even then. And I wanted to see what one of my favourite Hollywood action stars was up to, as well as support a British actor who I knew was in consideration for an Oscar. Knowing more about the situation, the movies, and the actors, I’d really love to see it now.

Well, there we are: ten films I can’t believe I’ve still not got round to seeing. I’m a bit rubbish, really. And these of course are just the tip of the iceberg (don’t worry, I did see Titanic). Throw a stick at an episode of The Film Programme in the nineties, and you’ll hit a film I was really interested in but still haven’t seen.

Mind you, I’m not dead yet. There’s still time… and I know Quiz Show is on Disney+…

[sfdfmoviereviews]

Upcoming Flicks January 2018

Here are the upcoming films being released in Australia in January 2018, accompanied by my personal thoughts of them.

January 1

·         Pitch Perfect 3

The girls have reteamed for one last hurrah and are on tour with the USO, singing for the troops overseas, along with some other musical groups. Genre: Musical Comedy Director: Trish Sie Stars: Anna Kendrick, Rebel Wilson, Brittany Snow, Hailee Steinfeld, Elizabeth Banks, Anna Camp, Alexis Knapp, Ruby Rose Recommendation: I reckon it won’t be worth the price of admission. The first one was a great success. The oddball characters thrown together were comedy gold, but should not have been repeated. The sequel provided nothing new and now I think they are milking a cow that’s giving sour milk. It’ll be aca-crapa.

 ·         Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

After the police fail to solver her daughter’s murder, Mildred Hayes buys advertising space on local billboards slamming the local police. Genre: Comedy/Crime/Drama Director: Martin McDonagh Stars: Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, Sam Rockwell, Abbie Cornish, Lucas Hedges, Caleb Landry Jones, John Hawkes, Peter Dinklage Recommendation: Three Billboards won the People’s Choice award at the Toronto Film Festival, is  being critically acclaimed. There is a fantastic cast with what looks to be a compelling story and characters. I think this is the perfect movie to start 2018.

  January 4

·         All the Money in the World

Inspired by true events, All the Money in the World is the story of the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III, whose rich oil giant grandfather doesn’t hand over the $17M the kidnappers are demanding. Genre: Thriller Director: Ridley Scott Stars: Christopher Plummer, Mark Wahlberg, Michelle Williams, Charlie Shotwell, Charlie Plummer Recommendation: You may have heard about this movie after Ridley Scott recast and reshot the film with Christopher Plummer after the controversy around Kevin Spacey. Probably a better choice anyway as Plummer would be closer to the age of the tight-arse grandfather. The trailer looks good. It has an intense spy thriller vibe. See it.

   January 11

·         Darkest Hour

Darkest Hour is the war biopic of Winston Churchill as he is sworn in as Prime Minister of Great Britain just prior to the first World War. Genre: War/Biopic Director: Joe Wright Stars: Gary Oldman, Lily James, Ben Mendelsohn, John Hurt Recommendation: See it. It’s a great piece of history concerning an integral person who changed the course of the world. Plus, you cannot go wrong with Gary Oldman.

 ·         The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature

Some animals need to stop a greedy mayor from destroying their bit of nature for an amusement park. Genre: Animation Director: Cal Brunker Stars: Will Arnett, Gabriel Iglesias, Jeff Dunham, Katherine Heigl, Jackie Chan, Maya Rudolph, Isabela Moner, Bobby Cannavale, Sebastian Maniscalco Recommendation: To quote my wife “There was a Nut Job 1?” I’m surprised they made the second. Skip it.

 ·         The Post

The U.S.’s first female newspaper publisher uncovers government  secrets that have spanned four presidents, and seeks to make them public. Genre: Biographical Drama Director: Steven Spielberg Stars: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Sarah Paulson Recommendation: Spielberg, Streep and Hanks. The three biggest names in Hollywood comes together to make a hard hitting bio drama. Count me in. Spielberg is my favourite director and Hanks is, in my opinion, the greatest working actor today. You cannot miss this. Also, everything about it screams Academy Awards.

 January 18

·         Maze Runner: The Death Cure

Thomas and his mates must break into the Last City, the deadliest maze of all in the third and final instalment of the Maze Runner series. Genre: Sci-Fi/ Adventure Director: Wes Ball Stars: Dylan O'Brien, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Ki Hong Lee, Kaya Scodelario, Katherine McNamara, Giancarlo Esposito, Rosa Salazar, Barry Pepper, Aidan Gillen, Patricia Clarkson Recommendation: At least the Pitch Perfect cow was giving sour milk. This is like milking a dead cow. Critics and audiences agree that the first was average at best, and the second was just plain terrible. May as well complete the trilogy, I suppose. Skip it.

 ·         Swinging Safari

This Australian comedy shows us the sexual swinging 1970s in a small beach-side town. Fearless kids and carefree parenting by day, key party by night.  Genre: Comedy Director: Stephan Elliott Stars: Guy Pearce, Kylie Minogue, Radha Mitchell, Julian McMahon, Asher Keddie, Jeremy Sims, Jack Thompson Recommendation: Australian comedies set in the 70s and 80s are hilarious. I loved the trailer for this. Elliott directing Pearce again with Neighbours legend Minogue (I also think she sings) tops it off for me. Julian McMahon… I haven’t seen him since he shimmered out of Charmed. See it.

 ·         The Commuter

Michael, an insurance salesman, is riding the train home when things go amiss. Michael gets caught up in a criminal conspiracy and races the clock to uncover a mystery passenger before it is too late for them all. Genre: Action Director: Jaume Collet-Serra Stars: Liam Neeson, Vera Farmiga, Sam Neill, Patrick Wilson Recommendation: Collet-Serra sure likes to get himself a bit of Neeson. I suppose we are lucky he wasn’t cast in the Shallows or the shark would never have had a chance. It’s weird. The start of the trailer intrigues and surprises me. It mystery aspect has me yearning to see it but then the last half of the trailer makes it seem like a generic Liam Neeson actin flick on a train, which has me yawning, so I’ll give it a 50/50 chance of it being any good.

 ·         The Shape of Water

During the Cold War, a mute cleaner of a top secret government laboratory forms a relationship with their experiment, a creature who looks like should have come from the Black Lagoon. Genre: Fantasy/Romance/Thriller Director: Guillermo del Toro Stars: Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg, Lauren Lee Smith, Octavia Spencer, Richard Jenkins Recommendation: This really looks fantastic. I have been looking forward to it for a long time. Coming from the mind of del Toro with this cast and Doug Jones (aka Suru from Star Trek Discovery) as the creature I have high hopes that I’ll be talking about this in my ‘Best of 2018’ list.

  January 25

 ·         Den of Thieves

Den of Thieves follows a group of bank robbers who have their eyes set on the Federal Bank, while the elite unit of cops with unconventional police morals chase them around every turn. Genre: Action Director: Christian Gudegast Stars: Gerard Butler, 50 Cent, Pablo Schreiber, O'Shea Jackson Jr., Recommendation: Skip it. There is nothing new here.

 ·         I, Tonya

If you were curious about the upbringing and what led to Tonya Hardings ice skating success and her attack of a fellow competitor, this is your chance to find out. Genre: Biographical drama Director: Craig Gillespie Stars: Margot Robbie, Allison Janney, Sebastian Stan Recommendation: Who knew ice skating could hold so much potential for a decent crime drama. Surprisingly, I am keen for it. See it.

 ·         Sweet Country

Based on a true story, Sam, an aboriginal stockman, in the Northern Territory in 1929, kills the white station owner in self defence and goes on the run. Sam and his wife flee into the outback only to give themselves up due to the health of his pregnant wife. Genre: Biographical Crime Drama Director: Warwick Thornton Stars: Bryan Brown, Sam Neill, Hamilton Morris Recommendation: Sweet Country looks to be a great Australian western. There is such a rich story to be told here and the trailer has me wanting to see how it all unfolds. See it.

  As usual, January in Australia is mostly biopics and Oscar bait films with a few shit ones thrown in for good measure. My picks for the month are The Post, The Shape of Water and for a good laugh, Swinging Safari. Let us know what you are planning on seeing.

-Terry

[daresplaining]

I loved the recent ask you guys answered about Matt as a lawyer and ethics. I'm a recent law school graduate and big DD fan, so my question is: What are some of your guys' favorite moments from Matt in the courtroom in the comics? They could be ones you think are his best work, silly, dramatic, insightful, made an impact, etc. I'd just love to hear some more about his legal work and find some future issues to read. Thanks! :)

    Thank you, and congratulations on your graduation! Neither of us have law degrees, so we can’t actually vouch for the accuracy of the legal antics portrayed in DD, but here are a few of our favorite law-centered stories.   

Matt on the Legal Rights of Aliens (Daredevil vol. 1 #28)

Matt: “Only the law stands between justice and total anarchy–! And that law must offer equitable protection to all– regardless of race, creed, or color… Now, in this age of space exploration, we may need a fourth qualification… with regard to planet of origin, as well!”

    Not a whole trial, but this is a funny early issue detailing Matt’s thoughts concerning the legal rights of extraterrestrials. In his defense… that’s actually a legitimate topic of conversation in the Marvel Universe. This scene was gently mocked fifty years later, in Daredevil vol. 3 #30:

Matt: “It… wasn’t completely serious.”

Ru’Ach: “It seemed heartfelt.”

Matt: “I can’t swear I was entirely sober, even.”

Matt Defends the Black Widow (Daredevil vol. 1 #83)

Natasha: “Once I was a spy– they’ll use that against me, too. All my life I’ve been afraid, Mr. Murdock– first of my Soviet masters– then of a strange curse– and now, when it seemed I’d found a country at last– where I could feel safe– everything’s come crumbling down!”

Matt: “Believe me, Natasha. I understand your fear– and I won’t let it happen– I promise you.”

    This is one of a series of issues from around the same time, which all strike at similar themes: Matt defending those neglected by the system. This could describe most of his career, but the similarity of these early cases is what has led us to group them together. The above example comes from Matt’s earliest interactions with Natasha Romanov, who later becomes his partner/girlfriend, and remains one of his closest superhero friends. The Scorpion is seemingly killed while fighting Natasha, and bystanders claim that she was responsible. As a Soviet emigre and reformed spy, Natasha is so sure she will be convicted based on her background and cultural biases that she tries to run. But Matt convinces her to go to court and trust in the system, and manages to prove her innocence.

    The other, similar stories from this era that we’ll point you toward are Matt’s defense of blind war veteran Willie Lincoln in Daredevil vol. 1 #47, and his defense of Bruce Banner/Hulk in Incredible Hulk vol. 1 #152-153. They explore many of the same themes, and are equally good.

Matt v. His Childhood (Daredevil vol. 1 #203. Not digitized)

Foggy: “Tell me what’s going on here! Stymie Schmidt is guilty as sin and you know it!”

Matt: “He still deserves a decent defense. A lot of what I am today is due to that man. I own him more than you’ll ever know. This may be my one chance to pay him back.”

    This isn’t a full-on legal story, but it’s a fascinating character study and another look how Matt’s emotions can interfere with his ethics. When one of his childhood bullies comes to Nelson and Murdock for legal help, Matt agrees to take the case himself… but Foggy soon realizes that his friend is planning to lose on purpose, for revenge. This is not the only time Matt’s past trauma comes back to haunt him in this way, but it is by far his worst reaction to it.  

Karen Page v. Mr. Fear (Daredevil vol. 1 #375)

Matt: “Let’s get some reasonable doubt in this joint.”

Karen: “Matt? Matt? What happened to your face?”

Matt: “Cut myself shaving, of course… That’s what the invincible, cocksure hero is supposed to say, isn’t it?” 

    DD vol. 1 #375 is the final issue of Joe Kelly’s phenomenal run, and is one of our absolute favorite issues of Daredevil. The story arc leading up to it details Karen’s attempts to deal with an increasingly violent stalker. When he ends up dead thanks to some supervillain meddling, she becomes the prime suspect and is put on trial for murder. Way too emotionally close to the situation for obvious reasons, the issue follows Matt’s frantic attempts to win a case that seems more and more unwinnable the harder he fights, all while attempting to take down the supervillain responsible. It’s a powerful story, and a great look at the point of contact between Matt’s legal and extralegal careers.      

Playing to the Camera (Daredevil vol. 2 #20-25)

Matt: “Foggy, meet Samuel Griggs. Mr. Griggs wants to sue Daredevil.”

    We mentioned this magical arc in the other post, but it always merits more attention. Matt and Foggy are hired to sue Daredevil for some property damage that Matt knows he didn’t cause. He accepts the case (against Foggy’s wishes) in order to keep the situation under control. Chaos, ethics violations, and a massive superhero law-based comedy of errors ensue. This arc isn’t afraid to take itself less than seriously, which makes it a hilarious read and by far the most lighthearted part of volume 2.

The Trial of the White Tiger (Daredevil vol. 2 #38-40)

Matt: “Sitting in judgment over a total stranger. There is no larger burden that we as a society will put on ourselves. But I can ease that burden for you… because Hector is innocent of the crime he is accused of.” 

    Luke and Danny talk Matt into helping one of their close friends– Hector Ayala, the original White Tiger– who has been charged with murder. Knowing Hector is innocent, Matt agrees to represent him, despite the danger this association will present to his already vulnerable secret identity. This is a courtroom drama, pure and simple, in which all of Matt’s skill as a lawyer can’t prevent his case from imploding.      

   (Flash Fact!: Barry Allen (the Flash) has a cameo in this story. Don’t tell DC.)  

The Spartacus Gambit (Amazing Spider-Man: Extra!)

Matt: “I’m trying to keep your mask on and get you out of the civil suit. It’s going to take a little more than what I’ve got planned to get the criminal charges against you dropped.”

Peter: “What do you have planned?”

Matt: “If I told you, it wouldn’t be a surprise.”

    This is a great little story, in which Matt defends his buddy Peter Parker in court. He is his typical smug self, which we always enjoy, and he comes up with a creative argument to reduce Peter’s charges. It hits a lot of the same superhero legal issues covered in “Playing to the Camera”, but it’s still a fun read. This issue runs parallel to Amazing Spider-Man vol. 1 #587, so we recommend reading that as well, for context.

Leopold York v. Foggy Nelson (Daredevil vol. 3 #12)

Matt: “Welcome to the mock trial in the case of Leopold York v. Foggy Nelson. […] Professor, will you be defending yourself?”

    It isn’t an actual trial, but this flashback to the origins of Matt and Foggy’s partnership is too fantastic not to mention. Foggy is accused of plagiarism by a spiteful professor attempting to get him kicked out of law school. Knowing it’s a frame-up, Matt insists on fighting back, and forces the professor into a trial-like situation in order to argue the truth out of him. It’s a nice glimpse at Matt and Foggy’s early friendship, and a testament to why they make such a good legal team.

Supreme (Daredevil vol. 5 #21-25)    

    The arc that just ended was a great law-based story, enhanced by the fact that the current writer, Charles Soule, is also a lawyer. Matt attempts to craft a new law that would allow masked superheroes to testify in court without revealing their identities. Wilson Fisk and the supervillain community at large take issue with this. Soule mixes legalese with physical action in clever ways (e.g. Matt’s metaphorical brawl with the Supreme Court, shown above), brings in Jen Walters and Fisk’s badass lawyer Mr. Legal, and generally celebrates the heck out of the intersection between superheroics and legal work. This may be our favorite law-based DD story yet.  

[memecucker]

dislike, but like the kind of dislike where you still admire something for its beauty despite the irritation: the occasional thing you do where you post like an entire wikipedia article or copypasta a giant post thread into its own thread

Old Dogs

(film)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old Dogs

Theatrical release poster

Directed by

Walt Becker

Produced byAndrew Panay

Robert L. Levy

Peter Abrams

Written by

David Diamond

David Weissman

Starring

John Travolta

Robin Williams

Kelly Preston

Seth Green

Ella Bleu Travolta

Lori Loughlin

Matt Dillon

Music by

John Debney

Cinematography

Jeffrey L. Kimball

Edited byTom Lewis

Ryan Folsey

Production

company

Walt Disney Pictures

Tapestry Films

Distributed by

Walt Disney StudiosMotion Pictures

Release date

November 25, 2009

Running time88 minutes

CountryUnited States

LanguageEnglish

Budget$35 million

Box office$96.8 million

[1]

Old Dogs is a 2009 American ensemble comedy film directed by Wild Hogs's Walt Becker and starring John Travolta and Robin Williams with an ensemble supporting cast played by Kelly Preston, Matt Dillon, Justin Long, Seth Green, Rita Wilson, Dax Shepard, Lori Loughlin, and Bernie Mac. It was released in theaters on November 25, 2009 and was released on DVD March 9, 2010.

The movie is dedicated to both Bernie Mac (who died in August 2008 and had his final acting role in the film) and Jett Travolta (John Travolta's son who died in January 2009). The film grossed $96.7 million worldwide on a $35 million budget.[1]

Canadian rocker Bryan Adams wrote the theme song for the film, "You've Been a Friend to Me".

At the 30th Golden Raspberry Awards ceremony, Old Dogs was nominated in four categories: Worst Picture, Worst Actor for John Travolta, Worst Supporting Actress for Kelly Preston and Worst Director for Walt Becker.

Contents

 [

hide

]

1Plot

2Cast

3Reception

4References

5External links

2.1Primary

2.2Minor

2.3Muppet performers

3.1Critical response

3.2Box office

Plot

Dan Rayburn (Robin Williams) and Charlie Reed (John Travolta) are best friends and co-owners of a successful sports marketing firm. Seven years prior, Dan, recently divorced, married Vicki (Kelly Preston) after being whisked away by Charlie for a tropical vacation. The marriage, however, is short lived. Seven years later, Vicki resurfaces to tell Dan that their short marriage resulted in something he never suspected: twins Zach (Conner Rayburn) and Emily (Ella Bleu Travolta).

Vicki, facing jail time for her work as an environmental activist, asks Dan to take care of the kids while she does her time. Thinking this might be his chance to get back with Vicki, Dan agrees, but only if Charlie will help him since neither have any experience taking care of kids. At the same time, the two must finalize a huge marketing deal with a Japanese company; something they've always dreamed of, but will take all of their talents to clinch.

Because Dan's condo does not allow children, he has to board with Charlie. Whilst this is happening, Charlie and Dan are close to securing the biggest account in the history of their careers with the Japanese corporation. Charlie and Dan's attempts to take care of the kids are well-intentioned, but very misguided. On a trip with the kids to an overnight camp, a hard-nosed camp instructor (Matt Dillon) becomes convinced that Dan and Charlie are homosexual partners. The trip ends with a bang after Dan accidentally sets a beloved statue of the camp's founder on fire.

The kids then proceed to spill and replace Charlie and Dan's prescriptions, mixing them up in the process. Dan then must play a game of golf with the Japanese executives while experiencing extreme side effects and Charlie tries to woo Amanda (Lori Loughlin) with a face frozen by the pills.

Desperate to help Dan communicate with the children despite his inexperience with children, Charlie recruits his friend Jimmy Lunchbox (Bernie Mac), a flamboyant children's entertainer, who is famous around the world. Jimmy comes by and straps Dan and Charlie in motion control puppet suits so Charlie can help Dan make all the right moves with his daughter while having a tea party. The suits malfunction, but Dan speaks from the heart, winning over Emily but his speech makes Jimmy emotional. Everything is great with Vicki as she returns home upon having served time in jail. However, the guys have sealed their Japanese deal, sending junior associate Craig (Seth Green) to Tokyo. When Craig goes missing after arriving there, Charlie and Dan must fly to Tokyo themselves to work. Dan must leave the kids and Vicki despite his (and their) desire to be a family.

Once in Tokyo, Dan realizes that what he really wants is to be a good father. He leaves the meeting without sealing the deal, rushing with Charlie to Vermont for the kids' birthday party. They aren't able to get into the Burlington Zoo in time and are forced to break in with the help of Craig. However, they mistakenly wind up in the gorilla enclosure. Though Dan and Charlie escape, Craig is captured by the gorilla (which takes a strong liking to him).

Dan then pays a birthday party performer hired by Vicki to use his jet pack and suit, flies into the ceremony and wins his kids back over. When the jet pack stops working in mid-air, he is taken to an ambulance on a stretcher. One year later, Dan and Vicki are together, Charlie has married Amanda, and Craig has become like a new "uncle" to the kids.

Cast

Primary

John Travolta as Charlie "Chuck" Reed

Robin Williams as Daniel "Dan" Rayburn

Kelly Preston as Vicki Greer

Seth Green as Craig White

Lori Loughlin as Amanda

Ella Bleu Travolta as Emily Greer

Conner Rayburn as Zachary "Zach" Greer

Minor

Sab Shimono as Yoshiro Nishamura (as Saburo Shimono)

Dax Shepard as Child Proofer Gary (uncredited)

Luis Guzmán as Child Proofer Nick (uncredited)

Bernie Mac as Jimmy Lunchbox

Matt Dillon as Troop Leader Barry

Rita Wilson as Jenna

Justin Long as Troop Leader Adam (uncredited)

Ann-Margret as Martha

Laura Allen as Kelly

Amy Sedaris as Condo Woman

Kevin W. Yamada as Riku

Bradley Steven Perry as Soccer Kid

Dylan Sprayberry as Soccer Kid

Paulo Costanzo as Zoo Maintenance (uncredited)

DeRay Davis as Zoo Security Guard (uncredited)

Paul Thornton as Restaurant Patron (uncredited)

Residente as Tattoo Artist

Muppet performers

The following have performed the puppets in Jimmy Lunchbox's show and are credited as "Muppet":

Bruce Connelly

Josh Cohen

Joe Kovacs

John Kennedy

Edward Noel MacNeal

Matt Vogel

Four of the puppets identified in Jimmy Lunchbox's show are Bozark the Elephant from Animal Jam, Beak the Bird and YesNo from the proposed series Muppetmobile, and Scales the Dragon from the pilot to Little Mermaid's Island.

Reception

Critical response

On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a rating of 5%, based on 108 reviews, with an average rating of 2.3/10. The site's consensus reads, "Its cast tries hard, but Old Dogs is a predictable, nearly witless attempt at physical comedy and moral uplift that misses the mark on both counts."[2] The film was ranked number three on their list of the ten most moldy films of 2009.[3] At Metacritic, Old Dogs received an aggregated rating of 19 out of 100, based on 22 reviews, indicating "overwhelming dislike."[4]

Film critic Roger Ebert gave Old Dogs a rating of one star out of a possible four.[5] Ebert opened his review commenting, "'Old Dogs' is stupefying dimwitted. What were John Travolta and Robin Williams thinking of? Apparently their agents weren't perceptive enough to smell the screenplay in its advanced state of decomposition".[5]

The Salt Lake Tribune gave Old Dogs a rating of zero stars out of a possible four, and criticized the film for "hammy acting and sledgehammer editing".[6] Film critic Roger Moore of The Orlando Sentinel gave Old Dogs a rating of one and a half stars out of a possible four.[7] "Trashing Old Dogs is a bit like kicking a puppy. But here goes. The new comedy from some of the folks who brought us Wild Hogs is badly written and broadly acted, shamelessly manipulative and not above stopping by the toilet for a laugh or two," wrote Moore.[7]

Bill Goodykoontz of The Star Press gave the film a critical review, and commented, "Old Dogs, which stars Robin Williams and John Travolta as a couple of aging bachelors who suddenly have twins thrust upon them, delivers everything you’d expect. Which is: not much."[8] He concluded his review with, "Let’s hope Williams, Travolta and the rest got a fabulous payday for Old Dogs. Because otherwise, you know, woof."[8] In a review for The Arizona Republic, Goodykoontz gave the film a rating of one and a half stars out of a possible five.[9]

Writing for the San Jose Mercury News in an analysis of movies that were released around Thanksgiving, Randy Myers placed Old Dogs below "The Scraps: Leftovers that should be immediately placed in Fido's bowl."[10] Myers commented, "We have a winner in the Thanksgiving movie turkey contest."[10] Dennis Harvey of Variety wrote, "Too bad this shrilly tuned comedy doesn't demand more than clock-punching effort from everyone involved."[11] Tim Robey of The Telegraph savaged the film, saying, "Old Dogs is so singularly dreadful it halts time, folds space and plays havoc with the very notion of the self."[12] He added to the review, "Being a film critic is a wonderful job, but there are weeks when the bad film delirium strikes and we’d all be better off in straitjackets. A colleague opined to me the other day that this might be the deadliest run of releases in his 20-year history on the job, and I can completely see that." He also said, "You'd have to hate your family to take them to this!" He gave the film zero stars.

Writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, Carrie Rickey gave the film a rating of two and a half stars out of four.[13] Rickey commented of the multiple cameos in the film, "A child of 5 can see that these brief appearances serve to pad a gauze-thin script."[13] The review concluded, "Old Dogs may not be good. But the sight of pesky penguins pecking Travolta and Green in the embrace of an unlikely partner makes it just good enough."[13] Pete Hammond of Boxoffice gave the film 3/5 stars, and concluded, "Old Dogs may not reach the box office heights of Wild Hogs but its fun family friendly attitude should guarantee a healthy holiday haul."[14]

Box office

In its first day, Old Dogs opened in fifth place, with a take of $3.1 million.[15][16] It was beat out in first-day box office results by New Moon, The Blind Side, 2012, and Ninja Assassin.[15][16] The film came in fourth in its second day with $4.1 million, for a two-day pickup of $7.2 million.[17] The film remained in fourth place for its third day, with a box office take of $6.8 million.[18] Overall, the film grossed $96,753,696 worldwide on a budget of $35,000,000.[19]

The movie was also a moderate success on DVD, gaining more than $20,000,000 (20 million dollars) domestically during its first two months of release.[20]

References

^ Jump up to:a b "Old Dogs (2009) Box Office Mojo". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2010-08-09.

Jump up^ "Old Dogs (2009)". Rotten Tomatoes. Flixster. Retrieved 2010-01-17.

Jump up^ "ROTTEN TOMATOES: 11th Annual Golden Tomato Awards: Moldy". Rotten Tomatoes. Flixster. Retrieved 2010-01-17.

Jump up^ "Old Dogs". CBS Interactive Inc. Metacritic. 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-25.

^ Jump up to:a b Ebert, Roger (November 24, 2009). "Old Dogs". RogerEbert.com. Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2009-11-25.

Jump up^ The Salt Lake Tribune staff (November 24, 2009). "5-minute movie reviews: 'Old Dogs,' 'Ninja Assassin'". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2009-11-24.

^ Jump up to:a b Moore, Roger (November 23, 2009). "Movie Review: Old Dogs, no new tricks". Movies with Roger Moore. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved 2009-11-24.

^ Jump up to:a b Goodykoontz, Bill (November 23, 2009). "REVIEW" 'Old Dogs' could use new tricks". The Star Press. Retrieved 2009-11-24.[dead link]

Jump up^ Goodykoontz, Bill (November 24, 2009). "'Old Dogs'". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved 2009-11-24.

^ Jump up to:a b Myers, Randy (November 24, 2009). "Thanksgiving Movie Guide: From the main courses to the doggie scraps". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 2009-11-24.

Jump up^ Harvey, Dennis (November 24, 2009). "Old Dogs". Variety. Retrieved 2009-11-24.

Jump up^ "Old Dogs, review". The Daily Telegraph. London. 2010-03-18.

^ Jump up to:a b c Rickey, Carrie (November 24, 2009). "Old Dogs". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 2009-11-24.

Jump up^ Hammond, Pete (2009-11-25). "Old Dogs Movie Review". Boxoffice. www.boxoffice.com. Retrieved 2009-11-28.

^ Jump up to:a b DiOrio, Carl (November 26, 2009). ""Moon" begins long weekend atop box office". The Hollywood Reporter. Reuters. Retrieved 2009-11-27.

^ Jump up to:a b Ellwood, Gregory (November 26, 2009). "Box Office: 'New Moon's' $14.3 million dominates 'Ninja' and 'Old Dogs'". HitFlix. HitFix Inc. Retrieved 2009-11-27.

Jump up^ D'Alessandro, Anthony (November 27, 2009). "Football player elbows vampires on Turkey day". Variety. Reed. Retrieved 2009-11-28.

Jump up^ Briody, Tim (November 28, 2009). "Black Friday Box Office Analysis". Box Office Prophets. Box Office Prophets, a division of One Of Us, Inc. Retrieved 2009-11-28.

Jump up^ "Old Dogs (2009) Box Office". The-Numbers. Retrieved 2010-01-23.

Jump up^ "Old Dogs - DVD Sales". The-Numbers. Retrieved 19 November 2011.

External links

Wikiquote has quotations related to:

Old Dogs (film)

Official website

Old Dogs on Internet Movie Database

Old Dogs at AllMovie

Old Dogs at Box Office Mojo

Old Dogs at Metacritic

Old Dogs at Rotten Tomatoes

[

hide

]

v

t

e

Films directed by

Walt Becker

Buying the Cow (2000)

Van Wilder (2002)

Wild Hogs (2007)

Old Dogs (2009)

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip (2015)

Categories

:

2009 films

English-language films

2000s buddy films

2000s comedy films

American buddy films

American comedy films

American screwball comedy films

American films

Films directed by Walt Becker

Films set in New York City

Films shot in Connecticut

Film scores by John Debney

Midlife crisis films

Walt Disney Pictures films

Navigation menu

Not logged in

Talk

Contributions

Create account

Log in

Article

Talk

Read

View source

View history

Search

Main page

Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Wikipedia store

Interaction

Help

About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact page

Tools

What links here

Related changes

Upload file

Special pages

Permanent link

Page information

Wikidata item

Cite this page

Print/export

Create a book

Download as PDF

Printable version

In other projects

Wikiquote

Languages

Čeština

Deutsch

Español

فارسی

Français

Հայերեն

Bahasa Indonesia

Italiano

Magyar

Nederlands

日本語

Polski

Português

Русский

Svenska

Українська

中文

Edit links

This page was last edited on 1 July 2017, at 18:41.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Developers

Cookie statement

Mobile view

[ethanalter]

Judd Apatow Talks Final Season of ‘Girls,’ His Next HBO Series, ‘Crashing,’ and the Return of ‘Love’

Judd Apatow and Gillian Jacobs on the set of ‘Love’ (Credit: Netflix)

Once upon a time, television wasn’t very kind to Judd Apatow. Back at the turn of the millennium, the triple-threat writer/director/producer watched as his beloved comedies Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared were sent to the cancellation gallows despite terrific reviews and devoted fanbases. Turning his back on TV, Apatow went on to scale new heights of success with blockbuster big-screen comedies like The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up.

And those success stories, in turn, led him back to television, this time with drastically different results. For the past five years, Apatow has been an executive producer of Lena Dunham’s acclaimed HBO series Girls, which is about to launch its sixth and final season on Feb. 12. The following week, he’ll unveil his next HBO series, Crashing, a peek at the contemporary New York stand-up comedy scene with comic Pete Holmes as our guide. And Mar. 10 brings the second season of Love, Apatow’s popular Netflix series starring Paul Rust and Gillian Jacobs as a pair of Angelenos in the throes of a tortured romance. In a wide-ranging interview, Yahoo TV spoke with the prolific producer at length about his three shows and why he’s thrilled to be part of the cable and streaming arm of the Peak TV era.

Lena Dunham and Riz Ahmed in ‘Girls’ (Credit: HBO)

Going into this last season of Girls, it must have been nice knowing that everyone was working towards a definitive endpoint. It’s always fun to work on the last season of the series, because when you work on a show, you’re always trying to slow things down. There’s a natural momentum towards things working out or crashing and you don’t want a lot of those things to happen, because if they do, the show is over! So it’s nice when you can do them, because you are actually ending the show. Some of the difficulty with this show was figuring out how to let the characters mature, and the rate at which they’re maturing. Last season, knowing that it was the second-to-last season, we were able to have fun with them getting a little bit smarter. Or, if they were stuck, it felt even worse because they’re reaching the end of their 20s and things still aren’t working out. That’s what happens with friends — some people get their lives together and others just spin out and crash.

As you build towards the finale, how definitive will the conclusion be? Will there be some open-ended questions left for fans to think about? Well, you can’t get definitive when you end a TV show. One thing that I keep thinking is that the end of The Sopranos is genius. Because there’s really no end for these characters; unless they all go down in a shipwreck, they’re going to live on and we’re not going to know what happens afterwards. And The Sopranos ending really captured that. As we worked on this season, I thought a lot about how different shows ended, and I think that the ending of this season of Girls is very interesting, and hopefully people will like it. But there’s almost no way to satisfy everybody, because people have their own hopes and dreams for what will happen to these characters.

Related: Ken Tucker Reviews ‘Girls’: Final-Season Fun And Fury

Some of my favorite Girls episodes are the standalone installments that pop up during the course of a season — like “One Man’s Trash” in Season 2 or “The Panic in Central Park” during Season 5. Are there any planned for this final year? There’s one standalone this year that I think is really incredible. I’ve always enjoyed those episodes. Sometimes we’ll be talking about the arc for the season, and Lena will go off to write an episode, and then suddenly she’ll just hand in a little movie that has nothing to do with the rest of the season. She just gets inspired. We often never discuss those in the writer’s room, and they’ve been some of the best episodes of the series. Lena hasn’t made a movie since Tiny Furniture, but in a way, she’s gotten to make a whole bunch of movies during the life of the show.

Allison Williams and Ebon Moss-Bachrach in ‘Girls’ (Credit: HBO)

Looking back on the legacy of the show, what do you think Girls achieved during its six-season run? When the process started, it felt like a way of doing an independent film on television. We were trying to find a way to capture what Lena did with Tiny Furniture and do it every week on HBO. I feel like Lena shows so much courage to be honest in a way that people hadn’t really been before in television, both emotionally and with her willingness to be very explicit in portraying relationships and sexuality. I think she busted down a lot of walls by talking about things that haven’t been explored on television very often. Now there are a lot of shows that go that deep and that brutally honest, shows about women, and shows about men and women. If you look at television before Girls and after Girls, it’s changed a lot. I think she’s been a big part of this Golden Era of TV, and I think her work, along with Amy Poehler’s work and Tina Fey’s work, has inspired a lot of women to create television and to create and star in television. That’s a fantastic thing.

You can certainly see Girls’ influence on a show like Crashing, which also has a very scruffy, indie film-feel. What was the process of developing the series with Pete Holmes? I met with Pete five or six years ago when doing his podcast, You Made it Weird. I didn’t even know who he was; his manager’s a friend of mine, so I was doing it as a favor, and I had such a great time. We did it in front of an audience at the South by Southwest festival, and the other guests were Kumail Nanjiani, Todd Barry, and Chris Gethard. Then he asked me to come on his TBS talk show, The Pete Holmes Show, and we did a filmed sketch where he was pitching me movie and TV ideas. One of those ideas was a series about Pete’s life after his wife cheats on him and he tries to be a comedian. In the sketch, I said, “Well, that’s just too sad. Who would want to watch that?” He was pitching it as a joke, but then we started talking about it and we developed the idea.

Pete Holmes as a struggling comic in ‘Crashing’ (Credit: HBO)

I love exploring the world of comedians, and although there are some shows in which people play comedians, I don’t think any series really explores it deeply and fully like this. We see a young comedian in New York who isn’t good at his craft yet, so he struggles because he needs money and it’s hard to live in New York. Because he’s sleeping on different peoples’ couches, it gave us an opportunity to have all of our favorite comedians on the show. One week it’s Artie Lange, another week it’s T.J. Miller, and another week it’s Sarah Silverman. It’s a really great format to show how different people live.

Pete Holmes plays “Pete Holmes” on the show, and the guest stars all play themselves as well. Was that your intention from the beginning? I used to work on The Larry Sanders Show, and I love when people play themselves. I think people are so interesting and rarely get a chance to tap into who they really are. So when we find someone like Artie Lange, we’re writing a story that’s fabricated, but within the making of that episode, we’re improvising and talking with Artie to discuss what his life is really like and what his struggles are. Some of it’s really hilarious, and sometimes it’s really sad and moving. That’s a unique feature of the show; the people aren’t really satirizing themselves, they’re actually trying to get very close to the truth of who they are. That’s something we tried to do at Larry Sanders — using people’s actual lives to get as close to the truth as we can while still telling a funny story.

Is the New York stand-up comedy community depicted in the series a mash-up of the current scene, as well as the early ‘90s when you were trying to make it as a comedian? This is the modern version of trying to break into the comedy scene in New York. A lot of people bark — which means they hand out flyers all night — and if they can get enough people to go to a certain club, they’re allowed to go on at the end of the night in front of the last two people who haven’t left. It’s a brutal way to break in. There’s a lot of desperation for people just starting out. You have to be very strong, because sometimes they’ll only let you go on if you buy two drinks. Or you can only get on if you bring a certain amount of friends. There’s always the obstacles to getting stage time. So we’re trying to show how rough it can be to establish yourself and to get enough stage time to get better. It’s hard to get better when you’re performing for three people at 2:30 in the morning! [Laughs]

You mentioned Pete’s podcast, which is a new outlet for comedians to reach the public. Comics like Marc Maron, Scott Aukerman, and Lauren Lapkus are all finding a lot of success in that medium. Is that a phenomenon that interests you? I hadn’t thought about that before, but I do think it’s true. When I was starting out, I looked up to people like Jay Leno and Jerry Seinfeld, but there were no podcasts, so you didn’t really get to know these people. I used to interview them for my high school radio station because I wanted to know who they were, and one of the reasons why I did that was because something like podcasting didn’t exist. We all love somebody like T.J. Miller, and one of the reasons why we like him is we might have heard him talk for hours and hours to another comedian and really reveal himself. We have much more intimate relationships with these comedians who we’re fans of [today].

Holmes and Artie Lange in ‘Crashing’ (Credit: HBO)

Will Crashing have a season-long arc, or is it more of a couch-to-couch structure? There is an arc in that Pete sleeps on a series of couches, but also deals with larger problems over the course of the season. A lot of it is about, “Can Pete keep his soul while trying to be a comedian in New York?” We shoot it in New York, and we shoot on film. I said, “You know what? No one shoots on film anymore. None of these shows are on film. They all look the same, because they’re all digital.”

Crashing and Girls capture neighborhoods of New York you don’t often see on TV, and Love does the same thing for Los Angeles. Does Season 2 of Love continue to explore new areas of that city? Yeah, we definitely open it up. There’s a funny storyline in the season where Gus [played by Paul Rust], gets a job on an action movie that’s shooting out of town. I always think it’s weird that there aren’t shows that take place in L.A. that accurately portray L.A. Our show focuses on the East Side and Silver Lake areas. So it’s fun to try to do that, because — as odd as it sounds — people don’t shoot in L.A. Even the shows that shoot in L.A., they’re doubling for Wisconsin or something.

Paul Rust and Gillian Jacobs in ‘Love’ (Credit: Netflix)

The first season of Love ended with Gus and Mickey in a very strange place, emotionally. What can you tease about their relationship arc in the second year? We’re trying to show every bump along the way as these people get to know each other. The whole idea of the show is to take a slower, closer examination of every nuance as people try to get into a relationship and make it work. It’s all about baby steps, and part of it is about what you hide from people when you first meet them, and how it slowly comes out.

Related: Ken Tucker Reviews Season 1 of ‘Love’: Love Hurts, Love Is Strange, Love Forever Changes

Andy Dick had a memorable appearance in Season 1. Any special guest stars planned for Season 2? There are a few episodes where David Spade plays the father of the teen actress Gus is tutoring, Aria, who’s played by my daughter, Iris. David’s character is a struggling actor who never did really well, but now his daughter’s doing very well. David’s one of my oldest friends and he’s a great actor, so it was really fun to write a part where he gets to do something really unique.

Australian comic Claudia O’Doherty was the breakout star of Season 1 as Mickey’s roommate Bertie. She embarked on her own love story at the end of last season — will that continue? I met Claudia when we were working on Trainwreck. I saw a bunch of her videos online, and just immediately thought, “Oh, this is one of the great comic minds.” So while we were doing that movie, I said to her, “Hey, we have this new show, and we’d love for you to play this part.” She was even better than we could have imagined. And yes, one of the fun aspects of the second season is exploring her bizarre relationship with Randy, who is played by Mike Mitchell. We actually get to follow multiple relationships in the second season, and it’s funny, because Randy’s this sweet, but unemployed guy who people aren’t sure about whether he’s a good person to date or not.

Mike Mitchell and Claudia O’Doherty in ‘Love’ (Credit: Netflix)

You’ve found lots of success in this new TV ecosystem, which stands in contrast to your early experience in the industry when shows like Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared were canceled before their time. Are you happier with the industry as it is now? I love not working for network television! [Laughs] I think that’s a nightmare. With these streaming services, you shoot a season, they air it, and then maybe they want another season. You’re not in constant fear that you could get canceled tomorrow. The whole idea that you could be in the middle of your show and someone will just hand you a phone and go, “They want you to stop shooting right now,” is just the worst nightmare for a creative person, because you work so hard to build this world. These characters become so real to you, so it’s like making television with a gun to your head the whole time wondering if they’re going to shoot.

I’ve really enjoyed working with Netflix and HBO because they’re both very supportive, and their highest priority is doing something bold and creative. It wasn’t like that at network TV. They were always trying to dumb things down or make things more accessible. I feel like we’re in a very wonderful new world where all of these new networks and streaming services can only survive if the product is great. So you’re encouraged to be original, and that’s what you dream of. We’re having the best time.

The final season of Girls premieres Feb. 12 at 10 p.m. on HBO. Crashing premieres Feb. 19 at 10:30 p.m. on HBO. Season 2 of Love premieres March 10 on Netflix.

Read more:

‘Shades of Blue’ Season 2 First Look: ‘So Much Changes For Harlee’‘Girls’ Review: A Final Season of Fun and Fury‘Scandal’ Recap: So Close, And Yet So Far

[scoobert-doobert-fanclub-blog]

Interview with Jon Colton Barry, Creator of Be Cool Scooby Doo

My Questions:

What inspired you to get into the business of cartoons? What does Scooby Doo mean to you? Do you have a message to the people who criticize your creation for sharing other styles of other shows? Do the characters have any little quirks that you've added in that you picked up from real life people? What's the behind the scenes look like for you? An average day in the life of being a writer/working on the show? Any tips for future writers and the like out there? Do you have a favorite line you've written in the show? Or a best moment? What inspires you to wake up in the morning? Any moments when you were bummed when something didn't make the cut? Or do you have all of the power?

Jon Colton Barry:

What inspired you to get into the business of cartoons?

I was actually writing sketch-like comedy for the stage, honing my voice and style in front of live audiences (which I'd recommend to every writer), when Dan Povenmire saw one of my shows. I'd known Dan for years and he liked the comedy in my show and offered me a job on a new animated show he just sold to Disney called "Phineas & Ferb." I had no particular inspiration to get into animation, but it was a good job and, from the beginning, Dan made it clear he wanted me to write like me, to just write naturally in my own comedic voice, plus I have a background in commercial art and songwriting - so the show was just a perfect fit, creatively.

What does Scooby Doo mean to you?

Before I began writing on BCSD, Scooby Doo was mostly just a feeling of nostalgia to me. Saturday morning cartoons as a kid, eating Apple Jacks in my pajamas. The character or show didn't mean more to me than, say, the Superfriends or any of the other crudely animated series we'd all stare at as the sugar kicked in. Now, after having created a new Scooby Doo series from scratch, I have more respect for the durability of the core ideas built into the show. There has been almost 50 years of different Scooby Doo series, most of them radically different from one another and, I've discovered, that, basically, whatever iteration of Scooby Doo was on when you were growing up will always be the "real" Scooby Doo to you and/or the "best" Scooby Doo. People have very clear ideas on what Scooby Doo is, which is so odd because the only consistent element in Scooby Doo is change.

Do you have a message to the people who criticize your creation for sharing other styles of other shows?

I just find it so strange. We literally got death threats because we pushed the art in a more cartoony direction. We, apparently, also "ruined" a LOT of childhoods. I think it was a mistake to allow the new (unfinished) designs to leak out a year before the series began airing because people built up this violent, irrational hatred for the show and made assumptions about the show's substance based on some rough drawings. I mostly feel bad for Seth MacFarlane for being accused of creating the new designs endlessly. The characters are just more cartoony, that's all - and it was essential that we pushed them that way because we wanted to have a broad comedic and tonal palette to play with, from broad slapstick to real, touching human moments and a lot of our humor would not have worked with the more realistic looking designs. I never heard anyone say, "Wow, the Simpsons are such attractive looking characters!" - but they had that ability to do surreal, broad comedy and also break your heart. That's what we wanted, as well. My experience has been that the vast majority of people who actually sit down and watch the show and give a few episodes a chance all in love with it and discover that it's actually one of the most conservative Scooby Doo series in terms of the original, classic 1969 series, but we simply fleshed out the rest of the Scooby Gang and gave them dimensional personalities for the first time, turning them into a real comedic ensemble. From what I understand, scientifically, once you give the show a chance and get what we're doing, your childhood becomes instantly "un-ruined," which is a pleasant side-effect.

Do the characters have any little quirks that you've added in that you picked up from real life people?

Well, as I mentioned, Zac and I decided to turn the entire Scooby Gang into an equal comedic ensemble, which, we were surprised to discover, no one had ever done before. There are so many Scooby shows where they just leave out Fred or Velma or Daphne because "people don't care about them," instead of saying, "Well, why don't we MAKE people care about them by actually giving them personalities and points-of-view as characters." They'd, historically, just been "The leader/jock," "The pretty one," "The smart one" - these one-dimensional stereotypes. We started with Fred and our main inspiration for him was young Gene Wilder, particularly in "Young Frankenstein." We sort of plugged Gene Wilder into Fred as an engine and gave him control issues - and he began to come to life. Daphne was the most radical change and we thought of her as a Rapunzel-type character, who had lived a sheltered, oppressive childhood under the thumb of her strict, eccentric mother, who came from old money and had great wealth. Daphne is now free and out in the world finally able to do all the things she was never allowed to do as a kid and the world is a candy store to her. She's also highly creative and eccentric, not caring at all what people think about her. It was important to us that nothing about her character, nothing about how you'd describe her personality or her behavior had ANYTHING to do with her gender. Oddly, people started calling her "stupid," which is just strange and clearly demonstrates they haven't actually watched the show, because Daphne is actually really smart and funny - she's just REALLY eccentric and bold, but she's also the soul of the gang, the most empathic and insightful where it comes to the others' needs and problems (although she does get a kick out of annoying Fred when she thinks he's being too uptight). Grey DeLisle, who does Daphne's voice is actually a LOT like our Daphne in real life - smart, quick-witted, eccentric and creative and she really met Daphne halfway and "got" her perfectly. From what I can tell, Grey is basically one oppressive childhood away from wearing a fake beard for no reason. It's actually much the same with Kate Micucci and Velma. We wanted to give Velma more social anxieties. She grew up around books and her superior intellect isolated her as a child, so she lacks some basic social skills, like not always knowing that the truth isn't always the best way to go in certain circumstances. Kate brought a really beautiful, nuanced neurosis to Velma and a vulnerability that humanized her in ways you can't see on the script page. There was so much more we wanted to do with Velma, but, sadly, we didn't get the opportunity. Warner Brothers was actually very open to the changes we wanted to make to Fred, Daphne and Velma, even though they were pretty radical, but they were, understandably, more conservative when it came to Shaggy and Scooby, who were seen as the most beloved and, therefore, least changeable. That said, we made our case that if Shaggy and Scooby were the comic relief before and we're now elevating the entire gang to a comedic ensemble, we HAVE to, somehow, raise Shaggy and Scooby proportionately or we'll lose them all together, bogged down in stale 1969-era puns and pizza jokes. We noticed that even in 1969, Shaggy and Scooby would defy the laws of physics and do some surreal things, so we decided to push that aspect and give Shaggy and Scooby the more absurd, physical and surreal comedy, breaking the fourth wall and sharpening their wit. Shaggy was always a jokester, but we injected him with a healthy dose of Groucho Marx, which played nicely and freshly because Groucho, as a character, is fearless and Shaggy is terrified of everything, so plugging that sensibility into a coward created a lot of fun, original scenes and moments for Shaggy. Scooby was basically Harpo on all fours. We held him to only four words per line of dialogue because we found it unsettling and strange when he talked too much in other series, like Mystery INC. Four words was a nice restriction because they had to count and we found that the more erudite we made them, the funnier he became. In the end, I think we got the math of the characters pretty right on and my favorite scenes are always the ones with the gang all together bouncing lines off each other like a pinball machine. Everyone's point of view is clear and unique from one another and the cast always brought that perfect sense of old, best friends who tease each other and joke around and get on each others' nerves in a really truthful and relatable way. I really feel like we created the most human, real and funny Scooby Gang yet seen.

What's the behind the scenes look like for you? An average day in the life of being a writer/working on the show?

An average day would be me holed up in my office, pacing around in a small circle holding a wooden pointer stick because I tend to write on my feet, twirling a stick (which became a habit back on "Phineas" when we'd pitch the episodes up on a wall with pointers). I'd often have freelance writers in and we'd break a story together and they'd go off and write a draft and I'd spend the rest of the day (and most nights) writing or rewriting scripts with unholy deadlines with a gun to my head, which is called "writing for television." It's great fun, actually.

Any tips for future writers and the like out there?

Tips for future writers... hmmm. Well, try dating Dan Povenmire's wife's sister. It worked wonders for my career.  If, for some absurd reason, THAT fails, then I'd say develop your own style and your own voice as a writer. It's been such a pleasure for me to have been hired on shows with the expectation that I would be "writing like me," which was the case on both "Phineas" and "BCSD"  and all the things I've worked on since. As I mentioned, writing for the stage - even small, equity theater - is GREAT for developing your writing and honing your unique voice. There's no money in it, but you learn what works and what doesn't and you learn to trust yourself - to know that if YOU like it, then there's an audience out there who will ALSO like it. Other than that, you know, WRITE.

Do you have a favorite line you've written in the show? Or a best moment?

I think my favorite lines are in season 2, so lemme think about what's aired already.... I loved Grey's read of Daphne doing the Fred puppet in the van, "I have a weird accent now. Bo bo bo." That just crystallized the character for me. I'm also fond of the vending machine sequence because it was something I made up off the top of my head with a lot of very serious-looking WB executives staring at me who had no idea who I was and were wondering what kind of fresh new food-related comedy I would be bringing to Shaggy and Scooby. I got up in the large conference room and just acted out that scene from "Mystery 101" pretty much exactly as you see it in the show. Thankfully, they all laughed and I was allowed to stay in the building another day. Oh, one more - I always loved Daphne's off-handed response to Bradford in "Party Like It's 1889," when he tells her she looks stunning, That Daphne doesn't give a crap about that kind of stuff and dismisses the compliment with a good-natured, "Yeah, that's me: set for stun. Pew! Pew!"

What inspires you to wake up in the morning?

I have a four-year old (at the time of this writing) son, Jones, who is all the inspiration I need to get up in the morning. Also all the noise and jumping I need.

Any moments when you were bummed when something didn't make the cut? Or do you have all of the power?

Yeah, there were/are plenty of times I was bummed by something not making it into the show or getting changed along the way. WB keeps a pretty strict hand in their large, beloved franchise properties like Scooby Doo and Batman, so I'm actually really pleased and grateful they let me get away with as much as they did with the series. That said, I had no real power other than the trust and faith of Zac, the show runner. He hired me to be in charge of the writing and he just let me get on with it. I was never actually a producer on the show, although I did equally create this version of the series with Zac and the whole tone of the show was technically "in my voice" (which made it VERY difficult for freelance writers to come in cold and write an episode), but, alas, I was still ONLy the writer and we all know the old joke about the dumb blonde who tried to break into Hollywood by sleeping with the writer - unless, of course, the writer or the blonde is related to Dan Povenmire's wife, in which case you're golden. For the most part, though, I'm extremely proud and pleased of the work we did on BCSD and I hope people will give it a chance and watch a few episodes to get a real sense of what we've done with these characters and this beloved property. I know they'll fall in love with it and, in fact, it will retroactively IMPROVE their childhoods.

[papermoonloveslucy]

100 ARTISTS & ENTERTAINERS OF THE CENTURY

June 8, 1998

Lucille Ball was one of the figures chosen to appear on the cover of Time Magazine’s June 8, 1998 issue celebrating the top 100 artists and entertainers of the century.  In a drawing by Al Hirschfeld, Ball shares the cover with filmmaker Stephen Spielberg, musician Bob Dylan, and artist Pablo Picasso. 

In the table of contents page, there is a photo of Lucille Ball, and her article is listed below Rodgers and Hammerstein, names that were frequently mentioned on “I Love Lucy.”  Also mentioned was Frank Sinatra, Marlon Brando, and Charlie Chaplin, who Lucy embodied on several occasions. 

LUCILLE BALL: The TV Star

The first lady of comedy brought us laughter as well as emotional truth. No wonder everybody loved Lucy

By Richard Zoglin

It happened somewhere between the clunky premier episode (”Lucy Thinks Ricky Is Trying to Murder Her”) and her first classic routine, the Vitameatavegamin commercial, in which Lucy gets steadily soused as she keeps downing spoonfuls of the alcohol-laced potion she's trying to hawk on TV. (Watch the spasm that jolts her face when she gets her first taste of the foul brew; it could serve as a textbook for comics well into the next millennium.) "I Love Lucy” debuted on CBS in October 1951, but at first it looked little different from other domestic comedies that were starting to make the move from radio to TV, like “My Favorite Husband”, the radio show Ball had co-starred in for three years. Lucy Ricardo was, in those early “I Love Lucy” episodes, just a generic daffy housewife. Ethel (Vivian Vance), her neighbor and landlady, was a stock busybody. Desi Arnaz, as bandleader Ricky Ricardo, hadn't yet become one of the finest straight men in TV history. William Frawley, as Fred Mertz, seemed a Hollywood has-been in search of work, which he was.

Then magic struck. Guided by Ball's comic brilliance, the show developed the shape and depth of great comedy. Lucy's quirks and foibles -- her craving to be in show biz, her crazy schemes that always backfired, the constant fights with the Mertzes -- became as particularized and familiar as the face across the dinner table. For four out of its six seasons (only six!), “I Love Lucy” was the No. 1-rated show on television; at its peak, in 1952-53, it averaged an incredible 67.3 rating, meaning that on a typical Monday night, more than two-thirds of all homes with TV sets were tuned to Lucy.

Ball's dizzy redhead with the elastic face and saucer eyes was the model for scores of comic TV females to follow. She and her show, moreover, helped define a still nascent medium. Before “I Love Lucy”, TV was feeling its way, adapting forms from other media. Live TV drama was an outgrowth of Broadway theater; game shows were transplanted from radio; variety shows and early comedy stars like Milton Berle came out of vaudeville. “I Love Lucy” was unmistakably a television show, and Ball the perfect star for the small screen. "I look like everybody's idea of an actress," she once said, "but I feel like a housewife." Sid Caesar and Jackie Gleason were big men with larger-than-life personas; Lucy was one of us.

She grew up in Jamestown, N.Y., where her father, an electrician, died when she was just three. (1) At 15 she began making forays to New York City to try to break into show business. She had little luck as an actress but worked as a model before moving to Hollywood in 1933 for a part in the chorus of “Roman Scandals”. Strikingly pretty, with chestnut hair dyed blond (until MGM hairdressers, seeking a more distinctive look, turned it red in 1942), she landed bit parts in B movies and moved up to classy fare like “Stage Door”, in which she held her own with Katharine Hepburn and Ginger Rogers.

Buster Keaton, the great silent clown working as a consultant at MGM, recognized her comic gifts and worked with her on stunts. She got a few chances to show off her talent in films like “Du Barry Was a Lady” (with Red Skelton) and “Fancy Pants” (with Bob Hope) but never broke through to the top. By the end of the 1940s, with Ball approaching 40, her movie career was all but finished.

It was her husband Desi -- a Cuban bandleader she married shortly after they met on the set of “Too Many Girls” in 1940 -- who urged her to try television. CBS was interested in Ball, but not in the fellow with the pronounced Spanish accent she wanted to play her husband. To prove that the audience would accept them as a couple, Lucy and Desi cooked up a vaudeville act and took it on tour. It got rave reviews ("a sock new act," said Variety), and CBS relented.

But there were other haggles. Lucy and Desi wanted to shoot the show in Hollywood, rather than in New York City, where most TV was then being done. And for better quality, they insisted on shooting on film, rather than doing it live and recording on kinescope. CBS balked at the extra cost; the couple agreed to take a salary cut in return for full ownership of the program. It was a shrewd business decision: “I Love Lucy” was the launching pad for Desilu Productions, which (with other shows, like “Our Miss Brooks” and “The Untouchables”) became one of TV's most successful independent producers, before Paramount bought it in 1967.

Today “I Love Lucy”, with its farcical plots, broad physical humor and unliberated picture of marriage, is sometimes dismissed as a relic. Yet the show has the timeless perfection of a crystal goblet. For all its comic hyperbole, Lucy explored universal themes: the tensions of married life, the clash between career and home, the meaning of loyalty and friendship. The series also reflected most of the decade's important social trends. The Ricardos made their contribution to the baby boom in January 1953 -- TV's Little Ricky was born on the same day that Ball gave birth, by caesarean, to her second child, Desi Jr. (A daughter, Lucie, had been born in 1951.) They traveled to California just as the nation was turning west, in a hilarious series of shows that epitomized our conception of --and obsession with -- Hollywood glamour. And when the nation began moving to the suburbs, so too, in their last season, did the Ricardos.

Ball was a lithe and inventive physical comedian, and her famous slapstick bits -- trying to keep up with a candy assembly line, stomping grapes in an Italian wine vat -- were justly celebrated. But she was far more than a clown. Her mobile face could register a whole dictionary of emotions; her comic timing was unmatched; her devotion to the truth of her character never flagged. She was a tireless perfectionist. For one scene in which she needed to pop a paper bag, she spent three hours testing bags to make sure she got the right size and sound.

Most of all, I Love Lucy was grounded in emotional honesty. Though the couple had a tempestuous marriage off-screen (Desi was an unrepentant philanderer), the Ricardos' kisses showed the spark of real attraction. In the episode where Lucy finds out she is pregnant, she can't break the news to Ricky because he is too busy. Finally, she takes a table at his nightclub show and passes him an anonymous note asking that he sing a song, “We're Having a Baby”, to the father-to-be. As Ricky roams the room looking for the happy couple, he spies Lucy and moves on. Then he does a heartrending double take, glides to his knees and asks, voice cracking, whether it's true. Finishing the scene together onstage, the couple are overcome by the real emotion of their own impending baby. Director William Asher, dismayed by the unrehearsed tears, even shot a second, more upbeat take. Luckily he used the first one; it's the most touching moment in sitcom history.

Tired of the grind of a weekly series, Lucy and Desi ended “I Love Lucy” in 1957, when it was still No. 1. For three more years, they did hourlong specials, then broke up the act for good when they divorced in 1960. Ball returned to TV with two other popular (if less satisfying) TV series, “The Lucy Show” and “Here's Lucy”; made a few more movies (starring in “Mame” in 1974); and attempted a final comeback in the 1986 ABC sitcom “Life with Lucy”, which lasted an ignominious eight weeks. But “I Love Lucy” lives on in reruns around the world, an endless loop of laughter and a reminder of the woman who helped make TV a habit, and an art.

TIME senior writer Richard Zoglin still watches “I Love Lucy” reruns each day at 9 a.m.

(1) Ball’s father did not die in Jamestown, New York. He died in Wyandotte, Michigan, while on assignment for Bell Telephone. 

Some editions of the issue had an overlay cover that completely blocked Lucy from view!  She is not even mentioned in the text on the overlay!  

[weekendwarriorblog]

56th New York Film Festival Preview Part 1

This year’s 56th New York Film Festival will be my 15th time covering the Film Society of Lincoln Center’s annual festival if I’m doing my math correctly, and it’s certainly gone through a lot of changes in that time with the departure of Richard Peña as its director a few years back and lots of personnel changes behind the scenes. The selections tend to be geared towards the Film Society of Lincoln Center’s older clientele, rich Upper West Siders who want to make themselves feel more special at dinner parties by saying they’ve seen the latest movie from this foreign director or another that most Americans a.) Do not know and b.) Do not give a flying fuck about. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but this is my blog and as long as I’m not getting paid to write it, I will do and say whatever the fuck I want. Got it?

Anyway, the festival offers enough variety and diversity and movies that haven’t played at previous film festivals like Toronto (TIFF), which I missed for the first time in over 13 years sadly.

The 56th New York Film Festival kicks off on Friday, Sept. 28, with The Favourite, the latest film from Greek filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos, whose early film Dogtoothwas nominated for an Oscar in the foreign language category, followed by The Lobster, which received an Oscar nomination for screenplay. I didn’t like the former and didn’t much care for the latter either. Lanthimos’ last movie, 2017’s The Killing of a Sacred Deer I walked out of it at TIFF because I was hating the fact that everyone was talking like a robot. I haven’t seen The Favourite yet – see my note above about missing TIFF – but this one is getting even more raves. It’s a period comedy starring Olivia Colman, Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz, three actors who I absolutely love, and I’m happy to see Colman, who will take over as Queen Elizabeth II in The Crown season 3, getting lots of attention for her performance, which is either lead (going by the credits) or supporting (depending on who you’re talking to).  I’ll be seeing this early Friday morning and hope to have some thoughts in the second part next week.

I’m even more excited about seeing Roma, the latest film from Alfonso Cuarón, which was selected as this year’s Centerpiece and has also been getting raves out of Venice, Telluride and Toronto. Unfortunately, it’s nowhere near a premiere of any kind for the NYFF. What’s exciting about Roma is that it’s Cuarón’s return to his native Mexico (at least on camera) for the first time since 2001’s Y Tu Mama Tambien, which for many was their introduction to Cuaron. It’s also his follow-up to 2013’s Gravity, for which he won an Oscar, and it’s likely to be another visual spectacle that few others could master.

This year’s Closing Night film is the North American premiere of New York artist Julian Schnabel’s new film At Eternity’s Gate, which reunites him with Willem Dafoe as well as with making films about artists, this time being about Vincent Van Gogh. I loved The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, which was nominated for four Oscars but not Best Picture, sadly, and many people I know still love his first film Basquiat, so maybe this will be Schnabel’s return to greatness after the disappointing Miral. The movie skipped TIFF and Telluride, so it will indeed be the first time many will be able to see it.

I’m also looking forward to the Coen Brothers’ Netflix series-turned-movieThe Ballad of Buster Skruggs, which will play during the festival’s second and third week; that’s also a North American premiere. Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight follow-up If Beale Street Could Talk is also playing later in the festival, and I hope to get to that review sometime later in Part 2. I’ve also heard good things about Bi Gan’s Long Day’s Journey into Night and Claire Denis’ High Life, the former I’m not sure I’ll have a chance to catch before its theatrical release by Kino Lorber. Other returning filmmakers represented are Jafar Panahi with 3 Faces, Oscar winner Pawel Pawlikowski with Cold War, Korea’s prolific Hong Sangsoo’s Grass and Hotel by the River, Louis Garrel with A Faithful Man and more. (I can’t even THINK about making the time to see Mariano Llina’s 13 ¾ hour – yes, you read that right -- Argentine film La Flor, which will be shown in three parts or eight parts depending on your patience and free time, neither which

I tend to focus on the Main Slate films and documentaries, but the festival has grown rich with revivals and even a VR Arcade as part of its Convergence slate. If I only had time….

So let’s get to a couple mini-reviews of films I’ve seen so far…

Her Smell

Director: Alex Ross Perry

I’ve long had a strange love-hate relationship with the indie filmmaker who continually makes inroads into the mainstream (like writing Disney’s Christopher Robin, for instance). He’s a regular at my local theater, the Metrograph, and I’ve interviewed him a few times, and I just find him to be a fascinating filmmaker and interesting guy in general. What got me excited about this one is that Elisabeth Moss (who starred in his earlier films Listen Up Phillip and Queen of Earth) plays punk rocker Becky Something making a comeback with her girl group Something She, which is set for disaster due to her self-destructive behavior. Perry really takes a different approach to this than his last film Golden Exits, making a movie a bit like Birdman where the camera flows smoothly from one room to another in the various locations. The film begins in a club where Something She are playing their comeback gig, then follows them into the studio a little later and then to a club where Becky is trying to play with a bunch of younger female musicians. It’s not gonna be for everyone, and to be honest, I’ve worked with musicians/rock stars as nutty as Becky gets at her worst, so it was hard to watch sometimes. Moss is amazing but the rest of the cast around her is also amazing including Dan Stevens as her ex-husband, plus Eric Stolz as her manager, Virginia Madsen as her mother and all the unrecognizable women as various musicians in Becky’s circle, including Amber Heard, Cara Delevigne but particularly Gayle Rankin from Glow as Becky’s put-upon drummer Ali.

The Other Side of the Wind

Director: Orson Welles (kind of)

There’s been a lot of ballyhoo about this film which Welles was working on up until his death in 1985, and the fact that Netflix will be releasing it after it was finished by others is kind of a big deal, I guess. Honestly, I’m really not sure why stuff like this is done with filmmakers’ work even thirty years after their death. The plot involves a filmmaker played by the late John Huston who is throwing a party to show a rough cut of his latest film and all of the drama that surrounds the movie and the filmmaker’s entourage. My biggest problem with the “movie” was that it’s clearly edited together from stuff filmed at different dates, possibly even different years, and it uses the pretense of being a “found footage” movie cut together from various video cameras around the filmmaker documenting this party and the movie’s release. It certainly sounds like something Welles might do, putting him well ahead of The Blair Witch Project when it comes to “found footage.” Because of that, I had the same problems with The Other Side of the Wind, which could have used some color correction to make the editing between characters in the party scene not quite as jarring. The actual film within a film (also called “The Other Side of the Wind”) was much more interesting as an artsy and trippy film with two very attractive and frequently naked actors. (The NYFF is also screening Morgan Neville’s related doc They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead, which documents the 15-year history Welles spent trying to make and finish this movie. Both will play as a Special Event at the NYFF before Streaming on Netflix on Nov. 2)

American Dharma

Director: Errol Morris

Having just seen Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 11/9 the day before, I wasn’t too sure if I wanted to sit through Morris’ new movie about Steve Bannon. I mean, I don’t have the hatred some of my colleagues do for Bannon, since I literally have no opinion of Breitbart and what goes on there. I certainly would never go to a right-wing site for any reason, let alone one that promotes the alt-right’s racism. As I expected, the movie is a lot of Bannon bragging about himself, but Morris comes into this story in an interesting way, since Bannon has respect for the filmmaker due to his Oscar-winning film The Fog of War. Maybe it’s that respect that gets Bannon to open up about what was involved with getting Trump elected as well as his involvement with Breitbart’s exposing of Anthony Weiner (sorry for the pun) and other endeavors. What I like about the film is that Morris is a true artist, accompanying Bannon’s boasting with clips from classic films (many which Bannon references) but also some beautiful visuals including the set which was based on the airplane hangar in Twelve O’Clock High, one of Bannon’s favorite films. This is playing as part of the festivals’ “Spotlight on Documentary” which includes fourteen films, but not all of them will have press screenings, sadly. I hope to catch at least Carmine Street Guitars, Ruth Beckerman’sThe Waldheim Waltz (Austria’s Oscar selection!) and Charles Ferguson’s Watergate in this section.

Non-Fiction

Director: Olivier Assayas

I’ve long been a fan of the French filmmaker since seeing Irma Vep many, many moons ago. While not all of his efforts have been masterpieces, he has enough great films under his belt that I’ll always give his movies a chance. This one worried me because it looked like another movie about French people talking about movies, books, relationships ala Summer Hours and just about every other French film made in the last couple decades. Surprisingly, the movie about an author (Vincent Macaigne) who tends to base his fiction on real life and his off-and-on publisher (Guillaume Canet) ended up being far funnier than I was expecting. It’s Assayas’ third film with Juliet Binoche, although her role is more of an ensemble one and more of the focus is on the two men. She plays the wife of the publisher who has an affair with the author, and if that seems like standard French fare, then not the way Assayas handled it. The entire cast is good but Macaigne is particularly funny, since he’s the perfect caricature of a schlubby and unapologetic writer. I guess in some ways, this is Assayas’ first official comedy even though he’s often played with satire and dark humor in his past films, and ultimately, this ended up being quite enjoyable for one of his talkier films.

Ash is Purest White

Director: Jia Zhangke

China’s Zhangke is another filmmaker whose work I’ve heard praised so much over the years, but I haven’t been able to get into either of the previous films of his I’ve seen (Still Lifeand Mountains May Depart). Not sure why I haven’t been able to get into his work, especially with the osmosis that comes with living in Chinatown for 26 years, but Ash is Purest Whitedeals with things I’ve liked in other Asian films. It starts out a bit like a Johnny To film with its look at the jianghu gangs of a small mainland mining town run by the beloved Brother Bin (Lao Fin) and his girlfriend Qiao (Zhao Tao). Things are going well until something happens that gets Qiao thrown into jail trying to protect Bin. When she’s released, things have changed, and she has to find her own way, but then Bin eventually needs Qiao’s help and she puts their differences in the past. Even though there’s definite genre aspects to the film including a section that reminded me a bit of Park Chanwook’s Lady Vengeance, this is still very much a character piece in the vein of Zhangke’s other work, but I think this one works better than some of his other efforts, mainly since the director has two fantastic actors in the leading roles, particularly Zhao Tao, who goes through such a transformation from one section of the film to the next and then into the final act, as the film covers a good ten to twelve years in their lives. Ash is Purest Whitewill be released by the Cohen Media Group, although I’m not quite sure when.

Burning

Director: Lee Chang-dong

It’s hard to call the latest film from the Korean director of Poetry and Secret Sunshine a “genre” film even though it has genre elements, because it’s more of a strange character drama involving three people. Mind you, I wasn’t a fan of Secret Sunshine even though many of my critical colleagues had raved about it, but Burning is a much stronger film even if it’s tougher to explain what it’s about (mainly due to possible spoilers). A young man named Jong-su Lee (Ah-In Yoo) runs into Hae-mi (Jong-seo Jeon), a girl from his old farmland hometown in the middle of Seoul and she convinces him to feed her mysterious cat while she’s travelling to Africa. Jong-su thinks that he might have a new girlfriend until Hae-mi returns with a rich and charming guy named Ben (Steven Yeun from The Walking Dead). Jong-su continues to hang with the duo even though he feels like a third wheel, although both men are clearly enamored with the strange girl. And that’s pretty much all that I can say about the movie. It’s a fairly long 2 ½ hour film where Jong-su gets more and more suspicious of Ben’s intentions, and there’s an odd exchange when Ben tells him that he likes burning down greenhouses. I think the film might be somewhat frustrating to those always looking for clear answers to all the questions the film raises, but it’s still a strong film from Director Lee that’s going to be South Korea’s selection for the Oscars. I’ll be curious to see if it’s too weird for the Oscar foreign language nominating committee. Well Go USA will be releasing Burning.

That’s it for Week 1 of press screenings, and I hope to get to some of the other movies. Here’s the official trailer for this year’s festival:

[recentnews18-blog]

New Post has been published on https://shovelnews.com/game-of-thrones-named-outstanding-drama-at-2018-emmy-awards/

Game of Thrones named outstanding drama at 2018 Emmy Awards

So, how did your favourite show do? Chances are, not so well.

It’s one of the funny things about the Emmy Awards that because there are so many categories, shows can rack up the nominations yet go home empty (or near-empty)-handed.

Atlanta, for instance, had 16 nominations but picked up just two awards, for guest actor and cinematography (neither of them presented in this telecast).

The year’s most-nominated show, Game of Thrones, won six of 22, but it got the biggest of them all, so who’s counting?

Game of Thrones didn’t scoop the pool but it went home with the big one.

Photo: Supplied

Personally, I think The Handmaid’s Tale suffered one of the biggest snubs, winning just two of the 20 awards for which it was nominated, and missing out on all the major acting awards, which is where, perhaps, you might have expected it to shine. It won for editing and best guest actress for Samira Wiley as Moira – but as always, you do have to wonder about these categories; Wiley has been in 11 episodes of the show’s two seasons, the same as Alexis Bledel, who was nominated for best supporting actress. Guest? Go figure.

The Handmaid’s Tale suffered the biggest snub.

Photo: Supplied

Meanwhile Westworld managed just one win from its 21 nominations, but it was good to see Thandie Newton getting a big win.

Probably the standout show this year was The Marvelous Mrs Maisel, which took home seven statuettes from 14 nominations – a staggering 50 per cent success rate. They were big wins, too: comedy series, actress in a comedy series, writing, directing, supporting actress and actor among them. If you haven’t seen it yet – and in Australia, there’s a good chance most people haven’t – it’s on Amazon Prime.

Rachel Brosnahan as Midge Maisel in The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.

Photo: Amazon

And while it didn’t go home with a swag of gold, Barry deserves mention – it brought comedy acting wins for star Bill Hader and supporting actor Henry Winkler. Forty-three years after being nominated for his role as Arthur Fonzarelli (aka The Fonz) in Happy Days, the 73-year-old actor-writer-director finally has his first win. Heeeeey!

And the award for outstanding drama series goes to Game of Thrones. That’s the last award of the night, the big one, and well worth skipping last year’s awards for, I’m guessing. George RR Martin takes the stage along with the armies of the Vale, or at least a good few members of the cast and production team. Nobody runs on stage to say there’s been a terrible mistake, the actual winner was The Handmaid’s Tale or The Crown or Stranger Things or The Americans… so it must be true.

No stranger to freezing out the competition, Game of Thrones has been named outstanding drama.

Photo: AP

Outstanding Drama Series

The Americans  The Crown  Game of Thrones  The Handmaid’s Tale  Stranger Things  This Is Us  Westworld 

We’re in the home stretch and the most notable thing at this stage is that the big drama nominees – Game of Thrones, with 22 nominations; Westworld, with 21; and The Handmaid’s Tale, with 20 – haven’t exactly stormed the trophy cabinet. Drama series is coming up, so let’s see how this shakes out.

Will Ferrell walks on stage like a geriatric robot. He’s moving so slowly that the 45 seconds allotted for whomever wins this award is probably going to be cut down to a solitary “thank you”. He’s exhausted from the “1000-yard” walk to the microphone, he says, and “these weren’t the shoes to do it in”. It’s more odd than funny, but whatever; it’s another win for Mrs Maisel, which is having a marvellous night. EP Daniel Palladino manages to snatch his full 45 seconds anyway, and then some. Here’s hoping Ferrell makes it off stage before this ad break ends, though I wouldn’t count on it.

The Marvelous Mrs Maisel has won a swag of awards this year.

Photo: Supplied

Outstanding Comedy Series

Atlanta  Barry  Black-ish  Curb Your Enthusiasm  GLOW  The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel  Silicon Valley  Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt 

In what must rank as the oddest presentation moment in the show, Ben Stiller, Patricia Arquette and Benicio del Toro share the stage and Benicio, seemingly channelling one of his many, many dead-eyed villain roles, says “We kill and we will kill again”. Awkward seconds of silence stretch out between them until Arquette opens the envelope. Those two are in Escape From Dannemorra together, so maybe this is a tightly scripted promotional bit. But man, it’s odd – and because of that, it’s one of the more interesting moments in the whole show.

Benicio del Toro delivered one of the stranger moments in the awards.

Photo: Frazer Harrison

Eric Bana and Connie Britton present the Emmy for variety talk series. Among the nominees is Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. It would be a weird little quirk, really, if it won, because Bana got his start in the business on the Australian sketch comedy show Full Frontal. But that will have to remain an un-footnoted footnote because the award in fact goes to John Oliver for, like, the millionth time (well, ninth actually. But that’s rather a lot.)

Eric Bana back in the Full Frontal days before Samantha Bee took the title Full Frontal.

Photo: Supplied

Outstanding Limited Series

The Alienist  The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story  Genius: Picasso  Godless  Patrick Melrose 

Saturday Night Live wins, as it has done so many times before. Long-time producer Lorne Michaels gives a very short acceptance speech, probably because he’s had so many opportunities before this to say whatever it is he might have wanted to say. He has received 82 individual nominations, making him the most-nominated person in Emmy history. The show tops the list too, with 252 nominations over its 43 years on air. It has produced so many stars and spin-offs over the years it really is a remarkable factory of funny business.

Sarah Palin stands next to producer Lorne Michaels during her appearance on Saturday Night Live in New York. He is the most awarded Emmy winner in history.

Photo: Supplied

Source: https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/all-the-action-from-the-red-carpet-and-the-awards-for-the-2018-emmy-awards-20180918-p504do.html