Reel Facts & Opinions: Who the hell is JCM?

A lot of people have been asking, “who the hell is this John Carter guy”, and “what is with this JCM business” ?



FACT: Disney pictures is producing an adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ series of novels, in which John Carter undertakes adventures on the planet Mars. The Carter character first appeared in A PRINCESS OF MARS in 1912, and followed up with seven other novels. The film will star Taylor Kitsch (Gambit in WOLVERINE) as Carter, and co-star Mark Strong and Willem DaFoe.



OPINION: Many Earth-dwellers have not caught on to fact that the upcoming film (set for a 2012 release) is an adaptation of one of (or many) of Burroughs’ novels, due in part to the marketing strategy the Mouse is taking. The trailers are pushing a title of JOHN CARTER, while many of the theatrical posters simply say JCM.

Why the departure? First off, Disney is likely avoiding reference to Mars to avoid any connection to the shitty films we’ve had in the past ten years dealing with the Red Planet (GHOSTS OF MARS, RED PLANET, or maybe even MARS ATTACKS!). The strategy will likely work; after all, all they really need to do is get people into the theatres. The flip side to this is any fans of the original novels might not even realize that the promotions they are seeing are for those early works. Disney clearly went with going for a broad appeal.

But what can be annoying is Disney taking an epic series like the Carter adventures and reducing it to the trendy acronym thing that’s everywhere now; the newest MISSION IMPOSSIBLE film is MI:4, the next MEN IN BLACK film is MIB3, etc. Such is the world of the YouTube generation; where these young whipper-snappers have to have the entire message spelled out for them in five seconds or else they are lost. The scheme does work as people are getting their asses into the theatre; but eventually all these titles like MI:4, MIB3 and JCM are going to blend together like alphabet soup. What good will that do?

What say you?

A Reel Review: SHAME

German/Irish actor Michael Fassbender made a huge splash on American shores in 2011, enthralling most of us Yanks with his portrayal of a young and vengeful Magneto in X-MEN FIRST (CL)ASS. In director Steve McQueen’s sexual drama SHAME, Fassbender gets to flex his muscles (and his buttocks) in proving that he has the chops that transcends any or all comic flicks.

Brandon (Fassbender) is a sex addict living in NYC. Addicted to sex much like a druggie or alcoholic, Brandon has sex with a different women nearly every night; either charming them with a simple smile or his wallet. When he is alone, he relives his tensions by surfing porn on the web or masturbating in the bathrooms stalls at work. Things get complicated when his messed-up younger sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) shows up at his doorstep with nowhere to go. Sissy begins an affair with Brandon’s boss David (James Badge Dale), and seeing himself reflected in the situation, tries to cleanse himself of his addiction; a move which may or may not be the best for him.

SHAME doesn’t have much of a plot other than watching Brandon embrace and/or struggle with his addiction. His addiction is the story; the way it runs his life and determines his every move. SHAME could have easily been about the addictions of booze and drugs, but since sex is more fun to watch on-screen, why not? But where SHAME seems to really shine is in the contrasting characters. Brandon, Sissy and David have different personalities and traits that are a joy to watch on screen as they clash and rotate around each other.

Director Steve McQueen displays a directing style that takes a while to get used to. There are many, many unsettling and uncomfortable LONG takes; static shots that don’t move for what seem like forever. It’s a great tension builder, and the challenge is really upon the actors to pull off the scene in one attempt. SHAME has to set a record for the fewest cuts in a feature film, and it often feels like a good stage drama. But McQueen also shows talent with some movement; there are some endless tracking shots that have to be seen to be believed. The numerous sex scenes are not gratuitous, and are all a means to an end. Some love-making is filmed very bluntly and exposed, while others are composed beautifully.

Fassbender nails the role in a subtly powerful performance. He is clearly filled with tension throughout the film, and if that wasn’t convincing enough he lets it out in explosive bursts. As good as he is, he is nearly upstaged by Carey Mulligan, who in the often-seen role of the screwed up family member, brings new life to it and is never un-convincing.

SHAME spends a lot of time on its characters, but oddly lacks any sort of backstory to any of them. How Brandon got so addicted and how Sissy got so messed up remains a bit of a mystery. McQueen keeps his characters at a distance, which is a bit of a ploy to keep the audience hooked. Still, SHAME manages to hang with you long after you leave the theatre; it is a sobering lesson to all in re-examining life even when things seem great.

BOTTOM LINE: See it

A Reel 25

This month marks the 25th anniversary of the release of one of the greatest war-films ever made, Oliver Stone’s Oscar-winning PLATOON.



Stone created PLATOON based upon his own experiences in the Vietnam War, and intended to counter the vision of war that was portrayed in THE GREEN BERETS (1968). Although Francis Ford Coppola’s APOCOLYPSE NOW (1979) was a harder look at the war, BERETS was widely accepted as the definitive Vietnam film; mostly due to John Wayne’s star power. BERETS however was slammed by the critics for glorifying the war and for being dull and absurd. Still, The Duke’s star made it a financial success, and was widely considered to be The ‘Nam film. Stone set out to change that.

Again, by drawing from his own wartime experiences, Stone was able to strip the Hollywood from Vietnam; while making it real, gritty, and most importantly, human at the same time. The realities of guerilla warfare and the themes of moral choices made PLATOON strike a chord with veterans and non-veterans alike. Audiences were disturbed, yet accepting of the notion of America’s soldiers turning on each other in the depths of hellish war.

Stone put together an ensemble cast in the form of Charlie Sheen, Tom Berenger, Willem DaFoe, Johnny Depp (!), Forest Whitaker, Francesco Quinn (RIP), John C. McGinley, Kevin Dillon, Corey Glover and Keith David. He put his actors through real-life boot camp to prepare them for their roles; adding heavy realism to the strong performances.

Powered by those strong performances and Stone’s excellent writing, PLATOON was a great success; it was nominated for eight Oscars (including two for acting), and won four (including Best Picture). The American Film Institute ranks it #83 in it’s AFI’S 100 YEARS…100 MOVIES.

This Blogger never had the opportunity to see PLATOON on the big screen (where’s that 4K big screen re-release, Oliver?), and only caught up with it years later on home video; the initial viewings cemented PLATOON in this mind as THE definitive ‘Nam movie. A recent viewing shows that the film has held up and aged very, very well; great characters and powerful themes tend to do that. And as a former U.S. Army Reservist, this Blogger consistently witnessed (one weekend a month) the characters Stone had created in real life; be assured that in every platoon, there is a Sgt. Barnes, an Elias, and a Chris Taylor.

The tag-line of PLATOON was, “The first casualty of war is innocence”, which was an adaptation of Senator Hiram Johnson’s 1917 quote, “The first casualty of war is truth”; both themes are heavy in the film, and perhaps no other war movie since 1986 has carried those messages better.

Reel Facts & Opinions

FACT: Producer Neal Moritz has announced that he is moving ahead with plans to remake STARSHIP TROOPERS (1997). The new take is intended to stick more closely with Robert Heinlein’s novel, from which the campy sci-fi film was based on.

OPINION: Now before you lot get your asses into an uproar over the lack of originality in Hollywood these days (which wouldn’t be a bad idea), consider this; a remake of TROOPERS that would follow the novel (which was published in 1959) might be the best thing ever to happen to the franchise (which consists of one feature film, two direct-to-videos, and a TV series). The film was seriously hated by sci-fi fans when it was originally released, which traded in the books’ heavy-handed themes of philosophical aspects of suffrage and civic virtue for campy over-the-top action decorated with teenage angst and sex. The approach has worked before; when the Coen Brothers set out to remake TRUE GRIT a few years back, they intended not to remake the John Wayne rendition, but to stick closely to the original source material. The results were Oscar gold. So don’t cry blasphemy over a new TROOPERS just yet.

Would you like to know more?

FACT: After years upon years of starts and stops, the big-screen adaptation of ENDER’S GAME seems finally ready to get going for real. Asa Butterfield (from HUGO) is set to star as the main character, and Gavin Hood (of WOLVERINE fame) is to direct, with a targeted release date of Spring 2013. Harrison Ford is also rumored to be involved. The plot which follows a gifted young gamer who is recruited by the government to help battle an insect-like race.

OPINION: Having never read the book, this Blogger has no reason to be super-excited over the casting or the long-awaited green-light. It should be noted that the alien-insect thing has been done a LOT lately (STARSHIP TROOPERS, DISTRICT 9), and even though the ENDER’S GAME novel was released a long time before those films (1985), general film audiences are likely to shrug this one off as just another bug-hunt. It’s a shame all those delays had to happen.

FACT: The big-screen adaptation of 24 also seems to be finally getting rolling. Fox is looking to have a script ready by the end of this year, which would open up the possibility of cameras beginning to roll by next Spring or Summer.
OPINION: The writers will really need to have the creative juices flowing to separate this feature length films (which has to be at least called 80) from the countless plots/races against time Bauer has already faced. If not, then it will blend in with the horde of counter-terrorism films and be lost.

What say you?

A Reel 20

This Blogger was very pleased to attend his 20-year high school reunion recently, and as any good movie-based mind should do, turned his thoughts to the films that were entertaining us way back in 1991. A look back not only jolted some fond memories and nostalgia, but also revealed just how important ’91 was in film history; with a lot of benchmark films and classical performances.

Starting with the moolah, James Cameron’s TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY was the biggest earner of the year; its $565 million at the box office is still good for no. 84 all-time in the worldwide rankings. The film was also a benchmark in CGI effects; ILM’s eye-popping work paved the way for a generation of digital wizardry. Other notable big-money makers were Oliver Stone’s controversial, yet Oscar-winning JFK, this Blogger’s favorite of the year in ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES, Steven Spielberg’s HOOK, Jonathan Demme’s THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and Disney’s BEAUTY AND THE BEAST…which became the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture. BEAST’S nomination proved that animated films were not just for kids anymore; a trend that continues today with Disney’s collaborations with Pixar.

Speaking of the Oscars, ’91 was a competitive year, with LAMBS, BEAUTY, JFK, BUGSY and THE PRINCE OF TIDES duking it out for Academy gold. LAMBS wound up dominating the awards; pulling off the coveted sweep of the major categories, including Best Picture, Best Director (Jonathan Demme), Best Actress (Jodie Foster) and Best Actor (Anthony Hopkins). Hopkins' chilling performance of Hannibal Lecter was a memorable one for the ages; he will always be remembered for it and movie-buffs quote the character daily. The ceremony was also memorable for Jack Palance’s set of celebratory one-handed pushups after winning Best Supporting Actor for his role in CITY SLICKERS.

Other notable films of 1991 include THE ADDAMS FAMILY, BACKDRAFT, BOYZ N THE HOOD, CAPE FEAR, THE DOORS, THE FISHER KING, HOT SHOTS!, JUNGLE FEVER, MY GIRL, NEW JACK CITY, THE ROCKETEER, THELMA & LOUISE, and WHAT ABOUT BOB?

Come to think of it, 1991 was one hell of a year.

What say you? What was your favorite of 1991?

A Reel Review: MY WEEK WITH MARILYN

As the title indicates, MY WEEK WITH MARILYN is not a traditional biopic documenting the starlet’s entire life, and instead focuses on a nearly obscure timeframe in movie history. Still, the film manages to capture its main character, Marilyn Monroe completely; all thanks to sharp writing and a stunning performance by Michelle Williams that is guaranteed to take your breath away.

Marilyn Monroe (Williams) is off to London to film THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL, which is being directed by Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh), who is married to Vivien Leigh (Julia Ormond). Monroe struggles through the pressure of acting, and copes by leaning on countless of amounts of pills and booze; behavior that threatens to derail the entire production. Monroe finds solace and inspiration in the form of Colin (Eddie Redmayne); a young man who is on his very first job in the movie business.

MARILYN, for as much as it focuses on Monroe, is really a story about two lost souls coming together and finding meaning. Colin is a big-studio virgin; wide-eyed and innocent. Marilyn is the bigger-than-life movie and entertainment star; who wants only to be a regular girl and be a good wife to her husband, but must put on the act of Marilyn Monroe when the cameras are rolling. It is a fascinating watch to see Colin and Marilyn charm the hell out of each other before reality comes back to nail them both. Both characters are fleshed out perfectly, and the audience can’t help but to feel for, and love them both.

Marilyn Monroe absolutely rises from the dead in Michelle Williams’s outstanding performance. The mannerisms, facial expressions and body language are magic to see; it is as if the blonde beauty fell out of the screen and into our laps. She completely sells the character; she is the girl that we all want to hold tightly, even though we know she will eventually fly away.

Director Simon Curtis also gets excellent performances out of Redmayne, who never fails to convince us of the puppy-love innocence. Also astoundingly perfect is Branagh as Sir Laurence, who nails the screen legend’s vocal tone and even looks like the man. Curtis assembles a near-ensemble cast including Judi Dench, Toby Jones, Zoe Wanamaker, Dominic Cooper and Emma Watson…and gets sparkling performances out of them all. Curtis also succeeds in bringing the whimsy of 1950’s movie-making to life, packing things with a brisk magic that will have the audience smiling and laughing from beginning to end.

Despite the bitter sweetness of the ending, MARILYN manages to become one of the most feel-good movies of the year. It is funny and moody, entertaining and sad, and it is incredibly fitting that the most charming woman who ever lived is the subject of the most charming movie of 2011. If you don’t fall in love with Michelle Williams, you most certainly fall in love with Marilyn.

BOTTOM LINE: See it

A Reel Review: HUGO

Martin Scorsese’s HUGO is about a lot of different things; it’s a story about a boy’s love for his father, it is about childhood friendship and adventure, it is about redemption and self-forgiveness. On top of that, it is Scorsese’s statement to the world concerning the history and preservation of film. His first venture into the 3D world is the setting he chooses for telling all of these stories, and the blending is a stumble here, and a triumph there.

Hugo’s (Asa Butterfield) father (Jude Law) is killed in a museum fire, and the boy is sent to live with his drunken uncle (Ray Winstone), who maintains the inner-workings of all the clocks in a Paris train station. When the uncle disappears, Hugo is left alone to run the clocks by himself while avoiding capture from the stations chief inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). Hugo sort-of befriends George (Ben Kingsley), who has an interesting connection to movie history, and his god-daughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz). Hugo looks to repair an automaton; a mechanical man discovered by his father in the museum’s attic, which when operational may or may not reveal stunning secrets that involve all characters and their lives.

HUGO’s beginnings set up the film as a story all about a boy’s love for his father. Repairing the automaton is Hugo’s last connection to his dead pop, and his motivations are clearly spelled out and loaded with emotion. Once the automaton starts to click, the movie (literally) switches gears. The focus shifts from Hugo and his love for his dad and over to Isabelle’s god-father George. The switch, while necessary for Scorsese’s intentions for the film, drops the emotion from the overall story and relegates Hugo to a solve-the-mystery movie.

Most of HUGO seems scattered; spending a lot of time on the many characters, some of which feels unnecessary. But where HUGO really shines is when Scorsese switches gears for a third time and gets into a specific and important chapter in movie history. The recreations of historical movies such as A TRIP TO THE MOON (1902) are a joy to watch, and Scorsese pours his love of movie history all over the place. HUGO’s third switch is a history lesson in film, and it is an important one.

The 3D is hit or miss. It looks dazzling in some places, and un-noticeable in others. HUGO feels like it should be seen in 3D, as it is a story dealing with the magic of the movies. It’s a clever effort, but in the practical sense it’s an annoyance; the dimness of those blasted glasses dulls the vibrancy of the magnificent-looking world HUGO exists in.

Scorsese directs some great performances out of everyone, especially from his younger cast; younger audiences will connect right away with Hugo and Isabelle. Older audiences will be entertained as well, providing they can get by the slow pacing and switching storylines. HUGO succeeds a lot more than it stumbles.

BOTTOM LINE: See it

A Reel Opinion: THE END OF THE MOVIES AS WE KNOW IT

FACT: With digital projection becoming more widespread, major studios have decided to get out of the business of renting out their original 35mm film prints to theatres for showing. This has put certain smaller movie theatres in great jeopardy. Houses such as the New Beverly Cinema in L.A., which runs only 35mm film, would eventually have nothing to show.

A passionate online petition is now circulating to try and save what they, and many others consider to be pieces of history. The archival 35mm film prints will be scanned into digital, and then destroyed. Countless cans of decades-old film will hit the incinerators. This is likely the first of many steps major studios will be taking to eventually switch to digital projection in full.

OPINION: For starters, let it be said that this Blogger has a deep love for film projection; having worked as a film (and eventually digital) film projectionist at a major theatre chain for nearly eight years. Reel Speak was born from that deep love; it’s what inspired the name.

However, that love for 35mm film has gradually become more of a nostalgic love than a practical one. This blogger has seen first-hand, both in and out of the booth, how fragile 35mm film can be. Now, a well-maintained projector when running a brand new print right out of the can will look spectacular. However, celluloid eventually will fade from the bulb, and let’s not forget that film projectors have many, many moving parts; all of which can lead to damaged prints, leading to defects on the screen. Defects like annoying black and green scratches, dust, and pictures that jump around and are out of focus are common symptoms. And then there are breakages, which can lead to film snapping in half and the spectacular image of the picture burning and melting on screen. The bottom line is an interrupted movie, which no one likes. Digital projection, while still evolving, avoids any of these defects in the picture and seldom break down. If you are paying good money to see a movie, you certainly deserve to see a perfect, uninterrupted presentation.

Studios know this, and they also know the cost of having to maintain thousands (hell, millions) of film prints over the years. From a practical sense, all of these 35mm film prints cost a lot just to store in a temperature-controlled climate and also take up a lot of space. Some years back, a fire at Universal Studios obliterated countless cans of film. How many original prints of DRACULA (1931) and FRANKENSTIEN (also 1931) were destroyed? No one knows. Digital can solve that problem; by scanning all of these films into data bits, they can be safely stored and preserved forever.

But what about all those 35mm film prints? Should they become ashes? It’s a sad thing to think so. If someone one day discovers a warehouse full of Beatles records on vinyl, should they be destroyed just because they already exist digitally? Hell no. Lots of people would want them, even if they never intend to play them.

This is where the passion of film lovers comes in, and where the studios need to listen. Undoubtedly, there are film collectors out there who would pay top dollar to own an original print of their favorite films. Yes they are space-consuming, but if they want it saved they might have to do it themselves. As for theatres such as the New Beverly, they are just going to have to get with the times. Their passion for 35mm film projection is admirable, but those 50-year old prints they are running have got to look like shit, and they will eventually have to deal with projector companies ceasing support of those old machines. They also must realize their contradiction: they want to preserve the prints so they can play them; but they must know that the more they are played, the more damaged they will be become. Want to preserve your original vinyl copy of LET IT BE? Don’t play it.

We are in an extremely important time in movie history; right smack-dab in the middle of two eras. Film projection has really not changed in a hundred years. That constant is about to end. It is with sad melancholy that this Blogger must side with the practical. By all means let’s save the film, but let’s save them for the right reasons.

What say you? Are movies meant to be viewed on film? Are we godless heathens for switching to digital? This may be the most important topic in “film” today…

If you are interested in signing the petition to aid in the New Beverly Cinema's effort, here is the link:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fight-for-35mm/

A Reel Review: THE DESCENDANTS

In directing his first film since the Oscar-darling SIDEWAYS, Alexander Payne does something to George Clooney that has never been done in the man’s successful and diverse career; he stuffs Clooney’s character full of emotional trials until it boils out, and the result is a redefining acting performance which is just one small part of a brilliant film.

Matt King (Clooney) is the owner of the last undeveloped land in the Hawaiian Islands which is worth a fortune, and must decide either to sell it or try to keep it while being pressured by his family. A month before the decision, Matt’s wife Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) is involved in an accident which puts her into a coma, where she will remain until Matt decides to honor his wife’s wishes to pull the plug. Matt, who was often an absent parent, must now act as a lone parent to his brat daughters Scottie (Amara Miller) and Alex (Shailene Woodley), with Alex finally telling her father his dying wife’s secrets.

THE DESCENDANTS is Matt’s story as he tries to bring what’s left of his family together. Pain and conflict are the themes throughout the film, and Payne positions them brilliantly like a chess master. In the early goings, the film feels like it would be another run-of-the mill family bonding story, but when Alex lets Matt know about his dying wife’s secrets, things change in a hurry. The daughters who were once Matt’s enemy are suddenly his allies as they charge into Elizabeth’s past; not to confront or cause trouble, but to find closure and try to get to know her better before she passes on. It is a very human story.

Payne does tremendous work in never letting the film become too dark and depressing; the film is very funny, but never gets carried away as it always remembers to bring things back to the dying wife and mom. Filming THE DESCENDANTS in Hawaii was a stroke of genius; it is a beautiful setting for a tragic tale.

Clooney is at his absolute best here, and anyone who thought they had the man completely figured out hasn’t seen anything yet. His character is burdened with emotion for the entire film, and when it finally boils over…whoa daddy. It’s a performance that a lot of people might not be ready for. Equally good is Shailene Woodley, who goes toe-to-toe with Clooney often and never misses a beat. Also surprising is a rare and well executed serious role by Matthew Lillard, and smaller parts by Beau Bridges, Judy Greer and Robert Forester are also directed and acted beautifully.

The finale has a bit of predictable turn, as the often-seen morality tale of what is really important in life is finally revealed. In this setting and with this execution, it really does work. THE DESCENDANTS is packed with real-world tragedy and drama, but never stuck too much in reality that we can’t enjoy it immensely.

BOTTOM LINE: See it

A Reel Opinion: Tim Burton Phones it in...

FACT: Tim Burton is in talks to develop a film adaptation of the Ransom Riggs novel “Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children” for 20th Century Fox. The book follows a 16 year old whose childhood was filled with stories from the orphanage, told to him by his grandfather.

OPINION: If this project does come into Burton’s hands, it will be the 4th film in a row for him that was an adaptation/remake, and the 7th in his last nine times out. Where oh where has the inspired mind that created BEETLEJUICE and EDWARD
SCISSCORHANDS gone to?



Gone seem to be the days when the once-original genius of Burton gave us sights and stories that we had never seen before. Year after year it has been remake after remake after adaptation; all with the same predictable style over and over again that he tries to pass off on us as original. This is a classic case of a successful director getting too comfortable with himself and becoming reluctant to get his ass off the couch of originality.

Burton may want to consider his past as proof of his now lazy ass. In the past when he would become predictable, he would step outside of his own style and the results would be spectacular; ED WOOD and BIG FISH for example. Where is that guy now?

Now, his endless string of adaptations have been moderately successful, and they are entertaining and make enough moolah at the box office to keep the corporate studio stooges happy; but in an age where movie audiences are dying and screaming for something original, Tim Burton used to be the man people looked to for relief. Not anymore.



What say you?