If 1979′s “Alien” was the original hypothesis that the best science-fiction thrillers are psychological, then John Carpenter’s “The Thing” is the study that proves it true. A remake of John W. Campbell Jr.’s 1951 classic “The Thing from Another World,” Carpenter’s re- imagining is another brilliant execution of quiet suspense that gets quickly into your head and hooks into your brain. Read the rest of this entry »
High school is vicious, everyone knows that. And although stereotypes have run high school movies ragged, there’s still a ring of truth to them even when they’re blown out of proportion. In this regard, “Heathers” stands apart. This ’80s cult favorite black comedy is the counter-culture version of the high school flick, the very definition of teen angst in the form of a laughable revenge fantasy. Read the rest of this entry »
When Michael Jackson died over the summer, my life wasn’t exactly turned upside-down; I didn’t really learn to love his music until high school. So maybe I’m not the right person to say this, but This Is It, the film that is basically a release of behind-the-scenes footage of Jackson’s preparations for what would have been a farewell tour, feels a lot like exploitation. Read the rest of this entry »
Listen, I know the ’80s are the laughing stock of pop culture, but today’s pop culture owes itself to triumphs and failures of that decade, not to mention many people hold ’80s movies and TV shows close to their hearts. With all that said, is there any reason to update and remake an ’80s classic?
I posted my review earlier today in light of this most annoying news. Short Circuit was actually one of the good bad ‘80s films. It was a culmination of Hollywood’s computers/future/alien fixation and it pokes fun at it. That’s half the film’s charm right there and by remaking it, you’re automatically downgrading.
And Dimension Films better not blame WALL*E for the reason this remake would have potential. I’m sorry, but you’re not Pixar. Plus, the comparisons that Johnny 5 will draw to WALL*E aren’t going to help this reboot. Johnny Five might have come first, but people are smart enough; they might not know who Johnny 5 is, but they’ll think this movie is just trying to exploit WALL*E’s popularity.
Oh, and another thing: if the way the U.S. Cellular dancing robot commercials have been received is any indication of how America feels about another scooter robot movie, then they should stop now.
I’m a very firm believer in not remaking a movie unless the original was somewhere between moderate and awful or the movie would resonate with us in a refreshing new way thanks to a modern context.
So you might be surprised to hear that I’m encouraged by George Miller’s announcement of a Mad Max 4. Honestly, I didn’t like the first two films Mad Max and The Road Warrior so I didn’t bother with Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. You’d think I wouldn’t care for a number four, but quite the contrary: I think the concept was great, I just didn’t like the execution. Read about that here.
I’m a huge fan of post-apocalyptic science-fiction and I feel like I know what makes for a good one. Conceptually, the Mad Max films are great: recycled materials, barbaric humans hording gasoline and a revenge-filled ex-cop taking justice into his own hands, but I was unimpressed with Miller’s execution. It’s likely he would still direct, but some modern special effects would do this film some good. It needs a more vivid imagination and 20 years of new minds working in the business might be all it takes.
Then again, many people loved these films and would disagree with me entirely on giving them a 21st Century look. I certainly can’t blame those who covet this franchise for feeling that way either. We need more novelty in the movies these days, stuff like District 9. Retreading movies barely 20 years old is stale thinking.
So, Hollywood, leave our ‘80s movies alone. Stop the Short Circuit, Mad Max and Conan the Barbarian remake/sequels/reboots and whatever else you have up your sleeve.
If you read the plot summary for “Mad Max,” you’ve just ruined the first 1 hour and 10 minutes of the film. You’ve also found out that “Mad Max” takes place in post-apocalyptic Australia, which will be helpful because otherwise you won’t have any idea what’s going on. The film, made in 1979, tries really hard to be Stanley Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange” (1971) only that film, in all its strangeness, actually makes sense and leaves an impact. This film does neither and ends up being a car/bike stunt-filled romp that crashes like every vehicle in the film does.
The first thing wrong with “Mad Max” is that it tries to sell itself as a revenge tale when no vigilante appears to take revenge until the final 20 minutes. If the first hour were condensed to 20-30 minutes and then the final 20 added on and then another hour added after that, “Mad Max would be a cool action film with a great vigilante protagonist. Instead, Mel Gibson has to wait around and act like a sissy for 2/3 of the film and then have a sudden epiphany to seek revenge. I’ve yet to watch the sequel “Road Warrior” and I have to admit I’m excited for it only because I want to know what he does next. This first film was mostly a waste of time.
George Miller does some great action stuff here, but his over-the-top symbolism is absurd and the unbearable cheesy reaction sequences every time a character discovers something horrifying like a burnt hand or what have you completely ruins those moments. Its a terribly cliché B-movie technique.
There is absolutely no thematic value or subtle critique of society in this film no matter what you might think. A great action sci-fi movie at least makes a point, but the gratuitous violence done by random, weird bikers doesn’t say anything of value. Even the villain Toecutter feels modeled off Alex of “Clockwork” only uglier and completely unimposing. The PG violence just does not allow the violence of this gang to settle in and get a reaction from the viewer, it just cheeses it up if anything.
I’ll give credit for the amount of stuff the film crew blew up and crashed into things and Miller does a great job making you feel the intensity of the collisions. Everything else is mediocre at best and then after an hour of mediocrity, you get something good and the film ends 20 minutes later. I’m just crossing my fingers “Road Warrior” will fulfill the expectations of where this film ends, otherwise that’s more time wasted.
1.5/5 stars
Written by: George Miller, Byron Kennedy, James McCausland
Starring: Mel Gibson
“Short Circuit” is one of those rare ’80s comedies that knows what it is. It delights in its tackiness, awkward jokes and poking fun at both the “tech movement” and Cold War dramas. It never gives off the sense that it’s trying to be something it’s not, staying fresh, funny and even laughing at itself.
Maybe the best way to put the filmmaker’s attitudes into perspective while making “Short Circuit” would be to mention that director John Badham not only made a much more serious Cold War adventure film in “War Games” a few years before, but the robot (No. 5 as he’s called) at one point imitates John Travolta’s dance moves in “Saturday Night Fever,” another Badham film. Badham even takes to making fun of his other work using “Short Circuit.”
Although Badham gets the credit for making No. 5 such a lovable character (with some help from fine voice acting in Tim Blaney), the writing team of Wilson and Maddock deserve a lot of credit for the film’s clever and amusing take on artificial life as well as the numerous jabs at Cold War America.
“Short Circuit” is about a top secret set of military robots designed by Newton (Steve Guttenberg of “Police Academy”) for the military supplier he works for called NOVA. When a lightning strike fries one of the robots, he ignores his programming and escapes the facility where he meets an animal-lover named Stephanie (Ally Sheedy of Badham’s “War Games”) who takes him in believing he’s an alien. When NOVA searches for No. 5, the robot soon develops the concept that if NOVA catches him, they will “disassemble” or “kill” him. The rest of the film No. 5 is on the run with the help of Stephanie and eventually Newton.
No. 5 is a crafty robot thanks to some brilliant writing. After soaking in hours of television, he drops clever catch phrases from westerns and other films including commercial jingles as he evades his captors and even other robots in what is a hysterical sequence. Wilson, Maddock and Badham realize what a truly unique character they have to play with and they utilize him to the fullest.
Admirably, everyone on this movie knows that the plot is immaterial and it’s all about watching to see what goofy stuff No. 5 will do next. Both Sheedy and Guttenberg just play to the robot, seeming to laugh whenever they have to interact with him. They understand it’s not about them at all and they just enjoy themselves while doing adequate acting. The only other role with any personality is Fisher Stevens as Ben, the unacknowledged Indian stereotype that loves women and butchering English phrases for comedic value. Funny, but it probably wouldn’t fly in the 21st Century.
It’s also worth knowing that this is not as much a family film. Kids will find No. 5 funny, but there’s a lot of questionable language including some sexual references. With the number of funny one-liners, “Short Circuit” is ripe for kids to repeat. Still, the comedy in this film is so much better than so many other ’80s movies because it recognizes that it’s goofy, which also makes the satire work better. Not Badham or anyone else tried too hard to make a quality movie and the result was that they got one.
I’m sad to announce that the streak has ended at 6. On Friday, I chose Saw VI to take the box office crown as the “Saw” films have so often done in the past, but it was horror competitor Paranormal Activity that climbed all the way to No. 1 this week.
I’m now batting .850 or so at the box office this fall, but it was only a matter of time. I mean, I’m not invulnerable. In fact, I even had a feeling when I wrote Friday: “I think I could be horribly wrong here…” that I could have completely blown this week’s predictions. When it comes down to it, I grossly overestimated one movie and doubted the buzz of another.
The biggest surprise is really that Saw VI drastically underperformed. I was calling for $27 million and it barely made half that at $14 million, good enough for second ahead of Where the Wild Things Are, but barely. The wide release of “Activity” was the big factor, something I knew but was unsure how to estimate. Normally you don’t have to take into account a film’s release getting bigger and its buzz growing.
Perhaps “Saw” fans are finally giving up on their once beloved torture films and in combination with Halloween nearing and “Activity” getting more and more popular, it wasn’t meant to be this year. I’m sure when all is said and done, there will be money made on this film, but the next films are going to need to find a way of stepping their game up.
In terms of what I got right, I predicted Cirque du Freak would be a mega-bust and indeed it was. I at least have my early fall movie predictions intact. Nothing I’ve said would be bad has turned out good (quality speaking) or vice-versa.
Overall, this was a week mostly for old releases. The overall Top 12 take was one of the highest of the fall, but it fell 17 percent from last week. The new releases did poorer, but the solid films at the bottom of the Top 10 performed better than most other films in those low positions earlier this season.
I suppose we have that to be glad about – Saw VI is not in 3D unlike the other horror films trying desperately to be entertaining. I’m sure now that I said that next year’s movie will be in 3D, especially if Saw’s typically pre-written $30 million check is any bit smaller this year.
But don’t expect it to be. I predicted in my “Saw” apathy rant yesterday that Saw VI would take a pay cut, but we’re talking just a few million – maybe it ends up with $27 M instead of $30 M.
Unusual this year, however, is that little film called Paranormal Activity, which is doubling its release and then some to 1945 theaters. Could Saw’s yearly horror film spotlight get dulled down? It should certainly play into it, but we saw The Stepfather do surprisingly well last week with “Activity” in the picture. 2000 theaters is a different story, however, and so is a “Saw” movie.
The only film that will compete strictly for first place with Saw VI is Astro Boy. The first animated kids film since Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, it will definitely hold its own, just don’t expect it to do what “Meatballs” did. For the awkward tween audience, there’s Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant opening this weekend and for people who enjoy premature Best Actress Oscar fare there’s Amelia starring Hillary Swank opening in 800 theaters.
Saw VI – Astro Boy – Cirque du Freak – Amelia
My Endorsement: I’m not really high on any of these new films. I can’t say Amelia because I’m just not ready for an Oscar biopic yet (and maybe I just watched The Aviator) plus the reviews have sucked something awful. With that being the case – I hesitate to do this – but I have to endorse A Serious Man, which is being expanded to 176 theaters this weekend. It’s tough to recommend a Coen brothers film to a generic moviegoer, but read my review and really decide if you’re in the mood for something incredibly challenging.
Red Flag: I included Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant on my Fall red flag list just because I’m a.) tired of vampire’s, b.) tired of young adult “embracing their strange powers/destiny movies and c.) the title has a colon in it. I understand it comes from a popular book series and thus a colon, but that doesn’t mean I should sympathize with it. I just don’t see a whole lot of potential and apparently neither have the critics whose reviews I’ve read.
Box Office Prediction: If Astro Boy had been getting some early and overly positive reviews, I would feel more conflicted, but it hasn’t show me it’s got enough to handle Saw VI. I feel like we have a pretty safe bet for extending the streak to seven.
Beyond that, this week I think is pretty difficult. It’s hard to predict what Paranormal Activity will do expanding as much as it is and going up against “Saw.” I have it neck and neck with “Astro.” I think with all those factors in that the safe pick is “Astro” at No. 2 followed by “Activity. I think I could be horribly wrong here, but considering word for Where the Wild Things Are is “don’t take your kids,” that means “Astro” is only competing with six-week-old “Meatballs.” Eew.
For No. 4 and No. 5, I’m slating both “Wild Things” and Law Abiding Citizen in their second weeks to hold off a flopper in “Cirque du Freak.” While I regretted that last weekend (not picking The Stepfather), I think the audience is different, plus we’re coming off the richest box office weekend of the fall season where multiple films were competing as opposed to just Couples Retreat.
Groan.
Then again, it’s not that I’m really all that miffed this time around. When Saw IV and Saw V came around, that’s when I was miffed. Now that we’re all the way up to Saw VI, I just feel apathy.
After all, if a movie franchise is strong enough to join the ranks of the Police Academy series and The Land Before Time anthology, it deserves a lethargic tip of the cap at the very least. Then there’s the business end of things. When you can spend somewhere between $1 and $10 million on a film and make at least twice the high end of that in your opening weekend guaranteed, that commands cinematic respect, even if you disagree with the product.
I watched the first “Saw” back in ’05 at the recommendation of a friend in my dorm on a night where we knew of no parties to mooch off of. Then I watched one scene from the second when it came out on DVD and I happened to be in the room. I thought it was creative horror, the kind that really gets under your skin, but I imagine the novelty of that feeling has to wear off eventually if not just seem stupid.
But as much as many of us might frown upon the gratuitous amount of torture horror in theaters these days, very few filmmakers ever have the opportunity to release a film annually with the assurance of making a profit. And they don’t even have to add colons with subtitles to entice their audience – just up the Roman numerals ever year – and the money rolls in.
Last year, Saw V racked in $30 million for Lions Gate in its opening weekend, which would have made it No. 1 for the fourth year in a row had it not been for High School Musical 3. Still, even with the competition, it did just as well as its predecessors, all of which fell in the $30 million range in their first weekend. The competition is nothing near HSM levels this year, so the stage is set for Saw to see No. 1 again.
Look at total domestic gross, however, and the Saw films have dropped from $87 million (Saw II) to $56 million (Saw V). The user ratings have steadily dropped from a 7.7 (Saw) on the imdb scale to a 5.8 (Saw V). Is this the year where fans of the movies decide they’re not getting enough quality in return for their dollar? My guess if the film will take a 10 percent first weekend cut due to this and the economy, but old habits die hard. Why else would I still be watching Smallville now in its ninth Season? What you’re seeing here is hooked fans going right away and then because of the tedium and decline in quality, a consistent drop in the number of borderline fans going a week or two later.
Then again, that’s still $46 million in profit for Saw V, and that’s just domestically. Overseas, Saw films are loved even more, so double that figure. There’s really no end in sight (and apparently the current story line is supposed to take us through at least Saw VIII.)
Groan.
I don’t know. There’s a fine line when you’re huge movie fan between respect and loathing for successful movies in a genre you dislike. That’s why at this point I just don’t really care. We’re going to get more “Saw” whether we like it or not. We could get upset about that one weekend a year being monopolized, but HSM 3 proved Saw films don’t suck away dollars from competition: They target their fans and that’s it. They’ll get them, get their money and put the next into production right after. Things are only harder for the other horror films that want to come out around Halloween. Why else would Rob Zombie’s Halloween 2 come out in August? This might seem weird, but fans of other horror movies should be more miffed about Saw VI than I am.
Perhaps a day will come when Saw movies go straight to DVD and we don’t have to have this discussion about them each time. Perhaps it will go on anyway to break the record for the most theatrical releases in a series (though it’s got nearly a couple decades to beat out James Bond). If it does, the way I see it is that some of us will care – and some of us won’t.
The Coen brothers have developed critical acclaim for making black comedies/awkward tragedies that depict small-time people getting in way over their heads, who for one reason or another are motivated to do things out of the ordinary because the natural order of the world and society has wronged them in some way.
“A Serious Man,” however, is about a man who doesn’t do anything, to whom bad/annoying things happen. This story of a confused suburban Jewish man in the ’60s wrestling with life’s meaning is therefore an important step in the evolution of the Coens’ theme-driven film-making. Borrowing on an autobiographical context (Minnesota, Judaism, etc.) for the brothers, it moves on to greater cosmic questions but with the same quirky and ironic spirit that have garnered the Coens all their deserved attention over the last 20 years.
Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) is that one Coen brothers character in every movie — you know, the innocent one who manages to suffer a seemingly unfair fate (think Steve Buscemi in “The Big Lebowski” or most recently Richard Jenkins’ character in “Burn After Reading”) — only he gets to pilot this film. In that spirit, an unknown Stuhlbarg is cast in the lead (although he was clearly up for the challenge). Larry is a mild-mannered math professor with a family in an ideal suburban home only his wife wants a divorce and his kids are nightmarish. Little by little the annoyances of his life pile up from the foreign student trying to bribe him for a passing grade while simultaneously suing him for defamation to his socially immature brother (Richard Kind) who won’t leave his house.
Larry seeks answers from the rabbis in his community to understand the mess his life has suddenly become. One rabbi tells him he needs a change of perspective, another tells him the story of “The Goy’s Teeth,” a hilarious bit about a dentist who tries desperately to make meaning of a Hebrew message engraved in a patient’s teeth only to find he was better off not worrying about it. None of their advice seems to help at the time — but it’s dead on. The Goy’s Teeth scene in particular is one of the brilliant moments where the Coen brothers let you know pretty clearly what their intentions are with the film while giving you something to laugh about. That’s their strength and it’s all over “Serious Man.”
Much like “Burn After Reading,” this film is one that makes a thematic point out of the audience’s attempt to squeeze meaning out of everything. By turning Larry into a Job-like figure to whom inexplicable misfortune happens, we’re forced to put everything into perspective. When Kind’s character, Arthur, has a tantrum in the middle of the night wondering why God has given him nothing and he points out that Larry has kids and a job, suddenly our perspective changes. Suddenly everything we thought mattered in this film and was of critical importance is really not such a big deal. Our desperate search for answers in both our lives and in this film, our tendency to over-analyze and derive reason from everything comes to a halt; the Coen bros. have worked their magic again.
“Serious Man” is one of their best in recent memory because it not only feels rooted and personal for them, but it moves toward a greater discussion of previously treaded upon themes and plots from their previous work. It is a challenging film and those who have struggled with the Coen brothers before will struggle again, but for the cerebral and intellectual moviegoer it’s outstanding.
The truth is, we don’t have all the answers to make sense of life’s events (or a story’s plot points) and neither do the Coen brothers. One insignificant character in the film who appears to have an answer to just one of Larry’s myriad of minor problems dies instantly with hysterical irony. Don’t go into “A Serious Man” looking for answers, go into it looking for a change of perspective.
Martin Scorsese’s second collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio is “The Aviator,” a nearly three-hour biopic examining about a thirty-year window in the life of airline and movie mogul Howard Hughes, whose successes in aviation and Hollywood romances made him shine in the public eye despite the bankrupting methods and slowly growing obsessive compulsions that tore at his private life.
Despite the length, Scorsese uses his brilliant talents to show how compulsion began to eat away at Hughes. To be honest, Hughes’ story is nothing unbelievable or inspirational. When one decides to do a biopic, it’s normally because the figure is compelling in a way audiences have never seen — but that’s not Hughes. His story is not so much what he did but the manner in which he did it, so Scorsese deserves a lot of the credit for keeping “Aviator” a compelling biography.
Scorsese brings what could constitute as horror movie technique to illustrate Hughes’ OCD. For one thing, OCD is not a vocal part of this film. It’s never mentioned aloud except when a few characters describe Hughes as “eccentric.” Scorsese is solely responsible for our understanding of Hughes’ condition. The way hands are shown moving slowly and elegantly in the film, the way Scorsese holds on a close-up of red meat — we get what’s going on in Hughes’ head.
The blast of light from old-time flashbulbs and the crunching of glass, the way different characters’ start to speak over each other — we easily identify with Hughes’ discomfort. Some help from Robert Richardson’s stunning color palettes and unusual but striking lighting effects certainly helped.
On the other side of the coin, the “continue to spend money to be ahead of the curve” slogan motivating Hughes’ inventing beginning with making “Hell’s Angels” the most expensive movie ever made (at the time) highlights the difference between him and ourselves. Nobody logically would have dared to do the things Hughes did, but he had the money and the drive to do it, constantly forcing his business manager (John C. Reilly, in the movie’s first scene) to take care of the technicalities and to make it work regardless of what it took. The fact that Hughes kept going despite OCD and making debilitating choices is what makes him a great biographical figure.
Parts of “Aviator,” while a big part of his life, don’t seem to add to this core vision Scorsese and writer John Logan (“Gladiator,” “The Last Samurai”) paints of who Hughes was. His playboy persona adds another mysterious dimension to his character, but as great as Cate Blanchett (Katherine Hepburn) and Kate Beckinsale (Ava Gardner) are in this film, their subplots don’t fit as well considering how much else is going on. In summary, Hughes needed them as maternal figures in a way, but couldn’t offer them anything substantial as far as love and affection. As interesting as that is to note, notice that it doesn’t exactly influence Hughes’ ceaseless drive to make the best planes in the world.
As Alan Alda’s character Sen. Brewster enters the picture and attacks the image of Hughes that we grew accustomed to in the first chunk of the film, calling him a criminal for using military tax dollars and never having anything to show for it, we start to see Hughes’ legacy. One could call Hughes a number of things, but not a liar or a crook. His flaws were in his ambition, not his core self. In 170 minutes he never once smokes a cigarette or drinks liquor — you won’t find that from a protagonist in a 1920-1947 period biopic in any other film. Coincidentally, the ambition of this film to fire off that message for its entire duration is its only real fault.
It probably comes as no surprise to you that Where the Wild Things Are took the weekend box office, but it might be a bit more surprising to learn that it’s not because of families.
Personally, I had no doubts about the older demographics feeding solidly into the weekend gross, but did I expect them to be the driving force behind it? Not exactly. Families with children made up just 27 percent of “Wild Things”’ weekend take.
As last Friday neared, I suppose I was hearing a lot of buzz from parents about concern for taking children. During early screenings of “Wild Things,” children apparently cried (out of fear, not because they were touched emotionally, would be my guess) and although the next edit supposedly eliminated that problem, you know how parents are.
That’s why I geared my review toward the demographic of parent wondering if this is actually a kids’ movie. My response was that I felt it would be a great film for people who have already done the childhood thing and one that could be appreciated and understood to some degree by a child age nine or older.
Then again, if a parent knows their kid, they know if he/she can sit through a serious movie and also if people dressed up in giant weird animal suits scares the bejeezes out him/her. I worry a lot of smart children who’d find something to like about the movie didn’t get to go because his/her parents suck.
Then you have the parents like the mom I saw at the movie theater Friday, who took her three-year-old child for a potty break because he couldn’t hold it for the duration of The Stepfather. I suppose I should’ve taken into account the family demographic when I guessed “Stepfather” wouldn’t hit the Top 5. How silly of me.
“Stepfather” will have to enjoy it while it lasts, however, when Saw VI enters the picture next weekend and Paranormal Activity gets an even wider release, most likely. “Activity” opened in an extra 600 theaters this weekend and saw profits go up by 148 percent. It wasn’t enough, however, to beat out Law Abiding Citizen.
“Citizen” pulled an impressive amount for my biggest surprise, considering no other film this season has made that much in the No. 2 spot. It was enough to really hurt Couples Retreat, which after being king last weekend fell nearly 50 percent , good enough to finish where I thought “Citizen” would.
For biggest flop, I have to say I was disappointed that Zombieland fell from second to seventh. The novelty of “Citizen” and “Stepfather” proved too much for that demographic it appears, even though Zombieland has gotten the better reviews.
In other news, Coen brothers’ film A Serious Man was one of the few other films to climb upward this weekend. Check back Wednesday and I’ll have a review of that one for you.
Spike Jonze’s imagining of “Where the Wild Things Are” is nothing like you’d expect from a film adapted from a beloved children’s book. It’s dense with top-notch visuals from the cinematography to the incredible fusion of costumes, puppetry and CGI used to bring the Wild Things to life, but its plot is very frank in its approach to anger, sadness and loneliness.
It should be noted that this is not so much a children’s film as it is a film that children are capable of enjoying. I refuse to insist that this is not for children, but it would be untruthful to say that this is a film *intended* for them. “Wild Things” is likely going to be appreciated most by those who already have experienced what the main character Max is going through emotionally with regards to his family and his peers (the wild things). To put a number on it, I think that — depending on the child — kids ages nine or older will not only be able to enjoy it, but take something away from it. As for adults, it should be a touching and somewhat nostalgic filmgoing experience.
Jonze pretty much perfectly captures the essence of childhood within the first 20 minutes of this film. Whether it’s the way Max (Max Records, who is excellent) looks up at his mom (Catherine Keener) from underneath her desk or his imagination taking over as he sails a toy boat over the curves of his covers, Jonze creates moments that reconnect us to childhood in simply poetic fashion. Immediately we’re ready for Max’s adventure to begin because he helps us so easily recall that childlike state of mind.
After a bad dispute that ends with Max biting his mom, he runs away and discovers the island where the wild things are. If you’ve seen the trailer, nothing more needs to be said about Jonze’s incredible choice to go with puppets and blend in CGI elements to give it a breath of realism. As for the characters themselves, Jonze and longtime co-writer Dave Eggers take an interesting approach.
The wild things are voiced by adult actors and give them a sense humor appealing to adults, but give them the social functionality of eight-year-olds. It ends up creating this schism between what we expect will happen (they’re going to behave either like children or adults, it can’t be both) and what does (they carry themselves like adults, but they interact like children). The results of this concept fall somewhere between hysterically genius and bizarre/random. On one hand their child-like behavior makes for some elegant teaching points for Max and on the other you have one wild thing knocking two gulls out of the sky and then telling Max their names are Bob and Terry. It’s simultaneously goofy/immature and completely fantastic.
One of the challenges of the film had to be expanding the story to adapt instead of condensing like most adaptations require. Jonze and Eggers use this as a chance to establish the real world issues Max is dealing with (how to handle his need for parental attention and his anger) and manifest them in this imaginary way in the world of the wild things. The scenes with the wild things are very physical, which will help to keep children’s attention. They have a dirt clod fight and go running through the forest before falling into a pile (we all know what that was like as children).
Some parents who are very sensitive to what their kids see might have trouble being okay with some of the anger and other extreme emotions. If there’s one good way to put it, it’s that the emotional transitions can be abrupt. One minute is playful and fun, the next can instantly become lonely or sad and then immediately one of anger mild violence follows. Some might wonder why this wasn’t catered more directly to kids, but if you stop and think, don’t instant emotional mood swings sounds like a pretty spot-on portrayal of childhood?
Jonze telling of “Wild Things” is a mature albeit truthful one. This is not pure syrupy children’s entertainment. A child should come out of this movie knowing disputes between family members happen, but that it doesn’t change how much we love each other — that it’s okay to get angry sometimes, but we should try and understand everyone’s feelings so that next time nobody will do anything they regret. That’s daring storytelling considering the expectation was for something lighter. Absolute kudos to Jonze and Warner Brothers for letting this unique film happen. You don’t see movies about childhood as beautiful as this one more than once a blue moon, which is plenty cause for a wild rumpus.
With weather across the country having turned for the worst, many parents will take fondly to the idea of cozying up in theaters with a movie version of a book old enough to have been enjoyed by both their kids and themselves as kids. Spike Jonze looks to have done a beautiful job with this film.
As for the rest of this weekend’s docket, Overture Films will be the next to test the box office pull of Gerard Butler in Law Abiding Citizen, which is in desperate need of a hyphen. Jamie Foxx co-stars, which adds some credibility to the film, as does the direction of F. Gary Gray. Butler plays a sociopath who orchestrates murders from his prison cell. Foxx is the prosecutor who tries to stop him.
The latest horror film of the month is The Stepfather a remake starring Nip/Tuck’s Dylan Walsh about a boy who comes home to find mommy’s new boyfriend is not so awesome. That will have to compete with the wide release of low-budget horror thriller Paranormal Activity, the box office wunderfilm that made a killing last weekend in only 160 theaters.
In limited release starting today is the vignette film New York, I Love You and also Black Dynamite, basically your African-American James Bond only in a ‘70s period comedy and is filmed with a historically accurate lens.
Where the Wild Things Are – Law Abiding Citizen – The Stepfather – Paranormal Activity
My Endorsement: You should’ve caught on by now that my blog the last few days has basically become a lobby for “Wild Things.” I picked it as my No. 1 movie to look forward to this fall and I’m sticking to it. If you’re thinking of seeing anything this weekend, look no further. “Wild Things” is sure to awaken the Wild Thing in all of us for at least a short period of time. Bring a friend, bring a child – if you’re a child reading this somehow … bring a parent. Even if Mommy and Daddy refuse, your hard earned piggy bank money will be so worth it.
Red Flag: With Paranormal Activity poised to finish huge this weekend in wide release, it makes absolutely no sense for you to waste your time with The Stepfather. I don’t normally go see scary movies anyway, but if I were this weekend, I sure as hell would be going to see the massively hyped movie everyone’s talking about, not another creepy suburban family horror film that seems like the premise for “Lakeview Terrace 2.”
Box Office Prediction: Last weekend I continued to predict the winner and I’m feeling confident again this time as I try and go 6-for-6 this fall. Obviously my choice is Where the Wild Things Are. Although I expect Paranormal Activity to fight hard for B.O. glory, the demographic for “Wild Things” is so much stronger and it’s going to get a maximum release, whereas “Activity” will see at least 1,000 fewer theaters.
The rest of the Top 5 will be a bit tougher. The battle at No. 2 will be between “Activity” and the returning champ Couples Retreat. I’m giving the edge to “Activity” because word of mouth for these films is going in the opposite direction with “Retreat” looking down. The former should have no problem finding the 3-spot, however.
At No. 4, I’m going to place my trust in Law Abiding Citizen, despite not knowing what to expect from that film. Butler and Foxx should draw some interest and it doesn’t look too bad, so I think there’s a demographic that will say ““Wild Things” looks to cheesy, I’m going for the masculine thriller.” As many positive things have been said about Zombieland, I don’t think it can hold off a fresh set of legs in its third week, though I expect it to be close. It should be the No. 5 film, which means the end of the reign of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs in the Top 5.
In summary:
