Film School Rejects » Nathan Deen

Books That Deserve Their Own Movie: Carl Hiaasen’s Sick Puppy

Nathan Deen — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:30:48 +0000

Have you ever had this thought while reading a book:

“Wow, this would make a really good movie. I know exactly who would direct it and who would star in it.”

I found those words playing in my head over and over again as I read Carl Hiaasen’s Sick Puppy. I read the book over the summer for a state and local government class. Yeah, my professor had a sense of humor. Go figure.

(For those who don’t know, Hiaasen writes for the Miami Herald and is one of the elite satirical columnists and novelists in the country. Oh, and he graduated from the University of Florida, which means that I am a part of the same fine institution of journalism that he once was.)

Sick Puppy is a pretty damned funny book, which is somewhat of a rarity. Many novelists go for the murder mystery field. To find an author who uses laughter as his page-turner tool and can hook you into a 500-page novel is a treat.

Sick Puppy won’t exactly draw more inhabitants to the Sunshine State. It captures beautifully why Florida is one the worst states you can live in today. Vacation, is the key word ladies and gentlemen. We can’t offer anything but the state’s beautiful, natural scenery, which we seem to be destroying a little bit of each day. But don’t write us out yet. We can still save the Everglades!

Oh, but the bad driving. That’s something else the book gets right. That’s a whole different issue; a disease that can’t be cured. It’s the AIDS of Florida. The further south you drive in Florida, the more beautiful the scenery gets, but the worse the drivers get also. Seriously, these people drive like they are in a car chase scene from a Michael Bay film. That’s scary to think about, isn’t it? But that might not be saying enough. They should just be sent straight to the frontline in Afghanistan and given a rifle because it’s clear that, like the terrorists we fight every day, they don’t care whether they live or die. Or better yet, they should be given an Escalade.

So, I’m going to briefly outline the plot of Sick Puppy, and by the end you should have a good idea of who the directors of this movie should be. If not, then it’s obvious you haven’t been to the movies lately and you thought the ‘s’ at the end of ‘directors’ was a typo.

Twilly Spree is an economic activist who gets so pissed off when someone litters on the highway, he decides to teach that person a lesson by tailgating his/her car bumper to bumper for tens or even hundreds of miles. Palmer Stoat (don’t you love these names?) is a lobbyist trying to get a bridge in the works to connect to an island so real estate can be built on it.

Of course, Twilly can’t stand to see a beautiful island disappear in the midst of golf courses and retirement homes. So what does he do? He kidnaps Palmer’s beloved black lab, of course. Then he runs away with Palmer’s wife. Palmer refuses to take part in the bridge project until his wife and dog are returned to him. Meanwhile, one of the head people who want the bridge to be a done deal hires a hitman to track down and kill Twilly.

So there you go Joel and Ethan Coen. This is your next film adaptation. Sick Puppy is bursting with all kinds of dark, Coenesque humor.

How about the players? A young, eco-terrorist whose zany scheme is just crazy enough to work. I’m thinking Jim Carrey, although he might be a little too old, but they can always change the age of the character (please God, as long as it’s not Dane Cook). Ditto for Robin Williams as Palmer Stoat, although Greg Kinnear would foot-the-bill also.

How about the killer? Get a load of this bad boy: a relatively young assassin with spiked hair who gets off by listening to murder victims from recorded 9-1-1 calls. Sounds like a signature Coen villain to me. You know how those Coens like their villains to be quirky. And I smell a breakout role for Justin Timberlake.

If you’ve read Sick Puppy, who do you think should star and direct? If you haven’t, what other books would you like to see be made into a movie?

Ford, Other Brands Find Their ‘Quantum of Solace’

Nathan Deen — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:01:44 +0000

A new Bond adventure is approaching, which means companies have been vying to get their products placed somewhere in the picture. This new film, Quantum of Solace, starring Daniel Craig and directed by Marc Forster, isn’t in short supply of product placement. The list includes Ford Motor Co., Heineken beer, Smirnoff vodka, Omega watches, Virgin Atlantic, and Sony electronics. Sony is also helping to distribute the movie along with MGM. Sony declined to say how much money they are contributing, but the fact that Casino Royale earned $100 million from product placement lets us assume that all of these companies have given tens of millions as promotional partners. The one that stands out to me is Ford Motor Co.’s new European car, the Ka. Take a look at it below:

Is this the ideal car you want to place in a Bond movie? Where’s the latest sports car that goes from 0-60 in 5 seconds? Is Ford making Bond go green? Well, perhaps it’s a wise decision in this day and age with soaring gas prices. It may not be as fast as that Aston Martin, but it makes up for it the long run with a fuel efficient 45 mpg. The Ka will have the pretty face of smokin’ hot Bond girl Olga Kurylenko to go along with it. Kurylenko is also said to be pushing for Heineken.

The new edition of the Ka will hit the market at around the film’s Nov. 7 release date. A Quantam of Solace themed special edition that features metallic gold paint and exterior graphics will also be sold.

Sony Ericsson will be releasing a special edition of the Titanium Silver C902 Cyber-shot phone, which can also be seen in the film, around the time of Solace’s release.

What do you think about the Ka being in Quantum of Solace?

Tom Cruise, MGM Seek a Yuletide Gift with Valkyrie

Nathan Deen — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:35:13 +0000

Anybody’s guess is just as good as another as to what to expect for Valkyrie, the upcoming WWII thriller about an assassination attempt on Hitler. First, the original plan was to have the film released during the middle of this summer. Then the release was pushed back to October and it seemed as if the producers were confident about its chances come February when the Academy Awards roll around. Then something shockingly unexpected happened. The film was scaled back again, all the way to February itself. February! A cinematic quagmire where critics and audiences alike suffer through garbage like Over Her Dead Body and The Hottie and the Nottie. If I may borrow a line from the Joker: “What happened? Did your balls drop off?”

The film’s journey to theaters has been nothing short of a roller-coaster ride and it seems now that, finally, equilibrium has been restored. After some positive test screenings, MGM has decided to give the film a December 26 release date. However, the jury is still out on whether or not the film will be a shiny new bike or a lump of coal.

Valkyrie has some big names attached to it. The film is directed by X-Men and Superman Returns fame Bryan Singer and penned by his Usual Suspects scribe Christopher McQuarrie. It stars Tom Cruise as Nazi Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who devises the plan to get rid of Hitler. It has a superb international cast consisting of Kenneth Branagh, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Carice van Houten, Thomas Kretchsmann, Eddie Izzard, Christian Berkel, and Terence Stamp.

What are your thoughts about the new release date for Valkyrie?

Watchmen Report Shows Rorschach Unmasked

Nathan Deen — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:16:08 +0000

The buzz of the upcoming Watchmen movie, which will burst into theaters on March 6, 2009, has inspired me to go out and buy a copy of what is said to be the greatest graphic novel of all time and see what the big deal is. So far, with just two chapters to go, I’ve been blown away. It is an awesome novel and I can see the concerns fans might have with the film adaptation and the challenges director Zack Snyder faces. One of the things that struck me while reading it is what Rorschach will look like in the movie without his mask. When I saw his face in the novel, I said to myself “Jackie Earle Haley is going to play this guy? Really?” He’s a perfect height for the character, but beyond that I just couldn’t fathom it.

Well, G4 has given us an idea of what to expect with the following video below. This brief featurette shows Haley on the set as a maskless Rorschach. It also has interviews with the producers and helmer Synder. Take a look for yourself. You won’t be disappointed.

All I can say is: not bad, not bad at all. I’m not yet a believer, but I do feel better about it. From the teaser trailer that I and anybody who saw The Dark Knight (which is over $400 million worth of people) have seen, Snyder seems to have really captured the spirit and feel of the novel. The only area I can see worth questioning is the casting, with the exception of Dr. Manhattan, of course, who looks pitch perfect. It’s obvious that the actors chosen to play the league of crimefighters look at least 10-15 years younger than their characters actually are. One of the themes of the book is how the character of Night Owl is looking for a normal life after hanging the costume up, feeling that he is past his prime. That kinda worries me.

Also I would like to point out the question asked by the narrator at the end of the video about will Zack Snyder become the first director to successfully adapt an Alan Moore graphc novel to the big screen? Stop me if I’m wrong but didn’t Moore create V For Vendetta as well? That was a damn good movie that made my Top 10 list in 2005 and ranks an 8.2 on IMDb.

Sound off: Do you have any concerns about the casting of Watchmen? What is you first impression of Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach?

New ‘Body of Lies’ Trailer is Better Than the Teaser

Nathan Deen — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:33:57 +0000

Warner Bros. has sent out the brand new, full-length trailer for Sir Ridley Scott’s highly anticipated follow-up to American Gangster, a CIA spy thriller titled Body of Lies. The release comes just over three weeks from the debut of the teaser, which was played in front of The Dark Knight. Not only does the movie have one of film’s most household names at the helm, but it also packs a lot of star power with juggernauts Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe (working with Scott for a third straight film) starring as the two main characters.

Body of Lies is based on the 2007 novel by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. DiCaprio plays a CIA field operative named Roger Ferris who devises a plan to infiltrate the network of a major terrorist leader, suspected to be operating out of Jordan. Crowe plays CIA veteran and head of Jordanian intelligence, Ed Hoffman, who from the trailer appears to be in contact with Ferris and his tactics.

Have a look at the trailer below:

[See post to watch Flash video]

Without question, this proves once again that the full trailer is always much better than the teaser. It looks like we could actually have a really good international spy thriller on our hands here, a subgenre that all too often gets mishandled. However, the trailer may be giving too much away and now the film has predicitability going against it. It is clear that DiCaprio’s character isn’t getting along with Crowe’s. What happens when things go bad? Does Hoffman break contact with Ferris and abandon him, or is he part of some sort of conspriacy. Does he have some skeletons in his closet? I think it’s safe to assume that Crowe is playing an antagonist and whatever surprise twist Oscar-winning writer William Monahan (The Departed) may have had in store for us probably won’t feel like a surprise. I guess we’ll just have to play along.

Body of Lies looks to kick off Oscar-season with an Oct. 10 release date. With three Oscar-winning names and one multiple nominee attached to the picture, a lot of eyes will be on this one.

Legendary Artist Isaac Hayes is Dead at 65

Nathan Deen — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:06:01 +0000

The queue of obituaries doesn’t seem to be slowing down here on FSR. On Sunday, singer/songwriter Isaac Hayes was pronounced dead at a Memphis hospital after he was found unconscious next to a running treadmill at his home.

With his bald head, scruffy beard, dark shades, and flamboyant wardrobe and jewelry, Hayes was first and foremost a musician, although he still had an influence on the film and television industries. He wrote the famous theme song for Shaft, which he won an Academy Award for in 1972. The song is best known for the line “They say this cat Shaft is a bad mother-/Shut your mouth!” And as any fan of South Park will tell you, he will always be remembered as Chef, who provided strange and often hilarious songs of encouragement to the youngsters of South Park, Colorado. Because he was a Scientologist, he decided to leave the show a while back because of it’s attacks on the religion. He also made an appearance on the popular 90’s sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Hayes was not only an Academy Award winner, but also an inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and a part of one of television’s most successful shows. Not many talents can say that they were successful in multiple fields of media: recording, film, and television.

Our condolences go out to his friends and family.

The Dark Knight is the First Truly Great Film of 2008

Nathan Deen — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:43:49 +0000

It’s been about 15 months since I walked out of the theater after seeing Spider-man 3, my hands laced in my pockets, and my head facing the ground in disappointment. It was my birthday and by the end of the night, it did not feel like a happy one. Ever since then, I have not even been able to watch Spider-man or Spider-man 2, knowing how the third film let me down, and I own both the movies. 2007 was just a shitty year for comic book movies (Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, and Spider-man 3). However, 2008 has more than made up for it. A heavy dose of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk have made me feel better, but walking out of The Dark Knight was nothing short of a breath of fresh air. My point is that other comic book movies just feel insignificant compared to this one. So finally, I think I can let go of my Spidey depression and forget about it.

Director Christopher Nolan revived the Batman franchise that was mauled to death by Joel Schumacher with a fresh take, and the result was Batman Begins. While not a perfect movie, it was clear that when Batman closed with the line “And you’ll never have to” in response to Jim Gordon’s “I never said thank you,” that bigger and better things were to come. But take my word for it, even with the hype as high as it is, nothing can prepare you for the greatness you will witness in the sequel, The Dark Knight. Put simply, this belongs on the shortlist of the best American movies in the last two years, and that includes titles like No Country For Old Men and The Departed.

Nolan is already widely beloved by mainstream audiences for his gifted storytelling techniques, but with The Dark Knight, he makes a strong case as to why he should be remembered as the definitive filmmaker of this decade. I’m not the biggest fan of him either. Until now, I don’t think he has ever made a great movie, but he certainly hasn’t made anything that wasn’t good either. How many directors can vouch for that?

Written by Nolan, along with his brother Jonathan and renowned scribe David S. Goyer (credited to the story only), The Dark Knight gets my vote as an early contender for best screenplay of the year. Exceptionally crafted and brilliantly paced, by the 90 minute mark of this 152 minute film, the viewer is sucked down a pitch black rabbit-hole and left to wonder when the light at the end of the tunnel will appear. In other words, this is a rare movie going experience in which you have no idea how things will turn out in the end because you are shocked and amazed by what you have already seen.

The movie picks up just a few months from where Begins left off. The streets are becoming cleaner by the day. New District Attorney Two-Face Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) has been deemed as Gotham’s White Knight after he single handedly puts half of the mob force behind bars. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is starting to get high hopes that the day that Gotham City no longer needs Batman is coming, and he can finally be with true love Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal subbing for Katie Holmes), but he may be too little too late as Rachel is starting to fall in love with Dent.

Down but not out, the mob turns to the Hitler inspired character of the Joker (the late Heath Ledger). Wayne’s butler, Alfred (Michael Caine), says it best: “In their desperation, they turned to a man they didn’t fully understand.” A psychotic mass murderer, and a clever one at that, the Joker devises one terrorizing plot after another in order to turn Gotham into a state of anarchy, leaving Gotham’s finest, including honest cop Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman, soon to be commissioner), not only feeling helpless and unable to protect the public but fearing for their very lives. Things get even more interesting when the Joker announces that he won’t quit until the true identity of Batman is revealed.

The tagline of one of the movie’s posters is “welcome to a world without rules” and it could not be more fitting. Nolan’s vision is no-holds-barred and all the better for it. This movie is dark and complex, and never shies away from collateral damage or the potential thereof, which rewards the audience with one of the most suspenseful climaxes in recent memory. Despite the lack of foul language, how the movie slipped by with a PG-13 is beyond me. This is a haunting picture that left me with trouble sleeping last night. Keep the little ones away.

Much like Iron Man, although far different in tone, The Dark Knight is a movie for our times. The words terror and chaos stick with you consistently throughout the film. The Joker symbolizes terrorism, and similar to the crazy fucked up world we live in today, we don’t quite understand it. The obstacles Batman, Harvey Dent, and Jim Gordon face almost seem insurmountable and will no doubt show their true colors. Viewers will be left glued to their chairs, wanting to turn away at times but finding themselves unable to do so. One of the most disturbing and indelible scenes is where Joker torches a giant pile of money. “It’s not about money,” he says. “It’s about sending a message.”

The three major characters (Batman, Joker, and Two-Face) are each given ample screen time. While many have complained (myself included) about the villains outshining the caped crusader in the Batman films of old, here it works (another pay-off from Begins). Their storylines seamlessly work their way into the script and there is never a lack of character development.

I’ll get to Heath Ledger in a moment, but I would like to start off with Aaron Eckhart, who in spite of the presence of Christian Bale and Ledger, should not go unnoticed. His performance is composed and controlled, and his inevitable fate is just a short cry from heartbreaking. Meanwhile, Bale proves once again that he IS Bruce Wayne and he IS Batman. As the dark knight, he is intimidating and impressive and it’s no wonder as to why criminals fear the streets at night. As alter ego Bruce, Bale is perfect in his scenes with Rachel Dawes. He is confronted with the desire to have a normal life and does everything he can to hold on to his true love.

Then there’s Ledger, who is miles ahead and away from Jack Nicholson’s take on the Joker. As a villain, comparisons to Javier Bardem’s Oscar winning role in 2007’s stunner No Country For Old Men instantly comes to mind. I would say he’s equally good as he completely disappears behind his makeup and gets lost within the mind of a sociopath. The fact that he is dead should have nothing to do with whether or not he should be nominated for an Oscar. Ledger deserves award consideration for his work because it’s a bravura performance any way you slice it. Just as the Coen brothers did, Nolan proves that not wasting time with villain origins pays off in the long run and it only enhances its effect on the audience. Nolan even goes a step further by having the Joker tell anecdotes to his soon-to-be victims about how he got the scars on his face, and he changes the story each time.

As for the rest of the cast, Gary Oldman is superb as his Jim Gordon shows his resiliency in the face of adversity. His impact on this film is thankfully greater than the role he played in Begins. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a step above Katie Holmes in the role of Rachel Dawes, who now seems to be more independent and a stronger presence. Finally, the always reliable Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, as succors Alfred and Lucius Fox, are as good as ever, providing advice and encouragement to Bruce Wayne in his times of distress.

Brilliantly bleak and chillingly Gothic (credit the enthralling cinematography by Wally Pfister), The Dark Knight emerges as the first truly great film of 2008, and it has been a year that has seen a frustrating lack of greatness so far. Christopher Nolan’s epic arrives not a moment too soon. The only downside is that The Dark Knight may be too good. It would be hard to ask and anticipate another sequel to be better than this one. While Nolan and Co. leave the door open with an interesting premise, no one would blame them if they decided to quit while they’re ahead.

If Brendan Fraser’s Upcoming Summer Blockbusters Suck, Don’t Blame Him For It

Nathan Deen — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:00:31 +0000

Brendan Fraser is a textbook example of a B-movie actor. The closest he has ever been in a serious role is ten minutes of screen time in 2005’s Oscar Winner, Crash. No, he’s not talented and his agent seems to have a keen eye for shit movies. And it didn’t help that among his first roles, were supporting ones in Paulie Shore vehicles (I guess you can call that a Pinto). Yes, this article has been written with the perspective that as a moviegoer, you have to look at the bright side, and see how a film, no matter what your original outlook on it is, can possibly be worthwhile. Yes, Fraser has a doozy of a list of bad movies, which includes titles like Monkey Bone, Dudley Do-Right, and George of the Jungle, with the occasional decent movie like Blast From the Past and Bedazzled. But what do all of these movies have in common? They’re comedies. Brendan Fraser and comedy shouldn’t even be put in the same sentence together.

I guess I should start getting to the point about why I’m defending the guy while I’m bashing him at the same time. He is not a total waste and can still serve a purpose. Put him in a comedy, and most likely, the film will tank. But put him in an adventure movie, and producers might just come away from the box office feeling pretty good. He’s just the kind of screen presence you need. He may be a one note character each time, but he’s got that note down to an exact science.

Through director Stephen Sommer’s throwbacks to Indiana Jones, The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, Fraser showed his existence in Hollywood could be useful. The words guilty pleasure immediately come to mind when I think about both movies. They’re both fun, and they’re fun because of Fraser and his creation of Rick O’Connell. He’s not in the same league of Harrison Ford, of course, but he’s certainly easy to watch. These are two movies I don’t mind revisiting every once in a while.

This is probably not saying much, but Fraser’s summer one-two punch of Journey to the Center of the Earth and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor could prove to be a step in the right direction for him. The former is already getting surprisingly good early reviews. And what have all of those reviewers said so far? That the movie is fun.

Fraser might have what it takes to become a summer movie star, provided he sticks to the action adventure genre. When he’s in adventure mode, he has the charm and the charisma to put a smile on your face. He nails one-liners, produces enough laughs and does some pretty impressive stunt work as well. Which is why I’m going to give Journey to the Center of the Earth and and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor a fighting chance, even though the latter doesn’t look too promising what with Rob Cohen filling the director’s chair for Stephen Sommers and Academy Award winner Rachel Weisz not being caught dead on the same continent of where the filming actually took place. I think Fraser will fit the bill, though. So if anything, I probably won’t blame him.

WALL-E is Good, But Not One of Pixar’s Best

Nathan Deen — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:00:55 +0000

After scoring big with Ratatouille, 2007’s best reviewed film and one of my personal favorites as well, Pixar ups the ante with WALL-E and tries to go for the repeat. Do they succeed? Well, ask just about anyone from the general public or the majority of the critics and they will tell you yes. But not me. Hang on, hang on. Before you nail me to the cross, it should be said that I liked the movie. Keyword: liked. While many will have the joy of discovering what they will think is one of the great animated features of all time, WALL-E just didn’t feel special to me by the time the credits rolled.

Set in a time frame of over 700 years from now, Earth has become uninhabitable and abandoned. This is because we as humans have trashed the planet to the point where life can no longer be sustained. You can put the blame on an uber-conglomerate known as Buy-N-Large, who at one time made just about every product you could think of (It’s never a good sign when one corporation controls everything). While we decide to kick back and relax for the next seven centuries and grow into fat tubs of lard in floating chairs, we leave the cleaning up of Earth to the Waste Allocation Load Lifters, Earth Class. After 700 years the only functioning robot is our new lovable hero, WALL-E, and by this time a return to Earth seems unlikely considering that most humans aren’t even aware of their home planet’s existence.

So WALL-E is left by himself with nothing to do but compact an endless pile of trash and stack it. But after 700 years, anything would get to feeling lonely. That’s the genius of Pixar; to take an animal or an inanimate object and turn it into a fully flourished character, one that we can root for and empathize with. Enter EVE, a high tech robot sent to Earth to check for signs of life to see if it’s okay to return. WALL-E is instantly head over heels in love at first sight. When the two find plant life, they head for the intergalactic freighter that humans call home with news of the discovery.

For a long time, I did think WALL-E was going to end up a great movie while watching it. But unfortunately, I thought the movie fell flat in the third act. A plot revelation, which I will try to tip-toe around but probably fail, raised a question. If humans are unaware of their origins, and Buy-N-Large, who still seems to control everything, has no interest in returning to Earth, then why was EVE sent there in the first place? Yes, the movie is entertaining, and often quite charming and funny, but I can’t get past this question. Maybe I missed something (if I did and you have a thought as to what it might be, please don’t hesitate to let me know). After I thought about this, the rest of the film just didn’t awe me, and it didn’t help that the climax felt messy and rushed. I don’t think this script is even close to as good or as smart as the one Brad Bird wrote to Ratatouille.

But I still recommend the film because WALL-E is certainly not without its moments of brilliance. The animation practically sets a new standard. The film is audacious, imaginative and idealistic, even though it doesn’t hit a home run. When WALL-E and EVE are on screen together, they instigate wonderment and it’s really quite impressive how Pixar was able to pull of such great romantic scenes by just using robots. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I would like to see these guys try a live-action picture. They could probably do better than most of what hits multiplexes week in and week out. Or maybe it’s best to learn from these guys. For much of this film, there’s not much secret as to why it works so well when it wants to. They simply go back to the basics, or in this case follow the guidelines handed down by such inspirational works as the Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin films of old (WALL-E is a reminder of how great scenes can be forged without dialogue), and a handful of sci-fi masterpieces, while throwing in some of their own stuff to liven things up along the way. WALL-E is fun a ride, although sometimes a bumpy one.

AFI Names Ten Best In Ten Genres

Nathan Deen — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:58:34 +0000

In a special show airing Tuesday night on CBS, AFI announced their picks for the ten best movies in ten different genres. They actually had a sweepstakes for this, which I entered. The objective was to guess their selection as the very best film for each genre. That’s exactly what I did, not necessarily vote for my personal picks. Well, it turns out that the AFI and I suddenly see eye to eye. With the exception of two categories, I think they got every one of these correct. Had I gone ahead and chosen my personal favorites, I may have guessed all of them correctly and maybe I would be sitting here writing this with $10,000 in Best Buy gift cards. Just a thought of what might have been. Oh well, on to the winners….

Animation
The Winner: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
My Pick: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
A no brainer here. It’s the ultimate masterpiece from Disney and a first of its kind.

The Runners-Up: Pinocchio (1940), Bambi (1942), The Lion King (1994), Fantasia (1942), Toy Story (1995), Beauty and the Beast (1991), Shrek (2001), Cinderella (1950), Finding Nemo (2003)

Note that with the exception of one movie, all of these came from Disney and/or Pixar.

Fantasy
The Winner: The Wizard of Oz (1939)
My Pick: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Okay, solid choice. I just thing LOTR is hands down the greatest achievement ever put to celluloid.

The Runners-Up: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), It’s a Wonderful Life (1946), King Kong (1933), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), Field of Dreams (1989), Harvey (1950), Groundhog Day (1993), The Thief of Bagdad (1924), Big (1988)

After No. 2 there’s not really a major contender to be found. I mean, should Field of Dreams really be included on this list? I think this is one genre that should have been scratched from this special.

Gangster
Winner: The Godfather (1972)
My Pick: The Godfather Part II (1974)
Personally, with a recent viewing of both, I think there is a significant difference in quality between the two. Both great films nonetheless. Usually, when we talk about one, we include the other anyways.

Runners-Up: Goodfellas (1990), The Godfather Part II (1974), White Heat (1949), Bonnie and Clyde (1967), Scarface: The Shame of a Nation (1932), Pulp Fiction (1994), The Public Enemy (1931), Little Caesar (1931), Scarface (1983)

I think Pulp Fiction is rated way too low here. It would be my second choice.

Science Fiction
The Winner: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
My Pick: 2001: A Space Odyssey
This may be my favorite of all genres simply because I couldn’t possibly list all of my favorites in just one list of ten. There are several films that I could argue for, and argue well, that deserve the top spot, but how can I go against the one-of-a-kind masterpiece from the greatest director that ever lived?

Runners Up: Star Wars-Episode IV: A New Hope (1977), E.T.- The Extra Terrestrial, A Clockwork Orange (1971), The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), Blade Runner (1982), Alien (1979), Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), Back to the Future (1985).

I know E.T. has the love and support of a huge fan base, but if I had to pick a Spielberg film for this list, I would go with 2002’s extraordinary sci-fi noir Minority Report. Also, I think The Matrix needs to be on here as well.

Western
Winner: The Searchers (1956)
My Pick: Once Upon a Time in the West (1967)
What, no love for Sergio Leone? Not American enough?

Runners-Up: High Noon (1952), Shane (1953), Unforgiven (1992), Red River (1948), The Wild Bunch (1969), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971), Stagecoach (1939), Cat Ballou (1965)

This is where my opinion differs greatly from the AFI and practically every other film lover in the world. I’m not a big fan of the Western genre, so I may be in no position to say this, but I think a couple of these film are totally overrated. I don’t see what’s so great about Eastwood’s Unforgiven and Peckinpath’s The Wild Bunch. If anything, these films are a bit of a mess (bring on the lashback). A film that should be on here is Kevin Costner’s 1990 Best Picture Winner, Dances With Wolves.

Sports
Winner: Raging Bull (1980)
My Pick: Raging Bull
Raging Bull is not only the greatest of sports movies, but among the greatest of all movies as well.

Runners-Up: Rocky (1977), Pride of the Yankees (1943), Hoosiers (1986), Bull Durham (1988), The Hustler (1961), Caddyshack (1980), Breaking Away (1979), National Velvet (1945), Jerry Maguire (1996)

This is not a very interesting category past Rocky.

Mystery
Winner: Vertigo
My Pick: Vertigo
Vertigo is one of my top 5 films of all time, but pretty much any Hitchcock movie will suffice here. But I will give a shoutout to The Third Man, which is also in my Top 5.

Runners-Up: Chinatown (1974), Rear Window (1954), Laura (1944), The Third Man (1949), The Maltese Falcon (1941), North by Northwest (1959), Blue Velvet (1986), Dial M For Murder (1954), The Usual Suspects (1995)

The surprises here are The Usual Suspects and Blue Velvet. Those are great films, but you can probably come up with a solid list of 30 before you even get past the 1950’s.

Romantic Comedy
Winner: City Lights
My Pick: City Lights
City Lights was easily Chaplin’s greatest film, and even coming from someone who is just 20 years old, the movie is easy to appreciate.

Runners-Up: Annie Hall (1977), It Happened One Night (1934), Roman Holiday (1953), The Philadelphia Story (1941), When Harry Met Sally… (1989), Adam’s Rib (1949), Moonstruck (1987), Harold and Maude (1971), Sleepless in Seattle (1993)

Another shout out to the original and winning Annie Hall, a close second.

Courtroom Drama
Winner: To Kill a Mockingbird
My Pick: To Kill a Mockingbird
This one is a particularly well made adaptation of what is arguably THE great American novel.

Runners-Up: 12 Angry Men (1957), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), The Verdict (1982), A Few Good Men (1992), Witness For the Prosecution (1958), Anatomy of a Murder (1959), In Cold Blood (1967) A Cry in the Dark (1988), Judgement at Nuremburg (1961)

I’m not in love with any of these movies, but I admire them.

Epic
Winner: Lawrence of Arabia
My Pick: Lawrence of Arabia
Lord of the Rings aside, this is the greatest film ever made. No director in the history of film could make epics like David Lean.

Runners-Up: Ben-Hur (1959), Schindler’s List (1993), Gone With the Wind (1939), Spartacus (1960), Titanic (1997), All Quiet on the Western Front (1931), Saving Private Ryan (1999), Reds (1981), The Ten Commandments (1956)

All Quiet on the Western Front is an epic? It doesn’t even have a 2 1/2 hour running time. No reason for Lean’s Dr. Zhivago and The Bridge on the River Kwai to not be on here. Turner Classic Movies recently did a special on epics, and it was pretty much a David Lean marathon. Enough said.

Spike Lee Wants to Make Time Travel a Reality

Nathan Deen — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:57:21 +0000

Director Spike Lee, who recently had only been in the news because of his statements against Clint Eastwood films, has decided to shut up and go back to doing what he does best: make movies. Variety reports that his follow-up project to the highly anticpated war drama Miracle at St. Anna will be Time Traveler. Lee has signed on to co-write and direct the movie, which is adapted from the memoir “Time Traveler: A Scientist’s Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality” by Ronald Mallet, one of the nation’s first African Americans to earn a Ph. D in theoretical physcis.

The book recalls Mallet’s struggle from poverty to a successful academic and scientific career. It also lays out Mallet’s ideas for a workable time machine, which became his obsession after his father died when he was 10-years old. He made it his goal to travel back in time to save his father. I’ll take a wild guess and say that’s the plot of the movie right there.

Lee described Time Traveler as a “fantastic story on many levels (and) also a father and son saga of loss and love.”

As for the film, it sounds interesting, although the plot sounds similar to the one in 2002’s disappointing remake of The Time Machine, although I don’t expect there will be much actual time traveling here. Lee is a more assured filmmaker than that. Like him or not, you have to give him that much. I think the title is a little lame though, and they should probably add the same subtitle from the book to the film.

Lee’s Miracle at St. Anna will hit theaters on Sept. 26.

‘The Happening’ Is Somewhere In Between ‘Signs’ and ‘Lady in the Water’

Nathan Deen — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:19:38 +0000

After his stunning breakthrough effort with The Sixth Sense (one of my all-time favorite movies), M. Night Shyamalan made two superb follow-ups with Unbreakable and Signs. It was then when many film buffs and critics alike, including myself, thought Shyamalan had the potential to be the next Alfred Hitchcock or maybe Steven Spielberg. We started to assume that whatever films he made would be both groundbreaking and Top 10 material. Sadly, though, we all may have jinxed him; or maybe the pressure was just too overwhelming. Whatever the reason, Shyamalan’s last two movies, The Village and Lady in the Water were not only disappointments, they were among the worst movies of the respective year they were released in. They were downright atrocities and borderline unreleasable.

So his latest feature, The Happening, looked to be about the kind of movie Shyamalan knows best. Similar to Signs, the film focuses on a global phenomenon and its effects on a small group of people. The Happening isn’t a success, nor is it a total failure. It’s not quite a return to form, but compared to Shyamalan’s last two efforts, it is certainly a step in the right direction.

I’m surprised that The Happening works as well as it does. This is because the majority of the story is told from the point of view from two people; people who we don’t really mind being around for 75 minutes. In performances that can best be described as adequate but nothing special, Mark Wahlberg plays highschool teacher Elliot Moore and Zooey Deschanel plays his wife, Alma. John Leguizamo has a role as fellow teacher Julian. Here Wahlberg plays a character that’s virtually the opposite of his role in The Departed. His character is overly sensitive and even a little femine; although resilient, like one character in the film suggests.

The first 30 minutes of the film are really good and Shyamalan seems to be at the top of his game. But the story he has written makes his directorial effort seem futile. The entire northeastern part of the United States has awoken one morning to the fury of mother nature. A fatal toxin has been released into the air, causing those who inhale it to become suicidal. At first this is believed to have been a terrorist attack, but as the effects begin to focus on less populated areas, that theory is thrown out the window.

Meanwhile, the people of Philadelphia, including Elliot and Alma, fear that their town may be among the next to be attacked. So the couple, along with Julian and his young daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez), decide to board a train heading westbound. After the train crew loses contact with “everyone” they decide to discontinue the trip and the passengers are stranded in Filbur, Pennsylvania. Sure enough, the toxin begins to show up and people around Elliot and Alma begin ‘offing’ themselves.

So what’s the film’s suggestion for the causes of this events, you ask? Well, the trailers obviously don’t want me to tell you, so I won’t. All I can say is that it’s scientifically not possible by any means. And it’s strange how this premise is both simultaneously intriguing and ironic but at the same time lame.

One of the film’s main problems is that Shyamalan appears to have had trouble with coming up with enough material just for a 91 minute feature. Some of it is lazily written, and some of it is strange. For instance, a plot development involving Elliot, Alma and Jess staying with an insane old lady feels so out of place that you wonder what Shyamalan was thinking by not immediately discarding the sequence after he wrote it.

The Happening is an effective thriller and features some genuine moments of suspense, but unfortunately the premise is so illogical and farcical, (and the more I think about it, downright silly) that ultimately everything the film has going for it feels superfluous. If you’re okay with suspending disbelief (and even those people will have to make quite a stretch), you will like this film. If you like your movies to be more real and convincing, then you will probably hate it. As for myself, I have to look at the whole scope of the picture. I think it’s mostly well made if not always well written, never less than watchable, but it fails on conveying it’s environmental message through an absurd plot. It’s not bad, but those hoping for Shyamalan to get back on track with another great movie will have to wait a little bit longer.

You Don’t Mess With the Eastwood

Nathan Deen — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:20:08 +0000

There were quite a few good stories released upon the web today, but none were more interesting than the feud rising between iconic directors Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood. This little tidbit started in Cannes a couple of weeks ago when Lee was trying to promote his upcoming war film The Miracle at St. Anna, which is slated for a release in October. Set in 1944 Italy, it will tell the story of four black American soldiers who get trapped in a Tuscan village during WWII.

Okay, so when his career is all said and done, with great films under his belt such as Malcolm X and Do the Right Thing, Lee will undoubtedly be regarded as one of the major influences on African American cinema. That’s all well and good, but you don’t lash at other filmmakers, least of all Clint Eastwood, and criticize them for not portraying black soldiers during the WWII era. Here’s what Lee had to say about Eastwood’s Letters From Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers

“Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total, and there was not one Negro actor on the screen. If you reporters had any balls, you’d ask him why. There’s no way I know why he did that…But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed it. It’s not like he didn’t know.”

Now, I could go on and on about why Spike Lee needs to learn to think before he speaks (I’m trying to put it nicely because I respect Lee as a director), but I can’t really say it any better than Eastwood himself:

“The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture and they didn’t do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people’d go: ‘This guy’s lost his mind.’ I mean, it’s not accurate. A guy like him should shut his face.”

He didn’t mention even mention that Letters From Iwo Jima was about the Japanese side of the story. Where are African Americans going to fit in there? Seriously, this had to cross Lee’s mind when he made that vacuous comment, right?

Eastwood continued his defence by referring to his upcoming film Changeling. A smash hit at Cannes, the film will star Angelina Jolie and is set to be released on Nov. 7. The film is set in 1920s Los Angeles, a time when there wasn’t a high population of African Americans.

“What are you going to do, you going to tell a fuckin’ story about that? Make it look like a commerical for an equal opportunity player? I’m not in that game. I’m playing it the way I read it historically, and that’s the way it is. When I do a movie and it’s 90 percent black, like Bird, then I use 90 percent black people.”

Eastwood has a well documented reputation of openingly defending against comments made towards his movies. This little dispute between himself and Mr. Lee even has a history. It goes way back into the 1980s.

“He was complaing when I did Bird (the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker). Why would a white guy be doing that? I was the only guy who made it, that’s why. He could have gone ahead and made it. Instead he was making something else.”

And now I’ll close this article with a little hint of hiliarious irony. Eastwood’s next film is called The Human Factor, about Nelson Mandela’s attempts to foster national unity in post-apartheid South Africa.

When asked if he was going to remain historically accurate, Eastwood said “I’m not going to make Nelson Mandela a white guy.”

In response, Spike Lee told MTV today that he would be taking the “Barack Obama high road” and that “it’s not a feud.”

Contributing Sources: The Guardian, MTV Movies Blog

Sound Off: What is your reaction to the comments made by Eastwood and Lee?

Zack and Miri’s Porno Teaser Gets Canned by the MPAA

Nathan Deen — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:25:31 +0000

Is there anyone here not anticipating Kevin’s Smith latest contentious comedy Zack and Miri Make a Porno? Just the title alone raises quite a few eyebrows. I don’t know about you, but I’m hoping that this is the comedy that’s bold enough to go even further than Knocked Up and Superbad to revolutionize the genre. Or, it could just be idoitically offensive. Who knows? The point is, it’s a movie we’ll be talking about for months to come, even before it’s release.

News Askew has reported that the teaser trailer for the film that stars Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks, has suddenly disappeared. When Kevin Smith was asked why this happened, his response got a pretty good chuckle out of me:

The MPAA called and said we had to take it down.

Here’s why: Weinstein Co. (like most studios) is a signatory of the MPAA. As such, there are protocols involving trailers that we failed to follow.

As with features, all trailers get rated get rated by the MPAA. The majority of them are for general audiences (Green Band trailers), but trailers packed with adult content (like our teaser) earns you what’s called a Red Band trailer.

Well, we didn’t go through this process – simply because, we felt, that since the teaser didn’t contain any footage from the actual flick, it wasn’t technically a trailer.

Boy, was I wrong.

Turns out all promotional material for any film financed/distributed by a signatory of the MPAA has to be signed-off on by the MPAA – including internet-only materials. I never realized this, as it’d never been a problem in the past: we’ve been doing ‘net-only teasers since “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” and nobody ever raised a red flag before (not even on the last flick, for which we also put up two ‘net-only teasers in advance of the rated trailer). But I guess since the teaser was so, shall we say, racy… a rating was in order.

We’re now officially submitting the teaser to the MPAA for rating. If they approve it, we’ll put it back up.

A typical, hiliarious sarcastic response from funny man Kevin Smith. And you know, I think he actually has a point there. If the trailer doesn’t show actual footage from the actual film, then it isn’t actually a trailer. Makes sense to me, but try explaining that to the MPAA.

It also makes me wonder just how much Kevin Smith is going to reveal about his new film. Should he try to pull a Spielberg and keep the hype down to a minimum? Personally, I would like to walk into the screening without the slightest clue of what to expect.

If you haven’t seen the ‘teaser,’ it features Seth Rogen, who we can assume plays Zack, and Elizabeth Banks, who we can assume plays Miri, running an audition for their new porno. If you’re curious about the content, I can recall an instance in which Zack asks one of the actors if he’d be willing to shave his pubic region.

Hopefully Smith will get the trailer back up soon.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno is set to hit theaters this Halloween.

Source: News Askew

Should Edward Norton Turn Green Over Not Receiving Writing Credit for The Incredible Hulk?

Nathan Deen — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:14:06 +0000

If you were to ask me my opinion on who is the most under-appreciated actor working today, Edward Norton would be one of the first names to come to mind. Okay, so we’ve all heard that Norton isn’t an easy guy to work with. He’s basically Dustin Hoffman’s contentious character in Tootsie, or as Roger Ebert pointed out in his review of that film, Dustin Hoffman himself. But at least he takes his work seriously. He has delivered some standout performances in such films as American History X, Fight Club, and most recently, The Painted Veil.

As far as I’m concerned, insult has been added to injury as it was announced recently, via Filmstalker, that Norton’s name will not appear in the writing credits for The Incredible Hulk, the upcoming blockbuster in which Norton will star as the jolly green giant himself. Zak Penn, who has written many other scripts adapted from comic books such as Elektra and Fantastic Four, will get the sole writing credit from the Writers Guild of America.

That kinda makes you wonder if the WGA denied Norton a writing credit just because he’s an actor. If I were Norton, I would have already ripped a good shirt and a pair of pants.

Norton has been ridiculed recently for respectfully disagreeing with helmer Louis Leterrier about the direction of the film. Here’s my two cents: Even though that kind of actor can be a pain in the ass, it’s still good to know that’s he’s passionate about his role, and he wouldn’t have signed on to do it if he didn’t see any potential for the film.

Look, I realize that he’s the star of this film and he will get plenty of accolades if it is a hit, but if Norton contributed a fair amount of his effort to help write the screenplay, then he should get recognition for it. It’s about respect. The more credit nods you have, the more respect you receive. Just look at Citizen Kane and try to tell me otherwise.

The Incredible Hulk will hit theaters next Friday.

Sound Off: Should Edward Norton be upset about not receiving a writing credit, or is it no big deal?

Film School Rejects » Nathan Deen

Books That Deserve Their Own Movie: Carl Hiaasen’s Sick Puppy

Related Reading:

Ford, Other Brands Find Their ‘Quantum of Solace’

Related Reading:

Tom Cruise, MGM Seek a Yuletide Gift with Valkyrie

Related Reading:

Watchmen Report Shows Rorschach Unmasked

Related Reading:

New ‘Body of Lies’ Trailer is Better Than the Teaser

Related Reading:

Legendary Artist Isaac Hayes is Dead at 65

Related Reading:

The Dark Knight is the First Truly Great Film of 2008

Related Reading:

If Brendan Fraser’s Upcoming Summer Blockbusters Suck, Don’t Blame Him For It

Related Reading:

WALL-E is Good, But Not One of Pixar’s Best

Related Reading:

AFI Names Ten Best In Ten Genres

Related Reading:

Spike Lee Wants to Make Time Travel a Reality

Related Reading:

‘The Happening’ Is Somewhere In Between ‘Signs’ and ‘Lady in the Water’

Related Reading:

You Don’t Mess With the Eastwood

Related Reading:

Zack and Miri’s Porno Teaser Gets Canned by the MPAA

Related Reading:

Should Edward Norton Turn Green Over Not Receiving Writing Credit for The Incredible Hulk?

Related Reading: