[* another post suggested by my brother!]
The recent release of the holiday family feature with the unfortunate title of "Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium," prompted a critic at msn.com to come up with his ten worst movie titles. It's a good list, and I tried not to repeat too many of them in my list below. But he left out some glaring examples -- I've tried to stick to more recent movies (who would guess that the British would have a penchant for bad movie titles?)
10. "Finnegan Begin Again" (1985) -- I know, I know, this lame TV movie starring Robert Preston and Mary Tyler Moore doesn't even qualify -- and it would be completely forgotten by now except for its stupid title -- but I hate, hate, HATE the title so much, I am making an exception.
9. Boys on the Side (1995) -- a movie with a lot going for it, like a respected director (Herbert Ross) and an engaging cast (Mary Louise Parker, Whoopi Goldberg, Drew Barrymore and a very young Matthew McConnaughey!) But obviously the studio suits were so freaked-out by the lesbian storyline -- the Indigo Girls cameo must've given it away! -- that they did everything in their power to label it with as innocuous-sounding a title as possible. Job well done.
8. I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With (2007) -- I'm not upset that the title ends with a preposition as much as I am with the fact that a comedian with an obvious obesity problem (Jeff Garlin of "Curb Your Enthusiasm") enforces the stereotype by referencing eating in the title of his first movie! It encourages comments like "You've obviously found plenty of people to eat cheese with... and fries... and ice cream...."
7. Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking your Juice in the Hood (1996) -- I was going to give this movie a pass (it is a send-up, after all) but the phrase "while drinking your juice" is so tortured and unimaginative -- not to mention out-of-touch with the culture it parodies (WHO remembers the movie "Juice" anymore?) -- that it demands inclusion.
6. Divine Secrets of the Sweet Potato Queen's Ya-Ya Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants -- okay I made this up, but it's more clever than the Wayans' Brothers! (see #7). Think of this entry as a tie among all those lame-assed, 'chick lit' books that always seem to find an audience of book-club-loving women experiencing mid-life-crises (you get 'em, too, you know you do!). And the 'Sweet Potato Queen' isn't even a movie ... YET (no doubt someone is waiting for an opening in Sandra Bullock's schedule).
5. Hideous Kinky (UK 1998) -- Kate Winslet's first movie after her blockbuster break-out in "Titanic," this British indie is set in North Africa in 1972, but contrary to its title, it is neither hideous nor kinky! These two random adjectives, in fact, are the two favorite words her little girls use to mimic their fellow British travelers. What does it tell you about the movie? Nothing.
4. Nil by Mouth (UK 1997) -- Actor Gary Oldman makes his directing debut with a title that is incomprehensible to anyone outside of Britain. Apparently, the title refers to the instructions on prescription pills, translated as 'don't eat anything with this medicine.' Good to know for future reference, Gary, but what purpose does it serve as a movie title???
3. Wah-Wah (UK 2005) -- Another British import, again about more unwelcomed British ex-pats in Africa (which begs the question "where are they welcomed?") and their wacky customs. Coincidentally, the title is the phrase the one American character uses to disparage the Brits silly slang.
2. Freddy Got Fingered (2001) -- the less said about this monstrosity, the better.
And the Number 1 Worst Movie Title of All Time ......
1. OCTOPUSSY (1983) -- this choice needs no explanation. It is as big an embarrassment today as it was 24 years ago (I was in college, and it still made me cringe!)
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Sunday, December 02, 2007
"I'm not here"
The above message flashes on the screen during the opening credits of 'I'm Not There," Todd Haynes' pseudo biography of the enigmatic Bob Dylan. I remember that line because for long stretches of this movie I felt:
a) I wish I wasn't here, stuck in this frustrating mess if a movie; and b) Bob Dylan himself is largely absent from what is billed as his life story.
The filmmaker's well-documented gimmick of using six different actors to portray the many sides of Dylan is just that -- a gimmick. [And not even an original one: Todd Solondz thought of it first for his "Palindromes."] From the beginning it alienates the audience from ever engaging in the story, and by the end, you are left thinking you are watching random clips from several different movies.
That is a shame, because at least three of these snippets from the life of someone who sounds alot like Dylan could have turned into a watchable film. I'd love to see more of both Christian Bale and unknown Ben Whishaw; unfortunatley, Haynes wastes these two performances by relegating them to bit parts in their own movie. Bale's scenes are in the context of a faux documentary of the early, folkie Dylan-- never was there a lazier way for a screenwriter to tell a story. Julianne Moore is even more misused as a stand-in for Joan Baez in this lame and uninteresting device. Whishaw has a more difficult task: pretend you are testifying before some sort of Congressional committee as Arthur Rimbaud. (I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to!)
The third story that works is, of course, Cate Blanchett's brilliant star turn. But, in fairness, she is given the most screen time, the most-coherent storyline, and the best lines! Heath Ledger, playing an actor who played Christian Bale's character in a movie version of his life, gets the next most screen time--but who is he and what is his problem, exactly? We never find out. Annoyingly, each of these facets of Dylan is given a different character name, adding needless confusion to an already confusing conceit.
At its best, the movie attempts to delve into the obscure lyrics and contradictory personalities that defined Dylan at various points in his life. One of the best scenes plays like a glorified music video for "Ballad of a Thin Man" (pulling that off in the context of a film is no mean feat, as Julie Taymor recently found out the hard way). Charlotte Gainsbourg and Michelle Williams, as Dylan's wife and one of his unlikely flings, Edie Sedgwick, respectively, make striking impressions. But why bother investing in these characters, when you know the rug is about to be pulled out from under them (and you) soon enough?
The most-tiring episode (for me) was a sentimentalized depiction of Dylan's own myth-making: the one that has him starting out as a travelling folk musician in the tradition of Woody Guthrie. Haynes uses the character of a precocious black kid to personify the formative influences of the artist. Give me a break! Robert Zimmerman was from 'b.f.' Minnesota ... Deal with THAT reality, Haynes! Don't buy into his mythologizing of a childhood that was uniquely, normally -- even boringly --American. A critical look at that reality would make for a compelling sequence, not some too-cute homage to both the folk and blues music that Dylan somehow drew on and assimilated from his most ordinary of upbringings.
The entire enterprise reminds me of another 'ambitious failure' -- an end-of-year movie category I created especially for such a movie -- Steven Shainberg's "Fur: an Imaginary Portrait" (of Diane Arbus). It takes quite a bit of hubris to use the life of a gifted artist as a jumping off point for your own flights of self-important, often delusional, artistry. I don't know the details of Dylan's life and career; what's more, I resent having to research that life to figure out what the hell was going on in this movie! Sure, D.A. Pennebaker filmed a documentary called "Don't Look Back." And Dylan himself had a bit part in a movie called "Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid." I didn't see either of them; if you saw them both, then you might appreciate this movie more than I did. Maybe.
As for the sixth actor to portray Dylan, I have nothing bad to say about Richard Gere. He does a nice job with his material. My problem? What the f**k is his material doing in this movie??
[The above review brought to you as a public service, so you won't have to sit through this movie and wonder why I didn't warn you away from it. Consider yourself warned.]
a) I wish I wasn't here, stuck in this frustrating mess if a movie; and b) Bob Dylan himself is largely absent from what is billed as his life story.
The filmmaker's well-documented gimmick of using six different actors to portray the many sides of Dylan is just that -- a gimmick. [And not even an original one: Todd Solondz thought of it first for his "Palindromes."] From the beginning it alienates the audience from ever engaging in the story, and by the end, you are left thinking you are watching random clips from several different movies.
That is a shame, because at least three of these snippets from the life of someone who sounds alot like Dylan could have turned into a watchable film. I'd love to see more of both Christian Bale and unknown Ben Whishaw; unfortunatley, Haynes wastes these two performances by relegating them to bit parts in their own movie. Bale's scenes are in the context of a faux documentary of the early, folkie Dylan-- never was there a lazier way for a screenwriter to tell a story. Julianne Moore is even more misused as a stand-in for Joan Baez in this lame and uninteresting device. Whishaw has a more difficult task: pretend you are testifying before some sort of Congressional committee as Arthur Rimbaud. (I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to!)
The third story that works is, of course, Cate Blanchett's brilliant star turn. But, in fairness, she is given the most screen time, the most-coherent storyline, and the best lines! Heath Ledger, playing an actor who played Christian Bale's character in a movie version of his life, gets the next most screen time--but who is he and what is his problem, exactly? We never find out. Annoyingly, each of these facets of Dylan is given a different character name, adding needless confusion to an already confusing conceit.
At its best, the movie attempts to delve into the obscure lyrics and contradictory personalities that defined Dylan at various points in his life. One of the best scenes plays like a glorified music video for "Ballad of a Thin Man" (pulling that off in the context of a film is no mean feat, as Julie Taymor recently found out the hard way). Charlotte Gainsbourg and Michelle Williams, as Dylan's wife and one of his unlikely flings, Edie Sedgwick, respectively, make striking impressions. But why bother investing in these characters, when you know the rug is about to be pulled out from under them (and you) soon enough?
The most-tiring episode (for me) was a sentimentalized depiction of Dylan's own myth-making: the one that has him starting out as a travelling folk musician in the tradition of Woody Guthrie. Haynes uses the character of a precocious black kid to personify the formative influences of the artist. Give me a break! Robert Zimmerman was from 'b.f.' Minnesota ... Deal with THAT reality, Haynes! Don't buy into his mythologizing of a childhood that was uniquely, normally -- even boringly --American. A critical look at that reality would make for a compelling sequence, not some too-cute homage to both the folk and blues music that Dylan somehow drew on and assimilated from his most ordinary of upbringings.
The entire enterprise reminds me of another 'ambitious failure' -- an end-of-year movie category I created especially for such a movie -- Steven Shainberg's "Fur: an Imaginary Portrait" (of Diane Arbus). It takes quite a bit of hubris to use the life of a gifted artist as a jumping off point for your own flights of self-important, often delusional, artistry. I don't know the details of Dylan's life and career; what's more, I resent having to research that life to figure out what the hell was going on in this movie! Sure, D.A. Pennebaker filmed a documentary called "Don't Look Back." And Dylan himself had a bit part in a movie called "Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid." I didn't see either of them; if you saw them both, then you might appreciate this movie more than I did. Maybe.
As for the sixth actor to portray Dylan, I have nothing bad to say about Richard Gere. He does a nice job with his material. My problem? What the f**k is his material doing in this movie??
[The above review brought to you as a public service, so you won't have to sit through this movie and wonder why I didn't warn you away from it. Consider yourself warned.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)