Author: Lisa Schwarzbaum (91-100 of 138)

Nov 3 2009 04:36 PM ET

'The Godfather 2': Movies I watch and watch again

by
Tags: , , ,

Maybe it’s because The Godfather 2 seems to be playing on cable TV in a loop for all eternity–but I realized the other day that I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard Michael Corleone say to his brother, “I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart.” Not that I mind: There’s a profound comfort in re-watching a movie you love, even though (or maybe because) the scenes have worn grooves in your consciousness. My list of most-watched titles includes Casablanca, Citizen Kane, All About Eve, the Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup, and, for reasons I can’t fathom but just accept, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. And Fellini’s Amarcord. Hmm, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. And Truly, Madly, Deeply, of course, even though some of my more austere critic friends roll their eyes when I say so. READ FULL STORY »

Oct 30 2009 06:38 PM ET

'Amelia,' Hilary Swank: Finding a movie role to fit the face

by
Tags: , , ,

Hilary Swank plays the legendary aviator Amelia Earhart in Amelia. And although, as I said in my review, the movie is earthbound, the choice of Swank in the title role demonstrates sky-clear thinking. (Okay, that’s enough of the windblown aeronautical metaphors.) Physically, the two are twins, and not just because Swank has been coiffed in Earhart’s striking, trademark, short-haired tousle, a variation on Winnie the Pooh‘s Christopher Robin. Rather, both women project a seductive androgyny–a boyishness that nevertheless leaves no doubt about the sexuality of the woman wearing the trousers.

True, Swank first found fame as a girl living as a boy in Boys Don’t Cry. But even when she unbound her breasts READ FULL STORY »

Oct 28 2009 04:47 PM ET

'Gentlemen Broncos': what's the right grade for a wrong-headed movie?

by
Tags: ,

I really didn’t like Gentlemen Broncos, the newest movie from Jared and Jerusha Hess, who made Napoleon Dynamite. (Here’s my review.) The problem, I think, is that the movie — about a nerdy teenage writer of bad sci-fi who discovers his work has been plagiarized by other dorks — can’t distinguish junky kitsch from quality kitsch. (That’s Sam Rockwell, above, playing a lame sci-fi hero.) And I’m exasperated by the filmmakers’ insistence that everyone and everything can be cute, if you squint with the right kind of tolerance. Whereas, the way I squint, not everything and everyone is cute by a long shot, not even subjectively. I’m not a fan of Napoleon Dynamite either, although I know millions are — including, maybe, you?

Still, when my editor asked me what grade I planned to give Gentlemen Broncos – would I give it a straight F? — I said no, Gentlemen Broncos gets a D–, and my editor said, why?, and I said it’s because I reserve straight Fs for movies that I think aren’t just bad and badly made, but also reprehensible. Aggressively awful. Maybe even without any redeeming merit. IMHO, of course. Gentlemen Broncos is just…gently awful. IMHO, of course.

I mean, you and I both know that grades are kind of dumb. So are stars and thumbs that are waggled up and down, yea or nay. Such rough calculations say nothing insightful about the movies under review; they’re just a shorthand guide to what one critic thinks is good or bad or somewhere in between, an invitation to read more thoughtful analysis. Still, a D– isn’t an F, and an F isn’t a D–. And now you know my reasoning.

Agree? Disagree? I invite thoughtful analysis, accompanied by a thumb up or down.

Oct 26 2009 02:52 PM ET

'Saw': I can't stand to see it. Is that okay?

by
Tags: , , , ,

I mean it: I literally, physiologically cannot bear horror movies in which people are tortured. I get sick to my stomach. I feel like I’m going to faint. I have nightmares for days. My distaste has almost become a phobia. So I don’t watch them. I do all the assignment trading I can so I don’t have to review them. And I count us all lucky that Owen not only has a true appreciation of the genre, but also the deep knowledge of repertory with which to write smartly about what is, after all, a very popular kind of movie.

I admit this here, knowing that one response might be, “It’s your job. Deal with it.” But, see, I’ve been thinking about what makes an honest critic, not to mention a reliable one with whom readers can engage. And I’ve come to the conclusion that owning up to my, let’s call it, weakness is in the end more useful than pretending I can be businesslike about a movie experience that repels me.

Perhaps if it were any other sore spot, shared by professional critics and regular movie-goers alike–maybe a particular love or hatred of chick flicks or underdog sports stories, slow-moving Iranian tales about little kids or quick-talking British pics about colorful thugs — I’d be fine keeping my secret to myself. But my horror when it comes to Saw is too visceral.

And that’s why I’ve spilled my guts. Now you spill yours.

Photo Credit: Steve Wilkie

Oct 23 2009 12:31 PM ET

Soupy Sales, anti-movie star (that's a good thing)

by
Tags: ,

As a longtime member of the clubhouse–a devotee who still has her vinyl 45 of  ”Do the Mouse” and “Pachalafaka”–I join my colleague Ken Tucker in saluting the late Soupy Sales, TV innovator.

As a movie critic, meanwhile, I toss a cream pie in the air with gratitude that Soupy knew his medium and stuck to it. Today, most any comic who finds fame on television at some point feels driven to extending that (ugh) brand in a movie. And too often, the results aren’t pretty. Or funny. (Hola, Chris Kattan!) I’m not a Salesologist enough to know whether Soupy ever tried to develop his private eye character  Philo Kvetch, for instance, into a feature film, and thought better of it. But I’m glad that we’ll remember the original hipster doofus as a TV guy born and bred–a personality bigger than any movie could contain.

Oh, and if you need to see Soupy on the big screen, look for him among the cameo appearances in Eddie Murphy’s 1998 muddle Holy Man. Or maybe, don’t.

Update: Soupy-ologist and ew.com colleague Steve Korn draws our attention to the 1966 feature-film novelty Birds Do It,  in which our hero plays a guy who can fly.

Oct 22 2009 04:40 PM ET

Obama and 'Wild Things': President as movie critic

by
Tags: , , News

I’m surprised there’s been little media reaction to the casual comment President Obama made the other day about Where the Wild Things Are: The president was visiting a local public school, he’s known to be a big fan of Maurice Sendak’s book, he’s screened the movie, and, as reported in The Washington Post, he told his kid constituency, “it’s worth seeing.” Given the dust stirred up by adults when Obama made a speech to schoolchildren last month on the apolitical subject of studying hard and doing one’s homework, it’s easy to imagine a grown-up anti-Wild Things faction criticizing this Presidential film review as a partisan attack on moviegoers who don’t like stories about furry monsters.

You know what other movie President Obama really likes? This one: READ FULL STORY »

Oct 20 2009 07:25 PM ET

'Big Fan': Patton Oswalt and Kevin Corrigan fans unite!

by
Tags: , , ,

I’m late to the game on Big Fan, I know–Robert Siegel’s tough, warm, up-close, compassionate, merciless little drama about the big football passions of a little shmo came and mostly went in early September. (Owen gave it love on the page.)  Me, I didn’t see the movie until just the other week, and I was knocked out by the utterly honest performances of Oswalt (a great comedian playing nakedly serious) and Corrigan (a great character actor throwing himself into the part with typical ferocity).

See it, is what I’m saying; I guarantee you’ll be hearing more about Big Fan on year-end best lists. Meanwhile, I’ve gotten to thinking about the wonderful, hype-free experience of coming to a movie in my own good time and becoming…a fan. The other day in a supermarket, I overheard a lady  talking to a friend about this great little movie she just Netflixed, called Lymelife, and weren’t Kieran and Rory Culkin terrific and how about that Alec Baldwin and…I almost forgot I needed to buy orange juice, I was so intent on eavesdropping. The movie, by the way,  had come and gone from most movie theaters in early Spring.

So this has led me to wondering: What have you discovered on your own this past year long after the publicity parade has passed by? What have you loved without benefit of current movie ads, and recommended to friends? Share.

Oct 19 2009 12:08 PM ET

'Where the Wild Things Are': Watch movie critics start a rumpus

by
Tags:

Watch this jungle conversation between Lisa and Owen and find out who’s wild and who’s mild about the weekend’s biggest movie!

Oct 15 2009 03:41 PM ET

'Where the Wild Things Are': Should favorite books be made into movies?

by
Tags: , ,

I’ve made it pretty clear how much I love Spike Jonze’s movie Where the Wild Things Are. But I also feel the pain of a commenter on this site who expressed dismay at the idea of Maurice Sendak’s book being adapted at all. “Children’s books are wonderful because books allow kids to use their imagination,” this poster explained. These stories are amazing just as they are, they do not need to be made into movies.”  I know just how the writer feels. The  more I love a book (whether Horton Hears a Who or Blindness), the more protective I feel about it; I’m sure Harry Potter readers feel the same way. (For the record, I loved the movie version of Horton; Blindness, on the other hand, was a bust.)

Since the world spins forward and pop culture feeds on itself, I don’t think there’s much chance of stopping the great march of literature-into-cinema. (Well, probably J.D.Salinger can put the brakes on a project.) Of course, you can choose not to mess with your imagination, and skip the movie version. (Too bad, because then you’d miss the movie-screen glories of Rebecca, Gone With the Wind, The Lord of the Rings, and even Disney’s Beauty and the Beast.) But if you choose to go, not only to Wild Things but to any movie made from a book you love, ask yourself this: Does the movie do justice to the spirit and tone of the original, if not the details? Does the movie have a…well, soul? A coherence, an aesthetic integrity of its own?  I haven’t seen the movie version of The Road yet, the one starring Viggo Mortensen, but I know it’s got a lot to live up to, since Cormac McCarthy’s book was bleak almost beyond picturing….

So let me ask you this: What good movie has been made out of a book you love? And for that matter, what movie has gotten a beloved book all wrong?

Oct 8 2009 04:06 PM ET

'Transformers' or 'Titanic': Why do you go to the movies?

by
Tags: , , ,

You rocked my world the other day. In my last post, I despaired — some might say kvetched — about how today’s economic challenges are causing Hollywood studios to stick to “mass market” tastes at the expense of  more interesting projects. Or as I put it, at the expense of stuff for adults. Then, on the comments board, I read this: “Milk and (500) Days of Summer were good movies, but I’m glad I didn’t pay to see them in the theater. While Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe totally sucked, I enjoyed watching them on the big screen. I don’t want to sit in a theater with 200 other people watching a thought-provoking movie in total silence or hearing people cry. I go to see huge explosions, [and] hear loud SurroundSound or people laughing at the same things I find funny. That deserves $10!”

And you know what? This hit me as an utterly reasonable explanation of movie-going psychology — and utterly alien to how I have traditionally approached the activity. The logic doesn’t substitute for what I think is Hollywood’s need to continue to make stuff for adults, if studios want to retain adult consumers. But I understood in a flash that, for this commenter, the “quality” of the movie is much less important than the group experience. At least for him: I’m making a sexist assumption, based on clues including the mention of G.I. Joe, the mention of total suckage, and the declaration that group crying isn’t pleasurable.

I love the bigness of the picture on the theater screen. I love the real-time flow of the event, with no pause buttons.  I love the shared privacy of the movie theater. Also, by the way, I love to cry with strangers, and can remember just how much blubbering was going at the time of the Titanic pic above. But, no doubt: Home viewing is convenient, it’s cheaper, and it lets you choose who sits next to you. And can you get the full flavor of Milk or (500) Days of Summer at home? Probably. G.I. Joe? Probably not.

So I’m turning this back to you. How does going to the movies differ from watching a movie at home? Do you enjoy going to movies that totally suck, for the pleasure of sharing the suckitude? (Is that a guy thing?) And how do you decide whether a movie is worth the price of a ticket rather than the price of Netflix?

Advertisement

Find Movies and Showtimes

Powered by MovieTickets.com

Choose Your Movie

All movies

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP