Category Archives: Movie News and Articles
Know Your Movies – One Image, Three Hints
It can’t only be reviews, Phenomenal 5 lists, and commentaries, right? Know Your Movies is all about having fun. Here’s how it works: I’ll share a single shot from a movie. It can be extremely serious or completely absurd. After that I’ll provide you with three hints. The rest is up to you. Hop in the comments section and share your guess as well as any thoughts or memories you have on the movie, actor/actress, or the scene itself. It should be a blast.
Today’s image is from a film that is one of my favorites of all time. So here is the shot. Three hints will follow.
Hint 1: Released in 1949
Hint 2: Was shot primarily in Vienna, Austria
Hint 3: Harry Lime
Now head to the comments and share your guess. It’s a classic shot that should make it obvious for some. I would also love to hear your thoughts on the film, the scene, or anything else related to it. Now feel free to guess and discuss this fabulous movie classic.
Cinema Snapshot
“Cinema Snapshot”
Rick’s Café Américain – “Casablanca”
“Casablanca” (1942)
Rick’s Café Américain is the most memorable location in the classic “Casablanca”. American expatriate Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) keeps his club successful by catering to a wide-ranging clientele. Whether its German Nazis and the sympathetic Vichy French or an assortment of smugglers and gamblers, Rick stays in business by embracing neutrality and adhering to his one policy – “I stick my neck out for nobody”.
Rick’s Place is a bustling den of music, socializing, and backroom gambling. He doesn’t allow the politics or divisions of war in his front door but as tensions rise in the area he finds himself in a precarious position. Things are complicated even more by the surprise appearance of old flame Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) and her resistance leader husband Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid) who is on the run from his Nazi pursuers. All of this makes things around Rick’s Café Américain very interesting.
Movie Bloggers Roundtable
The Movie Bloggers Roundtable is a new feature where I join up with four esteemed movie bloggers and we share our thoughts on a certain subject. Everyone on the panel will share their thoughts and feelings on the topic of the day and then we share them with you. The panel may change from post to post and hopefully we will get a wide range of opinions and perspectives.
Today’s roundtable discussion is a simple one but also one that I find very intriguing. Both Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson have movies due out in 2014. Both have received praise for their very unique styles of storytelling. So today we are going to focus on these two top-tier filmmakers. Joining this roundtable is Charles from Cinematic Film Blog, Caitlin from Heart of Cinema, Josh from J.James Reviews, and Nostra from MyFilmviews. Now I can easily say that I LOVE THESE BLOGGERS and if you haven’t been frequenting their sites you should. So this week’s question is a simple one:
Paul Thomas Anderson or Wes Anderson?
Keith (Keith & the Movies)
There were many things that drew me to asking the question. For me, both Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson are clearly and unquestionably talented filmmakers. They each know their craft and whenever their names are attached to a project it deserves attention. That being said, the two couldn’t have more different styles. PT Anderson takes a more salty, unflinching, and sometimes downright dirty approach to storytelling. Many of his films combine a rawness and eloquence – a combination that would otherwise seem impossible. Characters play a big role in a PT Anderson film and while I don’t always care for them, he has a way of making them compelling. Unfortunately for me not all of PTA’s pictures work in every regard. Take his highly praised “The Master”. It is a film featuring three entrancing performances but the story itself sputters under the director’s indulgence. I see that in other PTA films as well.
Then there is Wes Anderson, a gutsy filmmaker with a dedication to his unique style that could be perceived as overindulgent itself. Personally I find Wes Anderson’s style and method of storytelling to not only be unique but refreshing. He is a rare filmmaker who can actually make funny movies, something that has become a rarity these days. But there are always reocurring themes, some of them fairly dark, that Wes Anderson is able to poetically meld with his offbeat humor. Then there is his visual style which shows itself in odd period designs, a fascinating color palette, and careful attention to detail. All of these things come together to form truly satisfying cinematic experiences that I look forward to each time they hit the big screen.
So Paul Thomas or Wes? The funny thing is my favorite movie from either of their filmographies is unquestionably the brilliant “There Will Be Blood”. But when it comes to the films they have made and their individual cinematic styles the choice for me is an easy one. Wes Anderson makes me laugh, he makes me think, and he always makes me love being a movie fan. He may never direct a $800 million summer blockbuster but that is fine with me. He makes movies that I care about and I’m always wondering what he has in store for us next.
Charles (Cinematic)
Over the past two decades, few directors have created the impact in the movie world as the two Andersons (Paul Thomas and Wes). Both Andersons emerged in the mid-90s with big dreams set on filmmaking. Paul Thomas Anderson had gone to New York University to leave only after a few days after finding disgust with his film professors, deciding it was best to learn by himself. Wes attended the University of Texas where he met Owen Wilson, who co-wrote and starred in many of Wes’ projects. Paul and Wes’ first theatrical releases (Hard Eight and Bottle Rocket) came out around the same time (1996, though Hard Eight debuted at Cannes that year and entered screens in 1997). While neither picture was a box office hit, they helped launch both directors to greater funding for their sophomore projects. Paul Thomas Anderson’s follow-up to Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, a Martin Scorsese-Robert Altman-ish look at the adult film industry back in the 70s and 80s, brought the director to the film spotlight, with comparisons being made to GoodFellas and Short Cuts. Wes Anderson’s second picture, Rushmore, a coming of age story based on Wes’ and Wilson’s high school experiences, took a quirky look at teenage adolescence and became the template for the director’s future projects.
Since then, the two Andersons are certainly among the most influential people in contemporary cinema. Their style is so unique and just about impossible to imitate (how many filmmakers could make a picture in the same vein as There Will Be Blood or Moonrise Kingdom). While neither Anderson has received wide mainstream acceptance, both have proven themselves to be master directors.
While I’m a big fan of Wes Anderson and love the wildly idiosyncratic worlds he constructs, Paul Thomas Anderson would get my vote as the best filmmaker working today. Paul hasn’t made a single movie short of greatness and ambition. Even if you don’t like the unexpected climax of Magnolia or the dream-like pace of The Master, there’s no denial that Paul Thomas Anderson has put a hell lot of effort into his work. Wes has always been consistent as well and I will defend him to the edge (even The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, which I think is criminally underrated), but his movies don’t quite stir me up emotionally as Paul Thomas Anderson’s work.
Caitlin (Heart of Cinema)
Wes Anderson vs Paul Thomas Anderson seems like such a hard choice because of their completely different approaches to film-making. I love Wes Anderson’s style and aesthetic approach to his films – the use of colour/props/scenery/costume is all unique and instantly recognisable. On the other hand, Paul Thomas Anderson is clearly far less eccentric, more concerned with drama and strong characters (particularly in The Master and There Will Be Blood). I appreciate both styles and part of me thinks it is an impossible task to separate the two simply because of how different they are.
If I had to pick just one though, I think I would go with Wes – just because I can’t really think of anyone with a style like his whereas PTA could probably be compared in more ways to other directors. Wes is so distinctive and fun and I don’t think he lets the style overtake the substance with his films. There is always a good story and good cast behind the colour and eccentricity. Plus, I adore The Royal Tenenbaums and will never forget watching it for the first time!
Josh (J.James Reviews)
Wes Anderson or Paul Thomas Anderson? When Keith first asked the question, I had an immediate reaction: “Wes, obviously. No one would select Paul Thomas.” Then, while trying to explain my answer, I compared the two directors’ filmographies. While I haven’t yet seen Wes’ newly released The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) or PTA’s There Will be Blood (2007), I have seen the rest of their movies. I initially thought to argue that Wes’ best and worst are better than Paul Thomas’. Except I can’t honestly do so. While The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) and Moonrise Kingdom (2012) are truly terrific, so are Boogie Nights (1997) and Punch Drunk Love (2002). Plus, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) is probably a little worse than Magnolia (1999), though neither movie is bad, per se. Nor can I argue that Wes gets better performances from actors, or that he’s artistically superior. Both directors generate note-perfect performances from their cast. Just as both always use their medium deftly, to further their story and help cement intended emotion.
In other words, both Andersons are remarkable filmmakers whose films I always appreciate and often adore. Still, I prefer Wes. Why? It must be personal preference. In the end, I simply enjoy Wes’ quirkiness, humor and wit more than I enjoy Paul Thomas’ psychological acuity, nuanced characters and observational style. I cannot fairly say one is better than the other, but I can argue that one of them entertains me more. It mightn’t be the best reason, but it is the only one I have.
Nostra (MyFilmviews)
Answering the question which director I’d prefer is a difficult one, but not for the reason you might think. The reason why is a simple one: a couple of years ago I wasn’t a fan of either of these directors. Sure I enjoyed PT Anderson’s Magnolia (which I still plan on rewatching), but I never was as mesmerized by Boogie Nights as others had been. His Punch-Drunk Love (2002) I did not finish watching and although I have seen both his latest two movies, There Will Be Blood and The Master I will have to admit that I was not crazy about them. They are both beautiful movies to look at, but their stories are of the type you would mainly see in older movies. They remind me strongly of something Lawrence of Arabia, wanting to present something epic with a pacing we are not used to anymore. Although others might look forward to seeing his next movie Inherent Vice I will eventually will be checking it out, but won’t be in a rush to do so.
Then there is Wes Anderson. Except for Bottle Rocket I have seen all his feature films, but the movies he became big with were not the movies I got anything out of. Rushmore bored me, The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatica with Steve Zissou were simply too weird for me. It is with The Darjeeling Limited I slowly started enjoying his work and I feel that he has grown as a director in his career by making his movies more accessible. Although weird, Fantastic Mr. Fox, was a great movie. When I saw Moonrise Kingdom at a festival for the first time I realized that he is now a movie maker whose work I really appreciate. You will be able to recognize his style instantly: The way the camera moves, the use of color, constructed sets, symmetry. With the Grand Budapest Hotel it seems that all those elements came together perfectly and to me that movie is already one of my favorites this year.
So PT Anderson or Wes Anderson? I guess the answer is clear. Especially with his later work I think Wes Anderson makes movies I get a lot more enjoyment out of and in the end that is why I watch movies. Of course there is a time and place for watching the type of movies PT Anderson makes, but if you would put me in an empty cinema and force me to watch a movie from either director I would not have to think for very long.
So what is the consensus?
4 of 5 chose Wes Anderson over Paul Thomas Anderson
I want to thank Charles, Caitlin, Josh, and Nostra for participating in this second Movie Bloggers Roundtable. You have heard our thoughts, now we want to hear yours. Do you like the feature? More importantly, which of these two fantastic filmmakers do you prefer and why? I’m a bit surprised at the outcome. How about you? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.
The Ten: Most Iconic Movie Characters Blogathon
I can’t tell you how excited I was when Nostra from My Filmviews asked me to be the first person to participate in his newest Blogathon Relay. If you aren’t familiar with My Filmviews it is a great place for movie reviews, features, and great actor/actress visual spotlights. Please check out the site. Trust me, it’s well worth it.
Nostra’s entire relay concept is brilliant and it’s one of my favorite ideas for a blogathon. This particular relay was very appealing to me. It revolves around the most iconic movie characters in cinema history. Ooooh this was tough for me. After a few days of laborious deliberation I had my choices narrowed to three: two who were sentimental favorites and the eventual winner.
Now before I jump in, here are the official blogathon rules from Nostra: A list of 10 iconic movie characters has been made. That list will be assigned to another blogger who can then change it by removing one character (describing why they think it should not be on the list) and replace it with another one (also with motivation) and hand over the baton to another blogger. Once assigned that blogger will have to put his/her post up within a week. If this is not the case the blogger who assigned it has to reassign it to another blogger. After you have posted your update leave the link in the comments here and I will make sure it gets added to the overview post.
Before I make my addition and subtraction let’s take a look at the list of iconic movie characters that currently occupy the Top Ten:
Indiana Jones
Ellen Ripley
Terminator
Darth Vader
James Bond
The Tramp
Tony Montana
E.T.
Rocky Balboa
Jules Winnfield
Definitely some iconic movie characters on this list and removing one proved to be more difficult than I imagined. I eventually narrowed it down to two. That didn’t make the choice any easier but such are the rules of the relay. Someone had to go.
REMOVED: Jules Winnfield
Yes that look he is giving scares me as I type this. Samuel L. Jackson without a doubt gives us an amazing character that really stood out in Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction”. But the word that kept sticking in my head was ICONIC. Winnfield is fun, entertaining, and you can’t take your eyes off of him, I’m not certain that I would place him among those who we call movie icons. When I think of the impact others from this list have made I just don’t think Jules quite makes it to that level. Great character but not quite iconic.
Whew, now that the unpleasant part is done we get to the equally difficult but much more enjoyable part. I get to add a replacement who I think truly represents a movie character icon.
ADDED: “Dirty” Harry Callahan
When I think of an iconic film character I think of someone who has become synonymous with movies and pop culture. Someone who was not only popular during their time but who still is well known and recognized today. One of my genuine favorites is “Dirty” Harry Callahan. Throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s Clint Eastwood starred as Callahan in five movies. As a grumpy, non-conformist San Francisco police inspector, Callahan blasted his way through police red tape and literally through an assortment of bad guys. Armed with his signature .44 Magnum and that unmistakable Clint squint, Callahan became a big screen icon who spanned two decades. He’s left us with so many memorable scenes and of course those memorable lines such as “Do you feel lucky, punk?” and “Go ahead, make my day.” If that doesn’t point to an iconic movie character I don’t know what does!
So there you have my subtraction and my replacement. Another special thanks to Nostra for including me. It was a ton of fun thinking this one over and coming to my conclusions. Now it is time for me to pass the torch. I’m happy to pass the baton to my pal Ruth from Flixchatter (click the banner to link to her phenomenal site).
Ruth will not only bring in our first bit of female perspective but she also has a great taste in movies. I can’t what to see what she is going to bring to the table. Take it away Ruth!
K&M Commentary : Questionable Casting
Over the past few weeks several bits of big blockbuster casting news has made headlines and stirred up a great deal of discussion. One of the last commentaries I posted looked at movies and the books they are based on (you can find that post HERE). I talked about creative license and the space that should be given to a filmmaker when adapting a novel, comic series, etc. But I also talked about what I feel is the filmmaker’s responsibility to respect the source material and its spirit. These two particularly bits of casting news has me questioning just how much respect there is for the comic series’ they are based on.
Jesse Eisenburg as Lex Luthor
The Superman/Batman film has ran the spectrum of fan reaction. I started off absolutely thrilled with the idea behind the project. I was also just fine with the announcement of Ben Affleck as Batman. But since then there have been little comments here and there, especially from Zack Snyder, that has me a bit worried. Then came the news that the iconic villain Lex Luthor had been cast. He would be played by Jesse Eisenburg – a good actor who mainly excels in specific types of roles. While I can see him playing Lex in a Smallville type project, I have a hard time seeing him embodying what has made Lex Luthor such a classic DC Comics villain.
What is more worrisome are statements made by Snyder surrounding Eisenberg’s casting such as taking the character in “unexpected directions”. Then there were the rumors (and I do emphasis rumors) of the character being a streetwise young man. Lex Luthor is an accomplished corporate tyrant and was never the geeky neurotic type that Eisenburg is good at playing. Snyder has hinted at completely changing up the character and his origin which doesn’t seem a bit necessary. I’m still anxious to see this picture but a hint of skepticism has certainly surfaced.
Michael B. Jordan & Kate Mara as Johnny & Sue Storm
The other casting news surrounded 20th Century Fox’s reboot of the Fantastic Four franchise. Let me be honest, none of the four who were announced excite me at all. But there is one glaring problem that seems to stand out beyond the others. It’s the casting of Michael B. Jordan and Kate Mara as Johnny and Sue Storm. Now some will automatically assume that any criticism over this will either be normal fanboy rage or it will be because of race. To no surprise I’ve already read countless defenders of the casting pointing racially judgmental fingers at those of us who think the casting is bad.
So what are my problems with the casting? First off I’ve never fully understood changing the race of a known character who is being borrowed from the original creator. That being said, if there is a better actor or actress who can strengthen the role on screen then race doesn’t matter at all. But in the Fantastic Four its quite different. Johnny and Sue are brother and sister with a rich background. By casting Jordan and Mara together the filmmakers are tossing that history aside to create their own. It’s a pointless and unnecessary change.
Between the two, Jordan intrigues me a lot more than Mara. So why not cast one of several talented black actresses to play Sue Storm and keep that defined brother/sister connection as a key part of their story? Look, I know there is adoption and biracial families which can explain away the differences. But frankly, I won’t be watching the Fantastic Four reboot for its deep and intellectual social and family commentary. This seems like a silly and unneeded move as well as a missed opportunity.
Obviously these are just first impressions. The filmmakers do know the story they are telling and maybe it will work out fine. But both of these castings look to be taking mammoth-sized creative liberties that really seem unnecessary. Are there attention-getting motivations behind them or are the filmmakers throwing aside the source material that made these characters worthy of big screen treatment. Time will certainly tell and regardless of my hesitation maybe these choices will work out.
Keith & the Movies