Movies 2007 Roundtable Spectacular

Part III: Audience expectations and Am I a movie snob?

Click here for Part I of this roundtable
Click here for Part II of this roundtable

I’ll follow Colbinski’s format:

The Best
No Country For Old Men

Highly Recommended
An Unreasonable Man
The Host
Brand Upon the Brain!
Paprika
The Bourne Ultimatum
In-Between Days
Lust, Caution
There Will Be Blood

Recommended
Zodiac
300
Hot Fuzz
SiCKO
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Superbad
Eastern Promises

Good but Flawed
Ocean’s Thirteen
Time
Juno
Stardust
3:10 To Yuma

Disappointing
Grindhouse
Spiderman 3
I am Legend

In my previous post I forgot to add Stardust as disappointing me. For much of the same reasons you list. (Although I call it the Hollywoodification of movies rather than the Hollywoodization.) Nevertheless, Stardust and 3:10 to Yuma make the Good but Flawed list rather than Disappointing because I did enjoy both. They just could have been so much better – if they trusted the source material and if they didn’t have to subjugate themselves to the lowest common denominator, poll-tested type of studio movie-making. Back to Stardust. Neil Gaiman is my favorite author and the ending of Stardust (the book) portrays exactly why he is a master story-teller. The bombastic, predictable ending tacked on is the problem with Hollywoodification. Just as the sugary ending to I am Legend is problematic.

I understand that many people want to "feel good” leaving a movie theatre but are they really that stupid to be fooled time and time again by lack of originality in Hollywood endings. Which is one reason (of several) why No Country for Old Men is the best movie of the year. I remember talking to you after reading the book and mentioning how they can never make a movie that does justice to the book. But they did. They did superbly. So much that happens is opposite of how it happens in Stardust and I am Legend. Everything isn’t spelled out for the slow-witted. Plot isn’t contrived to bring us to a climax. In fact, we can probably argue over what is the climax of No Country or if there is one. Now No Country had the strength of source material written by one of the greatest living American authors and a screenplay by two brilliant filmmakers. It worked because of this. Some movies can have nice and tidy endings – even happy endings – and be great and satisfying. Although looking over my Highly Recommended list I see that none of those movies really have happy endings and in movies like Bourne and In-Between Days the story doesn’t exactly wrap up – you leave knowing there’s more to tell as the credits roll.

This begs the question “Am I a movie snob?” I say no although I have been accused of being such especially after passing up opportunities to see something like Adam Sandler’s latest (“He’s gay! With the King of Queens!”) In looking at the Top 10 highest grossing movies of 2007 I have seen five of them and I will see The Simpsons Movie one of these days. So I will have watched more than half of the most popular movies put out this year. Hardly snobbish behavior, I’d say. (Now, having declared myself non-snobby I need to ask who are these people going to see Wild Hogs?) I look forward to serious, artsy, and foreign films. But I also like lowbrow stuff. We grew up watching Saturday afternoon kung-fu and B-monster movies. We’ve seen many of the movies shown on Mystery Science Theatre 3000 on their own. I just try to reject the middlebrow. I get no satisfaction from it. It’s worse than mindless entertainment. It’s insulting. I think the problem is that good, enjoyable cheesy movies aren’t really made much anymore. So I veer toward highbrow. So if I am snobbish it is due to attrition rather than any inherent movie-viewing habits.

I like to think this has to do with audience expectations. Audiences expect movies to be sugar-coated and mindlessly predictable so they show up. It’s not what they want, necessarily, but they have just bought into what Hollywood does. Since they show up Hollywood interprets this as them wanting exactly what they have been putting out. Am I giving audiences too much credit? I think audience expectations partly explain the laughter during No Country. The movie had some funny moments to be sure. But other times I think certain members of the audience were expecting something different. Perhaps, they were expecting a scene to veer off into Fargo or Big Lewboski territory and they laughed prematurely. They expected No Country to be a Coen movie. While it certainly was it was also a Cormac McCarthy movie. So they were looking for laughs in the wrong places. Like No Country, there were some funny scenes in There Will be Blood. (Both movies do not have funny ha-ha scenes but rather scenes that elicit laughter as a way to break the tension found through each movie.) I recall most of the laughter in There Will Be Blood as coming when the young preacher was on-screen. I took it more as a liberal NYC audience laughing at the backwards, Jesus freaks. But I could be wrong.

Enough for now. I still want to talk about watching Brand Upon the Brain! as a live movie (best movie-going experience of the year) and The Bourne Ultimatum (best action movie ever). Also I want to compare two movies about teenagers – Juno and In-Between Days – which I am sure will bring out certain snobby prejudices I have against "American Independent” cinema.

Movies 2007 Roundtable Spectacular

Part II: Books to Movies - Trust the Source Material

Click here for Part I of this roundtable

No Country for Old Men was also the best movie I saw this year. It’s about a near flawless movie that one can see. There are no missteps, the acting is top-notch across the board, and the unfolding of the story is paced to perfection. I remember when No Country, the novel was released, and reviewers called it Cormac McCarthy’s “most cinematic” novel. While that may be true when compared to his earlier works, after I read No Country I didn’t know how a movie would work without changing the core of the book – sure the plot of found drugs by an everyman and the trouble that ensues is great movie fodder, but plunging the depths on the page, I thought, would be almost impossible. The Coen Brothers pulled it off superbly. It’s sound odd, to me, to say that, No Country is a “risky” movie, but compared to other adaptations this year it is, well, risky to stick so closely to the source material, especially when that source material challenges the viewer and assumes we’re actually paying attention to every frame. The greatness of No Country is that from the opening voice-over, I had no other choice than to be riveted to every scene, every camera movement, every word spoken and, as the characters here are a taciturn bunch, unspoken.

No Country was a great movie because it stuck to the rich source material and didn’t alter the ending in such a way to make a nice tidy conclusion. Here’s two movies that I did like, but fall short of the source material especially in the use of their endings: I am Legend and Stardust. I fully understand your qualms with I am Legend and agree with all your points. But, perhaps my expectations were lowered by having read the story beforehand and watching the trailer and giving up the hope of any similarity outside of the premise of the last man being plagued by the undead, that I found myself enjoying the movie. The climax was rushed and the ending way too sugar-coated, but, after reflection, there were enough worthy scenes to justify my being entertained by it. I actually really want to dislike it for various stupid plot-points, but find myself unable to. I can’t justify it, as I totally recognize its flaws and have no counter to your arguments. How it tied the title to the ending was clunky – especially considering the brilliance of the meaning of the title from Matheson’s novel.

Stardust is an enjoyable, quirky fantasy, but how I wished it stuck more closely to the ending of the Neil Gaiman/Charles Vess story. Rather, it opts for special effects and Hollywood explosions instead of the quiet and beautiful and heartfelt ending. How richer would Stardust be with that ending – the journey of Tristan loses it’s full meaning within the bombast of the noisy, silly, typical ending. Stardust could have been a triumph of the fantasy movie genre instead of just another well-done but by-the-books Hollywood style extravaganza. I should note that the bits lifted directly from the book are the ones that caused the film to better than average. The Hollywoodization of the story dragged it down. Trust the source!

300 trusted its source, panel for panel at times, and turned out to be a rousing blood bath. Harry Potter condensed too much and the plot seemed too rapid fire at times to be as great as the previous two HP installments. Those two trusted the source but added and took away as needed - there's a fine balance to be had, of course. Beowulf added and subtracted as needed and it was fun to watch, especially in 3D, but that capture-motion animation doesn't work for me and the android nature of the actor's features prevented it from living up to the epic status of the Beowulf story.

You didn't like 3:10 to Yuma, but I was pleasantly surprised by the Western I did see: Seraphim Falls. It was released almost a year ago and is, in my opinion, an overlooked gem of the past year, especially when considering that Westerns like Yuma are viewed as part of a western revival of sorts.

A few questions for you, Nimero: what do you make of the odd laughter in the theater during No Country? Are audiences made uncomfortable by the story? Are people expecting another Big Lebowski that they think they're supposed to laugh at certain parts? Of course there's some morbid humor in the film, but the Funny HaHa reaction is strange? (I suppose this may apply to There May Be Blood as well where the same odd laughter happened at certain points.)

And, why are good comedies so hard to find? Knocked Up was the Most Overrated Movie of the Year followed closely by Waitress. Only Hot Fuzz really made me laugh. (And Brand Upon the Brain, but to pigeon-hole that film as "comedy" does it an injustice.)

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, here's a list of what I did see this year, ordered, somewhat, according to preference.

The Best
No Country for Old Men

Highly Recommended
Eastern Promises
There Will Be Blood
The Host
Lust, Caution
Seraphim Falls
Brand Upon the Brain!
Away From Her
Zodiac

Recommended
An Unreasonable Man
Hot Fuzz
300
Year of the Dog
Beowulf
Tears of the Black Tiger

Good But Flawed
Stardust
Death Proof
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
I am Legend
The Hoax

Disappointing
Knocked Up
Spiderman 3
Waitress
Stephanie Daly

Movies 2007 Roundtable Spectacular

Part I: Nimero's Best of the Year and Biggest Disappointments

Rather than having Colbinski or I list review capsules of our Top Movies of 2007 as we did last year (here and here) we will just talk about them. This is due partly to us both seeing between 20-25 movies each this past year. No sense in making a top 10 list when it encompasses half of the movies viewed. I am going to begin by talking about the best movie I saw in 2007 and also list what I consider to be the year's biggest disappointments.

The best movie I saw this year was No Country for Old Men. This is how you adapt a great book into a great movie. The very minor differences between book and film do nothing to take away from the power and spirit of the original story. In fact, the film version’s truncated ending may be more powerful. Three parallel stories of three men all linked but hardly ever on-screen together. The story of a man who finds drug money and is followed by a killer and a sheriff unfolds slowly but is paced perfectly. I’d recommend reading the book before viewing as it helped me appreciate how well the story was put on the screen. But on its own it is still a great movie.

Great movies are lacking this year from my perspective. Most critic lists this year mention how great a year it was for movies. This makes me want to go see what is on their lists. For me, it was a year of disappointing films. Grindhouse, Spiderman 3, 3:10 to Yuma, and I am Legend all disappointed greatly. Spiderman 3 is the biggest disappointment of 2007.

I like comic book movies. Especially good comic book movies. I liked the first two Spiderman movies. I like Sandman as a villain (in the comic). I was a bit worried because I never liked Venom and I wished the first two movies dealt with Harry Osborne. But I never thought it would result in this muddled mess of a movie. Rather than me rehashing all that’s wrong, just read Colbinski’s review.

Grindhouse was interminably lackluster. And I watched each section – Planet Terror and Deathproof – separately on DVD. I cannot imagine watching this tripe for more than 3 hours in one sitting. Perhaps a theatre would be more enjoyable for these movies, which was supposed to be a homage to 1970’s B-flicks. But it’s doubtful. Tarantino and Rodriguez are essentially both B-movie directors with a slick camera style. They just aspire to be something more and sometimes actually do. But, boy do they fail when they actually try to create B-movies. Talky, insipid, and boring are the only way I can describe these films. I expected fun from these movies and experienced exactly the opposite.

3:10 to Yuma was a good movie. But it could have been much better. It could have been a great western. But then a middle that should have been trimmed and an ending that doesn’t match up to the rest of the movie nearly over take all the good points. Great performances by Russell Crowe as the bad guy and Christian Bale as the reluctant hero salvage the movie.

While watching I am Legend I fell into too many plot holes. Because it is a recent release I won’t go into details for fear of mentioning spoilers. Let me say that I know how to suspend belief. I have no problem suspending belief. I don’t consider this nitpicking. A film must be consistent and believable in the world it creates. Too much about everything in this film is contradictory. A movie about the last man in earth surrounded by human killing vampires is right up my alley. I wanted to like this movie a lot but just couldn’t. When will Hollywood realize that consistency and tension is better than chase scenes and special effects.

Let’s see what Colbinski says about this or anything else. Next up I’ll respond to Colbinski and also talk about other movies I liked including maybe the best action movie ever and my favorite movie-going experience of the year.