If, like me, you loved the original “Planet of the Apes” series because it was equal parts 1960s cheeseball science-fiction and astute social commentary on the Civil Rights era, you’re probably shaking your head at the news that the films are being rebooted.
“Despite all the hype that preceded it, the first trailer for Rise of the Planet of the Apes didn’t land as solidly as anyone hoped. It spent more time crowing about its special effects than anything else, it didn’t really explain much in the way of story and – crucially – it was a trailer for a film with an impossibly stupid name.”
Moviegoers Were In A Retro Mood …
… this weekend as J.J. Abrams’ pastiche of late-1970s filmmaking, “Super 8,” finished atop the box office heap.
Here’s the weekend’s haul, by the numbers:
Name: Weekend: Total:
1. Super 8 $38m $38m
2. X-Men, First Class $25m $98.4m
3. The Hangover Part II $18.5m $216.5m
4. Kung Fu Panda 2 $16.6m $127m
5. Pirates .. $10.8m $208m
6. Bridesmaids $10.1 $124m
7. Judy Moody … $6.2m $6.2m
8. Midnight in Paris $6.1m $14.2m
9. Thor $2.4m $173m
10. Fast Five $1.7m $205m
We weren’t even aware that there was a “Human Centipede One” until a younger work colleague told us about its existence and what it’s about. In short, it’s a piece of torture porn in which a mad scientist stitches three, unsuspecting tourists together and … well, you get the idea. The title oughta tell you where it’s going from there.
The movie popped up for instant viewing in my Netflix the other night. Curiosity got the better of me, and I gave it a quick viewing. And, by quick, I mean I pretty pretty much fast-forwarded through the movie, pausing at what passed for key plot points, just so I could see what all the fuss was about. It was truly awful. And truly appalling.
There’s arguments to be made about the virtue of horror films to make broader statements about the human condition. I’ll defend the classic Hammer films unto death. And you might even find me making an argument on behalf of “Turistas.” But there’s nothing to redeem “Human Centipede” as a piece of art — at all.
In case you’re wondering what got “Human Centipede 2” banned for DVD release in the UK, here’s the germane part of the ruling from the British film board (apologies in advance for the grossness, here):
“Examples of this include a scene early in the film in which he masturbates whilst he watches a DVD of the original Human Centipede film, with sandpaper wrapped around his ____, and a sequence later in the film in which he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the ‘centipede’ being forced to _____ into one another’s ______, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his ____ and _____ the woman at the rear of the ‘centipede’.”
And to think the UK public will be robbed of the chance of seeing this deathless art … Yech.
Because before there was a Charlize or an Angelina, there was Harlow. And she was just luminous.
Conrad’s appreciation focuses on MGM’s official screen portrait of Harlow. She’s pictured with her head back, her cupid’s bow lips parted and her platinum tresses strewn carelessly behind her.
Here’s the paragraph that tells you all you need to know: “This is a face that has been sculpted, with a dimple in the chin that might have been chiselled. The Cupid’s bow of the upper lip is not accidental: it defines the mouth as a potentially deadly weapon. Glamour – a word that is etymologically akin to grammar, since it refer to some occult lore or secret knowledge – means the casting of a spell, and George Hurrell presents Jean Harlow as a white witch, Circe in a satin negligee.”
Harlow, and other screen goddesses, were appraised in Jessica Hope Jordan’s “The Sex Goddess in American Film, 1930-1965,” where women such as Harlow are described as “[Possessing] a power far more subversive than what has been previously explored.”
Here’s a clip of Harlow from 1933’s “Dinner at Eight.”
The English movie mag Empire is running a feature on its Web site promising a crash course in all things film noir. The feature promises to make you an expert in just 10 movies and it includes plot summaries and pix from such classics as “The Maltese Falcon,” “Double Indemnity” and “The Long Goodbye.”
If you’re like me and still can’t get enough noir to satiate your needs, may I suggest the amazing Hard Case Crime line of paperbacks edited by Charles Ardai? The line features both reprints of old classics and new works, including the incredible “Songs of Innocence.” After a year’s break, the line is set to relaunch in August with a whole new set of titles.
Mutants Beat Drunks.
“The Hangover, Part II” continues to do respectable box office trade, but it couldn’t beat out the adventures of a certain group of mutants. Here’s the weekend, by the numbers.
Name:Weekend:Total Haul:
1. X-Men: First Class $56M $56M
2. The Hangover Part II $32.4M $186M
3. Kung Fu Panda 2 P/DW $24.3M $100M
4. Pirates .. $18M $190M
5. Bridesmaids $12.1M $107M
6. Thor Par. $4.2M $169M
7. Fast Five Uni. $3.2M $202M
8. Midnight in Paris $2.9M $6.9M
9. Jumping the Broom $865,000 $35M
Not much is known, but it looks like Daniel Craig is set to return in the title role. Sam Mendes of “American Beauty” fame is directing. I loved Craig in “Casino Royale,” and “Quantum of Solace,” so there’s high hopes for the next flick.
Meanwhile, here’s the classic, “You expect me to talk?” scene from Goldfinger. It’s my fave Bond film, hands-down.
Name: Much Ado About Nothing Release Date: 1993 Writers: Kenneth Branagh (screenplay), William Shakespeare (play) Director: Kenneth Branagh
Cast:
Denzel Washington: Don Pedro
Keanu Reeves: Don John
Robert Sean Leonard: Claudio
Emma Thompson: Beatrice
Kenneth Branagh: Benedick
Richard Briers: Leonato
Kate Beckinsale: Hero
Imelda Staunton: Margaret
Jimmy Yuill: Friar Francis
Brian Blessed: Antonio
Michael Keaton: The Constable
Phyllida Law: Ursula
Studio: Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Run-Time: 111 mins.
Attention Fan Boys:
It’s late May, which means you’ve already been down to your local multiplex to catch “Thor” and you’re no doubt anxiously awaiting this weekend’s release of “X-Men, First Class.”
But before you do that, do this: Fire up the Netflix or trudge down to the nearest Red Box rental kiosk and pick up a copy of this 1993 adaptation of one of The Bard’s best-loved comedies.
Because before he was known for directing the larger-than-life exploits of proto-Shakespearean super heroes, Kenneth Branagh excelled at introducing modern audiences to William Shakespeare. And this gorgeously shot early 1990s feature is, hands-down, the best effort of his career.
In Branagh’s hands, Shakespeare’s sixteenth century source material becomes as fresh and modern as any of the rom-coms that Hollywood churns out with such depressing regularity these days.
The story, in short, is this: While sojourning and Sicily, young lovers Claudio (Leonard) and Hero (Beckinsale) become engaged and must wait a week until their wedding.
To help pass the time, they and their friends, Don Pedro (Washington), Leonato (Briers) and Antonio (Blessed) hatch a plot to set up a match between confirmed bachelor (Benedick) and the spunky Beatrice (Thompson).
But before the young lovers make it to the altar, they have to endure allegations of infidelity spread by the loathsome Don John (Reeves, as wooden as ever). And young Claudio must redeem himself in the eyes of his future father-in-law (Briers).
Then a real-life couple, Thompson and Branagh have undeniable chemistry as the reluctant Benedick and Beatrice.
The two bicker and fight, exchanging pointed jibes in metered poetry that nonetheless come across as perfectly comprehensible because of the skill of the two players. Think of them as a Renaissance-era Sam and Diane or Ross and Rachel, and you’ll immediately catch on.
Best-known these days as the young doctor on “House,” Leonard brings a wide-eyed wonder as the young Claudio. Beckinsale, who was then a long way away from her days as a PVC-wearing werewolf hunter, breaks your heart when she protests her innocence of infidelity to her skeptical fiancé.
In a film replete with little moments of pleasure (not least of which is the cinematography, which could easily have done service as a PSA for the Sicilian Tourism Board), there’s one particularly delightful stand-out.
That comes in the form of Keaton, whose delirious turn as the drunken and quite possibly insane Constable, provides one laugh-out-loud moment after the other.
If your only memory of Shakespeare is bad summer stock or the stuff you were force-fed as a schoolboy by a particularly sadistic English teacher, give yourself a break and try “Much Ado About Nothing.” It’s one of the rare romantic-comedies that holds up under repeated viewings and you’ll come away with something new every time.
As In Life …
,,, the adventures of a bunch of drunken louts provided the most compelling viewing.<br?
"The Hangover Part II” leads this holiday weekend, while the rest of the season’s flicks continue to do steady trade. Here’s the weekend, by the numbers:
Title:Weekend:
1. “The Hangover Part II” $86.5 million
2. “Kung Fu Panda 2” $48 million
3. “Pirates …” $39.3 million
4. “Bridesmaids” $16.4 million
5. “Thor” $9.4 million
6. “Fast Five” $6.7 million
7. “Midnight in Paris” $2 million
8. “Jumping the Broom $1.9 million
“It’s really startling,” Spielberg said. “Number one, it seems like it was only five years ago, it does not seem like 30 years ago. And the other great thing is I’m still close to everybody that made the movie. We’ve all watched each other grow up and older — older [not old] – and I love how that ‘Raiders’ family has stayed together for 30 years. We’re all still the closest of friends. ‘Raiders’ was the first movie where I actually shot the movie without thinking. I like to say that the line in ‘Raiders’ that most typifies the production of that movie was when Harrison says, ‘I’m making this up as I go along.’”
Well, this can’t be good.
Writing in The Guardian newspaper in London today, Ben Child throws the first brick at one of this summer’s most eagerly anticipated (by the Fanboys, at least) summer blockbusters: “X-Men, First Class.”
In case you’ve been trapped under something heavy and have been unable to log onto the Interwebs these last few months, then you already know that the flick is an origin story — of sorts. It traces the adventures of mutant good-guy Charles Xavier and proto-bad guy Magneto at the beginning of their careers, before they have their Simon & Garfunkel level fall-out and become sworn foes.
Here’s the germane part of Child’s review:
“X-Men: First Class may be a prequel set in a new era (the early 60s) with a new cast, but it is not nearly as much of a genuine mutation from the norm as might be expected. Nor is it quite as good as some early reviews have suggested.
Whereas Christopher Nolan breezily ignored all the previous Batman films with his genre-defining Batman Begins, Vaughn and screenwriter Jane Goldman’s script is based on a story by Bryan Singer, who made the first two X-Men movies. The film ends up being not so much a radical reinvention of the series as an affirmation of those earlier features: it has their DNA running through its system, and we’re left in no doubt that events are intended to prefigure those we’ve already seen pan out on screen.
Had X-Men: First Class arrived back in 2000, when Singer’s first film hit cinemas, it might have been revolutionary. Arriving as it does in 2011, it feels like a throwback to an earlier, simpler era where audiences were willing to accept cardboard cut-out villains and one-dimensional heroes. It’s the sort of film for which the caveat “it’s only a comic book movie” will be constantly offered in conversation.”
The Cineaste's Lament. 