Amityville 3-D holds the distinction of being the last of the major 3D releases of the 1980s. A few more independent films limped out in 1984 and 1985, but this November 1983 release was the effective end of the road for the process for nearly 20 years (a couple of minor 1990s releases notwithstanding).
It also holds the distinction of being on Siskel & Ebert's Worst of 1983 list. I'm not entirely convinced I agree with that distinction, however. After all, 1983 also gave us The Man Who Wasn't There and Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared Syn, both of which threaten to make this film look like Casablanca.
The funny thing about this is the fact that, like so many other bad movies, one watches Amityville 3-D and is left wondering just how it went so wrong. It shouldn't be as bad as it is. It has a decent enough cast, a pretty good idea for the story, and the director of such classics as 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Fantastic Voyage, and Tora! Tora! Tora!. Despite all this, the film manages to lay an absurdly sour egg.
The story has magazine journalist John Baxter (Woody Allen alumni Tony Roberts) buying the Amityville Horror house. As he makes his career debunking hoaxes, he doesn't believe in the stories about the house. So far so good. I can dig a guy with cajones buying up a haunted house. Of course it doesn't take long for weird stuff to happen and people to start dying. Baxter, for his part, just blows it all off.
The Realtor who sold him the place dies in the house? Happens all the time!
Baxter's photographer partner Melanie gets attacked by the house and later is burned to a crisp in her car? Mere coincidence!
Baxter's daughter drowns after a séance where the house threatens her? It's tragic, but what can you do? That's life!
Sheesh, is this guy boneheaded! In fact, Baxter is hilariously boneheaded even after he's attacked in an elevator. Me? I would have been suspicious after the realtor, concerned after the elevator, and convinced after my photographer died. But then, I'm not the victim of bad screenwriting.
The script is just one of the frustrating things about this film. There seem to be two types of people in this movie: stupid people and whiney people. As stupid as Baxter comes across, it can't beat the stupidity of paranormal investigator Eliot West (Robert Joy). This genius decides that the best way to save Loughlin's spirit from the demon in the well is to lean near the well and, when he sees the demon coming up yell to her spirit to save herself. That's it. Naturally, the demon gets him instead. Good plan, there, bub. Didn't think to bring any holy water or anything, did you?
While it's true that none of the 1980s 3D movies are what you would traditionally call "good movies", this one should have been. Besides Roberts and Joy, Candy Clark plays Melanie, Lori Loughlin is the daughter, and Meg Ryan her best (only?) friend. Yes, that Meg Ryan. So this isn't exactly the cast of a Friday the 13th movie. I know, I know. Someone is going to point out that some of those movies have good casts. They don't. What they usually have is one or two (if that) good actors and a bunch of nobodies. This cast isn't a bunch of nobodies. They're a good cast doing a lousy job.
The only one who almost acquits herself is Loughlin and she doesn't get much to do. Even worse, almost all of her scenes are with Ryan, who is embarrassingly bad here. How bad is Ryan? Her performance has all the subtlety of a nuclear explosion. It's bizarre to think that by the end of the decade she'd being doing movies like When Harry Met Sally. Watching her here, however, you would swear she was never going to be anybody.
You can almost excuse those two, however, since they actually were nobodies at the time. Candy Clark, on the other hand, had been in American Graffiti ten years earlier, so she has no excuse. She starts out okay but as the film goes on her performance gets steadily worse. Her next to last scene, where Roberts tries to find out what happened to her in the house is so bad it's painful. Her death by spontaneous combustion scene is so over the top ridiculous as to be unintentionally funny.
Roberts ex-wife is played by an exceedingly shrill Tess Harper. Literally, all she seems to do is whine her way through the part. In fact, she is so annoying, you actually wish she was in the car with Clark when it goes up in flames.
As far as Roberts goes, he plays Baxter in such a blasé manner as to defy belief. You would think that an actor who worked with Al Pacino and Woody Allen would be able to bring some life to his character. But he doesn't, which makes it impossible to feel anything for him but contempt for being so stupid and banal a character. Not good for an actor who has to carry a whole movie. It's like watching a Friday the 13th movie where the character stands by the open door screaming while Jason slowly walks over to them instead of running like hell. They literally deserve what they get.
True, it's not necessarily the fault of any of the actors as the characters themselves are written that way. But the fact that none of these people--except for Ryan who goes way over the top--can make their characters the least bit interesting damns the whole project. And Ryan isn't interesting, she's just goofy and over the top.
Director Richard Fleischer had worked in 3D 30 years earlier with a movie called Arena, so he was better qualified to work with the process than any other director of an 80s 3D movie. He knows plenty about depth and it shows since the depth in the movie is fantastic, far better than most 3D movies today. But the film suffers from what all 80s 3D movies seem to suffer from: so many gimmick shots that many of them are just plain silly. Clark's charred corpse is pretty effective but it's hard to take a movie seriously that spits straws and Frisbees at you. Especially when the Frisbee effect is handled pretty clumsily. Still, if you have a 3D TV and are going to watch this movie, the 3D Blu Ray is the way to go.
In the end, Amityville 3-D ends up being only moderately better than most of it's contemporaries. This, Jaws 3-D, and Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone remain the best of the 80s 3D movies. But that's not really saying much.
Though I will give the movie this: there is at least one effectively creepy scene in the movie. Harper is in the house and she sees a very wet (and silent) Loughlin walking up the steps. She follows her right up to the attic and gets the door slammed on her. What she doesn't know is that outside at that very moment, Roberts and some paramedics are trying desperately to revive the already dead girl. It's a well done sequence which shows what the movie could have done with a little more effort. Shame there weren't more scenes like it.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Follow the Yellow Brick Road Part I: The Wizard of Oz
A week and a half ago a friend of mine and I went to see Warner's limited release of The Wizard of Oz in Imax 3D. I had heard it was a great 3D conversion and wanted to see it for myself. It was, but more on that later.
The theater had a decent crowd, including a lot of little kids. In fact, sitting next to us was a mother with two little ones no older than three or four years old I would guess. My friend surmised that it might have been the little ones' first time seeing the movie, a thought that is pretty cool. Looking back, I wish my first experience with Oz was in the movies.
It's a curious thing, however. When I was a kid, I turned against Oz. You see, though I religiously watched it for a few years, round about the time I was ten The Dukes of Hazzard was on and it was my favorite show. They took it off one Friday night for Oz and I got so mad that for years afterwards I refused to watch the movie. Funny thing is, I can't stand The Dukes of Hazzard now. Trying to watch it now, it feels like my brain will implode and my childhood will be ripped asunder. But Oz? I happily rediscovered it in my 20s.
It was at a theatrical showing, a one night only thing at a theater known as The Ritz (very classy theater in Philly, btw). It was a packed house. In fact, I was one of the last six people admitted. I ended up in the third row right by the wall. But as I watched the movie that night, I was blown away by what I saw. I finally got it. And I felt kinda stupid for turning against the movie fifteen years earlier, especially for something as awful as The Dukes. I'll say it now. As a kid, I had rotten taste in movies and TV for the most part. Rotten.
I've seen Oz twice on the big screen since then, the most recent being the Imax showing. I know some people are upset about this most recent release, calling it a desecration of a classic motion picture. It isn't, folks. The 3D, in fact, merely adds to the wonder of the movie. It's very well handled. Not overdone, but with some good layers of depth and a couple--but not too many--pop outs. In fact, if you didn't know the movie was shot flat, you might well mistake it for being a movie shot in 3D. Almost. As good as it looks--and it looks great--it does highlight one of the problems with 3D conversions. Which is that there isn't quite as much depth as one might get with a native shot 3D film. The biggest highlight of this problem is during Munchkinland. Apparently the computers used to convert these things can only break things down into so many layers and the munchkins go back further than that. On the other hand, they do manage to break some of the matte paintings into layers. So that's kinda neat, too.
Of course, the movie is still the movie. And the movie is one of those rare breeds: a near perfect movie. If you look back at the past 120 years or so of movies, there's not that many that truly are near perfect. Casablanca would be one. Singin' In The Rain might qualify. The Maltese Falcon--the Bogart version of course. Arguments might also be made for It's A Wonderful Life, Jaws, E.T., and the original Star Wars. Oz, however, may tower above them all.
Think about it for a moment. Is there anything inherently wrong with the movie? There isn't a bad performance in it. Every cast member is great, starting most importantly with Judy Garland as Dorothy. Shirley Temple lobbied hard to get the part of Dorothy and was the bigger star at the time, but I'm not convinced she would have worked. Judy brings a naturalness to the character. She doesn't actually seem to be acting, a feat that isn't always easy. I've seen her in other movies, but I really think this is her best performance ever. You really do feel for Dorothy during her journey. She makes you laugh and cry in all the right spots. That was the genius of Judy Garland. Nobody else--then or now--could do with this part what she does.
Of course, there's also her co-stars. Ray Bolger, Jack Haley, and Bert Lahr as the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion (respectively) were three old vaudeville hams--and I mean that in the nicest sense--support Garland beautifully, even if they do occasionally try taking the film away from her. Frank Morgan did the playing five distinct parts in the same movie thing twenty some years before Peter Sellers and he rivals Sellers in that department. And he totally sells it. Especially if you count his wizard as two separate performances--the big, scary disembodied head and the humbug with a heart of gold. And of course, we have Margaret Hamilton as Elmira Gulch/The Wicked Witch of the West. As scary as the Queen in Snow White might have been to kids, Hamilton is positively Evil Personified in both performances.
Some people in later years have taken the Witch's side and said that in the end Dorothy was the evil one, but I'm not certain they get the movie. One might make the argument that the Rudy Slippers are stolen from her, but Dorothy doesn't do that. Glinda the Allegedly Good Witch of the North (a delightful Billie Burke) does. Note I say Allegedly Good. Glinda says she's a Good witch, but I find her behavior pretty specious for a Good Witch. She steals the Slippers and puts them on Dorothy, thereby putting a bulls-eye on the poor kid's back. She sends Dorothy off to see the Wizard in the Emerald City without any mode of transportation even though it's a really long walk, knowing that the Wicked Witch wants to do terrible things to Dorothy. Of course, once safe in the Emerald City, the Wizard sends Dorothy off to kill the Witch, which makes me suspect him and Glinda were co-conspirators. And then, when all is said and done, Glinda shows back up and tells Dorothy "you could have gone home at any time you wanted, kiddo". No wonder the Scarecrow calls her out on that!
Actually, if you stop and think about it, the only thing that makes the Wicked Witch worse than Glinda is the fact that she's so hell-bent on killing Dorothy and her friends. On the other hand, Hamilton plays the part for all it's worth and then some. She looks like a nightmare, talks like a nightmare, and most of all acts like a nightmare. There are few, if any screen villains, that can come close to the delightful terror Hamilton inspires in the film. Ironically, she was one of the last of the original main cast to pass away.
The special effects, like in the 1933 King Kong, still hold up amazingly. I know, I know. Some too cool for his or her own good kid is gonna say that the special effects suck, especially compared to the CGI of today. But that kid is a tasteless moron and doesn't deserve to be listened to. The effects are amazing, even more so on the big screen. The tornado is particularly impressive. The rear screen shots, again like in King Kong, fool you since you don't even realize you're looking at rear screen and mattes. Matter of fact, not all the matte paintings look like paintings.
Hand in hand with this is the set design, which is absolutely stunning. Kansas looks appropriately gray and dusty and really kinda barren while Oz itself pops with color and design. It's a beautiful place, albeit one with a veneer of evil lurking just underneath. Much like the real world, if you think about it. But the film is optimistic since in the end beauty and goodness rise above evil, a timeless message and one which the world needs as much today as it did in 1939.
As for the music, is there a better score to a musical? Maybe Singin' In the Rain comes close, but let's be fair. That was a songbook musical which cherry picked the best tunes from earlier musicals. There's not a bad song in Oz, starting with Over The Rainbow, which may be one of the ten best songs ever written. The fact that MGM wanted to cut that song from the film for being too long shows that not even the studio knew quite what it was doing. Thank goodness they listened to Producer Mervynn Le Roy and left it in. It's an emotional and beautiful song and Garland sings it fantastically. Going back to Shirley Temple, I just can't hear her singing that song. The Munchkinland song is as memorable as it is long. And it is a long song.
One of the crimes against the film, however, is the cutting of Ray Bolger's dance sequence at the end of If I Only Had a Brain. MGM cut it for being too long. I've seen the footage--it's in one of the documentaries on Oz in one of the previous DVD releases--and the sequence is one of the most amazing dance sequences on film. Anyone who's seen Singin' In the Rain and marveled at Donald O'Connor's Make 'Em Laugh would be equally blown away by this sadly cut sequence. How long is too long anyhow? Goofy studio heads.
Of course, as beloved as Oz is, not everyone gets it or likes it. Beyond the tasteless person who doesn't watch anything older than The Dark Knight--a person not really worth mentioning in my opinion--there are the people who look at the fact that it's a fantasy film with witches and wizards and automatically lump it with Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. Now, I like the latter two series as much as anyone else, but the people who does this don't understand the point of the film, which is markedly different from the latter two. Oz is about discovering who you really are. This applies to all four main characters and even, to an extent to the Wizard himself. And not just the film's famous last line "there's no place like home". It's about discovering that the thing you really want, sometimes you had all along and just didn't know it. The Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion all had brains, a heart, and courage to begin with. They just didn't realize it. And Dorothy had a home and people who loved and cared about her. The Witch isn't so much a witch as she is an obstacle the characters need to overcome to realize the truth about themselves. Of course, there's also the fact that the whole thing is a dream (something the sequels tend to miss out on, too). A dream designed to help Dorothy realize the truth, but a dream nonetheless.
Wizard of Oz is not just a movie for kids either--nor was it ever just for kids. Like many great movies, it packs an emotional punch. I watched it the day after my brother died in 2010 and openly wept during Over the Rainbow. Once you get it, once you look past the candy coated sets and fantastic make up, you realize these characters and the world they inhabit are close to the real world. The film strikes several truths, some wryly--the Scarecrow's line about "some people without brains do an awful lot of talking"--some more gently.
It is ultimately an honest film, unashamed of it's own sentiment, much like kissing cousin It's A Wonderful Life. Oh, yes, I did go there. Let's be blunt about this. Both films are fantasies that deal with a desire to go somewhere else but characters who realize that home is where the heart is at the end. It's A Wonderful Life trades out Oz's sugar coated world for Bedford Falls, USA, it's Wizard and Dorothy's companions for a Guardian Angel, and the Wicked Witch for the Wicked Banker. But in some ways, the two films are not so far apart as you might imagine. Which may be why they both endure. Interestingly, both films were flops until rediscovered on TV years later.
At the end of the day, Oz is a film that speaks to audiences. It has for nearly 75 years now. I suspect it will continue to do so until this world of ours comes to an end. It is a magnificent movie, and a journey everyone should take from time to time, if only to remind ourselves of it's gentle message.
The theater had a decent crowd, including a lot of little kids. In fact, sitting next to us was a mother with two little ones no older than three or four years old I would guess. My friend surmised that it might have been the little ones' first time seeing the movie, a thought that is pretty cool. Looking back, I wish my first experience with Oz was in the movies.
It's a curious thing, however. When I was a kid, I turned against Oz. You see, though I religiously watched it for a few years, round about the time I was ten The Dukes of Hazzard was on and it was my favorite show. They took it off one Friday night for Oz and I got so mad that for years afterwards I refused to watch the movie. Funny thing is, I can't stand The Dukes of Hazzard now. Trying to watch it now, it feels like my brain will implode and my childhood will be ripped asunder. But Oz? I happily rediscovered it in my 20s.
It was at a theatrical showing, a one night only thing at a theater known as The Ritz (very classy theater in Philly, btw). It was a packed house. In fact, I was one of the last six people admitted. I ended up in the third row right by the wall. But as I watched the movie that night, I was blown away by what I saw. I finally got it. And I felt kinda stupid for turning against the movie fifteen years earlier, especially for something as awful as The Dukes. I'll say it now. As a kid, I had rotten taste in movies and TV for the most part. Rotten.
I've seen Oz twice on the big screen since then, the most recent being the Imax showing. I know some people are upset about this most recent release, calling it a desecration of a classic motion picture. It isn't, folks. The 3D, in fact, merely adds to the wonder of the movie. It's very well handled. Not overdone, but with some good layers of depth and a couple--but not too many--pop outs. In fact, if you didn't know the movie was shot flat, you might well mistake it for being a movie shot in 3D. Almost. As good as it looks--and it looks great--it does highlight one of the problems with 3D conversions. Which is that there isn't quite as much depth as one might get with a native shot 3D film. The biggest highlight of this problem is during Munchkinland. Apparently the computers used to convert these things can only break things down into so many layers and the munchkins go back further than that. On the other hand, they do manage to break some of the matte paintings into layers. So that's kinda neat, too.
Of course, the movie is still the movie. And the movie is one of those rare breeds: a near perfect movie. If you look back at the past 120 years or so of movies, there's not that many that truly are near perfect. Casablanca would be one. Singin' In The Rain might qualify. The Maltese Falcon--the Bogart version of course. Arguments might also be made for It's A Wonderful Life, Jaws, E.T., and the original Star Wars. Oz, however, may tower above them all.
Think about it for a moment. Is there anything inherently wrong with the movie? There isn't a bad performance in it. Every cast member is great, starting most importantly with Judy Garland as Dorothy. Shirley Temple lobbied hard to get the part of Dorothy and was the bigger star at the time, but I'm not convinced she would have worked. Judy brings a naturalness to the character. She doesn't actually seem to be acting, a feat that isn't always easy. I've seen her in other movies, but I really think this is her best performance ever. You really do feel for Dorothy during her journey. She makes you laugh and cry in all the right spots. That was the genius of Judy Garland. Nobody else--then or now--could do with this part what she does.
Of course, there's also her co-stars. Ray Bolger, Jack Haley, and Bert Lahr as the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion (respectively) were three old vaudeville hams--and I mean that in the nicest sense--support Garland beautifully, even if they do occasionally try taking the film away from her. Frank Morgan did the playing five distinct parts in the same movie thing twenty some years before Peter Sellers and he rivals Sellers in that department. And he totally sells it. Especially if you count his wizard as two separate performances--the big, scary disembodied head and the humbug with a heart of gold. And of course, we have Margaret Hamilton as Elmira Gulch/The Wicked Witch of the West. As scary as the Queen in Snow White might have been to kids, Hamilton is positively Evil Personified in both performances.
Some people in later years have taken the Witch's side and said that in the end Dorothy was the evil one, but I'm not certain they get the movie. One might make the argument that the Rudy Slippers are stolen from her, but Dorothy doesn't do that. Glinda the Allegedly Good Witch of the North (a delightful Billie Burke) does. Note I say Allegedly Good. Glinda says she's a Good witch, but I find her behavior pretty specious for a Good Witch. She steals the Slippers and puts them on Dorothy, thereby putting a bulls-eye on the poor kid's back. She sends Dorothy off to see the Wizard in the Emerald City without any mode of transportation even though it's a really long walk, knowing that the Wicked Witch wants to do terrible things to Dorothy. Of course, once safe in the Emerald City, the Wizard sends Dorothy off to kill the Witch, which makes me suspect him and Glinda were co-conspirators. And then, when all is said and done, Glinda shows back up and tells Dorothy "you could have gone home at any time you wanted, kiddo". No wonder the Scarecrow calls her out on that!
Actually, if you stop and think about it, the only thing that makes the Wicked Witch worse than Glinda is the fact that she's so hell-bent on killing Dorothy and her friends. On the other hand, Hamilton plays the part for all it's worth and then some. She looks like a nightmare, talks like a nightmare, and most of all acts like a nightmare. There are few, if any screen villains, that can come close to the delightful terror Hamilton inspires in the film. Ironically, she was one of the last of the original main cast to pass away.
The special effects, like in the 1933 King Kong, still hold up amazingly. I know, I know. Some too cool for his or her own good kid is gonna say that the special effects suck, especially compared to the CGI of today. But that kid is a tasteless moron and doesn't deserve to be listened to. The effects are amazing, even more so on the big screen. The tornado is particularly impressive. The rear screen shots, again like in King Kong, fool you since you don't even realize you're looking at rear screen and mattes. Matter of fact, not all the matte paintings look like paintings.
Hand in hand with this is the set design, which is absolutely stunning. Kansas looks appropriately gray and dusty and really kinda barren while Oz itself pops with color and design. It's a beautiful place, albeit one with a veneer of evil lurking just underneath. Much like the real world, if you think about it. But the film is optimistic since in the end beauty and goodness rise above evil, a timeless message and one which the world needs as much today as it did in 1939.
As for the music, is there a better score to a musical? Maybe Singin' In the Rain comes close, but let's be fair. That was a songbook musical which cherry picked the best tunes from earlier musicals. There's not a bad song in Oz, starting with Over The Rainbow, which may be one of the ten best songs ever written. The fact that MGM wanted to cut that song from the film for being too long shows that not even the studio knew quite what it was doing. Thank goodness they listened to Producer Mervynn Le Roy and left it in. It's an emotional and beautiful song and Garland sings it fantastically. Going back to Shirley Temple, I just can't hear her singing that song. The Munchkinland song is as memorable as it is long. And it is a long song.
One of the crimes against the film, however, is the cutting of Ray Bolger's dance sequence at the end of If I Only Had a Brain. MGM cut it for being too long. I've seen the footage--it's in one of the documentaries on Oz in one of the previous DVD releases--and the sequence is one of the most amazing dance sequences on film. Anyone who's seen Singin' In the Rain and marveled at Donald O'Connor's Make 'Em Laugh would be equally blown away by this sadly cut sequence. How long is too long anyhow? Goofy studio heads.
Of course, as beloved as Oz is, not everyone gets it or likes it. Beyond the tasteless person who doesn't watch anything older than The Dark Knight--a person not really worth mentioning in my opinion--there are the people who look at the fact that it's a fantasy film with witches and wizards and automatically lump it with Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. Now, I like the latter two series as much as anyone else, but the people who does this don't understand the point of the film, which is markedly different from the latter two. Oz is about discovering who you really are. This applies to all four main characters and even, to an extent to the Wizard himself. And not just the film's famous last line "there's no place like home". It's about discovering that the thing you really want, sometimes you had all along and just didn't know it. The Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion all had brains, a heart, and courage to begin with. They just didn't realize it. And Dorothy had a home and people who loved and cared about her. The Witch isn't so much a witch as she is an obstacle the characters need to overcome to realize the truth about themselves. Of course, there's also the fact that the whole thing is a dream (something the sequels tend to miss out on, too). A dream designed to help Dorothy realize the truth, but a dream nonetheless.
Wizard of Oz is not just a movie for kids either--nor was it ever just for kids. Like many great movies, it packs an emotional punch. I watched it the day after my brother died in 2010 and openly wept during Over the Rainbow. Once you get it, once you look past the candy coated sets and fantastic make up, you realize these characters and the world they inhabit are close to the real world. The film strikes several truths, some wryly--the Scarecrow's line about "some people without brains do an awful lot of talking"--some more gently.
It is ultimately an honest film, unashamed of it's own sentiment, much like kissing cousin It's A Wonderful Life. Oh, yes, I did go there. Let's be blunt about this. Both films are fantasies that deal with a desire to go somewhere else but characters who realize that home is where the heart is at the end. It's A Wonderful Life trades out Oz's sugar coated world for Bedford Falls, USA, it's Wizard and Dorothy's companions for a Guardian Angel, and the Wicked Witch for the Wicked Banker. But in some ways, the two films are not so far apart as you might imagine. Which may be why they both endure. Interestingly, both films were flops until rediscovered on TV years later.
At the end of the day, Oz is a film that speaks to audiences. It has for nearly 75 years now. I suspect it will continue to do so until this world of ours comes to an end. It is a magnificent movie, and a journey everyone should take from time to time, if only to remind ourselves of it's gentle message.
Friday, October 4, 2013
More 3D Classics Come To Blu Ray (UPDATED)
Last year(!) I blogged about the 3D Blu Ray releases of Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M For Murder and the horror classic Creature From The Black Lagoon. Jump forward a year, and we finally have two more classic 3D movies released on 3D Blu Ray. Some may take exception at my listing one of these as classic, but I'll explain my logic when I get to it.
First, and most importantly, is the movie that, for many people is The 3D Movie of all time. Before Avatar, before The Avengers, there was 1953's classic chiller House of Wax starring Vincent Price. If your only familiarity with this particular title is the so-called "remake" that is best remembered for the death of Paris Hilton, then you need to see some better movies. I can't even call this the original since a)it's actually a remake of a 1933 movie called Mystery of the Wax Museum and b)the 2005 debacle has nothing at all to do with this movie. But, this is one of the films that made Vincent Price a superstar (which realistically didn't happen until he started doing the Poe films in 1960) and is one of the most famous 3D movies of all time. With good reason.
Price plays Professor Henry Jarrod, a brilliant but not terribly successful sculptor of wax statues. Price prefers creating beauty and history over violence and mayhem. His partner (Roy Roberts) wants out and decides that the fastest way to do so is to burn down the museum. Jarrod is scarred in the ensuing fire but apparently escapes.
Not long after that, a ghoulish figure starts murdering people, starting with the ex-partner, who he hangs in an elevator shaft (a fairly gruesome murder for a 1953 film, btw). The partner's girlfriend Cathy Gale (a wonderfully ditzy Carolyn Jones) is next. When Jones's roommate (Phyllis Kirk) walks in on the killer, a foot chase through the fog shrouded streets of New York ensues. Kirk just barely escapes the ghoul.
Not long after this, Price reappears, set to open a new wax museum. Kirk's boyfriend (Paul Picerni of TV's The Untouchables) gets a job there and that's when Kirk notices that Joan of Arc looks an awful lot like Cathy. That's okay, since Price decides that Kirk looks an awful lot like Marie Antoinette. The cops and Picerni dismiss Kirk's ideas about the museum as crazy, but she decides to carry on and prove she's right, hopefully not becoming a wax statue in the process.
As I say, for many people, House of Wax is the greatest 3D movie of all time. While I prefer Kiss Me Kate a bit more myself, I get where they're coming from. The 3D in the movie is amazing, and I don't just mean the gimmick shots. This is an insanely deep looking 3D movie with the shots composed for maximum depth. Totally unlike most of the 3D movies made today. And this from a director who famously only had one eye and couldn't see 3D but, as legend has it, mathematically worked out every single shot. Incidentally, Andre De Toth wasn't the only one eyed 3D director of the 50s. Raoul Walsh also had monocular vision and also knocked one out of the ballpark with Gun Fury. But that's for another blog.
There isn't a ton of gimmick shots, either, but what ones there are, are amazing. There's a reason the paddle ball sequence is so famous. It's one of the all-time great gimmick shots and a perfect way to bring the audience back into the film after the intermission. For years, people just looked at it as a stupid gimmick shot and that's because the intermission card was gone. Once you realize there was an intermission and the scene's placement in the movie, it makes a little more sense. Plus, Price gets in a jab at it by commenting "once we're established, we won't need that sort of thing".
Mention also needs to be made of the supporting players. Frank Lovejoy and Dabs Greer are the cops trying to figure the case out. Lovejoy was a radio actor who was trying to make it into movies. He gets a decent part in another Warner Brothers 3D film, Charge at Feather River, where he famously spits at the audience (Lee Marvin does the same thing in The Stranger Wore a Gun and the gimmick is done again in the next film in this blog's entry). Sadly, he died a few years later without ever becoming a major star. As for Dabs Greer, try finding something he wasn't in. He's Shaky in the 1950s Dick Tracy show. He's one of the cops that harasses Richard Kimble in the pilot episode of The Fugitive. And modern audiences will recognize him as old Tom Hanks in The Green Mile. The guy got around.
But the most notable supporting player is a fairly young actor named Charles Buchinsky. He plays Price's creepy deaf mute assistant Igor and gets the films most notable 3D effect shot. He kept that name for another 1953 3D movie, the Rita Hayworth starrer Miss Sadie Thompson before changing it to the name we all knew him as. Fellow did some real good movies after that like The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape and even when he started doing mindless crap in the 1980s, he still pulled off a couple of good movies like the TV movie version of Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus. I refer, of course, to Charles Bronson, who does a good, creepy job in this.
My friend Bob Furmanek of the 3D Film Archive stated that for all the times and ways he's seen House of Wax, this blu ray restoration is the best the film has looked. I've seen this a few different ways and times myself and I wholeheartedly agree. Warners did scans from the original YCMs---that's six different scans, three for each eye. This is one gorgeous blu and a showcase 3D blu. Writer R.M. Hayes in his infamous book on 3D movies wrote that if you were going to see only one 3D movie in your life, it should be Treasure of the Four Crowns. R.M. Hayes was a moron. If you see only one 3D movie, House of Wax is the one. And if you haven't seen it in 3D, you haven't seen it.
The second "classic" isn't quite in the same ballpark as House of Wax. Oh, hell. It's not even in the same universe. Nonetheless, as the first of the 1980s films to get a proper 3D Blu Ray release, Amityville 3-D deserves a little love, too. The third of the Amityville Horror films, this one comes to us in a box set with the first two from Scream Factory. I have no particular interest in the first two, though I may end up watching them. I did read the book and found it to be, by and large, a load of crap. Okay, let me clarify that. The book by Jay Anson, like Oliver Stone's JFK is a decent work of fiction. It is, at times, even moderately scary. But anyone who believes that it even remotely happened...well, I got a bridge to sell you as they say.
The third film advertised itself as "not a sequel" which basically translates to it being a movie designed to cash in on the success of the earlier films but having nothing to do with the characters in those films. At the very least, it's the first film to outright admit it's a fiction, so I give it points for that. The movie's tagline was also "In this film, you are the victim", so I also give it points for truth in advertising. I tend to remember Siskel and Ebert listing this on their worst of 1983 list (along with Jaws 3D). I'm not certain I would go quite that far. I tend to remember Deal of the Century and The Man Who Wasn't There being quite a bit worse from that year. Just saying.
Anyhow, the plot has a journalist (Tony Roberts) who makes it his career to debunk paranormal claims deciding to buy the infamous house on 112 Ocean Avenue. Problem is, the damn house actually is haunted. He ignores that fact, even when people start dropping dead left and right around him, starting with the realtor who sells him the house and has an encounter with the flies in the attic. Then his partner (Candy Clark) meets a particularly gruesome end in a burning car. Then his daughter (Lori Laughlin from TV's Full House) drowns. It's only when his daughter's ghost is spotted that he starts thinking there might be something to the stories and calls in his physic investigator friend, who ends up meeting the most ridiculous looking demon you ever saw.
Reading the above description and then going back a few paragraphs and reading about House of Wax, you may be wondering why in the world I'm including this movie in this particular post. It's not that Amityville 3-D is a good movie. None of the 1980s 3D movies are, realistically. This is one of the better ones, along with Jaws 3D and Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone. But that doesn't say much, now does it? I mean, Plan Nine From Outer Space and Bride of the Monster are Ed Wood's best movies, and they still stink.
Still, this is a worthy enough purchase, if only for the fact that it's a pre-2003 3D movie released on 3D Blu Ray. Somebody is gonna cite Friday the 13th Part 3 being on Blu Ray in 3D, but that's in the anaglyph format, which frankly sucks compared to 3D Blu Ray technology. I know since I released two shorts in anaglyph and ran tests for an over under version compatible on 3D TVs and it's night and day. If supporting films like this means we could potentially get more, then good. And regardless of what you may think of the movie, the 3D is actually pretty good. There's some decent depth. And one of the fun things about the 80s 3D movies is the fact that they weren't ashamed to jab the audience in the eye. Again, mostly the antithesis of what we see today. Oh, sure, a number of the gimmick shots in Amityville are corny as all get out--Meg Ryan blows a straw at the audience and someone tosses a Frisbee out of the screen among other things.
But let's be fair, here. Gimmick shots, corny and otherwise, are part of what has made 3D fun over the years. Even the 50s films, which rarely went overboard with the gimmick shots, knew that and would stick them in, sometimes organically and sometimes just out of left field. Again I cite the paddleball sequence in House of Wax, which is arguably as goofy a gimmick as the ones in Amityville 3-D or Friday the 13th Part 3 which had it's infamous eyeballs, but also had weed joints, wallets, yo-yos, and popcorn tossed at the audience. Most modern 3D films are terrified of gimmick shots, so it's kinda fun once in a while to toss something like Amityville 3-D on and grin like a little kid at the stuff flying out of the screen. In recent years, Spy Kids 3-D, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Hugo, and Oz the Great and Powerful are most noteworthy for gimmick shots and are probably the films least terrified to actually be in 3D.
In other words, don't watch Amityville 3-D for great cinema. Watch it for being a goofily fun 3D movie.
By the way, you did not misread. A very young (and cute) Meg Ryan plays Loughlin's friend. She gets the obligatory scene where she describes in detail the real life DeFeo murders from 1974. Her future ex-husband Dennis Quaid, of course, was in Jaws 3D. I understand they argued frequently over who made the worse 3D movie. (For those who don't get my humor, I'm kidding).
So we now have four pre-modern era 3D movies on 3D Blu. Thank goodness for that much. 2014 promises at least four more, including the recently announced Man In The Dark coming out in January from Twilight Time. It is also to be hoped that Warners makes good on releasing Kiss Me Kate next year and hopefully Universal will get off their butts and get It Came From Outer Space, Jaws 3D, and Revenge of the Creature out, too.
At any rate, now is a pretty good time to be a 3D fan indeed.
First, and most importantly, is the movie that, for many people is The 3D Movie of all time. Before Avatar, before The Avengers, there was 1953's classic chiller House of Wax starring Vincent Price. If your only familiarity with this particular title is the so-called "remake" that is best remembered for the death of Paris Hilton, then you need to see some better movies. I can't even call this the original since a)it's actually a remake of a 1933 movie called Mystery of the Wax Museum and b)the 2005 debacle has nothing at all to do with this movie. But, this is one of the films that made Vincent Price a superstar (which realistically didn't happen until he started doing the Poe films in 1960) and is one of the most famous 3D movies of all time. With good reason.
Price plays Professor Henry Jarrod, a brilliant but not terribly successful sculptor of wax statues. Price prefers creating beauty and history over violence and mayhem. His partner (Roy Roberts) wants out and decides that the fastest way to do so is to burn down the museum. Jarrod is scarred in the ensuing fire but apparently escapes.
Not long after that, a ghoulish figure starts murdering people, starting with the ex-partner, who he hangs in an elevator shaft (a fairly gruesome murder for a 1953 film, btw). The partner's girlfriend Cathy Gale (a wonderfully ditzy Carolyn Jones) is next. When Jones's roommate (Phyllis Kirk) walks in on the killer, a foot chase through the fog shrouded streets of New York ensues. Kirk just barely escapes the ghoul.
Not long after this, Price reappears, set to open a new wax museum. Kirk's boyfriend (Paul Picerni of TV's The Untouchables) gets a job there and that's when Kirk notices that Joan of Arc looks an awful lot like Cathy. That's okay, since Price decides that Kirk looks an awful lot like Marie Antoinette. The cops and Picerni dismiss Kirk's ideas about the museum as crazy, but she decides to carry on and prove she's right, hopefully not becoming a wax statue in the process.
As I say, for many people, House of Wax is the greatest 3D movie of all time. While I prefer Kiss Me Kate a bit more myself, I get where they're coming from. The 3D in the movie is amazing, and I don't just mean the gimmick shots. This is an insanely deep looking 3D movie with the shots composed for maximum depth. Totally unlike most of the 3D movies made today. And this from a director who famously only had one eye and couldn't see 3D but, as legend has it, mathematically worked out every single shot. Incidentally, Andre De Toth wasn't the only one eyed 3D director of the 50s. Raoul Walsh also had monocular vision and also knocked one out of the ballpark with Gun Fury. But that's for another blog.
There isn't a ton of gimmick shots, either, but what ones there are, are amazing. There's a reason the paddle ball sequence is so famous. It's one of the all-time great gimmick shots and a perfect way to bring the audience back into the film after the intermission. For years, people just looked at it as a stupid gimmick shot and that's because the intermission card was gone. Once you realize there was an intermission and the scene's placement in the movie, it makes a little more sense. Plus, Price gets in a jab at it by commenting "once we're established, we won't need that sort of thing".
Mention also needs to be made of the supporting players. Frank Lovejoy and Dabs Greer are the cops trying to figure the case out. Lovejoy was a radio actor who was trying to make it into movies. He gets a decent part in another Warner Brothers 3D film, Charge at Feather River, where he famously spits at the audience (Lee Marvin does the same thing in The Stranger Wore a Gun and the gimmick is done again in the next film in this blog's entry). Sadly, he died a few years later without ever becoming a major star. As for Dabs Greer, try finding something he wasn't in. He's Shaky in the 1950s Dick Tracy show. He's one of the cops that harasses Richard Kimble in the pilot episode of The Fugitive. And modern audiences will recognize him as old Tom Hanks in The Green Mile. The guy got around.
But the most notable supporting player is a fairly young actor named Charles Buchinsky. He plays Price's creepy deaf mute assistant Igor and gets the films most notable 3D effect shot. He kept that name for another 1953 3D movie, the Rita Hayworth starrer Miss Sadie Thompson before changing it to the name we all knew him as. Fellow did some real good movies after that like The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape and even when he started doing mindless crap in the 1980s, he still pulled off a couple of good movies like the TV movie version of Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus. I refer, of course, to Charles Bronson, who does a good, creepy job in this.
My friend Bob Furmanek of the 3D Film Archive stated that for all the times and ways he's seen House of Wax, this blu ray restoration is the best the film has looked. I've seen this a few different ways and times myself and I wholeheartedly agree. Warners did scans from the original YCMs---that's six different scans, three for each eye. This is one gorgeous blu and a showcase 3D blu. Writer R.M. Hayes in his infamous book on 3D movies wrote that if you were going to see only one 3D movie in your life, it should be Treasure of the Four Crowns. R.M. Hayes was a moron. If you see only one 3D movie, House of Wax is the one. And if you haven't seen it in 3D, you haven't seen it.
The second "classic" isn't quite in the same ballpark as House of Wax. Oh, hell. It's not even in the same universe. Nonetheless, as the first of the 1980s films to get a proper 3D Blu Ray release, Amityville 3-D deserves a little love, too. The third of the Amityville Horror films, this one comes to us in a box set with the first two from Scream Factory. I have no particular interest in the first two, though I may end up watching them. I did read the book and found it to be, by and large, a load of crap. Okay, let me clarify that. The book by Jay Anson, like Oliver Stone's JFK is a decent work of fiction. It is, at times, even moderately scary. But anyone who believes that it even remotely happened...well, I got a bridge to sell you as they say.
The third film advertised itself as "not a sequel" which basically translates to it being a movie designed to cash in on the success of the earlier films but having nothing to do with the characters in those films. At the very least, it's the first film to outright admit it's a fiction, so I give it points for that. The movie's tagline was also "In this film, you are the victim", so I also give it points for truth in advertising. I tend to remember Siskel and Ebert listing this on their worst of 1983 list (along with Jaws 3D). I'm not certain I would go quite that far. I tend to remember Deal of the Century and The Man Who Wasn't There being quite a bit worse from that year. Just saying.
Anyhow, the plot has a journalist (Tony Roberts) who makes it his career to debunk paranormal claims deciding to buy the infamous house on 112 Ocean Avenue. Problem is, the damn house actually is haunted. He ignores that fact, even when people start dropping dead left and right around him, starting with the realtor who sells him the house and has an encounter with the flies in the attic. Then his partner (Candy Clark) meets a particularly gruesome end in a burning car. Then his daughter (Lori Laughlin from TV's Full House) drowns. It's only when his daughter's ghost is spotted that he starts thinking there might be something to the stories and calls in his physic investigator friend, who ends up meeting the most ridiculous looking demon you ever saw.
Reading the above description and then going back a few paragraphs and reading about House of Wax, you may be wondering why in the world I'm including this movie in this particular post. It's not that Amityville 3-D is a good movie. None of the 1980s 3D movies are, realistically. This is one of the better ones, along with Jaws 3D and Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone. But that doesn't say much, now does it? I mean, Plan Nine From Outer Space and Bride of the Monster are Ed Wood's best movies, and they still stink.
Still, this is a worthy enough purchase, if only for the fact that it's a pre-2003 3D movie released on 3D Blu Ray. Somebody is gonna cite Friday the 13th Part 3 being on Blu Ray in 3D, but that's in the anaglyph format, which frankly sucks compared to 3D Blu Ray technology. I know since I released two shorts in anaglyph and ran tests for an over under version compatible on 3D TVs and it's night and day. If supporting films like this means we could potentially get more, then good. And regardless of what you may think of the movie, the 3D is actually pretty good. There's some decent depth. And one of the fun things about the 80s 3D movies is the fact that they weren't ashamed to jab the audience in the eye. Again, mostly the antithesis of what we see today. Oh, sure, a number of the gimmick shots in Amityville are corny as all get out--Meg Ryan blows a straw at the audience and someone tosses a Frisbee out of the screen among other things.
But let's be fair, here. Gimmick shots, corny and otherwise, are part of what has made 3D fun over the years. Even the 50s films, which rarely went overboard with the gimmick shots, knew that and would stick them in, sometimes organically and sometimes just out of left field. Again I cite the paddleball sequence in House of Wax, which is arguably as goofy a gimmick as the ones in Amityville 3-D or Friday the 13th Part 3 which had it's infamous eyeballs, but also had weed joints, wallets, yo-yos, and popcorn tossed at the audience. Most modern 3D films are terrified of gimmick shots, so it's kinda fun once in a while to toss something like Amityville 3-D on and grin like a little kid at the stuff flying out of the screen. In recent years, Spy Kids 3-D, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Hugo, and Oz the Great and Powerful are most noteworthy for gimmick shots and are probably the films least terrified to actually be in 3D.
In other words, don't watch Amityville 3-D for great cinema. Watch it for being a goofily fun 3D movie.
By the way, you did not misread. A very young (and cute) Meg Ryan plays Loughlin's friend. She gets the obligatory scene where she describes in detail the real life DeFeo murders from 1974. Her future ex-husband Dennis Quaid, of course, was in Jaws 3D. I understand they argued frequently over who made the worse 3D movie. (For those who don't get my humor, I'm kidding).
So we now have four pre-modern era 3D movies on 3D Blu. Thank goodness for that much. 2014 promises at least four more, including the recently announced Man In The Dark coming out in January from Twilight Time. It is also to be hoped that Warners makes good on releasing Kiss Me Kate next year and hopefully Universal will get off their butts and get It Came From Outer Space, Jaws 3D, and Revenge of the Creature out, too.
At any rate, now is a pretty good time to be a 3D fan indeed.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
3D IS DEAD! 3D IS DEAD! (WRONG!)
There have been a number of bloggers over the past few years who have gone to extensive lengths to proclaim their hatred of 3D. Roger Ebert tends to be one of the loudest. Maybe he was traumatized as a child by a showing of BWANA DEVIL. Maybe he's having flashbacks to the 80s 3D movies like FRIDAY THE 13TH PART III. Or maybe he's just an old fart who can't accept the fact that while it took 80 years of movie history, they finally got it right. Who knows? Nonetheless, Ebert will tell you how terrible 3D is, even while respectable directors like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorcesse, and Peter Jackson make movies in 3D.
Ebert's not alone, of course, Go to IMDB and read the posts of people who rage at the idea of movies being made in 3D. Christopher Nolan rejects the very notion of 3D every chance he gets. And most recently, a blogger for a site called THE VERGE wrote an article titled "It's Official: 3-D Is Dead". I decided to read this blog for amusement. The blogger's hypothesis is that 3D is everywhere now, you can get it in any TV, but it's not as trumpeted at Consumer Electronics Shows as it was in years past, therefore it is dead. In other words, it's mainstream now so it's dead. Wait, what?
Back in the 1960s, when a TV show was in color, it had a little title card trumpeting that fact. They don't do that anymore, so color is mainstream and therefore dead I guess. Oh, and in the 1980s, a TV show in stereo would have a little subtitle advising you that it was "IN STEREO WHERE AVAILABLE". I haven't seen that subtitle in years, so it's mainstream and therefore dead. That's if you're following the logic of this guy Vlad.
Not everybody is going to like 3D. I'm about the only member of my family who actually likes it, in fact. Not everybody can even see it. About 10% of the world is stereo blind. But, just because you declare you don't like something doesn't mean that it's dead or that the people who do like it are morons for liking it. This, by the way, appears to be the attitude of many of the haters when supporters speak up. Unfortunately for those haters, I don't care much about their opinion of me. Sorry, guys. I've been a 3D fan since 1982 and remain unashamed about it. Besides, how can one take seriously the opinions of people who don't even know when something is truly dead?
This is technically 3D's fifth run at the movies. There was a very minor run in the 1920s which was quickly displaced by experimentation in sound. Mind you, sound also displaced experimentation over widescreen processes around the same time frame.
The first big run, often referred to as The Golden Age by enthusiasts, was from 1952-1955. 50 features and numerous shorts were put out during that time frame. As fast as it started, however, it was over. Some have blamed the popularity of CinemaScope as the death of 3D, and while that technology may have played a part, an equally reasonable explanation was the incompetence of various projectionists. In the 1950s, 3D required two projectors running in perfect synchronization as well as a silver screen. There are numerous horror stories of projectionists letting the synchronization go out, causing retinal rivalry (where one eye sees a completely different image than the other) which in turn caused headaches, nauseua, etc. CinemaScope and other widescreen processes like VistaVision didn't have this requirement and therefore stuck around.
A single strip system came up in the 1960s. This system put both images on a single strip of film which was then projected through a special box. The theory was that this would eliminate the projection problems. This was the system in use from the 60s through the 80s. Starting around 1969, there was something of a boom, but the majority of these titles were porn and by the mid-late 1970s, 3D was out again. In 1981, the 3D movie COMIN' AT YA! came out and kick started another round of 3D movies. But by the time of AMITYVILLE 3D in October, 1983, audiences (and Hollywood) had lost interest again. While a few more titles limped out over the next two years, 3D in the mainstream was effectively done. The reason it went away is probably because of the sheer awfulness of the movies, though incompetent projectionists also likely did their part. I've seen the single strip method improperly projected and it's pretty painful.
There were a couple of experiments in the 1990s, but only one got a really wide release: FREDDY'S DEAD: THE FINAL NIGHTMARE, which had it's last 14 minutes in anaglyphic 3D. The current run, however, started up in 2003 with SPY KIDS 3-D: GAME OVER and GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS. Though SPY KIDS 3-D was in anaglyph, as was it's 2005 follow up THE ADVENTURES OF SHARK BOY AND LAVA GIRL, the cameras used on them were the cameras being used on other modern 3D movies. The popularity of SPY KIDS 3-D, which was the first 3-D movie to make over $100 million at the box office, led to the Digital 3D that has been in the theaters since CHICKEN LITTLE came out in 2005. And this time, the projection really is projectionist proof. The movies are basically digital files. A special filter is placed in front of the projector which slows down one component of the light wave slightly and allows a linear polarized image to be converted into a circular polarized image. This method pretty much eliminates the possibility of misprojection. This may explain why modern 3D has lasted so long.
What's the point of this history lesson, you may be asking yourself. The point is that in the past when 3D died, they simply stopped making and announcing 3D movies. Not one 3D movie was announced for 1984 back then. As I say, a couple came out, but they were low budget affairs. After AMITYVILLE 3D, 3D movies in the 1980s were done. There's over 3 dozen 3D movies being released in 2013 alone, including such major films as OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL, IRON MAN 3, MAN OF STEEL, THE HOBBIT 2, THOR 2, and SIN CITY: A DAME TO DIE FOR. 3D Blu Ray is still going strong with a number of titles coming up in the next few months including LIFE OF PI and WRECK-IT-RALPH as well as Warner's release of HOUSE OF WAX this fall.
If 3D were as dead as the nay-sayers claim--make that want--I wouldn't have a 3D Blu of HOUSE OF WAX to look forward to. I wouldn't have OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL or THOR 2 to look forward to. It would be 1984 all over again. Instead, there's a number of 3D products still coming. Am I going to see them all? Of course not. Years ago I decided I didn't need to see every 3D film ever (specifically, I decided that after my first 3D porn). But I still dig 3D and am kinda happy to be living in the era I am where I have a 3D TV that shows a great 3D image, a bunch of 3D blu rays, and plenty of 3D movies to see in the theater if I so choose.
One reasons the haters give is the belief that Hollywood will force them to watch 3D. Actually, one thing that make this era different from previous eras is the simultaneous 2D and 3D releases of the movies. Wanna see THE HOBBIT in 3D? You can. Want to see it regular? Good news for you, you don't have to wait for the video. You can go straight to the theater and see it normal. Back in the 1980s, if you went to the movies to see JAWS 3-D, you could only see it in 3D. Not the case now. This insanity extends to 3D TVs. People are under the impression that if they buy a 3D TV, they will have to watch everything in 3D. Umm...I have a 3D TV. And the only stuff I watch in 3D is 3D Blu Rays or 3D On Demand. I don't watch HOT IN CLEVELAND in 3D. Nor would I have to. So, you don't have to watch 3D anymore than you have to watch anything you don't like. I don't like gory horror films. Ergo, I don't watch them.
I think that's one of the big things the haters miss. Nobody is forcing them to watch anything. 3D is ultimately like anything else. Just because it exists doesn't mean you have to subject yourself. I don't care for porn. Porn flourishes all over the internet. But just because porn is on the internet doesn't keep me from going on the internet. I just choose not to go to porn sites on the internet. I also don't like Rap music. And guess what? I don't listen to it, nor do I listen to stations that play it. Now, there's a lot of people who like porn and Rap music. I say good for them. They're entitled. I'm not going to declare Rap music and porn dead just because I don't like them, either. That would just make me look silly to the people who do like it.
Look, all you who hate 3D: we who like it get it. You don't like it. Fine. We don't even care why you don't like it. You're entitled to dislike it as much as we are entitled to like it. And for those of us who have been long time 3D fans, we'll know when it's dead again without you telling us. The signs will be self-evident. But it's not dead. Not yet. If anything, it's become a bit more mainstream. This run has legs, which makes us fans happy. To paraphrase Yukon Cornelius, "you like what you like and I'll like what I like". And we'll all live happily ever after. Strange concept, I know, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Ebert's not alone, of course, Go to IMDB and read the posts of people who rage at the idea of movies being made in 3D. Christopher Nolan rejects the very notion of 3D every chance he gets. And most recently, a blogger for a site called THE VERGE wrote an article titled "It's Official: 3-D Is Dead". I decided to read this blog for amusement. The blogger's hypothesis is that 3D is everywhere now, you can get it in any TV, but it's not as trumpeted at Consumer Electronics Shows as it was in years past, therefore it is dead. In other words, it's mainstream now so it's dead. Wait, what?
Back in the 1960s, when a TV show was in color, it had a little title card trumpeting that fact. They don't do that anymore, so color is mainstream and therefore dead I guess. Oh, and in the 1980s, a TV show in stereo would have a little subtitle advising you that it was "IN STEREO WHERE AVAILABLE". I haven't seen that subtitle in years, so it's mainstream and therefore dead. That's if you're following the logic of this guy Vlad.
Not everybody is going to like 3D. I'm about the only member of my family who actually likes it, in fact. Not everybody can even see it. About 10% of the world is stereo blind. But, just because you declare you don't like something doesn't mean that it's dead or that the people who do like it are morons for liking it. This, by the way, appears to be the attitude of many of the haters when supporters speak up. Unfortunately for those haters, I don't care much about their opinion of me. Sorry, guys. I've been a 3D fan since 1982 and remain unashamed about it. Besides, how can one take seriously the opinions of people who don't even know when something is truly dead?
This is technically 3D's fifth run at the movies. There was a very minor run in the 1920s which was quickly displaced by experimentation in sound. Mind you, sound also displaced experimentation over widescreen processes around the same time frame.
The first big run, often referred to as The Golden Age by enthusiasts, was from 1952-1955. 50 features and numerous shorts were put out during that time frame. As fast as it started, however, it was over. Some have blamed the popularity of CinemaScope as the death of 3D, and while that technology may have played a part, an equally reasonable explanation was the incompetence of various projectionists. In the 1950s, 3D required two projectors running in perfect synchronization as well as a silver screen. There are numerous horror stories of projectionists letting the synchronization go out, causing retinal rivalry (where one eye sees a completely different image than the other) which in turn caused headaches, nauseua, etc. CinemaScope and other widescreen processes like VistaVision didn't have this requirement and therefore stuck around.
A single strip system came up in the 1960s. This system put both images on a single strip of film which was then projected through a special box. The theory was that this would eliminate the projection problems. This was the system in use from the 60s through the 80s. Starting around 1969, there was something of a boom, but the majority of these titles were porn and by the mid-late 1970s, 3D was out again. In 1981, the 3D movie COMIN' AT YA! came out and kick started another round of 3D movies. But by the time of AMITYVILLE 3D in October, 1983, audiences (and Hollywood) had lost interest again. While a few more titles limped out over the next two years, 3D in the mainstream was effectively done. The reason it went away is probably because of the sheer awfulness of the movies, though incompetent projectionists also likely did their part. I've seen the single strip method improperly projected and it's pretty painful.
There were a couple of experiments in the 1990s, but only one got a really wide release: FREDDY'S DEAD: THE FINAL NIGHTMARE, which had it's last 14 minutes in anaglyphic 3D. The current run, however, started up in 2003 with SPY KIDS 3-D: GAME OVER and GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS. Though SPY KIDS 3-D was in anaglyph, as was it's 2005 follow up THE ADVENTURES OF SHARK BOY AND LAVA GIRL, the cameras used on them were the cameras being used on other modern 3D movies. The popularity of SPY KIDS 3-D, which was the first 3-D movie to make over $100 million at the box office, led to the Digital 3D that has been in the theaters since CHICKEN LITTLE came out in 2005. And this time, the projection really is projectionist proof. The movies are basically digital files. A special filter is placed in front of the projector which slows down one component of the light wave slightly and allows a linear polarized image to be converted into a circular polarized image. This method pretty much eliminates the possibility of misprojection. This may explain why modern 3D has lasted so long.
What's the point of this history lesson, you may be asking yourself. The point is that in the past when 3D died, they simply stopped making and announcing 3D movies. Not one 3D movie was announced for 1984 back then. As I say, a couple came out, but they were low budget affairs. After AMITYVILLE 3D, 3D movies in the 1980s were done. There's over 3 dozen 3D movies being released in 2013 alone, including such major films as OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL, IRON MAN 3, MAN OF STEEL, THE HOBBIT 2, THOR 2, and SIN CITY: A DAME TO DIE FOR. 3D Blu Ray is still going strong with a number of titles coming up in the next few months including LIFE OF PI and WRECK-IT-RALPH as well as Warner's release of HOUSE OF WAX this fall.
If 3D were as dead as the nay-sayers claim--make that want--I wouldn't have a 3D Blu of HOUSE OF WAX to look forward to. I wouldn't have OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL or THOR 2 to look forward to. It would be 1984 all over again. Instead, there's a number of 3D products still coming. Am I going to see them all? Of course not. Years ago I decided I didn't need to see every 3D film ever (specifically, I decided that after my first 3D porn). But I still dig 3D and am kinda happy to be living in the era I am where I have a 3D TV that shows a great 3D image, a bunch of 3D blu rays, and plenty of 3D movies to see in the theater if I so choose.
One reasons the haters give is the belief that Hollywood will force them to watch 3D. Actually, one thing that make this era different from previous eras is the simultaneous 2D and 3D releases of the movies. Wanna see THE HOBBIT in 3D? You can. Want to see it regular? Good news for you, you don't have to wait for the video. You can go straight to the theater and see it normal. Back in the 1980s, if you went to the movies to see JAWS 3-D, you could only see it in 3D. Not the case now. This insanity extends to 3D TVs. People are under the impression that if they buy a 3D TV, they will have to watch everything in 3D. Umm...I have a 3D TV. And the only stuff I watch in 3D is 3D Blu Rays or 3D On Demand. I don't watch HOT IN CLEVELAND in 3D. Nor would I have to. So, you don't have to watch 3D anymore than you have to watch anything you don't like. I don't like gory horror films. Ergo, I don't watch them.
I think that's one of the big things the haters miss. Nobody is forcing them to watch anything. 3D is ultimately like anything else. Just because it exists doesn't mean you have to subject yourself. I don't care for porn. Porn flourishes all over the internet. But just because porn is on the internet doesn't keep me from going on the internet. I just choose not to go to porn sites on the internet. I also don't like Rap music. And guess what? I don't listen to it, nor do I listen to stations that play it. Now, there's a lot of people who like porn and Rap music. I say good for them. They're entitled. I'm not going to declare Rap music and porn dead just because I don't like them, either. That would just make me look silly to the people who do like it.
Look, all you who hate 3D: we who like it get it. You don't like it. Fine. We don't even care why you don't like it. You're entitled to dislike it as much as we are entitled to like it. And for those of us who have been long time 3D fans, we'll know when it's dead again without you telling us. The signs will be self-evident. But it's not dead. Not yet. If anything, it's become a bit more mainstream. This run has legs, which makes us fans happy. To paraphrase Yukon Cornelius, "you like what you like and I'll like what I like". And we'll all live happily ever after. Strange concept, I know, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Let the Sky Fall...Thoughts on 50 years of James Bond
Skyfall, the 23rd official James Bond movie, was released yesterday. As with every Bond movie since Goldeneye, I chose to see it on opening night. I admit it. I'm a James Bond nut. Have been since I saw my first one at age 8 (The Spy Who Loved Me on HBO). I have not only the official 22 films, but the 67 spoof version of Casino Royale and 1983's Never Say Never Again. I even transferred the uncut version of the 1954 Casino Royale to DVD-R (the version included on the DVD of the 67 version is missing the end of the show). So, after Friday night's showing, I knew what my next blog would be. Take note that this isn't a spoiler-free blog, though I did put the spoilers in a different text (highlight to see them at your own risk).
Skyfall is currently being hailed as one of the best of the series. While I think it's a pretty damn good movie, I won't quite put it up there with the absolute best. It's not quite as good as the 2006 Casino Royale or the one that most people consider the very best (Goldfinger). It's far better than Quantum of Solace, but then again that one is a bottom five Bond for me anyhow. The opening action scene is terrific, a few familiar elements are re-introduced to the movie, and Javier Bardem's villainous Silva is probably the mos personable Bond villain ever. So what's wrong with the movie? To understand that, let's start with the re-introduction of Q. No spoiler here, since he's in the trailer.
At any rate, Q shows up and hands Bond a new Walther PPK and a radio transmitter. Bond comments "not exactly Christmas." Q's response was "What were you expecting? An exploding pen? We don't really go in for that sort of thing anymore."
Yes, it's a somewhat funny line, but it also dismisses one of the things that makes OO7 what he is. To get a better explanation of that, Bond producer Barbara Broccoli was quoted as saying that 9/11 happened while they were making Die Another Day and after the events of 9/11, they felt Bond shouldn't be so fantastical. But saying that misses the point of Bond.
James Bond is a fantasy figure, same as Doctor Who, Sinbad the Sailor, Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, and the various characters who populate the Marvel Cinematic Universe. OO7 was a fantasy figure from day one. Some Fleming purists might want to argue this, but even Fleming's creation had the touch of fantasy about him. Sure, most of Fleming's books were Bond versus SMERSH, cold war thrillers with plots that became somewhat dated and mundane over time. But Goldfinger in the novel still plans to attack Fort Knox, Dr. No still topples American missles, and Blofeld still steals a nuclear missle and plans to conquer the world. The books weren't totally grounded in reality, even if they didn't go as far as some of the movies went. Fleming still gave us megalomaniacs and Bond still had sex up the wazoo. Even in Fleming's novels, Bond was the type of guy women wanted and men wanted to be. The movies blew up those elements even more, and they did them right from the start.
It is true that Dr. No, the first of the movies, has no gadgets. But other hallmarks are there right from the start: the banter with Moneypenny, the numerous beautiful women Bond seduces, the larger than life villains, the even more larger than life bases, the plot to take over the world, the witty remarks after a cold blooded death. From Russia, With Love, the second entry in the film series (and the book that preceded the nove of Dr. No ironically), introduced Q (called Major Boothroyd) and the first of the gadgets--Bond's briefcase. Goldfinger followed a year later and cemented the blueprint for the series: the big henchman who gives Bond a hard time, the wilder gagdgets--including the iconic Aston Martin DB-5, the bona-fide sense of humor of the series. Goldfinger was funny, sexy, and thrilling and it ended up being a smash hit in 1964. By the end of the decade, other familiar scenes would show up (such as the skiing chase in On Her Majesty's Secret Service) and the audience ate it up. And there were gadget-less thrillers still done from time to time. The aforementioned OHMSS has no gadgets. Ditto Roger Moore's For Your Eyes Only. But both of those still had their fantasy elements in place. And Bond himself is still the character that we recognize from the other movies.
At the risk of pushing a point, sex has always been a big part of the series and it's appeal. Straight back to Dr. No, the Bond movies have always had a bevy of beautiful women in them. And in almost every single one up to the Craig era, the movies have ended with Bond and his leading lady in a clinch--usually with Q and M inadvertantly spotting this. Yes, some of the puns that accompany such a scene are usually groaners, but we love them for being groaners. It's part of the fun of the series. None of the three Craig films end like this. Come to it, Craig's Bond has sex with four women in three films and none of them survive. When did James Bond become a slasher series where sex with Bond was an automatic death sentence? I like Craig's Bond, but the man seriously needs better luck with the women.
Skyfall reintroduces other elements into the series, including Moneypenny. But now that the reboot is finally done, it's time for the series to make a return to what made it run for so long in the first place. The producers need to bring a little more fantasy in. Raise the stakes. Silva's plot--revenge on M and the destruction of MI-6 was pretty good. Certainly it was better than stealing the water supply of Brazil. But Bond should go back to saving the world. After all, even under Fleming he did that. I'm not saying we need to go as far out as Die Another Day did. Even I'll admit that film was too much. But give us a villain with a major plot going on. One of my biggest gripes with Quantum of Solace is the fact that they set up such a great SPECTRE-like organization and then give them such a humdrum plot. That would be almost forgivable if they got a bigger plot in the next film, but they seem to have been jettisoned. That's a pity because Bond needs a SPECTRE. Most great heroes have an equally great villain. Batman has the Joker, Sherlock Holmes has Moriarity, Bond had SPECTRE. One of the many rumors surrounding Skyfall was that Ralph Fiennes was going to play Blofeld in it. He doesn't, which is a bit of a pity. Fiennes would have made for an awesome Blofeld. Audiences may like who Fiennes ends up playing in the film but he isn't Blofeld.
Oh, and can we please stop the string of "this time it's personal" stories for Bond? Every single Bond film since Licence to Kill has had Bond taking it personally. In that one, it was Bond's best friend Felix Leiter getting munched on by sharks and Bond seeking revenge. In Goldeneye, Bond's best British friend turns on him. In Tommorow Never Dies, the villain kills an ex-girlfriend of Bond's. In The World Is Not Enough, M is kidnapped. In Die Another Day he's betrayed by an insider and seeks revenge. Casino Royale has Bond's lover revealed to be a traitor. Quantum of Solace, he's seeking revenge on the organization that made her a traitor! And in Skyfall, M gets targeted again. That's 8 out of 23 films where Bond goes on a personal vendetta. 8 films in a row. Enough! Let the man go back to just plain out saving the world. Leave the baggage out of the next one and let's have a good old-fashioned adventure already.
At least the producers have gone back to real stunts performed by real stuntmen. The CGI Bond parasailing away from a tidal wave in Die Another Day was not only ridiculously stupid, it was a smack in the face to the rest of the series with it's insane stunt work. So the stunts is one thing the Craig era has right. And Sam Mendes lets us see what's going on in the action scenes, unlike Quantum's director Marc Foster. That, too, is a step in the right direction.The hectic editing that doesn't allow you to see who is doing what to whom might work for Batman, but it's as out of place for Bond as the aforementioned CGI. The series was built on a foundation of real stunts done by real stunt people that we could consistently see and enjoy. They were impressive and grin-inducing fun. When Bond runs across the heads of the crocodiles in Live and Let Die, it's a real stunt man running across real croc heads. It's a real stunt man skiing off a mountain, freefalling for a bit, and opening an Union Jack parachute in The Spy Who Loved Me. If you want to know what's wrong with Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace, just watch the opening chase through the construction site in Casino Royale. That's a terrific sequence and it highlights the faults of the two films that surround it. Skyfall does bring that sensibility back with it's opening chase and train fight.
Like I say, Skyfall is a good movie and it moves the series back in a proper direction. It corrects many (but not all) of the blunders of Quantum of Solace and it feels like the reboot is complete. Good. So, let's stop rebooting and give us THE James Bond. There is no reason Daniel Craig couldn't go on to be the best Bond of all time--even better than Connery. Give him his Goldfinger and see what he does with it. Trust me, Babs Broccoli, your father knew what he was doing for over 30 years. Trust the formula. Audiences still love it.
Oh, and quit putting the gunbarrel logo at the end of the movie!
Skyfall is currently being hailed as one of the best of the series. While I think it's a pretty damn good movie, I won't quite put it up there with the absolute best. It's not quite as good as the 2006 Casino Royale or the one that most people consider the very best (Goldfinger). It's far better than Quantum of Solace, but then again that one is a bottom five Bond for me anyhow. The opening action scene is terrific, a few familiar elements are re-introduced to the movie, and Javier Bardem's villainous Silva is probably the mos personable Bond villain ever. So what's wrong with the movie? To understand that, let's start with the re-introduction of Q. No spoiler here, since he's in the trailer.
At any rate, Q shows up and hands Bond a new Walther PPK and a radio transmitter. Bond comments "not exactly Christmas." Q's response was "What were you expecting? An exploding pen? We don't really go in for that sort of thing anymore."
Yes, it's a somewhat funny line, but it also dismisses one of the things that makes OO7 what he is. To get a better explanation of that, Bond producer Barbara Broccoli was quoted as saying that 9/11 happened while they were making Die Another Day and after the events of 9/11, they felt Bond shouldn't be so fantastical. But saying that misses the point of Bond.
James Bond is a fantasy figure, same as Doctor Who, Sinbad the Sailor, Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, and the various characters who populate the Marvel Cinematic Universe. OO7 was a fantasy figure from day one. Some Fleming purists might want to argue this, but even Fleming's creation had the touch of fantasy about him. Sure, most of Fleming's books were Bond versus SMERSH, cold war thrillers with plots that became somewhat dated and mundane over time. But Goldfinger in the novel still plans to attack Fort Knox, Dr. No still topples American missles, and Blofeld still steals a nuclear missle and plans to conquer the world. The books weren't totally grounded in reality, even if they didn't go as far as some of the movies went. Fleming still gave us megalomaniacs and Bond still had sex up the wazoo. Even in Fleming's novels, Bond was the type of guy women wanted and men wanted to be. The movies blew up those elements even more, and they did them right from the start.
It is true that Dr. No, the first of the movies, has no gadgets. But other hallmarks are there right from the start: the banter with Moneypenny, the numerous beautiful women Bond seduces, the larger than life villains, the even more larger than life bases, the plot to take over the world, the witty remarks after a cold blooded death. From Russia, With Love, the second entry in the film series (and the book that preceded the nove of Dr. No ironically), introduced Q (called Major Boothroyd) and the first of the gadgets--Bond's briefcase. Goldfinger followed a year later and cemented the blueprint for the series: the big henchman who gives Bond a hard time, the wilder gagdgets--including the iconic Aston Martin DB-5, the bona-fide sense of humor of the series. Goldfinger was funny, sexy, and thrilling and it ended up being a smash hit in 1964. By the end of the decade, other familiar scenes would show up (such as the skiing chase in On Her Majesty's Secret Service) and the audience ate it up. And there were gadget-less thrillers still done from time to time. The aforementioned OHMSS has no gadgets. Ditto Roger Moore's For Your Eyes Only. But both of those still had their fantasy elements in place. And Bond himself is still the character that we recognize from the other movies.
At the risk of pushing a point, sex has always been a big part of the series and it's appeal. Straight back to Dr. No, the Bond movies have always had a bevy of beautiful women in them. And in almost every single one up to the Craig era, the movies have ended with Bond and his leading lady in a clinch--usually with Q and M inadvertantly spotting this. Yes, some of the puns that accompany such a scene are usually groaners, but we love them for being groaners. It's part of the fun of the series. None of the three Craig films end like this. Come to it, Craig's Bond has sex with four women in three films and none of them survive. When did James Bond become a slasher series where sex with Bond was an automatic death sentence? I like Craig's Bond, but the man seriously needs better luck with the women.
Skyfall reintroduces other elements into the series, including Moneypenny. But now that the reboot is finally done, it's time for the series to make a return to what made it run for so long in the first place. The producers need to bring a little more fantasy in. Raise the stakes. Silva's plot--revenge on M and the destruction of MI-6 was pretty good. Certainly it was better than stealing the water supply of Brazil. But Bond should go back to saving the world. After all, even under Fleming he did that. I'm not saying we need to go as far out as Die Another Day did. Even I'll admit that film was too much. But give us a villain with a major plot going on. One of my biggest gripes with Quantum of Solace is the fact that they set up such a great SPECTRE-like organization and then give them such a humdrum plot. That would be almost forgivable if they got a bigger plot in the next film, but they seem to have been jettisoned. That's a pity because Bond needs a SPECTRE. Most great heroes have an equally great villain. Batman has the Joker, Sherlock Holmes has Moriarity, Bond had SPECTRE. One of the many rumors surrounding Skyfall was that Ralph Fiennes was going to play Blofeld in it. He doesn't, which is a bit of a pity. Fiennes would have made for an awesome Blofeld. Audiences may like who Fiennes ends up playing in the film but he isn't Blofeld.
Oh, and can we please stop the string of "this time it's personal" stories for Bond? Every single Bond film since Licence to Kill has had Bond taking it personally. In that one, it was Bond's best friend Felix Leiter getting munched on by sharks and Bond seeking revenge. In Goldeneye, Bond's best British friend turns on him. In Tommorow Never Dies, the villain kills an ex-girlfriend of Bond's. In The World Is Not Enough, M is kidnapped. In Die Another Day he's betrayed by an insider and seeks revenge. Casino Royale has Bond's lover revealed to be a traitor. Quantum of Solace, he's seeking revenge on the organization that made her a traitor! And in Skyfall, M gets targeted again. That's 8 out of 23 films where Bond goes on a personal vendetta. 8 films in a row. Enough! Let the man go back to just plain out saving the world. Leave the baggage out of the next one and let's have a good old-fashioned adventure already.
At least the producers have gone back to real stunts performed by real stuntmen. The CGI Bond parasailing away from a tidal wave in Die Another Day was not only ridiculously stupid, it was a smack in the face to the rest of the series with it's insane stunt work. So the stunts is one thing the Craig era has right. And Sam Mendes lets us see what's going on in the action scenes, unlike Quantum's director Marc Foster. That, too, is a step in the right direction.The hectic editing that doesn't allow you to see who is doing what to whom might work for Batman, but it's as out of place for Bond as the aforementioned CGI. The series was built on a foundation of real stunts done by real stunt people that we could consistently see and enjoy. They were impressive and grin-inducing fun. When Bond runs across the heads of the crocodiles in Live and Let Die, it's a real stunt man running across real croc heads. It's a real stunt man skiing off a mountain, freefalling for a bit, and opening an Union Jack parachute in The Spy Who Loved Me. If you want to know what's wrong with Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace, just watch the opening chase through the construction site in Casino Royale. That's a terrific sequence and it highlights the faults of the two films that surround it. Skyfall does bring that sensibility back with it's opening chase and train fight.
Like I say, Skyfall is a good movie and it moves the series back in a proper direction. It corrects many (but not all) of the blunders of Quantum of Solace and it feels like the reboot is complete. Good. So, let's stop rebooting and give us THE James Bond. There is no reason Daniel Craig couldn't go on to be the best Bond of all time--even better than Connery. Give him his Goldfinger and see what he does with it. Trust me, Babs Broccoli, your father knew what he was doing for over 30 years. Trust the formula. Audiences still love it.
Oh, and quit putting the gunbarrel logo at the end of the movie!
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Thoughts on Star Wars 7, 8, & 9
So, today it was announced that Disney has bought LucasFilm and will proceed to make Star Wars episodes 7-9, with the first one to be released in 2015. This news has been met with much rejoicing and some questions by fans, the main question being "will Disney release the original cuts of the films on Blu Ray?" Truthfully, that's an irrelevant question. IF it happens, and that's a mighty big if, it won't be for a few years anyway. The questions that should be asked should be asked of this new series that's coming. For instance:
Who is going to direct these films (Lucas said he won't)?
Who is going to be in them?
Most importantly, what the heck are they going to be about anyhow?
I have some worthwhile suggestions for the first question anyhow. Spielberg is the most obvious choice, though I don't see him doing it. The directors of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films are also top suggestions. Anyone who can make a movie like Thor that interesting the way Kenneth Branagh did knows how to blend fantastic worlds and real characters and make it work. Joe Johnston has two very serial-like films under his belt: Captain America and The Rocketeer. And it goes without saying that if Joss Whedon's The Avengers isn't the all time best comic book movie ever, it's in the top five. Frankly, those are the directors you want attached to Star Wars. I think they, better than anyone else, would get it. Hell, they might even get it better than George Lucas himself!
The question of casting ties into the what will it be about question, and both are kinda sticky. As it's 7, 8, and 9 we're talking about, does that mean that Han, Luke, and Leia will be in them? If so, who is going to play them. I may be speaking for myself, but at this point, I don't want to see Harrison Ford, Mark Hammil, and Carrie Fisher reprising those roles. As much as I enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the first shot of Ford as Indy had me thinking "Oh my God! He looks ancient!" That was in 2008. By the time of 2015, Ford will likely look a day older than Moses. Hammil has looked like the Joker for a while now. As for Fisher...while she doesn't look awful, she sure doesn't look like she did in 1983. And while that statement may lead to a "so, like...duh!" comment from the readers, contemplate this: by the time the new Star Wars comes out, Fisher will be almost 60. Show of hands of people who really want to see a 60 year old Princess Leia.
Oddly enough, however, there really isn't anyone in Hollywood right now that I would care to see in these parts. I suppose an argument can be made for Robert Downey, Jr. as Han, Hayley Atwell as Leia, and Chris Evans as Luke, but I'd rather see them in the Iron Man and Captain America films (or The Avengers 2) than in Star Wars.
I suppose the original actors can be brought back in cameos or as the wise old sages and new heroes and villains be introduced. Then again, the wild age difference between Ford and Fisher would really come to light if such a thing were to happen. And I don't want people to think I'm just being mean spirited towards Ford. He's a fine actor--always has been--but hell, even Roger Moore recognized when he was too old to be playing James Bond. Sorry, Mr. Ford, your day as swashbuckling action hero is sadly over.
This brings up what the film will be about. This is perhaps even stickier than who should be in it. After all, if you watch the films now, you can plainly see that the saga goes full circle. Annakin Skywalker meets the Jedis, grows up to try to become a Jedi, loses his mind and goes evil killing little kid Jedi (but no actual adult Jedi...hmmm....), finds his kids, kills the Emperor, and dies doing so theoretically redeeming himself. At the end of Return of the Jedi, the main bad guys are dead and the heroes have triumphed. So what exactly can follow? What can possibly be the story? Is it 30 years later and some far flung remnat of the Empire rises up to cause trouble? Is it right after Jedi and the messy clean up has to happen? That one might make for a better one-off movie, but if it's the previous idea, then the danger becomes that the films just end up repeating themselves. We already kind of had that with Phantom Menace, which borrowed it's climax from all three previous films. Do we want it again? More to the point, do we need it?
I would argue no. When I was a lot younger, I really wanted Indiana Jones four. As I got older, I realized how little such a film was needed. And when it finally came out, while it was fun, I felt no need for a fifth film. I still hope that Spielberg gives up the idea of a fifth Indiana Jones film and just carries on with Tintin or some such. Similarly, now that the prequels are out--and one can argue the necessity of the prequels, too--I don't feel that 7, 8, and 9 are absolute necessities. In fact, I'd rather Disney not make these movies but instead concentrate on the Marvel films. I know they'll make the Marvel movies regardless, but I'm far more excited about those possibilities than anything that will go on in the future Star Wars universe. But, that's just me.
Who is going to direct these films (Lucas said he won't)?
Who is going to be in them?
Most importantly, what the heck are they going to be about anyhow?
I have some worthwhile suggestions for the first question anyhow. Spielberg is the most obvious choice, though I don't see him doing it. The directors of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films are also top suggestions. Anyone who can make a movie like Thor that interesting the way Kenneth Branagh did knows how to blend fantastic worlds and real characters and make it work. Joe Johnston has two very serial-like films under his belt: Captain America and The Rocketeer. And it goes without saying that if Joss Whedon's The Avengers isn't the all time best comic book movie ever, it's in the top five. Frankly, those are the directors you want attached to Star Wars. I think they, better than anyone else, would get it. Hell, they might even get it better than George Lucas himself!
The question of casting ties into the what will it be about question, and both are kinda sticky. As it's 7, 8, and 9 we're talking about, does that mean that Han, Luke, and Leia will be in them? If so, who is going to play them. I may be speaking for myself, but at this point, I don't want to see Harrison Ford, Mark Hammil, and Carrie Fisher reprising those roles. As much as I enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the first shot of Ford as Indy had me thinking "Oh my God! He looks ancient!" That was in 2008. By the time of 2015, Ford will likely look a day older than Moses. Hammil has looked like the Joker for a while now. As for Fisher...while she doesn't look awful, she sure doesn't look like she did in 1983. And while that statement may lead to a "so, like...duh!" comment from the readers, contemplate this: by the time the new Star Wars comes out, Fisher will be almost 60. Show of hands of people who really want to see a 60 year old Princess Leia.
Oddly enough, however, there really isn't anyone in Hollywood right now that I would care to see in these parts. I suppose an argument can be made for Robert Downey, Jr. as Han, Hayley Atwell as Leia, and Chris Evans as Luke, but I'd rather see them in the Iron Man and Captain America films (or The Avengers 2) than in Star Wars.
I suppose the original actors can be brought back in cameos or as the wise old sages and new heroes and villains be introduced. Then again, the wild age difference between Ford and Fisher would really come to light if such a thing were to happen. And I don't want people to think I'm just being mean spirited towards Ford. He's a fine actor--always has been--but hell, even Roger Moore recognized when he was too old to be playing James Bond. Sorry, Mr. Ford, your day as swashbuckling action hero is sadly over.
This brings up what the film will be about. This is perhaps even stickier than who should be in it. After all, if you watch the films now, you can plainly see that the saga goes full circle. Annakin Skywalker meets the Jedis, grows up to try to become a Jedi, loses his mind and goes evil killing little kid Jedi (but no actual adult Jedi...hmmm....), finds his kids, kills the Emperor, and dies doing so theoretically redeeming himself. At the end of Return of the Jedi, the main bad guys are dead and the heroes have triumphed. So what exactly can follow? What can possibly be the story? Is it 30 years later and some far flung remnat of the Empire rises up to cause trouble? Is it right after Jedi and the messy clean up has to happen? That one might make for a better one-off movie, but if it's the previous idea, then the danger becomes that the films just end up repeating themselves. We already kind of had that with Phantom Menace, which borrowed it's climax from all three previous films. Do we want it again? More to the point, do we need it?
I would argue no. When I was a lot younger, I really wanted Indiana Jones four. As I got older, I realized how little such a film was needed. And when it finally came out, while it was fun, I felt no need for a fifth film. I still hope that Spielberg gives up the idea of a fifth Indiana Jones film and just carries on with Tintin or some such. Similarly, now that the prequels are out--and one can argue the necessity of the prequels, too--I don't feel that 7, 8, and 9 are absolute necessities. In fact, I'd rather Disney not make these movies but instead concentrate on the Marvel films. I know they'll make the Marvel movies regardless, but I'm far more excited about those possibilities than anything that will go on in the future Star Wars universe. But, that's just me.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
3D CLASSICS COME TO BLU RAY
This month has seen the release of two classic 3D movies on 3D Blu Ray for the first time--and no, I don't mean AVATAR and THE AVENGERS (which came out last month anyway). Last week Universal released CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON in 3D as part of the UNIVERSAL MONSTERS Blu Ray set and this week Warner gave us Alfred Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER. I've only spot-checked the two discs--ok, I've watched half of DMFM already--but I'm impressed with what I've seen. This is what 3D should look like. Outside of a few titles like HUGO and THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, most modern 3D movies aren't that impressive in terms of depth and/or effect shots. So if you think of THE AVENGERS as the ultimate 3D movie, you've seen nothing.
The 50s films were not shy about either depth or effect shots. This is not to say that those films were like their 80s counterparts throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the audience. They concentrated mostly on depth and keeping things behind the stereo window. However, when there was a gimmick shot, it was usually a memorable one. A perfect example of this is in DIAL M FOR MURDER.
For the better part of the first 45 minutes all of the action takes place behind the screen. All this time we follow along as Ray Milland plots the murder of his wife, peering around lamps as if spying and being a co-conspirator. Then comes the movie's big moment when Anthony Dawson tries strangling Grace Kelly. Kelly desperately reaches out of the screen, almost as if imploring the audience for help. When she reaches it, it's a creepy and effective moment. We go from being in on the plot to being begged for help by the victim and not being able to do anything. It is, perhaps, the ultimate in audience manipulation and something completely lost in 2D showings.
Admittedly, DIAL M is far more subtle than CREATURE in terms of both depth and gimmick shots. But this does not make either film better or worse. CREATURE is a decent movie in it's own right and has an excellent use of 3D, especially in the underwater scenes, which are better than what JAWS 3D pulled off nearly 30 years later. The 3D really pops in this one, with fantastic levels of depth throughout and CREATURE even manages to be deeper than DIAL M. In fairness, Hitchcock confined his film to a Lomdon flat while director Jack Arnold has a jungle/water setting to play with. Arnold also uses more gimmick shots than Hitchcock. But, there's an important thing to bear in mind with Arnold's 3D films: (again) unlike their 80s counterparts, the gimmick shots related to the movie. For those who grew up seeing yo-yos and popcorn being tossed at the audience in FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3, the idea of 3D movies not just tossing any old thing out of the screen may seem like a weird idea, but it's the center of both of these releases. I mean, Jack Arnold decided that a primary 3D effect for CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON should be the Creature himself clutching and clawing at the audience. Who knew? Then again, most modern 3D movies don't bother much with gimmick shots themselves. Then again, all too many of the modern ones are converted from 2D.
This Blu Ray marks the first time CREATURE has been released (officially) on home video in 3D since MCA put out a rotten anaglyphic VHS in 1980. I admit to having loved watching that release for years, but after seeing the Blu Ray, I'm convinced I was on good drugs I didn't even know I was on for all those years. This is the way to see CREATURE, unless you happen to get a chance to see it in dual strip polarized in the theater sometime. I got to see it that way twice myself and it's quite a treat. But this is definitely the next best thing. As for DIAL M, this is the first time since the Japanese VHD Disc in the 1980s that Dial M has gotten a home 3D release. Both look great on 3D Blu Ray, though CREATURE has some vertical misalignment issues. Depending on things, some eyestrain may be had while watching CREATURE. But that's the way the film has always been. It's also worth noting that both of these releases are the first time on home video that either film has been shown in it's original 1:85 aspect ratio.
In both cases, the image detail is beautiful. I noticed for the first time the bruise marks on Grace Kelly's neck the day after the attack. Okay, it was make up to look like bruise marks, but the point is that detail was never noticed by me before. Similarly, details in the shirts Julia Adams wore in CREATURE were made more apparent. Of course, that's the beauty of Blu Ray to begin with--that details you normally wouldn't notice become apparent. Both films look just fine and are well worth getting.
In fact, that's the bottom line. If you have a 3D TV, you seriously need both of these releases. They are truly top of the line films and ones you want to show people to show off your 3D system. The only one I can think of that can compare to them is HUGO, point in fact. And both releases have the promise of future classic 3D movies being brought to Blu Ray. Warners has already announced HOUSE OF WAX and Universal seems to be working on IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE and REVENGE OF THE CREATURE. Now if Paramount would only correct their error and put HONDO out on 3D Blu Ray, all would be right with the world. Sort of. Kind of. Not really.
The 50s films were not shy about either depth or effect shots. This is not to say that those films were like their 80s counterparts throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the audience. They concentrated mostly on depth and keeping things behind the stereo window. However, when there was a gimmick shot, it was usually a memorable one. A perfect example of this is in DIAL M FOR MURDER.
For the better part of the first 45 minutes all of the action takes place behind the screen. All this time we follow along as Ray Milland plots the murder of his wife, peering around lamps as if spying and being a co-conspirator. Then comes the movie's big moment when Anthony Dawson tries strangling Grace Kelly. Kelly desperately reaches out of the screen, almost as if imploring the audience for help. When she reaches it, it's a creepy and effective moment. We go from being in on the plot to being begged for help by the victim and not being able to do anything. It is, perhaps, the ultimate in audience manipulation and something completely lost in 2D showings.
Admittedly, DIAL M is far more subtle than CREATURE in terms of both depth and gimmick shots. But this does not make either film better or worse. CREATURE is a decent movie in it's own right and has an excellent use of 3D, especially in the underwater scenes, which are better than what JAWS 3D pulled off nearly 30 years later. The 3D really pops in this one, with fantastic levels of depth throughout and CREATURE even manages to be deeper than DIAL M. In fairness, Hitchcock confined his film to a Lomdon flat while director Jack Arnold has a jungle/water setting to play with. Arnold also uses more gimmick shots than Hitchcock. But, there's an important thing to bear in mind with Arnold's 3D films: (again) unlike their 80s counterparts, the gimmick shots related to the movie. For those who grew up seeing yo-yos and popcorn being tossed at the audience in FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3, the idea of 3D movies not just tossing any old thing out of the screen may seem like a weird idea, but it's the center of both of these releases. I mean, Jack Arnold decided that a primary 3D effect for CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON should be the Creature himself clutching and clawing at the audience. Who knew? Then again, most modern 3D movies don't bother much with gimmick shots themselves. Then again, all too many of the modern ones are converted from 2D.
This Blu Ray marks the first time CREATURE has been released (officially) on home video in 3D since MCA put out a rotten anaglyphic VHS in 1980. I admit to having loved watching that release for years, but after seeing the Blu Ray, I'm convinced I was on good drugs I didn't even know I was on for all those years. This is the way to see CREATURE, unless you happen to get a chance to see it in dual strip polarized in the theater sometime. I got to see it that way twice myself and it's quite a treat. But this is definitely the next best thing. As for DIAL M, this is the first time since the Japanese VHD Disc in the 1980s that Dial M has gotten a home 3D release. Both look great on 3D Blu Ray, though CREATURE has some vertical misalignment issues. Depending on things, some eyestrain may be had while watching CREATURE. But that's the way the film has always been. It's also worth noting that both of these releases are the first time on home video that either film has been shown in it's original 1:85 aspect ratio.
In both cases, the image detail is beautiful. I noticed for the first time the bruise marks on Grace Kelly's neck the day after the attack. Okay, it was make up to look like bruise marks, but the point is that detail was never noticed by me before. Similarly, details in the shirts Julia Adams wore in CREATURE were made more apparent. Of course, that's the beauty of Blu Ray to begin with--that details you normally wouldn't notice become apparent. Both films look just fine and are well worth getting.
In fact, that's the bottom line. If you have a 3D TV, you seriously need both of these releases. They are truly top of the line films and ones you want to show people to show off your 3D system. The only one I can think of that can compare to them is HUGO, point in fact. And both releases have the promise of future classic 3D movies being brought to Blu Ray. Warners has already announced HOUSE OF WAX and Universal seems to be working on IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE and REVENGE OF THE CREATURE. Now if Paramount would only correct their error and put HONDO out on 3D Blu Ray, all would be right with the world. Sort of. Kind of. Not really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)