The HeldenFiles Online » Movies

Friday Morning Notebook

Rich Heldenfels — Fri, 02 May 2008 11:46:15 +0000

(Some of you may have noticed this post previously marked for Thursday morning. I was just in a fog earlier. It is beginning to lift.)

A few thoughts on summer movies I want to see are here.

My review of "Made of Honor" is here. Short version: I didn't like it.

Later today I expect to post about "Grey's Anatomy" and "Lost."

And here's a little bit of the legendary Wanda Jackson to liven up your day. "Do you like love songs," indeed. …

Here's another one that shows how radical Jackson was as a star. Look at the way the women behind her are dressed — and how modern/flashy Jackson is in comparison.

British Film Awards Announced

Rich Heldenfels — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:12:15 +0000

"Atonement," Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Cotillard are among the winners. Complete list here.

17 Reasons Why I Prefer to Watch Movies at Home

Rich Heldenfels — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:22:43 +0000

I did squeeze in a viewing of "Atonement" this afternoon completing my circuit of Oscar's best-picture nominees. I've already started an "Oscar Watch" post about it, but first let me give you the 17 reasons …

Look, I believe in the whole idea of a big screen and sitting in the dark. I really do. But, when I arrived about 10 minutes before the movie, this is what the screen showed:

1. A spot for the Metropolitan Opera in HD theatrical showings.
2. A promotional featurette about the new "Knight Rider" series.
3. A spot for Travel Channel's bizarre-food series.
4. An ad for a Chase credit card.
5. An ad for the Chevy Malibu.
6. A promotional piece about the making of the "10,000 BC" movie.
7. A spot for the National Guard.
8. An ad for "Lipstick Jungle."
9. A spot for some kind of hair product. (I can't read my scribble.)
10. A Coca-Cola commercial.

There might have been more, since I started making notes only after the list felt interminably long. But there was more. Just about all that was bundled in a "Regal First Look" package. Then came:

11. A promo for a showing of "Spirit of the Marathon."
12. Another go-round with the Metropolitan Opera.

Then there were the trailers:
13. "In Bruges"
14. "Definitely, Maybe" (which, between theater trailers and TV ads, I have seen so freakin' many times that I am sick of the movie)
15. "The Other Boleyn Girl"
16. "The Duchess"
17. "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day"

Now, I also understand the merits of trailers. The bride will often give a thumbs-up (or not) for movies when we see the trailers — although we have been known to forget the names of the movies by the time we have gotten home.

But the value of even one trailer, let alone five, is diminished by all the stuff that you have to sit through before that. And a movie doesn't feel all that special if it comes with commercials.

Golden (Yawn) Globes

Rich Heldenfels — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:55:01 +0000

You can find all the nominees here.

My friend Alan Sepinwall makes an interesting point about the Globes' TV nominees on his blog (as well as giving me props for the Chamber of Commerce theory of awards). But I'm going to focus on the movie noms here.

I know there's all that talk about the Globes as a barometer for Oscars, and I like some of the nominees. But the Globes still strike me as an award best known for letting potential winners drink before they get their prizes.

As barometers go, they're a weird one because they split so many movie categories between drama and comedy/musical, giving them twice as many chances to pick a winner as the Oscars have. (Or more than twice as many. There are seven nominees for best drama this year.)

And they are prone to the same inconsistencies seen in some other awards. Take "There Will Be Blood," nominated for best drama, and with Daniel Day-Lewis nominated as best actor in a drama, but shut out of the director and screenplay categories.

I know, the Globes build a funnel, since they don't split director and screenplay into drama and comedy/musical, but it still suggests that some movies were simply born, rather than being written and directed.

Day/Night Movie Doubleheader

Rich Heldenfels — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:30:46 +0000

Cate Blanchett as one of many Bob Dylans in "I'm Not There"

Robert Redford, director and co-star of "Lions for Lambs"

I had hoped to post at least briefly last night but had technical difficulties. Probably just as well, since I was a little weary, but I had a few brief comments about the movies illustrated above. …

Monday afternoon, I saw "I'm Not There," the weird if occasionally dazzling movie by Todd Haynes, with an array of actors including Cate Blanchett, above, Heath Ledger and Richard Gere as aspects of Bob Dylan. Not as odd as some of Haynes's work (this is, after all, a filmmaker who did a film about Karen Carpenter using Barbie dolls), and a nifty way to deal with Dylan.

More details about it later, but I wanted to mention it now because of what I saw Monday night: "Lions for Lambs," the new movie directed by Robert Redford and starring a not-shabby trio of Redford, Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep.

While I have a lot of thoughts about it, for now I'll make a couple of points: First, Redford and/or screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan (who also wrote "The Kingdom," directed by Peter Berg, who acts in "Lions for Lambs") must have seen a lot of Stanley Kramer movies at some point. Second, a movie with a lot of ideas does not have to be a movie with a lot of talking.

But as I was driving home last night, I was also thinking that I had been spending a day dealing with icons and iconography, with Dylan and Redford. "I'm Not There" is more explicit on this score, of course, since it is directly addressing the question of who Dylan is — of how many Dylans there are, of how different songs come from different places, of the idea that "I don't know who I am most of the time."

Then there's Redford, who for those of us of a certain age is a movie icon, a representative of the collision between old-style Hollywood looks and Vietnam-era political idealism — in other words, the prototype for George Clooney.

But Redford is now 71, grandfatherly to the young college student he talks to in the movie, and asking, implicitly and explicitly, if young people learned nothing from what Redford's generation did. And, in a way, Redford is talking to himself; the student is a logical extension of Redford's character in "The Candidate," the guy who fights to be elected and forgets everything he believes in along the campaign trail. "What do we do now?" he asks at the end of "The Candidate" and his youthful sounding board in "Lions for Lambs" has answered, "Nothing."

But I'm talking much longer than I had planned to here. As I said, I have a lot of thoughts about "Lions for Lambs," and still more about "I'm Not There." Still, seeing the movies on the same day just added to those ideas, because it pushed two important figures next to each other.

The Great Movies/TV Divide

Rich Heldenfels — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:09:51 +0000

For those of you who have not yet found it online, my fall-season rumination is here. (The first line in text is actually a subhead, with the story beginning on the following line.)

But, even as we all get psyched about the TV season to varying degrees, there are still those who view TV as an entertainment stepchild to the movies. I am thinking specifically of Gregory Kirschling of Entertainment Weekly, who wrote a recent article about writer-director Paul Haggis ("The Great Divider," Sept. 21 issue).

Paul Haggis, movie guy — and TV guy

Even though the piece focuses on Haggis's movie work, I was still taken aback by this passage:

Haggis burst on the scene three years ago with his script for Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby." A former "Facts of Life" writer who'd left a 25-year career in TV to pursue film …"

You get the implication. In TV, Haggis wrote crap like "Facts of Life." At the movies, he wins Oscars. Well, let's look at the record.

For TV, it is true Haggis worked briefly — and unhappily — for "Facts" before getting fired; one bio says he was fired for suggesting that the show be funny. But he also made "EZ Streets," a remarkable drama that, though short-lived, is still remembered more than fondly by the people who saw it. It will rank among Haggis's best work — and it still needs an authorized, complete-series DVD.

Haggis has other serious TV credits, and has kept a hand in TV. But I don't think EW wanted to think much about that. It was much more amusing for the mag to jam him with a famous bad credit.

Harry Potter Rules the Movie World

Rich Heldenfels — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:03:09 +0000

So says Warner Bros., in an announcement proclaiming that the "Harry Potter" movies in total have now grossed more worldwide than any other film franchise, including "Star Wars" and James Bond. (Potter still trails top-ranked "Star Wars" and Bond at the North American box office, according to Box Office Mojo.

Warner gleefully notes there are still two Potter movies to come. Of course, there can still be more Bond movies — generations of them, casting permitting.

Detailed announcement after the jump …

Here are Warner's words:

With the success of "Harry Potter and the
Order of the Phoenix," Warner Bros. Pictures' Harry Potter films have now become, worldwide, the top-grossing motion picture franchise in history.

The announcement was made today by Barry Meyer, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer and Alan Horn, President & Chief Operating Officer, Warner Bros.

The combined worldwide box office gross for the five Harry Potter films to date is in excess of $4.47 billion, surpassing the box office totals of all 22 James Bond films and the six "Star Wars" movies.

This impressive record comes even as "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is still going strong in theatres around the globe, and with two more highly anticipated Harry Potter films — "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" — still in the offing.

In addition to holding the franchise box office record, all five of the Harry Potter films have the distinction of being among the 20 top-grossing box office hits of all time. …

The next Harry Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood
Prince," will open on November 21, 2008. The seventh and final film, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," is planned for a 2010 release.

(And yes, Joann, I am still working on that post about the seventh book.)

More on "3:10 to Yuma"

Rich Heldenfels — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:25:39 +0000

You can find my review of the Russell Crowe western here. It's not a hugely enthusiastic review, and I think I've figured out why.

It's not just that the movie is merely OK. It's that it kept hinting at the possiblity that it could be something more extravagant. I am thinking of Ben Foster's performance, which would have fit more readily into "Tombstone" than "Yuma," and of the way Peter Fonda leaves the movie. …

I'm also thinking of something Roger Ebert wrote in his review of "Shoot 'Em Up." "I may disapprove of a movie for going too far," he said, "and yet have a sneaky regard for a movie that goes much, much further than merely too far." I think that's why I like something like "Face/Off," which I've been re-examining thanks to a new DVD release. Or, more to the point, why I prefer "Tombstone" to "Yuma." (I also prefer "Unforgiven" to both of them, but "Unforgiven" is a magnificent film on a level far above either of the movies I'm talking about here.) "Tombstone" has no sense of what's too far — whether in Val Kilmer's performance, or its operatic sense of drama, or the look on Kurt Russell's face when he says, "Tell 'em I'm comin'. And hell's coming with me." Or the scene cited here:

As good as "Yuma" is at times, the plot and its resolution call for something far crazier than the movie in all its seriousness will allow.

The Passed-by Moment of Alicia Silverstone

Rich Heldenfels — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:36:46 +0000

Flixster – Share Movies

I've got these sounds in my head. …

Not just the woman this morning who, in a drive-through lane at the bank, screamed "GET IN THE CAR SEAT" over and over at a kid who had crawled from the back to the front. Or "Don't Stop Believin'," a semi-constant presence since the "Sopranos" finale. There's also Aerosmith …

Borrowed a hit set from the library and keep gravitating toward "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" — sublime cheese, and the video was more watchable than "Armageddon" — and the "Crazy"/"Crying" era, when the songs were good and those videos with Alicia Silverstone were just fab.

You were beginning to wonder when I was getting to Silverstone, weren't you?

Anyway, the Aerosmith videos led into "Clueless" and the moment when Silverstone appeared to be the It Girl, the new Julia Roberts. Instead, she made movies that didn't do all that well, and a TV series ("Miss Match") that lasted only one season and, more recently, another TV series ("The Singles Table") that didn't even get on the air.

Meanwhile, Reese Witherspoon, who for a brief time played at being Nouvelle Alicia ("Clueless," "Legally Blonde," compare and contrast), used that as just one card in a hand that now includes an Oscar. I won't dispute that Witherspoon is a much better actress than Silverstone. But you can still look back at Silverstone's It Girl opportunity and wonder, what should she have done differently, how did she let the magic get away?

When Good Actors Play Good People Doing Bad Things …

Rich Heldenfels — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:53:03 +0000

Yesterday morning I saw "The Brave One," the upcoming movie with Jodie Foster as a woman who begins killing bad guys as a way of dealing with her own feelings of victimization after being brutally beaten. (See trailer below) …

It's one of several neo-"Death Wish" movies coming to theaters, also including "Death Sentence," with Kevin Bacon, which opens tomorrow, and which I've only seen a trailer for. (Trailer below.)

I don't want to get into a review of "Brave One" here, but there is a question that keeps nagging me: How should we deal with a good person doing terrible things in a film?

Of course, this is a question that goes back to at least "Death Wish." But I think it's even more pointed in "The Brave One," because Foster has such a large reserve of good will with audiences. (Charles Bronson wa also very likable, but conveyed an undercurrent of violence over his career, so his actions seemed plausible if not forgivable.) The likability of Foster is made more so when she plays a character who — as we are repeatedly reminded — has suffered greatly. At the same time, though, she's a serial killer. So what should await her at the end?

Showtime's "Dexter," to be sure, raises much the same question. But, as a series, it is sufficiently open-ended that it doesn't really have to answer it. Indeed, "The Sopranos" certainly showed that even when people expect a summing-up ending, a series is under no obligation to provide one. But by working in the more finite confines of a movie, "The Brave One" is obliged to provide an answer.

But is there any possible satisfying answer? I know what the movie concludes, but let's not spoil it. Let's look instead at the possiblities. I can think of three:

Have her caught and punished. But would audiences accept that fate for a character they care about?

Let her get away with it. But does that send the wrong message to people who believe in rough justice?

Kill her. Not punish her, but have her put out of business, probably by one of the people she is out to kill. But, again, will audiences be satisfied by that?

And does it matter how the audience feels, or if the piece is artistically honest?

Something I Should Write More About …

Rich Heldenfels — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:00:13 +0000

I've lost track of how long I've been meaning to write a column about movie (and possibly TV) romances where the wrong couple ends up together. Not a situation where, as happens on TV, the wrong couple is together but breaks up a season later, but ones where the whole thing ends and you're just going, that's so wrong.

Among the items on my list: "Reality Bites," since Ben Stiller was obviously the best guy for Winona Ryder; "Gentleman's Agreement," where Celeste Holm was by every measure the better woman for Gregory Peck, and "Pretty in Pink," where Molly Ringwald should have ended up with Jon Cryer — and the original script for the movie apparently had it that way, before the final product wimped out and went with the more crowd-pleasing, pretty-boy ending. Not that I'm bitter about it or anything. But you can see how I think there's more to talk about.

Any other suggestions? Or do you disagree with mine?

Technology, Relentlessness and "Live Free or Die Hard"

Rich Heldenfels — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:53:17 +0000

The bride and I finally got to "Live Free or Die Hard," which has been on our viewing list for some time, but which always seemed to bump against another obligation. The watching not only included a reasonable amount of over-the-top action but a few thoughts about James Cameron, and the parallels between "Live Free" and "The Bourne Ultimatum."

On Cameron first: The impact of the original "Terminator" and "True Lies" on the Big Dumb Action Movie is immeasurable. "Live Free" has a long section with McClane battling a jet fighter that's a blatant th– er, homage to "True Lies." And "Terminator," along with Cameron's Yes-I-Can-Top-Myself action in "Terminator 2," made the Relentless, Nearly Unkillable Character an action-movie standard. The original "Die Hard" certainly made reference to the form with Karl (Alexander Godunov) making that final charge at McClane.

"Bourne Ultimatum," even more than the two previous movies, feels like a "Terminator" flick, with Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) charging through the film like Robert Patrick in "T2." And Bourne has his very own Terminator coming after him; "Live Free or Die Hard" also has a seemingly unkillable henchman who keeps coming at McClane until, well, he doesn't anymore.

But there was this other thing going on when I watched "Live Free," which was the way it and "Bourne Ultimatum" address the omnipresence of nosy technology in our lives — and the need for two-fisted heroes to overcome it.

"Bourne" doesn't make the argument quite as specifically, since Bourne is also very techno-savvy. But he is pitted against every freakin' surveillance device in the known world — and he's still smarter than all of it. And McClane does need techo-geek help, courtesy of Justin Long and — yes, I smiled — Kevin Smith against the brilliant, computer-bending Timothy Olyphant.

Alas, Olyphant is no Alan Rickman. Or Jeremy Irons. In fact, he reminded me a little of William Atherton, the annoying reporter in the early "Die Hards." But that is, in a way, essential to the whole notion of both these movies — Olyphant is on a par with David Strathairn in "Bourne Ultimatum," smart, cunning, devious and with Biblical overtones (Olyphant is Gabriel, Strathairn is Noah) but not really a fighter; neither is a match for Bourne/McClane in terms of physicality, which in these movies translates into moral superiority and, eventually, victory.

Which Stars Are Worth Their Paychecks?

Rich Heldenfels — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:57:42 +0000

In some of my recent public appearances, I've more than once mentioned "Evan Almighty." The reason: It's a good example of the financial definitions of Hollywood success. According to Boxofficemojo.com, it has so far taken in more than $97 million at the U.S. box office (about $109 million when you throw in international revenues). But, since it cost an estimated $175 million to make, it is so far a financial flop — and it will need to sell a lot of DVDs to show a profit.

I was thinking about this again today because Forbes has done a financial analysis of stars' box-office clout. Best value: Matt Damon among men, Jennifer Aniston among women. …

We could argue about some of the specifics in their methodology. For example, it includes just the three most recent movies for an actor or actress, and even then eliminated one movie because Forbes considered it a limited release, and some big recent movies were not factored into calculations.

But it adds validity to its calculations by using worldwide movie grosses — since the film business is genuinely international — and factoring in DVD sales, which can be the path to profit for many films. (Again, "Evan Almighty" must have its fingers crossed until the video versions comes out.)

Still, I would have liked to see a longer list of evaluated performers. And maybe a look at how this works with performers who spend a lot of time in independent films. Wouldn't the math be a little different there — smaller box-office revenue, but also smaller paychecks, so a name actor can help a movie more by lending his name by not breaking the budget?

So Much for "Grindhouse"

Rich Heldenfels — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:58:52 +0000

When the Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez double feature comes to DVD, the movies will be split into separate sets …

Here's some of the word for the distributor:

Quentin Tarantino's high-octane car chase thriller Death Proof arrives on September 18th and Robert Rodriguez's deliciously gory horror film Planet Terror, with the notorious machine-gun legged go-go girl turned vigilante Cherry Darling, arrives on October 16th. Each film will arrive as a two-disc unrated and extended DVD.

For movie fans like me, this makes sense. I much preferred Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" over Tarantino's too-talky "Death Proof." But it will be interesting to see if the interstitial material from "Grindhouse" will be included on both sets — and how pricey the individual sets are.

The Miracle of Barbara Stanwyck

Rich Heldenfels — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:45:36 +0000

Richard Corliss's profile of John Travolta in the July 30 begins with Travolta talking about old Hollywood stars and his presenting an honorary Oscar to Barbara Stanwyck in 1982.

"If you'd met Stanwyck," he explains, "she would have crushed you with her ability to adore and adorn you, just like a Southern belle." …. "Oh, you came here to give me my Oscar!" he whispers in a dewy approximation of Stanwyck's purr to Henry Fonda in "The Lady Eve." … He says in his own voice, "And I'm standing here thinking she's an 80-year-old woman, and I am captivated."

Well, yeah. It was Barbara Stanwyck …

To be sure, Stanwyck, who died in 1990, was just in her mid-seventies when she vamped Travolta. But captivating men at an advanced age was probably no trick for her. After all, she had been a siren onscreen for years. And she did it with looks that were not movie-star conventional — the nose was especially prominent in profile — but with a style that projected enormous confidence and sexiness; "The Lady Eve" was not the only movie where one of her leading men never knew what hit him.

That's easy to forget if you know Stanwyck only from the occasional still photo, or for late-career roles like TV's "The Big Valley." But I'm going to recommend that you go back to "The Lady Eve," Preston Sturges's arch comedy, where she plays a con artist on the prowl. Fonda is her prey, but also her toy. There's no question who's going to call the shots even when the movie has ended.

Then revisit "Meet John Doe"; it's thought of as a Gary Cooper movie, or a Frank Capra movie, but Stanwyck is the glue — smart, cynical, alluring. If a man was trying to enlist Gary Cooper into her scheme, or even a less formidable woman, he doesn't buy in — then, or when she talks him off the roof.

Then go to "Ball of Fire." It's a swell movie about an academic (Cooper) who, researching contemporary slang, falls in with a nightclub floozie with the wonderful name of Sugarpuss O'Shea. Yup, Stanwyck. So very, very good. Years later, they remade the movie with more music and called it "A Song Is Born." Much to recommend the remake, which starred Danny Kaye, but the leading lady doesn't measure up. Virginia Mayo knew how to play tough cookies, but she's not Stanwyck; even Mayo's character's name, Honey Swanson, is no match for Sugarpuss.

As Travolta learned.

Movies Vs. TV: A Critical Difference

Rich Heldenfels — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:50:41 +0000

Covering just about any entertainment medium these days can involve some tap-dances, but I really don't like the steps that I'm having to take for "The Simpsons Movie." …

To be sure, I have spent most of my recent years covering television, where the rules about reviewing TV shows and interviewing stars are generally pretty simple. Review copies will arrive with requests not to give away spoilers, for one thing. And when the pilots for new shows are sent out in the late spring (basically to provide more information for show-related interviews on the summer press tour), the networks ask that they not be reviewed since things could change before the shows actually air. Of course, my colleagues and I still write about the shows — but take some pains to note that the comments are not a review of what you'll see in the fall. (And things really do change, especially in casting.)

Interviews, as well, can be subject to negotiation. I've been offered some interviews only if I agree to write a story only about the star in question, not packaged with other interviews. (I've usually said that I may write only about that person, but I won't guarantee it, since another interview may come along that fits with it, and the interviews haven't happened.)

Sometimes publicists will ask that certain topics not be brought up, and I've been in situations where publicists cut off lines of questioning they deemed inappropriate. (I've also seen ground rules set, and then ignored by the actor being interviewed, when a tactfully phrased question eased the pre-interview resistance.) One of the nice things about talking to Kellie Pickler, mentioned in a previous post, is that there were no ground rules beforehand, and she fielded my questions. Contrast that to Star Jones's ridiculous recent attempt to fend off questions about her makeover.

I blame the movie biz for such behavior, since control freaks have tried to run the movie media for years. When Victoria Beckham wanted written control of some interview comments, it was reasonable to think that the Beckhams are claiming chumminess with Tom Cruise, whose rep for controlling behavior is well known.

Then there's the nonsense I've been going through regarding "The Simpsons Movie." It's going to be available for preview a few days before its premiere, and I expect to see it and write about it. But before I go to the preview, I've been told that I have to hold my print review until the day the movie opens locally.

I wasn't pleased to be told when a review could run, but printing it on opening day is consistent with what we do with most reviews, so I can live with that. Then, today, I got an e-mail wanting "written confirmation" that I wouldn't post notes about the movie in this blog before opening day.

As you know, I routinely post comments here shortly after seeing movies, as I did recently with "Hairspray" and "Talk to Me." They're not reviews, but, I'm told, would be considered reviews by the "Simpsons" folks — and they're working hard to control the news about their movie, as this Los Angeles Times story indicates.

Once again, I don't like the idea that I'm being told when I can write about something by the people I'm writing about. Beyond that, though, what "The Simpsons Movie" wants to do seems practically impossible. If, as the Times story says, it's opening July 24 in LA, then there will be plenty of buzz on the Internet that same day, if not sooner. (I have to think some blogger is going to get into the Springfield, Vt., premiere — part of a "Simpsons" promotional contest — reportedly scheduled for July 21.)

Holding back a review in Akron does not stop the flow of information for people here. I am sure that by the time I write more about "Talk To Me" for its Northeast Ohio opening date, plenty of people will know all they want about the movie because it has already opened in other cities and been widely reviewed.

Even the understanding about the print review is looking more absurd, since some theaters in Ohio and elsewhere will begin showing "The Simpsons Movie" at the stroke of midnight on July 27 — and "The Simpsons" strikes me as real midnight-movie material — so some people will see the print review later that morning, after they've seen the movie.

The wisest course for "The Simpsons Movie" was, and is, to make it available to reviewers with a simple "Have at it," and let the judgments fall where they may. If nothing else, then I wouldn't feel so cranky about the movie before seeing it.

"Hairspray"

Rich Heldenfels — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:06:10 +0000

LOVED it. …

And that's at the end of a string of trips to Cleveland ("Harry Potter" Monday, "Talk to Me" Wednesday, "Hairspray" tonight), with tonight including a panic-inducing crawl through construction and heavy traffic tonight, which got me to the movie closer to showtime than I like, and seeing it from a seat in front of two girls who seemed to sing along with every tune and consider every passage of dialogue as a reason for dialogue of their own…

But it was still nice to see it in the Palace in Cleveland, which lives up to its name, massive and big-screened in a way that made me feel like a kid at the movies again. They said there were 800 people at the screening, and the place swallowed them all up with room to spare.

As for the movie, although I'll say this at greater length when I actually review it, "Hairspray" was still bouncy, cheery, lively and enjoyable. And I say that as someone who is very fond of the original movie, and cannot entirely suppress a longing for "Madison Time" and other songs that made the original "Hairspray" a movie with music, now transformed into a movie musical.

One slow spot, one overdone one. But I'll see it again.

Charles Lane, R.I.P.

Rich Heldenfels — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:15:36 +0000

The smart, scene-stealing actor has died. Obit here, although "Petticoat Junction" fans know that his character's name was actually Homer Bedloe. Nice photo here.

Lane was one of those guys who would pop up in a movie, and I would nod happily, knowing that he was about to deliver the goods. He was especially fine at playing people who were cynical but not blind, capable of good even as they were aware of all the bad in the world.

Let's remember his moment in "It's a Wonderful Life." He tells Potter about the growth of Bailey Park, "and are the local yokels making with the David and Goliath wisecracks." The Baileys, Lane notes, were chumps, with each home worth twice what it cost the savings and loan to build. He tries to offer Potter advice. Potter brushes him off.

"No skin off my nose," Lane says. "But one of these days, this bright young man is going to be asking George Bailey for a job."

As I said, cynical — referring to chumps — but not blind. And sure, the lines make the point. But Lane knew how to deliver them.

Slogging Through Harry Potter: The Movies

Rich Heldenfels — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:15:22 +0000

It was about 15 minutes into "Chamber of Secrets" that I decided I had had enough Potter onscreen for one day …

I expect to get through the four movies before seeing the fifth one, but it's no fun so far. However good Rowling is at crisp pacing and exciting set pieces, the first movie dragged — and the second one felt slow at the start. The scenes with Harry and Dobby looked especially awkward, as if Radcliffe had not quite figured how to match the tempo planned once the effects were in place.

So I mainly amused myself by noting how the actors had changed in terms of height and voice since the first movie. And that wasn't enough motivation to make me sit still for 2 hours and 40 minutes. Not today, anyway.

I hope these things get better.

"Transformers": Absurdity Triumphant

Rich Heldenfels — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:21:28 +0000

(Because studios get hinky about movies being reviewed too soon, this is not a review. More like notes from a viewing of what could well be the summer's biggest movie. To the notes, then:)

One of the smartest things about "Transformers" is that it knows that the basic idea is pretty ridiculous …

Brilliant robots that change into ordinary machines and then back again? As is well known, that's a toy, not a story. So "Transformers" — which I saw at a screening tonight, with an extremely enthusiastic crowd — has taken pains to do two things very well. It made sure that its big-screen toys were very good (especially when fighting each other), and it never took itself too seriously.

In fact, it goes for laughs on a level with "Men in Black," a movie that the makers of "Transformers" have paid attention to — as well as to the likes of "Independence Day," director Michael Bay's own "Armageddon," "Christine" and even a little bit of "King Kong."

And it moves so briskly that I was surprised to see it clocked in at about 2:20; it did not flag along the way as "Spider-Man 3" and the latest "Pirates of the Caribbean" did. When in doubt, it either offered a quick laugh or sent its creations a-transforming.

At least, that's my initial impression. I'll be polishing it up some when I write my review tomorrow (for Monday's Beacon Journal). And I'll be getting into some other matters, too. Still, where I was ready to be impressed with the movie's action, I laughed — happily — a lot more than I expected.

"Knocked Up"

Rich Heldenfels — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:28:41 +0000

Strange as it may seem, considering what I do for a living, the bride and I went to a movie this afternoon. And one question immediately comes up: Why wasn't Linda Cardellini the female lead?

Gonna ramble some here. But before I go any further, I should point out that the movie was much more satisfying than what I've seen of the Cavs game. Missed the first half because of "Sopranos," but they're still getting crushed at the end of the third.

And I did like the movie very much. (It was, by the way, I had wanted to review before its premiere, only to have a scheduling conflict with every preview screening.) Moments made me laugh hard, but it was deliberately not nonstop farce, with relationship talk and fights that were achingly realistic.

As for Cardellini, that's not a knock on Katherine Heigl, who was perfectly OK and in the show-biz universe right now is a bigger star than Miss Linda. But casting Cardellini might have made the movie feel a little bit less like another variation on Male Pattern Optimism, Lisa DeMoraes's term for shlubby guy/hot woman comedies — although she was referring to the TV variety like "King of Queens."

And I would have thought that Cardellini's "Freaks & Geeks" experience would at least get her a reading, although maybe she's PNG because of the breakup with Jason Segel. But how about Busy Philipps, at least?

Would have given us one more representative of the great Judd Apatow stock company, which is proving as fine as John Ford's or Frank Capra's.

I mean, come on: Seth Rogen, Jason Segel, Jay Baruchel, Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann (and her and Rudd's roles are even more intriguing when I pause to consider that she is Mrs. Apatow), Loudon Wainwright III onscreen and on the soundtrack, James Franco, the guys from "The Office," Jonah Hill (also on view in the trailer for Rogen's "Superbad" at "Knocked Up"), Martin Starr (unrecognizable from his "F&G" days) … Cool moves all over the place.

More maybe. but the Cavs have closed to within 14 — a comment that by itself should tell you how far behind they have been. So I'm off to watch more closely.

Well, they made a good run in the fourth, but not good enough for the win. But maybe good enough to figure out something different to try in Cleveland.

Back to "Knocked." I'm really pleased with how good Seth Rogen is. I remember meeting Rogen, I think it was after an "Undeclared" press conference, and how pleased he was that someone wanted to talk to him. Now he's the kind of writer and actor that lots of folks want to talk to, and he deserves the attention.

Paul Newman Hangs It Up

Rich Heldenfels — Sun, 27 May 2007 01:35:42 +0000

The Ohio-born actor has said he's through with acting, according to this report.

I'd like to think this is not some ominous sign that Newman's health is in serious decline. I'd rather believe it's just not easy for him to find parts sufficiently interesting and challenging at the age of 82.

That would mean that, for the right role, he would come back. After all, he's not much older than George Burns was when he made "Going in Style," and that's the movie that proves Burns was a very good actor, and not just in comedy.

Newman made the case for being considered a great actor as a young man. But let's not forget that he has had plenty of accomplishments in the last decade or so.

Newman was around 80 when he played a supporting role in "Empire Falls," where he was also an executive producer. His seventies included "Road to Perdition" and "Twilight" (not a great movie, but a chance to see Newman play with Gene Hackman and Susan Sarandon). And he was almost 70 when he had the great pairing of "Nobody's Fool" (which IS a great movie) and "The Hudsucker Proxy" (an irresistible comedy, whether you consider it great or not).

Yes, there have been missteps, like "Where the Money Is," a movie that makes me ask, "Why is PAUL NEWMAN doing this thing?" And still I watched it, because Paul Newman was doing that thing.

"Spider-Man 3" (Slightly Updated)

Rich Heldenfels — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:40:32 +0000

Yes, I've seen it. Some notes (and possible spoilers) follow…

My review is now available online. Here are my earlier notes:

ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOT KNOWING PETER PARKER? "S-M 3" indicates the answer is yes. There's the ongoing trouble with Harry. There's the way the origins of Venom rest in his relationship with Parker/Spidey. Sandman, for that matter, is also entangled in Parker's past, and a deed that changed both their lives. (I am really trying not to overspoil here.)

For that matter, things don't go very well for Mary Jane in the new movie. I don't think this is a matter of Peter being poisonous, or even that he's Jessica Fletcher. I think the movie is going for something deeper here, not only a balancing of good and evil in the world, but an argument that the two are interconnected — that a good act can have evil consequences, and vice versa. When you look at Sandman's arc, you'll see that even more clearly. Then again, I may just be seeing things because …

THOMAS HADEN CHURCH IS SO GOOD. There's a closeup of him early on where his face says "tragic figure." And so he is. In fact, he's a far more compelling character than Peter. (And more so than Doc Ock in the second movie, even though there are lots of parallels between them.) So is Harry, for that matter, although "S-M 3" is so overstuffed that he gets shoved aside for a long stretch in the movie — and that undercuts the payoff to his story.

HAVEN'T WE HAD ENOUGH OF MARY JANE IN JEOPARDY? Especially for the big finish. Third time around, after all, and that's way past too much.

IS THIS BASICALLY A POSTER IN SEARCH OF A MOVIE? Kind of. I mean, the black Spidey suit should launch a zillion screen savers and action figures. It sure had me ready to see this. But the movie doesn't measure up to the image. In fact, I suspect …

THE MOVIE'S AMBITIONS HELPED BRING IT DOWN. With this thought to be the finale of a trilogy, it has a lot to do just tying up loose ends — Peter/Harry, Peter/Mary Jane — without adding so many other elements: the ugly side of the famous Spidey, as well as the battles with Sandman and Venom. The basic character pieces, along with Peter getting arrogant, could have sustained a good movie — and the Harry/Peter conflict would have offered an excuse for decent action sequences. As it is, the closing scenes are emotionally effective; we just take a long, often slow ride to get to them.

SOME IDEAS JUST DON'T WORK. The big action scenes at night often look murky, and some of these felt as if we've seen them too often. On the other hand, the action with Sandman, especially in daytime, is pretty cool.

SOME IDEAS JUST SHOULDN'T BE TRIED. In this case, it's a dance sequence. You'll know what I mean when you see the movie.

And I know you'll probably see it. This is a review-proof movie, at least for the first weekend. I know I wouldn't be paying attention to reviews, including my own. I'd just want to see the black costume.

How Did I Forget "Major League"? (And Forget That I Had Remembered It?)

Rich Heldenfels — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:52:38 +0000

Not long ago, I had a post about the great sports movies, both someone else's list and some movies I thought should have been included. And somehow, to my great shame, I didn't think about "Major League." Someone else mentioned it in a comment on that post — but I had even forgotten that when I started this post.

All right, "Major League" was not entirely a great movie. There are some noticeably clunky parts, especially just about everything involving the Tom Berenger-Rene Russo relationship. But it had great parts and, as I've said before, I tend to pause when I come across it on cable. (I also just watched the end again on DVD, more about which in a moment.) And, of course, it's a Northeast Ohio touchstone.

So what made me think of it again? Well, I was sitting down with my DVD pile for next week and there was "Major League: Wild Thing Edition," a new release of the movie. It's a little late for the start of the season but hey, that's the kind of screwup you might expect from the Indians. (They lost their game today in the bottom of the ninth when the pitcher hit a batter with the bases loaded.)

Nice extras, too, including current Indian players (as well as broadcasters Tom Hamilton and Rick Manning) talking about the movie and real life, a making-of segment and a deleted scene that is thankfully deleted. (It softens up the team owner, played with splendid nastiness by Margaret Whitton. Absolutely unnecessary.) But I hate hearing in the audio commentary that so much of it was shot in Milwaukee.

What, No "North Dallas Forty"?

Rich Heldenfels — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:56:03 +0000

A few complaints about a list of the 25 greatest sports movies, after the jump …

In case you didn't bother with the link (and there's some screwiness in the numbers anyway), the list in descending order goes like this: Rocky, Raging Bull, Bull Durham, Hoosiers, The Natural, Caddyshack, Field of Dreams, Hoop Dreams, Remember the Titans, The Hustler, Slap Shot, White Men Can't Jump, Pride of the Yankees, Rudy, Jerry Maguire, Brian's Song, When We Were Kings, The Set-Up, Breaking Away, The Bad News Bears, Chariots of Fire, Bang the Drum Slowly, Miracle, A League of Their Own, Friday Night Lights.

As you can tell from the header on this post, I have a few issues with that list. Unfortunate omissions include not only "North Dallas Forty," which deserves consideration as the best football movie ever made, but the original "Longest Yard," "The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars and Motor Kings," "Million Dollar Baby," "The Color of Money," "The Harder They Fall," "Champion" and — even though it's a fictional sport — "Rollerball."

"Blades of Glory"

Rich Heldenfels — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:18:56 +0000

In praise of a very stupid movie, after the jump …

Compared to "Blades of Glory," "Dodgeball" is a thoughtful character study. This is not a criticism of "Blades," which is so confident about its own ridiculousness that it feels no need to humanize its characters, and its only failure is that of many good, silly comedies — that it loses energy when it has to wind up its plot. Still, at a screening tonight, I had a ridiculously good time. And, in this jaded age, it's impressive to see a movie come up with a gag of sufficiently clever grossness that it can still get people to groan out loud.

A Few Minutes With Halle Berry and a Cast of Hundreds

Rich Heldenfels — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:48:35 +0000

Halle's from Cleveland and maintains ties to the area. So she brought her latest movie, Perfect Stranger, to town for a preview screening on Thursday. And that barely describes the fun …

What follows is an account of the preview, as seen from behind the velvet rope where the press congregated. Just in case you're curious about the way these things work.

The preview was in a lot of ways a large-scale photo op. Some of us had talked to Halle and to co-star Giovanni Ribisi before the preview, during a press event she did in Chicago. That event was clearly a grind; they were still doing interviews early Thursday afternoon before catching a plane to Cleveland for the preview that night. But it's part of their business, and both were pleasant and accommodating when I talked to them.

Anyway, at the Cinemark Valley View, they set up a red carpet leading from the entrance to the theater and across the lobby, with spots for the individual media operations marked along the way — print nearest the door, TV and radio in the more visually impressive lobby. About 10 feet back from the press side of the red carpet was another line of velvet rope; people attending the movie stood behind it. Well, some of them, but we'll get to that.

Most of us staked out our spots by the rope about an hour before the stars were due in, then watched the details of the event: the arrival of people with VIP passes (among them the Browns' Braylon Edwards), a publicist handing out welcoming signs — drawn to look spontaneous and hand-made — to people in the crowd. Quite a crowd, too. The line snaked across the lobby, past the entrance and along the outside of the theater, where folks endured the rain. The crowd was so big, in fact, that some people were turned finally turned away from the screening. Publicists can usually hand out more passes than they have seats, because a lot of the pass-getters won't show up; with Halle expected, the turnout this time was huge.

The arrival time came and went, and more time after that. The crowd grew larger and more restive, and people began moving from the line across the first velvet rope and over near where the press line was. And then began to meld into the line wherever a spot seemed open. Others formed a line outside the door; autographs would be sought, including on a lot of "Gothika" posters, photographs would be snapped, a personal connection would be desired.

One young woman elbowed her way up to the press rope and kept leaning out to see who was coming. I asked her once to move back a little so the Beacon Journal photographer could get a shot. She moved briefly, then edged in again. In fact, if she had been a little bigger, I am sure she would have body-checked me out of my spot. As the celebrities began to arrive and she shoved forward more, I said, "I don't want to be unpleasant, but I'm working here." "So am I," she said. "I'm writing a paper for my school."

About 40 minutes later than expected, Ribisi arrived. The plan was to go down the carpet, pausing for a minute or two with each media outlet. But the surge of fans made that a little ungainly at the beginning of the line. Still, when he paused in front of me, we shook hands, I reminded him we had talked earlier, and I asked a couple of questions about his feelings about the crowd and the scene. "This is massive," he said, and a few other things, and then we exchanged a few more words before he moved on.

Then Halle appeared. Shrieks. Screams. Crowd charging forward. The print reporter at the beginning of the line didn't get near here. Hands were reaching out on every side of me. Halle paused in front of me, and took off her gold trenchcoat, to more shouts from the crowd. Behind me, someone held out a paper and asked for an autograph. She asked for something to write with. Apparently the seeker didn't have anything. I offered her my pen — a yellow-and-blue University of Akron Residence Hall Activities pen, by the way. For a moment, she hesitated; I'm guessing she was waiting for me to provide a piece of paper for her to sign. But when I offered the pen again, she took it, signed the first autograph and another one or two after that.

Then she gave me back my pen. The woman knows her manners. As she did that, I reintroduced myself and asked my couple of questions. And yes, I asked what designer she was wearing (Dolce & Gabbana). It was actually the second time I had asked; when we talked on the phone earlier, she had not yet decided what to wear.

Moment over. Halle moved on, still talking to people, still signing autographs, then stopping to chat with a girl on crutches. The talk went on a bit, then Halle hugged her and kept on. I went over the rope, rather clumsily and around to where the girl was to get her name. Danielle Lee, by the way. And very impressed by Halle.

As the stars kept working the red carpet, those of us who were done moved around to watch the scene and check a few details. (I did not figure out by myself that her dress was champagne-colored.) Then we went inside, to sit in the theater where Halle and Giovanni were going to introduce the movie. Quite some time later, the photographers came in, shaking their heads over the wild scene in the lobby, the fans swarming over the media like the "300's" Persians mobbing Spartans.

Then the theater ceremony began. The mayor of Cleveland introduced Giovanni. He said a few words but was uncomfortable, expecting Halle to join him right away. Then she did, to more applause. She spoke a bit and then asked if anyone had questions.

At that point, even though I was interested in what she had to say, my heart sank.

Let me back up and explain the technical logistics attached to this event. The photographer and I are about an hour's drive from the office. It made more sense to transmit the photos and my copy, especially since the office wanted everything around 9. That meant finding a wireless connection someplace close to the theater.

Hello, Panera.

At the office we had mapped out a Panera not far away. But it closed at 9. It was 8:15 when Halle invited questions.

Fifteen minutes of softballs later, Halle and Giovanni said goodbye and headed out the back of the Cinemark. We reporters and photographers zipped to our cars. (I had already seen the movie.) By about 8:45 I was walking into Panera, and saw the photographer at the counter. He ordered a salad, figuring they were less likely to boot us at closing if he had a big salad to eat.

He set up at one table. Armed with a pastry, I sat at another, tapped into the wireless connection, hooked up to the system at the office and wrote a top for today's HeldenFiles about the event. I was done a little after 9, but we were in no danger of them shutting us down. Four other people were sitting and chatting over the remains of their selections. I called the office, made sure the copy had gotten through and signed off. By about 9:15 I was headed home — and done except for a cell-phone call to the office to add one more detail to what I wrote.

More "300"

Rich Heldenfels — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:34:11 +0000

My review in today's Beacon Journal is here.

I went back and forth quite a bit while writing it, mostly because I was concerned that I was giving too much credit to a movie that was aimed at me, or at least aimed at me when I pretend I am about 30 years younger.

Like the graphic novel on which it is based, this is a movie for young men –violent, visual, occasionally sexual, an artistically rendered action movie. The bride had no interest in seeing it. Younger son — almost 18 and an avid reader of graphic novels including "300" — was pumped for this one.

As my writing deadline loomed, even though I was aware of some manipulation (and noted it in my review), I still was facing a movie I liked, and that did not have me checking my watch in impatience. One reviewer compared it negatively to "Apocalypto" (and wasn't too crazy about Mel Gibson's movie, either). In fact, "300" is a more thoughtful film, and one that goes somewhere emotionally. "Apocalypto" devolves into a long chase sequence, one in which the movement becomes numbing because there's not much else to it. "300" has plenty to say about issues, as well as about leadership; if we have to compare it to one of Mel's movies, it has greater kinship to "Braveheart." Which, by the way, I also admire.

Great Newspaper Movies

Rich Heldenfels — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:18:11 +0000

Over the weekend I caught a little bit of "Teacher's Pet," the 1958 comedy starring Clark Gable as a hard-bitten newspaper editor and Doris Day as a journalism teacher. I've always been kind of fond of it and even as a kid I learned a journalism lesson that can still hold — the one about the virtue of brevity in storytelling.

That — along with working the night shift at the office — got me thinking again about the great newspaper movies — there's a little too much fluff in that one to qualify — but, when you get down to it, I didn't have much to add to lists that are already circulating like this one. and this one.

I don't know if that's a function of the relative lack of interesting newspaper movies, or that certain movies are more likely to appeal to those of us who wear our ink stains like merit badges. Well, at least those of us who still find a use for ink.

That said, some movies have aged better than others. "All the President's Men" now feels more like an old-fashioned romance than a modern view of news media.

On the other hand, "Deadline USA" just keeps improving with age — some 55 years after it was made. Sure, there's some romance to it. But the pivotal event involves the demise of a great newspaper because its owners want to cash out. You think that doesn't echo with the staffs of current newspapers?

Even before it became all too plausible, "Deadline USA" was one of my favorite newspaper movies. But not the only one. Some other faves:

"-30-." It combines my fascination with the business with my fascination with Jack Webb. And, like so much of Webb's work, it combines stylized acting with a love of the nuts and bolts of a business.

"The Paper." Ron Howard's movie is a little too slick in spots, but still. Jason Robards. Glenn Close fretting over money. Swaggering, snotty Michael Keaton. And it was stronger than a lot of newspaper movies in its feel for competitiveness. Bad journalism movies often act as if there's only one news organization in a town, and one reporter on a hot story. The people of "The Paper" are constantly aware that others are chasing a story, and they have to beat them.

"His Girl Friday." The best big-screen rendition of "The Front Page," the dialogue rapid-fire, the performances wonderful from Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell — and Russell was a representation of all the tough, smart women in journalism then and now.

"Between the Lines." I know, it's not about a daily newspaper, but an alternative publication in the style of the Village Voice, Rolling Stone and other counterculture publications. In the manner of "Deadline USA," it is about commerce overtaking journalistic ideals — with the great Lane Smith as the bringer of doom. That notion is even more pointed in the casting of Jeff Goldblum as one of the reporters — since about six years later Goldblum would play a jaded writer for People magazine in "The Big Chill." But it's also about the joy that comes with doing important work. And the cast includes Stephen Collins, Joe Morton, John Heard, Lindsay Crouse, Jill Eikenberry and Bruno Kirby.

"Come Fill the Cup." If for no other reason, I'm including this because, if we have newspaper man Bogart in "Deadline USA," we need newspaperman James Cagney in something. But he's also very good in this movie as an alcoholic newsman — and you can't write the history of journalism without admitting that a lot of cups were filled along the way.

"Meet John Doe." Not entirely a newspaper movie — politics suffuses it as well — but watch the reporting in it and tell me you don't get a sense of the contemporary tabloid culture. Barbara Stanwyck flat out makes up someone — and soon enough her newspaper is playing along with the fraud and building on it, because it sells newspapers. This would make an interesting double bill with "Shattered Glass."

I've been vacillating over whether to include "All the President's Men." It's certainly a key newspapering touchstone — Redford and Hoffman dig for news! — and the story is well told. But it, like the book on which it was based, suggested a glamour and glory about newspapering that attracted people that you can spend long, hard years in this business and never take down a president.

I may think of more later, but that's a place to start. Anyone want to add, subtract and otherwise argue?

Oscar Night

Rich Heldenfels — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:56:02 +0000

DISASTER. Something ate almost all my first 3 hours of blogging, and now I have to file. I'll try to reconstruct some notes later.

The red carpet, currently on E!, is not so interesting to me — although I did chuckle at Ryan Seacrest's trying to talk fashion with Rachel Weisz and noting that "there's a lot of Wang here … a couple of Wangs so far."
And the bride is having an excellent time looking at the outfits and saying "No, no, no …"

And Ryan Seacrest just flashed his underwear while Helen Mirren waited to be interviewed. Is this classy or what? And bless Mirren for augmenting Seacrest's movie fawning with the reminder that she did some good TV, too.

Loved Alan Arkin being Mr. Crankypants with Seacrest. (It's even better considering that he won later.)

Ryan drops Ricky Gervais's name to Kate Winslet. And mispronounces it. And is corrected by Winslet.