Those three films released within a few months interval are the follow up of  gems that have since made their place in the pantheon of comedy. However those had very different outcome, as well as income for that matter, and rank very differently. We kick off this series by weakest of all those films: Dumb and Dumber To.

Dumb and Dumber, Jim Carrey, Jeff Daniels

Dumb and Dumber To took 20 years to come since the original Dumb and Dumber released in 1994 who is unarguably one of the very best comedies ever made. It had two wonderful lead actors, Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels, and a winning formula that changed the way some made comedies in the last two decades (unfortunately not for the best). Dumb and Dumber was set in a normal serious every day world and followed the road trip of two genuinely stupid friends. Genuine is the word there and it is what made Dumb and Dumber great, the comedy was flawless and natural, it had a logic do it that made the film believable to our intellect.

Twenty years later, the magic is gone and so is the chemistry between Harry and Lloyd. Dumb and Dumber To wears all the symptoms of a bad comedy topped with a bad follow up icing: the comedy is forced, absurd and the jokes are all but a couple reheated from the first installment.

Aside for a few new tricks, Dumb and Dumber To is simply not a funny movie; where the first movie made the viewer feel like he was safely watching two idiots in a cage as in a zoo, To leaves you no other option than switching off your brain at your own risk to live through the end of the film. In fact the movie self destroys itself in the very first scene: the twenty year prank that Lloyd is supposed to have played on Harry just for a laugh bears too much stupidity to be redeemable. But the film gets definitely buried 5 min later when Harry visits his Korean parents asking them for a liver transplant, not realizing for all these years that he was obviously adopted.

There are a couple of funny jokes along the way but nothing that can truly save this film even for die hard fans – they just didn’t get it right. Now looking at the background story of this production we could find a few answers. First of all, if there was an urgent need for a follow up to Dumb and Dumber in the 90’s or even early 00’s, there was none whatsoever in 2014. We can then ask ourselves why the making of this fail attempt? Well maybe because the careers of all the persons involved in this production has been faltering in the last few years and perhaps they thought reheating a twenty year old indestructible legend would bring them all back in the spotlight.

I am sorry but it didn’t, bad intentions always end up with bad ends.

The screenplay delivered by McQuarrie and Butterworth is at the culmination of a Century of film writing. Edge of Tomorrow is a glimpse into the future for films and screenwriting. We’ve been writing stories for the past four millennium, but the cinema came to life in 1895; it required a new art of story telling which has become obsolete while at its high after the invention of talking in 1927. So we are 87 years later now into this new specific writing and this is what Edge of Tomorrow summarizes. Edge of Tomorrow is at the Edge of 87 years of writing and evolution. The writers have learned and delivered not a masterpiece but a screenplay that sets the new bar – the norm – in writing action movies.

Edge of Tomorrow is a very focused film with an  ochestra-like flow and delivery. Its cunning editing creates a rare rhythm at the core of the movie’s success. This clever screenplay about this one idea is perfectly mastered and in control. The screenplay is always a step ahead to keep the story fresh, compelling, interesting and surprising until the very end. Its light comedy touches (like when Cruise misses its roll under a rolling jeep and ends up crushed) add a welcomed light touch to this war movie.

Right, all that said doesn’t make of Edge Of Tomorrow the greatest screenplay ever written, we are far from a Third Man scenario there. Its main downfall is the actual lack of content – but then this is an action movie. What’s outstanding as we said is its tight delivery. Edge of Tomorrow paths the way for action films’ rhythm and treatment of a key idea.

Edge of Tomorrow Tom Cruise

This is no Independence Day, we don’t spend 30 mins just mumbling about the alien threat, in fact, up until we get drafted in the middle of the war we don’t know who the enemy is. As we said, this scenario is learned. It dipped and churned itself out of all the clichés and dos that are outdated and tire the audience down. So no big recap about the alien invasion at the opening of the movie and no fake irony that has been worn out for a Century in the past decade.

Edge of Tomorrow bears its title well. As it says, it has an “Edge” over “Tomorrow“‘s movies. It is a testimony of the new norm in action films. An iconic idea served by a symphonic science of rhythm, fonded in clever and humorist touches. Edge of Tomorrow is today a welcome breath of fresh air – that said until all future movies copy its formula until we grow tired of it.

The finer the bubble, the less aggressive the champagne. Big bubbles will pop in your mouth, attacking gums and death, leaving one slightly uncomfortable. No Champagne that aims to be called “fine” can afford to leave such an impression. Experts might even get repelled by the simple oversize of a bubble and refuse to taste the wine altogether. Thus, the work of the bubble is one of the producer main focus during elaboration. Thankfully, this isn’t a random process. It simply requires mastership and time.

Did you know? A Champagne bubbles in a glass because of the defects of that glass. Tiny dents made inside the glass trap the champagne’s gas which conglomerate around the area, its density pushes some of that gas out of the glass. Hence it is always important to drink champagne in a champagne glass built to this effect. Using a still wine glass – or any other glass – will make the champagne go flat within seconds. Without the bubbles, the champagne looses all its vitality and virtuosity.

Now we’re 26 years later, Burton hasn’t made a top movie in 15 years, both Keaton and Ryder faced a slump in the last 20 years but have been faring better in recent years, and all three have announced being on board for a Beetlejuice 2 which “will not be a sequel” in Burton words. Which would have been the best news in the world 25, 20 0r even 15 years ago is being received by mixed opinions now. There is now denying that Burton isn’t what he used to be. His art seems to get lost in CGI. The screenplays he has been working recent years are getting weaker by the project and he is obviously more interested in turning in a movie that will bring back the big bucks than a movie who will be loved forever, by a few, like Ed Wood.

Our questioning is two-folds: what are Burton’s real motivations behind Beetlejuice 2 and can he live up to the expectation?

Burton’s motivations? Well he says himself that he and Keaton miss the movie and their characters, which nobody will doubt. It’s be like asking Joe Lewis if he missed being champion of the world! But is Burton conscious of his “self-sabotage” career? That could be the answer. Burton’s career is a James Dean Story where James Dean doesn’t die after 3 films. Had Burton stopped his career before the new Century he would have remain at the very top of the directing league, easily breaking into the top 10 of the all-time greats in between a Fellini and a Ford. But he didn’t stop there. He gave us the ghost directed Planet of Apes, the abominable Sweeney Todd, the ok Big Fish ans a florilege of money-oriented tasteless remakes. And here we go again with Beetlejuice – which is “not a sequel”! Burton has lost his touch and he is either taking on another project that is a sure audience drawer like Charlie and Alice, or he is trying to redeem himself by going back to the roots in hope to find the magic once more. I’ll go in favour of the first option.

As of Burton’s ability to live up to expectations, well I’ll say there is a 95% chance he won’t, and a 50% chance it will actually hurt the legendary status of the first movie – which nobody wants. Let’s just hope that whatever the outcome we will still be able to view the original in a positive light for it was the work of a talented, hungry and inspired director far from the dollar-seeker he has become.

Sources: x, x

Philippe Clicquot was a young entrepreneur with big dreams. Upon founding his Champagne house, Philippe put an advertisement in the national newspaper presenting himself as a wine merchant in Champagne willing to travel all across the country to promote the fine taste of champagne. Philip died a few years later, soon followed by his son François who let the whole business to his wife and widow (veuve) Barbe-Nicole Ponsardin. By then, the business was wide, from banking, wool, trading to champagne. The veuve abandoned the other businesses in favour of the champagne which she took outside the borders of France.

Veuve Clicquot is today one of the first household name that comes to mind when evoking Champagne. Ever since its foundation it targeted to make Champagne popular all across the world. Today, very much like all great houses, they outsource most of their grapes and though the house motto is “Only one quality, the finest.” don’t get fooled. Only the vintages are worthy of recognition, the house brut is a rather weak champagne really not worthy of its price. Again, as most of “Grande Marque” of champagne, the brut is a champagne for fools – millions of fools as Veuve Clicquot yearly 1.2 Billions euros turnover proves it!

Veuve Clicquot Website

Starring the Summer couple played by Dustin Hoffman and Susan George as well as the disturbed David Warner in the role of Niles, Straw Dogs tells the story of an American mathematician who ran away from a violent America to establish himself, as he thought, in the home town of his British wife. They inhabit the family farm some miles away from the town where only a few people, rather old, live. In this village is Niles (Warner) an estranged man who has been condemned in the past for his acts. There also lives Mrs Summer’s ex-school friends and boyfriends who have been hired by the Summer couple to fix their garage roof.

The character played by Hoffman is a quiet man who lives in this math world and shies away from all conflicting situations. His wife, on the contrary is a lolita with good looks who understands nothing of her husband’s work. As the story progresses, bored to death, Mrs Summer starts teasing her ex-boyfriend to give birth to one of cinema’s most shocking scene: the notorious rape scene. Whilst the husband goes hunting, Mrs Summer gets raped by her ex-boyfriend, after some early resistance, she soon gives in and actually – and disturbingly – seems to enjoy it. However, the enjoyment ends when a second man comes in to rape her. That scene, its build up and its aftermath is shocking in many ways because unlike other Hollywood movies, it actually feels real. Peckinpah’s direction gives us a Zolaesque insight in the characters’ minds. All the more shocking is the fact that the wife actually omits telling her husband of the atrocious rape. Peckinpah’ astute direction not only leave the viewer quite disgusted at the scene but let’s you wonder why she didn’t pipe a word. Is it because she liked it, wanted it and feels guilty or because she knows her husband is not up to the task of facing such a truth?

The descent to hell goes on until Niles, the village’s psychotic, unwillingly kills a young girl. Found on the road injured, Mr Summer will take him home for one of the most violent and scaring ending in the cinema. The family of the poor girl and the ex-boyfriend’s mob come to get Niles and do themselves justice, but Hoffman fights his inner self to offer them resistance. The men insist and lead a home invasion which will see several of them dead. Along the fight, Hoffman sees his wife shying away from him as he reveals himself with courage. The final scene sees Hoffman taking the road with Niles and disturbingly smiling as he leaves this violent den behind him. He is smiling because he found himself courage, courage to go home to America and face reality as every man should do.

And that is the power which makes Straw Dogs a classic. It perfectly makes the viewer step into Hoffman’s character’s shoes and constantly provoke the viewer to ask himself this question: “What will I do if it was me there?“. Straw Dogs gives a few good lessons, that violence is everywhere and that running away from it leads to no good. It also questions the value of man. As much as Hoffman wants to live a spiritual life, he is still a man and has to act as one, thus taking responsibilities. The whole psychological aspect of the film is the key to its success, few films in the story of cinema have been more gripping and terrifying even years after viewing. Peckinpah simply got it right on this film, touching an universal truth that should withstand the test of time. Yes, we are all afraid of Straw Dogs because it shows us a reality that ourselves to not want to face, but like Hoffman’s character comes a time in life when we have to. The longer we wait to stand our ground, the bitter the end.

The first vineyards were planted over 2000 years ago by the Romans, the cave however were created in 1152 by Saint Bernard. They remain to this day of the most intriguing and beautiful place to visit in Champagne. This long heritage has benefited Drappier like few other producers, throughout its history Drappier has honoured and maintained their legacy and traditional production.

As well as being a consistent producer of quality champagne, Drappier is well known for two facts. They are the producers that uses the lowest amount of sulfite in their brut, making it the most organic champagne there is. They also continue to use old forgotten cepages (grape varieties) such as l’Arbanne, the Petit Mesnier and the Blanc Vrai.

Drappier champagne is one of those precious producer where you can’t go wrong with it. Treat yourself with a Drappier if you can find it on the export market and don’t hesitate to spend a little more on their vintage; the Carte D’Or 1996 is one of those few pleasures in life no one should deny themselves!

However circumstances will retain him in the sunny south of France away from the shady rainy London. There he rediscovers elements of his youth and is forced to reflect about his life and his actions. He meets a lovely girl, Cotillard, and falls in love with the place as the same time the viewer does. In the end, despite being offered his dream position as partner of the firm, Crowe leaves everything behind him to reconvert as the proprietor of a successful wine production.

Shot on the location of Chateau La Canorgue, A Good Year is a delightful exercise by legendary director Ridley Scott, out of his comfort zone (it is perhaps the only film where nobody physically dies). His use of colours to depict the cold, dreary, soulless and money-driven business life in London (shot all under grey and blue tones) contrasts cunningly with the dreamy, sunny, gay and rich life of Provence all dressed in bright and vivid colours. The cast is on top form and the movie bears a beautiful moral  which needs a bit of clarification.

It exists 3 version of A Good Year strory: the one that was shot, the rather weak novel by Peter Mayle from which the movie is inspired and a screenplay that was never shot. In this later version we learn all about the actual notary’s plan and the truth about the secret and illegal wines the estate is producing. Without this knowledge the ending is easily misunderstood. Although it is unclear in the final product shot by Scott, Crowe does not turns down a juicy promotion to go live a goalless and penniless life under the sun. Crowe retires from a dreary, soulless, rapacious, lonely money-making lifestyle to become the rich proprietor of a rare and priceless wine which has been elaborated for over 40 years by his uncle and his vigneron. Crowe is thus trading a miserable shallow life at making money by breaking others to a life at developing and enjoying a real gift of nature, a Provence wine named Le Coin Perdu (The Lost Corner).

Few films have depicted Provence under a better light nor has more truthfully and enviously painted a life in the vineyards.

Lanson champagne is an institution. It is one of the oldest champagne houses still in activity having been establish in 1760, nearly a Century before most other Grande Marque of champagne. Its brut, “black label” is an homage to the UK market, it is a powerful and supposedly elegant champagne.

Lanson in the world of champagne has the branding power of Coca Cola for soft drinks or Apple for computers. It is the most famous brand in its field and its strategy is to always make sure newcomers will always turn to Lanson first. Why? Because anybody that knows a little bit about champagne has enough taste to stay away from a Lanson.

Lanson’s strategy is based on well known fact that only 2 to 3% of people knows their champagne. However 100% of the world population has heard about champagne and at one point or another tries it. Lanson aims to be this first champagne they will try. It is drunk primarily by people that ignore all about champagne and have no way of comparisons, which will retain them as Lanson’s customers until they know better. How so? Well Lanson’s firepower is just phenomenal. Not only they know how to gain new customers but they know how to retain them, even beyond the point when the customer has fallen out of love with the product.

Lanson investment is colossal. Their marketing campaigns are aimed to maintain the brand as a Grande Marque in common opinion (not for the champagne lovers who know better). They also always keep up to date with changes of time, always remain on the fighting front, aiming to steal any market they can get theirs hands on. In the 80’s most big corporation and businesses in Lyon had their own independent champagne producer from which they would buy a few thousand bottles a year. In one winter Lanson travelled the 500 Km down to Lyon and stole the whole market by offering the irresistible: one pallet bought = one pallet offered.

Thus Lanson invested and lost some money for a couple of years but has been making a fortune ever since. Lanson is often the choice champagne for great events such as the French Tennis Open, political meetings etc. In fact Lanson is always the first choice, because their firepower is unbeatable! On average, Lanson yearly turnover is around 100M Euros whilst its profit turns around 3M Euros. Yes that’s only a 3% margin of profit, talk about marketing and investments!

The Parallax View soars intelligence, control and restrain. It is the work of an absolute master. There is no doubt there of the influences of Michelangelo Antonioni. Alan Pakula certainly learned from L’Avventura and The Passenger the virtue of silence, of the invisible camera. Pakula’s frame work is the unscrupulous nosy eye of the viewer who, alike Beatty on his opening scene is trying to get in around the soon to be assassinated senator, or the witnesses later scrutinizing every piece of evidence of this assassination to dig out the truth.

Brief summary: a US senator gets assassinated in public. The act is officially recognized to be of a mad man and all conspiracies are brushed off. A few years later, Beatty, a reporter present at the assassination scene is asked by a witness fearing for her life to investigate this closed case as all the witnesses are slowly dying of seemingly “natural causes”. Beatty refuses to listen only to find his lady friend dead a few weeks later, thus starts Beatty’s investigation. It will soon lead him to a corporation named Parallax who supposedly recruits killer for the government. As Beatty cunningly (as both the viewer and him thought) infiltrates the association, he quickly finds himself of two other supposed assassination attempts of another senator. The later – without spoiling one of the best ending in cinema history – will be the last we see him.

The Parallax View is one of those few undisputed masterpieces which “votes” or “point ranking” is only diminished by the action-seeker viewers who could find those long scenes of near silence confusing or even boring. Pakula shot his thriller very much like author film which could certainly be disturbing for the lambda viewer. It bears some of the most outstanding scenes in the cinema. Let’s indulge ourselves and go through all those wonders.

First is the assassination. The movie starts with a parade for a US senator, it very much looks like a news report until the shock killing of the senator who comes very unexpectedly, plunging the viewer right in the middle of the scene.

Secondly is this absolute masterpiece of craftsmanship and expert writing. Following the “say less to tell more” theme utilized by Pakula we are treated by schoolwork execution of perfect writing right after the opening credits. The first introduction of Beatty’s character is at the entrance of the senator’s party where he is denied access for not having a badge. He waits on the side until a short hair girl passes through, he stops the guard to tell him that he is with her. The lady turns back, get a look at him and denies the affirmation. This is a 12 seconds scene. Now, we will meet this lady again a few instants later when, three years later we are told, she visits Beatty at his hotel. We are first told by the receptionist that a woman called a few times for Beatty. She soon makes her entrance to his room whilst a younger girl is just coming out of the shower. As Beatty engages with the short hair woman we are being told that the two have been seeing each other on many occasions and that Beatty have grown tired of her. Now that’s the wonder of storytelling. Within 12 + 10 seconds of seeing two character together the viewer already imagines, feels, lives and long and heavy relationship between the two. Plus we are left to wonder if, when Beatty first pretended he was with her, if he actually knew her then, or, as a reporter, if went after her post assassination to get his story, the relationship later developing.

In Emir Kusturica‘s movie Arizona Dream starring Johnny Depp, a character tells the viewer “if you see a gun in the beginning of the movie then expect something terrible to happen at the end“. What it says is that everything in a movie – at least ever since Billy Wilder and his classic The Apartment set the bar of perfect screenplays – is there for a reason. If the camera awaits on a handful of paper dropped by a character, or some keys forgotten by another, then you know this will have a consequence later on. It is about composing a shrewd and compact screenplay that plays like clockwork. However, what Pakula says here with his writing tour de force is “hey! those people aren’t part of any mechanic. They have a life of their own and I am just showing you glimpses of it“. Pakula right from the start elects the viewer as a peeping tom. The effect is unbeatable: the  viewer wholly enters the movie to step into Beatty’s shoes, or right beside him as a matter of fact, spying on him. He isn’t watching a film, he is living it! Chapeau maestro!

Thirdly, the whole climax of the film is a wonder. We know, we feel as viewers that Beatty is on to something big, something unmeasurable, something so frightening and important that it could change the world even. However half way through we suddenly become unsettled in our faith in our avatar Beatty when a character tells him “what the hell! You’re just a reporter from a third rate paper in Oregon or something”. And suddenly, without knowing it, we lose our confidence in Beatty. Can we really believe that a “nobody”, a failed writer is going to successfully unravel the biggest conspiracy in the world?

Well, obviously no he didn’t. The ending, as said above, has to be one of the greatest in film history. Not only it wraps up the whole story, it justifies the bits cunningly selected by “Godlike” director and storyteller Pakula, but it leaves the viewer shot for dead, paralyzed, in awe, not believing what he has just witnessed. As the ending credits roll the viewer is left with the repulsive feeling and knowledge that yes, conspiracies do exist and people walk away with it because this black threat is more clever and powerful that anything we could possibly imagine. The Parallax view is the one that look down on all of us as potential unwitting puppets of an abominable plot to rule and control the world.

The Parallax View Imdb  Stream