‘The Thing’ is a grotesquely eloquent special FX extravaganza; a startling exploration of suspense and paranoia, a psychological horror-thriller (that can mentally scar the uninitiated), and it’s an absolutely ingenious film; directed by horror aficionado – John Carpenter. This movie leaves a lasting impression on anyone who watches it. 

It’s a truly well-crafted piece of cerebral horror, playing off a person’s natural phobias and the human inclination to suspect those around them, watching ‘The Thing’ is a paranoia inducing experience. The majority of us do not deal well with isolation and claustrophobic environments, this is an absolute truth. As a piece of cinema, ‘The Thing’ highlights this truth; and succeeds in exploring the effects it can have on the human psyche. 

‘The Thing’ (1982) is a remake of ‘The Thing from Another World’ (1951), a black & white classic film that also helped to pioneer cutting-edge techniques in the area of visual effects. 

The general premise is this:

A scientific research team is stranded (due to inclement weather) in a research outpost located in the Antarctic. The men have already begun exhibiting symptoms of cabin fever, illustrated by a scene, in which MacCready (Kurt Russell) pours water into a computer’s harddrive after losing a chess match with it, taking out his anger on government property. The other parts of the team are seen acting irritable towards one another – in a normal setting this would be a non-issue. However when all access to the outside world is cut off, these minor grievances can lead to serious inter-relational disputes; or in the worst case scenario; displays of violence.

Now all this is a fine setup for a slow-paced psychological thriller, a glimpse into a group of individuals slowly losing their minds (without any external force involved). Something more akin to ‘The Hole’ (2001): a bleakly riveting; disturbing, dread-filled, British horror feature that will make you crawl out of your skin. But this story delves into the territory of the unknown, when some THING alien invades the research outpost, in the form of a seemingly benign husky.

This sled dog is the only survivor of a Norwegian research team – after one man blows himself and his helicopter up, and his frantic partner then fires upon the critter as it runs toward the American team, the man shouting incomprehensible words (in his native tongue) at Macready and the others. The U.S. station commander gets spooked; fires at the man and kills him, torpedoing any chance at an explanation for the alarming and mystifying encounter.

Upon further inspection of the Norwegians research base, a spaceship of seemingly extraterrestrial origins is found by the U.S. research team, adding to the sense of dread, while also intriguing the more intrepid researchers. Evidently, the ship of unknown origins is a once-in-a-lifetime scientific discovery. It also appears as if the Norwegian scientists found something inside the ship, and began performing tests on it.

Or rather, did something find them….

Famed Italian composer 'Ennio Merricone' arranged the score for Carpenter's 'The Thing' (1982), hailed for his work with Sergio Leone on the director's acclaimed Spaghetti-Westerns, "The Man with No Name Trilogy" – 'Fistful of Dollars', 'For a Few Dollars More', and 'The Good the Bad and the Ugly'.

The score adds so much to this creature-feature that I honestly couldn't imagine what the end product would be like without it. 

Merricone's score is reminiscent of a beating heart; rhythmic and urgent, swelling at moments of great suspense and anxiety. It adds immensely to the overall foreboding and trepidation felt throughout the film.

The acting is masterful in 1982's 'The Thing', the cast really manages to capture the heightened emotional state of a group of men who are slowly turning on each other, fighting for their lives against an unseen, amorphous, otherworldly entity.

Did I mention the special effects are truly terrifying? 

Well, hell — I'm going to post a gallery for this one folks, because the imagery that caused a lot of critics (and movie goers) to walk out, revolted, back in 1982; those insanely demonic and disquieting visuals that portray the alien as a creature who can meld with its victims in a painful envelopment of sorts…Well that's really what this picture is praised for most of all, all these years later.

That and the rest of the meticulous filmmaking techniques that went into the production — but the horrifying visuals on display are the most talked about; and receive the most amount of attention from adulating fans. And honestly, the amount  of work and artistry that went into making the practical FX come to life; well that would be an article in itself.

There's lots of behind the scenes footage, probably a few documentaries out there.

It's worthwhile to go check them out, especially if you're enrolled in a course on film or work in the industry; some really revolutionary prosthetic builds and animatronics were designed for this movie, and they created a long lasting impact in the realm of makeup & practical FX.

JOHN CARPENTER'S 'THE THING'

Rating: 

10/10

Scary AF

Afterword:

ON KEITH DAVID'S ACTING

[ Keith David gives a tremendous turn as the character "Childs", head-mechanic stationed at Outpost 37  – it is memorable, earnest, and ultimately Childs plays an essential part in Act III of 'The Thing'. Being the deuteragonist; the actor competes with Kurt Russel as the in-world lead, and their chemistry on screen is tremendously successful in communicating the severity of the situation. Both men appear to be above suspicion until the final moments; and both appear to be dead set on not allowing the alien to escape the outpost. David adds to the suspense with his no-nonsense delivery and affected machismo, evoking the feeling of an actual military enlistee – interestingly enough, police, and or military officers, are the roles that Keith David often seems to gravitate towards. I don't think it's a leap to state the following: he clearly excels at playing those that are in a position of authority.

 I chose not to touch on other actors besides Kurt Russell, for brevity's sake; yet I feel not mentioning Keith David's contributions would be highly disingenuous. The man went on to have a very successful career starring in a multitude of globally recognized projects; from John Carpenter's cult-classic 'They Live', to David's prominent role in 'Platoon' (1986), and most recently: a recurring guest appearance on Adult Swim's hugely popular series, 'Rick & Morty' –  as the fictional U.S. President. ]

'The Departed' is a 2006 Irish-American crime-thriller directed by Martin Scorsese.

It is considered by many to be one of his seminal, modern motion pictures. It's a tour-de-force – incorporating the finer elements of filmmaking that Scorsese has acquired through a long and storied career. The acting, pacing, score, visuals, editing, and an expertly crafted narrative; all come together to form something truly riveting and roguishly romantic. With little touches of comedy and stylistic wit, that work to balance out the more somber moments — in my ardent opinion, 'The Departed' is among the most moving crime-capers put to screen, rivaled only by 'Casino' – one of Scorsese's formerly oft lauded gangster epics.

Based in Boston (specifically South Boston), the plot revolves around the rather Shakespearean premise of two opposing leads caught in a whirlwind of juxtaposed forces; some criminal, some judiciary — and all competing for supremacy in the underworld of Boston's inner-city. There's a reference to Shakespeare early in the runtime, in an effort to inform the viewer that the structure is purposefully symmetrical: a trademark of the English bard's style. Opposing forces and archetypes are a recurring theme in a number of Shakespeare's plays. As it turns out — Scorsese borrowed some of the major plot points from a Hong Kong action-flick titled 'Infernal Affairs'; it inspired the intricate web of lies and deceit that permeates 'The Departed'. 

The plot is very similar, nearly beat-for-beat. So, perhaps it is more of a "knock on effect" when it comes to the Shakespearean motifs that are present in Scorsese's picture. Either way, this film is a wondrous reimagining of the feature directed by Andrew Lau and Alan Mak.

PREMISE

Billy Costigan (played by DiCaprio) is a South Boston born and raised State Trooper-trainee who is refused a position after acing his entrance exam, only to be offered a job to go deep undercover and gather info on a big-time Irish mob boss — by the name of Jack Costello. Costigan's familial associations with underground crime is both a blessing and a curse; it's why he is denied entry into the traditional police force, but it also allows him to come off as a legitimate small-time crook in an attempt to infiltrate Costello's inner circle.

Costello (played by the legendary Jack Nicholson) is the type of man that few dare to confront. 

Early in the film; we receive a narration in the form of a faceless monologue by Costello explaining the ins-and-outs of underground crime in Boston — and utilizing a slough of racial pejoratives in the process. This opening succeeds in setting the tone for the film and avoids wasting time on lengthy or convoluted world-building. Most gangster-flicks contain a lot of…let's say, colourful language, so trigger warnings for anyone who objects to this kind of language to illustrate a character's rough upbringing.

 This character in particular must've had a considerably bad one — since he has a penchant for spouting truly shocking expletives: Jack Nicholson delivers these lines in a sardonic, yet crass manner –  which works well to disarm the subject matter — at least somewhat. 

There are those who have accused him of "hamming it up" for this fictionalized take on Whitey Bulger (the infamous Irish mobster who served as inspiration for Costello) but I think if Nicholson had chose to play it more straight, the film may have suffered from a lack of contrasting tones. At least this way you get some levity, even if you're watching Nicholson toss around a dismembered hand on a dinner table. 

Some of the lines in this scene reminded me of the infamous "I think I see a wing" quote by Joe Pesci to Ray Liotta, in "Goodfellas". 

After all, comedic relief is priceless, especially when the acting by Leo DiCaprio and Vera Farmiga is unquestionably tear-jerking and emotionally taxing in nature. 

Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) stands opposite of Costigan; his antithesis in almost everyday possible way. Sullivan grew up fatherless, mob-boss Frank Costello stepped in to provide a paternal figure for the boy while hatching a plan that involved his protege, one that takes years to bear fruit. While Billy Costigan is training to become a state trooper; his counterpart is surpassing him in the Massachusetts State Police Academy — going on to graduate and later becoming a police detective, studying law at Suffolk University. All this, is done at the behest of Costello: Colin Sullivan is now an unwavering informant within the Police Department for the Irish mob.

Sullivan is portrayed excellently by Matt Damon, and serves an integral role as the secondary antagonist AKA 'contagonist' of the story

(Bear with me, I will discuss his acting more in part II)

STAND-OUT MOMENTS

A certain scene in particular is a brilliant and transcendent example of acting; in my honest opinion it's one of the most powerful displays of emotion put to film. 

I'm of course, talking about the scene that pits the police department's psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (played by Vera Farmiga) against Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) in a therapy session that goes off the rails in a very noticeable way. DiCaprio's gradual descent into depression and anxiety in  the film allows for a display of raw, unbridled rage at who he sees as an instrument of the system (his court appointed psychiatrist). Superb acting empowers the scene with intensity and weight it might otherwise not have.

Throughout the film DiCaprio switches from submissive to antagonistic in an instant, however in this scene there is a slow, methodical build up, which ends in a vicious diatribe that perturbs; and challenges, his counselor's sensibilities. 

Here's an excerpt from the scene:

Madolyn : [during his counseling session]  What do you expect coming in here?

Billy Costigan : I have to come here.

Madolyn : I know you have to come here, but now that you're here, what do you want?

Billy Costigan : You want the truth? Valium.

Madolyn : You know if you lied, you would have an easier time getting what you wanted.

Billy Costigan : What does that say about what you do for a living?

Madolyn : I just think we should have a few more meetings before we even talk about prescriptions.

Billy Costigan : Look... look, I'm having panic attacks, alright? The other night I thought I was having a fucking heart attack. I puked in a trash barrel on the way over here. I haven't slept for fucking weeks.

Madolyn : Is that true?

_____________________________

[1]IMDb.com 

Lead Actors: Leonardo DiCaprio, Vera Farmiga, Martin Sheen, Matt Damon, Alec Baldwin, 

Director: Martin Scorsese

Screenplay by William Monahan

Produced by Brad Pitt, Brad Gray, and Graham King.

Stay Tuned for Part II of my Review of Scorsese's Masterpiece 

'The Departed'

___________

Sources:

[1]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407887/characters/nm0267812

'Down Below' is a low-budget gem (albeit with some imperfections) providing standout performances from Doug Jones, Bai Ling, Alexis Knapp, and David Steen as the mysterious "Mr Monday". The narrative is somewhat Lynchian in its approach, reminiscent of the director's smaller pictures: 'Mulholland Drive', and 'The Lost Highway' – in that it gives the viewer visually disconnected scenes in an attempt to construe the apprehension and confusion the characters are going through. Flashbacks, dream sequences, and nonlinear storytelling are all utilized to abandon. 

'Down Below' both succeeds and sort of fails in this department. This isn't a shot at the creative team; afterall a Lynchian tale is a hard one to pin down. Many a filmbuff and critic struggles to define what it is that holds together the glue in a TV series like 'Crimson Peaks', when the same approach taken by a different filmmaker is often lambasted by mainstream critics. The term "arthouse" often gets thrown around when discussing films with non-traditional narrative structure or aesthetics. 'Down Below' reminds me of a recent horror release that polarized the horror-watching community and in the process managed to create a vibrant social media buzz — 'Longlegs'. 

Both pictures are steeped in symbolism — feature an enigmatic figure as the villain — and both films wait until the final moments to hastily unpack the antagonist's backstory, in hopes of tying a bow on the cinematic thrust made thus far. Neither film truly succeeds in this department; but what is that old expression, "It's not the destination, it's the journey" — 

that seems to fit well here. A lot of people still really enjoyed 'Longlegs', and I think if the right crowd sees 'Down Below' advertised on the Tubi navigation panel…they'll watch it and get one helluva' kick out of it.

By the way, it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who made the quote about enjoying "the journey". So, yeah.

I think there are those that will love 'Down Below' for what it doesn't do — it refuses to spoon-feed you the same story that's been told time and time again, opting instead to take a chance and let the cards fall where they may. This is a risky decision by the filmmaker: yet, it shows he has a vision and isn't afraid of taking creative chances. A quality that is sought after in the industry. When it works…

So, most importantly – does it pay off?

Yes. For the most part it does.

 The acting switches from naturalistic to theatrical at odd moments; which was jarring at times, yet this will most likely be endearing to those who love low-budget camp-horror properties which usually have over-the-top, and or clashing performances. These films often lack proper special fx and elaborate multi-cam setups — often resulting in a sort of unintended self-parody. Similar to the positive reaction to 1976's 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', it is common for horror-junkies to become enthralled with just the fact that the film was finished under such stringent circumstances. 

"The Terrifier" is a trash-horror movie that has recently taken off as a franchise; receiving multiple sequels and a very outspoken (and religiously online) cult-following. The movie has a rather low Rotten Tomatoes score but still managed to break through to a larger demographic. 

'Down Below' definitely has a fair chance of replicating that same underground, word-of-mouth marketing that allows projects such as these to flourish – despite the considerable budgetary constraints. Spyder Dobrofsky made this picture for a meagre __________.

Doug Jones

Fans of Doug Jones (Hellboy, Hellboy II, Star Trek Discovery) will obviously be very pleased with his cameo — while wishing for more. His performance is one of the better ones adding some much needed refinement to the picture. Jones doesn't over- or under-act: he finds a nice area in between and plays to his strength. A soft spoken delivery combined with planned physicality. His physical presence on camera comes off as natural, other actors in the piece don't hit their mark near as well — becoming a tad awkward in their portrayals. Sadly, he's only in the film for one scene. Doug Jones plays a "john" who is being entertained by an escort; the same escort that also happens to be the on-again-and-off-again squeeze of our lead "Salem", played by Spyder Dobrofsky himself.

Spyder Dobrofsky

Without giving away too much about this film, since this movie is yet to be released (the director was nice enough to send me a digital screener. This blog post will go up a day before 'Down Below' is available for streaming), so I certainly don't want to spoil any major story beats or plot points; I'd like to comment on Dobrofsky's portrayal of "Salem" — the protagonist.

This is a hard role to take on, the character is extremely unsympathetic and possesses few likable traits. There is a degree of foreshadowing that informs the viewer a twist in the final act may reveal Salem's true nature as benign but until that moment – he's a very hard character to root for. There is little stoicism in him; a trait generally attributed to the hero of a horror movie, whether it's learned through tribulations or present at the outset. 

But Dobrofsky does his best, providing a plaintive and neurotic performance — working brilliantly to contrast…

Christopher Livingston as Officer Bandini, who ends up filling out the more stereotypical action-lead role. 

These two have a host of scenes together, Livingston playing the "disgruntled detective type" admirably, harkening back to old cop-show favourites of the 80s. His no-nonsense demeanor and terse delivery also very reminiscent of grizzled detectives in noir films of the past — even though his on-screen appearance evokes modernity. 

Chris Livingston delivers his lines passionately and hits his mark; the sign of a true professional.

Bai Ling

Sultry and sharp-tongued; Ling's turn as Madame Thorn is an entertaining watch. She wisely cranks up the melo-drama and it works. If you've ever watched some of the more famous Soap actresses (Susan Lucci, Erika Slezak, Jeanne Cooper) I think you'll love and recognize some of her fustian mannerisms. She's also drawing heavily upon Golden Age starlets; exaggerated expressions, breathy line delivery, and grand facial expressions. It is readily apparent that Bai Ling excels at theatricality. Nowadays, Soap Operas and daytime dramas are where you usually find this level of bombast — but it also works beautifully in camp-infused horror features.

The rest of the actors did a stand-up job as well, however this review is running long and mentioning them quickly will have to suffice.

 Eric Roberts is a Hollywood veteran and it shows. His scenes are steeped in paranoia and Robert's conveys this oppressive atmosphere to the tee. His character's essential to the story and adds an element of mystery surrounding his involvement in the crimes. It's also really nice to see Eric Roberts in an independent film; shows that he cares about smaller projects and likes to work with up-and-coming artists.

Alexis Knapp

Pink haired escort "Charisma" played by Alexis Knapp gets a majority of the screen time — along with Dobrofsky himself. There are plenty of extended two-shots of the duo in between the expected "over-the-shoulder" camera angle. Knapp does a great job of creating chemistry in the interactions she has with her screen partner. Yet, Salem and Charisma never fully feel like realized characters. I think this is simply a byproduct of not having enough establishing scenes for the two, there are a lot of story threads in the structure of the film, both Knapp and Dobrofsky are working tirelessly in their scenes, and it shows. Alexis still delivers an effervescent performance that I enjoyed watching, I just wish her character was written witg a little more…substance.

Oh well. You can't win em' all.

On a final note — as much as I have critiqued this film in some areas, there is a lot to get a kick out of here. If you're an aficionado of B-grade horror movies; you've got to watch this one.

Everybody else, stop being p*ussy and give it a try!

Down Below (premiering on Tubi - Oct. 1st)

Rating 7/10

Digital screener provided courtesy of Spyder Dobrofsky. 

'GoldenEye', is the 17th installment in the James Bond film series, a post-cold war action/spy-thriller that capitalizes on the real world tensions left over from the collapse of the USSR. 'GoldenEye' – the first film to dispense with reliance on Ian Fleming's literary works for source material, and it had the near impossible job of revitalizing a franchise that many thought to have lost its mass appeal.

Martin Campbell directed this feature, it stars Pierce Brosnan in the lead role as the charismatic and dangerous secret agent – 007. Sean Bean stars as well: playing the part of Alec Trevelyan/006  – a turncoat MI6 agent, the main villain of the film. Judi Dench takes over for Robert Brown in the role of "M", and we're introduced to Isabella Scaruptco as Natalya Simonova — a hacker turned Russian defector — and eventually, Bond's love interest and ally. 

Famke Janssen is stunning as Xenia Onatopp: a salacious JANUS agent working against Bond, who is shown to be more than capable as an assassin. And finally, Desmond Llewelyn reprises his role as series stand-by "Q", the man who provides Bond with his equipment and state-of-the-art gadgets.

This gimmick was actually expanded upon in the films, Bond's gizmos and gadgets almost grew to overshadow the character's more grounded and substantive traits. During the later Connery films (and into the Roger Moore era) we're treated to a much more fantastical version of Bond than prior pictures. In contrast to the novels, the big screen version of the famous British spy, is wish fulfillment for anyone who's ever dreamed of being equipped with implausible but also undeniably awesome things like; jet-packs, cars with extendable saws, laser watches, etc. GoldenEye's reliance on gadgets is subtle, yet still delivers enough of them to please. 

Afterall, what's a Bond movie without spy-gear? See my 'Casino Royale' review to find out! 

GoldenEye manages to successfully combine elements from the more iconic James Bond films of years past. It incorporates aspects of Sean Connery's more serious and stoic approach to the character, Moore's campy and over-the-top turn as the British secret agent, Timothy Dalton's laconic take on the character, and George Lazenby's brief yet memorable stint as Bond. This is the 17th film based on Ian Fleming's secret agent, produced by 'Eon Pictures'. It's also the film that Albert Broccoli, head of Eon stepped away from as producer, letting his daughter (Barbara Broccoli) take over the position. 

Pierce Brosnan is the definitive version of 007 for many 90s babies (myself included), he reinvigorated the appeal of the character for a younger generation causing a resurgence in rentals/sales of Bond media on all home release formats; VHS, Laserdisc, Beta — if it had James Bond on the cover with his obligatory gun, people were renting or buying it. The critical and box office response to 'Goldeneye' was universally uproarious, see below:

"Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A−" on an A+ to F scale." [1]

"James Berardinelli described Brosnan as 'a decided improvement over his immediate predecessor' with a 'flair for wit to go along with his natural charm' " [2]

Daring action, classy romance, and brass one-liners are all agent 007's trademarks; this film has those aplenty. The attention to detail that Martin Campbell applied is second-to-none, every location is unique, appearing authentic to the spy-thriller genre and with set dressing that really sells the post-cold war atmosphere. Brosnan's acting isn't simply a pastiche of Bond's past, no, he conveys more sentimentality than we've seen in former iterations. There's a desire to connect with others despite his ossified exterior. This is a nice touch, really draws you into the film.

And now, I'll leave you with this quote from the final moments of the film, without context.

"For England James?"

 (Trevelyan)

"No. For me." 

(007)

Rating 

9/10

________

Sources: 

[1] 

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/goldeneye-1995

[2]

https://preview.reelviews.net/movies/g/goldeneye.html

So, is "real" cinema destined to "go the way of the dinosaur" in the age of digital media and streaming platforms?

Yes, it seems highly likely. 

"In a groundbreaking moment, Sony Pictures Entertainment has acquired Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in a deal that puts a major Hollywood studio back in the business of owning a movie theater for the first time in more than 75 years with certain exceptions."

Jun 12, 2024

The Hollywood Reporter [1]

Judging by this recent move, fiduciary projections are not looking good for Cineplex, Odeon, and other major cinemas. These larger chains are going to have to find some miraculous cost-cutting measures or face reality – streaming media is winning.

There's blood in the water, and to quote the film Jaws, "we're going to need a bigger boat". Perhaps that bigger boat has arrived — in the form of AI technologies that will allow cinema chains to outsource their marketing, ticket sales, and other aspects of the business. It may also enable the multi-billion dollar film studios to automate a lot of the jobs associated with the art of filmmaking. This is leading many workers in the motion picture & television industries to champion for rights, and even "hit the picket-lines" when necessary – as evidenced by the SAG-AFTRA (Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television & Radio Artists) contract negotiations that ended the recent 'actors & writers strike' of 2023.

“The Hollywood strike drama is finally ending.

“The heads of major studios have agreed to a tentative new three-year contract with SAG-AFTRA…The workers have been on strike since July, when they joined screenwriters on their strike.”

“The SAG-AFTRA Strike is Over, But the AI Fight in Hollywood is Just Beginning.” - Center for Democracy & Technology [2]

Where does an industry go – when the only viable model urges the higher-ups to dispense with a large chunk of the workforce (creatives, talent, crew) in a quest to save money. All while investing in new emergent technologies to better pinpoint demographics, analytics and other sales metrics.

It goes straight into the crapper, that's where.

If AI ends up being responsible for the development, production, distribution, and marketing of film properties; we're going to end up with what has been coined: slop, content merely designed to drive the algorithm/gain clicks. This will be a direct side effect of employing artificial intelligence in an attempt to "streamline" or "innovate".

Click-bait; 

a world away from the muses that inspired the likes of Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Hitchcock, Coppola, and the other greats of our time. Nor is this what Charlie Kaufman was fretting about when attempting to adapt The Orchid Thief — I can assure you. No, until AI came along someone could be trusted to craft something with genuine sincerity; when it comes to Chat-GPT, we can assume it will create what is most easily digestible, not what is most nourishing.

As our screens have gotten smaller, so have our attention spans, which in turn has diminished our societal appetite for visual art that resonates, instead the average viewer wants a show that is either unobtrusive (to play in the background as noise) or an effects driven spectacle — so utterly mesmerizing that there's almost no thought process really needed. Loud noises, explosive laser beams, and witty one-liners: is what the average audience goer expects nowadays. This is why some directors (I'm looking at you Marty) have come out and complained in interviews, speaking on, "cinema not being cinema anymore", pointing out the creative-failings of what are more often being called 'theme park ride movies'. Movies like — 'The Transformers', 'The Avengers', 'Batman v Superman', and other big-budget, merchandise driven releases.

“I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.

Cinema is an art form that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk,” - Martin Scorsese

The New York Times [3]

I don't fully agree with this opinion, yet, there are parts of his argument that make sense to me. Martin Scorsese wasn't saying there should be absolutely no franchises — just that their recent dominance is negatively impacting the industry as a whole and that the artform is suffering simultaneously. 

That I do agree with. Not to mention, artificial intelligence threatens to exacerbate the problem tenfold. 

Mhhh, digital slop.

Oink-oink.

_______

Sources:

[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/sony-pictures-acquires-alamo-drafthouse-cinemas-1235920928/amp/

[2]

https://cdt.org/insights/the-sag-aftra-strike-is-over-but-the-ai-fight-in-hollywood-is-just-beginning/

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html

If there's a better film with Jeff Bridges in the leading role — I'm absolutely sure — I don't know what it is. 'The Big Lebowski' is a mind-bending, hilarity inducing, neo-noir crime-dramedy with nihilistic and absurd overtones, and some pretty absurd nihilists as well. 

What I mean to say is this; the movie is bizarre – in the best kind of way. 

The Coen. Bros directed this underground hit, which went on to become one of the most popular cult films ever made. 'The Big Lebowski' may even have spawned an entire culture of hipsters, ushering in the era of beard wax and men's shaving clubs. It's a film that screams "quirky" in a way that lets you know it's not f**cking around. If you expected a straight-up narrative with formulaic characters and archetypes, look somewhere else. 

These characters are all horribly flawed, non-traditional, and subvert your expectations at every chance. 

The writing; pure brilliance in bringing these different individuals to life on screen. "The Dude" being the central figure in this menagerie of eccentricities receives the most amount of attention. Jeff Bridges delivers an universally memorable turn as Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski — utilizing every tool in his actor's repertoire to affect the audience with his creative imagining of this one-of-a-kind man.

Characters/Cast

The Dude (Jeff Lebowski)/Jeff Bridges:

A lackadaisical man, unemployed – and looking to stay that way. He spends most of his days bowling at the local alley and drinking white-russians — seemingly unconcerned with progressing any further than he already is. "The Dude" is our unlikely protagonist, his apathy is illustrated by a generally unkempt appearance; unshaven, unwashed, and assuredly high on marijuana. Funnily enough – weed isn't shown until over halfway through the runtime — but it's safe to say our main character was using it off-screen the whole time. Why else would he squint like that? 

Walter/John Goodman:

"The Dude's" right-hand man and confidante. Walter is an ex-Vietnam veteran who's PTSD keeps manifesting in increasingly hilarious and disturbing ways, causing "The Dude" a righteous amount of frustration. Walter and Jeff Lebowski comprise  two-thirds of their league bowling team, along with Donny – the third member. Walter is angrier than most orthodox Jews (he's originally Polish-Catholic, but converted when he married his ex-wife) and at one point in the film he threatens a man with a gun — all over a bowling game. He is, more often than not, guilty of conflating nearly every situation with his military experience in Vietnam — which he pronounces simply: 'Nam. His actions result in a cascade of shit whenever he attempts to help "The Dude" in his quest to recuperate funds for his peed-on rug.

John Goodman is mesmerizing in this role. He may be the greatest comedic actor of our time, especially considering he doesn't always do comedy.

Donny/Steve Buscemi:

The third part of the bowling team: 

Donny, The Dude and Walter's longtime pal. 

Not a lot is known about Donny from his time on screen, mainly due to Walter telling him to "shut the fuck up" more times than necessary throughout the film. I take it back, it's totally necessary. These are easily the funniest moments in 'The Big Lebowski', a running gag borne from pure simplicity. Every time there's a serious conversation taking place between Walter and "The Dude", Donny interjects with meaningless observations — and Walter yells expletives while demanding that he shut his f*cking mouth. 

Comedy gold.

Bunny/Tara Reid:

Jeffrey "Big" Lebowski's newlywed wife, half his age, and promiscuous to no end. Upon meeting "The Dude" she offers him oral sex in exchange for a cool $1000 — only to be immediately rebuked by Lebowski's assistant. She has a professional history with the porn mogul Jackie Treehorn, which is revealed partway through the film. The main mystery revolves around Bunny's kidnapping and "The Dude's" unwilling involvement.

Asst. to The Big Lebowski/Phillip Seymour Hoffman:

A smaller role for Phillip Seymour Hoffman but one that helped his career take off, nonetheless. Jeffrey Lebowski's assistant, often acting as the messenger and liaison to "The Dude" during the whole kidnapping ordeal. Comes off as nervous and anxious; possibly introverted.

Jackie Treehorn:

An aging mogul in the adult film industry. He is a past employer of Bunny's  — unbeknownst to her husband, The Big Lebowski. Jackie Treehorn hosts some of the most exclusive parties at his beachfront mansion.

Jeffrey "Big Lebowski"/David Huddleston:

A philanthropist and mega-rich man. Jeffrey Lebowski seems like an oil tycoon from the 1800s, his way of speech, dress, and mannerisms, all scream obsolescence.  He comes from "old money" and yet presents himself like a self-starter — someone who pulled himself up by the bootstraps. It is clear that he has no intention of repaying "The Dude" for a rug that he ostensibly owes him for. It is only when he requires our protagonists assistance does he offer him anything of value. Initially he gives the man a tirade for simply "looking like a  vagabond or bum" 

and "expecting a handout like his whole generation". Throughout the film we are treated to these outbursts from "The Big Lebowski" towards "The Dude" and they are increasingly articulate — his scathing takedowns are seriously engrossing to listen to and watch.

My hat's off to David Huddleston. Dynamo performance as the eponymous "Big Lebowski".

Maude Lebowski/Julianne Moore:

A high society type; experimental artist and daughter of "The Big Lebowski". She's exquisitely beautiful and well aware of this. Reveals facts to "The Dude" about the inner workings of the Lebowski estate. Her negative opinion of her father causes "The Dude" and her to hit it off soon after meeting each other. Maude is a yuppie; The after effect of hippies of the 60s love revolution — the same time period that still dominates "The Dude's" way of thinking. In a way, they are two sides of the same coin. She's a postmodernist with intellectual values and a deep disdain for laissez faire capitalism. He's an aging rocker — who chooses to rebel against the system in the only way he knows how: lethargy.

Nihilists:

A crew of ex-musicians who Bunny is known to frequent the local hotspots with. They are involved in the kidnapping plot, and associates of Jackie Treehorn.

Jesus Quintana/John Turturro:

A side character with a very questionable past — he provides a secondary antagonist for the B-story, challenging the bowling team as their strongest competition. 

Narrator/Sam Elliot:

A cowboy that narrates the film. He chooses to break the fourth wall towards the climax of the piece.

NOTES:

-full minute long extended two-shot when the bowling team is introduced. Shows the skill of the director and allows the audience to experience the conversation as an active participant.

-Surreal music sequence adds a layer of abstract motifs, images; more artistic vision than (some) other Coen Brothers films. Risky choice — paid off in the end.

-Commentary on the art-world intellectuals/elites vs wealth-based elitism

Themes

Sex/Erotica, Classism, Nihilism, Friendship/Sports, Art vs Entertainment, Pacifism

Like a pulp era adventure-fantasy novel came to life, 'King Kong' delivers fast-paced action with a bang — and melodrama by the bucket-full.

• 'Heart of Darkness' is referenced in the movie, Jimmy is reading it.  Successful nod to a literary classic.

• Begins with some suspense but quickly course-corrects with silly antics; the hamfisted comedy on-screen harkens back to early era cinema. Is stylistically similar to Disney epics like 'Pirates of the Caribbean' and 'Jungle Cruise' — both a positive and a negative, more on that later!

• The homage/tribute to the 1930s version; nice touch, in this movie we are watching the expedition that "filmed" the first King Kong motion picture. The (implied) contrast between the original colourless visuals vs the high-gloss saturated look of the newer film is very pleasing. Breathing new life into iconic imagery isn't just a gimmick; this movie knows that.

• Jack Black has to carry the film in the early stages but struggles slightly to fulfill the "feels" required from the lead of a melodrama. Melodramatic acting should be a bit over the top, it makes sense why Black was enlisted for the part, yet I wish a little more direction (or character work) had taken place before shooting, he's a tad "wooden" at times.

• Some argue the set-up for 'King Kong' (2004) is a bit excessive, creating disequilibrium in the pacing — in other words, it may have an overwritten beginning — which weighs down the second and third act to some degree. I don't completely agree with the general consensus; that the first act is too slow, and or, too expositional. It's necessary to the plot — and allows for thorough characterization to take place. This helps to build a solid foundation for the "all is lost moment" leading up to the climax.

When crafting a story, creating emotional investment in the characters is not only advisable –  it's a clear advantage. But King Kong could be a bit shorter in places, sure, that's a valid criticism.

• The look of this movie is awe inducing; meticulous wardrobe and set designs, classical framing, and blocking, applied to a contemporary picture, not to mention – a self referential plot made especially for cinema buffs. The colour grading is vibrant and saturated; fantastical, with lots of purposeful shine from overhead lighting on the actors to evoke a whimsical feeling, almost celestial at times.

• Naomi Watts provides an awesome performance – a reservoir of emotional depth that goes a long way towards selling her character's innermost desires. Watts' facial acting is universally expressive; providing a mirror into her character's  trepidation. The whole story revolves around her, and being front-and-center is where Watts seems most comfortable. Her acting-style here is naturalistic, contrasting and playing well off of Jack Black's grandiose portrayal and running parallel to Adrian Brody's performance.

Upon the release of Peter Jackson's epic 'King Kong' it stumbled during the first weekend, not hitting the benchmarks set for it.

"In North America, King Kong grossed $9.8 million during its Wednesday opening and $50.1 million over its first weekend for a five-day total of $66.2 million from around 7,500 screens at 3,568 theaters.[43] Some analysts considered these initial numbers disappointing, saying that studio executives had been expecting more." [1][2]

 But after that initial falter, 'King Kong' picked up steam, eventually earning a whopping 556.9 million on a budget of 207 million, so, a fair chunk of change. The studios were banking on another box office home run – a là 'Lord of the Rings' – from the New Zealand filmmaker, and now  they had it! 

In the process of making all that money it also snagged three Oscars at the academy awards: "Best Visual Effects", "Best Sound Mixing", and "Best Sound Editing".

It also received a nomination for "Best Art Direction" but lost to Guillermo del Toro's somber picture, 'Pan's Labyrinth'.

What may have contributed to the difficulty this film had in reaching some of its intended audience: is that it rarely seems to know who that intended audience is…

 I mentioned the clashing tones; is this a serious piece of cinema or a fun, silly, adventure that the whole family can enjoy?

This film fails (slightly) to achieve the sensibilities required when balancing deeper themes with lighter subject matter but still manages to be a well-executed, technical masterpiece — so what gives?

"The film garnered positive reviews, and eventually appeared in several top ten lists for 2005; it was praised for the special effects, performances, sense of spectacle and comparison to the 1933 original, though some criticisms were raised over its 3-hour run time." -Wikipedia [3]

I think Peter Jackson was trying to recapture the "whimsy meets serious-melodrama" style of his last three pictures, 'Fellowship of the Ring, Two Towers, and Return of the King', all of which feature lighthearted and melancholic tones, juxtaposed perfectly.

It makes sense to take this approach to 'King Kong', and once the movie's tortoise-paced first act is over, and the characters arrive at Skull Island, we are treated to more visual effects than almost any other "creature feature". A bit of tonal dissonance can be forgiven since it's such an effects driven film overall.

- On a much more positive note: this movie is a smorgasbord of all-you-can-eat baddies; we got giant worms, giant bugs, dinosaurs, angry island-dwellers, the titular "King Kong", as well as the Skull Crawlers, all monsters iconic to the franchise. 

So, in the end, if you wait patiently through the set-up…  there's a damned good payoff, damn good!

Also, there's a giant monkey.

Ape? 

Whatever.

Rating 7.5/10

A beef patty  – charbroiled, with caramelized onions and Guinness infused cheese. Fries cost extra.

KONG BURGER

_______

Sources:

[1]] Strowbridge, C.S. (December 19, 2005). "Kong's King". The Numbers News.

 https://web.archive.org/web/20131004213010/http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/newsStory.php?newsID=1641

[2], Brandon (December 19, 2005). "'King Kong' Mighty But No Monster". 

https://web.archive.org/web/20160305211658/http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1966&p=.htm.

[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Kong_(2005_film)

 Denis Villenieuve directed this picture 'Dune: Part I' magnificently, managing to undo the stigma caused by the failings of previous adaptations of Frank Herbert's sci-fi masterpiece. 

Much like the spice melange, 'Dune' is now the hottest commodity in the known universe.

PLOT STRUCTURE & 

FILM GRAMMAR (Camera Techniques)

The viewer is treated to an intricate and sprawling plot during during its 2hr 35m runtime — which is an unavoidable byproduct of the source material, yet Villenieuve has managed to condense the necessary story beats into something more dynamic and succinct, a marvelous feat considering Frank Herbert's style does not lend itself to simplicity in adaptation.

To quickly summarize:

House Harkonnen has fallen on hard times; their monopolous and once fruitful spice harvesting operation on the desert-planet Arrakis has come into disrepair from repeated sabotage by Fremen insurgents — a race of nomadic natives of the planet — Arrakis is their world. 

We see this unfold in a series of brief vignettes, "Spice Harvesters" are destroyed, then an ensuing battle, afterwards the Harkonnen transport ships are shown leaving the planet of Dune. All these sequences feature beautifully framed shots, slow-mo is used in a traditional sense; emphasizing the intensity of war by capturing heightened movement.

See quote below:

"The best action movies and war films often heavily feature the use of slow-motion. As the epitome of chaos, battle scenes use slow-motion to redirect the viewer’s attention to important details that would otherwise go unnoticed.

The control of time is the viewing experience. Using slow-mo in action scenes allows filmmakers to "paint" within the chaos, create drama on a grandiose scale, and achieve a deeper impact." 

[1] StudioBinder.com

The next location is the homeworld of House Atreides, Caladan – a verdant and green world of rock-cliffs, arboreal forests, and water. In contrast, this planet is the opposite side of the coin from Arrakis: reminding the viewer that Frank Herbert's universe is prodigious and varied in its setting.

A few scenes later, we meet Duke Leto (Oscar Isaac) as he talks to his son Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) concerning Paul's future within the Atreides dynasty. They commune about responsibilities, family tradition, and shifting of winds in the political landscape. The Emperor is requesting that House Atreides take the reins of all spice-harvesting operations on the planet of Dune. Leto is wary of the repercussions of such a change, knowing that such an opportunity will be riddled with pitfalls. He attempts to relate the severity of their situation to his son — reminding the young-man of his Royale duties.

 This conversation takes place at a burial site (for Duke Leto's father) atop a misty plateau; stone-caskets line the background, the rolling hills evoke Britannic imagery. Green pastures made of clover with bright grass, water lapping at mossy mounds; this film's depiction of Caladan is a clear visual nod to Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Anyone who's read Herbert's books will approve of this scene for delivering in-world knowledge without using lengthy exposition — because the Atreides home is indeed an analogue for Western Europe, specifically the United Kingdoms.

Over-the-shoulder camera shots are used in filming the two actors, until a tracking dolly shot is required to capture the "stately air" of this exchange, and both men begin to walk while talking — through the gravesite and away from Leto's father's final resting place. The aerial views of Caladan's natural environment are engrossing to look at; Villenieuve made sure to create a refreshing look & feel for the scenic shots showcasing the mountainous topography.

This was a brief glimpse into the world of 'Dune' that unfolds in Villenieuve's visionary picture.

 Now let's talk about the cinematography.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Greig Fraser, an Australian cinematographer on Villenieuve's Dune is (unsurprisingly) a big name in Hollywood. Personally, I love his aesthetic, and thoroughly enjoyed the visuals in these two other mainstream releases by him.

 'Zero Dark Thirty' and 'Rogue One: A Star Wars Story' are both illustrious in their spectacle, offering a very different look and feel. 

One is gray, dull, and gritty; lots of small locations, pressed in close-ups, darkened lighting, a recreation of Iraq war era interrogations that took place at Guantanamo Bay — the other is 'Rogue One', a polished, Disney branded, Star Wars prequel that was built upon undue amounts of hype. Lots of bright lighting, vibrant colours, and some well choreographed ground battles. To me both films are very serviceable when it comes to the camera work; if they have issues, those issues lay elsewhere. 

And yes, both films do have some minor issues. 

However, both of them still have undeniable flair — Greig Fraser does not make ugly looking motion pictures, quite the opposite, and when paired with Villenieuve: the outcome is something marvelous, hypnotic, and downright intoxicating.

 The visuals in 'Dune' manifest a metaphor for the desert-world of Arrakis; bleak yet eerily beautiful. The landscape that's shown in aerial overhead shots is almost devoid of activity – a whole planet – in meditation. There are many sequences in Villenieuve's masterpiece that showcase the plangent allure in the empty landscape; silence assumed in the rolling dunes, red and amber mixing in layers upon the sunset of the fictional "Fremen" homeworld, all of it making for a somewhat quasi-spiritual experience. 

THE SCORE

The score helps mightily to sell the atmosphere; deep hums, esoteric-chants and female choirs are used to great success. The exact techniques that Hans Zimmer employed are extensive, and subsequently turned out revolutionary -- earning Zimmer his 2nd Academy Award for Sound Composition.

"[Hanz Zimmer] heavily utilized choir—specifically female voices—percussion, and strings in the score's instrumentation, as well as acoustic and wind instruments. New, hybrid instruments were fabricated to conceive the "otherworldly" tonal desert sounds heard in the film.

The music has been described as the composer's most "unorthodox" and experimental yet. [2]"

DIRECTING

The spiritual (or metaphysical) aspect of 'Dune' is something a filmmaker has to understand before being able to deliver a solid Frank Herbert adaptation. The source material was written by an avid user of psychedelics[2], and his novels almost seek to elicit a similar feeling. Another writer who achieves this surrealistic writing style is Carlos Casteneda, and both books heavily feature psychotropics within the text.

Denis Villenieuve really seems to have grasped this idea going in — to speak in Freudian terms: his movie needed to resonate with viewers deeply. Speaking to someone's "ego" is fine, but delving into the "id" is much better. I'm guessing, but if you watch his film, it seems obvious he understands Herbert's novels were similar to Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings' — in that they establish a lore that is nearly primeval, almost becoming real life mythology in the process.

This is something that Joseph Campbell speaks about at length in his book on writing and fiction, 'Hero with a Thousand Faces' when detailing his idea of a universal story-wheel that applies to all fiction, the "The Hero's journey". 

With completion of this film — Denis Villenieuve has catapulted to world-wide recognition, now considered to be one of the most sought after directors in Hollywood. And for good reason:

 His interpretation of Dune has redefined the movie-going experience and the genre in which it operates, the mark of a true auteur filmmaker.

"The Mystery Of Life Isn't A Problem To Solve, But A Reality To Experience.”

 (Jamis the Fremen)

Rating 10/10

A bunch of Fremen food that's seasoned with "spice melange".

Food for thought.

____________

Sources:

[1]https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/how-to-use-slow-motion-in-film-to-create-iconic-moments/

How to Use Slow Motion to Create Iconic Moments

-By Rex Provost on December 31, 2023

[2]King, Darryn (October 22, 2021). "How Hans Zimmer Conjured the Otherworldly Sounds of 'Dune'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 22, 2021. Retrieved October 27, 2021.

1. He's charismatic enough to make the role memorable and has the star-power to sell tickets.

2. Comic book villains often deliver a triumphant final speech – no one else delivers monologues like Robert Downey; no one. He's top tier!

3. The characters of Iron Man and Dr. Doom are symmetrical in a thematic sense. Both are billionaire sycophants who seek to control the world around them. And they both wear masks — so there's that.

4. Comics are a medium that often rely on "heel turns", a term borrowed from wrestling that refers to the moment when a heroic figure turns into a "heel" or a villain. In essence this recasting is in keeping with tradition — especially if Doom ends up being a Tony Stark variant. [1]

   “Logic points to Downey’s Doctor Doom being from the same world that is home to the upcoming Fantastic Four: First Steps, which takes place in an alternate version of Earth within the vast multiverse. It is possible, while feeling oddly implausible, for Victor von Doom to look like Tony Stark on that alternate Earth.”

5. Robert Downey Jr. has the most starpower invested in the MCU; his brand as a celebrity is ultimately tied to this version of Iron Man. If he doesn't elevate The Fantastic Four's antagonist (Dr. Doom) in the same way: it will be Downey's bottom-line that takes the hit. He has the most to gain and the most to lose.

6. This decision adds a twist of freshness, even though the Marvel Cinematic Universe will still ultimately rely on nostalgia as the biggest selling factor —  this role-swapping could allow for more universe merging shenanigans in the long run. Perhaps the SONY "Venomverse" could finally find a home within the MCU. 

7. As an actor Robert Downey Jr. has come a long way since his induction into the Marvel movies via 'Iron Man', the original hit film by Jon Favreau that started this whole affair off. He's won an Oscar for his role in Oppenheimer, starred as Sherlock Holmes in two blockbuster movies, he attempted a reboot of the iconic character Dr. Doolittle, and he helped launch the Sony Pictures, Spider-Man spinoff franchise — so it's no wonder the studio has faith in Downey's ability to legitimize this new addition to the MCU.

8. No one really cares about "The Fantastic Four" as a concept. Sure, Silver Surfer and Galactus offer some cosmic appeal but the core team are relics of a bygone era: one of Stan Lee's earliest creations; intrinsically tied to the decade they were created in – 1960. Personally, I've never felt that "The Fantastic Four" were as easy to contemporize as some of the other legacy characters; Daredevil, Hulk, and Captain America, etc.

 Sidenote: Thor also has an outdated feeling in the comics, the movies solved that problem with witty banter and self deprecation.

Perhaps this upcoming film (Fantastic Four: First Steps) will go the same route in introducing “The Fantastic Four”, making them mostly comedic heroes, like “The Guardians of the Galaxy”. However, giving RDJ the task of supplying a "bankable" villain makes sense; if nothing else, there's an incredibly famous star of the MCU playing the bad-guy. Even if the marketing is lackluster, and the heroes end up forgettable, that's still a pretty good reason to see the movie — right?

Sources:

[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/is-robert-downey-jr-avengers-doomsday-1235963482/#:~:text=Because%20Avengers%20directors%20the%20Russos,t%20be%20a%20Stark%20variant.

- Ryan Reynolds is a massively experienced actor with 61 pictures and 24 television series listed in his filmography.

- He made sure that 'Deadpool & Wolverine' did not end up with an inflated budget; ensuring that the film had the same "micro-budget feel" as the previous two entries. [1] IMDb.com

-Reynolds is a Canadian actor who was born in Vancouver, BC.

-He's one of the higher paid entertainers working today, with a net worth of $350 million USD (2024).

-Ryan's earlier attempts at appearing in superhero properties ended in spectacular failure, ''Green Lantern' and 'X-Men Wolverine: Origins' were critical-flops and commercial losses, both motion pictures featured the actor in a key role.

-Reynolds first rose to prominence with his breakout film National Lampoon's 'Van Wilder' (2002).

-Early in his career —  his short running sitcom 'Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place' – helped to put him in the public eye even though it failed to reach the status of such fan-favourite primetime shows as 'Friends', 'Cheers', and 'Seinfeld'.

-He completed rigorous martial arts training (as well as an insane workout regimen) for 'Blade: Trinity'.

- He owns a Lamborghini Aventador, a seriously expensive car priced at $507,353. This luxury sports car travels at an impressive top speed of 350km/h (217mph).

-Although the actor has never won or been nominated for an Oscar — Ryan Reynolds has won an Emmy – 3 People's Choice Awards, 3 MTV Movie & TV Awards, and a Saturn Award. 

-Reynold's skills aren't just limited to acting. He holds producer credits on nine films – including but not limited to: 'IF', 'Deadpool', 'Deadpool 2', 'Freeguy', and 'The Adam Project'. 

-Reynolds – a Canadian/American actor – may be hands-down one of the funniest people in the industry.

 His rapid fire jokes, diatribes, and improvisational humour are trademarks of the performer's style.

- His middle name is Rodney.

- He didn't pass his high school drama class. Apparently, not a great determiner of success! [2] Cheatsheet.com

- In 2014 Reynolds was inducted into the Canadian Hall of Fame — in the Arts & Entertainment, Film & Television pillars of excellence.

- He moonlights as a blogger for the Huffington Post. 

- Reynolds holds a position on the Board of Directors for the Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.

- Deadpool & Wolverine was filmed in part on a set constructed at Pinewood Studios — a globally recognized studio space for production of television and films, located in Toronto, Canada.

-Wesley Snipes is considering a return to lead a fourth 'Blade' motion picture, starring alongside Ryan Reynolds: the younger actor recently convinced Snipes to consider reviving the character.

[3]EW.com

- He's the proud co-owner of the Wrexham AFC Football club, a UK sports team that he purchased with Rob McElheney in November 2020. Wrexham regularly plays the Vancouver Whitecaps Soccer team.

Sources:

[1]https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6263850/trivia/

[2]https//:www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/ryan-reynolds-once-failed-high-school-drama-class-flunked-math-was-kicked-school-stealing-car.html/

[3]https://ew.com/wesley-snipes-blade-return-deadpool-and-wolverine-ryan-reynolds-reunion-comic-con-2024-exclusive-8684479

What a ride!

Hold my umbrella as I regale you with a tale of secret agents, Oxford whites and technocrat billionaires. If you took Ian Flemming and added Guy Ritchie's sensibilities – the outcome would be: Matthew Vaughn's 'Kingsman' movies. 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' is an absurdist nightmare with cheeky overtones; providing levity for an audience that otherwise would be nonplussed with the now rather tired tropes of the spy thriller genre. 

Colin Firth takes the lead – starring as Harry Hart AKA agent "Gallahad" – a pastiche of British superspy James Bond and 'Get Smart's' Maxwell Smart. Agent Gallahad is a man not to be trifled with; he's humanity's last hope to prevent a planned doomsday event, working alongside a new agent-in-training, "Eggsy" – played expertly by Taron Eggerton.

The cast contains a wide array of talent. Some lesser known UK names, established English actors, a few global superstars, and even "Luke Skywalker" himself – yes, Mark-Frickin'-Hamill is in the movie. Matthew Vaughn gravitates towards productions with an eclectic mix of talent: Snatch, Revolver, X - Men: First Class, Kick-Ass, and most recently, Argyle (2024). Directors and producers share responsibility when it comes to final decisions on casting choices. So, Vaughn clearly understands the type of production required to juggle multiple personalities on set. A larger project with more principal leads can mean a more exhaustive process: increased camera and lighting, safety precautions, insurance, more on-set disagreements, larger wardrobe & makeup, craft services, stunt coordination, scheduling; to name a few examples. It takes a lot of oversight to handle these types of projects efficiently, is all I'm trying to say.

What's the hardest factor to predict?

How your stars will get along during filming:

'Fast & the Furious' suffered from the "too much star power in one room" effect, when Dwayne Johnson butted heads with the franchise's lead-man Vin Diesel in 2016, Johnson was a series staple at that point -- having appeared in two movies and a spin-off feature. Evolving tension betweem the two main-actors (some of which was aired via social media; Facebook, Twitter namely) eventually caused Johnson to refuse any-and-all future offers to return to his role as Secret Agent "Hobbes". 'Fast 7' marked his departure from the series forever.

"Everything Vin Diesel and Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson Have Said About Their Feud"

"You don’t turn your back on family — unless you’re Vin Diesel or Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, who have been nursing grudges against each other off and on since at least 2016.

The two action stars made their first onscreen appearance together in 2011’s Fast Five, in which the former wrestler joined the already long-running franchise as Luke Hobbs, an agent pursuing the Fast and Furious crew for their various crimes against every law enforcement agency in the world

Everything seemed copacetic over the years as Johnson returned for the sixth and seventh entries in the saga, but in August 2016, Johnson set the fandom ablaze with a since-deleted Instagram post in which he referred to unnamed members of the cast as 'candy asses.' "

[1] UsWeekly

By Eliza Thompson - Usmagazine.com

I know, all this to make a point about Kingsman? But if you take a look at the cast of the average Guy Ritchie movie -- post his 'Lock, Stock, and, Two Smoking Barrels' era, he tends towards a large number of actors; a true ensemble piece. Iconic imagery, refreshing monologues, and comedic stylings. Self-evident are his days as a producer; Matthew Vaughn understands the constraints of filming fully. Kingsmen: The Secret Service utilizes its budget very well -- rivaling some of the grandest fight choreography ever put to screen. Avid fans of The Matrix and John Wick obviously won't quit watching those franchises after viewing Kingsmen for the first time but there's a high chance that they'll add it to the list of their all-time favourites.

Let's talk about the CGI -- I think everyone realizes how bad the visual effects were in Kingsman: The Golden Circle, but surprisingly the first movie also chooses to incorporate some glaringly obvious VFX, yet it works due to the supporting elements.

The story's pace slowly trods along during the set-up, with a character driven first act -- centered around Eggsy's family, and his poverty stricken home life. His mother's common-law partner is a local London thug; abusive, misogynistic, confrontational with the family. Eggsy must overcome his existential fears before tackling the fear provoked by the paternal figure in his life. This character flaw  baked into the co-lead's backstory — contributes to a well-deserved payoff in the third act; what excellent screenwriting!

As well, it enables the more fantastical elements of the film (a woman with swords for legs, a plot by an evil villain that involves cellphones turning people into "rage zombies", etc) shown on-screen to be balanced by relevant emotional payoffs, so, the viewer becomes invested in the outcome(s) for said character(s). The sequel sadley didn't achieve this level of screenwriting finesse.

Producers are (more often than not) an essential part of developing a film and okaying the final draft of a script. They have "final say" on the overall product and ultimately they're the ones responsible if the movie loses money. 

Matthew Vaughn tends to write scripts for a large number of films he works on -- he's the recipient of seven screenwriting credits and one story writing credit. As for missteps in his filmography, there's a few of those: Argyle (2024), Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017), Fantastic Four AKA FANT4STIC (2015) -- are all examples of when a Matthew Vaughn release failed to meet the expectations of studios and audience goers.

In contrast ‘Kingsman: The Golden Circle' was a complete and utter mess, with very few redeeming qualities. Where the first Kingsman film utilized a smattering of garishly apparent CGI -- the second film doubled down on it, deciding it was okay to increase the amount of visual effects needed without actually improving upon the look of the predecessor. In addition, the plot suffered from little to no characterization, and the subtle cinematography that was seen during quite sequences had vanished.

My final thoughts:

I'd love to go into every little detail of Matthew Vaughn's career -- and realistically I've barely scratched the surface here (I haven't even touched on 'Kingsman' 2023, look out for my upcoming review) but I feel this is as good time as any to call it quits -- plus, I'm drinking a vodka cooler and the damn thing keeps calling my name.

But please do realize that Vaughn’s latest addition to the franchise, ‘The King's Man’ (2023) is a phenomenal WW1 era throwback film that really delivers on the promise of a an entertaining spy-thriller.

It stars Ralph Finnes, as he does battle with secretive forces that are attempting to sway the balance of geopolitical power in Eastern Europe. I'm planning to review that film soon, like previously mentioned -- so, no more on the subject right now.

Except these three words of wisdom:

Oxfords, not brogues.

Sources:

[1]www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/vin-diesel-dwayne-the-rock-johnson-feud-timeline/

Written & Edited by: Lee Fenton

‘Madame Web’ defines mediocrity.

Albeit, it’s not nearly as awful as most critics would have you believe. It doesn’t reach ‘Morbius’ levels of bad – yet, this movie is so bland and predictable – that it’s (essentially) the cinematic equivalent of paint-by-numbers. Which begs the question; how did the filmmaker manage to botch the more formulaic aspects of this movie? 

All this picture required was standard superhero fare: 

tell an origin story, craft a villain with little to no characterization, and finish it all with an action set-piece atop some towering structure – skyscraper, scaffolding, monument, etc. If this formula was followed – we would’ve had an average Marvel movie. 

Not a masterpiece, but enjoyable viewing nonetheless.

Why, then, is Sony’s Madame Web worse than your run-of-the-mill Marvel flick?

I would argue – that they took a B-list hero – with a really neat power – and completely failed in the execution of said “power”. Madame Web’s ability to see into the future is something that fans are interested in, in fact, Frank Herbert’s ‘Dune’ is a film property that’s proving to be a global phenomenon. The crux of the main character (Paul Atredes) is his ability for prescience or “second sight”. This implies that the public has at least some interest in the premise. The problem: this movie doesn’t commit to the creative editing needed to emphasize the surreality of the situation. Clairvoyance is tricky to convey visually; and try as they might, the filmmaker (S.J. Clarkson) only managed to make it slightly engaging.

The tones are a mixed-bag; at times – I had the distinct feeling I was watching a millenial “coming of age” picture — at other moments it seemed more like a rom-com action flick hybrid.

Honestly, the bits with Dakota Johnson solo; the first act and up to the second act’s opening/rising action, are fairly competent. We get some fun jokes and one-liners, a visual motif of spider-web achieved by framing her apartment staircase just right, and some pleasant chemistry between Adam Scott’s “Ben Parker” and Johnson’s “Cassandra Webb”. The convolution arises when other members of the main cast are introduced, in the form of the three sidekicks to our hero (Sydney Sweeney, Isabella Merced, Celeste O’Connor). Similar to the girl-power film ‘Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of Harley Quinn’ the characters don’t feel like they get near enough screen-time or dialogue vis-à-vis characterization suffers heavily. Villains don’t need to be expertly written in these types of movies, although it certainly can help – look at ‘Avengers: Endgame’; that film’s staying power is mainly due to the performance by Josh Brolin as “Thanos” and the writing behind the “most epic bad-guy the MCU has ever known”. But more importantly, if you don’t write your heroes well – you really don’t have a cinematic experience. That kind of goes for any television or film media. 

While viewing ‘Madame Web’ I sensed the film might be the result of multiple scripts that had been amalgamated into one incoherent mess – meddling by studio execs perhaps?

Who knows.

“The actress [Dakota Johnson] told The Wrap that the early version of the Madame Web script was very different to the story that made it to screen, though she didn't offer any specifics about the adjustments the writers decided to make. ‘There were drastic changes,’ Johnson told the outlet. ‘And I can't even tell you what they were.’"Feb 14, 2024 [2] IGN.com

Afterall, it’s not uncommon for these lower-tier superhero adaptations to be treated like a marketing endeavour rather than a piece of art or fiction.

That’s how we ended up with messes like: ‘Green Lantern’ (2011), The Eternals (2021), ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ (2009), and ‘Superman II’ (1980) to name a few. [1] 

Rating: 3/10

_____________

Just eat a whole bucket of pop-corn. 

That usually improves a bad movie.

___________

Sources:

[1]https://movieweb.com/movies-ruined-by-studio-interference/

10 Movies That Were Ruined by Studio Interference

[2]https://www.ign.com/articles/madame-web-dakota-johnson-script-drastic-changes-after-signing-on

Article on IGN.com 

BY ADELE ANKERS-RANGE

‘Law & Order Toronto: Criminal Intent’ sticks to the proven formula of a Dick Wolfe production; while combining cultural aspects of Canada –  to great success. As a longtime fan of the franchise and a self-admitted “procedural drama junkie”, I’m a fairly good judge of what makes a cop-show work. Dialogue and pacing is one of the most important factors. Each episode is a self-contained mystery, so the story needs to be engaging yet delivered somewhat opaquely. Anticipation and intrigue is key.

The pilot episode’s plot is fairly straightforward:

 A crypto mogul is missing after attending an event on Lake Ontario, taking with him hundreds of millions in cash from his clients. Has he absconded with the money or is it possible that foul play is involved? 

The episode has a serpentine plot that’s reminiscent of a classic Columbo tale. Indeed, there is even a “light nod” toward the famous 70s “gumshoe” in the form of an homage – when the lead detective of ‘Law & Order Toronto’ utters the iconic line, “One more thing…” and then proceeds to poke holes in the suspect’s story. That is Columbo’s line, no mistaking it.

I’ll admit – as a fanboy of Mr. Peter Falk and his portrayal of the griseled inspector… 

This made me sit up and pay attention.

Aden Young

Hilariously, the character, “Det. Harry Graff” is a sort of self-aware riff on the 70s crime-drama; a Canadian Columbo if you will – his knowledge is shown to be immense – he’s often dropping philosophical quotes and lines from famous literature that serve as an analogue for deductions he’s proven, thus far. It’s not the most realistic, or grounded take on a character, but I think it works well as a throw-back aesthetic, alluding to cop-shows of a bygone era or “paying homage to the classics”, if you prefer. He really nails the gruffness of a contemporary noir-thriller – and I imagine the actor (Aden Young) would do well in a grittier Frank Miller adaptation. He’s definitely an emerging star to watch in the Canadian film industry.

Kathleen Munroe

 Munroe plays Sgt. Frankie Bateman – famous for her roles in blockbusters, such as: ‘The Void’ (2016), ‘George Romero’s: Survival of the Dead’, ‘A Family Man’ (2017), and many more. Her performance in ‘Law and Order Toronto: Criminal Intent’ is highly naturalistic, and it really works. Procedural crime-dramas with co-leads usually utilize an “odd couple” pairing, IE: good cop vs bad cop (Law & Order SVU), skeptic vs believer (X-files), or old cop vs young cop (The Rookie, Lethal Weapon), and this iteration of Law & Order is no different. Therefore Munroe’s “Sgt. Frankie” is essential to the makeup of the show – allowing for moments of reprieve in between the over-the-top performances by villains of the week, and most importantly her opposite – Det. Graff. The former is bombastic by necessity and the latter acts in a way that is reserved and inquisitive. Their chemistry is admirable; ensuring that this show doesn’t fall by the wayside. Brilliant Canadian actress, and I look forward to seeing her in season two of ‘Law & Order Toronto: Criminal Intent’.

Yeah – that’s right, it’s already been confirmed for a second season.

Eh okay with me.

“The second season of Law & Order Toronto: Criminal Intent was confirmed on April 18, 2024. It is slated to premiere sometime between September 2024 and February 2025.” May 31, 2024 [1]

LawandOrder.Fandom.com

“Rogers renews Law & Order Toronto: Criminal Intent for two more seasons. Good news Law & Order Toronto: Criminal Intent fans, CityTV just revealed that the hit show has been renewed.” Jun 10, 2024 [2] NowToronto.com

_________

Rating: 8.5

A Peameal Bacon Sandwich.

Originated in Toronto, and it’s delicious.

_________

SOURCES:

[1]https://nowtoronto.com/news/this-is-great-news-rogers-renews-law-order-toronto-criminal-intent-for-two-more-seasons/

[2]https://nowtoronto.com/news/this-is-great-news-rogers-renews-law-order-toronto-criminal-intent-for-two-more-seasons/

HAPPY CANADA DAY FROM WELLDONEMOVIES.COM

1. Hugh Jackman is an Australian actor and performer.

2. Playing the superhero “Wolverine” has been very profitable for Jackman. Four of his five highest grossing movies are part of the X-men film franchise. But there is one role that has earned him pay on par with this; his turn as P.T. Barnum in the musical-epic ‘The Greatest Showman’. [1]

3. Jackman is known for starting his career on stage, performing in theatrical productions like ‘Beauty and the Beast’ and ‘Oklahoma!’ – earning an award nomination for the latter.

4. He had the privilege of hosting the 81st Academy Awards (2009).

5. His full name is Hugh Michael Jackman.

6. The actor’s film debut came all the way back in 1999, in a little known independant movie ‘Erskineville Kings’.

7. Hugh Jackman was named Sexiest Man Alive by People.com/Magazine in [2008]. But the “Aussie” celeb isn’t the only actor from Down Under who’s earned that moniker – Chris Hemsworth shares the title – however, Hugh was first! [2]

8. Jackman’s birthday is Oct. 12th – 1968.

9. The dude is a huge supporter of Broadway — he hosted The Tony Awards three years in a row; in 2003, 2004 & 2005.

10. He played the vampire-slayer Van Helsing in the Stephen Sommers directed adaptation of Bram Stoker’s intellectual property. The movie stars the eponymous hero and arch-nemesis of Dracula – allowing the leads Jackman and Kate Beckinsale to kick many a monster’s butt during the 2h11m runtime

11. Jackman stated that Logan (2017) would be his last X-men film ever. He has since reneged on the promise (to much adieu and fanfare), relenting when he realized that Ryan Reynold’s third outing as Deadpool would be the thematic tie-in that the character Wolverine deserved. “Why did Hugh Jackman return to the role of Wolverine for the upcoming Deadpool & Wolverine movie? In Jackman's own words: a feeling "deep in my gut" told him he needed to make things right with Marvel [fans].” - Kofi Outlaw of ComicBook.com [3]  There is also heated discussion online pertaining to the future of the MCU. It is unclear whether or not the “higher ups” at Marvel might’ve had something to do with Jackman’s return. [4]

12. He’s an experienced skier.

13. This actor’s only Academy Award nomination was for the musical film ‘Les Misérables’ (2012).

14. Jackman co-starred with Christian Bale in the sweeping period piece ‘The Prestige’ (2006) directed by Christopher Nolan. Want to learn more about this movie? Click here

15. He won an Emmy for his [musical] performance at the 58th Tony Awards (2005).

16. His stature is quite tall at 6’2” – something that worked against him at his 2000 casting-call for the now globally recognized character: Wolverine. The superhero’s in-canon height is 5’4”. 

17. “Wolverine” hails from Canada in the Marvel comics. His real name is Logan. Well, actually it’s James Howlett. I know, it’s a bit convoluted.

    The character’s past is illustrated more in the movie ‘Wolverine: Origins’. But that movie is awful, so awful in fact – it almost ruined the franchise. [Not Hugh Jackman’s fault!]*

18. His birthplace is in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

19. Hugh Jackman has been quoted as saying his fave food is his mother’s homemade Crème Caramel Cake recipe. This is a dessert that originated in France — resembling a caramel flan.

20. The man knows how to bulk up! His many action roles have caused him to go through endless amounts of physical exercise and weightlifting – as well as strict dieting and health supplements.

21. He has 34 wins and 109 nominations for various awards and accolades. 

22. Hugh Jackman has led a life of achievements and is an active philanthropist, who has many pursuits outside of entertainment. “As part of his ongoing commitment, Hugh contributes 100% of his profits to the Laughing Man Foundation, which he created to support educational programs, community development and social entrepreneurs around the world.” [5] - worldvision.com.au World Vision Australia.

23. BONUS FACT:

    In a conversation with film historian Anette Insdorf, Hugh Jackman was quoted as saying that both the stage-production of ‘The Boy from Oz’ and the film ‘Les Miserables’ gave him an “ah-ha” moment, and caused an epiphany:

    “it reminded me why I got into acting in the first place, to understand human nature, why we’re here”. [6] - Forbes.com

_______________________

Sources:

[1]www.filmcompanion.in/ampstories/web-stories/5-highest-grossing-hugh-jackman-movies

Box Office stats for Jackman’s top 5 grossing films.

[2]NEW YORK (Reuters) - “Thor star Chris Hemsworth was named People magazine's ‘sexiest man alive’ on Tuesday in a live broadcast of the late night talk show ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’. " November 18, 2014 

“The accent! The charm! And oh, that chest! Hugh Jackman was named PEOPLE's Sexiest Man Alive for the first time in 2008 — and his wife Deborra-Lee Furness agrees, calling his physique ‘the Body of Doom — but I like what's inside.’ ” - People Magazine 2008

[3]https://comicbook.com/movies/news/deadpool-3-wolverine-hugh-jackman-return-explained-mcu/#:~:text=Why%20did%20Hugh%20Jackman%20return,things%20right%20with%20Marvel%20fnas.

ComicBook.com

[4]https://www.techradar.com/streaming/entertainment/marvel-reportedly-shelves-movie-sequel-plans-for-three-of-its-biggest-box-office-bombsMarvel reportedly shelves movie sequel plans for three of its biggest box office bombs

 -Tom Power of TechRadar.com

[5]https://www.worldvision.com.au/get-involved/partner-with-us/ambassadors/hugh-jackman#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20his%20ongoing,social%20entrepreneurs%20around%20the%20world.

[6]https://www.forbes.com/sites/janelevere/2020/05/31/hugh-jackman-opens-up-about-favorite-roles-and-films-and-future-plans/

______

NOTE:

Clarifications/corrections made on June 27th, any text contained within [] are post-edits.

Written & Edited by: Lee Fenton

‘Made in Canada’ 

is a CBC Television scripted-comedy series that ran for five consecutive seasons between the years of 1998 - 2003. It lampoons the television industry – focusing specifically on Canadian content and productions; and the often hilarious struggles of marketing, broadcasting, and the day-to-day running of an office. It’s a precursor to shows like ‘30 Rock’, and more tangentially ‘The Office’ (UK & USA). 

This is a must-watch series.

Here’s a quote from IMDb to sum it up:

“Richard Strong” (Rick Mercer): 

[first line of the series] All my life I wanted to make movies. A good movie can change lives. A great movie can change the world. But television, it's different. It's not about making a difference.

Television's about making one thing only. Money. [1]

The humour is sharp – lots of multi-layered jokes. The banter is biting, acerbic and unbelievably self-aware. In my opinion, this show may have benefited from having a laugh track. Not necessarily, but maybe. Canned-laughter is often looked down upon in situational comedies, – since it directs the audience when to laugh – something that a well-written joke can and should do, on its own. But in some rare circumstances; laugh-tracks are incredibly advantageous. Since they have the added effect of softening the blow of controversial statements and, or risque comedy, letting the audience know that it’s “okay” to laugh.

“Shannon Hawkins of the Ottawa Sun wrote during its first season that Made in Canada had "all the makings of a hit", with clever dialogue, plausible characters and a storyline for anyone who fantasized about ruining their boss.[17] Antonia Zerbisias of the Toronto Star described the programme as "scary, cynical and biting", and felt that the production took huge risks in satirizing its producers and industry moguls and its choice of title in a country which looked down on domestic productions.” [2]

Although viewers of shows like ‘Seinfeld’ and ‘It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia’ may be used to much darker and more shocking humour than what’s found in ‘Made in Canada’; it’s still easy to see how some of the anecdotes could be misconstrued as being in “bad taste”. But once you settle into the rhythm of the show – it’s obvious that it’s all in good fun. 

Very, very similar to season 1 of ‘The Office’ (USA). 

And keep in mind, the whole run of the UK version of ‘The Office’ kept this standard British formula of offering a darkly-biting satire, and it went on to become an international success.

In contrast, the US version chose to steer into the more classic sit-com format, allowing for antics from characters like Michael (Steve Carrel) or Dwight (Rainn Wilson) and a very memorable will-they-or-won’t-they storyline between fan favourites, “Jim & Pam” (John Krasinsky & Jenna Fischer). 

Later in the show’s run – Jim and Pam’s relationship became the main focal point.

How does this relate to ‘Made in Canada’? 

For the first season, ‘Made in Canada’ deals in that same dry, off-putting humour that is unique and genuinely creative – while being astonishingly well-written.

I absolutely love the fact that the writers chose to craft characters who accurately portray the archetypes associated with movie & television execs. This doesn’t equate to a blanket statement about all those that inhabit the role of higher ups in an industry – just a well-informed 

satirical jab at the way the “biz” works. And the realistic approach to portraying these extremely vapid characters is super entertaining; I find myself laughing-out-loud at least once a scene, which isn’t common with satires. The episodes rely on an A-plot and a B-plot, and the writers masterfully weave them together.

 This is a “tried and true” approach to crafting comedic narrative.

By the second season the show transitions to a more accessible format – the sit-com. 

This choice is very in-line with what NBC did with their flagship work-place comedy that premiered six years later. And both shows seemed to benefit from the decision, ratings only improved – and each series managed a healthy amount of episodes.

 ‘Made in Canada’ ran for 5 seasons, and NBC’s ‘The Office’ for 9 seasons, respectively. 

“The programme received critical and popular recognition. It was particularly well-received by the industry it lampooned, attracting many guest stars. The programme received 23 national awards during its five-season run, including multiple Gemini, Writers Guild of Canada, and Canadian Comedy Awards. In the United States, Australia and Latin America, the show was syndicated as The Industry. In France, it was syndicated as La loi du Show-Biz.”[3]

I honestly think this show was way ahead of its time, and considering the budgetary constraints due to Canada lacking the titanic film industry that some other nations have, namely the United States, this show managed to deliver a truly inventive premise combined with solid joke-writing, and stupendous acting. 

Every time I revisit ‘Made in Canada’, 

I learn a little – and laugh a lot.

____________

Rating: 8/10

A Montreal Smoked meat sandwich, 

marble rye and dijon mustard.

Starring roles: 

Rick Mercer - as TV exec/producer Richard Strong

Leah Pinsent - is Chief Operating Officer, Veronica Miller

Peter Keleghan - CEO of Pyramid Studios firm, Alan Roy

Jackie Torrens - plays the receptionist Wanda Mattice

Janet Kidder - as Lisa Sutton a Pyramid TV producer

Ron James - Raymond Drodge, an alcoholic ex-producer

Awards

Gemini Awards (Canadian Screen Awards):

17th Annual Gemini Awards

• Best Ensemble Performance in a Comedy Program or Series (Rick Mercer, Jackie Torrens, Dan Lett, Peter Keleghan, Leah Pinsent, 2002)

• Best Direction in a Comedy Program or Series (John Greyson, 2002)

14th Annual Gemini Awards

• Best Writing in a Comedy or Variety Program or Series (1999)

• Best Performance in a Comedy Program or Series (Rick Mercer, 1999)

•  Best Direction in a Comedy Program or Series ( Henry Sarwer-Foner, 1999)

• Best Comedy Program or Series (Michael Donovan, Gerald Lunz, Linda Nelson, Marilyn Richardson, 1999)

Banff Television Festival:

• Best Comedy Series (1999)

First Canadian Comedy Awards:

• Best Performance by Male - Television (Rick Mercer)

• Best Direction in a Series (Michael Kennedy

NOMINATIONS:

3rd Canadian Comedy Awards 

(Best Performance by a Male – Television

Peter Keleghan, 2002)

(Best Performance by a Female – Television

Leah Pinsent, 2002)

(Best Performance by a Female – Television

Jackie Torrens, 2002)

Best Writing in a Series

(Rick Mercer, Mark Farrell, Alex Galatis, Alex Ganetakos, Ed Macdonald, Bob Martin, Edward Riche, Raymond Storey, 2002)

PLEASE NOTE, THIS IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE, NOR EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF THE ACCOLADES THAT THE SHOW HAS RECEIVED.

SOURCES:

_____________________________

[1]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172754/quotes/?ref_=tt_trv_qu

Quotes from Made in Canada (Alternative title, “The Industry”)

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_Canada_(TV_series)#cite_ref-ZerbisiasSitcom_8-1 

"At last, a Canadian sitcom that just might be a hit". The Toronto Star. Toronto, Ontario: Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. p. E4.

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_Canada_(TV_series)#cite_ref-ZerbisiasSitcom_8-1

Written & Edited by: Lee Fenton

The man who started it all – Sir Sean Connery – receives the honour of being star of the WDM(c) choice for No 1 top 007 film of all-time. 

Screw being a knight, this is way better. 

 Connery’s ability to play James Bond is bar none. He brings a certain vitriole; suave, yet ready to leap-into-action at any moment. I’m sure – it could be argued that Craig portrayed the character with more physicality along with a cool, cold-demeanor. I won’t deny that, however Connery managed a certain poise while giving a highly charismatic turn as the globe-trotting secret agent. His facial acting conveyed superb tact and ego; 007’s trademark attributes. And the man’s innate classiness went a long way in convincing the audience that he excelled at espionage within high society.

 Connery was hands down the most suited in the role of master-of-disguise; something that later Bond entries tend to overlook. In his duty as an MI6 agent, James Bond needs to blend in amongst: Fortune 500 billionaires, oligarchs, oil tycoons, and international royalty – as well as other rich and powerful figures. Sean Connery always managed to play the character with a dash of poshness, actuated by the refined edge of 007, a characteristic lifted directly from the pages of Ian Fleming’s novels. In the books – Bond is never portrayed as a simple thug or hired goon – no, his impressive ability for espionage lies not only in his physical prowess – but also in his vast intellect and natural charm. 

This is understood by the film “From Russia with Love” — 007’s mental mastery is explored more fully than in the rest of Albert Broccoli's(1) James Bond properties. In this feature, Bond is smug, loquacious, and doesn’t need a host of gadgets to foil the villain’s plan. He’s got his wits, his fists, and of course – his patented (and much feared) licence to kill. There is little to no self-parody; which is essentially why I much prefer this entry to other golden-era Bond classics. 

Sure, Goldfinger is a fun spy-thriller that gallops along at a fast pace and delivers some highly entertaining 60s schlock – but ‘From Russia with Love’ gives you a serious story with a much needed emotional core for the character. The villain isn’t played slap-stick – for cheap laughs and thrills – instead this film allows our protagonist to inhabit a world that’s (mostly) grounded in realism. Sue me, I dig a serious take on espionage in film. 

When it works.

Footnote : 1 [the film rights holders]

“In his 1986 book, Danny Peary described From Russia with Love as "an excellent, surprisingly tough and gritty James Bond film" which is "refreshingly free of the gimmickry that would characterise the later Bond films, and Connery and Bianchi play real people. We worry about them and hope their relationship will work out ... Shaw and Lotte Lenya are splendid villains. Both have exciting, well-choreographed fights with Connery. Actors play it straight, with excellent results."[1] -  Danny Peary, Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986) p.163

Surprisingly, not everyone felt this way. Myriad critics of the time – felt that it paled in comparison to its predecessor, ‘Dr. No’. 

“In comparing the film to its predecessor, Dr. No, Richard Roud, writing in The Guardian, wrote that From Russia with Love "didn't seem quite so lively, quite so fresh, or quite so rhythmically fast-moving."[55] He went on to say that "... the film is highly immoral in every imaginable way; it is neither uplifting, instructive nor life-enhancing. Neither is it great film-making. But it sure is fun."  [2]Roud, Richard (11 October 1963). "New Films". The Guardian. London. p. 11.

This is something I find laughable, ‘Goldfinger’ was the first film to receive an Academy Award, so, I can understand someone thinking that it outranks ‘From Russia with Love’. Indeed, they only differ by 2% on RottenTomatoes – which heavily implies the films are comparable. But both those films far outdo the first James Bond picture. 

In my opinion, that’s inarguable.

‘Dr. No’ is a first attempt at adapting the source material, and should be given respect for walking where the second film in the series would run. Terrence Young directs both of the first two Bond films (Dr. No & F.R.W.L.) and manages to improve greatly on his second run. The first film suffers from slower pacing, acting that seems slightly stilted; plot structure that lacks polish. The story is cohesive but lacks the driving energy that later films would make iconic. Bond outings are meant to be dynamic and fast-paced. I will concede that some sequences should be slower-paced to allow for rumination – like the card game in Casino Royale or large chunks of dialogue in ‘The Man with the Golden Gun’. 

However, there is a balancing act that has to occur – since the juxtaposing of action with drama can come off as forced or contrite. ‘Dr. No’ stumbles a bit in this area.

‘From Russia with Love’ does everything right; that the first film didn’t.

The intrigue is front and center – and engaging as all hell. 

What more could you want from a spy movie?

___________________

Rating 9.5/10

Martini. Shaken not— 

I’m not even going to say it.

Sources:

_____________________________________________________________

[1] [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Russia_with_Love_(film)#cite_note-63

Gallery of the film ‘From Russia with Love’ Coming Soon.

Written & Edited by: Lee Fenton

There's been a lot of discussion lately in the news, on social media, and all over that thing we call "the internet" -- mostly centered around the recent failings of blockbuster films, and what that means for the film industry.


Is this just a temporary dip in the market, or is it a symptom of a much larger problem?


Well, there's a number of contributing factors to consider -- first and foremost -- the ubiquitous rise of streaming platforms as the preferred method for watching movies and television. Indeed, even the term TV is seeing a downtrend in usage, as most have adopted the term "streaming series" when referring to the long-form content that apps like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, AppleTV, and Disney+ host.

We are through the looking glass, so to speak.

People used to love going to the theatres in droves to experience the newest tentpole release on IMAX -- later bragging to their friends about the immersive environment and new advancements. This is now a thing of the past; welcome to the era of "second screen content".

What is "second screen content" you ask?

It's content that is made to be watched in the background as you browse your phone or use some other device, IE; it's mindless entertainment without any real stakes or drama. Reality television and most sit-coms fit this bill already, but now studios are pushing creators to tone down their creative endeavours and instead make content that caters to whatever happens to be trending on social media. So, your show (or straight to streaming feature) better be driving the algorithm for that week.


It's crystal clear to anyone with half a brain that this type of work environment is NOT conducive to creativity. Even, IF it means profits in the short-term; the long-term effect on the industry is clearly negative. It's common knowledge amongst entepreneaurs that "you don't chase trends, you predict them, when at all possible", this is fairly standard advice for anyone who's trying their hand at a new business.


So, in effect -- hard hitting cinema just isn't produced in the quantity that it used to be. And as a result, we are seeing more people making the decision to keep their hard earned dollars; choosing to forgo the movie-going experience all together and instead veg-out infront of their handheld devices -- opting for the comfort of their home over the ambience of the local nickelodeon or cineplex.

What can we do to change this trend?




Find out in Part II of "Cinema in the Age of Cellphones and Digital Streaming" where we will dive into the knock-on effect of the streaming wars and how Netflix revolutionized the way we view content.

Written & Edited by: Lee Fenton

The tonally alacritous adaptation of a hugely popular video game franchise, Fallout (a Prime Original) is a smashing success – critics and fans alike agree that the show manages to deliver a surreal, quirky, and hilariously authentic take on the source material. Bethesda Game Studios was the company responsible for kicking off the Fallout franchise success, peaking in the mid 2000’s with Fallout 3 & Fallout New Vegas. The show incorporates aspects from both those entries into the series and the more recent as well; namely Fallout 4, Fallout 76.

Ella Purnell and Walter Goggins seem to be the two leads of the show; both of them garnering the greatest amount of screen time, and occupying equally important positions within the narrative, however Aron Moten occupies the unusual spot of tritagonist — complicating the plot structure somewhat. 

Purnell is a relative newcomer to Hollywood, but with her debut as the lead actor in a premier series on Prime Video, Purnell has quickly catapulted to “household name” status. In Fallout she plays Lucy, a vault dweller who has recently left the safety of her confines for the unforgiving wasteland. Her portrayal of the character has been met with an intensely positive response. Publications all over are ranting about how the series captures not only the aesthetic, but most importantly the spirit of the franchise. And that spirit -- is embodied by Purnell's moxie filled protagonist, who is representative of the video game player-character, it's nice when there's a protagonist that can truly disappear into the role due to anonymity; in this case, it is intrinsic to the idea – afterall a video game adaptation desires an everyman (or everywoman, if you prefer) in the lead. The Wachowskis understood this principle, and ‘The Matrix’ wasn’t even a straight up adaptation, but did have a heavy “gamer” pastiche – along with a grab-bag of other style elements; cyberpunk, anime, manga, comics, and a lot of 90s rave culture.

Where Fallout excels is how it differs from other attempts at adapting the most unadaptable source material known to man – video game intellectual properties.

So, how does it differ? 

Well – it doesn’t take itself too seriously – for one – while simultaneously giving the fans exactly what they want: shocking humour, retro-technology with futuristic elements, an apocalyptic world with dark overtones that’s handled in a tongue-and-cheek manner, and all the gratuitous gore you could ask for! Yes, hyper realistic violence is a staple of the Fallout franchise – so it is featured heavily in this on-screen adaptation. It is dispensed with a certain amount of brevity and is played for laughs, so fans of the “splatstick” horror sub-genre should enjoy this aspect of the show. 

See my review on Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead for an explanation of what splatstick is. 

https://welldonemovies.com/reviews-and-articles/theevildead

Walter Goggins is also terrific in the show, seriously hats off to him for such a jaw-dropping performance, he really seemed like he was having one helluva’ time playing The Ghoul – an irradiated gunslinger (turned bounty hunter) who provides a much needed deuteragonist to Ella Purnell’s protagonist. And there are a host of other actors that they ensembled for season 1 who compliment the cast well and are all wonderfully talented; Aaron Moten, Kyle MacLachlan, Moisés Arias, Xelia Mendes-Jones, to name a few. Fallout is definitely a win in my opinion, and if I had more time I’d go into greater detail – but instead I will leave you with a few quotes from the show:

"Rule of the wasteland, thou shall get sidetracked by bullshit every god damn time"

-The Ghoul

"You come from a world of rules, of laws. This place is indifferent to all of that." -Wilzig

"Flesh is weak, but steel endures." -Brotherhood of Steel

Go watch Fallout on Amazon Prime Video – Now!

______________________

Rating 9.5/10

A box of nutritious ‘sugar bombs’ cereal.

What else?

Written & Edited by: Lee Fenton

If I were to guess – it’s the look of the film.

That (VFX) over-glossed aesthetic is not helping ticket sales at all. 

The original was a low-budget Australian picture, gritty, and grounded in realism – being of the exploitation era of filmmaking, the first Mad Max was shot with camera/lenses that were extremely low-grade. This ensured it had a “mockumentary” feel and look, even though that’s not the genre the ‘Mad Max’ films belonged to. The closest comparison I can think of is Dennis Hopper’s ‘Easy Rider’ or ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre’, both titles heralded the revolution of independent films in the 70s. Then as budgets inflated; each subsequent release became more slick and polished, continuing to this day with the latest entry, ‘Furiosa’.

It could be argued that ‘Mad Max: The Road Warrior’ was the height of the franchise, utilizing big budget techniques but still incorporating the unpolished look of the first film. By the time Thunderdome was made – it was quite clear that director George Miller had been seduced by the superficial elements of blockbuster filmmaking; over the top action set-pieces, big name stars, and huge elaborate sets – the purpose of these additions? To realize the wasteland like never before. And it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, in fact Mad Max: Thunderdome proved to be a commercial and critical success; netting an Academy Award in the process. The film accomplishes more worldbuilding than any of the previous entries, which is impressive. Tina Turner took home the much deserved Oscar for her portrayal of the villainous, wasteland ruler “Aunty Entity”.

In my opinion, she’s easily one of the best parts of ‘Thunderdome’. Her acting is energetic; scenery chewing, mouth foaming, goodness. “Aunty Entity” is over-dramatic, delivering spine-chilling speeches and owning the flamboyant nature of her villany. Turner’s performance helped to make up for the movie’s often-mentioned failings. The biggest vice that this film commits is the titular “Mad Max” (played by Mel Gibson) is sort of ruined

That’s right – ‘Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome’ ruined the characterization of the wasteland wanderer known as… Mad Max.

And it’s not all Mel’s fault – the character had been nerfed due to a PG-13 rating, removing the unhinged, apocalyptic warrior and replacing Max with a facsimile of his former self, one that had had it’s corners rounded and sharp edges softened. Instead of a man who’s slow descent into madness enthralls and captures the imagination, we are instead treated to your run-of-the-mill action hero; cheesy one-liners and conventional stoicness.

(They should’ve just called him “Max” sans the “Mad” – would’ve made more sense.)

In the years since – devoted fans of “Mad Max” have been of the mind that ‘Thunderdome’ is the movie that veered so far from the spirit of the original, it caused many to feel disillusioned with the main character (and the property as a whole);  it had lost those gritty and real elements – the essential ingredients that made it a unique action-thriller to begin with. There were less highway action sequences in the third film and the stunts had lost that allure of “gonzo” filming, now they were executed in a manner that was the same as any other Hollywood feature. 

 Indeed, there were some major injuries in the first film – one shot in particular as an extra is tossed from their motorbike, was left in the movie and has become a talking point for fans (and for the longest time; a bona-fide Hollywood urban legend). It was rumoured for decades that the man in the scene had died performing the stunt (Dale Bensch), however Dale himself has clarified that he is indeed still alive, and in fact quite happy that the footage was left in the film.

“In mid-1977 Dale Bensch and a couple of mates spotted an ad in Peter Stevens requesting 10 film extras. Little did they know how much that casting call would change their lives. Nearly 44 years later, Bensch is still revered around the world for the hair-raising stunt that gave rise to the urban myth that he was killed in the making of the low-budget post-apocalyptic thriller, Mad Max.”

“Dale Bensch is alive and well, retired, and lives a quiet life in Melbourne. He enjoys riding his Harley and after a long absence from the Mad Max phenomenon, he loves engaging with the film’s hard-core fans both here and abroad. He’s visited Mad Max-crazed Japan four times.”

[2]

I don’t want to act like everything about ‘Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome’ led to the downfall of the series – but it may have been the beginning of the franchise being driven off the edge of a very steep cliff. 

There are some who have attacked it for being commercialized and lacking any stakes.

Brian Eggert of DeepFocusReview on ‘Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome’:

 “Nevertheless, high-octane crashes, explosions, and mayhem result in little onscreen death, with several despicable villain characters surviving the fracas if only to sustain the film’s commercial appeal.” [1]

But back to the current entries:

Mad Max: Fury Road managed to combine obvious practical effects with a lot of VFX to make a very shiny looking finished product – but not so much so that it looked completely unbelievable. It still underperformed but not as bad as this latest entry. 

When I saw the trailer for ‘Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga’ it reminded me a bit of Zach Snyder’s ‘Suckerpunch’ or ‘Green Lantern’. This is to say – it threw me off more than a bit. 

 However, most of the reviews put out on ‘Furiosa’ have been a glowing endorsement of the film as a whole. Everyone who’s seen the movie – enjoys it, but alas not that many people are choosing to see it. It seems that audience goers just aren’t going to spend their money to catch this film in a multiplex  – contrarily; digital streaming, DVD sales, and on-demand orders – might be a different story. I have a sneaking suspicion George Miller’s latest project will soar in popularity once it hits home release.

From what I’ve heard ‘Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga’ is a sensational, post-apocalyptic, high-octane, action juggernaut – that just keeps rolling at high-speed until crashing into the credits after a triumphant final scene. Supposedly, it delivers a lot of that classic “Mad Max” frenetic energy. It’s far from a perfect movie – but the majority of critics and Youtube reviewers are singing its praises. It may well – be a sublime experience for fans of George Miller’s classic Mad Max series. Indeed, Furiosa currently sits at 90% on RottenTomatoes – and that’s 90% for critics and 90% for audiences.

It’s rare that those two groups ever agree, much less give a movie the exact same score.

I won’t deny that there are other potential factors that may have led to this film’s lackluster box office – first off – it’s a prequel – second off, they recast the lead from the previous movie (Charlize Theron to Anya Taylor-Joy) – and thirdly, probably the most overt reason; there is no Mad Max in this movie. 

Also, the “box office” blues are running rampant as of late, so, yes most releases are struggling to garner a buzz and perform well at the box office.

But do I think any of those reasons were as detrimental as the visual aesthetic that the director chose to go with?

No. I do not.

If everything in your latest film looks as if it was done on green screen, when previous entries in your franchise were loved for their in-camera practical effects –  that’s a sure way to alienate your fanbase. 

Hell, I actually feel deja-vu when discussing this topic; since the exact same problem arose for Peter Jackson with his release of ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ (2012). Even though that first film stayed fairly true to the spirit of JRR Tolkien’s writing and Jackson’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ film trilogy – it still failed to awe anyone with its cinematics. ‘The Hobbit’ looked like an xbox game at times and at others just an over-polished mess of green-screen. Where were all the handcrafted miniatures, armour, weapons, and painstaking prosthetic/makeups fans were used to? 

Gone, and instead – replaced with shoddy computer graphics and uninspired digital manipulations. There were a few elements that were CGI in the original trilogy – now almost everything was. This also caused Ian McKellen to have a breakdown on-set and deliver a sub-par portrayal as ‘Gandalf’ a character that he had made iconic in the previous movies.

It’s quite sad.

Ian McKellen was quoted as saying in ‘The Hobbit’ behind-the-scenes “Appendices”:

“You can’t see the faces of the other actors you’re working with, who can all see each other on the adjacent set... I got absolutely miserable and had a little cry to myself. I didn’t realize that the microphone I was wearing was open so that everybody could hear me, muttering to myself about how I wanted to go home and so on... It was so distressing and off-putting and difficult that, I thought, ‘I don’t want to make this film if this is what I’m going to have to do’. It’s not what I do for a living. I act with other people; I don’t act on my own." [3] 

Note: The major reason Peter Jackson went with visual effects instead of practical was his choice to shoot with 3D cameras. It’s next to impossible to hide on-screen trickery when shooting in 3D.

 ‘The Hobbit’ (2012) contains a lot of brilliance. Just not enough to make the movie work – since most of the magic was lost in translating the picture to a format that would work for 3D cameras.

But back to the matter at hand, Mad Max.

Apparently, part of the reason George Miller went with visual effects (over practical or SFX; in camera) for ‘Furiosa’ was due to safety concerns. His last production ‘Fury Road’ was fraught with multiple accidents that caused delays in shooting, giving the movie some bad press before release.  Hopefully, with this new film – enough people will look past the veneer of plastic that’s coating this thing to get to the acrid smelling, raw (and sometimes) explosive petroleum that’s contained within.

If not, you can always “just walk away”. 

(Road Warrior is the best.)

DEDICATION:

“Grant Page, the Australian stunt icon who performed in and coordinating stunts for the original Mad Max, sequel Beyond Thunderdome, the upcoming prequel Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga and more than 100 other films and TV series, died Thursday in a car crash. He was 85.

His son, Leroy Page, told Daily Mail Australia that his father hit a tree while he was driving near his home in Kendall, New South Wales. “He died in very high spirits, and he was very motivated,” the younger Page told the paper. “He was very happy.” [4] 

_______________________________________

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/mad-max-beyond-thunderdome/

[2]

https://amcn.com.au/editorial/mad-max-madder-than-max/?fbclid=IwAR3f-1yQNsYOFH53JDZnWrDR8VWf4GUAVFAp4dx2xn6YEAVziKFZENvoCq8_aem_Ad1FgLWkAofnHyd73JtGqWOMArd_j_-BP6OJOSCiME5r8NhCPp9oMMvJLUl2PgGSqi4

[3]https://screenrant.com/ian-mckellen-hobbit-quit-acting-gandalf/

[4] https://deadline.com/2024/03/grant-page-dead-mad-max-stuntman-1235859