I blame Roger Ebert. The anniversary of "Let's Not Talk About Movies" is observed 'round about Oscar time, the myopic industry awards that are all flash-and-crying-scenes, and where every other movie blog goes all-out in the coverage, campaigning, nay-saying, then second-guessing and Monday morning quarter-backing in vexed haughtiness,* I tend to ignore it. That is entertainment. But, I ignore the Oscars, using the opportunity to take a hiatus and a breather and maybe gain some perspective. This was a long one. Things came up. Big things. The movies I was writing about were not inspiring enough to write anything down and other thoughts crowded them out in importance. Too many things were happening in my life to continue a movie blog, although I enjoyed the exercise. I could not maintain the schedule, however.** So, I stopped. I looked at 109 posts in "Draft" stage and said "Eh...whenever." There were stray thoughts of abandoning it altogether—there usually are around Anniversary time, as it typically follows a year-end summing up and re-evaluation, which never makes me feel like I've done enough. Then, Roger Ebert died, the day after posting his moving "leave of presence" piece on his blog. He waqs working right to the end, no doubt equal parts his own love of writing/reviewing, and his watching his "brother-in-thumbs" Gene Siskel soldiering on through his health problems. I've always admired guys like that, and some of my personal heroes displayed that tenacity and grace. Charlie Schulz died the day his last "Peanuts" strip appeared in the papers (as if he was waiting for the last one to see print). Stanley Kubrick was found slumped at his editing machine, fine-tuning Eyes Wide Shut. My own father, two hours before he died, announced he'd decided that day to retire. At least he had the time to make a choice. So, onward and upward. Five years of "Let's Not Talk About Movies." Five years of personal thoughts on movies past and present and on towards an uncertain future. Just like everybody else. We're heading for six. Again, thanks for reading. Thanks for your patience. Feedback is appreciated, and often responded to. It's a dialogue between presentation and audience. The only thing we need bring is ourselves.
For those who just tuned in, or were having trouble parking—
This site purports to be:
--An outlet for people to gauge the economic worth of a film to their lives.
At a time when going to a movie theater costs ten bucks per person (your grandfather paid a quarter), when the concessions are north of a fiver, and a family of four can spend close to $100 for one theater trip, someone should tell you whether it's worth it, with little pretensiousness,** with an eye toward value and a knowledge of what has come before. And maybe...with luck and watching real close...that movie with real staying power can be found.
--A portal where trailers and previews can be viewed as a counter-point to the expressed opinion.
Everybody in the theater likes it when the commercials end and the trailers come on--except they're commercials, too. Damned good ones. Persuasive ones. And sometimes they're better than the movie they're promoting. The studios spend big bucks on these things to persuade you their product is worth it. They're there as the opposing view, or a further inducement. And they're fun to watch.
--Beyond that, this site will serve as access to other critical opinions, no matter how stupid, knee-jerk or fraudulently bought and paid for by the Studios.
Film criticism runs the gamut, from the newspaper vet who's been given a cushy job before he's put out to pasture, to the film-studies professor who measures every shake of the camera for some auteurist "significance." Here, it falls somewhere in-between. "Value" is this site's coin of the realm. "Worth" is it's gold-standard. And no one's paying for my opinion...not even you.
--This site will serve as a link to publications, and professional societies in the motion picture arts and sciences
There's a bunch over there on the right, and there'll be more in the weeks and months to come and there are some movie-mag's, and good publications on special effects and cinematography and sound (my area of interest) and selections of poster art sites, some composer fan-sites of note (heh!) as well as some of the prominent film-critic circles. But if you want juicey gossip, that's in another part of town. The news-wire at the bottom of the page is as low as we go.
Five Years Later, nothing's changed in that Declaration of Principles. The lists on the right margin have gotten bigger, we've added a widget or two (and taken them away), there's a place to write to us if you have a mind (but a computer and e-mail access will do), we don't do as much trailers as we used to, because, frankly, they're everywhere else, but we are still concerned with Whether It's Worth It (or not).
To you.
That sometimes makes us rank things differently than we would if we were just applying stars to the reviews, rather than imagining you applying dollars to them.
But these days that mission is more important than ever. So, you'll know whether a movie is worth the exorbitant price, or whether it's even worth putting the brakes on it while Cable-Surfing. Now, with free on-line services like Hulu (check out the movies they've got), you have even more choices, with more on the way. Life is good if all you want to do is see a movie.
* ie. Quentin Tarantino's messy and rather fraudulent Django Unchained script won Best Original Script over Tony Kushner's boiled down Lincoln (that was originally 770 pages)? What are these dopes smoking? But I digress tediously. ** Okay, I fail this one on a regular basis.
Who? Me? I'm nobody. For some biographical information, go to the right (for all the good it'll do you). I've loved movies ever since I was a dirty rotten little whelp, but it wasn't until I saw 2001 on my thirteenth birthday (and couldn't make heads or tails of it!!) that I've actually been studying film. Lately, prices have been going up, and with home-video and so many cheap alternatives to going to the theater, it just seemed like the right time to say "This movie you won't miss anything watching at home, but THIS movie you should see in a theater."
You can tell from my bio that I've done some post-production work in my career, so the process isn't some "dream factory" concept to me. It's hard work and long hours. That's something I keep in mind writing reviews. But that "sense of wonder" I look for, too.
2010 Update: Right now in the Pacific Northwest where I'm writing from (Seattle is, supposedly, the #7 movie city in the U.S.--eh?) a Full-Price Ticket is $10.50. Matinees are $8.00. With Net-Flix and instant Internet access breathing down their necks (and the cost of gas fluctuating)--you'd think they might want to be more competitive. But why would they, when Avatar made two billion bucks by increasing "all-the-bells-and-whistles" tickets (including 3-D and fraudulently billed IMAX-size) to $14.50 (There still is a sucker born every minute) Meanwhile, in Seattle, you can still buy an evening movie ticket for $5, if you look in the right places.
Why Another Movie Blog?
I'm asking that myself! Next question--
When Does This Thing Get Updated?
There's no set-in-stone schedule. It gets updated when new things appear. I hate deadlines, and there are times I need to "digest" a movie before I write something about it that satisfies me.
2010 Update: There's still no "Set in Stone Sked" (or "Shed" for our British readers). But Sundays are "Don't Make a Scene" Days, where we look at one specific movie scene that resonates. Reviews are generally posted Tuesday, Thursdays and Fridays, while Saturday has become the de-facto "Take Out the Trash" day, where a particularly critical review gets posted.But, I want this thing to be flexible enough that I can change things around at a moment's notice. Rarely will there be more than one entry a day (although it's been known to happen in the past!), and if I see a relatively new movie over a weekend, chances are good that a review of it will show up in one of the open spots on Monday or Wednesday morning. Because a lot of work goes into "Don't Make a Scene" every Sunday I prefer to let that be front-and-center for a couple of days. A new movie review, though, can take precedence.
What if I want a review for something that hasn't opened yet?
Tough noogies, I guess. Until I can cadge previews, you'll see things when I do--maybe sooner! We'll work on that this year.
How do I find a movie I'm looking for?
I should have called on you first, Miss Dickerson. There's a link to another blog"The Index,"which has all the films listed in alphabetical order (I ignore "A's" and "The's" in the titles), and they have links directly to those entries on this blog. You can also use the "Search" feature--the films have a limited "Label" base to look for (Years, Directors, Titles, Major Stars). Don't be disappointed if you don't find what you're looking for, though. We're just getting started.
And I STILL haven't found what I'M looking for.....
Some of these reviews are really LONG. Some are really short! What gives?
The Long ones--with the posters on the LEFT<--those are for new films. The reviews are new and take a look at the film in some depth. The short ones--with the posters on the RIGHT-->they're reviews of films on video, and capsule summaries. They also don't have the "Full-Price/Matinee/Rental" designation the longer ones do. If there's enough of a demand, I'll put them in, but I figure since these things are on video anyway it nullifies the designation a bit.
Basically, with the exception of the newest films, all the reviews are cobbled from a blog I started a couple of years ago called "An Unpublished Life is Not Worth Living." They came from a variety of sources and formats--that's why some reviews look different from others. There's been some experimentation with color--that sort of thing. Sorry if it's confusing.
Got any Top Ten lists?
I don't really "do" top ten lists. I don't like them much. There IS something I did from the old blog called "Anytime Movies" which is a series of films that turn me into a drooling movie-watching zombie who doesn't have the sense to turn them off any time they're on. There were ten of those. Well, actually eleven. There are also essays about some subjects of film whenever the fancy strikes me. There are a couple of movie-related "personal heroes" themes I've written. There's also a series (though since only one's been written, that's a bit of a misnomer!) called "Missed It By That Much!"--a look at films that were almost classics. Also, you'll find a bunch of films bunched in an on-going director series called "Now I've seen Everything!" that looks over a director's entire career touching briefly on each film. There's one on Kubrick, Lucas, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Clint Eastwood, James L. Brooks, Tim Burton, the Coen Brothers, and "the Bond's" and we're tackling Spike Lee, James Cameron, and even Martin Scorsese's career in the coming months...or years. There's other fun things we'll do, too--look at trailers and posters for up-coming movies. I'll even take requests.
What's Your favorite film?
That would be answered in the "Anytime Movies" series.
What's Your Least Favorite Film?
How to choose? For a look at what I thought were "Cable-watchers" last year, which is really low, check out the 2007 in Review--it's a bit varied. I think the lowest for me in awhile have been Hollywoodland, Shoot 'em Up, Planet Terror, and The Spirit, which gives you some idea of my tastes. I like my entertainment to have a brain in its head, rather than bullets in the clip.
Where'd You Get That Weird Name For This Place?
I'd solicited ideas from friends and readers, and I got quite a few (that will be a column some time). Every few days I want to change it to my runner-up--"Looking For Ponies," as in "Getting a pile of manure and optimistically searching through it, saying 'There's gotta be a pony in here, somewhere!'" which is as good a metaphor for writing about films as I've ever heard, if a trifle negative.
But I was at a birthday party where the conversation was fast and lively, and somebody brought up movies, and the Hostess (Olaiya Land) sank in her chair and sighed "Let's not talk about movies!" And so, contrarily, we did. It dominated the evening to an alarming degree. We all love movies. We all have our favorites, and our Golden Turkeys. We've all been dazzled by the flickering blue light, and occasionally wondered why we bothered. It's a Ribbon of Dreams going at 24 frames per second, 30 if it's HD-video projection--a simulation of life, blurred photographs that take advantage of a property of the eye--we very briefly retain an image flashed on our corneas--to present the illusion of movement, when it's actually a fast-moving collection of stills. Moving Pictures.
The "Movies."
We've all made movies in our heads, maybe written a screenplay, replaced dialog or said it along with the film. We've all admired the Stars, even though we know it's all a crock and they're nothing like that in real life. We watch the Oscars in disgust...year after year after year.
We talk about movies, and we do it all the time.
That's why the title. You can't judge a book, or a movie by it, though.
2010 Update: When I started this blog, I had two co-horts whose contributions I valued, even though I might have disagreed with them. If you've been reading the by-lines you know that they've not been contributing lately for reasons that are their own. No fights, no behind-the-scenes wrangling—they're always welcome back—it's more of a life-style choice for both of them for different reasons and I respect and sympathize with them. I've been nudging friends who've seen a movie or two to write and contribute, but no takers—although submissions are welcome (but subject to editing).
If you want to contribute, the e-mail address is prominently displayed in the right margin along with a nice shot of Jimmy Stewart from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That's the place to send all correspondence.
Also:
- It's a simple matter to put the highly decorative (and informative) "Let's Not Talk About Movies" "blidget" on your web-site. Just follow the link in the upper right hand corner under the top photo and follow the instructions. It's easy, it's fun and it's free. And so rewarding.
- You can "Follow" us on Face-Book, too. I'm actually surprised who does that, and currently there is no single concentration of "Followers" for the application posting it to track. I find that comforting.
- What's with that picture in the upper-right, anyway? It's just something film related that struck a chord with me. It might be a celebration of a recently passed film-person (I hate writing obits). It might be funny, or heart-warming or be a memory-stirrer. It very well might be an Easter-Egg with a link to something special. It's a whim. Go with it.
2013 Update: And so we poke along...again A couple years ago, I joined The Large Association of Movie Blogs (which is, naturally enough, a large association of movie blogs) and every once in awhile, I participate in a meme or blogathon with other workers in the field on some project that looks at a director, star or theme. I still have the greatest enthusiasm for the mission, but time is short, so's life, so sometimes the space goes empty. 2013 looks to be an exciting year for movies, though, so I'll keep plugging away. Thanks to all the Followers of the blog, whether through Blogger (passed 100 last year) or Facebook (92_we lost a couple of regulars who passed away, sadly). There's plenty of room in the auditorium, and I appreciate the support very much.
A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theatre admission and the babysitter were worth it.
Alfred Hitchcock
I've been writing reviews on a blog for awhile now, and I've always had a "bottom line" approach to them. Every review does, to one degree or another, no matter how idiosyncratically (maybe that should be "idiosyn-critically") they disguise it. There's always some short-hand way of distilling the work--the sweat and blood and talents of those who make films or put up the money for them. And entertainment editors bend over backwards to find an interesting way to award those ratings, each one with some arbitrary value of mythical importance. Stars, popcorn bags, smiley faces, reels of film--if it's associated with movies it can be used as the currency on which a film is judged. How many of these little pictograms constitutes a classic? 5 stars? Too much like a restaurant or hotel review for me, plus for a film, five is not enough. Ten stars? That's about right. Then, of course, you can low-ball it the way those Romans, Siskel, Ebert and Roeper do with the decidedly unchristian "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down." Not a lot of wiggle-room there. It's either good or bad, black and white (even in Technicolor), even if they occasionally hedge their bets with the limp "thumb somewhat up."
For me, it comes down to economics: How much is this movie worth? Not in terms of the creative accounting Hollywood is known for, but in the most important coin of the realm there is: Yours. How much of your hard-earned money should you be expected to shell out for this disaster? A lot, or not?
So, there are five basic categories, all extremely practical--all with one-on-one corolaries to the real world--no having to fudge whether 6 out of 10 stars constitutes a full-price evening ticket or a cheaper matinee. We take the guess-work out of it.
These are my completely unobjective, biased (though one has to admit, realistic) categories for films:
1) Full-Ticket Price. The cost of a first-run evening show. The movie is worth seeing in a theater for whatever reason, even at full price.
2) Matinee Not worth a full-price ticket, but still worth seeing on the big screen, but save some of your money because it's no Citizen Kane.
3) Rental For whatever reason, pick it up on your own terms, in your own home. Not worth making an appointment or going out of your way.
4) Cable-watcher Less than Net-flix, because cable gives you more options for viewing. Don't schedule your life around this film, in fact, there are probably better options channel-surfing. If it's a distraction, and it just happens to collide with your eye-balls, this is it.
5) A Waste of Film (or video--don't get technical!) Don't waste your life along with it. There's nothing to get from this film, and the only thing the makers got was another notch on their resume/imdb site.
Now, the rationale: There are four factors (well, 4 1/2) that combine to make these ratings. Bear with me. This was distilled from a ten page treatise on film "worth" that ultimately wasn't worth it to repeat (or even type).
1) Blatant Con$umeri$m
How much entertainment does the movie provide for YOUR dollar? Pirates of the Caribbean is a big entertainment that provides a lot of swashle for your buck. Is it worth seeing in a theater? Hell, yeah? I don't care how big your home-screen is, you won't get the same visceral thrill as seiing it in a theater--where it is meant to be seen and heard (Don't even start with me about your ipod). Is POTC a classic? Nope. History will be the ultimate judge, but I don't think so. I'd call it a matinee.
Is it worth going to see How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days at the Cinerama? Nope. The Simpsons Movie? Nope. You may looooove these movies, but it's not worth seeing them in the theater. It's just not. Stretching them to 80 feet across will not improve them one bit.
So, am I saying that it all comes down to the movie's budget? No. X-3 was one of the most expensive movies ever made, but I'd say it's only worth a rental. By contrast, American Graffiti was one of the cheapest, yet deserves to be seen on the big screen. It's not the money spent (or sometimes sunk) on a movie that matters. It's what's done with it, and whether that's reflected on the screen.
2) The Shock of the New
There are new ideas and new ways to present those ideas cropping up all the time. It's much better to see it in a hive-environment, like a theater, than it is isolated at home. The film-makers intend their movies to be seen as a group experience (well, that's the hope, anyway!), a shared experience. Comedies work better this way, as do horror films. It's just another case to be made in the economic equation of the choice of venue for seeing a particular film.
3) The Devil's in the Details
With movies swooshing over your corneas at 24 frames per second (30 for video), there's a lot to take in, but here are two aspects of it:
a) Creativity: Film-making has a lots of arts imbedded in it (writng, photography, writing, acting, composing), but two main communicative tools:*Montage (how things are put together), and Mise en Scène (what's in the frame to see--basically photography). It's the intricacy of the latter concept that pays off in theater-viewing, whether it's the burning ships of Starship Troopers or the isolated figures in a landscape of The Searchers. On the other hand, the blurred CGI swoops of Spiderman III are as indecipherable on your home system as in the theater.
b) Technology: A bit tough to explain, but I'll give an example. Despite the protestations of some anal-retentives, there has been a move of late to improve the special effects of older films (I'm thinking specifically of the first "Star Wars" films and the "Star Trek" television series). Both underwent extensive re-vamps owing to the improved capacities of digital effects, and the way older "matte" effects were exposed in higher resolution formats, ie. "Star Trek's" shuttle-craft always had moving blocks of emulsion surrounding them, from the comparatively sloppy "travelling matte" effects techniques of the 1960's. It looked bad on late model tv's. It would look even worse with the advent of HD, and plasma-screens. So, efforts were made to fix them, as Lucas had scrapped the "travelling matte" shots of the early "Star Wars" films, for the cleaner CGI shots of the "Special Editions." The intricacy with how films are now made make more of a case for theater-viewing a bit, but again fast-paced effects (see a. above) often negate that advantage. And non-effects films like Lawrence of Arabia, or There Will Be Blood, benefit from a theater experience for the sheer scope that a more intimate viewing situation would not provide.**
4) The Big Picture (or not)
What's the intent of the film-maker? They all want their films to be seen "wide," of course, by a mass audience. For them, that's the economic best case. But not all films need that large canvas to tell the story. Do the films of Wes Andersonneed the big-screen? Or Judd Apatow? Or Nora Ephron? Or Quentin Tarentino (Kill Bill, maybe, but not Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown.)?
It's an odd equation. Spectacle versus content. Quality versus worth. And how you view things at home are just as important a factor.
What is a movie worth to you? It's personal, but there can be consensus. I can only offer my opinion where your dollar and time should go, and that's my focus and my ultimate goal for this site.
* Thank you, "Cahiers du Cinema" School of Criticism. You may think Jerry Lewis is a genius ("He's a very funny man!"), but for those concepts, and your bucking-the-trend appreciation of Hitchcock, Hawks and Ford, we salute you. Thanks for all those films, too. (Now about that "putting all your eggs in one basket" auteur theory...) ** I have a friend who, after years of watching 2001: A Space Odyssey on video, finally saw it on the big-screen. "Th-there were people in those windows!" he said. Yes, there always was. You just couldn't see them on your 36" Sony. "People in the windows" is an important part of 2001: A Space Odyssey: You have to see the little ants in their out-sized constructions to give them their due as a species.
Who? Me? I'm nobody. For some biographical information, go to the right (for all the good it'll do you). I've loved movies ever since I was a dirty rotten little whelp, but it wasn't until I saw 2001 on my thirteenth birthday (and couldn't make heads or tails of it!!) that I've actually been studying film. Lately, prices have been going up, and with home-video and so many cheap alternatives to going to the theater, it just seemed like the right time to say "This movie you won't miss anything watching at home, but THIS movie you should see in a theater."
You can tell from my bio that I've done some post-production work in my career, so the process isn't some "dream factory" concept to me. It's hard work and long hours. That's something I keep in mind writing reviews. But that "sense of wonder" I look for, too.
2010 Update: Right now in the Pacific Northwest where I'm writing from (Seattle is, supposedly, the #7 movie city in the U.S.--eh?) a Full-Price Ticket is $10.50. Matinees are $8.00. With Net-Flix and instant Internet access breathing down their necks (and the cost of gas fluctuating)--you'd think they might want to be more competitive. But why would they, when Avatar made two billion bucks by increasing "all-the-bells-and-whistles" tickets (including 3-D and fraudulently billed IMAX-size) to $14.50 (There still is a sucker born every minute) Meanwhile, in Seattle, you can still buy an evening movie ticket for $5, if you look in the right places.
Why Another Movie Blog?
I'm asking that myself! Next question--
When Does This Thing Get Updated?
There's no set-in-stone schedule. It gets updated when new things appear. I hate deadlines, and there are times I need to "digest" a movie before I write something about it that satisfies me.
2010 Update: There's still no "Set in Stone Sked" (or "Shed" for our British readers). But Sundays are "Don't Make a Scene" Days, where we look at one specific movie scene that resonates. Reviews are generally posted Tuesday, Thursdays and Fridays, while Saturday has become the de-facto "Take Out the Trash" day, where a particularly critical review gets posted.But, I want this thing to be flexible enough that I can change things around at a moment's notice. Rarely will there be more than one entry a day (although it's been known to happen in the past!), and if I see a relatively new movie over a weekend, chances are good that a review of it will show up in one of the open spots on Monday or Wednesday morning. Because a lot of work goes into "Don't Make a Scene" every Sunday I prefer to let that be front-and-center for a couple of days. A new movie review, though, can take precedence.
What if I want a review for something that hasn't opened yet?
Tough noogies, I guess. Until I can cadge previews, you'll see things when I do--maybe sooner! We'll work on that this year.
How do I find a movie I'm looking for?
I should have called on you first, Miss Dickerson. There's a link to another blog"The Index,"which has all the films listed in alphabetical order (I ignore "A's" and "The's" in the titles), and they have links directly to those entries on this blog. You can also use the "Search" feature--the films have a limited "Label" base to look for (Years, Directors, Titles, Major Stars). Don't be disappointed if you don't find what you're looking for, though. We're just getting started.
And I STILL haven't found what I'M looking for.....
Some of these reviews are really LONG. Some are really short! What gives?
The Long ones--with the posters on the LEFT<--those are for new films. The reviews are new and take a look at the film in some depth. The short ones--with the posters on the RIGHT-->they're reviews of films on video, and capsule summaries. They also don't have the "Full-Price/Matinee/Rental" designation the longer ones do. If there's enough of a demand, I'll put them in, but I figure since these things are on video anyway it nullifies the designation a bit.
Basically, with the exception of the newest films, all the reviews are cobbled from a blog I started a couple of years ago called "An Unpublished Life is Not Worth Living." They came from a variety of sources and formats--that's why some reviews look different from others. There's been some experimentation with color--that sort of thing. Sorry if it's confusing.
Got any Top Ten lists?
I don't really "do" top ten lists. I don't like them much. There IS something I did from the old blog called "Anytime Movies" which is a series of films that turn me into a drooling movie-watching zombie who doesn't have the sense to turn them off any time they're on. There were ten of those. Well, actually eleven. There are also essays about some subjects of film whenever the fancy strikes me. There are a couple of movie-related "personal heroes" themes I've written. There's also a series (though since only one's been written, that's a bit of a misnomer!) called "Missed It By That Much!"--a look at films that were almost classics. Also, you'll find a bunch of films bunched in an on-going director series called "Now I've seen Everything!" that looks over a director's entire career touching briefly on each film. There's one on Kubrick, Lucas, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Clint Eastwood, James L. Brooks, Tim Burton, the Coen Brothers, and "the Bond's" and we're tackling Spike Lee, James Cameron, and even Martin Scorsese's career in the coming months...or years. There's other fun things we'll do, too--look at trailers and posters for up-coming movies. I'll even take requests.
What's Your favorite film?
That would be answered in the "Anytime Movies" series.
What's Your Least Favorite Film?
How to choose? For a look at what I thought were "Cable-watchers" last year, which is really low, check out the 2007 in Review--it's a bit varied. I think the lowest for me in awhile have been Hollywoodland, Shoot 'em Up, Planet Terror, and The Spirit, which gives you some idea of my tastes. I like my entertainment to have a brain in its head, rather than bullets in the clip.
Where'd You Get That Weird Name For This Place?
I'd solicited ideas from friends and readers, and I got quite a few (that will be a column some time). Every few days I want to change it to my runner-up--"Looking For Ponies," as in "Getting a pile of manure and optimistically searching through it, saying 'There's gotta be a pony in here, somewhere!'" which is as good a metaphor for writing about films as I've ever heard, if a trifle negative.
But I was at a birthday party where the conversation was fast and lively, and somebody brought up movies, and the Hostess (Olaiya Land) sank in her chair and sighed "Let's not talk about movies!" And so, contrarily, we did. It dominated the evening to an alarming degree. We all love movies. We all have our favorites, and our Golden Turkeys. We've all been dazzled by the flickering blue light, and occasionally wondered why we bothered. It's a Ribbon of Dreams going at 24 frames per second, 30 if it's HD-video projection--a simulation of life, blurred photographs that take advantage of a property of the eye--we very briefly retain an image flashed on our corneas--to present the illusion of movement, when it's actually a fast-moving collection of stills. Moving Pictures.
The "Movies."
We've all made movies in our heads, maybe written a screenplay, replaced dialog or said it along with the film. We've all admired the Stars, even though we know it's all a crock and they're nothing like that in real life. We watch the Oscars in disgust...year after year after year.
We talk about movies, and we do it all the time.
That's why the title. You can't judge a book, or a movie by it, though.
2010 Update: When I started this blog, I had two co-horts whose contributions I valued, even though I might have disagreed with them. If you've been reading the by-lines you know that they've not been contributing lately for reasons that are their own. No fights, no behind-the-scenes wrangling—they're always welcome back—it's more of a life-style choice for both of them for different reasons and I respect and sympathize with them. I've been nudging friends who've seen a movie or two to write and contribute, but no takers—although submissions are welcome (but subject to editing).
If you want to contribute, the e-mail address is prominently displayed in the right margin along with a nice shot of Jimmy Stewart from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That's the place to send all correspondence.
Also:
- It's a simple matter to put the highly decorative (and informative) "Let's Not Talk About Movies" "blidget" on your web-site. Just follow the link in the upper right hand corner under the top photo and follow the instructions. It's easy, it's fun and it's free. And so rewarding.
- You can "Follow" us on Face-Book, too. I'm actually surprised who does that, and currently there is no single concentration of "Followers" for the application posting it to track. I find that comforting.
- What's with that picture in the upper-right, anyway? It's just something film related that struck a chord with me. It might be a celebration of a recently passed film-person (I hate writing obits). It might be funny, or heart-warming or be a memory-stirrer. It very well might be an Easter-Egg with a link to something special. It's a whim. Go with it.
2012 Update: And so we poke along. A couple years ago, I joined The Large Association of Movie Blogs (which is, naturally enough, a large association of movie blogs) and every once in awhile, I participate in a meme or blogathon with other workers in the field on some project that looks at a director, star or theme. I still have the greatest enthusiasm for the mission, but time is short, so's life, so sometimes the space goes empty. 2012 looks to be an exciting year for movies, though, so I'll keep plugging away. Thanks to all the Followers of the blog, whether through Blogger (91, so far) or Facebook (95). There's plenty of room in the auditorium, and I appreciate the support very much.
A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theatre admission and the babysitter were worth it.
Alfred Hitchcock
I've been writing reviews on a blog for awhile now, and I've always had a "bottom line" approach to them. Every review does, to one degree or another, no matter how idiosyncratically (maybe that should be "idiosyn-critically") they disguise it. There's always some short-hand way of distilling the work--the sweat and blood and talents of those who make films or put up the money for them. And entertainment editors bend over backwards to find an interesting way to award those ratings, each one with some arbitrary value of mythical importance. Stars, popcorn bags, smiley faces, reels of film--if it's associated with movies it can be used as the currency on which a film is judged. How many of these little pictograms constitutes a classic? 5 stars? Too much like a restaurant or hotel review for me, plus for a film, five is not enough. Ten stars? That's about right. Then, of course, you can low-ball it the way those Romans, Siskel, Ebert and Roeper do with the decidedly unchristian "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down." Not a lot of wiggle-room there. It's either good or bad, black and white (even in Technicolor), even if they occasionally hedge their bets with the limp "thumb somewhat up."
For me, it comes down to economics: How much is this movie worth? Not in terms of the creative accounting Hollywood is known for, but in the most important coin of the realm there is: Yours. How much of your hard-earned money should you be expected to shell out for this disaster? A lot, or not?
So, there are five basic categories, all extremely practical--all with one-on-one corolaries to the real world--no having to fudge whether 6 out of 10 stars constitutes a full-price evening ticket or a cheaper matinee. We take the guess-work out of it.
These are my completely unobjective, biased (though one has to admit, realistic) categories for films:
1) Full-Ticket Price. The cost of a first-run evening show. The movie is worth seeing in a theater for whatever reason, even at full price.
2) Matinee Not worth a full-price ticket, but still worth seeing on the big screen, but save some of your money because it's no Citizen Kane.
3) Rental For whatever reason, pick it up on your own terms, in your own home. Not worth making an appointment or going out of your way.
4) Cable-watcher Less than Net-flix, because cable gives you more options for viewing. Don't schedule your life around this film, in fact, there are probably better options channel-surfing. If it's a distraction, and it just happens to collide with your eye-balls, this is it.
5) A Waste of Film (or video--don't get technical!) Don't waste your life along with it. There's nothing to get from this film, and the only thing the makers got was another notch on their resume/imdb site.
Now, the rationale: There are four factors (well, 4 1/2) that combine to make these ratings. Bear with me. This was distilled from a ten page treatise on film "worth" that ultimately wasn't worth it to repeat (or even type).
1) Blatant Con$umeri$m
How much entertainment does the movie provide for YOUR dollar? Pirates of the Caribbean is a big entertainment that provides a lot of swashle for your buck. Is it worth seeing in a theater? Hell, yeah? I don't care how big your home-screen is, you won't get the same visceral thrill as seiing it in a theater--where it is meant to be seen and heard (Don't even start with me about your ipod). Is POTC a classic? Nope. History will be the ultimate judge, but I don't think so. I'd call it a matinee.
Is it worth going to see How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days at the Cinerama? Nope. The Simpsons Movie? Nope. You may looooove these movies, but it's not worth seeing them in the theater. It's just not. Stretching them to 80 feet across will not improve them one bit.
So, am I saying that it all comes down to the movie's budget? No. X-3 was one of the most expensive movies ever made, but I'd say it's only worth a rental. By contrast, American Graffiti was one of the cheapest, yet deserves to be seen on the big screen. It's not the money spent (or sometimes sunk) on a movie that matters. It's what's done with it, and whether that's reflected on the screen.
2) The Shock of the New
There are new ideas and new ways to present those ideas cropping up all the time. It's much better to see it in a hive-environment, like a theater, than it is isolated at home. The film-makers intend their movies to be seen as a group experience (well, that's the hope, anyway!), a shared experience. Comedies work better this way, as do horror films. It's just another case to be made in the economic equation of the choice of venue for seeing a particular film.
3) The Devil's in the Details
With movies swooshing over your corneas at 24 frames per second (30 for video), there's a lot to take in, but here are two aspects of it:
a) Creativity: Film-making has a lots of arts imbedded in it (writng, photography, writing, acting, composing), but two main communicative tools:*Montage (how things are put together), and Mise en Scène (what's in the frame to see--basically photography). It's the intricacy of the latter concept that pays off in theater-viewing, whether it's the burning ships of Starship Troopers or the isolated figures in a landscape of The Searchers. On the other hand, the blurred CGI swoops of Spiderman III are as indecipherable on your home system as in the theater.
b) Technology: A bit tough to explain, but I'll give an example. Despite the protestations of some anal-retentives, there has been a move of late to improve the special effects of older films (I'm thinking specifically of the first "Star Wars" films and the "Star Trek" television series). Both underwent extensive re-vamps owing to the improved capacities of digital effects, and the way older "matte" effects were exposed in higher resolution formats, ie. "Star Trek's" shuttle-craft always had moving blocks of emulsion surrounding them, from the comparatively sloppy "travelling matte" effects techniques of the 1960's. It looked bad on late model tv's. It would look even worse with the advent of HD, and plasma-screens. So, efforts were made to fix them, as Lucas had scrapped the "travelling matte" shots of the early "Star Wars" films, for the cleaner CGI shots of the "Special Editions." The intricacy with how films are now made make more of a case for theater-viewing a bit, but again fast-paced effects (see a. above) often negate that advantage. And non-effects films like Lawrence of Arabia, or There Will Be Blood, benefit from a theater experience for the sheer scope that a more intimate viewing situation would not provide.**
4) The Big Picture (or not)
What's the intent of the film-maker? They all want their films to be seen "wide," of course, by a mass audience. For them, that's the economic best case. But not all films need that large canvas to tell the story. Do the films of Wes Andersonneed the big-screen? Or Judd Apatow? Or Nora Ephron? Or Quentin Tarentino (Kill Bill, maybe, but not Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown.)?
It's an odd equation. Spectacle versus content. Quality versus worth. And how you view things at home are just as important a factor.
What is a movie worth to you? It's personal, but there can be consensus. I can only offer my opinion where your dollar and time should go, and that's my focus and my ultimate goal for this site.
* Thank you, "Cahiers du Cinema" School of Criticism. You may think Jerry Lewis is a genius ("He's a very funny man!"), but for those concepts, and your bucking-the-trend appreciation of Hitchcock, Hawks and Ford, we salute you. Thanks for all those films, too. (Now about that "putting all your eggs in one basket" auteur theory...)
** I have a friend who, after years of watching 2001: A Space Odyssey on video, finally saw it on the big-screen. "Th-there were people in those windows!" he said. Yes, there always was. You just couldn't see them on your 36" Sony. "People in the windows" is an important part of 2001: A Space Odyssey: You have to see the little ants in their out-sized constructions to give them their due as a species.
For those who just tuned in, or were having trouble parking—
This site purports to be:
--An outlet for people to gauge the economic worth of a film to their lives.
At a time when going to a movie theater costs ten bucks per person (your grandfather paid a quarter), when the concessions are north of a fiver, and a family of four can spend close to $100 for one theater trip, someone should tell you whether it's worth it, with little pretensiousness, with an eye toward value and a knowledge of what has come before. And maybe...with luck and watching real close...that movie with real staying power can be found.
--A portal where trailers and previews can be viewed as a counter-point to the expressed opinion.
Everybody in the theater likes it when the commercials end and the trailers come on--except they're commercials, too. Damned good ones. Persuasive ones. And sometimes they're better than the movie they're promoting. The studios spend big bucks on these things to persuade you their product is worth it. They're there as the opposing view, or a further inducement. And they're fun to watch.
--Beyond that, this site will serve as access to other critical opinions, no matter how stupid, knee-jerk or fraudulently bought and paid for by the Studios.
Film criticism runs the gamut, from the newspaper vet who's been given a cushy job before he's put out to pasture, to the film-studies professor who measures every shake of the camera for some auteurist "significance." Here, it falls somewhere in-between. "Value" is this site's coin of the realm. "Worth" is it's gold-standard. And no one's paying for my opinion...not even you.
--This site will serve as a link to publications, and professional societies in the motion picture arts and sciences
There's a bunch over there on the right, and there'll be more in the weeks and months to come and there are some movie-mag's, and good publications on special effects and cinematography and sound (my area of interest) and selections of poster art sites, some composer fan-sites of note (heh!) as well as some of the prominent film-critic circles. But if you want juicey gossip, that's in another part of town. The news-wire at the bottom of the page is as low as we go.
Four Years Later, nothing's changed in that Declaration of Principles. The lists on the right margin have gotten bigger, we've added a widget or two (and taken them away), there's a place to write to us if you have a mind (but a computer and e-mail access will do), and we're still concerned with Whether It's Worth It (or not).
To you.
That sometimes makes us rank things differently than we would if we were just applying stars to the reviews, rather than imagining you applying dollars to them.
But these days that mission is more important than ever. So, you'll know whether a movie is worth the exorbitant price, or whether it's even worth putting the brakes on it while Cable-Surfing. Now, with free on-line services like Hulu (check out the movies they've got), you have even more choices, with more on the way. Life is good if all you want to do is see a movie.
A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theatre admission and the babysitter were worth it.