Monterey Jack wrote:

John Johnson wrote:I seem to remember Roy Disney being very dismissive of the film at the time.

Well, Disney cravenly reissued The Little Mermaid to theaters the very same day Anastasia was released in an effort to crush the competition, so I'm not surprised.

Yes they did. I had forgotten about that.

I took it to be more of a story for teenagers. I haven't read the book though, so I can't comment on the author's original tone. But to me it seemed that Spielberg was going for a tone more along the lines of Empire of the Sun -- a depiction of war from (and for) the perspective of a young person.

It's an interesting comparison, because EMPIRE OF THE SUN was, for me anyway, a much more consistent and satisfying film. The whole movie was told from the lead character's viewpoint and stayed consistent in that rendering on every angle -- WAR HORSE doesn't have that type of consistency. It likely would have been more effective had it stayed with the central boy, and if it had depicted the horror of war through his experiences, it probably would have been more powerful, yet I found the tangents of the horse's experiences to be, as I wrote before, just too varied in tone and approach.

The early sections -- the farm, the goose, the family portion -- were evocative of old Hollywood, aimed at younger viewers (or" family audiences") almost in its approach. The war sections were PRIVATE RYAN, reinforcing how awful warfare is over and over, yet it came off for me like it was coming from an informed adult perspective. Then we're back in this type of "storybook" Hollywood film again with the boy and the horse at the end, while having gone through some truly horrible events in the interim.

The material with the German teenagers bothered me the most. It had a very hard edge that felt more like SCHINDLER'S LIST than what he was going for on either end. Considering that it had nothing to do with the young lead's involvement -- more like an episode of the horse's travels -- it didn't mesh for me with everything else. Realistic? Yes. But was every other part of the film? No. That's why I felt it almost felt out of place.

So to me it was historically not incredible to show enemy soldiers brought together through a commonality -- at least in a WW I setting (it wouldn't have been very believable in a WW II setting), and I appreciated it being depicted on screen (as it never has been before, to my knowledge).

I had no issue with what it was depicting, it was more how it was being depicted that bothered me. I realize there have been truces of that type during war-time (especially WWI), and that situation by itself probably wasn't unbelievable -- it was more the dialogue exchange between them that felt much too cute and contrived. The whole "how are you today", the soldiers all throwing their wrenches at the same time, that type of thing. I didn't buy it.

The more I think about it, the more I had a problem with the film in general. I mean, one minute it's HEIDI, the next it's SCHINDLER'S LIST. What it did well, it did extraordinarily well, but it was really hampered by too much of a difference in tone. Is it a fable, a fairy tale? A realistic depiction of war? It's like Spielberg tried to have it both ways and pushed too hard in the latter category. EMPIRE OF THE SUN got its message across, and had some heart-wrenching moments, without going to some of the places Spielberg took WAR HORSE to -- unnecessarily IMO.

Still a very good film, but I just didn't find it to be a great one.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE GHOST PROTOCOL 8/10

Great stuff -- and as close to a throwback to the old series, and the heyday of 007, as we're ever likely to see. A sense of humor? Check. Gadgets? Check. International globe-trotting and dynamic set-pieces? Check.

Funny that it took Cruise really 4 movies to get the formula right -- here he's actually got a TEAM -- while Brad Bird adds that interesting visual dynamic that was absent from the third film.

What also impressed me was the tone. This film is almost completely devoid of profanity, which in this day and age is something to be admired (I think there is literally one time when Cruise says s--t and that's it). The violence is toned down -- it's not brutal, and most anything bad happens off-camera. At a time when PG-13 movies feel more like R's (HANNA I'm looking right at you), this was a throwback in the best sense.

My only hang-up was the length...it felt about 10-15 minutes too long, and by the end I had grown a bit weary...that, and Michael Giacchino's I'm-glad-it's-orchestral-but-that's-the-best-thing-I-can-say-about-it score were my only two minor gripes.

The Artist: 10/10

Delightful. Absolutely delightful. Wonderful performances, cinematography and score (replete with a climax scored, for whatever reason, to Herrmann's Vertigo! ) in one of the most charming films of 2011. I had a big, dopey smile on my face the whole time.

Looking forward to seeing THE ARTIST when it's at a better theater than the Avon in Providence.

In the meantime, Kim Novak feels "violated" over the use of VERTIGO in the picture...

Los Angeles: “I want to report a rape,” said Kim Novak, the legendary star of “Vertigo,” “Picnic,” and many other revered classics. “My body of work has been violated by ‘The Artist.’ This film took the Love Theme music from “Vertigo” and used the emotions it engenders as its own. Alfred Hitchcock and Jimmy Stewart can’t speak for themselves, but I can. It was our work that unconsciously or consciously evoked the memories and feelings to the audience that were used for the climax of ‘The Artist.’”

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/not-eve ... igo-score/

AndyDursin wrote:MISSION IMPOSSIBLE GHOST PROTOCOL 8/10

Great stuff -- and as close to a throwback to the old series, and the heyday of 007, as we're ever likely to see. A sense of humor? Check. Gadgets? Check. International globe-trotting and dynamic set-pieces? Check.

Funny that it took Cruise really 4 movies to get the formula right -- here he's actually got a TEAM -- while Brad Bird adds that interesting visual dynamic that was absent from the third film.

What also impressed me was the tone. This film is almost completely devoid of profanity, which in this day and age is something to be admired (I think there is literally one time when Cruise says s--t and that's it). The violence is toned down -- it's not brutal, and most anything bad happens off-camera. At a time when PG-13 movies feel more like R's (HANNA I'm looking right at you), this was a throwback in the best sense.

My only hang-up was the length...it felt about 10-15 minutes too long, and by the end I had grown a bit weary...that, and Michael Giacchino's I'm-glad-it's-orchestral-but-that's-the-best-thing-I-can-say-about-it score were my only two minor gripes.

Have to agree with just about everything here, Andy. I was VERY pleasantly surprised by this entry in the series. It's the only one among them that I would ever feel compelled to watch again.

What struck me so much was Bird's deft touch in building set pieces. He doesn't do it solely with visual flair, but with exquisitely timed turns of the screw, building little obstacle upon little obstacle for the characters to overcome. In that way it reminded me very much of a live action INCREDIBLES. There's not a wasted shot in the whole thing.

I also really enjoyed the dynamic between Cruise and Renner, and this actually raised my anticipation for the new BOURNE film this summer.

AndyDursin wrote:In the meantime, Kim Novak feels "violated" over the use of VERTIGO in the picture...

Sorry she felt "violated" by the Vertigo lift, but she should rather feel flattered to have been part of a move that's still being referenced over 50 years later. Hell, if even one moviegoer leaves The Artist and discovers Bernard Herrmann even if by accident, then that's worth the tracked cue.

Monterey Jack wrote:

AndyDursin wrote:In the meantime, Kim Novak feels "violated" over the use of VERTIGO in the picture...

Sorry she felt "violated" by the Vertigo lift, but she should rather feel flattered to have been part of a move that's still being referenced over 50 years later. Hell, if even one moviegoer leaves The Artist and discovers Bernard Herrmann even if by accident, then that's worth the tracked cue.

I didn't see it, but I, in general, don't like it when music written for a specific context is later used for something it wasn't composed for. Classical music is one thing (though I've never been crazy about that either), but film music has a specific function and is written to accompany a particular story. When JJ Abrams takes Williams' music for E.T. and places it in the context of a story far removed from its intended context -- say, bikers running around in the '60s, regardless of how brilliant it is -- to me, he ought to go someplace else for inspiration. Could be the use of it is brilliant -- again, I haven't seen it -- but it seems like they used the music mainly because it was a temp-track, which I can't say I've ever been a big fan of in general either.

Or, look at it this way -- isn't this movie about the dawn of sound, talkies, silent movies, etc.? VERTIGO has nothing at all to do with that era.

AndyDursin wrote:Or, look at it this way -- isn't this movie about the dawn of sound, talkies, silent movies, etc.? VERTIGO has nothing at all to do with that era.

I agree with this, although the eventual Blu-Ray release of the film will feature the original cue intended for the scene, which wasn't ready in time for the film's release date, neccesitating the Herrmann temp track being retained.

As for reusing film score cues in other movies, in the right hands, it can be done effectively...Quentin Tarantino has been needle-dropping his movies with virtually nothing but lifted score cues since Kill Bill. I'd rather listen to a cue swiped from a 60's Spaghetti Western tracked into a current film than 90% of what passes for "music" today. I mean, how many moviegoers came out of Kill Bill whistling that insidiously catchy Herrmann Twisted Nerve cue for days afterwards? And how many people came out of Iron Man humming the score? In the absence of the great film composers of the past creating new music, I'll take a tip-of-the-hat homage over the warmed-over crap we have to put up with these days.

Plus, where was Novak's outrage when the Vertigo music was tracked into a complete piece of sh!te like American Horror Story?

Monterey Jack wrote:Plus, where was Novak's outrage when the Vertigo music was tracked into a complete piece of sh!te like American Horror Story?

They didn't send her a screener like they did for THE ARTIST. She sat down to watch the movie and realized it when she heard it.

Honestly I think she has a point and it's legit. Whether or not the audience likes the music or not, that music belongs to her film, and was written for that picture...so if she feels a sense of ownership, then she's entitled. That's independent of whether or not the score in that context "works" for you or me.

Since it seems the music was only used in the film because it was on the temp track, then I think they ought to replace it when it comes out on video.

Nothing would surprise me though with the Weinsteins. Was the score really "not finished"? Or did Harvey and Bob simply keep the VERTIGO music in there because they liked it more?

AndyDursin wrote:I didn't see it, but I, in general, don't like it when music written for a specific context is later used for something it wasn't composed for. Classical music is one thing (though I've never been crazy about that either)

This kind of reopens the old "2001" debate! The thing there that bugged me was "Blue Danube" is a composition meant to summon a specific image and was in its own way "film music" for its time.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

I saw this film twice as a kid in theaters, but other than catching bits here and there during Christmas and Thanksgiving TV showings I don't think I've sat down to watch the whole thing from start to finish since then.

There are a lot of fabulous action sequences in the film, and it's an amazing-looking movie as well. Douglas Slocombe's "old school" photography is very arresting, as is the entire visual style. Spielberg goes for some great camera moves as well (like the tricky dolly/"push-pull" when Indy and the others float down the river in the raft, and that amazing focus pull when Indy walks up to the stone altar in the jungle). The shots of the vampire bats are a nice homage to The Bridge on the River Kwai (and David Lean's influence is visible in much of this film, as it was in Raiders). John Williams' score is is fantastic (of course) though not quite in league with Raiders overall (though there are individual cues that are).

The villains are terrific, especially Amrish Puri's Mola Ram (who is far-more evil and sadistic than any of the bad guys in other Jones movies). I just wish that he and Roshan Seth's Chattar Lal had had a little more screen time.

Short Round was a touch annoying and cute at times, but Ke Huy Kwan's performance is sincere and energetic. Unlike many people, I didn't find Kate Capshaw irritating (beyond the extent the character was intended to be). Also, for me, she is by far the cutest of all the "Jones girls".

The effects are superb -- even by today's standards. I doubt most of the opticals in this film could be better-executed with CGI.

I was also struck by the fact that, after the opening club fight, there are no action sequences until the film is nearly half-over -- and yet the film never gets boring.

Nevertheless...

I don't think there's any question this film was a huge comedown from Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's always hard for a sequel to match its progenitor, but I felt the filmmakers made a lot of blunders in this film.

Despite the fact that Temple of Doom is unquestionably a "darker" film than Raiders, the charater of Indiana Jones himself was "lighter". While the Indy of Raiders was heroic and brave and fundamentally a good guy, he was also a drinker, a ruffian, callous, and in his past took advantage of a teenage girl! Offsetting his heroism with these flaws made him an interesting character.

But in temple of Doom they "de-toothed" him. This time out he is merely a tough good guy, a friend of little kids, fluent in an arcane Indian dialect (odd, when he couldn't even speak "Hovitos" in Raiders), never touches a drop of booze and for the most part refrains from using bad words.

To me the Indy in Raiders is akin to the Han Solo in the original cantina scene of Star Wars, who shoots Greedo first. The one in Temple of Doom is like the "emasculated" Han Solo, who, like a proper gent, waits for Greedo to shoot first (and is consequently nowhere near as cool a character).

Also, the number of preposterous sequences In ToD bother me enormously. Ok, Raiders has a lot of action scenes that stretch plausibility (like Indy riding the U-Boat), but it never quite crosses the line into sheer impossibility -- not like bailing out of a plane (and then falling off a cliff) in a rubber raft, or the often-ridiculous mine car chase (which was incredibly well-staged, I do have to say that).

I also find the tone of ToD uneven. The early scenes are lighthearted and fun, with the old Cole Porter song and dance number, and the opening scene has elements of Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon, with a comedic (almost 1941-like) fight sequence. The we're in India with a village of starving people, then a spooky old palace with people eating monkey brains, bloodthirsty cultists, and cloying little kids.

And did anyone else find it odd to see a Caribbean voodoo doll and a Polynesian volcano sacrifice -- in India?

Also, setting ToD a year prior to the action in Raiders nullifies the interesting character development of Indy in the first film. The whole point of his character in Raiders was that he was a skeptic who became a believer when he experienced the power of the Ark. How could anyone be skeptical of spiritual powers after experiencing the events in ToD?

It's still a good, entertaining and fun film, but I don't think it is a worthy successor to Raiders. In a lot of ways it feels like it was made by someone other than the people who made the original film, who didn't quite "get" the character or established dramatic parameters. And to an extent I think this is somewhat true -- a conspicuous absence from ToD was Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan (who -- significantly -- also wrote The Empire Strikes back, which was likewise the most dramatic and believable of the Star Wars movies).

ToD had some good things going for it but definitely not my favorite Indy...of course then again, it's an epic all time masterpiece compared to that 4th movie that they put the Indiana Jones name that doesn't deserve it.

I never saw Temple Of Doom simply because when I heard it was a prequel, I felt I had no reason to go see it way back when. I was one of those who saw a movie sequel as always building off the previous film, and the Trek, Superman and SW franchises had just ingrained that idea in me that a prequel just made me feel like there was no point. Raiders remains the only Indy film I've ever seen and even that one didn't bowl me over too much (probably because the melting Nazis gave me nightmares for a long time afterwards!)