Archive for the ‘cinema’ Category

Freddy & BOB.jpg

Perhaps it’s sacrilegious to suggest that Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street had a deep and lasting influence on Twin Peaks. Today, Twin Peaks is regarded as a fairly classy show—prestige TV before the current era of prestige TV— whereas A Nightmare on Elm Street is decidedly less classy, partly due to the fact that it was followed by a string of increasingly campy sequels. But when you stop and consider the two works in relation to one another, you find numerous similarities.



Read Full Post »

Jack Frost

I’m helplessly fond of ’80s & ’90s Hollywood films with animatronic puppets created by Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, and large fake snowy landscapes constructed on soundstages. Which is why, during the holidays, I finally watched Jack Frost—yes, Jack Frost, the 1998 children’s movie starring Michael Keaton as a hideous animatronic snowman.

And I survived to tell the tale! Jack Frost isn’t as terrible as some (like Roger Ebert) have made it out to be, but at the same time it isn’t great, either—it’s mediocre. So I’m not writing this to recommend that you watch it. It’s hardly as good as true classics like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Batman Returns. But at the same time, it has its charms, which I will spell out in extravagant detail after the jump.


Read Full Post »


Later this week, Disney will release the eighth installment in the forty-year-old Star Wars saga, Rian Johnson’s The Last Jedi. Five months later, May 2018 will see the release of the standalone Han Solo movie, and in December 2019 we’ll get J.J. Abrams’ Star Wars Episode IX. And after that? Remember, Disney wants to release a new Star Wars film every year for the rest of our lives, if not well beyond that. So presumably there will be another standalone film in 2020, maybe featuring Obi-Wan Kenobi, followed by Rian Johnson’s recently announced non-Skywalker-centered trilogy, potentially in 2021, 2023, and 2025 (give or take).

And after that? It’s not madness to ask: Marvel Studios reportedly has MCU films planned through at least 2028. What’s more, while I understand why Disney wants to broaden the scope of Star Wars beyond the Skywalkers, do they seriously intend to stop making movies about that star-crossed family? By which I mean, do they seriously intend to stop making Darth Vader movies? Because if they did, well, that would be dumb. Vader is easily the most popular Star Wars character, followed arguably by Yoda, and I imagine that both of those guys will get their own standalone films soon enough. But you know that Disney would like to make a lot more movies with them.

Which is why Disney should remake the Star Wars prequels. Here’s how.


Read Full Post »

mirror bit

No one ever told me that Poltergeist III is a great film—quite the opposite. Whenever the 1988 movie comes up (which rarely happens), it’s usually because someone wants to point out how Heather O’Rourke, who played little Carol Anne Freeling, died during its making, a tragic incident that contributed to the superstition that the Poltergeist franchise is cursed. Otherwise, the movie is maligned, the same way that Poltergeist II: The Other Side is maligned.

Well, I can’t really defend Poltergeist II, which is mostly a mediocre retread of the original 1982 classic, dignified only by Julian Beck’s performance as the evil Reverend Kane. But Poltergeist III, while exceedingly different from the first film, is a classic in its own right, and deserving of greater recognition.

Here’s why.


Read Full Post »

I’m not the world’s biggest fan of Hal Ashby’s 1978 film Coming Home (I think it’s a fine film, but not much more), but I love how, toward the end of the movie, during a climactic confrontation (which I won’t spoil), a young woman is seen prying open a window, then starting to climb through it, in the far right background of the shot:

Obviously the film’s title refers to her.

Read Full Post »

dino dollAs I argued in my last post, Jurassic World is largely built around showing its audience things from the first film. Some people have told me that there’s nothing wrong with those references—that the new film is just an homage. I don’t deny that it pays homage, but I don’t agree that it’s OK.

I have no inherent problem with nostalgia—it’s a powerful emotion that I’ve explored in my own work. But the problem with Jurassic World is how it goes about treating that nostalgia. By and large, the filmmakers simply took things from the first Jurassic Park and dumped them into their film, rarely bothering doing anything more with them.

To cite but one example, think about how much work went into putting that 10,000 volts sign in Jurassic World, during an action sequence. Some crew members had to make the sign, the fence. They had to make it look dingy. Other crew members had to go film it. All this took time and money. (Nothing in a film is free and none of it winds up in the finished movie on accident.) Someone then had to edit that shot into the film so it didn’t disrupt the flow of the action, but instead provided a little boost—the boost of nostalgic recognition—to the sequence.

In my previous post, I counted at least forty-two of these references or homages or whathaveyou to the original Jurassic Park. That is on average roughly one every three minutes. (Minus credits, it’s more like one every two and a half minutes.) Those references, plus the CGI dinosaur mayhem, are the true content of Jurassic World. That is where all the time and money and effort and attention went. This is why the writing and the characterization in the movie are so poor, why the direction is so flat and devoid of tension—the money went to CGI and scattering familiar props throughout the movie. The filmmakers knew what people would pay to see. The kids got the dino action. Their parents got the nostalgia.

The original JP delighted kids and adults alike because it was thrilling. It used its formal elements concisely and economically to create the sense real people were in peril. The 10,000 volts fence provided one of the tensest action sequences: will Timmy finish crossing it before Ellie Sattler flips the switch restoring power? Prior to that, the night-vision goggles were a crucial part of the T. Rex attack scene, and used for one of the funnier jokes in the film:

Gennaro: “Are they heavy?”
Timmy: “Yes.”
Gennaro: “Then they’re expensive. Put ’em back.”

A few minutes later, Timmy uses those goggles to see the goat is missing.

Spielberg knew how to use the elements of a scene to simultaneously craft exposition, character, action. When John Hammond sits there all alone eating the melting ice cream, we understand at once that he’s a grown-up little kid who can’t believe how his plans are now melting all around him. It’s a wonderfully compact expression of that character, and part of its emotional power (pathos) comes from how elegantly it’s rendered. It also grows logically out other actions: Nedry turned the power off, and there are so many tubs of ice cream, so many flavors, because Hammond “spared no expense.” There’s nothing like that in Jurassic World, which is why the film ultimately fails as a tribute to Jurassic Park. It references the original endlessly, but it doesn’t embody its spirit.

One of my favorite moments in the original JP comes right after the scene where Alan Grant and Lex and Timmy have escaped from the T. Rex, and taken shelter in a tree—evading predators just like our hominid ancestors. Grant throws his fossilized raptor claw on the ground, and Spielberg cuts from that to a closeup of a Brachiosaurus doll. It’s a brilliant juxtaposition: we humans made toys out of dinosaurs, convinced ourselves via science that we were nature’s masters—but now we’re back up in the tree again, prey to nature. (This is a theme that runs throughout Spielberg’s work. See, for instance, my recent post on how Raiders of the Lost Ark is organized around Indy’s realization that there is a force—God—far greater than science.)

That plush doll reappears toward the end of Jurassic World, a toy on a wall in a souvenir stand during the dino finale. It isn’t doing anything; it’s just … there. And it’s sad to see those previous props and elements, once so skillfully employed, now simply scattered about, pretty pearls of nostalgia on a string, affording nothing but cheap frissons of recognition.

Read Full Post »

Jurassic world parkThe makers of Jurassic World worked very hard to repeatedly reference the first Jurassic Park. What follows is a list of what could be called either “callbacks” or “homages.” (Spoiler warning, obviously.)


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: