Six Degrees Saturday

You know the drill: connect Kevin Bacon to the selected actor in six degrees or less. Each movie in-between is one degree. Today is:




Judge Reinhold- 4 moves




Last week's solution: Tim Curry- The Hunt For Red October- Alec Baldwin- It's Complicated- Meryl Streep-The River Wild- Kevin Bacon

The Lost Art of Sound-tracking

     Once upon a time, a film contained music, either current or past, but whatever the choice, it was placed in the film for the same reason a score was, to help tell the story. Songs were carefully selected and were relevant to the particular scene in which they were played. This was particularly true in the eighties, when the song selection not only enhanced the movie watching experience, but in may instances helped move the story along or develop characters, resulting almost in a musical. These were mostly found in movies that were about music, or dancing. Think about those movies for minute: Dirty Dancing, Footloose, Iron Eagle, and Girls Just Wanna Have Fun, to name a few. This was the most extreme form of sound-tracking, but it gave those who didn't like traditional musicals (perhaps due to their inherent cheesiness) a feel for the genre, by making a musical that is actually realistic.

   These days, soundtracks contain mainly background music, more of an aesthetic than an actual functional tool. But back in the eighties, when the birth of the mix tape changed the face of music forever, movie producers were mixing it as well. Take for example Iron Eagle. That movie's soundtrack served just as an important role as it's score. If we look at the scene when the kids are running around the base stealing the information for their secret mission and taking on authority, could there have been a better choice of music than Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It? It serves the same function of a classic movie score, in that it is meant to let us know that what is going on is a form of rebellion. Another example is Gimme' Some Lovin' by The Spencer Davis Group. In the same way that the Opening Chase Scene music score from Indian Jones and the Last Crusade told us someone was trying to get away from something, this song let us know that things are starting to heat up. They both serve the same purpose and while it is very commendable and without comparison when a composer can convey these emotions without words, sometimes a pop hit does the job better for a specific movie or scene, if only because we can relate more to it.

     The popularity and relatability of the art of sound-tracking can perhaps be attributed to the common practice of mix-taping that also started in the 80's. The flexibility of making playlists with whatever songs you wanted resulted in everyone making their own soundtracks for day to day use. This made it so that sound-tracking was just the next natural step for movies as everyone could now relate to it. In other words, Kevin Bacon wasn't the only person mixing up songs on his cassettes. To this day, and now more than ever, mixing is the most common practice for listening to music. We do it on our I-Pods and smartphones, and there are even apps and websites that allow you to make playlists and listen to them without even buying the songs. We don't call it that today, but this is mix-taping at its heart.

     I think that sound-tracking, like mix-taping, was a skill and an art form that seems to have been lost, both in cinema and real life. In real life because while twenty years ago we had to pick just 15 songs for total portability as opposed to the hundreds we can can now fit in an I-Pod, and in cinema because music just isn't what it used to be anymore. 80's music was a soundtrack to life, and that was translated onscreen because the movies of the period were much more realistic and relatable than they are today. That's what made 80's entertainment so great, but that's for another post.

Movie Quotes Mondays

Today's Quote comes from 1965's The Sound of Music. Featured in the quote are Christopher Plummer as Captain von Trapp and Richard Haydn as Max.

(Right to left, Christopher Plummer, Richard Haydn, Eleanor Parker, and Daniel Truhitte)

Max: What's going to happen's going to happen. Just make sure it doesn't happen to you.

Captain von Trapp: Max. Don't you EVER say that again!

Max: You know I have no political convictions. Can I help it if other people do?

Captain von Trapp: Oh yes, you can help it! You must help it.

Six Degrees Saturday

You know the drill: connect Kevin Bacon to the selected actor in six degrees or less. Each movie in between is one degree. Today is:


Tim Curry-3 moves



Last week's solution: Dennis Quaid- Innerspace- Meg Ryan- You've Got Mail- Tom Hanks- Apollo 13- Kevin Bacon

5 of the Best Animated Characters

     It seems that animation has been having a hard time getting credit where it's due, although recently, it has been gaining momentum. For some reason, we have become more comfortable with the idea of even giving an animated film the honor of best picture at the Academy Awards. If you stop to think about it, the only reason this is being done is because the vast majority of blockbusters are already mostly computer generated anyways, and that is also the current format for animated features. I could go into an entire article discussing the merits and downfall that CGI brings to the animation genre, but that is for another time. Right now, I want to look at my favorite characters from cartoons. Now, my list is not about which characters I love best best due to their characterization, but rather the effectiveness and creativity of the animation itself, and how effectively it tells us what we need to know about them, so please keep that in mind as you read the list. Some are obscure characters, sometimes just thrown in without any real character development, but that only makes the necessity for effective animation all the more present. These are characters designed so that when you look at them, you know all there is to know about them. So, without further ado, here is my list of my five favorite animated characters, in no particular order.

Kaa/Sher Khan (The Jungle Book)
     The Jungle Book is a beloved Disney classic with memorable characters, music, and dialogue. But among all that greatness, lies one of my favorite characters of all time, animated or otherwise. Kaa is a villain, but he isn't evil. His motivation is pure survival, so while we classify him as villain because he wants to eat Mowgli, he really isn't. This is one of the reasons scholars use the term antagonist, or someone who is causing some kind of trouble for the main character. Kaa fits this description much better than that of villain. I like Kaa because he is intelligent, seductive, and seemingly nonthreatening. Unlike Sher Khan, the film's main villain, he doesn't go around parading his claws and teeth or threatening people. He's just kind of there and
while he is a snake, he doesn't appear to pose a threat to anyone. So much in fact, that when Mowgli first sees him, he just dismisses him. This comes across in the animation. He is big, but you never see his full size all at once, only in sections, and he is smooth and speaks seductively in a hardly threatening tone. Another thing that makes you love him is how playful he is. Even after he's already got Mowgli in his grasp, he just keeps on singing with him and playing with a hypnotized boy. It's pretty disturbing if you stop to think about it, but Kaa's gentle nature comes through the animation as well as one of Sterling Holloway's best voice work. Sher Khan, on the other hand, is a very sinister villain and it's brought out in every thing animated about him, his facial expression, retractable claws, and the cool, sneaky nature of the way he walks. My favorite thing about these two characters, and why I list them together, is the scene were they meet up and talk about Mowgli, Sher Kahn suspecting Kaa has him and Kaa trying to keep his lunch. They are complete opposites in their methodology and the entire conversation is actually quite civil and proper, only adding to the sinister nature of Sher Kahn, and the comparative peaceful nature of Kaa, and the differences come out in their facial expressions and body language.

The Crocodile (Peter Pan)

(Looking at the audience while following Hook)

(His first appearance)

     I like Kaa because he is the all around best, in his animation AND dialogue. but it is hard to make the case that there is a character that relies so much in animation and is perfectly executed as well as the crocodile. He doesn't speak a word, nor does he make any sound to let us know what he is thinking. it is conveyed solely through his body language and never has it been done so perfectly. They were able to give us a crocodile that in many ways acts like a real crocodile, but blended it perfectly with his abilities as a cartoon character. From the time we first see him, the crocodile already let's us know all he is about: eating. And not just eating, but eating Captain Hook and nothing else. In the Skull Rock scene, we see him him break the fourth wall and look at the audience to kind of wink at us and show us his excitement (and his plans) as he's following Hook across the lagoon and into the cave. In the cave, we see how he is more than capable of catching something else if he wanted to. He just throws aside the life boat like it's nothing to try to catch his favorite meal. We must also look carefully at his expressions during the final fight sequence in the movie. They range from excitement, to disappointed, to annoyed. He slaps the water when he Hook nearly fall from the ship and plays with the water as he's watching Hook and Peter Pan duel on the mast. The combination of the crocodile's silent nature and funny expressions would find itself in another brilliantly animated character, although with not as much effect, in Joanna, from Rescuers Down Under. Like most of the characters in Neverland, the crocodile is static, and doesn't really change throughout the film. He is there as an obstacle, and nothing else.

(Pushing lifeboat aside)

(Slapping water)

(Patiently waiting)

Cheshire Cat (Alice in Wonderland)
     The Cheshire Cat is an interesting character not only because of his animation, but because he seems to be the only one in Wonderland who is actually sane. While it is true that at first glance he seems to be as mad as just about everyone else, his eccentrics seem to be intentional, and he does it for fun. He understands what Alice wants and understands her entire situation even though no one else does (and remember, he acknowledges that everyone is mad, which would imply his sanity). We could even infer that this is his way of coping
with this crazy world he lives in. It would be very unnerving indeed to be the only sane person in a mad world. His animation is effective because he is one of the few characters that doesn't seem to belong to Wonderland, and his disappearing and dismemberments add to the mystery and the idea that he doesn't really belong there. While everything in wonderland is odd and magical, they all seem to have clear boundaries and act like regular humans in the sense of what they can do, they are anthropomorphic in many ways. The rabbit can talk and seems magical at first, but his character acts like a human.The Cheshire Cat acts much like a fairy godmother, but a mischievous one, appearing here and there in Alice's time of need and providing guidance, actual as well as emotional, and sometimes causing her trouble. He only appears briefly, like Kaa, but he is essential to the story, and it doesn't hurt that, like Kaa, Sterling Holloway again lends his voice. His sweet but sinister tone works brilliantly here, just as it would in The Jungle Book years later.

Chef Skinner (Ratatouille)
     OK, it's true that the majority of characters on my list are villains and minor characters but there is a reason they the most effectively animated characters. Villains and minor characters don't get as much screen-time and attention, so they must be effective in conveying as much information about their character as possible in a short amount of time. Chef Skinner is a perfect example of this concept, as well as being detailed to boot in his expression. He was drawn abnormally short, and probably intentionally, to give him a Napoleon complex. His height, or lack thereof, though never mentioned openly, is demonstrated throughout the film. He keeps step ladders throughout the kitchen so that he can reach the windows and counters, and as his hands go one over the other like a ladder when he is rebuking Linguine, it is a perfect demonstration of his realism as well as believability in respect to his actual abilities. Just watch the scene at the 12 second mark.

While he is short, it does not interfere with his abilities. He is still intelligent and to make it to the position he had under Chef Gusteau as sous chef requires great culinary knowledge and skill indeed. This intelligence is also brought out in the animation, for while he is stern and rude at times, you can see in his face how he is carefully planning and scheming.

Baloo the bear (The Jungle Book)

     Tell me, if you can, if there is an animated character whose look, style, movements, and voice match a character's personality as well as Baloo? His life motto is to look for the "bare necessities", and his entire body language reeks of this lifestyle, from the way that he walks to his calm nature. Baloo the bear is animation at its best, because his drawings capture the character perfectly. A lot of the animation in The Jungle Book is actually on par with Baloo and I think it may be one of the most effectively animated films of all time for that very reason. Look at the way he walks all slouched and his facial expressions are that of an extremely calm and patient character without a care in the world. He doesn't even have to talk and you already know all you need to know just by watching him.

     Well, those are my favorites. Do you agree? I hope this list has helped you see animation in a new light, with a greater appreciation of the animation process and the effectiveness that we take for granted these days.

Original vs. Remake: The Parent Trap

Original

Remake

         

 VS.

     Ah, yes, The Parent Trap, Haley Mills at the height of her popularity. They just couldn't get enough of her in those days, so they cast her twice! On the flip side, though, we have the remake starring Lindsay Lohan in her first role, and as it is with all remakes, we just can't help but wonder which one is better. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and while they share the same plot, they are very different from one another.The original scores points for screenplay and casting while the remake wins on the elaboration of the story. However, the fact that it is so elaborate, is what makes me hate it even more. They spent all that time dwelling on the characters without making us believe that the parents hated each other. By the time the movie was over, I stayed wondering just why it was their marriage didn't work out at first. It was really hard for me to believe that he would even let her leave his house and go back to England without putting up a fight. Whereas, in the original, two minutes after seeing each other they are already on each other's throats and ready to kill one another. Maureen O'Hara even punches Brian Keith in the eye in the middle of an argument. I guess that in the end, the original had passion and the remake did not. In fact, Dennis Quaid and Natasha Richardson don't even have one argument in the entire film!

     As I mentioned, the screenplay for the original was much better, and moves at a much faster pace. This is, after all, a movie about shenanigans and hi-jinks, and the pace and tone are appropriate for what they wanted to accomplish, and they were still able to maintain the romantic aspect of the film. The new one was turned into a bit of a drama and prolonged the movie excessively and unnecessarily, particularly the summer camp. The biggest problem with the screenplay, however is something that nearly all modern films, remake or otherwise, suffer from, and that is a lack of intelligent and witty writing. the comedy was more real and ironic in the original, and while the remake does a better job than most modern films, it still falls way short in comparison to the original.

     While the new Parent Trap does a surprisingly good job at casting, it too falls short of the original's. I already discussed the parents' casting choice as well as the twins' but I wanted to take a look at the supporting cast. The housekeeper on the original is beyond reproach as is the grandfather. In the remake, they greatly reduce the role the grandfather plays in the scheme to get the parents back together and they give the fancy twin a butler, for no apparent reason other than to create a romantic interest for the housekeeper, which, while cute, adds to the slowing of the pace as well as takes away the focus of the story. As for the grandfather, the original is played by Charles Ruggle, and is a great example of a true supporting actor, and this scene below proves that, as well as the superb quality of screenwriting back in the day.

     The butler, aside from slowing down the pace of the story with his relationship with the housekeeper, also deprives the grandfather of screen-time as well as contribute to reducing his role. I also didn't like the way they made the butler so central to their lives because it made it like Natasha Richardson's character was so dependent on him, as opposed to the strong-willed woman Maureen O'Hara played in the original. People always claim the older Walt Disney movies are anti-feminist but the new ones seem to be worst.

     It is hard to remake a classic, which is why it should be avoided. Yes, there are times when they supersede the original but when you come down to it, classic films almost always have two things that make it superior to modern movies: dialogue and actors. The original Parent Trap wins in both categories with ease. While the new version is one of the best remakes out there when looked at by itself, it simply falls short of what we know it can be: a funny, heartfelt, witty movie with one of the best casts ever assembled and screenplay that would leave the Oscar winners of the past twenty years to shame. Looking back, one could be forgiven for wondering why this movie wasn't nominated for best screenplay, but we must remember, in those days great writing was all in a day's work for Hollywood. Those were the days...

Air America: A Look at a Unique Film

     Air America seems to be mostly a hit and miss movie and most people either love it or hate it. I have found that the haters can't seem to really zero in on what they hate about the film. It was only when I was describing this movie to someone that it all of a sudden dawned on me what makes this movie unique. It seems to me, that the problem with this movie is you never really know if you should be laughing or taking it seriously. I do believe that this was the intention, and for this movie, it certainly works, and it only makes me like it more.


     The movie stars a very young Robert Downey Jr. as Billy Covington, a helicopter pilot who has had his license revoked and is quickly recruited to join the private CIA branch known as Air America, operating out of Laos. Mel Gibson plays the experienced cool talking pilot Gene Ryack who is sort of the unofficial leader of the group and proceeds to take Billy under his wing. The movie looks at the lives that these insane pilots followed. Just look at the picture above and it tells you all you need to know. Weary pilots, air drops, explosions, smoking airplanes, arms running, drug dealing, all in a day's work for the pilots at Air America.

     As a movie, Air America is action-packed, humor-filled, and brilliantly cast. This is one of those genre-bridging films that works as a serious look at the CIA's illegal involvement in a war, as well as the action of airdrops in a war zone, and a comedic look at the craziest pilots in that part of the world. As with most genre-bridging movie, not only the cast, but the screenplay is what makes it work. The speech is real and believable, and everyone seems to fit the period and setting, from Mel Gibson to Art LaFleur. no one really seems out of place, and even when things are bleak, they all seem to be enjoying themselves, which goes along with the story as well as the film's tagline, The Few, The Proud, The Totally Insane. Just thinking of the scene of Mel Gibson giving Robert Downey Jr. a ride with "Rescue Me" in the background proves this, as well as never failing to put a smile on your face.

     I think that the problem with this movie's lack of a pop culture status is merely because it is unknown and not the most accessible of films. It is a real shame that more people don't appreciate it, and while most have heard of it, not as many have seen it. In terms of writing, I'll go as far as saying it's almost on par with Lethal Weapon, and I can't imagine any fan of that series not enjoying the fun-filled Air America. As a bit of trivia, you may remember that the drug dealers in the first Lethal Weapon were former members of the company, and if you want to go further and imagine that Gene is actually Martin Riggs' secret identity, it makes it even more fun, and Gene's character is definitely on par with what a young Riggs might be. But all kidding aside, Air America is without a doubt a movie worth your time, for all the antics, jokes, and action, it's just plain old Hollywood fun.

New Page, Check It Out!

The Different Types of Sequels
     These days, a successful movie is almost guaranteed a sequel, sometimes before the movie is even released. Sometimes sequels are inevitable, and other times they are merely a cheap way to make more money. In this guide, I'll attempt to demonstrate and identify the many different types of sequels, as well as whether or not they merited from the beginning.

   Sequels are made for many reasons despite the obvious monetary factor. There are different types of sequels that are made with different purposes. Sometimes sequels are made to continue a story, and sometimes they are made to merely place the same character in a different situation, or they retell the story in a different setting. For the purposes of this article, I will place series together with sequels when the sequels at least follow the characters from the previous entry. For example, the Indiana Jones movies do not technically have sequels, but they are a series, because the stories are not in any way continuous. You could watch any one of them and not even know there were others. The same holds true for movies such as Mission: Impossible and The Expendables, just to name a few. There are also sequels that were already planned from the beginning and that finish an incomplete story, and are required. An example of this would be Back to the Future, with it's open ending of the first one, or The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Then there are the sequels that continue a story, and while they may have been unnecessary due to the closure received in the first one or previous entry, they provide further plot and character development. An example of a finished movie receiving a sequel would be Taken. That movie was finished, and could've been left at that, but due to its success, a sequel was made, and then another. It's not that this was bad, but just done for other reasons than necessity. (Keep Reading)

Movie Quotes Monday

Today's Quote is from 2003's Scary Movie 3, featuring Anna Faris as Cindy

Cindy: But there's a holiday coming up. Do you count the holiday?
Tabitha's Voice: Well, that depends. What holiday?
Cindy: Martin Luther King Day.
Tabitha's Voice: Then no.
Cindy: Why not? Everybody at work is taking it off.
Tabitha's Voice: Jesus Christ, lady. I'm giving you seven friggin' days. I can come over now and kill the shit out of you if you'd rather have that.

Six Degrees Saturday

You know the drill: connect Kevin Bacon to the selected actor in six degrees or less. Each movie in between is one degree. Today is:



Dennis Quaid: 3 Moves





Last week's solution: Jamie Lee Curtis- Trading Places- Dan Aykroyd- The Blues Brothers- John Belushi- Animal House- Kevin Bacon

Original Vs. Remake: The War of the Worlds (1953 vs. 2005)

(1953)

(2005)

VS.

     The War of the Worlds will perhaps forever remain famous not because of any film adaptation, but because of the classic novel on which it is based and the infamous 1938 radio broadcast. It is difficult to say which one of these two films is better as they are both a product of their respective times, and they both have serious issues that need to be addressed when evaluating them. As a classic sci-fi film, the original War of the Worlds is perhaps one of the best ones out there given the period in which it was released. It may be unfair to call Steven Spielberg's 2005 go at the classic novel a remake as they took their cues most likely from the original source material as opposed to the 1953 classic, but the original 1953 film is considered by so many to be the ultimate H. G. Wells adaptation, that it has become the standard for which all others must be measured.

     The 1953 version has been showing its age for quite some time now. While it did win the Academy Awards for special effects, that was in another time. I'm not suggesting that the award was unmerited, neither am I saying one can't appreciate practical effects in our world of CGI. Far from it, I'm merely acknowledging a barrier that modern audiences would have for enjoying this classic masterpiece. The effects were state-of-the-art for its time and compared to other films of its era, it holds up quite well. No one can take that away from the 1953 version, it was the best they could offer, and the decision to change the tri-pods to saucers due to their inability to realistically create them was ingenious and innovative.

     This brings us to the 2005 version, which, after a mere ten years, already seems ancient. Worse than that, the movie as a whole is entirely underwhelming in scope. The biggest disappointment of this is that we have Steven Spielberg at the helm, and, being one of the greatest directors of our age, failed to capture the essence of the story and failed to take advantage of the resources available to him. In 1953, although to us the effects seem cheap, they were the best they had to offer. Camera tricks to add awe and suspense were a necessity as they weren't able to create the kind of effects we can today. The novel is one of the most detailed pieces ever written and no description is spared, so to avoid showing details in this day and age just for suspense is cheap and lazy. Jurassic Park proved that we can have suspense without sacrificing detail, and with a story of this magnitude, Spielberg should definitely had gone the path of Jurassic Park as opposed to Jaws, when there was no technology and they had to rely on camera shots to create suspense.

     Aside from the lack of details that were absent from the 2005 version, I think what bothers me most about this version is how they totally screwed up the climax of the story, and I do mean TOTALLY! If you remember the movie, you remember that what killed the alien invaders after all our technology failed, was the littlest creatures that "God in his wisdom" placed on Earth. That's all fine dandy and holds true to the source material. Where I take issue, however, is how they portray the aliens as idiotic. In the 2005 version, the one thing that is different from any other version, novel included, is that the aliens had buried their giant machines millions of years ago and waited for the peak of civilization to attack. The problem with this, is that if they had indeed mastered interplanetary travel millions of years ago, it only stands to logic that they would be a little bit familiar with the concept of contamination and biological exchange between two separate societies. They had already come to Earth before and were planning this for so long, I think it would be a safe bet that they would have noticed that the composition on Earth was different and anticipated the different bacteria that existed on an alien planet. They wouldn't just come in and start eating us without even thinking about it. In the novel, Mars is dying, and the invasion is a desperate attempt to ensure their survival, something of a last ditch effort, not planned for  hundreds of millenia.

     I usually address casting and screenplay in these types of reviews and while the 2005 version has a decent one with a great cast, it wasn't really memorable, with the exception of Tim Robbins' performance, and the original didn't have much going for it in this field anyway. I would, however, like to talk a bit more on the failed opportunity that was Spielberg's endeavor. As I mentioned, the novel is extremely detailed and leaves very little to the imagination, so it is a little insulting to not show the audiences all the details of the aliens. I'll concede that Spielberg did a fantastic job on detail in showing the destruction and havoc the aliens wreak, but it fell short on telling the audiences about the aliens themselves. the novel goes into great detail about this, everything from anatomy, eating habits, and their history. All of this is absent in the movie. I think people who had never read the book would be interested to know that the aliens suck blood because their digestive systems are evolved and more sophisticated, and that they were once humanoids.

     In conclusion, I think the 1953 version clearly wins, if for no other reason than they gave it their best. It seems like they were playing it safe with the 2005 remake and I can't imagine why. Spielberg had everything at his disposal, but I really think he failed to read the novel and relied on a summary of the action without the science. We expected science fiction, but what he gave us instead was a horror movie, and one with multiple plot holes at that. I can now, having later read the novel, appreciate the 2005 version because the details that were left out remain in the back of my mind, allowing me to ignore their omission from the film, but if you rely on the 2005 version of the story as your sole exposre to Wells' classic, you are truly missing out, because Spielberg filed to deliver. You can't build your fame as director who knows how to balance visual with suspense and drama and then give the audience something like War of the Worlds in the way Steven Spielberg did. It was not only a slap in the face of the fans of H. G. Wells' classic novel, but Spielberg's own fans as well. In hindsight, everyone still loves Jaws and appreciates the director's wisdom of acknowledging his limitations and relying on suspense instead of effects for that film. But in 2005, there was no excuse for not showing us details and the fact that it was directed by Spielberg, only makes it worse, because it could have been so much better, especially given the fact that this movie was released just three short years after his amazing Minority Report. But there was something good that came out from that movie, it inspired me to read the book. Having watched 2002's The Time Machine a few years earlier and loving it, I was expecting the science in War of the Worlds to be on par with that film. I remember leaving the theater a puzzled teenager saying to myself "I can't believe someone who wrote something as brilliant as The Time Machine writing such garbage!" When I finally read the book a couple of years later I knew where to put the blame, and it wasn't H. G. Wells. As it turns out, the greatest Science Fiction director of the 20th and 21st century has nothing on the greatest Science Fiction author of the 19th century. What's funny is you would think that given our advanced knowledge it would be a no-brainer to come up with a well thought out science fiction story on par with those of 120 years ago. Steven Spielberg proved that this is not (always) the case...

Movie Quote Mondays

Today's quote is a phrase to live by from one of my favorite Disney villains of all time, Professor Ratigan, voiced by the one and only Vincent Price in The Great Mouse Detective:

                      (To Mr. Flaversham) "See what you can do with the proper motivation?"

Six Degrees Saturday

You know the drill: connect Kevin Bacon to the selected actor in six degrees or less. Each movie in between is one degree. Today is:



Jamie Lee Curtis - Three moves




Last Week's Solution: Bruce Willis - Red- Morgan Freeman- Shawshank Redemption- Tim Robbins- Mystic River- Kevin Bacon

Movie Franchises That Strayed From Their Original Vision

     We all love a good movie, and sometimes we are blessed with a sequel, or sequels that manage to recreate what we love about the original, or even surpass it. But more often than not, we are stuck with a series that goes far beyond their original purpose, and while many times it is for the better, it can also be for the worst. What follows is a short list of franchises that have gone astray from their original vision, and no, not all of them have necessarily churned out inferior films, but they all have lost the charm of the original.

The Fast and the Furious

What started as a look into the world of underground racing, has evolved into one of the most long-running action franchises in history. Whether this was for better or worse, is a matter of opinion, but it would be hard to make the argument that a shift in gears (no pun intended) in the series hasn't taken place since the release of 2 Fast 2 Furious. Tokyo Drift tried to restore the series to its roots and I think it is an underrated film. Had they had a higher budget, I think it would have been extremely successful, and totally changed the tone of the more recent entries in the series. I don't really have a gripe about the newer Fast and Furious entries, it just seems to me that they are like any other action film and are becoming more and more cliche. Another issue I have with this franchise is the amount of belief one must suspend to actually enjoy the movie. The first movie asked us to merely suspend our belief, which is the case with all movies, but from the second one on, they started taking belief and throwing it out the window, and by the time we got to the fifth entry in the series, believability was nowhere to be seen. While it is notable that The Fast and the Furious movies have been more commercially successful than ever lately, the excitement, mystery, and romantic notions of the world of underground racing introduced in the first one have all but vanished. With its budget and star power bigger than ever, you can't argue that the film quality of these later entries are better than the first one, but they are totally lacking what made us fall in love with the franchise in the first place.

Rush Hour

Rush Hour is not a comedy action movie, but an action movie with humor. It achieved a balance of humor and action not seen since the likes of Beverley Hills Cop, nor since. The chemistry between Jackie Chan as Inspector Lee from Hong Kong and Chris Tucker as Detective Carter form the LAPD was perhaps the best cop pairing since Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon. Rush Hour 2 had basically nothing going for it, just dwelling on Lee's depression over trying to solve a case involving the man he thinks killed his father. They focused on that side of the drama a little too much and Chis Tucker's Carter is just kind of there, not really contributing much to the story, and it's just not funny. they took an action movie and turned it into a comedy, but didn't bother to write humor into the script, at least not funny humor. The third was better because the jokes were at least funny, but the thing is, the first one didn't really have any jokes at all, that's what made it funny, the realism and finding humor in a serious situation, not trying to manufacture it like they did in the second and third. And while Rush Hour 3 was a definite step up from the second, able to at least match the humor of the first, it likewise was unable to replicate the semi-serious tone that made the first one a legitimate action film, as well as failing in character development, by continuing to cast Carter as the idiot, instead of the fast talking cool and totally competent detective portrayed in the first one.

Terminator

The first Terminator played like a horror movie, whereas Judgement Day and onward made the leap to a legitimate action and science fiction franchise. This wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but given the quality of the Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, I'm sure everyone wishes they would've just stopped at two, it was a perfect pairing, kind of like Richard Donner's first two Superman movies. Terminator: Salvation didn't do much for the franchise either, resulting in a dull, boring story about the apocalypse. We can hope the reboot will restore a bit of what made the original great, but I wouldn't count on it. It looks like it's taking its cue from Judgement Day, while telling the story of the first one. It will make it at least decent action film, but far from the horror tone of the first one, and while we all love Judgement Day, it would've been nice to go back to the horror roots that was the original, if for no other reason than variety. But in all honesty, I don't think it would work, and I'm not really complaining that the Terminator series took the shift with Judgement Day, which is far superior to the original in so many ways, I'm just upset that the quality of the films haven't been as good since.

Die Hard

You have to admit that it's hard to make an action movie feel "Christmasy", and I'm sure the idea was even laughable back in the day, but Die Hard did it not once, but twice, and they were both amazing! What makes it work, of course, is the screenplay and the actors. Like every successful franchise that becomes immortal, it is the believability and relatability that makes it memorable. John McClane is an everyday kind of person and while he does extraordinary things, he isn't the kind of big action hero like Arnold Schwarzenegger. We root for John because we all hope we could be like him in that situation. He does what needs to be done, not because he wants to, but because he can and must. The story of his life is he's just always "the wrong guy, at the wrong place, at the wrong time!" The first two were great, and while the third one was a good action film, it lacked the tone of its predecessors. I think the secret to the series was the confinement factor that played a pivotal role in parts one and two, the tower in the first and the airport in the second, as well as the plot revolving around him trying to save his wife (with the added bonus of him trying to save his marriage in the first one). They tried to bring back one part for the fourth one, making him save his daughter, but that was only introduced more than halfway into the film and it wasn't the driving force in the movie. It also made the leap of turning him into a full blown hero by making him do impossible things. That's what made the first ones so great. He did the improbable, but totally possible, so you were willing to suspend you belief slightly and enjoy the film. As for the fifth one, let's just forget THAT ever happened, and we'll all be happier for it.

Men in Black

When the original Men in Black came out, it was just unlike anything we had ever seen. it had action, comedy, and science fiction, starring the up and coming Will Smith fresh out of Independence Day and the great Tommy Lee Jones. The first one played like a cop buddy/mentor film with a science fiction setting and it just worked, mostly because the actors were able to not take themselves too seriously and yet not make it completely laughable. The second Men in Black already started to stray but it kept the wonder and mystery of the first and tried to replicate the buddy element by having Will Smith having to restore Tommy Lee Jones' memory, although it wasn't really successful in terms of restoring the charm of the original. I don't think anyone really liked Men in Black II, but let's face it, at least it stayed true to form. The third one was infinitely better, but it is hard to argue that it didn't completely stray from the tone of the first one. But, given the results of the second, I'm not sure that was a bad thing. It did give us character similar to a cop buddy film, but the tone and feeling didn't really come through for me, and while Josh Brolin did an amazing job playing the younger Tommy Lee Jones, it was very different from the first. This isn't a bad thing, but just another example how, for better or worse, series change.

Indiana Jones

If there's one thing that they should have learned from Temple of Doom it was that the biblical aspect and theme was good for the series. We all thought they learned their lesson by making The Last Crusade, but evidently this was not the case, as they came up with an more absurd premise for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: Aliens! They should have known that was gonna be DOA from the beginning, but I guess not. While admittedly it, like Temple of Doom, at least got the characterization right, we still can't help but laugh at the absurdity of the film as a whole. At least Temple of Doom gave us a grounded premise. Once again, the creators of the film took us from suspending belief to throwing it out the window, which is usually how franchises begin to fail and stray. There are talks of a new Indiana Jones film, but how I hope those are just rumors. I can't take another Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and I don't think anyone else can either.

Mission: Impossible

This is one that didn't really stray from form or vision, but more from style and feel. The first one was a traditional spy thriller perfectly coupled with an action movie, but not so much action that you forget the whole movie is about espionage. The only one that went really overboard was the second one, but they did a good job at erasing that one from memory. I guess where the problem lies in the series as it currently stands is the grandiose nature of the movies. They are good, really good, but sometimes they feel a little impersonal compared to the first one. In all honesty, I don't really think it could have been avoided in this case. You can only tell an origin story once and that's basically what the first one was. They ran a great danger in losing control of the series with John Woo's sequel, but they worked very hard on returning to the series' roots in the third, and Ghost Protocol is one of the best action movies in years. This is one of the few that changed for the better rather than for the worse, but I feel they run a danger if they continue with the series of becoming cliche. The stories are by their very nature somewhat redundant, much like the James Bond series, and even Indiana Jones. They are not really sequels, but a collection of stories following the same characters in their civil servant jobs. Their work just happens to be a bit more interesting than delivering the mail.

Pirates of the Caribbean

This is one that actually really angers me because the sequels made a radical change in direction and it seems to be for no other reason than pure profit. If you stop to think about it, Curse of the Black Pearl plays out like any traditional pirate film, with the added concept of cursed pirates. If we were to ignore the curse aspect, the movie would still work, and it would be a great movie. The plot of the film is not dependent on the curse, it merely enhances the story and makes it a little more unique than the traditional pirates searching for buried treasure story-line, but at its heart, that is what the movie is about. Parts two and three, aside from being completely unrealistic and idiotic, plays nothing like a pirate film. This franchise is another example of how they took a grounded film and suspended belief to the point of absurdity. the difference is how fast and how bad things got. On Stranger Tides did do a lot to restore the spirit of the franchise and its main problem isn't so much the supernatural premise, as it works well without it, but the fact that the main character was Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbosa, and Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow fell by the wayside. It is still, however, a far superior film to parts 2 and 3 in every way.

     This list is by no means all inclusive. There are other franchises that have strayed from their original path, for better or worse. This is more often than not the natural path for a series to take and they are often done to avoid repetition and we shouldn't be too quick to judge the quality of the film just because they don't follow the trend of its predecessor. But it is worthwhile to note when a beloved franchise has abandoned it's roots, and useful to recognize when and why, and whether or not it was for the better.

Movie Quotes Monday

Today's quote is from 1983's Trading Places starring Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy. Featured in this quote, are Murphy as Billy Ray, and Paul Gleason as Clarence Beeks.

Billy Ray: [posing as "Nenge Mboko," an exchange student from Cameroon] Merry New Year!

Beeks: That's "happy." In this country we say "Happy New Year."

Billy Ray: Oh, ho, ho, thank you for correcting my English which stinks!

RIP Edward Herrmann

     In a horrible way to end 2014, Edward Herrmann has passed away at 71 on December 31. He leaves us movie fans a great legacy, as he was a very diverse actor, and wile he may not have been a leading man, he always managed to make the films he worked on a little bit better. There are many to choose from, and while I'm sure as the new Annie hits theaters our memory is drawn to his performance as president Franklin Roosevelt in the original Annie, my favorite has always been the Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn fare Overboard, in which he plays the husband of a rich New York socialite on vacation in Oregon, and when his wife falls overboard and is washed ashore with amnesia, he seizes the opportunity to enjoy life a little. He will be missed, and below I offer you a sampling of his performance as Grant Stayton III in Overboard, a true gem of a film and one I highly recommend if you've never seen it.

"I love LA! I love all my little Starlets!"

Six Degrees Saturday

You know the drill: connect Kevin Bacon to the selected actor in six degrees or less. Each movie in between is one degree. This week is:


Bruce Willis: Three Degrees.


Last week's solution: Kevin Bacon- A Few Good Men-Tom Cruise- Days of Thunder- Randy Quaid- Hard Rain- Christian Slater- Broken Arrow- John Travolta.