It’s got everything against it:

1) It’s a silent movie 2) in black and white 3) with no-name lead actors, 4) no special effects, 5) a title that oozes pretension, 6) … and it’s French! And now the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has to come along and drive the final nail in the coffin, nominating it for 10 Oscars.

Add up all these ingredients and you have the perfect recipe for the dullest, snootiest movie ever, right? That’s the trouble with selling people on “The Artist.”

Normal, non-pretentious people, that is, who don’t think sitting through a black and white movie is a badge of honor, like an artistic Purple Heart (the snob’s version of “taking one for the team”: watching a long, boring movie so you can tell your friends about it).

And that title?  It should have been called “The Comedian.” Or “The Entertainer.” Anything but “The Artist” (that’s “Artiste” in French — mon Dieu!). (more…)

There are a number of individuals and institutions whose opinions are worthy of respect when it comes to the choosing of our Great American Films. Overall, though, I do find the idea of appointed and/or self-appointed deciders on such matters more than a little arrogant. In the end, taste really is subjective. For instance, some find “Black Swan” a landmark work in the history cinematic storytelling, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong in finding it slightly less interesting than my computer screensaver. However, I could be proven wrong. What say you and I revisit the subject in about 10 years? Because there is an arbiter on such matters I don’t argue with.

For my money, there’s simply no better film critic than Father Time. I’m talking about a list of films so beloved and cherished they’ve managed to withstand the onslaught of decades, an endless supply of competition (even in the form of remakes), and in some cases, a withering critical assault. And yet, through it all, these particular titles have managed to hold on to enough hearts in order to stay as alive and vital today as when they were first released — and in some cases even more so. These are the ones worthy of, say, a Blu-ray release.

This isn’t to say I always agree with Father Time. But when I disagree, I tend to respect the film regardless of my own opinion. For instance, Kubrick’s “2001” and Scorsese’s “Raging Bull” are part of my DVD collection, two films I periodically screen hoping to understand what all the hub-bub’s about. (Still no luck).

I call it “The Father Time Canon” and the qualification for entry has nothing to do with box office grosses or critical opinion. Hundreds of movies have been produced every year for almost a century now and so there’s only so much room on a television schedule and in the Walmart cut-out bin to decide which is worthy. Essentially, that’s the free market doing what it does best: through the democratic process of giving free people the freedom to choose, we discover which Hollywood offerings, regardless of how they were received upon release, still fire our imaginations.

(more…)

It must be the pro-military slant. There’s not a lot of other reasons I can think of why critics have been so eager to trash “Battle: Los Angeles,” a hybrid of “Black Hawk Down,” “District 9,” and “Independence Day” that incredibly manages to crib mostly the best parts of the three. It’s not as thematically sophisticated as the former two, true, though it’s easy to marvel at the ability of critics to selectively decide that one piece of slam-bang entertainment is worthy of our attention, then turn and denounce another as worthless for its lack of “useful” subtext.  

In a role that will have many an important casting director take note, Aaron Eckhart stars as SSgt. Nantz, a battle-hardened Marine who finds himself at the epicenter of the Los Angeles front during an alien invasion. His squad, which consists of a number of character types standard to war pic fare (the inexperienced officer, the engaged guy, etc.), in most cases successfully engender sympathy, providing they survive long enough. Many don’t, and die faceless to us, though the sight of Marines being butchered by extra-terrestrial intruders is affecting. The aliens, who never speak a word and clearly have no interest in diplomacy, are a stock sci-fi design of flesh and metal hybrid, but are rendered convincingly, and present serious danger as their lethality is unveiled over the course of the film’s many encounters.

For the sake of foreign grosses (and perhaps the good sensibilities of the average left-wing film critic), pic avoids any outright pro-America patriotism, though its admiration of one of the USA’s most revered institutions is none-too-subtle. Truthfully, this might actually be the most respectful and reverent portrayal of American servicemen since “Black Hawk Down,” certainly light-years away from the extreme pessimism of, well, any military pic about our dual wars. It’s telling of the direction our culture has been steered that scenes depicting Marines engaged in unvarnished heroism are often simply dismissed as shameless and simplistic, though an attentive news reader will find evidence of such bravery occurring daily on the front. When Nantz and squad opts out of an exit late in the film to launch a suicidal attack on the alien fortress, it’s in fact one of many moving, unironic moments that draw attention to the risks taken by those in uniform. Detractors may sneer at this as fiction, though consider a scene in the aforementioned “Black Hawk Down” that sees two Delta Force operators volunteer their lives to cover a downed chopper crew; that was genuinely real, so, in comparison, how one accuse can the fictional Marines of “Battle: Los Angeles” of bravery manufactured purely as propaganda? 

(more…)

A fight to the death in an urban hell between US Marines and an implacable, evil foe who murders civilians without a second thought – if only Hollywood had the moral courage to tell that story straight, the story of America’s finest who battled to victory over jihadi degenerates in Fallujah and throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.  But Hollywood can’t tell that story, not without exchanging the real menace our men and women are fighting everyday for a horde of CGI space aliens.  Sadly, the industry lacks the moral courage of the men and women it portrays.

Let’s be clear – Battle: Los Angeles is a terrific action film that makes no bones about its pro-American, pro-military agenda.  And that fact has invited carping from the usual suspects, lefty movie critics who work themselves up into a lather over the portrayal of better men than they will ever be.   

And note that when I use the term “men” here, I include the fighting women of the US armed forces – don’t worry, critics:  Heroines like Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester will protect you . . . just move to the rear with the children and try not to get in the way. 

The fact is that science fiction has long been a tool to comment on the present, including the relationship between our warriors and our society.  Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers was a fascinating depiction of military life as well as what the author saw as a degrading, decaying culture.  The Paul Verhoeven film of the same name, though different in tone, had its own insights into military vulture, including coed showers and a machine gun-packing Doogie Howser.

(more…)

If opening night reviews are to be believed, the newest theatre hit of the year may have just premiered in Minneapolis last night.

Conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham has embarked on an ambitious venture that is sure to make most mainstream (left of Karl Marx) theatre critics scratching their heads – if not pulling the hair out of them. In the wake of her best-selling book, “The Obama Diaries” Ingraham has assembled a multi-media stage extravaganza complete with actors playing the roles of the President and First Lady.

I’m looking forward to providing our readers with a first-hand critical assessment of the production, but until then we’ll have to rely on some of the lucky folks in the audience last night. According to “MinnCon” at Redstate:

In a word, the show was “Obamalicious,” (satirically heavy on the “malicious”) and combined live onstage narration and hosting by Ingraham with real audio clips, photos, videos, and skewering-yet-spot-on impersonations of our imperious President and the First Lady by two fine performers.

Played – no, NAILED – by actors Russell Brown and Selma Schmidt (I believe those were the names – a printed program was not provided) the fictional secret thoughts of Mr. and Mrs. Prez came to life in all of their vainglory.

For the record, Reggie Brown played Obama and Sonja Schmidt played Michelle and yes, I hear their performances are spot-on and hilarious.

From my perspective (and the perspective of any good capitalist) the only real measure of a show is how it does at the box office.  And  by that measure, “Obama Diaries, LIVE” appears to be a hit.  The show played to capacity audiences in not-so-conservative Minneapolis.  If the show can play there, imagine how it will do in Dallas. (more…)

“I didn’t expect them to so blatantly attack the message,” Steven Crowder recently told me over the phone. He was discussing how critics had reviewed his recent Christian-themed movie “To Save A Life.” Some negative feedback from critics was anticipated, but he expected that they would be a little more clever when it came to disguising their prejudice towards Christians and their message. In an interview I conducted with the young actor/writer/comedian, we discussed this criticism, as well as “edgy” comedians and the reason why so many young people are liberal.

Although only in his early twenties, Crowder’s already established himself. Aside from acting, he serves as a contributor for Fox News and performs regularly as a comedian. His online videos have been both extremely funny (see the debate between Crowder and Crowder’s impersonation of Keith Olbermann) and deadly serious (see his video about Canadian health care), and those videos have earned Crowder well-deserved media attention as a rising conservative star.  

Aside from his distinct roles as comedian and conservative pundit, Crowder is also an actor and his latest film “To Save a Life” was recently released on DVD. The movie tells the story of Jake (Randy Wayne), a high school student struggling with grief and regret. Early on in the story, one of Jake’s childhood friends commits suicide. That friend had become a loner after Jake abandoned him years earlier to join the popular crowd. After the suicide, Jake decides to change his own life and quickly befriends some of the school’s outcasts, much to the displeasure of his more popular friends. Crowder plays one of the popular friends horrified when Jake starts hanging out with ”losers.”  (more…)

According to reports, Warner Brothers sweated over whether or not audiences would come out for “Inception,” fearing the multi-layered brain teaser might be too smart and cerebral due to a plot that couldn’t be explained in the logline of a sentence or two. Many elite critics looked down their nose and tut-tutted with the same thoughts. Well, today we have our answer. “Inception” is a hit, on track for a $55 million weekend, and as of now enjoying a 9.3 rating out of 10 over at IMDB, already placing it in the top 100 reader favorites of all time. Score another one for the great unwashed.

Before reaching the age of 40, director Christopher Nolan’s already become one of our most impressive and important directors. He has many talents to be sure, but what’s set him apart is a stubborn refusal to talk down to the audience. Or should I say, ”his” audience, because it appears as though Nolan’s built enough trust and goodwill to make his name as much of a box-office draw as any star.

“Inception” is not “Pirates of the Caribbean 3,” a bloated, confusing, narrative mess with no idea what to do with itself. We see all kinds of movies like that these days — “comedies” and family films and action flicks that clock in at 140 minutes when 90 would do just fine thank you very much. “Inception” dares to challenge us to catch on, keep up, and hold off on the bathroom break. If there’s a Nolan style, a respect for the intelligence of his audience along with a commercial sensibility is a large part of it.  (more…)

***UPDATE: Armond White, whose need to be a contrarian bores me to death, loved Grown Ups and compared the film’s director Dennis Dugan to Renoir. His praise is a little hyperbolic — desperate for attention — but he at least gets the movie.

It’s fair to say Kyle Smith, one of the few right-of center critics out there, hated Grown Ups. He even accuses Sandler of begging for applause with the flag-raising scene. I think that’s unfair. The moment is really about how a family is coming together and to tell the audience it’s the 4th of July. The flag-raise is a story device to make a bigger dramatic point, not pandering. The scene’s quite short — a blip, really — and it’s not like Lee Greenwood’s singing in the background. The moment certainly caught my eye, but only in the sense of how refreshing it was to see this portrayed as the ordinary act it is for most of us. Hollywood’s succeeded at making such things feel so exotic that when what’s commonplace for a majority of  Americans occurs on screen it can only be interpreted as a Big Message.

Currently “Grown Ups” sits at a pretty rotten 8% Tomatometer rating. With “Top Critics,” the story of 5 childhood friends now grown and gathering together for a funeral, rises to 11%. As Christian Toto pointed out, “the reviews aren’t pretty.” No, they are not. Many are downright hostile.

I love Adam Sandler, especially when he teams with director Dennis Dugan. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t made a bad movie, but as prolific as he is, Sandler’s track record when it comes to delivering for his fans is impressive. Especially now that he’s moved successfully beyond the rage-prone juvenile persona that made him famous and started playing family men. Until I came across James Rocchi’s review at MSN, however, my intentions were to rent this, especially since Big Hollywood had already posted a review. In his hostile review entitled “Grown Ups is Infantile Trash,” Rocchi closed with this enticing piece of information:

In the present moment, though, in the theater during “Grown Ups,” I felt a deep and abiding sadness every time the audience laughed and the sounds of their chuckles turned into the ringing of the cash register, and all I thought was a sad, simple truth: This, America, is why we can’t have nice things.

In other words, the audience was amused, the critic was not. That’s all I need to know. Within a few hours I was sitting in a packed house, munching popcorn, and laughing my ass off. (more…)

Usually when I’m moved to write a searingly original piece for Big Hollywood, I do a quick search of the Internet to see if my thoughts might not really be as groundbreaking as I thought. More often than not, I come across an article that says exactly what I was trying to say, only more clearly and eloquently. I then post a link to it on Twitter with the caption “good read!” and I’m done.

Blogging is easy!

Such was the case with my analysis of  The Hurt Locker. I loved the film. After watching it, however, the thing that bothered me was the quote at the beginning, “War is a drug.” In the end, it serves as the theme of the film, but I found it to be way off the mark, and not even supported by the film itself. To me, The Hurt Locker seemed to be clearly not about addiction, but about purpose. What would motivate someone to return to a horrific war zone, to face death and dismemberment on a daily basis? A sense of purpose. That is what motivates people, not “a rush.”

I set to writing. Then I read Walter Owen’s piece in Vanity Fair, who put it together better than I would have: (more…)

Just before seeing ”X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” I checked the Tomatometer, hoping against hope that there had been a sudden surge since I had last checked it a half hour previously. No such luck: The ”Wolverine” TM still stood at a dismal 38%. I glumly trucked over to the theater, fairly certain it would suck, just hoping it wouldn’t ”Fantastic Four” suck.

Having now seen it, I have just one question: What are these critics smoking, and where can I get some (ok, that’s two questions)?

To be sure, the first installment of the proposed “X-Men” prequels has its share of flaws, and some of the criticism is more than fair. So let’s get the bad out of way first: (more…)

Nicolas Cage is starring in another one-word title movie? Didn’t we suffer enough with “Next?”

But Cage’s iffy career is in the hands of director Alex Proyas (“Dark City,” “I, Robot”) with “Knowing,” a clear step up from the Oscar winner’s recent stumbles.

The sci-fi thriller, opening wide today, hums along on a trippy premise. Cage plays John Koestler, an MIT professor whose child, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury),  takes part in a unique school event – the unearthing of a time capsule buried 50 years ago.

Each student is given one of the letters dropped into the capsule decades ago. Rather than getting some child’s Crayola take on space travel like his fellow students, Caleb receives a sheet of paper with random numbers scrawled over every available inch. (more…)

I know what’s going on in the advertiser’s office for “You’re Welcome America, A Final Night With George Bush“.  Every morning after a show opens the producers assemble with the agency and dissect the reviews pulling out the best quotes to be used in ads, posters and banners on the theatres doors and marquee.  Based on the raves, I’m sure they’re having a pretty fun time. 

But, as your trusted, center/right theatre observer here at Big Hollywood, I read the same reviews and pulled out my own quotes.  You see, the content of the reviews I’ve been reading reveal less to me about what’s going on up on the stage at the Cort, it’s says more to me about the bias of the critics.  They are taking the opportunity of this show to send their own, gratuitous shots at “W.”  (more…)