Remember Spider-Man 3, and that weird character Topher Grace played? Or maybe you’ve read the comics over time, played the character in countless videogames? With the latest teaser trailer for Venom, Sony is betting that you already know the character so well that they don’t have to show him or his name. He’s just that popular, and you should already know. Unfortunately, the trailer isn’t that thrilling (not to me, anyway). It’s not a teaser unless you tease something, and all I’ve truly seen are tidbits that could be pulled from any other movie Hardy’s ever done. I feel like Venom pulled on purpose what the Deadpool 2 Teaser joked about, with the CGI not being ready. I sure hope that isn’t the case.
Of course, we’ll need to get a little more and hope that some of the basic questions are answered here. Former Daily Bugle worker Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) will don the suit made from an alien symbiote, but will Spider-Man be seen or mentioned? The worst mistake they could do here is to give Venom a story without at least touching or hinting on Spider-Man’s existence. Still, it’s just a teaser, and perhaps way too early to form any conclusion.
Venom, starring Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams will be released in theatres this October 5th.
For today’s music video of the day, we have I Was A Fool by Sunflower Bean.
While I never attended a dance quite as bad as the one presented here, this video still brings back a lot of memories for me. I’m sure I’m not alone in that. When you’re in high school, even the smallest bit of nonconformity makes you feel as if you’re challenging and changing the world. This video celebrates the intoxication of being young and rebellious.
“Well, that’s just lazy writing.” Ah, good old Wade Wilson.
Fox just dropped a teaser trailer for the Deadpool Sequel (which doesn’t really have a name at this point other than maybe Deadpool 2). This one focuses on Cable and shows off some of his combat abilities. It looks like everyone’s back on board here, with Deadpool breaking the 4th wall, as usual.
(With the Oscars scheduled to be awarded on March 4th, I have decided to review at least one Oscar-nominated film a day. These films could be nominees or they could be winners. They could be from this year’s Oscars or they could be a previous year’s nominee! We’ll see how things play out. Today, I take a look at the 1963 best picture nominee, How The West Was Won!)
How was the west won?
According to this film, the west was won by the brave men and women who set out in search of a better life. Some of them were mountain men. Some of them worked for the railroads. Some of them rode in wagons. Some of them gambled. Some of them sang songs. Some shot guns. Some died in the Civil War. The thing they all had in common was that they won the west and everyone had a familiar face. How The West Was Won is the history of the west, told through the eyes of a collection of character actors and aging stars from Hollywood’s Golden Age.
In many ways, How The West Was Won was the Avatar of the early 60s. It was a big, long, epic film that was designed to make viewers feel as if they were in the middle of the action. Avatar used 3D while How The West Was Won used Cinerama. Each scene was shot with three synchronized cameras and, when the film was projected onto a curved Cinerama screen, it was meant to create a truly immersive experience. The film is full of tracking shots and, while watching it on TCM last night, I tried to imagine what it must have been like to see it in 1963 and to feel as if I was plunging straight into the world of the old west. The film’s visuals were undoubtedly diminished by being viewed on a flat screen and yet, there were still a few breath-taking shots of the western landscape.
The other thing that How The West Was Won had in common with Avatarwas a predictable storyline and some truly unfortunate dialogue. I can understand why How The West Was Won was awarded two technical Oscars (for editing and sound) but, somehow, it also picked up the award for Best Writing, Screenplay or Story. How The West Was Won is made up of five different parts, each one of which feels like a condensed version of a typical western B-movie. There’s the mountain man helping the settlers get down the river story. There’s the Civil War story. There’s the railroad story and the outlaw story and, of course, the gold rush story. None of it’s particularly original and the film is so poorly paced that some sections of the film feel rushed while others seem to go on forever.
Some of the film’s uneven consistency was undoubtedly due to the fact that it was directed by four different directors. Henry Hathaway handled three sections while John Ford took care of the Civil War, George Marshall deal with the coming of the railroad, and an uncredited Richard Thorpe apparently shot a bunch of minor connecting scenes.
And yet, it’s hard not to like How The West Was Won. Like a lot of the epic Hollywood films of the late 50s and early 60s, it has its own goofy charm. The film is just so eager to please and remind the audience that they’re watching a story that could only be told on the big screen. Every minute of the film feels like a raised middle finger to the threat of television. “You’re not going to see this on your little idiot box!” the film seems to shout at every moment. “Think you’re going to get Cinerama on NBC!? THINK AGAIN!”
Then there’s the huge cast. As opposed to Avatar, the cast of How The West Was Won is actually fun to watch. Admittedly, a lot of them are either miscast or appear to simply be taking advantage of a quick payday but still, it’s interesting to see just how many iconic actors wander through this film.
For instance, the film starts and, within minutes, you’re like, “Hey! That’s Jimmy Stewart playing a mountain man who is only supposed to be in his 20s!”
There’s Debbie Reynolds as a showgirl who inherits a gold claim!
Is that Gregory Peck as a cynical gambler? And there’s Henry Fonda as a world-weary buffalo hunter! And Richard Widmark as a tyrannical railroad employee and Lee J. Cobb as a town marshal and Eli Wallach as an outlaw!
See that stern-faced settler over there? It’s Karl Malden!
What’s that? The Civil War’s broken out? Don’t worry, General John Wayne is here to save the day. And there’s George Peppard fighting for the Union and Russ Tamblyn fighting for the Confederacy! And there’s Agnes Moorehead and Thelma Ritter and Robert Preston and … wait a minute? Is that Spencer Tracy providing narration?
When Eli Wallach’s gang shows up, keep an eye out for a 36 year-old Harry Dean Stanton. And, earlier, when Walter Brennan’s family of river pirates menaces Karl Malden, be sure to look for an evil-looking pirate who, for about twenty seconds, stares straight at the camera. When you see him, be sure to say, “Hey, it’s Lee Van Cleef!”
How The West Was Won is a big, long, thoroughly silly movie but, if you’re a fan of classic film stars, it’s worth watching. It was a huge box office success and picked up 8 Oscar nominations. It lost best picture to Tom Jones.
(By the way, in my ideal fantasy world, From Russia With Love secured a 1963 U.S. release, as opposed to having to wait until 1964, and became the first spy thriller to win the Oscar for Best Picture.)
The song is an anthem but the music video is widely considered to be one of the worst of all time. What happened to Journey when they gathered on a wharf in New Orleans and shot the video for Separate Ways (Worlds Apart)? Let’s break it down:
0:00 — The video starts with a shot of the Louisa Street Wharf in New Orleans. Where’s Journey?
0:03 — There, they are. But where are their instruments?
0:04 — Yes, Jonathan Cain is playing air keyboards.
0:08 — Journey has their instruments now so they look a lot less ridiculous. Still, Jonathan Cain will never live down those air keyboards.
0:21 — A woman in a black leather skirt walks down the wharf. The members of Journey jump out at her. This will prove to be a reoccurring theme throughout the video. The woman was played by a local girl named Margaret Olmstead.
0:35 — Again, Journey has lost their instruments and Jonathan Cain is forced to play air keyboards.
0:41 — If Steve Perry looks more annoyed than usual here, it is probably because he wasn’t happy while shooting this video. This was the first Journey video to have a “storyline,” as opposed to just being edited footage of the band performing. Perry was opposed to the idea. According to Cain, Perry said, “We’re performers, we’re entertainers, but we’re not actors.”
0:51 — Who has stolen Journey’s instruments?
0:54 — At this point, Jonathan Cain’s air keyboards are truly out of control. Is he playing an imaginary synthesizer or is he pretending to be a tiger stalking his prey? Your guess is as good as mine.
0:58 — Not only has Journey lost their instruments but Steve Perry has lost his sleeves.
1:13 — Eagle-eyed viewers will notice that Journey is performing in front of a mattress warehouse. This detail will pay off at the end of the video.
1:27 — At least Jonathan finally found his keyboards.
1:32 — The salesman who sold me my very first used car looked just like Ross Valory.
1:47 — The video was shot on a very cold morning. In between takes, Perry would rush into his camper to try to get warm.
1:57 — The shoot was also tense because of the presence of Perry’s then-girlfriend, Sherri Swafford. Swafford took an intense dislike to Margaret Olmstead and demanded that she be removed from the video.
2:22 — I worked in a warehouse one summer and I can tell you that one thing you never want to do is walk backwards through a maze of palettes.
2:29 — Do you think Steve Smith likes foosball?
2:34 — The members of Journey jumping back and forth and singing while Margaret ignores them is my favorite part of the video.
3:04 — What did they do to Steve’s drums?
3:37 — As if the video hadn’t already flown off the rails, here’s a few minutes of gratuitous slow motion.
4:15 — Say what you will about the video, no one could belt it out like Steve Perry.
4:18 — It was all a dream! That explains so much.
In 1999, MTV named this video as the 13 worst video of all time.
When a film gets labeled as a “comedy-drama”, chances are good you’re in for an uneven film. Such is the case with THE FRONT, Martin Ritt’s 1976 movie about the 1950’s blacklist. There are plenty of things to like about the movie, especially in the performances, but the somewhat heavy-handed script by Walter Bernstein results in an undeniably mixed bag.
Woody Allen stars as Howard Prince, a lowly cashier perpetually up to his glasses in gambling debts, whose childhood friend Alfred Miller (Michael Murphy) is a blacklisted TV writer. Miller asks Howard to “front” for him, putting his name on Miller’s scripts so the networks will buy them, in return for a 10% commission. Soon the network clamors for more of Howard’s “work”, and he begins fronting for two other blacklisted writers. Although Woody didn’t write or direct THE FRONT, he’s still basically playing his nebbishy ‘Woody’ persona, but with…
4 Shots from 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots from 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!
In honor of Francois Truffaut’s birthday, here are…
4 Shots From 4 Films
The Soft Skin (1964, dir by Francois Truffaut)
The Bride Wore Black (1968, dir by Francois Truffaut)
The Story of Adele H. (1975, dir by Francois Truffaut)
(With the Oscars scheduled to be awarded on March 4th, I have decided to review at least one Oscar-nominated film a day. These films could be nominees or they could be winners. They could be from this year’s Oscars or they could be a previous year’s nominee! We’ll see how things play out. Today, I take a look at the 1972 best picture nominee, The Emigrants!)
Since I’m currently dealing with either a really bad cold or the onset of the flu (let’s hope that it’s the former), I decided that Monday would be the perfect night to stay up extremely late and watch a 190-minute Swedish movie.
The Emigrants was released in Sweden in 1971 and it received an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film. Then, it was released in the United States in 1972 and it managed to receive four more Oscar nominations, including one for Best Picture. The Emigrants was the third foreign language film to be nominated for Best Picture, the first film to be nominated in multiple years, and also the first Swedish film to contend for the Academy’s top prize. (The following year, Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whispers would also become the second Swedish film nominated for Best Picture.) At the same time that The Emigrants was nominated for Best Picture, its sequel, The New Land, was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film. 1972 was an interesting year.
The Emigrants opens in 1844, in Sweden. Karl Oskar (Max Von Sydow) has married Kristina (Liv Ullmann). Like his father before him, Karl Oskar is a farmer. It’s an exhausting life. There is never enough food to eat. The weather is perpetually gloomy. The harvest is always disappointing. As poor farmers, Karl Oskar and his family face constant prejudice. In Sweden, the only thing more corrupt than the government is the church. After one of his daughters starves to death, what choice does Karl Oskar and his family have other than to escape to America?
As Karl Oskar’s brother, Robert (Eddie Axberg), explains, the best rice comes from the Carolinas. The best farmland is in America. In America, anyone can become rich. Anyone can walk up to the President and talk to him without running the risk of being imprisoned or executed. (In 1844, ordinary citizens could stop by the White House and make an appointment to see the President. This, of course, would change decades later, after a disgruntled office seeker shot President Garfield.) In America, Robert says excitedly, no one works more than 14 hours a day! Even slaves can own land and make their own money!
The Emigrants deals with their Karl Oskar and his family’s voyage to America. Karl Oskar and Kristina do not travel alone. Kristina’s uncle (Allan Edwall) is with them and hopes that, in America, he will be allowed to freely practice his religious beliefs. A former prostitute, Ulrika (Monica Zetterlund), is also with them, hoping a new land will mean a better life for both herself and her daughter. Even Robert’s best friend, Arvid (Pierre Lindstedt), going with them. It’s not an easy journey. Not everyone survives the voyage to North America but those that do soon find themselves in a young and untouched country where anything seems to be possible.
Swedish cinema has a reputation for being dark and brooding but those are two words that definitely do not apply to The Emigrants, which is about as positive a portrait of America as you could ever hope to see. Regardless of whatever tragedy may occur during the journey, this movie leaves no doubt that the journey was more than worth it. It unfolds at a pace that is perhaps a bit too leisurely but, at the same time, it’s also an achingly pretty movie with shots that bring to mind the best of Terrence Malick. In fact, there are times when the film is almost too pretty. It’s possible to get so caught up in looking at all the beauty around Karl Oskar and Kristina that you lose track of the story. Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullmann are both achingly pretty as well and, even more importantly, they’re believable as a married couple who are often equally in love and equally annoyed with each other.
It was interesting to go from watching The Grapes of Wrath to watching The Emigrants. If The Grapes of Wrath was an American nightmare, The Emigrants is about as pure a celebration of the American Dream as you’re going to find. It lost the Oscar for Best Picture to a far different film about the immigrant experience in America, The Godfather.
Through the Shattered Lens 