Vampires that don't bite
In honor of "New Moon," and in case you didn't catch it elsewhere on the site, my list of bloodsucking faves:
- Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) from "Dracula" (1931) -- " The Hungarian actor's portrayal of Count Dracula became the absolute template for vampire roles for years to come. The creepy accent, the powder white skin, the hairline, all came to be synonymous with the look of a vampire.
- Count von Count (Jerry Nelson) from "Sesame Street" (1969-current) -- Here's proof of the power of Lugosi's Dracula; the essential image was resurrected and turned into a numbers-obsessed Muppet. Laugh all you want, but Count von Count has been on TV for 40 years now -- that's having some cultural influence.
- Count Dracula (Klaus Kinski) from "Nosferatu the Vampyre" (1979) -- Kinski's vampire ... under the direction of Werner Herzog ... was far more twisted looking and anguished than most vamps since Lugosi, and he opened the way for a new look, as well as more emotional depth, among vamps.
- David (Kiefer Sutherland) from "Lost Boys" (1987) --- The quasi-punk look of "Lost Boys" was worn best by the young Kiefer Sutherland, whose blond hair went against the overwhelmingly black locks of most vamps. Plus, dude, it's Kiefer Sutherland as a vampire.
- Lestat (Tom Cruise) from "Interview with a Vampire" (1994) -- No one thought Tom Cruise could pull off the then boiling hot Lestat in this adaptation of the Anne Rice novel, but Cruise was aching to go beyond his all-American persona and he knocked this one out of the park with a wild-eyed, comic-intense portrayal.
- Spike (James Marsters) from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" (1997-2004) -- And then vampires came to TV in a big way with "Buffy." With Billy Idol looks, cocky attitude and a grand mastery of comic one-liners, the theater-trained Marsters turned what might have been a one-shot appearance into the fun vampire of modern times.
- Angel (David Boreanaz) from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" (1997-2004) -- Spike was the funster, Angel was the brooder, forever worried about the souls he had killed before turning to bagged blood for sustenance. Angel may have been the first full-on successful vampire hero, a do-gooder with fangs, and he set the stage for more to come.
- Danica Talos (Parker Posey) from "Blade: Trinity" (2004) -- It was a short, campy bit in a regrettable series, but Posey's over-the-top sadist vamp gave the final installation in this series the humor and sexiness it needed al along. Her banter with the young Ryan Reynolds makes the movie worth watching. Sort of.
- Eli (Line Leandersson) from "Let the Right One In" (2008) -- Kid vampires are spooky. Kid vampires with subtitles are even spookier. This Swedish film, in which a ragtag young girl vampire befriends a lonely boy in a suburb of Stockholm served as a reminder that vampires started out as scary creatures, not just cool cartoonish characters.
- Eric (Alexander Skarsgard) from "True Blood" (2008-current) -- Yes, Bill (Stephen Moyer) is the main, sensitive vamp in HBO's hit series, and he's fine. But the towering Skarsgard brings a sense of majestic danger to Eric that reeks of power and confidence, qualities that go well with being an undead bloodsucker.
Movie stars (and directors) of the decade, part deux
Let me clarify -- and I did the first time around but somehow my blog was truncated -- I'm talking about the top movie star of the decade, not the top actor or specific performance.
Which actor and actress excelled not only in their craft, but also in bringing chemistry to the screen and excitement to the movie landscape. Thus it would not be someone who is completely obscure -- obscure people aren't true stars -- but it also wouldn't necessarily be someone at the top of the box office charts. And it has to be someone who was in the top ranks through much if not all of the decade.
As far as directors, it's a matter of whose work best reflected the decade while hitting high standards, again across the year. Think Woody Allen in the '70s.
Or at least that's what I'm trying to come up with. Again, so far I think the actor is pretty clear, while actress is fuzzy (sure, there's Streep, but you could have used her the previous two decades as well) and director is dicey, since keeping a consistent high level is tough.
Anyways, thanks for all the input so far...
Who are the biggest stars (and director) of the decade?
Since everybody's being so helpful with top 10 of the Decade suggestions, I'll go ahead and pose the other three categories I'll be publishing along with whatever list I concoct. Those would be the movie stars (male and female) of the decade and the movie director of the decade.
One name springs to mind immediately for male movie star, and it seems like a slam dunk. But female movie star? I see no clear choice, which means I'll have to do some research to tickle my brain. Same with directors, although a few leap to mind.
Top 10 movies of the decade -- you choose
Over the next month and a half I have a major task. Not only do I have to come up with my top 10 movies of 2009, I have to come up with the top 10 movies of the decade.
The problem, of course, is that I can barely remember what I saw last week, much less what I saw in 2004.
Oh, sure, I can do research, and I will. But I realized it might also be helpful, or at least interesting to ask others to post their top films of the past 10 years (that would be 2000 forward).
So go ahead, post them by clicking "comment" below, either with or without explanation. Or if not a formal top 10 -- doing such things is harder than it looks, trust me -- at least some suggestions.
So far, all I can think of is "Doomsday." Oh, yeah, "Orphan." Maybe "The Departed." Alec Baldwin was so cherry in that.
And so it begins ...
The meaning of the top 10 so far
Let's take a look at the top 10 films of the year so far and see if we can spot any trends. They are:
1) "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" $402 million
2) "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" $301 million
3) "Up" $292 million
4) "The Hangover" $276 million
5) "Star Trek" $257 million
6) "Monsters vs. Aliens" $198 million
7) "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" $196 million
8) "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" $179 million
9) "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" $177 million
10) "The Proposal" $163 million
Well, first off, it's obvious fantasy still rules. Eight of the top 10 are outright fantasy films. Yep, that's right -- "The Hangover" and "The Proposal" look downright realistic in this group.
It's also obvious that familiarity breeds success, at least some of the time. Six of the top 10 are requels of some sort -- sequels, remakes, etc.
A dark mind might interpret both these things as reflecting a certain amount of fear in moviegoers; in a time of economic upheaval, nuclear proliferation, global climate change and terrorism, we want comfort-food movies. We do not want to be challenged.
The same can be said of any year? Actually, not true, although post 9/11 you might have an argument. But the top movie of 1998 was "Saving Private Ryan." "Jerry Maguire" and "A Time to Kill" were in the top 10 in 1996 and "Apollo 13" and "Seven" were up there in 1995.
I'm not saying they were all perfect films. But at least they had serious dramatic elements at times. These days, we don't want drama, we want pure escape.
Another thing the top 10 tells us is apparently this 3-D thing is working. Three of the top films are animated and all were offered in 3-D, thus boosting box office sales through elevated ticket prices.
And then there's the traditional Hollywood star system, or what's left of it. None of the top seven movies featured a name star, showing packaging and especially concept count more than character these days. Just look at "Transformers."
There's also an argument to be made that neither "Wolverine" nor "Museum" really made enough money to be called hits relative to their cost.
Which means the only film on the list which was a huge success and star-driven is "The Proposal," a modest romantic comedy that showed that the now rare commodity of onscreen chemistry (Sandra Bullock + Ryan Reynolds) can still draw big audiences while surprising the heck out of everybody.
As a critic, the list is somewhat heartening -- I thought seven of the 10 films were actually decent for what they were. None of them will make my year's top 10 list, but they did what they were supposed to and offered fine entertainment. (I didn't like "Wolverine" or "Ice Age.")
And the scariest thing about the list?
That "Transformers" is on top. Like Megan Fox said, a movie made for geniuses, because it would take one to make any sense of the story. Overall a bombastic, noisy, senseless bore.
And the scary thing is, "Transformers" is a full $100 million ahead of its closest competition.
Excuse me while I go find a dark closet in which to stand and shudder for awhile.
Where the "Wild" audience is or isn't
Speaking of question marks...
This being the weekend when "Where the Wild Things Are" is released, many folks are questioning where the "Wild Things" audience might be.
Is it actual children, or will the film seem too long and complex for the young ones and just plain dull to the older ones?
Is it twentysomethings looking for a hip Spike Jonze spin on their childhood fave?
Is it just art types -- I mean how many people even know who Spike Jonze is, anyway?
I'm guessing it goes like this -- a lot of parents bring their kids to the heavily hyped, $100 million film Saturday, letting it win the weekend box office race ($30 mil?).
And then they find out their kids didn't really like it, word of mouth spreads and the film ends up playing to artsy hipsters, who may or may not like it, but who sure won't bring much money to the party.
In other words, in week two it tanks.
This could be wrong, obviously, and the film may take off like a rocket. Chances are it will become a cult item no matter what.
But will it earn back the $100 million it cost to make?
Doubtful.
"Amelia" and the perils of prognostication
And now a word about the curious case of "Amelia."
"Amelia" stars Hilary Swank as Amelia Earhart, the groundbreaking female pilot who won America's heart before she disappeared into the skies forever in 1937. The film belongs to Fox Searchlight, the studio which has been the most steady of the boutique indie players in the Oscar races over the past three years with "Little Miss Sunshine," "Juno" and last year's winner, "Slumdog Millionaire."
Swank, of course, is the most unheralded dual Best Actress Oscar winner in history. The former next Karate Kid struck gold with both "Boys Don't Cry" in 2000 and "Million Dollar Baby" in 2005, although prior and subsequent to each of those films she accomplished little that's been either noteworthy or commercially successful (OK, she was on "Beverly Hills 90210").
All year long the mere fact that Swank is in "Amelia" and that Fox Searchlight has the film have put her on everybody's short list for a likely best actress nominee.
There's only one problem with that: No one has seen "Amelia."
It comes out next Friday and it's only being screened for critics Tuesday night.
Understand, "Sunshine," "Juno" and "Slumdog" were all shown -- for different reasons -- months before they hit theaters. And "Amelia" was most likely ready enough for the Toronto International Film Festival in September, the previous launching pad for "Slumdog" and "Juno."
All of which means nothing. "Amelia" is directed by the gifted Indian Mira Nair, whose last film was the nicely carved "The Namesake" and whose previous catalog -- "Monsoon Wedding," "Mississippi Masala," "Kama Sutra -- is strong and inventive, if uneven ("Vanity Fair").
Still -- Nair has never been nominated for an Oscar, Swank is a fine actress who's difficult to cast in the right role and this picture is being held close until the last moment.
Let's hope all of that adds up to nothing and the movie's a knockout. We'll find out next week.
But if it isn't it will say something about prognosticators' tendency to jump on the obvious with little or no actual information.
The next film that will bring up that same question? That would be "Nine," which many have all but conceded mutltiple nominations to.
We'll see...
Michigan bombs at the box office
Two films with strong Michigan ties opened wide in theaters this past weekend, and they both ran into a brick wall. So much for regional cheerleading; it doesn't matter at the box office.
"Whip It," directed by Drew Barrymore and starring Ellen Page, was mostly shot in Michigan. And "Capitalism: A Love Story" is the latest from Michigan filmmaker Michael Moore. Despite major marketing campaigns a talk show barrage for both films, they essentially tied for sixth place, bringing in $4.85 million. Ouch.
For "Whip It" this is unmitigated disaster, but hardly beyond prediction. There are only two female stars who can "open" a movie -- Meryl Streep and Angelina Jolie, and even they have to have the right projects. "Whip It" was a near all-female cast, with most of the burden being put on Ellen Page, who has had exactly one previous hit -- "Juno."
"Whip It" is no "Juno" -- the best film of 2007 -- to say the least. Barrymore's touch as a director is shaky at best, but even so, who was the audience for a film about roller derby girls supposed to be?
Teen boys don't go see films about empowered women, and teen girls generally want to see films about teen boys falling in love with teen girls. It's a sexist fact, but a fact nonetheless. So "Whip It" got whomped.
The failure of "Capitalism" to explode is more interesting. Realize, first off, that most documentary films never even dream of making $4 million, and with last week's limited release "Capitalism" already has $5.2 million, making it one of the top 20 docs of all time. Plus, it was only on 962 screens (compared to "Whip It"s 1700 or winner "Zombieland"s 3000).
Still, Moore is competing with himself here, and this debut is way behind his last film, "Sicko." Why?
I'm guessing it's a combination of things. First off, the film's focus isn't clear from the title (or from the movie itself, actually). It's subject matter is ridiculously broad. And the whole idea of how messed up the economy is may be just too painful for people to face right now.
Beyond that, the marketing campaign made it look pretty much like just another Michael Moore movie: Same old schtick, different target.
"Capitalism" will end up making $10 million and be a mild success at the same time it's a disappointment. "Whip It" is just a bomb. Again, ouch Michigan.
Oscar: Where's the heat?
Another week of screenings, another week of good movies.
But still, the Oscar fare is looking slim.
This is especially ironic since this is the year the Academy decided to open the Best Picture category up to 10 nominations.
At this point I'm looking for "G-Force" to nab the final spot.
OK, things aren't that bad. But I can't recall another year in which good-not-great seemed such a constant. By this time last year I'd seen most of the Oscar nominees, I had a few sleeper hopefuls in my back pocket and hype-heavy December was still to come.
Right now I couldn't come up with more than a couple nominees in each category and even the top five for best picture look anemic, much less the top 10.
A quick look:
Best supporting actress -- always a crowded category, but so far I see Mo'Nique for "Precious" and Vera Farmiga for "Up in the Air." Yes I know the musical "Nine" is on the way with about 30 female roles, but who says it will actually be good and the actors won't cancel one another out?
Best supporting actor -- This one's so weak that people are starting to talk about Richard Kind for "A Serious Man." Kind is perfectly fine, but it's a standard sad-sack role, hardly Oscar material. Otherwise... nada.
Best actress -- OK, this one will be crowded. Gabby Sidibe from "Precious" seems a slam dunk. And everybody raves about Carey Mulligan in "An Education." Abbie Cornish is strong in "Bright Star," but I have a feeling that will wane. Streep is near automatic, but come on, was "Julie and Julia" really up to this standard? Don't discount Sandra Bullock for "The Blind Side," a movie people will go see and probably love (just look at the trailer).
Best actor -- Clooney in "Up in the Air," for sure. Sounds like Colin Firth for "A Single Man." Maybe Viggo for "The Road," maybe Jeremy Renner for "The Hurt Locker." But again, this feels soft.
Best picture -- "Up," "Up in the Air," "Precious," those are locks. Probably "A Serious Man." "A Single Man" and "An Education." That leaves four.
Still to come -- "Invictus," "The Lovely Bones," "Nine" and, of course, "Avatar." (And the Oscar goes to -- Jar Jar Binks!)
What seems to be lacking, I'll say again, is fire, aside from "Precious." This year just seems too cool for its own good come awards season. Try finding a film or performance to stand up and cheer for ("Precious" is powerful but utterly blood-draining).
If one shows up between now and Jan 1, it could clean up big.
Indies in distress
A week after coming home from the Toronto International Film Festival the thunder about Toronto continues to be that there was no real thunder in Toronto.
Yes there were some unmitigated hits, and I've gone over those. But business-wise there was very little happening among the independent films that were looking to get picked up, and general opinion is that's the result of the entire concept of independent films getting way out of wack.
Here are some of the names of stars attached to films that weren't snatched up right away -- Bill Murray, Naomi Watts, Annette Bening, Jennifer Connelly, Robert Duvall, Samuel L. Jackson. And here are some of the companies which walked away without buying anything: Fox Searchlight, Focus, Lionsgate, Miramax.
What's wrong with this picture? Just about everything. And that's what went wrong in Toronto. The indie bubble burst, just like the tech bubble and mortgage bubble and so many other bubbles before.
First off, what are those big name stars doing in "indie" movies? Indie movies are supposed to to star the guy from the convenience store down the street or the struggling actor who's had three TV gigs. Each one of those names has taken home million-dollar paydays over the years. How indie can they be?
Beyond that, most of the studios buying these indies are directly tied to some huge conglomerate. How indie is that?
The whole concept of what constitutes an indie film has been twisted. And the market's thirst for the sort of artsy self-indulgent films that crowd indie theatrs has its limits, something distributors have finally figured out.
Not that I'm necessarily trashing these artsy self-indulgent films -- many of my favorite flicks would fall in the category -- but far more of them are made than audiences want to watch. Sad but true, it's a Transformers world. Don't blame me.
So this year the buyers simply didn't buy, or at least not much (acquisitions are, of course, trickling in in the wake of Toronto's dismal showing). And they didn't shell out big bucks for what they did buy, either.
Part of this is because there was no "Little Miss Sunshine" to be bought. Most of it has to do with mainstream movie theaters playing blockbusters all the time and the death of middle movies.
Middle movies -- and middle movies are a big part of what plays at Toronto these days -- end up at the art houses, thus pushing true art house flicks into the street.
Look at the new Coen brothers film, "A Serious Man" or Michael Moore's "Capitalism." In a sane world these would open at the multiplex, but since nine screens are filled with "Whip It" next week, they'll be relegated to art houses.
Again, this is all audience driven and what it may come down to is -- gasp! -- Hollywood just has too much talent wanting to make movies that few people actually want to see.
As artists, that is certainly their choice. But the time has come when they can no longer expect moneymen to cough up the cash to finance these films because the moneymen on the other end won't be ponying up to buy them when they're done.
Is this the end of independent filmmaking? Of course not, but it probably signals a serious deflation.
There are still fools willing to scam credit cards and run up 50 grand in debt -- Yo, Kevin Smith, you're still the model -- to make a movie starring their girlfriend, a neighbor and the guy who taught drama in high school. And 99 times out of 100 that movie will suck.
But that other time, that one time, a spark of genius will surface. And the spirit of independent film will live on.
Just don't expect somebody to hand over 3 million for the chance to distribute it. Those days may be gone forever.
