The Film Thugs Movie Show

What constitutes a remake? The term gets thrown around a lot, but like the word “trilogy” there is a specific definition. If you make a movie or a TV show that uses an other, existing movie as the source of the screenplay or central idea, then you have a remake. Some are good, some are awful. So, movies that fall into this category are things like... Cape Fear Dawn of the Dead Funny Games The Getaway Oceans 11 Psycho ... and many more. But there is a fairly new phenomenon where movies are being made that are based on books that have already had films made about them. Movies like this include... Let Me In (new version of the book, not a remake of “Let the Right One In.”) The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo The Lord of the Rings ... and pretty much every piece of classic literature. Some might call it nit picking, but there is a distinction that needs to be recognized because it does make a difference. This brings me to the new Sherlock Holmes show “Elementary.” When I heard about it, it was described as an American remake of the amazing BBC show “Sherlock,” and that Lucy Liu would be playing the part of Watson. This sounded like the worst idea I had ever heard. Honestly, it sounded like a joke, a bad joke. I won’t go into it here, but I honestly think that “Sherlock,” stands as the freshest, most original, and most daring look at one of the most classic and recognizable characters in the canon of English literature. So, I went into the first episode of “Elementary,” with my guard pretty firmly up. What did I think? Well, three things:

1. It was resoundingly OK.
2. Were it not for “Sherlock” I would have probably loved it.
3. It is not a remake of “Sherlock,” and in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with that show other than the main character.

So, let us discuss. First off, it’s a decent show that could be really good. Johnny Lee Miller brings something very different to the role of Holmes. Most of his key characteristics are there, but this time he’s kind of... well, cool. He’s got a young, hip, sexy thing going that kind of works in the world the show occupies. I don’t know how much I like it, but I do give credit to Miller for being a bit bold with it. Also, his Holmes is much less disconnected from the world. He actually cares about how his behavior effects other people. Watson is interesting. Instead of being a veteran, this now female Watson is a former surgeon who was forced out of medicine after losing a patient during an operation. She is damaged and Sherlock appears to be the one person who can help put herself back together. She is far more into the idea of  being a detective than any Watson up to this point (save Ben Kingsley in “Without a Clue,”), and isn’t afraid to call Holmes out for being a prick. She even helps solve the first case. The relationship and the show are both interesting, and both have potential, but the show feels lacking. Holmes gets to do some deduction, but there isn’t anything that special about it. This brings me to my second point. Had this not come out on the heels of one of the best, the most original, and the most entertaining adaptations of Holmes, I think my opinion would be far different. “Elementary,” is a classic Holmes living in “Sherlock”’s world. Where a few years ago, a more traditional update might have worked, now it just feels flat. Cumberbatch’s Holmes is a hyper version of the original, and we live in his head. We see the world how he sees the world and in doing so we understand him more. When he says, “What’s it like in your mind? It must be so boring!” we understand, because we have seen inside his and know that he is living in HD while the rest of us are watching a hand cranked 8 mm home movie. Miller’s Holmes, though interesting, isn’t as available to us, so we don’t have the same ability to connect and understand how he does what he does. What we get feels more like a decent card trick. You know how it’s done, and it’s executed well enough, but there isn’t enough personality in to to really pull you in. But that, again, is comparison. Sadly, I cannot talk about it in any other terms. I reckon that it would be a really good show if it could stand on its own, as evidenced by the fairly warm reviews it’s received, and I don’t hate it. As it is, it comes off very middle of the road. It could be better, but it could also be a lot worse. Such is its fate. All this being said, I am now trying to approach it as a completely different animal than “Sherlock,” because, main characters aside, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that show. “But it’s a modern retelling of Sherlock Holmes and so is ‘Sherlock,’ therefore it has to be a remake.” Does it? Watch the run of “Sherlock,” and then watch “Elementary,” and ask yourself the following... How are the characters of Holmes and Watson the same? How are they different? How is the style of the show the same? How is it different? To answer, in short... Holmes and Watson are characters of the same name and play a very similar role in each show. However, “Sherlock,” presents a “functioning sociopath” who is completely oblivious to the emotions of other people. He is uncomfortable interacting with other people and appears to have little use for them beyond their functionality. In “Elementary,” though... he seems to be far more in tune with other people. He shows kindness towards Watson and has a past that hints at a love that caused a spiral of drug addiction. He is a much more empathetic and human character than in the BBC version. Watson is far more assertive in “Elementary.” She bosses Holmes around, and he lets her, she asks questions and gets information Holmes can’t, and she notices things that Holmes misses. In this world they... well, they aren’t equals, but they are as close as these two characters can get. Stylistically, the shows couldn’t be more different. “Sherlock,” is a hyper stylized redefinition of the character. We see what and how he thinks and follow as the conclusions are drawn. It presents new takes on classic stories and uses the technology of the modern world to make Holmes... well, to make him more Sherlock. “Elementary,” is a far more standard police procedural. Holmes is still amazing, but he is presented in a far more realistic way without the stylistics or the use of technology to make him the Übermensch he is in the BBC version. This show is very difficult for me to write about objectively. It’s good, but not great and it exists in a world where there is a great version of a similar idea which makes this show pale a little bit in comparison. If you haven’t seen “Sherlock,” I can see taking great pleasure in the show. It’s a fresh and new look at a classic character that delivers fairly well. If you are familiar with “Sherlock,” then it is impossible to really appreciate this show if you compare the two. However, if you are able to separate this from the BBC and view it as what it is, a completely different animal with completely different characters and style then you may be able to enjoy it. Just remember, it isn’t the same show and it isn’t meant to be. So if you hate it, hate it on its own merits, not just because it isn’t something that it was never trying to be in the first place.

The term "Spaghetti Western" normally brings two names to mind. Some people think of Clint Eastwood, and that's fine. Others think of Sergio Leone. Again, nothing wrong with that. He basically invented the genre and made its three most popular and enduring films.

But for fans of the genre, true fans, a third name usually works its way in there. While Leone made the landmark films, another Sergio was right up there with him.

Sergio Corbucci is responsible for movies like, "The Great Silence," and "Companeros," and while to most casual fans those aren't familiar films, to the lovers of the Spaghetti Western, they are absolutely necessary.

Although not as popular as the Eastwood movies, Corbucci did have his, "Man with No Name." Even though his had a name, he was just as mysterious and dangerous.

That man, was "Django."

Released in 1966, "Django," represented a view of the west that was in line with Leone's, while having enough differences to make it stand out from the multitude of copycats.

You see, even though people tend to think that Hollywood is the only place where ideas get reused and recycled, copied and cannibalized, or knocked off and bastardized... we really don't have much on the Italians. Even though many of them never made it to the US there is a mind bogglingly massive amount of westerns that have the word "Dollars" in the title, (My favorite being, "And they Smelled the Strange, Dangerous, Exciting scent of Dollars.") and even more with the word "Clint." The market was absolutely saturated, and there was a whole lot more chaff than wheat.

According to Franco Nero, who played Django, he became so identified with the character that almost every movie he was in for years had the name "Django" in the title. No matter where or when it was set, no matter the genre, it was a Django movie. He even pops up in Tarantino's "Django Unchained." Watch the trailer, he's the guy Jamie Foxx says, "The D is silent," to.

Both Sergios made movies about mysterious loners who came to town looking for something, and that something was none of your business and normally meant a world of hurt for someone who deserved it.

"Django," is the story of a lone gunman who roams the west dragging a coffin behind him. He is quick on the draw, deadly as hell, and utterly fearless.

These men also have a code of honor. Yes, they are bad men in the conventional sense, men who don't hesitate to kill you graveyard dead where you stand, but they have a firm sense of what is right, and they will do what is right no matter what.

"Django" begins with a prostitute about to be killed for unknown reasons. He saves her, incurring the wrath of the local heavy.

From here, the story does get a little complicated. Which is another staple of the Spaghetti Western.

In essence, "Django," is a simple revenge story, in as much as vengeance can be simple. Django had someone taken from him, now he must settle that score.

I liked this movie, but I didn't love it. It's got some great violence and outstanding character work, but it felt a little over long. The pacing of the narrative started out really quick, then it slammed to a halt, then it picked up a little until it kind of trailed off. It didn't have that incredible build that marks many of the other films of the genre.

Where Corbucci differs is that his west is dirty. Not that it was clean in Leone's world, but it's... well, different. Basically, Leone had a dusty west, Corbucci had a dirty west that was ugly, sadistic, and cold. Not figuratively cold, literally cold.

This makes the movie a little hard to watch. The soundtrack is dominated by a bitter wind that whips through the town. Every inch of ground that doesn't have a building on it is caked in thick mud. The environments feel more real, less like rough treated sets. Where Leone allowed some separation from what was going on, Corbucci wants you right in the middle of it.

As strange as it sounds, there is more of a Catholic influence in Corbucci's work. There is suffering as penance, there is absolute good and evil, and there is no escaping judgement. People are punished, and punished cruelly. This did happen in Leone's movies, but it was never as visceral as it is in Corbucci's.

I found myself wanting to like this movie more than actually liking it. It does not hold a candle to "The Great Silence," which is an absolute masterpiece, but it is serviceable. But, sadly, the slow middle makes it a little difficult to get through. It's good, but just bear in mind that it isn't "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly," and that's OK. Not many movies can be.

Brave

I am convinced that Scotland exists to show the rest of the world how ugly it is. Have you ever been? It's Goddamn amazing. There are more shades of green in one acre of that country than in every box of crayons ever imagined. I never thought it was possible to make that country look more beautiful...

Then I saw "Brave."

Well done Pixar.

Before I say anything about the movie let me stress this: it is unrealistically gorgeous. Combining the amazing Celtic soundtrack with the amazing visuals based on the most beautiful country I have ever laid eyes on makes Pandora look like a pile of puke.

With "Brave" Pixar goes in a new and interesting direction, and in the process continues their streak of movies that range from good to great. This is a great film.

Right off the bat I will tell you that it is different from most Pixar films. The structure that dictates all of their other films is tweaked a bit.

What I mean by this is that every Pixar film up to this point has followed the same basic structure. It's so ingrained in their narrative style that you can almost tell to the minute how far you are into one of their films by what is happening on screen. This isn't a bad thing, quite the contrary. Solid narrative structure is very difficult to master, and the people at Pixar have done that.

"Brave," however, follows a more... fairy tale structure. Which is slightly different, but just as effective.

The movie is about Merida, the free spirited daughter of a Scottish King who is determined to defy tradition and live her life the way she wants to.

This is a landmark for Pixar in many ways. First it is the first film that features a female protagonist. About damned time. And by "female protagonist" I don't mean a male character they gave a female name, but an actual, realized, believable female character. She is also the first Pixar character to be included as one of the "Disney Princesses," which is great, because she is a bad ass and it does my heart well to see Disney embracing such a strong female character. It's also Pixar's first period piece, and here is hoping that it won't be their last.

Another thing this movie actually got right was it cast actual Scottish people as Scottish people. Billy Connolly is in it, because there is a binding UN resolution that requires him to be in any movie about Scotland, or there bloody well should be, Craig Ferguson, Kevin McKidd (Trainspotting), and Robbie Coltraine (no, he is not English, he is Scottish).

But the best casting had to be Kelly MacDonald. You may know her from "Trainspotting," or "Boardwalk Empire," but she is an actual, for real Scottish lady. She is absolutely brilliant as Merida. Originally the part was to be played by Reese Witherspoon, so at the minimum MacDonald saved us from an hour and a half of Witherspoon approximating a Scottish accent. Not that she isn't a fine actress, but who wants that?

MacDonald gives Merida a vitality and a playfulness that offsets the more serious scenes brilliantly. Hopefully we will be seeing more of her.

What is nice about this movie is that it is a mother/daughter story, which is so very rare these days. We are sick with mother/son, father/son, father/daughter movies that it almost feels like Hollywood forgets about this relationship. It's a very touching and heartfelt narrative that I think all mothers should see with their daughters.

Be warned, this is a little different than the Pixar you are use to, but that's not a bad thing. This is one of those amazing times when a company goes for something new, fresh, and original and succeeds brilliantly.

A picture of your completely unbiased reviewer.

Rock of Ages

I was born in 1975 which means that I was born into a musical world at a crossroads. We were still in the midst of classic rock, but the influences of glam, punk, metal, and even rap were starting to be felt closer and closer to the mainstream. It was truly an amazing time. You had bands like Led Zeppelin and Cream along side Iron Maiden, Judas Priest while The Ramones and The Sex Pistols were taking things in a totally new direction, and New York was producing acts like The Sugar Hill Gang, and Grand Master Flash.

In short, it was an amazing time to grow up and gave me some pretty solid foundations for what I consider good music.

One of the biggest things I look for is a singer with a distinct sound and style. I have never gone for the polished, sterile voice. My favorite musicians are people like Tom Waits, and Nick Cave, and bands like The Pogues, Flogging Molly, or for rap... I really only go as deep as Public Enemy and The Beastie Boys.

What do all of these have in common? Each one has a vocalist with a very unique tone. This is what I hate about shows like "Glee," and "American Idol." Yes, they give us technical singer that can sing really well, what they don't give us is... well, any grit. It's all very homogenized, very white bread, very boring music. And sadly, that is becoming the norm today.

So, "Rock of Ages," really got my attention. A rock musical set in the days of my musical awakening (I was 12 at the time the movie was set, around the time I bought my first album... Def Leppard's "Pyromania") that featured a bunch of kick ass songs from that period. How could I not be at least interested?

Thing is... I forgot something I call my "Across the Universe" rule.

For those who have not listened to my show long enough to know what I'm talking about I will explain. The "Across the Universe Rule" is as follows...

Movie musicals are awful, and are made more so by the inclusion of pre-existing songs, and made unbearable by the presence of hippies.

Thankfully, "Rock of Ages" is completely free of hippies. So, it has that going for it.

The problem I have with movie musicals is that musicals are all about the spectacle. There is nothing like being in the theatre as these massive, choreographed numbers unfold live in front of you. The energy is amazing and the performances come so fully to life that it's impossible not to be sucked in.

Then you make a movie and the spontaneous energy that fuels those numbers is gone. There is no live audience fueling the performers, so you get technically proficient and utterly flat performances. It's not the same.

Add pre-existing songs and that is compounded. Instead of songs that fit the story you have stories that fit the songs. You find yourself predicting what song is coming next, and wondering how it's going to come off as part of this story.

"Rock of Ages" was nothing but songs that I know, and know well. They are the songs that I grew up loving. So... what's the problem. Well, there is a world of difference between a good signer and a good ROCK singer.

A good singer, in particular a good musical theatre singer, needs to have a good voice. They need to have clear diction and amazing pitch. They have to be able to clearly vocalize in a way that conveys story as well as emotion.

A good rock singer has to rock. That's it. A good voice is required, but so is presence, personality, and a completely unique style.

Sadly, this movie was populated by good musical theatre singers... and Tom Cruise.

The story is thin and predictable, which in a theatre production is allowable because people are going for the spectacle of the show and the energy of the performers. So much of that is lost here that all you have left is the songs. And as the vocalists are very polished (for the most part) you don't really get that.

So, what did I think about the film itself. Well, it had some good and some bad. Let me walk you through it.

The music- Good, but not what I wanted. These are not rock songs. Well, they are, but not the way they are presented here. Here there is impeccable pitch and pronunciation. It's so clear that I understood lyrics that I have never been able to decipher before. That's because they have a function beyond emotion.

There was a point where they actually played the original master version of "Talk Dirty to Me," by Poison and I found Brett Michaels's vocals to be so refreshing. There was that charisma and style that made the metal bands from back then so amazing. They showed it, then took it away. This upset me.

Also, a lot of it felt a bit forced for my tastes. When you have someone actually say, "We built this city on rock and roll," before the cast breaks out in "We Built This City (On Rock and Roll)," just feels corny.

I realize that this is a taste thing, and there are some people who really dig this sort of thing, just know that if you aren't one of those people... it will be a bit of a letdown.

The performances- By and large these were good. I did have problems with the leads. Neither one of them is a rock singer. Yes, they both sing well, but there is nothing rock about what they do, not in the slightest. The vocals are good, but dull. Julianne Hough,the female lead (who plays a character named "Sherrie," in a rock musical that features Journey, but not "Oh, Sherrie," nothing makes sense to me anymore), has a pretty voice, but "Harden my Heart," and "Shadows of the Night," aren't meant to sound pretty, they are meant to sound raw and powerful. They didn't. Diego Boneta, the male lead, just felt out of place.

The rest of the cast was good. Baldwin was outstanding as the burned out old rocker who just will not give up on rock. I kept waiting for him to talk about his days as a roadie, which is good here. That's exactly what it needs to be. Paul Giamatti was dead on as the scumbag manager.

Russell Brand is a tough one for me. I'm of two minds on Mr. Brand. Sometimes I want to cave his head in with a rock, but other times I find him to be pretty funny and charming. I wish I could settle on one, good or bad. This would make my life much easier.

The Baldwin and Brand characters were interesting, but they didn't play on screen as well as I would be they would on stage.

There are three performances that absolutely steal the show, and they are...

Malin Åkerman as Rolling Stone writer Constance Sack

Tom Cruise as Stacee Jaxx

A baboon (sorry, I forgot his Christian name) as Hey Man.

The Cruise scenes are great, and his scenes with Akerman are the best in the film.

Cruise is unreal. He embodies everything amazing about the decadent singers of the 80's. He is an absolute caricature and you can tell he loved every minute of this part. I didn't know what to think of him in this part, but he really went above and beyond any expectations I could have had.

The baboon killed it. This might be the best primate performance I've ever seen.

The rest is pretty much what you've heard. It's very cheesy and cliché ridden. The plot exists as a way to put a bunch of songs that you already knew were awesome in a less awesome format. I just don't get the point. Why go see a thin story with music you can hear in a much better format elsewhere? Yeah, Cruise and the Baboon were great, but is that enough?

I have a feeling that on stage, with the heightened energy and the audience reaction and the absolute precision that a lot of this needs, this is probably an amazing show. But, like most movie musicals, everything that made it special has been removed and toned down to make it just another so so piece of entertainment.

John Carter

At some point people began caring about how much money a movie made or lost. Once upon a time it was OK for a movie to be good or bad. Then it became a race for the biggest movie of the year. Then the biggest opening weekend. Then the biggest movie in the US. Then the biggest movie in the world. I don't know when it happened, but it did.

Does it really matter? I know it can be fun, and as someone who hosts a http://www.summermovieleague.com/ league (go to the link and find The Film Thugs Movie Show contest and join in the fun) I realize that, but I also admit that it has no connection to the quality of the film. In fact, it kind of frustrates me.

What is more important, that "The Avengers" made all the money in the world... or that it's actually a really good movie? I maintain that had it made $10 it would have been a success because what was on screen was so good. But for some reason the money dominates.

My attitude, unless you are getting paid a dividend or are trying to win something, like the summer movie league, then there is no reason to care about or to discuss the amount of money they make.

But when you are talking about a massive hit or a massive flop, it's kind of hard not to.

For a while, "John Carter" held the distinction of being the biggest box office flop in history. And for a while it was. But remember, you are talking about studios here, so there is flop and then there is "financial quarter flop." Yes, "John Carter" was a flop, costing the studio about $200,000,000... for a quarter. After the quarter ended it kept making money. Thanks to Europe the movie now sits at a $32,000,000 profit. Not a massive return, but it's in the black, so there.

But this was a movie that generated a mind blowing loss. Hell, you could have produced "The Hurt Locker" 13 times over with the money this movie LOST and you still would have had $6,000,000 left over. Since we are living in an age where people Tweet about how much money a move made in a weekend and act like its some sort of personal victory it is impossible for such a massive loss to not become part of the movies narrative.

Somewhere in all of this, the movie itself is forgotten.

I was skeptical about "John Carter" for much the same reason many other people were. The ad campaign made it look awful. Now, I know you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover but when you are talking about such an inescapable carpet bombing campaign it is hard not to have your judgment clouded.

Let me be clear up front. The ad campaign for this movie SUCKED. It was objectively awful. If you had no idea what the source material was it looked like a guy in a furry cock sock jumping really high around a bunch of alien looking creatures in the desert. I knew a little more about the source material than most people and even I couldn't make sense of it.

The movie is based on Edgar Rice Burroughs's "Barsoom" books which began with as a serialized publication, "Under the Moons of Mars," and was later compiled into a series of novels beginning with "A Princess of Mars."

I contend that a lot of the problems with the film's performance could have been fixed by changing the title to either, "John Carter of Mars," or "John Carter and The Princess of Mars." Then the jumping, the aliens, and the barren landscape would have made sense, but as it was... it didn't.

It's not like this was a rushed production. The first attempt to make this began in 1931 and test footage was shown to exhibitors in 1936. Disney has been working on this version on and off since the early 80's. So why go through that massive effort just to cock it up at the end. Sadly, we shall never know.

So, all that being said, what is my take on this film?

First off, it's much better than I thought it would be. But that's not saying much as my expectations were as low as possible.

All in all I thought it was decent. Not great, not terrible, just decent. The action was solid, the performances were very good, and the story was solid if a bit busy.

The entire film is framed as a journal written by John Carter and read his nephew Edgar Rice Burroughs after Carter's rather mysterious death. Basically, Carter was prospecting for gold when he accidentally kills an alien man who appears out of thin air. As the man dies he hands Carter a medallion and says the word "Barsoom." Carter repeats it and is transported immediately to Mars.

Granted, it takes him a while to figure out where he is, but in the meantime he is taken in by a nomadic tribe due to the heightened physical abilities he now has as a result of Mars's low gravity.

There is a lot going on plot wise. You have war, a love story, political intrigue, technologically advanced aliens aiding the different factions. It's a lot to take in.

So far as big, dumb, fun summer movies go this holds its own. It has a compelling protagonist with a definite set of problems to overcome, a beautiful female lead who is as strong as she is sexy, and a bad guy who twirls the mustache just enough.

Yeah, the dialogue is a bit corny and the characters are a bit broadly drawn at times, but it's a damned pulp serial, what the hell do you expect. If you are buying in enough to watch it, then you need to understand the nature of what you are seeing and accept it for what it is.

Taylor Kitsch is fantastic in it. If you are a fan of "Friday Night Lights," then you know this. If you aren't... why the hell not? It's great and you should watch it. The kid has skills. Hell, he's Canadian and he got my Texas ass to buy him as a Texan, and that's no small task (Derek Phillips, who played his brother, is from Florida and was just as convincing, but he went to Baylor so he has some background. Oh, and yeah, I'm name dropping because we were in our freshman acting classes together.).

I'm the tall one. Derek has the sword. I don't remember who the guy in the hat is.

One of the only problems I have with the film is Mark Strong. Not that he wasn't great, which he was. He is a fantastic actor, but he has kind of been typecast. I really want to see him do more, but hey, if they gonna pay a man to growl and be menacing, then that man should be paid for growling and being menacing.

There is a lot to like in this movie, and not a lot to really hate.

I know that there has been a lot of flack flying about how people ruined this movie by word of mouth without having seen it, but I don't think that was the case. Disney shot itself square in the foot on this one. This should, and could, have been huge. It's a family friendly sci-fi epic that does exactly what it sets out to do. But, no matter how good what you've made is, people don't know that until they see it, and if you are giving them little, or to be honest no reason, to go... then they won't.