Hey everyone. Long time no see! As there is basically no new media coming out these days, its been tough to force myself to blog when there isn’t much I care about these days. So, to make sure you always have at least a few blog posts a week, I’ve decided (with some egging on by a few friends) to start this little Friday Quick Hits post. Every Friday, you can check here for a few brief thoughts on all things media that I’ve noticed over the week. Also, I’ll be starting up Media Maven Music Wednesday’s again, so check back on Wednesday for that. Enjoy!
1. Saw Into The Wild and Atonement over the weekend. Loved Wild, liked Atonement. I found Wild to be an incredible story with beautiful scenes of nature and some of the best ensemble acting of the year. Emile Hirsch is flawless as the lead, Catherine Keener, William Hurt, and Hal Holbrook are sensational as the supporting cast. I found Sean Penn’s direction to be a bit heavy handed and often times flat out weird (how weird are the yellow captions that keep scrolling across the screen?). All in all, one of the ten best films of the year, for sure. Atonement is very overrated. I liked it, but if it hadn’t come out in December, I don’t think anyone would give it a second thought. The plot is contrived and predictable, but its gorgeously directed and well acted. A good movie, but nothing special. I just couldn’t connect to it emotionally– the entire core of the movie is based on one 5 minute scene in a library– how is that enough to sustain an entire film?
2. Seeing Cloverfield tonight. Check back tomorrow for a post.
3. Watched the first hour of Sarah Connor Chronicles. Couldn’t be less interested.
4. Watched the first 20 minutes of Cashmere Mafia. No way that show stays on the air past this season. It’s like Sex and the City without the intelligence, hip zeitgeisty vibe or humor. Yeah, it’s that bad.
5. Finally bought the Ingrid Michaelson album, Boys and Girls, that I’d heard so much about. It’s good, but not great. I’m willing to bet she’s far more enjoyable live than on a recording, but still, I was somewhat disappointed because at the end of the day, she’s a pretty singer with pretty good pop songs. Only slightly better than average, in my opinion.
That’s all for now. Have a great weekend!
Don’t these over-hyped films like “Cloverfield” offend your sensibilities? And every asshole you know is dying to see it because they “heard” it was good from…somewhere. The funniest review I’ve read quoted some of the dialogue from “Cloverfield”, brilliant lines like:
Guy to victim bleeding from both eyes–”Are you all right?” Was the script written in crayon? The target audience for this one is head injury cases and, yes, morons who plan their evenings around the latest knockoff to the “Terminator” franchise. Good post, nice to see some critical thinking for a change…
Hey Cliff, thanks for your comment. I’m going to be posting about Cloverfield tomorrow, but suffice it to say, I enjoyed it. And while I understand your annoyance at super-hyped films, I think you should try to reserve your judgment on the film itself until you’ve seen it. Usually, when an action film has hype like this, its another cookie cutter action film– but Cloverfield is a J.J. Abrams brain child and I promise you, Abrams is no Jerry Bruckheimer.
Also, when people say they “heard” a movie was good, they’re probably referring to reviews or media buzz, similar the one you quoted in your comment.
Check back later for my full review, and thanks again!
I thought “Lost” a bore and Abrams’ direction of “Mission Impossible III” nothing less than standard. Anyone can direct the “Mission” series–especially since Tom Cruise gets final edit and adds in more closeups of himself in the cutting room. I detest CGI and its superficialities. Maven, it’s “King Kong” with a giant LOUSE! Why should I see that when I just got finished watching (5 minutes ago) the second half of Abel Gance’s 1927 masterpiece “Napoleon”? How do you think Abrams stacks up against Gance? Er…how about…NOT EVEN CLOSE?
Wow Cliff, I bet you’re real fun at parties.
Hey Cliff, I can understand where you’re coming from, truly I can. But there are 2 key elements I must disagree with:
1. Lost is one of the most influential and innovative television programs of all time. Without a doubt. Not because of the action, not even because of the story– but because of the way the story is told. The way the epic story unfolds by going backwards and even forwards in time, is revolutionary for television.
2. What’s wonderful about Cloverfield isn’t the story, or the CGI– hell, the best moments of the film are before the monster is even visible. What’s so cool about Cloverfield is the WAY the story is told. No monster movie has ever been told from this perspective– the mode of narrative discourse is from the point of view of these random New York 20-something’s on their home video camera. And to be fair, have you even seen Cloverfield? How can you knock something you’ve never even seen (for the record, its much more like Godzilla than King Kong, which is about the human/monster relationship; this movie is about survival).
Good to hear from you again, Cliff.
Pass. I think it’s safe to mock films like “Cloverfield” without seeing them because the hype homogenizes these films into a blur of “Oh my Gods” and “Did you see thats?” Here’s my prediction, Maven: “Cloverfield” does a huge opening weekend, then drops off precipitously in the next 10 days to 2 weeks and at the end of the year you’ll have a hard time remembering what you even saw in it. For further examples, see “300″, “King Kong” and “Beowulf”. I heard one reviewer ridiculously compare “300″ to “Citizen Kane”…a contention that made me howl with mirth. “Serious” film fans assuring me “300″ was the “greatest”, “most intense” film EVER. And when I finally summoned the nerve to see it, I came out thinking fans of the show had read too many comic books and rotted their critical faculties with long hours in front of their TVs/video games. Tonight for us: Polanski’s debut film “Knife in the Water”. But you won’t find it in your local video store–no room for it amidst all the copies of “Spiderman 2″…or “III” or “IV” or …
While I can appreciate your purist, classicist love of films, I don’t appreciate your grouping of all CGI pictures into one category.
I’d consider myself a serious film fan– I could talk with you on nearly any international cinematic topic over the last 100 years– and I LOVED 300, really liked Beowulf and really liked Cloverfield. I also enjoyed Spiderman 2 very much.
300 is like Citizen Kane in many ways– aesthetically, both borrow heavily from comic books (or rather, comic books borrowed heavily from Citizen Kane’s unique shot framing and composition). Both films have had a large impact on the films that followed (300′s legacy is yet to be determined, but it will certainly become apparent in the next few years).
And for the record, it’s really not “safe” to mock anything you haven’t seen because, no offense, you really have no idea what you’re talking about. I mean literally, you haven’t seen it, so how could you possibly know a thing about it? I don’t know what “hype” you’re referring too– this movie was not that heavily promoted or buzzed about, there are no hollywood stars in it, it’s not a franchise or tentpole film.
Just because it features CGI, it’s a bad film? How can you make a blanket statement like that? Hell, Lord of The Rings won Best Picture and that was like 50% CGI.
“Cloverfield” not hyped? One commentator referred to the internet and TV campaign as “viral”–the ads were ubiquitous. I’m not knocking all CGI films, just those that cover lousy scripts, derivative plots and pitiful direction with special fx. How can you seriously compare these silly comic book movies to “Citizen Kane”? On the one hand we have Gregg Toland and Orson Welles and on the other…a team of computer graphics geeks. No contest on that one.
Handing the “Star Trek” franchise over to Abrams is like putting PeeWee Herman in charge of the State Department (although he might do a better job, come to think of it, than Condie Rice and her cadre of dingbats).
I posted my response to “300″ on my blog so I’ll just refer you to:
http://cliffjburns.wordpress.com/spleen/
Nuff said on that front…
Looks like we’re just going to have to agree to disagree Cliff. How do you know Cloverfield has a lousy script, derivative plot and pitiful direction when you didn’t even see it?
And I can’t think of a better person to give the Star Trek reins over to than J.J. He’s a moneymaker who is respected and trusted not only by the industry (because he always delivers the goods), and not only by scholars (because of his consistent innovation in television and film narrative discourse), but by the fans, who trust him with their franchises and sci-fi/alternative narrative type stories. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
MM….saw juno and really enjoyed it…yes it wasn’t a blockbuster production, with flashy cinematography and a perfect script, but nontheless it was credible and in a short period of time the characterers seamed real…the dialogue was only fair at times, but is every conversation that you have always great? i love the fact that a cheap production can still do well…in fact better than an overblown one…it takes a good script and acting to make a movie of this type work and that is why i think that it was nominated…for just that fact…a no frills production, and still an enjoyable 2 hours….in fact, just the opposite of attonement, a high priced and beautifully filmed movie with a weak predictable story line that was less enjoyable….sometimes an ice cold can of budwiser from the bottem of a barrel of ice on a hot summer day with sweat pouring down your face is better that a well age bottle of bourdeaux!
Well said, cousin. But I personally did not like the script– I thought it was pretentious and tried so hard to sound hip in a way that people NEVER speak. Have you ever heard someone say “What the blog?” or “Phuckett, Thailand” as a synonym for cussing? I loved last year’s Little Miss Sunshine, another low budget, low fanfare film, but one that I found to be infinitely more fulfilling and enjoyable than Juno.
A cold Budweiser can be refreshing, but not if you don’t like the taste of Bud to begin with.
you make some good points….agree that little miss sunshine was terrific….loved alan arkin’s performance
have been so busy that we have not watched much tv, but finally started john adams…read the book, as i know that you have as well…saw the first episode and am looking forward to the next…the acting is quite good and the history is so exciting that it is hard not to get involved…we will see if it carries itself through…have withheld reading your reviews until i catch up on the episodes….speaking of history, have you read manhunt, the story of the chase for j w booth….excellent…would make a great movie if well done…even a mini series..