INTERVIEW: ANTHONY HOPKINS (THE WORLD’S FASTEST INDIAN)

cCCAnthony Hopkins is grandfatherly. He’s soft spoken and
laughs a lot and seems to happy to get his reminiscence on, just like a
grandfather. After meeting him it’s hard to imagine him eating Ray
Liotta’s brain – and then right at the end of the interview he did that
lip smacking noise that Hannibal makes when he does the Fava Bean
speech – and you’re suddenly creeped out.

Hopkins’ newest film is The World’s Fastest Indian,
which does not have him playing Gandhi breaking the four minute mile, but rather a New Zealander named
Burt Munro, an old coot with an old Indian motorbike who wants to
travel to America to race his souped up cycle at Bonneville Flats
speedway, to see how fast he can make it go. It’s a true(ish) story –
director Roger Donaldson knew the real Burt Munro, and made a
documentary about him called Offerings to the God of Speed.

The World’s Fastest Indian is coming to theaters this weekend.

Q: When did you first hear of Burt’s story, and why did you want to play him?

Hopkins:
Roger Donaldson sent me the DVD of the documentary and the script and
he said, “Watch the documentary first and then read the script, tell me
what you think.” So I watched the documentary and thought it was very
good. I read the script the next day and phoned him and said I’d like
to do it.

Q: Burt’s got such a wide-eyed view of the world.

Hopkins:
Yeah, it’s a bit like me when I came to America. I’m pretty wide-eyed.
I’m always taken by surprise by things. And that’s how I’ve treated my
whole life actually—always being in a straight of surprise. I moseyed
onto this train called show business many years ago, and I’m still
going. So it’s a pleasant journey.


Q: That seems to have changed, because in the press notes you mentioned working with Roger on The Bounty
and said you were much more temperamental back then, and that you would
argue or scream with a director. I’m wondering if you’ve just mellowed?


Hopkins:
Yeah. Well, Roger was the same—we met about 3-4 years ago at a party
and we’ve both mellowed out a bit. I think as you get older, you get a
bit more sensible, get a better perspective of things. I figured out
some years ago that the director is in charge of the movie. That
doesn’t mean to say that every director is good or every actor is good,
but the director—that’s his job to run the movie, he’s the boss. I
remember the first day we were filming, when the wheel comes off the
trailer, and Roger said, “Can we do another take?” and I said “Yeah,
you sure?” So we did about 15 takes. [laughs]. He’s a perfectionist and
he wants to get it right, and I imagine this is the program, just go
along with it.

casQ: When you look back at your younger self, do you say ‘What a hothead I was!’ or ‘Why was I that way?’

Hopkins:
I don’t regret it, that’s the way it was then. When you’re younger you
have a lot of ideas and you’re probably more insecure, all those
things. I work with young actors now and I see their insecurities and I
make fun of them. I don’t make fun of them but I make them laugh,
because I know what they’re going through. When you get older you think
‘It’s only a movie after all, it’s not brain surgery.’

Q: You have said that you became an actor because you didn’t do well in school.

Hopkins:
I just probably couldn’t figure out anything when I was in school and
so I became an actor because I didn’t know what else to do.
Academically I wasn’t good. I was just slow or different. I remember
kids in school who could understand math, and we had one guy in school
who was a genius, and I don’t know what happened to him. He ended up
driving some truck, and he was brilliant in school, good student. David
Davis his name was—amazing, and I hated him (laughs). He never did any
homework and he just got it all the time. I didn’t have that kind of
mind structure and I think we’re all different. Some people are
musicians, some people are actors, some are accountants, agents,
newspaper guys, drivers, etc.

Q: How has your approach to roles changed in recent years?

Hopkins:
I’ve always taken the same method, which is to learn the lines
literally. I learn the text, I read the script maybe twice, and I go
over my text of the lines. I get a rhythm in my head and then I can
hear rhythms which click. With certain rhythms of speech I think, ‘This
is interesting’ and I let them take me into a new area. I begin to feel
like someone else—I’m not schizophrenic or anything—but just to use
another rhythm of my own self.

Q:
Burt feels like his whole life has been leading up to that first race
that’s portrayed in the movie. Do you feel that you’ve had your
Bonneville moment or do you feel like you’re still waiting?


Hopkins:
I feel like when I first came to New York, 30 odd years ago. I remember
I had been living in England for years and wanted to come to America. I
remember getting up in the morning at the Algonquin in September in
1974, and I went on 5th avenue to get a newspaper and I thought, ‘I’m
home’. I had that feeling about it, and that scene where Burt arrives
at Bonneville, I’d learned that speech and not that it’s a huge moment
being in Bonneville because I’m not interested in world speed records.
But I remember doing that scene, it was a cold morning and Roger said
“Action!” and I got quite emotional about it, because it was similar to
my own life in a way.

Q: Which role has eluded you the most? Which did you find the most difficult?

Hopkins: I
think Nixon. To play an American President, that’s a bit of a stretch
of imagination [laughs]. Oliver Stone is an amazing director and he put
the pressure on. I didn’t want to do it, and I remember he came to
England to meet me and I’d already turned it down. He said, “Chicken,
huh?” [laughs].


I
remember going to meet him on that morning at the Hyde Park Hotel, and
I had a moment of clarity—I can stay here in Britain and play nice,
boring safe parts in BBC [snore sound], or Ica
can work with this crazy director in America and maybe fall on my
backside or make a success of it. I just thought well, I’ll just take
the risk. And I went to the hotel and Oliver gruffled and said
“Chicken, huh?” and I said, “No, I’m going to do it.” I said yes and I
went to America and I remember learning the script and thought, ‘What
have I done? I’ve taken on this nightmare.’ Then I went to California
and started rehearsing and realized I was in the hands of a great
director. He puts a lot of pressure on you, and you get to a point
where you either crack or you get it. He was relentless until I got the
feeling of the part, and I really liked Oliver.

Q:
When you’re playing a real person like Nixon or Burt, how important is
it for you to be accurate to that person, and how important is it to
have freedom to create your own character?


Hopkins:
If you get accurate—I mean, I can never become accurate. I don’t look
anything like Nixon or the real Burt Munro. Nixon’s face has got a long
nose. We tried to make a nose and all that and I said ‘This isn’t
working’ and they did the hair. But if I was Rich Little or Fran
Gorshin or these great mimics, they’re brilliant. Actually Rich Little
came to the set of Nixon one day and I resisted doing Rich Little,
because if you do that, you become a mimic. And with an accent like
this guy—a New Zealand accent—if you strive to get it absolutely
accurate then it’s not a performance; it’s a mask. You may as well make
a Nixon funny head or a Burt Munro mask, because that’s not what acting
is about. That’s my opinion. So you just airbrush it in, a couple of
pen strokes here and there. The New Zealand accent was easier for me
because Burt sounds a little bit Cornish or Irish, so it was easier
than North Islanders, which are a much more pinched sound.

Q:
There was a poll done by the Old Vic Theater and you came off as the
number one British actor of all time, ahead of Laurence Olivier, Alec
Guinness, Michael Caine…and Judi Dench was your counterpart. Do you
think you’re that great?


Hopkins:
I honestly don’t know. It’s a source of puzzlement for me, and I’m very
pleased if they call me that. I thought a lot lately about it, and I
honestly don’t know. I blush a bit, because I worked with Olivier and
he’s a great actor. And I’ve seen those guys like Alec Guinness. It’s
great to be told that, but I remember thinking I’ve gotten a few
enemies in England now. Maybe I have an attitude, and I don’t know
what’s happened to me over the last few years, except that some things
opened up in me and… I don’t take it seriously.


But
I do my job, and I do what I’m paid to do and I’m always prepared. I
prepare by learning the text so well that when I show up, I’m relaxed
and the performance sort of happens. Now whether that’s good or bad, I
don’t know, and I’ve been in some films that were bad and given some
bad performances as well. But maybe people respond in a way—whatever I
say is going to sound very egocentric and self centered anyway so I’d
better shut up. But when they say that, I think ‘oh well’. I got the
Cecil B. DeMille Award recently…but I’m still up there thinking, ‘Have
they got the right person’? [laughs] I still do that.

csaQ:
You’ve spoken a few times about rhythms and sounds, and finding
character. I think you also compose. Is there a connection there? Is
that one of your major ways into your art?


Hopkins:
I suppose so. I don’t necessarily analyze it but I started off when I
was a little kid playing a piano and I wanted to be a musician. I say
that in retrospect, I don’t know how much I wanted to be. I just wanted
to be famous because I wanted to escape from what I felt was my
limitation in life because I wasn’t a good student. And I wanted to
write music, and I didn’t know what I was doing and I never had the
technique or understanding of it. Academically, I don’t grasp things at
all well. But I’ve always played the piano and I can improvise on the
piano, but the problem is that I can’t write down what I write. I can
read music but I can’t write numbers; I don’t have knowledge. My wife
said, “That’s beautiful, why don’t you get some help?” so I phoned up
somebody who she knew, whose a composer and musician in his own right,
and I went to his studio and he gave me the freedom of his studio where
I could synthesize a keyboard. I know my way around instruments so we
became good friends, and he’s got no ego at all. He helped me with all
the electronics stuff on the computer because I don’t understand that
but I’m learning. And I’m learning orchestration.


I
built the first big piece I have called “Margam,” which is where I was
born. It sounds pretty good, and it’s being performed in San Antonio in
May in the symphony orchestra down there. Music has always been with me
but my wife sort of turned the key in me and said I am a musician. And
with paintings, she got me to do some paintings for this gallery in San
Antonio again. So we’ll be combining an art exhibition — it sounds like
a real ego trip, this [laughs] — but she said she wants me to do 100
paintings for this little gallery. So I did these little pen drawings,
with felt pen and brushes. So I paint these landscapes and I change
colors, and she got me to do acrylics. I’ve done 25 acrylics for the
library and I go down to San Antonio on Thursday to see the orchestra.
I figure the thing is not to analyze it, and people say ‘Oh you’ve got
no technique’ and I said to hell with it, people seem to like it and
they want to buy it [laughs]. I think it’s all a happy design. I’m not
saying I’m Picasso, but I do enjoy the freedom of free expression
without knowing anything about it.

Q:
It says in the notes that you’re a happy man, and because of that you
don’t really want to play villains or psychotic people anymore. Is that
true?


Hopkins:
Oh, yeah. But actually my next movie is with Ryan Gosling and I play a
man that kills his own wife—she’s having an affair—but it’s not
Hannibal Lecter. This man is a littlecas
strange but he’s on the surface very normal, very quiet, and he kills
his wife because she’s having an affair. It’s a revenge thing but he
sets up a test. This guy is involved with those Ruth Goldberg machines
and he designs the perfect murder but he leaves one flaw.

Q: Is it true you’re coming to do narration for the next Hannibal film?

Hopkins: No, that’s a dumb rumor.

Q: So you’re all done with Hannibal?

Hopkins: Oh, yeah.

Q:
At the Golden Globes when they gave you the De Mille award, they said
(about Hannibal), this is the #1 villain of all time in the movies. Did
you find, in a way, that is a thing around your neck? A hard thing to
get rid of?


Hopkins: No, but people want me to do the Fava Bean speech all the time.






Author Links: Author's Page · AIM · Twitter · Facebook · Twitter · Email

INTERVIEW: ANTHONY HOPKINS (THE WORLD’S FASTEST INDIAN)

csaAnthony Hopkins is grandfatherly. He’s soft spoken and laughs a lot and seems to happy to get his reminiscence on, just like a grandfather. After meeting him it’s hard to imagine him eating Ray Liotta’s brain – and then right at the end of the interview he did that lip smacking noise that Hannibal makes when he does the Fava Bean speech – and you’re suddenly creeped out.

Hopkins’ newest film is The World’s Fastest Indian, which does not have him playing Gandhi breaking the four minute mile, but rather a New Zealander named Burt Munro, an old coot with an old Indian motorbike who wants to travel to America to race his souped up cycle at Bonneville Flats speedway, to see how fast he can make it go. It’s a true(ish) story – director Roger Donaldson knew the real Burt Munro, and made a documentary about him called Offerings to the God of Speed.

The World’s Fastest Indian is coming to theaters this weekend.

Q: When did you first hear of Burt’s story, and why did you want to play him?

Hopkins: Roger Donaldson sent me the DVD of the documentary and the script and he said, “Watch the documentary first and then read the script, tell me what you think.” So I watched the documentary and thought it was very good. I read the script the next day and phoned him and said I’d like to do it.

Q: Burt’s got such a wide-eyed view of the world.

Hopkins: Yeah, it’s a bit like me when I came to America. I’m pretty wide-eyed. I’m always taken by surprise by things. And that’s how I’ve treated my whole life actually—always being in a straight of surprise. I moseyed onto this train called show business many years ago, and I’m still going. So it’s a pleasant journey.

Q: That seems to have changed, because in the press notes you mentioned working with Roger on The Bounty and said you were much more temperamental back then, and that you would argue or scream with a director. I’m wondering if you’ve just mellowed?

Hopkins: Yeah. Well, Roger was the same—we met about 3-4 years ago at a party and we’ve both mellowed out a bit. I think as you get older, you get a bit more sensible, get a better perspective of things. I figured out some years ago that the director is in charge of the movie. That doesn’t mean to say that every director is good or every actor is good, but the director—that’s his job to run the movie, he’s the boss. I remember the first day we were filming, when the wheel comes off the trailer, and Roger said, “Can we do another take?” and I said “Yeah, you sure?” So we did about 15 takes. [laughs]. He’s a perfectionist and he wants to get it right, and I imagine this is the program, just go along with it.

casQ: When you look back at your younger self, do you say ‘What a hothead I was!’ or ‘Why was I that way?’

Hopkins: I don’t regret it, that’s the way it was then. When you’re younger you have a lot of ideas and you’re probably more insecure, all those things. I work with young actors now and I see their insecurities and I make fun of them. I don’t make fun of them but I make them laugh, because I know what they’re going through. When you get older you think ‘It’s only a movie after all, it’s not brain surgery.’

Q: You have said that you became an actor because you didn’t do well in school.

Hopkins: I just probably couldn’t figure out anything when I was in school and so I became an actor because I didn’t know what else to do. Academically I wasn’t good. I was just slow or different. I remember kids in school who could understand math, and we had one guy in school who was a genius, and I don’t know what happened to him. He ended up driving some truck, and he was brilliant in school, good student. David Davis his name was—amazing, and I hated him (laughs). He never did any homework and he just got it all the time. I didn’t have that kind of mind structure and I think we’re all different. Some people are musicians, some people are actors, some are accountants, agents, newspaper guys, drivers, etc.

Q: How has your approach to roles changed in recent years?

Hopkins: I’ve always taken the same method, which is to learn the lines literally. I learn the text, I read the script maybe twice, and I go over my text of the lines. I get a rhythm in my head and then I can hear rhythms which click. With certain rhythms of speech I think, ‘This is interesting’ and I let them take me into a new area. I begin to feel like someone else—I’m not schizophrenic or anything—but just to use another rhythm of my own self.

Q: Burt feels like his whole life has been leading up to that first race that’s portrayed in the movie. Do you feel that you’ve had your Bonneville moment or do you feel like you’re still waiting?

Hopkins: I feel like when I first came to New York, 30 odd years ago. I remember I had been living in England for years and wanted to come to America. I remember getting up in the morning at the Algonquin in September in 1974, and I went on 5th avenue to get a newspaper and I thought, ‘I’m home’. I had that feeling about it, and that scene where Burt arrives at Bonneville, I’d learned that speech and not that it’s a huge moment being in Bonneville because I’m not interested in world speed records. But I remember doing that scene, it was a cold morning and Roger said “Action!” and I got quite emotional about it, because it was similar to my own life in a way.

Q: Which role has eluded you the most? Which did you find the most difficult?

Hopkins: I think Nixon. To play an American President, that’s a bit of a stretch of imagination [laughs]. Oliver Stone is an amazing director and he put the pressure on. I didn’t want to do it, and I remember he came to England to meet me and I’d already turned it down. He said, “Chicken, huh?” [laughs].

I remember going to meet him on that morning at the Hyde Park Hotel, and I had a moment of clarity—I can stay here in Britain and play nice, boring safe parts in BBC [snore sound], or Ica can work with this crazy director in America and maybe fall on my backside or make a success of it. I just thought well, I’ll just take the risk. And I went to the hotel and Oliver gruffled and said “Chicken, huh?” and I said, “No, I’m going to do it.” I said yes and I went to America and I remember learning the script and thought, ‘What have I done? I’ve taken on this nightmare.’ Then I went to California and started rehearsing and realized I was in the hands of a great director. He puts a lot of pressure on you, and you get to a point where you either crack or you get it. He was relentless until I got the feeling of the part, and I really liked Oliver.

Q: When you’re playing a real person like Nixon or Burt, how important is it for you to be accurate to that person, and how important is it to have freedom to create your own character?

Hopkins: If you get accurate—I mean, I can never become accurate. I don’t look anything like Nixon or the real Burt Munro. Nixon’s face has got a long nose. We tried to make a nose and all that and I said ‘This isn’t working’ and they did the hair. But if I was Rich Little or Fran Gorshin or these great mimics, they’re brilliant. Actually Rich Little came to the set of Nixon one day and I resisted doing Rich Little, because if you do that, you become a mimic. And with an accent like this guy—a New Zealand accent—if you strive to get it absolutely accurate then it’s not a performance; it’s a mask. You may as well make a Nixon funny head or a Burt Munro mask, because that’s not what acting is about. That’s my opinion. So you just airbrush it in, a couple of pen strokes here and there. The New Zealand accent was easier for me because Burt sounds a little bit Cornish or Irish, so it was easier than North Islanders, which are a much more pinched sound.

Q: There was a poll done by the Old Vic Theater and you came off as the number one British actor of all time, ahead of Laurence Olivier, Alec Guinness, Michael Caine…and Judi Dench was your counterpart. Do you think you’re that great?

Hopkins: I honestly don’t know. It’s a source of puzzlement for me, and I’m very pleased if they call me that. I thought a lot lately about it, and I honestly don’t know. I blush a bit, because I worked with Olivier and he’s a great actor. And I’ve seen those guys like Alec Guinness. It’s great to be told that, but I remember thinking I’ve gotten a few enemies in England now. Maybe I have an attitude, and I don’t know what’s happened to me over the last few years, except that some things opened up in me and… I don’t take it seriously.

But I do my job, and I do what I’m paid to do and I’m always prepared. I prepare by learning the text so well that when I show up, I’m relaxed and the performance sort of happens. Now whether that’s good or bad, I don’t know, and I’ve been in some films that were bad and given some bad performances as well. But maybe people respond in a way—whatever I say is going to sound very egocentric and self centered anyway so I’d better shut up. But when they say that, I think ‘oh well’. I got the Cecil B. DeMille Award recently…but I’m still up there thinking, ‘Have they got the right person’? [laughs] I still do that.

csaQ: You’ve spoken a few times about rhythms and sounds, and finding character. I think you also compose. Is there a connection there? Is that one of your major ways into your art?

Hopkins: I suppose so. I don’t necessarily analyze it but I started off when I was a little kid playing a piano and I wanted to be a musician. I say that in retrospect, I don’t know how much I wanted to be. I just wanted to be famous because I wanted to escape from what I felt was my limitation in life because I wasn’t a good student. And I wanted to write music, and I didn’t know what I was doing and I never had the technique or understanding of it. Academically, I don’t grasp things at all well. But I’ve always played the piano and I can improvise on the piano, but the problem is that I can’t write down what I write. I can read music but I can’t write numbers; I don’t have knowledge. My wife said, “That’s beautiful, why don’t you get some help?” so I phoned up somebody who she knew, whose a composer and musician in his own right, and I went to his studio and he gave me the freedom of his studio where I could synthesize a keyboard. I know my way around instruments so we became good friends, and he’s got no ego at all. He helped me with all the electronics stuff on the computer because I don’t understand that but I’m learning. And I’m learning orchestration.

I built the first big piece I have called “Margam,” which is where I was born. It sounds pretty good, and it’s being performed in San Antonio in May in the symphony orchestra down there. Music has always been with me but my wife sort of turned the key in me and said I am a musician. And with paintings, she got me to do some paintings for this gallery in San Antonio again. So we’ll be combining an art exhibition — it sounds like a real ego trip, this [laughs] — but she said she wants me to do 100 paintings for this little gallery. So I did these little pen drawings, with felt pen and brushes. So I paint these landscapes and I change colors, and she got me to do acrylics. I’ve done 25 acrylics for the library and I go down to San Antonio on Thursday to see the orchestra. I figure the thing is not to analyze it, and people say ‘Oh you’ve got no technique’ and I said to hell with it, people seem to like it and they want to buy it [laughs]. I think it’s all a happy design. I’m not saying I’m Picasso, but I do enjoy the freedom of free expression without knowing anything about it.

Q: It says in the notes that you’re a happy man, and because of that you don’t really want to play villains or psychotic people anymore. Is that true?

Hopkins: Oh, yeah. But actually my next movie is with Ryan Gosling and I play a man that kills his own wife—she’s having an affair—but it’s not Hannibal Lecter. This man is a littlecas strange but he’s on the surface very normal, very quiet, and he kills his wife because she’s having an affair. It’s a revenge thing but he sets up a test. This guy is involved with those Ruth Goldberg machines and he designs the perfect murder but he leaves one flaw.

Q: Is it true you’re coming to do narration for the next Hannibal film?

Hopkins: No, that’s a dumb rumor.

Q: So you’re all done with Hannibal?

Hopkins: Oh, yeah.

Q: At the Golden Globes when they gave you the De Mille award, they said (about Hannibal), this is the #1 villain of all time in the movies. Did you find, in a way, that is a thing around your neck? A hard thing to get rid of?

Hopkins: No, but people want me to do the Fava Bean speech all the time.






Author Links: Author's Page · AIM · Twitter · Facebook · Twitter · Email

YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A CAVEMAN TO LIKE EMMERICH’S NEW FILM

456If you’ve been dying to see what big time explodo director Roland Emmerich might find to blow up in prehistoric times, Warner Bros is your friend. They’ve picked up his 10,000 BC, which had been put in turnaround by Sony, who I guess must have rented Clan of the Cave Bear or Quest for Fire and realized there’s no way to make a good caveman film without Ringo Starr.

10,000 BC will be about a 21-year old in a hunter-gatherer tribe who hunt mastodons for meat and stylish Ugg boots. Now, I’m no expert, but wasn’t 21 pretty old back in the Stone Age (I know that you don’t trust anyone over 30 in the Stoned Age)?

Possibly the best part of the film is that Emmerich wrote the script with his composer, who will do the music. The guy’s been making movies with only his FX department in mind for years, so it’s nice to see that he’s giving the musicians a chance to dictate how his films go.






Author Links: Author's Page · AIM · Twitter · Facebook · Twitter · Email

RIDLEY SCOTT LIKES PENETRATION

 Ridley Scott is kinda like Steven Spielberg or David Fincher in that he always seems to be orbiting a number of projects but only rarely sets down the skiffs. Commitment-phobic? Capricious? Overly ambitious? Hey, if it means we don’t get another G.I. Jane, take your sweet time deciding, Sir.

With his vino movie A Good Year in the bottle, Scott is fearlessly hovering over the Middle East hot zone for a pair of potential projects. One is at Warner Bros. with the near-porn title Penetration, based on the Scott Ignatius’ spy book about a CIA agent hunting a terrorist in Jordan (the Arab country, not the pneumatic UK pinup girl, which would be more fun).

The other (and possibly next) is Paramount’s The Invisible World, a straight-from-the-headlines story from Ignatius and Dana Stevens about a female journalist who gets abducted in Iraq. Scott must’ve acquired a taste for Tajine and couscous while filming Kingdom of Heaven in Morocco – he wants to return there to shoot this one as well.

I’ll leave the political commentary on the whole Middle East mess to Devin (that’s one of the reasons we let him out of the box for each day), and just say that I personally would rather see Scott would make another sci-fi film rather than another historical epic or topics I already see on the news any given night.






Author Links: Author's Page · AIM · Twitter · Facebook · Twitter · Email

OSCAR NOMS!

 I’ll save most of my snark for Oscar night, when we’ll probably do the traditional running commentary on the site and/or message boards here. But my initial impressions? I’d like to see Munich or Good Night, and Good Luck in the Picture, Director and Actor categories. I think that despite being in a town notorious for flexible morality, the Academy is just too uptight to give many awards to Brokeback Mountain, but I could be mistaken (knowing them, they’ll give it to Crash). Walk the Line could be a contender in a few categories, and it’s nice to see A History of Violence at least get notice, however minor. Not a strong showing for Peter Jackson’s big gorilla.

And Wallace and Gromit is the only viable choice for Best Animated Feature, but I admit I’m not a Miyazaki fan.


Best Picture
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Crash
Good Night, And Good Luck
Munich

Best Director
Ang Lee – Brokeback Mountain
Bennett Miller – Capote
Paul Haggis – Crash
George Clooney – Good Night, And Good Night
Steven Spielberg – Munich

Best Actor
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Capote
Terrence Howard – Hustle & Flow
Heath Ledger – Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix – Walk The Line
David Strathairn – Good Night, And Good Luck

Best Actress
Judi Dench – Mrs Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman – Transamerica
Keira Knightley – Pride & Prejudice
Charlize Theron – North Country
Reese Witherspoon – Walk The Line

Best Supporting Actor
George Clooney – Syriana
Matt Dillon – Crash
Paul Giamatti – Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal – Brokeback Mountain
William Hurt – A History Of Violence

Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams – Junebug
Catherine Keener – Capote
Frances McDormand – North Country
Rachel Weisz – The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams – Brokeback Mountain

Best Original Screenplay
Crash
Good Night, And Good Luck
Match Point
The Squid And The Whale
Syriana

Best Adapted Screenplay
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
The Constant Gardener
A History Of Violence
Munich

Best Animated Film
Howl’s Moving Castle

Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride
Wallace & Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit

Best Cinematography
Batman Begins
Brokeback Mountain
Good Night, and Good Luck
Memoirs of a Geisha
The New World 

Best Visual Effects
Narnia
King Kong
War of the Worlds






Author Links: Author's Page · AIM · Twitter · Facebook · Twitter · Email

DAILY GRABOID 1.31.06

What is this? Every single day of the week (almost), a new "Graboid", a single moment grabbed from a random movie, appears on this site for you to guess the name of the film, share with your officemates, or discuss on our message boards. Sometimes the Graboid will be very easy and sometimes it’ll be as obscure as obscure gets. So read the news, read the reviews, and enjoy a screencap each and every day for your guessing pleasure.


Guess and discuss today’s Graboid on the Message Boards.
Send an email about this feature.





Author Links: Author's Page · AIM · Twitter · Facebook · Twitter · Email

THOR’S COMIC COLUMN

Think You Have What It Takes to Be a Warrior-Scribe? Well, Cry Havoc and Let Slip Those Reviews!

It’s on. The Second “Thor’s Comic Column” Write-on begins…now! So head over to the message boards RIGHT HERE for the brass tacks, and let’s see what you’ve got.

Good luck!

Nextwave: Warren Ellis proves his worth (again)

By Graig Kent

 It’s official, comics are indeed fun again.  Whether you like (or can even follow) the events of Infinite Crisis, you have to admit it’s one of the more exciting and adventurous things that has happened in the mainstream in some time, and if that’s not quite your speed, Grant Morrison has offered up one of the highest of conceptual projects that the medium has ever seen in Seven Soldiers.  Jonah Hex and Loveless are proving western books viable again, and Conan and Red Sonja are just the start of a whole new era in sword and sorcery.  Then we have the bwa ha ha crew of Keith Giffen and JM DeMattis returning the funny back to funny books with stints on JLA Classified, the Defenders and Hero Squared, not to forget Dan Slott’s take on Great Lakes Avengers or She Hulk, Peter David’s return to X-Factor, and Peter Milligan’s resurrection of X-Statix. 

Yes, the grim-and-gritty era is finally over, comics are free (no, you still have to buy them), and in a free comics market we get stuff like Warren Ellis’ Nextwave #1, which in metaphorical terms, is like Russia after the fall of communism.  The people are still the same, but the environment is totally different.  Suddenly free, anything goes. 

Ellis has plugged into Nextwave a rag-tag ensemble of reject Marvel characters representing various trends past, including the grim’n’gritty Captain ****, the bad girl Ellie Bloodstone, the satire of beloved characters represented Dirk Anger and his organization H.A.T.E, the obligatory mutant (whom I think was “Boom Boom” at one point), and the ex-big-time superhero cliché the former Photon, nee Captain Marvel.  Ellis also fills the book with superhero deconstructionist dialogue, and uses some winking-eye narrative, which, once wrapped into a tight little burrito and grilled for a minute, makes for one definitely delicious read.  Plus, I mean, Fin Fan Foom.  Come on!

Ellis has always had a gift for the sardonic, but here he manages to pare back on most of the snark and dole out a light-hearted, comedic, and high-impact romp.  It’s as if he took his Global Frequency and filtered it through puritan Lee and Ditko Spider-man.  It’s not quite safe for all audiences (the phrase “Mommy was a slut lizard” pops up) but it’s pretty much as close as you’re going to get Ellis to classic superheroics without compromising himself.  He touches on expected themes, like corporate greed and his general disdain for superhero conventions, but he does so in a very amusing manner.

Stuart Immonen handles the pencils with every bit of verve that we’d expect of him, although freeing up his layouts to be a bit more playful and allowing for fun panel breaks and eccentric visual angles, and also to visually accentuate Ellis’ fun narrative snips.  With Wade von Grawbadger uses a bit more of an angular line when inking than I’m used to seeing in Immonen’s art, but it works for the dynamics of the book and is an unexpected fit.   Plus, the always fantastic Dave McCaig is on colors, so it’s a very well rounded and highly talented team, and a solidly entertaining package.  12 issues of Nextwave is going to make for a fun year.

FOUR AND A HALF OUT OF FIVE VIKINGS
4.5

Wood and Kelly Make the Universal “Local”

By Russell Paulette

 For most of us, the conceit Brian Wood and Ryan Kelly use for Local is just that—each story is set in a different American city and, as such, is a nice hook upon which you can hang quiet, small dramas.  When that conceit—pardon—hits home for you, it can make the work feel quite different.  As is the case with the third issue of the series, “theories and defenses,” which is, by far, my favorite, though not just because it’s set where I lay my own head.

Wood’s story revolves around a successful mid-level band and their return to their hometown of Richmond, Virginia after calling it quits.  Because of the complex combination of personalities, personas, and perceptions that make up a band, Wood cleverly constructs this tale around each member, allowing the narrative to divvy up time between the bandmates in short vignettes.  In doing this, Wood gives us a portrait of the four former friends and colleagues dealing with the return to normal life following fifteen successful years on he road. 

First, there is Frank, the lead singer and guitarist, speaking on the phone with a journalist about the breakup of the band.  Here, he waxes philosophical about music, meaning, and the rigors of the road.  Wood cleverly overlaps this conversation onto the other scenes, allowing for some interesting juxtapositions, while also giving it all a sense of cohesion.  Next, we meet Bridget, bassist and vocalist, who, it turns out, wrote most of the memorable songs for the band.  She’s in make-up/break-up mode with a reliable fling, and her return home signals a change in their relationship.  Kevin, the drummer, is trying to get quick cash from the local record shop for his vinyl copies of the band’s albums, and it’s here that the series’ ubiquitous star, Meggin, makes a brief appearance in a heartbreakingly funny scene.  Finally, we meet Ross, the guitarist, who is playing a solo acoustic set at a local vegetarian, hole-in-the-wall bar. 

Though that encompasses the extent of the plot, such-as-it-was, Wood employs a deft and at characterizing these people in evocative, simple scenes written with a taught control over his subjects.  We don’t need to spend an entire issue with Bridget and her comfort lay to feel the tension in the room, just as we don’t need to have Kevin do more than demand cash from a fan asking for an autograph.  These few, simple gestures are enough to call these characters into relief and, though bordering on simplified stereotyping, Wood manages to keep it tight and personable by employing his knack for pacing and dialogue.

Kelly’s artwork improves with every panel, and this issue is no exception, as he manages to conjure blustery, fall days when the air is as bleak and crisp as the leaves it blows with abandon.  Much has been made of his stylistic similarity to Paul Pope and, if you ask me, there’s much worse comparisons that could be made.  That said, his work does feel Pope-ish, while still retaining a quality that is Kelly’s own—an assurance with the pen and on open white space that, frankly, Pope could do well to take note.

Past the fun of seeing Kelly draw landmarks I regularly haunt, or the references Wood threw in for other River City Residents, this issue worked remarkably well for me in the way that it told a simple story in a simple way that drew a line directly to the emotional core of the thing.  Rather than inflating his story with overblown melodrama—“you used to be about the music” clichés—Wood gave us the simple, sad fact of four people who just can’t stand each other anymore.  And it worked quite well. 

FOUR AND A HALF OUT OF FIVE VIKINGS
4.5

Dark Horse Comics Launches the First in a Line of New Star Wars Books With “Knights of the Old Republic

By Sean Fahey

 If I were to say that the Star Wars prequels were a bit disappointing, I wouldn’t be the first.  Nor would I be the first to say that, despite Lucas’ best efforts, the Star Wars franchise is still teaming with life – thanks to quality video games, the “Clone Wars” animated series, and a wealth of exciting comic books by Dark Horse.  Partially inspired by the insanely popular X-Box video game of the same name, Knights of the Old Republic is the first in a series of new (or revamped) Star Wars titles that look very promising.

Knights of the Old Republic takes place four thousand years before the Emperor busted up the Senate, and Vader all but extinguished the Jedi Order.  These were the good ol’ days of the Star Wars universe, when countless Jedi served as the protectors of the Republic.  Except, things aren’t running as smoothly as one would think.  And with the Mandalorian Wars tying up most of the seasoned Jedi Knights, inexperienced Padawans are left to see to the day-to-day stability of the Republic. 

In Knights of the Old Republic # 1 we’re introduced to Zayne Carrick, a young Jedi combating organized crime on the uber-corrupt planet Taris.  Series writer John Jackson Miller does a good job fleshing out the protagonist – making him interesting, someone who’s adventures you want to read about.  Zayne is rough around the edges.  He’s only just recently completed his Jedi trials, and has yet to come even close to mastering the core Jedi skills.  But he’s courageous, and what he lacks in experience he makes up for with enthusiasm and zeal.  But Zayne’s world turns upside down when unfortunate circumstances make him a target of the Jedi Knights.  On the run, Zayne must turn to the very criminals he relentlessly pursued for protection, as he struggles to unravel a sinister conspiracy.

I love the “Fugitive”-esque high concept for this series. “Jedi on the run” is a great premise, with limitless possibilities.  What’s more, I’ve always thought that rogues and exiles make for the most interesting protagonists, and while Zayne Carrick isn’t the most original character, he’s very intriguing.  I’m interested in finding out exactly how this inexperienced Jedi can use his underworld connections to outsmart and stay one step ahead of dozens of Jedi Knights. Jackson Miller does a good job laying the groundwork for that angle, as Zayne’s interactions with an independent smuggler hint at a burgeoning (albeit tenuous) relationship between the two, and it’s obvious that Zayne is a scoundrel in the making.

If this inaugural issue is an indication, Knights of the Old Republic should be a very exciting series.  Things really get off to a great start here.  The premise is red-hot, the pacing is energetic, the characters are interesting and the artwork is high quality.  If you’ve been itchin’ for a good Star Wars fix, you’ll find it here.

THREE AND A HALF OUT OF FIVE VIKINGS
3 and a half



DC Universe: The Stories of Alan Moore
DC Comics

By Graig Kent

 I hadn’t realized until picking up this collection (which is a repackaging of Across the Universe trade but with The Killing Joke added in) that Alan Moore had spent such a limited amount of time in the DC Universe playground.  Aside from his Swamp Thing work, collected here is the just barely 300 pages of his time with Batman, Superman and small selection of the rest.  What’s evident in this capsule is that Moore has an understanding of superheroes that no one else does, and it really doesn’t matter who the character is or what their powers are.  His 16-page Green Arrow story, for instance, is essentially frivolous in the lore of the emerald archer, and yet Moore manages to write GA and Black Canary better than some writers who get an entire run with the character, distilling the characters and their relationship to its core.  There are a handful of Green Lantern and Omega Men short stories throughout the collection that showcase Moore’s inventiveness, creating alien creatures that operate without light, or out of step in time, or on a scale the size of planets. 

With The Killing Joke and his Clayface short story, Moore doesn’t really get a chance to play with Batman, but he does play in Batman’s realm, and he understands that the world of the Dark Knight, by his very motto (that “Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot” one), happens on a psychological level.  Batman’s villains aren’t just bad people who took a wrong turn and got wrapped up with the wrong crowd… there’s a reason they go to an asylum when captured.  His Clayface story is actually a sweet, if demented love story, while the infamous Joker story (made even better with it’s sweet Brian Bolland art) presented Mr. J for the first time in a different light.  Up until The Killing Joke, the Joker had been a clownish figure, just a silly, crazy-acting bad guy.  But here, Moore presents him for the first time as a seriously homicidal, delirious and deranged man.  He even gives the Joker an origin story (without ever hard-lining it as the actual origin) making him sympathetic to a point.  His use of Batman in both stories is brief, but the character’s moments are enough to show that Moore had an on-point handle of him both as a legend and as a man.

But these DC Universe Stories of Alan Moore aren’t worth anything without his Superman contributions.  The first tale, drawn by Dave Gibbons, is entitled “For The Man Who Has Everything” which was fantastically adapted for the Justice League Unlimited cartoon, in which Wonder Woman and Batman show up at the Fortress of Solitude only to find Superman frozen, a symbiotic plant latched to his chest, and his mind lost in a fantasy of his heart’s desire.  As familiar as I was with the cartoon episode, the Moore story, despite it’s pre-Crisis setting, seems almost fresher.  Here, in one book, Moore puts Superman through the emotional paces, showing virtually every facet of the character from his strength, nobility, intelligence, fury, humility, arrogance, humanity etc.  and it’s powerful, touching and exciting… rare that a single issue story is all three.

But beyond that, in “Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow”, Moore tackles the final story of the pre-Crisis/pre-revamp Superman.  In it Moore nails on the head not just Superman, but Clark, Lois, Jimmy, Lana, Lex and the more notorious of Superman’s rogues gallery.  But it’s not just the characters that Moore hammers home, but also the whole Silver Age and the Crisis/Watchmen/Dark Knight Returns era of maturity that suddenly the mainstream had discovered.  Moore sifts all these elements together into a mind-blowing Superman story to end all Superman stories, and it literally is, and it’s all serviced by Curt Swan (with inks by George Perez and Kurt Schaffenberger) which only makes it that much more classical.

As much as I loved the majority of the book, the Vigilante two-parter falls on the less than extraordinary side of things, and in this day of Law & Order:SVU, domestic disturbance stories like this one fall into stereotypical trappings.  There’s also a Superman/Swamp Thing story that, given Moore’s relationship with both characters, falls surprisingly flat, even tedious.  But those minor missteps, this collection is just more of the same brilliance from the medium’s most gifted talent.

FOUR AND A HALF OUT OF FIVE VIKINGS
4.5

Will You Still Love Me If I Wet the Bed?
Top Shelf

By Russell Paulette

 Liz Prince’s debut graphic novel, Will You Still Love Me If I Wet The Bed? wowed them at last year’s Small Press Expo, winning the Outstanding Debut Ignatz award.  It features an hilarious introduction by Jeffrey Brown, drawn as a four-panel gag strip, and receives praise from such indy comics luminaries as Paul Hornschemeier, of Mother Come Home fame, as well as Farel Dalrymple, of Pop Gun War and Marvel’s forthcoming Omega the Unknown.  Also, notably, is the Top Shelf Productions logo—as they’re the ones footing the bill and publishing the damn thing.  So, with all of this going for the book, why did it not impress me?

To start with, the book has a lot going for it.  Much like the work of Brown, Will You Still Love Me… has that same spirit of open, naked honesty—it comes from that school of autobiographical, confessional independent comics.  Write-what-you-know taken as literally as possible.  Prince also displays a wonderful, whimsical sense of humor—a spirit that that particular subset of indy comics would do well to capture.  Some of the strips in the book are laugh-out-loud funny in the way that they capture the giddiness and just-plain-retardation of falling in, and being in, love.

Which probably brings me to my first point—in that, the book is constructed as a series of (mostly) four-panel strips, each about a page long.  Thus, calling it a graphic novel feels a little…ambitious.  The strips are fine for what they are, and are expertly paced for their four panels, but they lack a certain cohesion when it comes to the book feeling of a whole piece.  They’re merely vignettes—snapshots of the life of this couple—and, while effective in displaying openly and honestly the life of a normal, twentysomething relationship, the lack of any sort of narrative thrust left me cold.  That said, her comic timing in the individual strips is where much of her humor lies and, while not all the jokes worked for me—and certainly, some of them were saccharine enough to make teeth ache—I can appreciate the difficulty of attempting the humor in the first place.

My other difficulty with the book lies with the artwork, which has that scratchy, unfinished feel, again, reminiscent of Mssr. Brown.  Prince’s storytelling is solid enough to carry the artwork through the seventy-odd pages, but her rendering has a quirky unfinishedness to it that eventually drove me crazy.  At first, the quirks were endearing—there’s an uncertain hesitancy to the linework that feeds into the quiet intimacies of the book—but, after awhile, I kept wishing for Prince to show an assured, unblemished penstroke or a spotted black or two.  Something, anything, other than the same eye guidelines showing her faces.  Her cartooning on the front and back of the book has the kind of quality and assurance to the linework that, frankly, the interior is lacking.

With all the praised heaped on the book, I was predisposed to like it quite a bit.  Unfortunately, Ms. Prince’s debut effort didn’t hold me in its spell in the same ways as some of its many advocates.  That said, I do think Prince displays a lot of raw talent which, when honed, sharpened and refined, will produce something extraordinary.  Until then, the potential is there, and Will You Still Love Me… is a promising start. 

THREE OUT OF FIVE VIKINGS
3

So ends this accounting of valiant warriors and high adventure! Return next week to honor still more comics. Praise Odin.

HAVE A COMIC YOU WANT TO SUBMIT FOR REVIEW? Contact Sean at scfahey@yahoo.com.

To discuss this column and all things Nordic, you may contact Sean at scfahey@yahoo.com , Devon at thedevonsanders@yahoo.com , Dave at dave@chud.com , Russell at inadvertent@mail.com , Rob at poprob@gmail.com and Graig at graig@geekent.com.






Author Links: Author's Page · AIM · Twitter · Facebook · Twitter · Email

DVD REVIEW: CORPSE BRIDE

Buy me!BUY IT AT AMAZON: CLICK HERE!
STUDIO: Warner Bros.
RATED: PG
MSRP: $28.98
RUNNING TIME: 77 Minutes
SPECIAL FEATURES:
• "Inside the Two Worlds"
"Danny Elfman Interprets the Two Worlds"
"The Animators: The Breath of Life"
"Tim Burton: Dark vs. Light"
"Voices from the Underworld"
"Making Puppets Tick"
"The Voices Behind the Voice"
• Preproduction Galleries

• Music-only track

• Theatrical trailer

(Read
Devin’s theatrical review here, else your soul be damned.)

Imagine a
dark room draped in chrome-plated chains. Imagine the corporate officers of Hot
Topic bowing in obeisance as a mysterious figure clad in dark robes and a
retarded beret enters the room.

"Master
Burton," say the officers. "To what do we owe the honor?"

With a
gracious wave,
Burton intones, "Because you have
been loyal to the cause of spreading Nightmare Before Christmas
merchandise, I have decided to reward you with a diversifying of your stock. I
shall create a new film, one to appeal directly to your core customer base, and
it shall be good."

Tim Burton’s Corpse
Bride
is that
film.


"Yes, Old Testament God, I would be glad to receive Thy rod and Thy staff."

The Flick

The story
revolves around three young idealists in (or partially in) a Victorian-era town.
Victor Van Dort, voiced by Johnny Depp, is the son of a fish merchant. His
parents recently came into a good deal of money, thanks to public interest in
fish, but they have no status in society. The best way to attain status in
society? That’s marriage, as Jane Austen would have it. Usually it’s the girl
who marries the guy to climb the social ladder; this reversal immediately sets
up Vincent as a bit of a nancy-boy, the sort of guy who might sing songs about
what color his heart bleeds while wearing girl pants, had he been born to a
different era.

The bride
his parents have selected for him is
Victoria, voiced by Emily Watson. Victoria is the daughter of the
well-established Everglot family, who, sadly, have no money whatsoever, but are
in possession of a large mansion and an untapped reserve of pride. The
Everglots aren’t wholly satisfied with young Victor as groom, but they do what
they have to in order to get a hold of some of the van Dort money.

All this
is communicated in the opening musical number, and already there’s an
easy-to-grasp and entertaining conflict; but wait! Poor Victor is shamed by his
nervousness during rehearsals and hightails it to the creepy woods in order to
practice his vows. With an audience of crows, he succeeds in getting them out
in the right order; unfortunately for him, he makes the mistake of saying the
vows to a corpse (Helena Bonham Carter) who, after receiving his wedding ring,
rises up to take Victor down to the underworld, where they can live (and die)
in wedded bliss.


"I call it ‘Still Life Like My Life.’ It’s not much, but I really put my soul into it."

What
follows is a nice spin on the tired old love triangle, in which the two women
are in direct conflict but on generally good terms. Emily, the corpse bride, falls
in love with gentle Victor; Victor is in love with mousey little
Victoria; Victoria is in love with Victor; and I may
be in love with the sound my keyboard makes. At some point, Victor’s affections
sway, and sticks him firmly between the two women. I guess that’s more of a
line segment than a triangle, since Emily and Victoria don’t show any sapphic
tendencies.

It’s a
good setup, and it’s nice to see subtle
changes to familiar dynamics; the only trouble is that for all the setup there
is hardly any payoff. The initial interactions between the three principal
puppets are fun, but it quickly becomes apparent that their characters are
lacking. They aren’t defined by their history or their reactions to the plot,
but each by the one emotion the writers saw fit to hang on their skeletons:
disappointment for
Victoria, befuddlement for Victor, and unrequited
love for Emily.

There’s
not a lot of meat on the individual characters’ bones, but the potential for
good drama between them jumps out at even the least analytical viewer (e.g. my
wife). It’s an indication that the story has got hooks when the audience
doesn’t know who Victor is going to end up with for the first half of the film,
and can’t quite be sure which they would prefer.

Sadly,
the promise of satisfying resolution is swapped out right around the beginning
of the third act in favor of a hurried conclusion (which I imagine had
something to do with the relative difficulty and high expense of creating
footage.) You’ll have to be satisfied with several abrupt character shifts and a
tacked-on bit of metaphysics at the end of your short transportation to
Corpse Bride Land.

(I would
have preferred more story and less mediocre Danny Elfman musical numbers, but
that’s just me.)


The English and the French united, at last, in misery.

Fans of
stop-motion animation will find plenty to like here. The art-direction and
character design are even more heavily reminiscent of Gorey than they were in Nightmare
Before Christmas
, though the imitation isn’t obtrusive. It suits the
mood very well, drawing on the Victorian-styled modern goth aesthetic that
leans impressionable youths toward fake corsets and heavy eye makeup.

The
artistry evident in the art direction and animation go a long way toward
creating a world that feels like a place to spend your time. Depending on your
mood, you might find yourself drawn into the faux-Mexican Land of the Dead (and
relive your memories of Lucasarts’ Grim Fandango) or the dreary,
overcast Land of the Living. Either one is full of tiny details and features a surprisingly
deep focus that emphasizes how much time and effort went into the construction
of the world.

If only
the filmmakers had struck a better balance between story and visuals.
Storywise, Corpse Bride falls down dead. Nightmare Before Christmas
owes some of its continued survival to its story, reminiscent of a fable; it’s
about internal change and expanding borders of awareness. Corpse Bride is, in
comparison, about as deep as a teenager’s diary; the characters are just names
with actions, and I can’t shake the feeling that the whole thing was designed
to appeal to mopey Hot Topic shoppers. It’s a gorgeous and entertaining film,
but the narrative is hampered by divided attention between the technical and story
paths.

7 out of 10


*please listen to "Also Sprach Zarathustra" as you view this cap.

The Look

This film
is drop-dead, hyperbolically beautiful. As evidenced by Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the
Were-Rabbit
, these claymation (kind of a misnomer, now; we should call
it silimation) films are displaying levels of artistry higher than ever before.
Corpse
Bride’s
Art director Nelson Lowry and production designer Alex
McDowell, along with cinematographer Pete Kozachik, brought a distinct vision
to the screen, and their work is a joy to look at.

The film
comes in both widescreen and full screen versions. The widescreen presentation
has a clear transfer, and for a film that spends an awful lot of time in the
gloom, the darker range of the spectrum comes across as deep and solid. I don’t
suspect the full screen version is any less impressive.

8.5 out of 10

The Noise

I’ve
already mentioned how underwhelming Danny Elfman’s score and original songs
are, but I’ll bring it up again here. If Elfman’s earlier, catchier tunes are
exemplified by Batman, say, then his work for Corpse Bride falls into
the territory marked out by Spider-Man: serviceable, but wholly
forgettable.

The Dolby
5.1 mix also leaves a little something to be desired in the mix, and that
something is clarity. Especially during the musical numbers, the bits of
dialogue that fall in the higher registers end up sounding very muddy. This
gets to be a problem during a couple of the songs which carry the narrative. Emily’s
origin story, for example, is told entirely through a song that borders on
unintelligible.

6.8 out of 10

The Goodies

Hey! It’s
an animated flick with a respectable buttload of bonuses!

There’s
no filmmaker commentary; as compensation, you get seven decent featurettes, a
music-only track, and a theatrical trailer.

"Inside
the Two Worlds" is a set of cast and crew musings on the dichotomy between
the Land of the Dead and the Land of the Living. You get opinions from Tim
Burton, Emily Watson, writer and lyricist John August, and those of a number of
other contributors. It’s a nice range of points-of-view on what was brought to
the production to distinguish the two settings.

"Danny
Elfman Interprets the Two Worlds" is a brief segment on — surprise! —
Elfman’s approach to segmenting off the living and the dead through the score
and musical numbers.

"The
Animators: The Breath of Life" gets into the real meat of the
behind-the-scenes arcana: the tools and methods used to create the stop-motion
animation. The animators speak at length about the improvements to stop-motion
photography that have come about thanks to computerized and digital filmmaking.
Also, a couple of the animators talk about the methods of animating emotion for
the film, which gets covered in a bit more detail in the "Making Puppets
Tick" featurette.

That one
covers the creation of the puppets, and the incorporation of mechanical
elements that were added to the skeletons in order to automate some of the
movements. Also fascinating is the choice to use mechanized faces, rather than
the standard stop-motion method of using different heads for any given
character, with each one featuring a different emotion. The way the Corpse
Bride
animators tackled the problem of displaying emotions in their
puppets is a lot more detailed, and results in a far more complicated animation
process.


"C’mere, slave. I’ve got some patella needs licking."

We’ve got
a featurette on the director, with "Tim Burton: Dark vs. Light,"
which is a couple brief minutes of various cast and crewmembers praising Tim
Burton, specifically his ability to create a love story in a gothic atmosphere.

"Voices
from the Underworld" checks in with the stars and their experiences as
voice actors, which is familiar ground for some and an undiscovered country for
others.

"The
Voices Behind the Voice" shows a couple sequences from the film with
footage of the actors recording their takes split off and presented on another
part of the screen. It’s fun to watch how the various actors hold their bodies
during their vocal performances, and also fun to watch how many different takes
Johnny Depp went through for a given section, and how few did Emily Watson.

Rounding
out the bonuses is a preproduction gallery, full of sketches and rough artwork.
It’s a kind of one-sided presentation of background information, but there’s a
lot of interesting stuff to learn with this production, so I don’t mind awfully
much.

7.8 out of 10

The Artwork

It’s the
same as featured in the theatrical posters. It’s a good composition, but I
always thought it was funny that the artwork didn’t feature
Victoria at all, and ignores the fact that
what drives the story is the good old love triangle. Regardless, the
expressions on Victor’s and Emily’s faces go a long way toward introducing
their characters.

It’d
probably look good on a shirt, too.

7 out of 10

Overall: 7.5 out of 10






Author Links: Author's Page · AIM · Twitter · Facebook · Twitter · Email

THE RAZZIES ARE A WASTE OF SPACE

 There’s nothing worse than thinking you’re funny/hip/edgy when the reality is you just absolutely suck. That is the reality of the Razzies, a relatively harmless novelty award that rewards films in the field of shittiness. Yet, why do they still seem to piss me off? I don’t know. It’s like that guy on our message boards who thinks he’s the funniest thing since midgets, Chuck Norris, or Snakes on a Plane (btw, this joke’s gone the way of the reaper, people) when he’s really just proving to be a waste of a username.

Oh well. It’s a pointless award that really doesn’t deserve our coverage, but since Devin and Dave have already gotten all the worthwhile news up and I’ve got nothing better to do, here are the nominations for suckitude, just for shits and giggles:

Worst Picture
The Dukes of Hazzard
Son of the Mask
House of Wax
Dirty Love
Deuce Bigalow 2: European Gigolo

Worst Sequel/Remake
The Dukes of Hazzard
Son of the Mask
House of Wax
Deuce Bigalow 2: European Gigolo
Bewitched

Worst Actor
Will Ferrell (Bewitched)
Will Ferrell (Kicking & Screaming)
Jamie Kennedy (Son of the Mask)
Rob Schneider (Deuce Bigalow 2: European Gigalo)
The Rock (Doom) – Actually, that one’s bullshit.
Tom Cruise (War of the Worlds) – Riiiiiight.

Worst Actress
Jessica Alba (Fantastic Four) – But her ass…
Jessica Alba (Into the Blue) – …turned in a fine performance.
Hilary Duff (Cheaper by the Dozen 2)
Hilary Duff (The Perfect Man)
Jenny McCarthy (Dirty Love)
Tara Reid (Alone in the Dark) – This was more retarded casting than anything.
Jennifer Lopez (Monster-in-Law) – JLo bashing? What is this, 2003?

Worst thing I saw last year was easily Be Cool, but I guess I didn’t look hard enough. Thank God. Alright, I feel dirty. Time to go watch Jaws 3-D or something.






Author Links: Author's Page · AIM · Twitter · Facebook · Twitter · Email

VILLAINPALOOZA

csaI have complete faith in Sam Raimi et al when it comes to the Spider-Man franchise. The only thing that I have ever felt was missing from the films was Spidey’s wise-cracks – they’re there, but they should be coming faster.

I certainly never felt that the films skimped on villains. But someone must have, if the latest reports are true, as Rich Johnston over at Comic Book Resources is claiming that the Black Cat will be appearing in Spider-Man 3. She’s being played by Theresa Russell, announced last week as Flint (Sandman) Marko’s wife – and if you recall, part of a villainous duo.

So what’s the score for Spidey 3? We have Sandman. If Johnston is right we have Black Cat. If other rumors are right we have Venom (to be played by Topher Grace). And finally we supposedly have a new Green Goblin/Hobgoblin. Those are just the FOUR bad guys – we also have Gwen Stacey joining the franchise, and she’s going to require some screentime. I don’t want to second guess the talented folks who have reassembled for this film, but things seem a touch X3-ish these days. Maybe there are two more unannounced villains and we’re going to get a Sinister Six story. That’s the sound of me thinking positively.






Author Links: Author's Page · AIM · Twitter · Facebook · Twitter · Email