Men in Black III–Review

Despite my earlier reservations about Men in Black III, my longing to continue the Memorial Day “movie date” tradition was more crucial.  Also, the film selection was so meager this year that my wife and I almost entertained the idea of rewatching The Avengers instead

Men in Black III exceeded my expectations, albeit by a margin (it wasn’t bad).  As in prior installments, MIB III works best when Agents K (Mr. Jones AND Mr. Brolin) and Agent J (Mr. Smith) engage in comical interchanges that beget from their disparate personalities.

Their characterizations remain intact from 1997: Smith’s Agent K is direct, no-nonsense and Smith remains the wise-cracker and outsider, even though he’s considered a veteran after 14 years.  Their chemistry has continuously offset the lackluster plots–a constant issue I have had with The Men in Black series.
In this installment, a vengeful alien goes back in time to kill Agent K and stop a protective shield from forming around the earth so his fellow species can conquer the planet in the present.  When history is changed, K disappears from existence and the Earth is about to be attacked.  Why would they wait 40 years to attack the Earth anyway?

J is the only one who remembers K was alive, which is partially explained, but doesn’t make a lick of sense.  K travels back to 1969 to preserve history and save his friend.

The villain is portrayed by non other than Jermaine Clement, the songwriter and performer from Flight of the Concords.  His villainy lacks any real originality and Clement’s comic appeal is lost beneath the makeup and uninspired dialog. 

Men in Back III was originally plagued by script issues during production–the script wasn’t finished!  Surprisingly the story never falls apart, but there are still some plot holes and elements that remain unexplained.

In fairness, the whole purpose of the script was to place Will Smith in 1969.  There are some funny moments such as the secret behind Andy Warhol’s true identity and the additional purpose of the moon landings.

Like the prior two, MIB III excels when it showcases the inner workings behind the Men in Black organization, such as the secret pathways, the true identities of famous people, or the methods the organization takes to keep its secrets.  None of this incarnation’s in-jokes beat my favorite gag of the entire series: the revelation that The National Enquirer is the most legitimate news resource.  Also, a Men in Black film set in 1969 that doesn’t feature at least one equality-preaching alien hippie seems like a waist.

There aren’t even funny references to celebrities who are revealed to be aliens incognito, unless you look real very closely at the MIB video monitoring systems in the background.  (My wife and I took turns noticing that Lady Gaga and Tim Burton are both aliens.  Duh!)

It’s a shame that much of the obvious gags to come from the 1969 setting are brushed aside to push the uninteresting plot forward.  Men in Black III seems rushed and settles on amusing audiences just enough so they can leave the theater happy and get screeners primed for the next showtime.  The characters are fun, but there is never any sense of growth, even when one interesting tidbit of J’s past is revealed.  However, MIB III has its share of funny and even one touching moment.   It’s just good enough to recommend, but my original feelings remain.  I left the theater forgetting most of what I witnessed and remain convinced that Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones can put their glasses away.

Back in black. Should we care?

If you questioned film-goers as to which film series they’d like to see another sequel, Men in Black would not be their first choice.  However, these same folks will settle for one if it serves as a passable refuge from the stresses surrounding the holiday weekend.  By the time Memorial Day Monday arrives, any morsel of entertainment will suffice as long as it provides a temporary reprieve from the visiting relatives who can’t stop belching after their fourth hot dog, third serving of baked beans and an excessive amount of alcohol

Despite many obstacles–such as a decade-long dormancy–the cash-strapped Sony Pictures have produced a third film (opening on Friday).  The MIB fans don’t have the same obsessiveness (or volume) as The Avengers community; falling into much a smaller pack–like those who worship Babylon 5 and Aqua Teen Hunger Force.  A good chunk of today’s children won’t even recognize K and J, so they certainly won’t show up at the ticket booth in costumes composed business suits and cool sunglasses. 

And yet MIB III is still projected to do very well–domestically and internationally.  The main contributors to its success: Will Smith (the largest movie star in the world), aliens (proven assets for both The Avengers AND, to a lesser degree, Battleship) and ogles of 3D effects.      

Although the 3D hype has worn out its welcome in the United States, it’s on the rise in foreign territories like China.  When the film was first announced, the utilization of the third dimension (I’m not referring to the characters) was not-so-subtly implied by its original title: Men in Black 3D.

The 3D effect and its inflated ticket prices have increased the once-dead franchise’s odds of earning a profit.   

It’s a little sad that the huge Memorial Day blockbuster relies so strongly on the commercials rather than the fan enthusiasm–which has been diluted since the disappointing MIB II from 2002.  Many film-goers were content with K and J holstering their noisy cricket pistols forever. 

However, Sony has assembled the figures and all signs predict a profit for newest MIB–none of which have any reflection on the quality.  Instead, there were focus groups and precise calculations.  The check list includes:

  • Will Smith’s popularity
  • Family-oriented
  • 3D craze
  • Aliens
  • Comedy
  • Sci-Fi
  • Action
  • Hot chick
  • Brand recognition
  • Famous actors impersonating other famous actors
  • Anachronistic jokes (misplaced time travelers)
  • Famous New Zealander cast as villain
  • PG-rated rap music video tie-in (deduct a point for not using Will Smith again)
  • Toys, toys, and more toys!
  • Video game tie-in
  • Option for at least three more sequels
  • Steven Spielberg as executive producer (for doing nothing)

Even though the early reviews are above average, I cannot chew on the hype surrounding a third Men in Black, even if Josh Brolin chimes in a pretty solid Tommy Lee Jones impersonation (judging solely by ads).

I don’t know whether Men in Black III will dazzle the audiences this weekend, or merely appease them.  Let’s pretend that the reviews are not in and we no preconceptions at this stage–how excited would you be?

If the film does well, all credit is due to the marketers’ ability to showcase the factors that entice families and appease their children’s obsession with 3D gimmickry.  In a world where good ideas still permeate and possible sequels to other films (like The Incredibles) would be more intriguing, I’m disappointed to see Hollywood once again to resort to figure overheads rather than what we really crave.  So, this weekend I’ll be wearing my black sunglasses only to divert the sun–not the memory erasers toys–on a sandy beach, buzzed and downing my fourth hot dog, dreading the arrival of Will Smith’s next project requested by no one–Hancock 2.  

Snow, we need to talk…

Dear Snow,

I’m sorry to break this news.  I hate to break your heart, although–let’s face it–there was a period when your heart was nearly carved out and stored in a small box.   

To be frank, you’re no longer the fairest of them all.  You’re a sweet kid.  Everyone else shares this sentiment.  Your glowing presence is so infectious that even the forest varmints can’t resist your calls to help scrub dirty dishes and sweep floors.   

I asked you to change and you did.  You’ve morphed into a strong, independent feminist who no longer needs a man to fight her battles.  You apparently can penetrate steel armor with a blade or a bow.  I’m proud of you.


You remain adorable.  In many ways, you’re just my type of lady (brunette, silky white skin, very pleasant).   

However, you fail to sing and whistle any closer to some form of a personality.  So I’m leaving you for evil queen. 

It must be quite a surprise that I’ve been taken by the same lady who is hell-bent on destroying you.   But, she’s fun, she’s sexy, and she can craft one mean apple pie (and I don’t even like apple pie).  My immediate plan is to help alleviate her anger towards you and to spend some of my allowance (she’s very rich) to hire a gay dude from Bravo to improve her wardrobe choices.

I think she and I can work. 

Yes, she can be manipulative on occasion.  But she always knows what she wants in life (to kill you, sorry) and loves to laugh–really, really loves to laugh.  The truth is: I’ve always fancied the more mature women anyway.  She also likes to role play, usually as an ugly old lady (I have no choice). 

Let’s be fair.  You’re just as superficial as I am.  I’ve watched you fall head over heels for a pretty boy who you don’t know other than that he can carry a tune and squeeze into 31-inch leather pants.  But do you really love him!?  Why do you chicks obsess over men wearing crowns? 
Let’s not forget the weird living arrangement you’ve made with not one, not two, not even five, but seven other men–seven old, fat, short, disgusting men.  You whore! 

Sorry, that was hateful.  The truth of the matter is: I’m tired of your face.  Everywhere I turn, I see your bland, sweet-as-sugar stare on the television, on the internet and even in the newspaper.  There are enough shows and films about your life that I feel overwhelmed.  I need my space.  I need you to leave now.  Take your straw basket and cape and leave.  Don’t cry and chase after me with that big-ass sword you recently acquired, just leave me alone–at least for another 3-4 years.  You’re overexposed and I don’t want to share you with the world–they can simply have you, happily ever after (and all that crap).

Love always,

Chris

Video Pick: Sherlock

I believe Arthur Conan Doyle would have given Sherlock Holmes a cellular phone if the invention existed in the 19th century.  It’s just when the game was afoot, he wouldn’t answer his calls.

Typically I don’t enjoy classic works reconfigured into more modern-day settings.  They are usually bastardizations meant only to appease folks who can’t fathom men in top hats and women in corsets.   

Sherlock–not to be confused with the Robert Downey Jr. action film—is a BBC television series in which Sherlock solves cases from Doyle’s stories in the 21st century.  Sherlock succeeds where other modern reinventions fail (such as DiCaprio referencing his handgun as a “sword” in 1996s Romeo and Juliet).  The creative forces behind Sherlcock have crafted infinite avenues for taking the Doyle characters and stories into the technological world.  Each episode is complemented by taut, rich scripts that are biting with wit, surprise and gigabits of fun.  There’s also the sharp chemistry between two excellent leads: Martin Freeman (Bilbo in this year’s “The Hobbit”) as Dr. John Watson and Benedict Cumberbatch (one hell of a name) as the brilliant, but bewildering title character. 

The first three episodes were initially broadcast in 2010.  Busy schedules (Freeman wisely accepted Peter Jackson’s offer) prevented the cast from reuniting for another two years–leaving a cliffhanger, no less— for another round of three episodes.  Despite being limited to just six 90-minute broadcasts (so far), the quality of overall products greatly outweighs the quantity.   
The basic premise remains close to the source material–Sherlock, the “amateur” detective, befriends a discharged army doctor, Watson (from Afghanistan in this case) and the two engage in a series of sleuthing.  Holmes is brilliant, but socially inept, which Watson attempts to counter.    
The many updates include Watson documenting his adventures in a blog, not a journal; Sherlock depending on his cases to distract him from his addiction to cigarettes–not heroin or opium.  The other detractors from the source materials still maintain the level of respect for Doyle’s original stories, but open a new level of unpredictability and intrigue.  Sherlock’s mind is like a computer–each time he processes information, text and symbols appear on screen to hint the infinite capacity of his mind.   In a later episode, Sherlock delves so deep into his own brain that he envisions floating words and images hovering in front of him, which he rotates, rearranges and tosses with his hands as if he were inside Tony Stark’s house.  
Sequences like these would be silly if it weren’t for Cumberbatch’s star-making devotion, which is the show’s strongest asset.  Cumberbatch’s cold and calculating eyes flinch only when he’s puzzled (which aint often), frightened (even rarer) or display hints of humanity.  Cumberbatch is at his best when he’s made a deduction and engages in a long, rapid-fire soliloquy that make can even the sharpest of minds search for the rewind button on their DVD remotes.    Freeman is remarkably charming and warm as Watson.  The two share a rapport that is always funny and smart.
Both series of “Sherlock” take some of the most famous of Doyle’s tales and mold them with surprising grace and liberty.  The true standouts are episodes 3, 4, & 6 in which Holmes’ arch-nemesis, Moriarty, takes center stage and invokes an amazing sense of menace and tension.  Although each season is plagued by a middle-episode slump, it remains one of the finest pieces of television today.  Yes, I know this is a movie blog.  However, Sherlock stands toe-to-toe with the best of cinema’s crime mysteries and each episode’s depth (and 90-minute run time) can constitute its worth as a series of feature films (just like Harry Potter and James Bond can avoid being branded as an extended miniseries).   Doyle purists may cry foul, but for those of us who long for a smart, fast-paced crime show that would make David Caruso remove his sunglasses in envy, then the game’s afoot!!

Toys r’ U$$$! (Hollywood still loves the toys…)

Battleship failed to sink The Avengers, but studios will blame the competition rather than the quality of their actual product. 
I have not seen Battleship nor do I have any inclination to if the process involves the cost of gasoline and ticket admission (I’ll catch it on RedBox, maybe).  However, friends and critics have divulged disparate viewpoints.  Jim Carl–my friend, the Director of the Carolina Theatre in Durham and certified film aficionado attended the midnight screening and actually had a blast.  The Tomatoereader tallies at 36%, which, compared to other bombs, spells “bad”, but not “dismal”.  The film was released early in foreign territories and has already earned $200 million, ensuring the film will makes its money back. 

Considering that Battleship is the most blatantly obvious cash-ins in recent memory (at least Transformers and GI Joe had cartoons and comics as a reference point), any sign of profit will rekindle faith in the toy brand.  GI Joe is tracking to make as much money as the original, despite the negative response.  Transformers earned $1 billion worldwide in spite of the detractors.  Essentially, audiences are not tired of seeing 80s nostalgia or having their senses torn asunder by information overload–they’re just more content with the Marvel superheroes.

Battleship may not reign in 2-3 sequels like its sister projects, but the formula is a safer bet than most franchises.  Thankfully, audiences are choosing the stronger franchises (Avengers) over the lame movie tie-in.  But the inevitable truth is: Battleship will do well and gross more in one week than the entire theatrical run of Drive.  That’s inexcusable. 

All three toy tie-ins are owned by the Hasbro company.  The Battleship feature will help them sell many of the classic board games to children who have been seduced by more advanced forms of entertainment like video games and Facebook.

I took some time to review Hasbro’s complete toy lineup and history.  At this stage, it appears that their film tie-in well has dried.  However, there will be more giant robot films.  Considering Battleship took a familiar name and opted to insert an alien invasion and Liam Neeson, its not inconceivable that a Hungry, Hungry Hippoes motion picture could also be green-lit when in desperation for cash.  Of course modifications will be made such as the addition of carnivorous dinosaurs and Daniel Craig.  Oh, and it will be released no sooner than one month after Iron Man 3

Video (Netflix) Pick: Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey

Since Disney successfully reincarnated the Muppets back into multiplexes last year, children and nostalgia-obsessed adults (like moi) have a renewed love for Jim Henson’s sock and thread creations.  Being Elmo: A Puppetteer’s Journey serves as an ideal companion piece–paying tribute to the performers whose human presence are hidden just inches beneath the camera frame.  The subject of Being Elmo is Kevin Clash, a puppeteer who epitomizes the life of a Jim Henson employee: They may walk the streets freely without fear of paparazzi or stalkers, but once they pull a stitched creature over their arm, they can attract as much attention as Tom Cruise!

Clash is a middle-aged, African-American male from Baltimore who happens to be the face (and hands) underneath one of television’s most successful children’s figures: Elmo!

The little red “monster” was born in the late 1980s and joined the likes of Big Bird, Bert, Ernie, Grover and Oscar the Grouch on Sesame Street.  Archived footage showcases a very different Elmo in his initial debut and shows just how far the character has progressed (Elmo originally had much deeper voice).  Elmo’s original puppeteer was dumbfounded in how to characterize the puppet, and in frustration, tossed the puppet over to Clash, who also struggled for inspiration at first.  He soon became fascinated by a little child and decided that Elmo should replicate her naivety, curiosity, pureness and limitless amounts of love.  The children viewers loved him back.

Two decades later, Elmo is now the primary poster-child for Sesame Street.  Movies, books, home videos and, of course, annoying toys (“tickle me”) have propelled Elmo into an icon for toddlers.  Clash–an exceptional storyteller–tells of his puppeteering origins and the obstacles he faced before making it to Sesame Street.  When compared to other muppeteers, Clash is a late-bloomer.  Sesame Street debuted in 1969 when Clash was only a child.  He obsessed over the PBS program as well as Jim Henson’s later success, The Muppet Show.

Clash began constructing his own puppet creations and put on single-man shows for family and friends.  Although teased by class mates, Clash pressed on and began performing for schools, including those for special needs children.  Early footage shows that Clash had a real passion and a genuine gift for making children smile.  After high school, Clash was hired to puppeteer characters for a local television show.  He soon earned the attention of entertainers like Captain Kangaroo and his hero, Jim Henson. 

The story as Being Elmo lacks any dramatic twists or heart-wrenching moments.  Clash was raised in a happy household with parents who supported his obsession.  Nevertheless, Being Elmo is deeply inspirational and moving.  An extraordinary amount of footage presents Clash during different stages in his journey.  Some of the most touching moments include Clash giving joy and laughter to children.  Even at the height of his career, Clash continues to make them laugh; always answering requests by the “Make A Wish Foundation” whenever a child asks to meet Elmo. 

There is an underlying sense of goodness throughout the documentary.  Early in his career, Clash writes letters to Kermit Love, Jim Henson’s chief puppet designer and inspiration for a certain frog puppet.  Kermit graciously accepts Clash’s requests to meet and invites him visit his workshop.  The entire meeting is documented on video and we can see the undeniable joy in Clash’s eyes and the genuineness in Kermit’s mentor-ship, which eventually helps Clash get recognized by Jim Henson himself.   

At the film’s conclusion, a similar scene is presented, except Clash is now a powerhouse in puppetry who shows a little boy around his studio.  The boy is a true fan, even putting names to all the muppeteers pictured on Clash’s wall. Clash is as enthusiastic and as generous as his mentor. 

It’s a shame the documentary sidetracks the specifics of Clash’s past.  We learn that he has a daughter.  Clash admits that he regrettably missed much of her childhood as a consequence for his celebrity status.  However, the detriments of celebrity are brushed to the side in order to highlight Clash’s ultimate success story.  Whatever is in hidden in Clash’s shadows are not visible in Being Elmo, but his generosity and humanity in undeniable–just like Elmo.

The Perfect Hitchcock

In some ways, I don’t think we need a movie about Alfred Hitchcock, the master of suspense.  There are so many good books and discussions about the man that I already feel like I know him.  Despite his droll, stone-faced exterior, Alfred Hitchcock was inevitably an open-book.  Unlike many of his contemporaries, Hitch spoke freely on how he perceived his career and his films.  His personal life has been studied by countless critics and scholars; his childhood traumas and feelings regarding woman, especially maternal figures, has been dissected to the point that even he would have been surprised by their conclusions.

So, the new film, simply titled Hitchcock, has a lot to prove in order to overrule my initial fear that it will be little more than cable movie-of-the-week.  It does have one hell of a cast.

Casting Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock seems like a safe bet.  Hopkins is an amazing A-lister whose starring credit might help entice casual audiences to see a biopic on a man who has been dead for over 30 years.  In the photo above, there are some staggering similarities thanks to today’s amazing makeup effects.

Now if I were to cast my ultimate Hitchcock, I would have selected Michael Gambon (Dumbledore in the recent Harry Potters) in the title role.  Gambon matches Hitchcock in both facial features and voice, and he’s an amazing actor in his own right.  However, Hopkins has proven me wrong before.  His starring performance in Oliver Stone’s 1995 film Nixon is as brilliant as his work was in Silence of the Lambs.  He may not have resembled Richard Nixon, but he encompassed the soul of the man–as far as I could tell.

The rest of the cast of Hitchcock are all talented stars, but these choices seem to be based on recognition value more than anything else.  The film is based on Stephen Rebello’s book, The Making of Psycho and naturally calls upon many recognizable supporting roles.  Scarlett Johansson is Janet Leigh, Jessica Biel is Vera Miles, James D’Arcy is Anthony Perkins, and Helen Mirren plays Hitchcock’s wife, Alma. 

I recently finished Rebello’s book, which was insightful, but I cannot wrap my mind around what form the movie version will take.  Hitchcock made Psycho at the height of his popularity.  It was a small gamble for Hitchcock; he used the crew from his television show and bankrolled the project himself.  He forbade critics from viewing the film early and even initiated a strict campaign that prohibited audience admittance after the feature started.  All of these caveats were unheard of in 1960, but this was Hitch’s way of ruining the movie’s secrets.  The gimmick pissed off critics, but lured curious audiences in droves.  The film was a huge smash, proving that Hitchcock could make a “small, B-picture”.

So why make a film about this stage in Hitchcock’s life?

There are some elements to be tackled.  Hitchcock was never the darling of critics until it was too late.  He never received an Oscar; his final nomination was for Psycho.  If I made a film about Hitchcock during this period in his life, I would explore his disappointment in being under-appreciated.  I would also probe deeply into the love of his life and the one critic whose opinion mattered–his wife and confidant (Mirren).

My primary reticence to a movie about Hitchcock is that Hitch is still such an iconic image that no actor, even Hopkins, can replicate the classic silhouette figure.  I may not gain much from Hitchcock when it hits screens next year, but if it can entice younger audiences to watch Psycho, or other classics like Rear Window, Notorious, North By Northwest, then should I really care if Hopkins doesn’t sound pitch perfect when he welcomes audiences with a hearty “Good evening…”

Note:  The Carolina Theatre in Durham will be showing some of Hitch’s finest for two weeks (May 18-31).  If you are in the area, please come out.  The Alfred Hitchcock Retrospective

Burton/Depp: Their Best Movie! Part II (Ed Wood)

Among all of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp’s collaborations, there is only feature that has tickled my emotions to the same degree as my imagination…and love for all that is weird.  “Ed Wood” was only the second movie the pair made together, and it’s their best.  It was also their least successful, box-office wise (even compared to the under-performing “Dark Shadows”).
Over the years, “Ed Wood’s” reputation has grown considerably.  When it was released in 1994, Depp was already a respected actor, but without a giant star hovering over his name.  Producing a black-and-white biopic about the worst director of all time was a tough sell for most studios, except for Touchstone Pictures, who produced the film mainly to appease the commercially potent Tim Burton.  

Ed Wood was a real movie director who managed to write, direct, produce over a dozen low-budget science fiction-horror films in the 1950s.  Wood’s modest success were partially attributed to his courtship of Bela Lugosi, the aged, movie has-been, known for his iconic performance as Count Dracula.  

Tim Burton’s film centers on Wood’s friendship with Lugosi.  The film begins with Wood, an errand boy for an unnamed studio, is desperate to make his own feature films.  After failing to secure a sex-change exploitation picture, a chance meeting brings the two men together.

Lugosi is brought to life to amazing effect by two geniuses, both who won Oscars for the movie: Rick Baker, for his magnificent makeup, and Martin Landau for his funny, deeply touching portrayal.  Even though “Ed Wood” was a financial bomb, Landau still enchanted Oscar voters over crowd favorites like Gary Sinise in “Forrest Gump” and Samuel L. Jackson in “Pulp Fiction”. 

“Ed Wood” was criticized by some (including Bela Lugosi’s son) for it’s inaccurate portrayals.  In fact, some have questioned the genuineness of Ed Wood’s intentions.  Did Wood actually exploit Lugosi merely to gain financing for his own films?

In order to override these criticisms, it should be reiterated that films are art, not history.  I loved “Ed Wood” for its funny, deeply moving story about a genuine, ambitious young man who made his movies, even though he clearly lacked every conceivable skill necessary.  I also love the connection that forms between the characters of Wood and Lugosi.  

Landau’s Lugosi is a sad, disgruntled old man who is desperate for money.  He makes no qualms about his situations with Eddie.  “This town chews you up and spits you out.  I’m just another ex-boogie man.”  Wood get’s Lugosi parts in his movies; trying to convince producers and financiers in the process.  One of funniest recurring gags is that Ed constantly has to remind his backers that Lugosi is still alive. 

The real Bela Lugosi was facing financial hardship and a addiction to morphine at the time Wood was starting to produce features.  Lugosi appeared in three of Wood’s films before he passed away: “Glen of Glenda”–Wood’s transvestite feature that spawned from his sex-change script; “Bride of the Monster”–Lugosi as a power-hungry mad scientist; and “Plan 9 From Outer Space”–Lugosi’s final film, which is regarded by many as the worst film of all time. 

Tim Burton was swayed to direct “Ed Wood” based on the script’s portrayal of the Lugosi/Wood friendship.  It mirrored his own friendship to Vincent Price, who Burton envied since childhood and had recently directed in “Edward Scissorhands”, which was his final on-screen performance as well.

Burton was also enticed based on his clear appreciation for outsiders (Batman, Edward Scissorhands) and for portraying their abnormalities with respect.  In this case, Ed is a transvestite.  To his crew, Ed is just being Ed.  To Ed’s financiers, they are appalled to find Ed suddenly directing a scene in an angora sweater and high heels.  Even Ed’s first girlfriend and leading lady, Janice (Sarah Jessica Parker) can’t stomach Ed’s wardrobe preferences and dumps him.  Ed later falls for a lovely young lady, Kathy (Patricia Arquette), and decides to share his secret with her on their first date.  “Do this you like sex with girls?”, she asks.  “No I love sex girls.  Wearing their closes makes me feel closer to them.”  She contemplates for a moment and quietly responds with a smile. “OK”.

In real life, the two were happily married for 22 years until Ed’s death in 1978.

Depp injects his performance of Ed with a great deal of positive energy and optimism.  Depp stated in an interview modeled his performance using a blend of Casey Kasem’s voice and Ronald Reagan’s “aw shucks” demeanor.  His performance of Ed so is so rich in idealism that his ragtag cast and crew, even Lugosi himself, are delighted by Ed’s “incredible” film-making skills.  

However, the real juice of the story is the love and close friendship that builds between Lugosi and Wood.  One evening, Lugosi invites Ed over to his modest home to watch one of his features on television.  Wood stares with fascination and admiration as Lugosi replicates the hand curls he used in Dracula.  When Ed discovers that Bela has a drug addiction, he takes him to a rehab center and tries to secure a new film project to help his sickly hero. 

“Ed Wood” is a joy for anyone who ever imagined sitting in the same room with a childhood idol.  Ed is given an opportunity to meet “Dracula” himself, direct him in movies and share a father-son bond.

There is a great scene when Bela, who is now out of rehab, is walking with Ed through the streets of Hollywood reflecting over their recently finished picture.  Bela is happy and at peace.  He thanks Ed for the opportunity to work and even does an impromptu performance of one of Ed’s scenes.  Bela pours every ounce into his lines, exclaiming and raising his hands in the air.  Once he finishes, the film reveals that  a small group of pedestrians have stopped to watch and applaud.  They approach Lugosi with delight and request his autograph.  Ed is swooning in admiration.  The scene resonates better after repeated viewings, after we know that Eddie’s career and Bela’s life are nearing their end.

“Ed Wood” could have been envisioned a large budget color feature in which the abnormalities of Wood’s life are highlighted with a critical eye–almost like a parody.  But Burton’s film shows a deep respect for Ed’s love of film, his desire to make his own features on his own terms.  Most films about underdogs reveal some untested skill that only revealed in the third act.  Ed’s “success” is “Plan 9 From Outer Space”, a film so terrible that today’s audiences relish every last one of its glaring problems.

Tim Burton made “Ed Wood” in black-and-white and as a straight comedy without the exaggerated fantastical elements he adores in other films. Depp is hyperbolic, but tame when compared to most of his other roles in Burton films.  Depp can occasionally place so much emphasis on abnormalities that he forgets to make the character feel human, as was the case for his Willie Wonka and Mad Hatter characters.  But his Ed Wood becomes grounded and real when necessary, such as when film projects face major obstacles or after he learns the news of Bela Lugosi’s death.

“Ed Wood” is also funny as hell, as when Ed displays his lack of patience for details or logic.  In his films, Wood reused the same shot, scenes can’t decide if they occur during the day or night, or an airplane cockpit is little more than a couple of chairs and a curtain.  When Ed discovers that his mechanical octopus is missing the motor to make its legs move, he encourages Lugosi to manually wrap them around his body to mimic the effect of being squeezed to death. 

It’s also a testament that Johnny Depp and Tim Burton’s best collaboration was about an actor and director who develop bond of trust, respect and mutual admiration.  If Lugosi had lived past “Plan 9”, I have no doubt that duo would have made at least eight features, too.

“Ed Wood” theatrical trailer
 

Burton/Depp. Their Best Movie! Part I


Scenario: Burton has a procured a new film project; he makes the call to Johnny Depp on his speed-dial.

–ring’ ring’–

Depp 
“Speak to me”

Burton 
“D, it’s B.  We have another film in the works.  Drop what you’re doing and meet me in Toronto in two weeks for makeup and wardrobe testing.”
Depp 
“Understood, B.  It’s been over six months since our last project.  I was getting really tired of my natural complexion.”

Burton 
“No worries.  You know the drill at this point.  Pale white makeup for the duration of the shoot, just like the last seven projects.”

Depp 
“Good…very good…I’m getting my bags packed as we speak.”

Burton 
“OK.  See you in two weeks.”

Depp 
“May the gods repeatedly polish your glasses…”

–END CALL–

The love between Johnny and Timmy

I would venture to guess that each movie collaboration between movie star Johnny Depp and film auteur Tim Burton begins and ends very much like this hypothetical scenario, abiet with slightly altered dialog, but with with same word count–or lower.  The call ends, Burton and Depp together close as one tightly-knit tag team and produce, in this case, “Dark Shadows.”

The trailer for “Shadows” garnered my attention for because Depp and Burton are at their best when collaborating on films that mix elements of gothic horror and comedy.  However, most critics has responded negatively and the murmurs are beginning to suggest that the Depp/Burton magic is waning. 

The actor and director have teamed up on eight movies: “Edward Scissorhands”, “Ed Wood”, “Sleepy Hollow”, “Charlie and the Chocalate Factory”, “Corpse Bride”, “Sweeney Todd”, “Alice in Wonderland” and now “Dark Shadows”.  Out of the lot, “Scissorhands”, “Wood”, “Hollow” and “Todd” are the only noteworthy features.  Almost all of these films were released during their early stages of their careers.   

“Shadows” has the elements of another Depp/Burton success story.  The cinematography and set pieces revealed in the film trailer showcase Burton’s reminiscence of 1940s gothic horror and Depp is once again extraordinarily pale.  In fact, Depp is creamy white in every motion picture he did with Burton, even the clay stop-motion character he voiced in “Corpse Bride.”

There is no undisputed champion among their eight features the two megastars produced, although I’d wager “Alice in Wonderland” would be near the bottom of the list for most film-goers. 

I finally watched the film on television with high reservations along preconceptions based on the Tomatoereader results.  “Wonderland” is a petty excuse to give Johnny Depp an eccentric lead in a familiar children’s fantasy story.  “Wonderland” is pure amalgamation of recent fantasy films that were done much better, specifically “Lord of the Rings”.  Burton sidesteps Alice’s character in favor of Depp as the supposed supporting part of the “Mad Hatter”.

“Sweeney Todd” was a fun ride; the music is especially good, as expected, and Depp can carry a tune better than most of the cast of “Mama Mia”.

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” received praise from critics and audiences back in 2005, but the enthusiasm seems to have deteriorated a bit.  Burton claimed that his interpretation was lighter in spirit than the 1971 Gene Wilder film, which is simply not true.  There is no denying that “Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” is traumatic–Wilder’s Wonka has a bad acid trip right in front of the children as his boat enters into a scary, dark tunnel.  Although my childhood nostalgia clouds my judgement, I would wager that most children would be content to spend the day with Wilder’s Wonka and flee in terror from Johnny Depp’s. 

“Corpse Bride”–sweet movie, good animation, poor songs and completely forgettable. 

I personally liked “Sleepy Hollow” due to its amazing set design, creative spin on the original legend (the Headless Horseman is just a puppet for a revenge plot) and Depp’s funny spin on Ichabod Crane. 

“Edward Scissorhands” was the duos first collaboration and it’s still a strong movie.  Burton instills a sense of weirdness in the mundane suburban lifestyle; something he hints in the trailers for “Dark Shadows”.  Edward (Depp) is a weird Frankenstein-like design of a scientist who is adopted by an average American family taken right out of a Norman Rockwell painting.  Depp plays the title role with an childlike curiosity (pale as paper, naturally).  He soon falls in love with the family’s teenaged daughter played by Winona Ryder.

Unfortunately, “Edward Scissorhands” never explores the love story further than the fact that Edward likes her; she’s fascinated by him–their love is eternal.  The message is sweet, the execution feels tacked on.  As a result, “Edward Scissorhands” sits quietly in my Number 2 spot. 

So, the process of elimination leaves the Number 1 spot for…

“Ed Wood”

If you haven’t seen “Ed Wood”, please do so.  If you don’t wanna, stay tuned for Part II and I’ll explain why you must see this movie!  Good screening to you!