The Subscription Rush

This post was prompted by two readers who $ubscribed this week through no prompting of my own at all! Much love. Mwah. If you, like those readers, love the blog and want to help it get even more fab, won't you consider a cheap donation? There's a sidebar to your right and you can choose different options... (the cheapest being $2.50 a month). Tomorrow it's my birthday. BUT, UH, NO PRESSURE.

So here's a challenge if you're resisting: Visit the blog once a day this month (that's easy! And free) and each day decide if it's worth one dime and if so write YES on your calendar of choice. I'll just be standing by with my beggar's cup. There are 26 days left in the month of June. If by June's end you think it was most definitely worth a dime on 25 of those days, sign up. If 300 more of you subscribe I can pay my rent with just the proceeds from the blog. Paying rent is fun. Wheeee. If 2,500 of you subscribe I'll quit my consulting job and make the Film Experience my full time job again (it was when I was unemployed but I couldn't continue on that Depression Era road). If 100,000 of you subscribe I'll fly you all in for a massive party and we'll ride unicorns and bathe in the fountain of youth and I'll bake a cake full of rainbows and smi-- ... what? I'm a dreamer! Don't crush my dreams.

Burning Questions: Are We Ignoring Wes Anderson's Dark Side?

Michael C. here to try to look past the standard take on one of our leading filmmakers. 

Steve Zissou: This is going to hurt.

I have decided that I am no longer interested in reading reviews of Wes Anderson films that contain the word “quirky” in the opening paragraph. Same goes for “twee”.

Over and over I read that, what do you know, Wes Anderson has gone and made another Wes Anderson movie. It’s about time, don’t you think, that people take a more substantive look at a one of the most distinctive bodies of work of the last two decades? A body of work whose deeper currents are often ignored amid the same old talk about flat compositions and diorama sets. Anderson’s movies have a lingering impact that defies those would dismiss his carefully composed world as emotionally detached. Right below that carefully composed surface are the deeper currents of a director preoccupied with death, loss, and alienation.

With all the focus on his signature colorful style are we ignoring Wes Anderson’s dark side? 

Click to read more ...

Review: "Snow White and the Huntsman"

This article was originally published in my movie column at Towleroad

"Fairy tale revisionism" has been rapidly climbing the Hollywood idea chart. In the past few years we've seen Alice in Wonderland, Rapunzel in Tangled, Red Riding Hood, and Snow White in Mirror Mirror (reviewed here).  There are several more on the way including Angelina Jolie as Maleficent terrorizing Sleeping Beauty Elle Fanning. This weekend Snow White returned to theaters for the second time in three months. Her timing is apt since the apple-munching princess is celebrating her 75th big screen anniversary (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs premiered in 1937). Why so many fairy tales? Modern Hollywood thrives on branding so the more familiar the movie before it arrives the better. And what's more familiar than fairy tales?

Tale as old as time. 
True as it can be…  ♫

Oops wrong fairy tale. Regret to inform that Snow White and the Huntsman does not have a theme song sung by Angela Lansbury but let's borrow that song anyway as framing device. Snow White and the Hunstman does have a theme song but it's a less catchy dirge-like ballad. One of the seven dwarves coughs it out at a funeral until Florence and the Machine take over on the soundtrack as the heroes rise up against evil Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron) in montage. 

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. If you can suspend your disbelief that Kristen Stewart is "the fairest of all them all" in a beauty contest with Charlize Theron, read on...

Click to read more ...

Seven ways that waiting for a new James Bond is exactly like waiting for a new Woody Allen

 

1. You can expect that the locale will change. 

2. You know the title sequence will bring back memories like an old friend or comfort food. 

3. You'll see new faces mixed in with the repertory company.

4. You can place bets on how many and which younger women the protagonist will sleep with. 

Woody Allen as "Jimmy Bond" in Casino Royale (1967)

5. You're forced to admire the longevity because this all started in the 1960s!

6. You've learned to let go of qualitative expectations because it's a crap shoot...

7.          ...Otherwise you know exactly what you're going to get. 

James Bond goes To Rome With Love on June 28th and Woody Allen Skyfalls into Shanghai on November 9th. I got that right, right?

Thoughts I had while staring at the "Magic Mike" poster

• I see no magic being performed unless Alex Pettyfer is about to pull something out of that hat.

• If this movie had been made in the 1980s or by Nicolas Winding Refn the blue letters would've been in pink neon.

• I keep wanting to spell something out. If you squint, Matthew, Matt & Joe, and Alex are spelling out Y.M.A but Channing is letterless. Maybe if you flipped Channing horizontally he'd be an "R". What does it all mean? R. Y. M. A.?

• "work all day. work it all night" is kind of an awesome tagline. It's self aware. Movie, know thyself!

• If this movie shows less Joseph Mangianello skin than any random episode of True Blood, Steven Soderbergh has failed us all.

• That camouflage will only hide Matt Bomer if he's surrounded by thousands of male strippers in a muddy forest. Hmmmm. 

• Why isn't this opening for my birthday (June 6th) instead of June 29th?

The five most important things about this poster after the jump...

Click to read more ...