favorite movie #28: ed wood

Favorite movies that have had an impact on me - #28 - Ed Wood (1994) - Johnny Depp has been Tim Burton's male muse for a long time, and this film, I believe, is their best work together. An affectionate biopic of Hollywood's "worst director," Ed Wood manages to capture its subject's unconventional life as well as his love of films and filmmaking. Martin Landau portrays a touching Bela Lugosi nearing the end of his career, but the whole cast is amazing. Did Ed Wood know that he had meager talent? It doesn't seem to matter. As Depp plays him, he is enthusiasm and loyalty personified. Filmed in glorious black and white, Ed Wood has plenty of laughs, a little pathos, and tons of style. And it never ridicules its subject. A brilliant film.

Ed Wood (Johnny Depp) loves the feel of a angora, "My girlfriend still doesn't know why her sweaters are always stretched out."

Vampira (Lisa Marie) takes the bus to work

Ed and the gang on the way to a premiere

Ed meets the woman of his dreams (Patricia Arquette)

"It's a guaranteed blockbuster."

via GIPHY

Ed meets Orson Welles (Vincent D'Onofrio)

johnny depp's mortdecai ...

1. Sure has bugged a lot of people.
2. Didn't do his usual huge box office.
3. Is another one of his "eccentric" characters.
4. Was dumped in the late January movie release graveyard.
5. Isn't all that bad.
6. Was inexplicably given an R rating (in the U.S.)

Which of the above statements most accurately fit the latest film offering from Johnny Depp? How about all of the above. Mortdecai, although far from the greatest movie you'd ever see, is not nearly as awful as critics and Hollywood would like you to believe, either. It's a little film, an amusing comedy, about a quirky, larcenous art dealer and his wife Johanna (Gwyneth Paltrow) and the escapades surrounding a valuable painting by Goya (and its more valuable trail that leads to a huge Swiss bank account.)

It's not hard to know why Hollywood is mad at Depp. The film didn't gross over $60 million (its reported cost) — not anywhere near that. But is that burden solely on Depp's shoulders? Why should every movie he make be a blockbuster? Anyone during development who might have read the script or heard even the vaguest description of the film should have known that this wasn't going to be another Pirates.

Charlie's latest acquisition, a moustache that would put Hercule Poirot to shame, only arouses the gag reflex in his wife Johanna

The look of the film, accented in a bright, ruby red throughout, is quite attractive, as are its talented cast, including Ewan McGregor as an MI5 investigator who has been smitten with Johanna and loathed Charlie since their college days; and Paul Bettany as Mortdecai's fiercely loyal, put-upon, and impossibly studly manservant, Jock Strapp. Although the title character is being compared to Peter Sellers and Austin Powers, Depp is clearly riffing on classic British funny man Terry-Thomas, complete with gap-teeth. The movie has the relaxed, goofy vibe of many of those caper comedies that were so popular in the '60s, and the filmmakers may have done better to have set the story in that decade rather than the present day. And what's with the R rating, which certainly didn't help get people into the theater? A little risqué humor, and the two F-words (that could have been reworded) and a PG-13 rating may have helped its box-office potential.

Mortdecai is mainly harmless fun, not the horrible disaster that will end Depp's career. Will it become the franchise that Depp so clearly wanted it to become? Not likely. It was based on Don't Point That Thing At Me, the first of three novels featuring the Charlie Mortdecai character by Kyril Bonfilglioli. But like another excoriated film starring the actor, The Tourist, it really isn't as bad as folks would have you believe. Depp should be able to appear in smaller, quirky films, too. Maybe just scale back the paychecks and the unrealistic expectations.

dark (eye) shadows

All the girls love Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp), but few love him with the maniacal fury of witch Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green). Tim Burton's Dark Shadows is one of his most approachable films in a long time. It manages to incorporate many elements from the original '60s gothic soap opera — actually more than most fans of the soap may be suspecting. But the tone is pure Burton. More Goth than Gothic, and downright goofy and even creepy at times.

Barnabas does his supernatural homework

Depp's Barnabas lays out the bare bones of the plot (from a script by Pride And Prejudice And Zombies' Seth Grahame-Smith) in an opening voice-over:

"My name is Barnabas Collins. Two centuries ago, I made Collinwood my home... until a jealous witch cursed me, condemning me to the shadows, for all time."

The rest of the film (mostly) follows the romantic problems of Barnabas. He has a fling with the beautiful young witch Angelique (Eva Green), who is obsessed with him, but he doesn't love her, and is soon head-over-heels in love with the sweet Josette (Bella Heathcote). This only spells disaster for all, as Angelique eliminates both Josette and Barnabas's parents and curses her ex-lover to eternal life as a vampire. Cue the trippy music and it's 1972 where a local excavation uncovers Barnabas's coffin. After a little mass-murder and midnight snack, the vampire heads for his beloved family seat, Collinwood, like a supernatural homing pigeon.

Burton has always been more interested in visuals than story, and Dark Shadows reflects this. Where the director falters is in his characterization. He gives Depp free reign, of course, and the actor throws himself wholeheartedly into the role of a man whose passions and sense of family can survive across the centuries. The only consistent plotline is Angelique's revenge, which Green embraces with enthusiastic fury. When Depp and Green are together onscreen sparks fly. But Barnabas's interactions with all the other cast members, especially Maggie Evans/Victoria Winters (also played by Bella Heathcote), are rather pale. Characters are introduced, and then as quickly dropped, as Burton heads onto the next set piece. Is Victoria a reincarnation of Josette? The audience is never told. Maybe Burton forgot. Helena Bonham Carter tries to inject the drunken Dr. Julia Hoffman with some verve, and there is a scene between Depp and Michelle Pfieffer, as Collins matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, that manages, with a nod and a wink to the original series, to capture the over-the-top melodramatic dialogue that made it such a cult classic. Chloe Grace Moretz, who has been wonderful in other films (Let Me In, Hugo) is dreadful here as written — one-note and dull as Elizabeth's bored and angtsy teenager Carolyn Stoddard. A last-minute plot twist almost excuses her character's bad behavior, but feels tacked on and too little, too late.

Burton has always been faithful to his favorite actors, and horror fans will be thrilled to see Christopher Lee, no stranger to vampire films himself, in a cameo midway through the film. Fans of the original Dark Shadows series will also be happy to see some of its stars briefly featured in a party scene, but it went by quickly and I was disappointed to not be able to spot original Barnabas Jonathan Frid. I did see Lara Parker (original Angelique), David Selby (Quentin) and Kathryn Leigh Scott (original Josette/Maggie) in the background.

The sets, costumes, and Michelle Pfieffer look fabulous

Where Burton does excel, as always, are the visuals. The look of the film is fantastic, managing to both spoof and evoke the '70s while still keeping everything believable. The town of Collinsport and the fabulously run-down Collinwood mansion, with its secret rooms and passages, look both wonderful and real. When seen in IMAX, the talents of production designer Rick Heinrichs, cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel, and costume designer Colleen Atwood, are especially noticeable. Dark Shadows is far from a masterpiece like Burton's brilliant Ed Wood, but it is enjoyable, and happily has more in common with another one of his better films, Beetlejuice, than the more recent and truly awful Alice in Wonderland.

The one area where the look of the film leaves me cold is the make-up. The pancake is laid on so thick on Depp that he at times seems more clown than vampire, which begs the question why some of the Collins family seem surprised when his true identity is revealed. Did they really think he was human? Thick white make-up is another Burton trademark. The guy likes what he likes and he's not likely to change his tastes at this late date. Maybe he has never gotten over Nicholson's Joker ...

The darkest shadows are on Johnny Depp's cheeks and eyes

Dark Shadows is part comedy, part romance, part horror film. Its humor is more along the line of chuckles than belly laughs, and Burton doesn't whitewash its darker roots. Hero Barnabas is a monster, and when his thirst hits him, he tends to slaughter on a grand scale. As much as he yearns for romance, it's hard not to agree with Angelique that the two might be better suited together than Barnabas and the prim Victoria. The film is strange and a little disjointed, and kind of loses it when the CGI takes over near the end, but it also doesn't look like anything else out in theaters at the moment. That is always what Burton has going for him. He may be just doing variations on a theme, but it's his theme, and he's sticking to it, with Depp and Bonham Carter happily along for the ride.

First start with white pancake, then add lots of dark shadows around the eyes — CW from top: Christopher Walken in Sleepy Hollow, Depp in Alice in Wonderland, Jack Nicholson in Batman, Winona Ryder and Michael Keaton in Beetlejuice, Lisa Marie in Mars Attacks!, Danny Devito and Michelle Pfieffer in Batman Returns.

r.i.p. jonathan frid

Like many, I used to rush home from school to see Dark Shadows. It was my mom's favorite show. She had a huge crush on the vampire Jonathan Collins, played by Jonathan Frid. I didn't quite get that — too young, I guess. But I did find him fascinating — and frightening. I really liked the pretty witch, Angelique, too. Barnabas Collins, as opposed to more recent, sparkly versions, was a scary vampire, and I loved scary movies.

It's sadly ironic that Frid has passed away before Tim Burton's and Johnny Depp's adaptation of Dark Shadows hits the theaters next month. Frid actually makes a cameo appearance in the film. Although the new film seems to be taking a much more comedic approach than the original series (probably a good thing, as Burton is better at comedy than tragedy), Depp has come by his love of Barnabas honestly. He was also a childhood fan.

A classically trained actor, Canadian-born Frid brought a sense of gravitas to Dark Shadows. Although he had a long career in the theater both before and after his time on the gothic soap opera, he will forever be associated with Barnabas Collins. R.I.P. Jonathan, you will be missed.

this might actually not ... suck

The first trailer for Tim Burton's and Johnny Depp's Dark Shadows premiered on Ellen on Thursday. I have to admit that I have been dreading another Burton/Depp film, as the last few things they have done together were extremely disappointing. But if the flavor of the wacky trailer is true to the finished film, this may be more of an Ed Wood than an Alice in Wonderland, which would be wonderful. Here's hoping ...

johnny depp wants to stalk the night

I'm not actually talking about Johnny Depp's upcoming role in Dark Shadows, although I am equal parts nervous and excited about seeing him try on Barnabas Collins's cape. But the latest buzz is that he will appear as Carl Kolchak in a remake or a re-imagining of the classic series Kolchak: The Night Stalker. Again, this could be great or anger-making. I simply adored the show when I was younger. The monster-of-the-week could be anything from a witch to a vampire to a ghost to a werewolf to a Native American evil spirit.

Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak

Of course this speculation just makes me want to dig out my Kolchak: The Night Stalker DVDs and have a mini-marathon. But where to start? The one about Jack the Ripper or aliens or zombies? What was so much fun about the show was that its creatures were from many mythic backgrounds. Joseph Campbell would have approved of the range of monsters that Kolchak found himself up against:

• A Native American shaman spirit  - "Bad Medicine"
• A monster made of moss, Creole Père Malfait - "The Spanish Moss Murders"
• Another Native American spirit, this time a bear, Matchemonedo - "The Energy Eater"
• A Hindu Rakshasa "Horror In The Heights"

Kolchak with a friend

• An evil succubus from ancient Mesopotamia - "Demon In Lace"
• An Aztec mummy - "Legacy of Terror"
• A resurrected knight -  "The Knightly Murders"
• An evil Helen of Troy, in search of immortality - "The Youth Killer"

The monsters, like the vast array of demons in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or unexplained creatures in The X Files may have been what delighted the kiddies and got them tuning in, but what made the series great was Darrin McGavin as Kolchak. His crusty, ascerbic delivery. His absolute disregard for authority. His cool convertible and camera which he always carried with him and never managed to get convincing evidence of his latest narrow escape from death. I don't suggest that Depp try to copy his persona — he wouldn't anyway, but would a new Night Stalker work without McGavin? This is not the first attempt to update Kolchak. In 2005 a darker themed series, Night Stalker, starring Stuart Townsend appeared on ABC. But it was missing the humor of the original series and had a short run.

Kolchak in his 1966 Ford Mustang Convertible

I've always enjoyes Depp as an actor, but in recent years it seems that he can only play already iconic characters — John Dillinger, Captain Jack Sparrow, Willy Wonka, The Mad Hatter, Barnabas, soon Tonto in the upcoming The Lone Ranger, and possibly now Kolchak. As much as many maligned his movie with Angelina Jolie, The Tourist, I actually liked it, especially because Depp was playing for most of the film, an ordinary guy in extraordinary circumstances. Has he drifted so far from reality that he can't play real people anymore? Carl Kolchak has a big personality, but he is still a real person. He may be a crack investigative reporter but his real-world status is low on the pay scale. As long as Depp doesn't make his Kolchak try to compete in the weirdness department with his supernatural foes, a new Night Stalker could be interesting. It's probably a good sign that Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World ) and not Depp's frequent eccentric character enabler Tim Burton is set to direct.

ever have a movie preview make you angry? one day ...

I can't help it, but the preview for One Day pisses me the hell off. I watch rom-coms, even ones that makes the audience sit through one hour and 47 minutes of the two leads being kept apart. It's directed by Lone Scherfig, who made the wonderful An Education, which gave me pause, until I heard about the plot, which sets up bad behavior to hold off the inevitable realization by the two that they should be together — something anyone could have figured out in the first five minutes. And then the movie throws in a heavy dose of some dire circumstances for the tearjerker factor. As if all of that wasn't bad enough, I remembered what ticked me off in the first place. The movie is set in Scotland and England and the two leads are supposed to be young Brits, who, as the publicity blurb burbles:

Emma Morley and Dexter Mayhew begin a friendship that will last a lifetime. She is a working-class girl of principle and ambition who dreams of making the world a better place. He is a wealthy charmer who dreams that the world will be his playground. For the next two decades, key moments of their relationship are experienced over several July 15ths in their lives.

Dexter is played by Jim Sturgess and Emma, the "working-class girl of principle and ambition" is played by ... Anne Hathaway. Why? Were there no young British actresses available? I did not buy her as a "Yorkshire lass" in just a few preview clips. I can't imagine having to sit through one hour and 47 minutes of her playing Brit, and then waiting for the inevitable heartbreaking scene. No. Just no.

Dick van Dyke, in his legendary attempt at the Cockney accent

How did an American actress get the part? In a typical Hollywood b.s. fairytale version, Hathaway said in an interview that appeared in the Toronto Sun:

"I got slipped the script ... I flew to London and then I proceeded to have, like, the worst meeting of my life. I ... I got so terrified that I wasn't going to get the part, I grabbed a piece of paper and just wrote a bunch of songs. ... 'I clearly didn't communicate to you what I needed to today. But I think these songs can do it for me.' So she [director Lone Scherfig] went home and gave a listen and she said, 'Can I hear more songs?' I don't know why that worked, but I got the part."

Uh huh. I'm guessing that Hathaway's box office appeal had more to do with her getting the part than a mix tape, but whatever she wants to believe, fine. This just brings up the age-old question — Why do American Hollywood actresses insist on trying to do (badly) British (and sometimes even Southern) accents? Apart from Meryl Streep, they should just not do attempt it. Also good at an accent: Frances McDormand in Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day and Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow and the Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

Instead of trying to fit the square peg of an American accent into the round hole of a British one, it would be smarter for a director or writer to just rewrite the part as an American. If they can't change the character's nationality, as in this film or Shakespeare in Love (Gwyneth does the Brit accent better than most), than give a young British girl a chance. That goes for Renee Zellwegger in Bridget Jones's Diary, too.

We'll see how One Day fares at the box office this weekend; if others are as put off by the casting and the premise as I am.

dear angelina and johnny

So sorry it has taken me so long to write, but as a busy single mom I don't always get the opportunity to see movies first-run. I was finally able to catch your film, The Tourist, on-demand the other night and just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed it. It was a fun, even silly at times thriller, much in the vein of the old Audrey Hepburn/Cary Grant movie Charade, or another Cary Grant film, Alfred Hitchcock's To Catch A Thief. I'm not sure why critics when it first came out were so hard on the film. Is it possible that they weren't able to catch the old movie references?

I was pleasantly surprised to discover that it was a top production, not just in the settings and costumes and beautiful cinematography by John Seale, but with supporting roles that were filled by some of my favorite actors — Rufus Sewell, Paul Bettany, Timothy Dalton. The city of Venice, one of the most magical places any tourist could ever visit, was just as lovely to look at as the movie's top stars, if you don't mind my saying so.

In another fun twist, for fans of Angelina's action movie persona, her character of Elise was intelligent and daring, but not her usual optimum physical specimen. In other words, Angelina does not kick major ass, but has to resort to cunning and Venetian canal putt-putt motorboats to effect the rescue of the seemingly out-of-his-league tourist played by Johnny. She still appears to have one up on the hero, but it's not because she is an action hero this time out.

There were many fun little details, such as Johnny's clueless tourist speaking Spanish to everyone in Italy. It was cringeworthy in a good way. The costumes worn by Angelina, mostly designed by Colleen Atwood, were extraordinary. It was nice to see her as a bit of a clothes horse in a movie for a change. Johnny looked dapper too, a bit like Bogie in Casablanca in one scene, when he walked in wearing a white dinner jacket.

No matter what the critical consensus would have you believe, the movie was financially far from a flop. Maybe it was a quickly-filmed romp, but what's wrong with that? Not all movies have to be megahits like Johnny's Pirates series or Angelina's Salt. The Tourist is a fun little film, and one you should both be proud to have on your resumes. Next time you have a break between blockbusters, you might consider filming together again. Topkapi seems ripe for a remake ...

who needs PG-13 anymore?

Article first published as Who needs PG-13 anymore? on Blogcritics.

Both Thor and the just-released Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides movies are rated PG-13, but who are they kidding? They are also both marketed heavily to the kiddies. At our local multiplex, there was a special Pirates promotion going on this opening weekend with face painting, balloon animals, Renaissance Fair-style role-players and Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) and Blackbeard (Ian McShane) impersonators.

Clearly plenty of parents were taking under-13 age children to the movie (myself included.) So why did the film have a PG-13 rating? Wasn't PG enough? A parent has to decide either way whether to take their kid to the movies. That's the parental guidance part. On any website today you can get an itemized list of content that might offend (violence, sex, drugs, drinking, language). So why bother with trying to (over) specify the rating?

After seeing Pirates, which did include some (not graphic) deaths and scary creatures (mermaids) I don't think that it had anything too scary for my seven-year old daughter. I told her as we went in that if anything was too frightening for her, she could cover her eyes, hide behind me, or we could duck out for a few minutes, but that was never really necessary. She did grab me for some of the fight scenes, but overall she enjoyed it. And sometimes being scared and cuddling with mom or dad is part of the fun. If there was anything that did bother her about the movie, it was that a few of the plot points were left dangling and open for the next movie. But that's just how movies are today, which I explained to her — they want you to come back and see what happens to Captain Jack Sparrow next time.

I used to watch scary movies on TV all the time when I was probably "too young" for them — that is, her age. I distinctly remember being allowed to stay up and watch a vampire movie with my dad and going to bed scared that night, wearing my bathrobe over my nightgown, convinced that if my neck was covered up a vampire couldn't get me. And these weren't sparkly teen vamps, this was a B&W creepy Count Dracula. Most fairy tales are full of scary things — witches and wolves that eat little pigs and little girls that favor the color red.

I don't think parents should be irresponsible. My daughter has seen the first three Harry Potter movies and that's it. She loves the kids and other characters and is rightly frightened by Voldemort — we usually skip those scenes on the DVD. The same goes for another film she adores, the first Lord of the Rings. She is in love with Frodo, but wants to skip the Orcs. Frankly, I feel the same way about the Orcs — they are unnecessarily gross make-up wise. Director Peter Jackson could have scaled them back visually a bit and they still would have been scary. But back to Potter — I haven't let her see the fourth Potter film and beyond because the emotional content gets more mature. Characters start dying, and not just the Cowboys and Indians sorts of deaths that kids role-play and are familiar with, as in this latest Pirates movie, but deaths of people that they have grown to love — I still find Cedric's death in Goblet of Fire very upsetting. Movies with tear-jerking moments can be cathartic — for adults, but kids don't really need that level of sadness from a movie.

Apparently we have filmmaker Steven Spielberg to blame for the ridiculous distinction between PG and PG-13. In 1984, "Spielberg … advocated the creation of the new rating. The proposed change, however, has been opposed by MPAA President Jack Valenti. He argues that the current system is working well enough and that adding more classifications would cause more confusion. 'Who is smart enough to say what is permissible for a 13-year-old and not for a twelve-year-old?' Valenti asks. 'Who can draw that line?'" Valenti either changed his mind or caved in, as the rating began to be applied to films that year and ever since.

But does the PG-13 rating really apply to the latest Pirates movie? From the MPAA's definition of PG-13:

Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. (None)

More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. (The mermaids are topless, but no nipples are shown, their long hair or the water covers them, so, none)

There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. (Pirates has lots of sword fights and some deaths, but none too graphic. There are sword wounds with a little blood, as in an old Errol Flynn pirate flick.)

A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous. (There were no curse words that I recall. There was some mildly sexy banter between Captain Jack and Angelica (Penélope Cruz) referencing their prior relationship, but nothing explicit.)

I think that Hollywood should just drop the silly PG-13 rating. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a family movie. I know, that's a bad word for some, but too bad. Sometimes I wonder if films now use PG-13 as a ratings opportunity to attract the adult audience. Do the studios think a plain PG will turn off grown-ups who don't want to go to a kiddie film? Does PG-13 make it just a tad cooler or less, well, PG? As the line-up of Pirates toys and related merchandise in Target and other stores attest, the film's rating, in this case is beyond meaningless.

Related articles

• Who Needs PG-13 Anymore? (blogcritics.org)

these are a few of my favorite blogs ...

There are so many wonderful blogs out there for the movie buff. DVD Beaver may at first sight seem just a nice compendium for searching which DVD's are available for sale, but once you start to dig a little deeper, you might not be able to stop. One discovery leads to another. Not only are there links to hard-to-find films, but there are synopses, reviews, original posters and DVD covers, plus all sorts of technical info (DVD and Blu-ray specs, extras), too. My favorite feature — wonderful images from great movies:

Orson Welles in Prince of Foxes

Ginger Rogers in The Major and the Minor

Colin Farrell in The New World

Johnny Depp in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

the lizard with no name

Article first published as Movie Review: Rango on Blogcritics.


Rango is one of the best durn looking movies in a long time. Not just in animated movies, but movies. Every shot has an amazing sense of composition. Director Gore Verbinski really uses the entire screen, like a canvas, in such a way that points out how other movies just don't do that.

Johnny Depp, in the title role, reminds us all what a good actor he really is, as his lizard is the ultimate actor, a chameleon in the true sense of the word. Talk about adapting. When the fabulous improvisational acting workshop that he apparently holds every day in his lonely fishtank is cut short — said tank goes flying out the back of his owner's car while they are swerving to avoid crashing on the highway — he is cast into the wilderness to find his way through the desert and his dreams until he discovers what he is really made of.

There are all sorts of knowing winks and references to movie genres and specific films — Sergio Leone westerns of course, Clint Eastwood's "Man with No Name," Blazing Saddles, Star Wars wookies and fighters in flight, every last-ditch western town where a stranger walks into a saloon and everything stops dead as the hard characters take in the nervous newcomer. And "Rango," as he calls himself in a fit of improvisation, after he sees the word "Durango" out of the corner of his eye, jumps into his new role as savior and sheriff with relish and phenomenal good luck.

I went with my 7-year-old, and while there were definitely some scary moments, I didn't feel that it was inappropriate for her. I did some parental guidance. The fights and scares and even deaths are all very Wile E. Coyote meets Road Runner. They're kind of gruesome, but kind of funny, too. There is a sequence (quite wonderful) where Rango and pals are being chased by creatures on bats. The scene is about on par with the flying monkeys from The Wizard of Oz, which are admittedly, still quite creepy, but again, I think not too much for the kid. There were a few moments when she snuggled closer, telling me she was scared, but it was the good kind of being scared, when you're happy to share the thrill safely with mom nearby.

The primary palette of Rango is monochromatic, which makes sense for a movie where a lot of the action takes place in a dust-covered, water-deprived, western town. Rango himself provides the main dashes of color, with his bright green skin and his loud red and white Hawaiian shirt. But the film in no way looks flat. The details of every surface of skin, hair, tooth and nail gives the film real texture and interest. It is not a 3D movie, but it has more visual interest than any 3D movie I have seen.

Another thing I loved about Rango was the dialogue. Rango is first and foremost an actor, and he's spent much of his life virtually alone, in a glass terrarium, so he has had plenty of time to develop his gift of gab. When he touches down in the town of Dirt he is surrounded by locals who talk the talk of the movie western and he manages to use his strengths of adaptation to blend right in:

Rango: Now you get back on in there and you assert yourself and I think you'll find the people in this town to be suprisingly hospitable.
Bar Guy 1: Thank you, Sheriff.
Bar Guy 2: What?! Not you again!! (throws Bar Guy 1 out)
Rango: I stand corrected.

Not only is the dialogue funny, but it is multi-sylllabic. Kids big and small in the audience might just learn something, as Rango urges book-learnin', "Stay in school, eat your veggies, and burn all the books that ain't Shakespeare." Rango, first and foremost, always the actor's actor.

For grown-up movie buffs there are some great nods to classic films. Ned Beatty as the Mayor of Dirt sounds eerily like Chinatown's John Huston. Tim Olyphant impersonates Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name, and one of the town residents, owl-like Furgus, has the creaky voice of classic Hollywood western sidekick Andy Devine. Depp and Verbinski also load in lots of fun self-references. In Rango's opening monologue he ponders what sort of character he should be, quite a few of them sounding a bit like past roles on Depp's resume. Later, when he is buffeted about on the highway, he splats momentarily on the windshield of the convertible from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, until a windshield wiper sends him on his way.

There is much to love about this film, and I suspect, it will only grow better with multiple viewings. I wanted a chance to examine some of the animal inhabitants of Dirt a little more closely, as they look similar to real animals I may have seen, but ... not quite. But mostly I'd like to hear Rango try to figure it all out again, while having an existential crisis and wisecracking his way through the West.

wolf man slack

The Wolfman was so universally panned when it came out that I never got around to seeing it. So when I came across it the other night I figured I'd give it a try, with my expectations low. I can't say that the movie confounded those expectations. All in all it was pretty bad. Funny in all the wrong places, serious—ditto, and obsessed with phony flesh-tearing gory special effects that were just—gross. But it made me think—not about the plot, but about all the hard work going on behind-the-scenes—while I was watching it. I was able to separate myself from all of the failed aspects of the film, while wondering about some of stellar ones, and there were a few.



How disappointed an artisan must be. Spending months on location or in the studio, utilizing their particular skill to get something—the costumes, the light on an actress or the furniture, the exterior landscaping of a building—just right. Do they know while they are watching it that the actors or director are not doing it justice? Do they hope it can all be fixed in the editing room? Or are they just jurneyman, there do the best job possible?

The look of the thing. Whether the crew of The Wolfman knew where the production was headed or not, they definitely delivered a gorgeous film. When many folks watch the Oscars, categories like set design and the like are usually only appreciated by film nerds while the rest of the audience is itching for the producers to get on with it. I can be in either camp, depending on my mood, or interest in the nominees. But while watching The Wolfman I got seriously caught up in the fabulous set design. So much work and detail went into the interiors of Anthony Hopkins's manse and Emily Blunt's curio shop.

The locations were gorgeous and gorgeously-filmed. The costumes were impeccable. Not flashy, but era-appropriate. They looked like real clothes, not too new or not too grubby—many costume pictures send a false note when they get this important detail wrong. When it wasn't over-busy with entrails and decapitations, The Wolfman was lovely to look at.

The supporting cast. Geraldine Chaplin was minimally used as head gypsy, but she was still great and it's always fun to see her. Hugo Weaving obviously had a blast. The man simply does not get enough work. Or I need to look out for his movies more diligently. I was honestly more interested in his character after five seconds onscreen than anyone else in the film.

One plot/structure change could have made the entire film so much better. More updated, more meaningful. If the movie had been told from Emily Blunt's character's point of view it could have been turned into a gothic paranoia classic, a la The Others. There were germs of this, especially in her late-in-the-movie horseback ride-to-the-rescue at the end of the film. Truly a missed opportunity. It could have been Emily Blunt, Werewolf Hunter. If I ruled the world ...



Two more observations. Anthony Hopkins has been over-chewing the scenery for so long, that it is hard to know how to take him in any role anymore. Funny on purpose? There for a paycheck? He is so ham. But his presence was also strangely comforting. Benicio Del Toro was so completely miscast it was painful. I love me some Benicio. At first I thought maybe the problem was that he hated what he got himself into, but he was also a producer and apparently a big Wolfman fan

... a fan of the original and collector of Wolf Man memorabilia in the lead role. Screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker was attached to the screenplay, developing the original film's story to include additional characters as well as plot points that would take advantage of modern visual effects. Del Toro also looked towards Werewolf of London and The Curse of the Werewolf for inspiration.—Wikipedia

No matter his Wolfman fandom, his method/interior work style of acting was not a good fit for this monster flick. As I was watching him suffer, maybe it was the Danny Elfman music, but I suddenly thought, "Too bad that he and Johnny Depp couldn't have changed places." Depp would have been well-suited, I think, to this role. He would have been better able to emotionally connect with Blunt and the audience as man and beast. And Del Toro would make a fabulous Barnabas Collins. He might even temper the wackadoodle collaborative thing Tim Burton's got with Depp. I have real fears for the upcoming Dark Shadows.

[According to] Rick Baker [who] created the make-up for The Wolfman ... Going from Benicio to Benicio as the Wolf Man isn't a really extreme difference. Like when I did An American Werewolf in London, we went from this naked man to a four-legged hound from hell, and we had a lot of room to go from the transformation and do a lot of really extreme things. Here we have Benicio del Toro, who's practically the Wolf Man already, to Benicio del Toro with more hair and bigger teeth.—Wikipedia

I'm not sure that's anything to brag about. Isn't the underlying werewolf myth all about transformation, from a man into an animal, into our basest desires? Categorizing Benicio as uber-hairy is overstating it. He's dark-haired and swarthy, maybe.




One more observation. What the hell was going on with all the gore? Did the filmmakers think that was going to make the movie scarier? It was just silly. Why were these werewolves so angry and flesh-hungry? A little lore might not have hurt the proceedings. The wolfmen tore through twenty people a night. Talk about hunting and wasting the resources.

There is just something intrinsically goofy about a guy, still in his clothes, running around in the woods as The Wolf Man. If you don't find the right note, the suspension of disbelief just kills the whole thing. What happens to the Wolfman's torn and bloody clothes post-transformation is always an issue, or at least confusing to me. An American Werewolf in London handled the dilemma humorously by having David Naughton creatively cope with his naked post-werewolf state. Now that's a werewolf movie to check out. Or even Teen Wolf.

Movie production stills from Universal.

Related articles

• Benicio Del Toro and Gaspar Noe Directing Segments in Omnibus Film '7 Days in Havana' (slashfilm.com)