This is part the second of a two-part article examining the ways in which one might become a better film critic. You can find the first part of the article here.

I was surprised by and appreciative of the responses that I received on the first part of this article. I also must admit that I found it quite surreal to see my name jutting out from blog posts in Spanish and Vietnamese. Hopefully the second part of this article is as much of a conversation starter as the first was. Again, your feedback is warmly welcomed.
Continue Reading »

America, and like…1989, I think?
Directed By: Probably Steven Spielberg. He’s a director, right?
Written By: Not those guys who wrote the Pirates movies. So I don’t care.
Starring: Some dude who sounds like that mouse from Animaniacs
Running Time: Too friggin’ long.
Rated PG…for boring-ness.
(out of 57 rectangles)

Note: This was written for the Bizarro Blogathon at Lazy Eye Theater.

Okay, so I was just, like, hanging out, when this guy Evan says to me, “Why don’t we watch this movie?” and I’m all like “What movie is it?” and he says “It’s called Citizen Kane.” I say, “Citizen Kane? Is that one new? I’ve never heard of it.” And he’s all like “No, I think it’s been around a while now.”

“So it’s like, 80’s? Does it have Patrick Swayze in it?”

And he’s all like, “Patrick Swayze? Like in Dirty Dancing? That’s barely even a movie!” and I’m all like, “Whatever,” so he pops it in the DVD player, and it starts up.

OMG, it sucked.
Continue Reading »

This is an epic article, one that I have been working and retooling for months. I’m splitting it into two parts because reading half of it in one sitting will be daunting enough. Most of the length can be attributed to the selections from other critics that I’ve included. As such, I hope it serves more as an introduction to the work of many a great critic some of you may have overlooked or never heard of, rather than a personal ego trip expounding My Important Opinions. The selections I’ve included, if nothing else, are worth the time and effort it will take to make it through this article. Expect the second half later this week or early the next.

Since beginning MovieZeal, I’ve thought a lot about what makes a good film critic. There are no books or how-to dummy guides out there on the subject, perhaps because there is an intangible, subjective element to film criticism that is difficult to pin down. Ignorant film watchers will resort to the tired judgment of “A critic is someone who couldn’t cut it as a filmmaker,” but they miss the forest for the big fat tree staring them in the face. There is much more to it, and film criticism over the past century has become an art in its own right. This article contains my humble thoughts, in no particular order, on how one might get better at it.

I fully expect a few of these to generate some debate, and while I’m not new to serious filmwatching, I am rather young in terms of written film criticism. In other words, I’m not claiming to have it all figured out. I’m also excluding some points that I think are obvious. For example, if you’re neither passionate about film nor consistent in your cinematic intake (multiple films per week), then you’re likely to prove a poor critic, no matter how many of the pointers below you take to heart.

Some of my suggestions are specifically practical, some are more subjective, and many of them overlap one another to varying degrees. In addition, I’ve included excerpts from reviews and critics that I think illustrate the point at hand, as well as provided links to the full review or where to purchase the book I found them in. Please note that while I’ve drawn exclusively from English speaking critics, I’m not saying that there aren’t vibrant, influential film critics elsewhere in the world, just that it’s difficult to find translations of their work.
Continue Reading »

[Originally written as a contribution to the Indiana Jones Blog-A-Thon over at Cerebral Mastication.]

Last December, I sat down with my father to watch Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. To me, it’s one of the best summer blockbusters in a long time (yeah, you heard me: the second one). Yet, after we finished, my Dad turned to me and said, “Where are the feel-good action movies?” I asked him what he meant and he replied by recalling movies that weren’t so oppressively dark. Where were the real good guys? he asked. Where were heroes like Indiana Jones?!
Continue Reading »

Our Month of Coens was, I think, a modest success. Thanks to all of the contributors who took the time and effort to turn in such well written articles and features on the brothers auteur. Your participation is what made it such darn fun. You can find a handy-dandy list of all the articles and reviews below in case you may have missed anything.

In lieu of planning another themed month here at MZ (which is coming as soon as we recover from this one), we have a number of new columns and features in the pipeline, so keep your eyes peeled (what does that mean, excatly? Has anyone ever stopped to think what a horrible prospect it would be to actually peel one’s eyes?).

MZ is in its infancy, and we are (hopefully) ever evolving into a better, more streamlined destination for all things film.

Hit the jump for the list of articles and reviews.
Continue Reading »

Our final guest article peeling back the cerebral layers of the Coen’s eccentric gray matter comes from Craig Kennedy, tzar-supreme of the cozy watering-hole of a blog Living in Cinema. Here he tackles the significant differences between Cormac McCarthy’s novel and the Coen’s adaptation. Be sure to check out his blog, which features industry news and reviews distilled through his keen wit and eloquence. He also has some of the best commentators and conversations going on in the blogosphere. Park your browser there for a spell and soak in the cinematic sunshine.

“The book was better than the movie.”

How many times have you heard someone say that? The truth is, books and movies are two very different things and the strengths of one don’t always play into the strengths of the other. There are exceptions of course. Gone With the Wind and The Godfather spring to mind as films that are equal to or better than their source novels. The movie versions might not be as rich or as in depth as the novels upon which they’re based, but they get the important things right and they still manage to work as movies.

To that list we can surely add the novel No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy and the film based upon it by Joel and Ethan Coen. The first thing that stands out in a direct comparison of the two is how faithful the Coens were to their source, yet how they still made a film with a recognizable Coen stamp. No Country is unmistakably a Coen movie, from the basic framework of McCarthy’s noir plot, to the strong regional characters, to the dialogue; it’s at home in the Coen canon, yet they seem to have changed very little. Much of the dialogue was delivered intact and even the structure of the narrative survived the translation. Somehow it’s McCarthyesque and Coenesque all at the same time.
Continue Reading »

This latest feature article, delving into the spirituality (or lack thereof) in the world of the Coens, comes courtesy of Rick Olson. Once finished, be sure to skip, jump, and hop on over to Coosa Creek Mambo, Rick’s stomping grounds where film and religion intersect.

When Evan asked me to write a piece on spirituality in the films of Joel and Ethan Coen, I said “Huh? What spirituality?” Because as big a fan as I am, the last thing I think of when I think of the Coens is spirituality. But as I began to think about it, some spiritual chinks in the brothers’ cynical armor, and thought why not? I can do that . . .
Continue Reading »

This excellent article comes from Minnesotan native Daniel Getahun of Getafilm, detailing the love/hate relationship those lakeside Scandinavians have held with the Coens ever since they immortalized them in Fargo. After partaking, be sure to ride the intertubes over to Daniel’s excellent site.

“Fargo’s naht even in Minnesoda, ya know!”

So has begun many a contentious conversation with Minnesotans about the Oscar-winning film from native sons Joel and Ethan Coen. A word of advice: if you’re visiting, don’t bring it up. Ironically, we obsessively claim the brothers as our own, while at the same time distance ourselves as much as possible from their most famous portrayal of us. Over the course of their filmmaking careers, the relationship between the brothers and their home state has indeed been a delicate one.

Continue Reading »

Part two of Daniel Cook Johnson’s auditory head trip down Coens Lane commences forthwith. As previously mentioned, be sure to check out the gurgling fountain from which such musings bubble, Daniel’s film babble blog. In case you have need of catching up, be sure to peruse the first part of his verbose article, From the Dark Debut To The Snowblind Breakthrough (1984-1996).

PART II: From A Movie Mix-tape Made By The Dude To A Muted De-Countrified Terrain With Some Soggy Mountain Boys Songs On The Side (1998-2007)

In late 1997, not long it felt after the buzz of the awards and accolades for Fargo died down, a trailer appeared that announced the Coen brother’s next film was going to be a loud colorful comedy about an aging hippie bowler caught in, yep, another kidnapping caper! I know I was not alone when watching the preview in thinking “bring it on!”

The Big Lebowski blew me away when I first saw it on the big screen with the music being no small part of the experience. Especially since the movie is wall to wall music – from the first frame to the end credits over 30 songs are heard in either fragments or filling entire scenes. The issued soundtrack is the first Coens’ recording to consist of songs - not composed tracks - with only one Carter Burwell original - “Technopop (Wie Glauben)”. That’s because there is almost no Burwell in the film – a bit of suspenseful strains to heighten the tension in the ransom drop-off sequence is the only bit I can find. With A-list producer T. Bone Burnett brought in as “musical archivist” it’s apparent that the songs are where it’s at in the world of The Dude. In an interview in Entertainment Weekly at the time of the film’s release Ethan Coen said: “We were trying to find signature songs for each of the characters so the only thing [the songs] share is that nothing is particularly contemporary sounding. They’re all from previous eras, consistent with the characters, who had attitudes shaped by the ’60s, ’70s, or earlier.”
Continue Reading »

Dylan Fields (aka “Fletch”) is the proprietor of the always-entertaining Blog Cabins, as well as the Grand Vizier of the Large Association of Movie Blogs. I frequent the former and MZ is a proud member of the latter - both are worth your attention. He turns his attention here to the dynamics, the mystical connection, the ’secret sauce’ if you will of brotherly directing teams.

Ethan and Joel Coen

• “If me and my brother had to work together it wouldn’t be happy days. They’ve got an amazing amount of respect for each other and they’re both making the same film. There were never any decisions that had to be made one way or another. It was just easy. Before you actually start a film that’s going to be directed by two people you think, “well that’s going to be weird…” But after about five minutes you forget and you don’t even notice.”
  - Kelly McDonald on her experience working with the Coen brothers.

Continue Reading »

Editor’s Note: This is our first guest article in April’s celebration of all things Coen, and it’s a doozy. Daniel Cook Johnson from the eminently readable film babble blog has dissected the musical vernacular of the Coen’s longtime collaborator Carter Burwell to the nth degree. Dig into his fantastic sonic breakdown of their first 6 films, and be sure to ride the innertubes over to his site. It’s worth a hallowed spot in your RSS reader.

PART I: From the Dark Debut To The Snowblind Breakthrough (1984-1996)

Even the most casual Coen brothers fan has to know how pivotal and perversely precise their soundtracks have to be to match their meticulously crafted movies. To this credit - Carter Burwell, composer on all of their films, has consistently provided scores that are purposely powerful or seethingly subtle (or both) in the fashion of the old time masters like Bernard Herrmann (the Mercury Theater radio shows, Citizen Kane, all of Hitchcock’s films, etc.) yet with his own unique and knowingly contemporary edge. Scores aside, the Coens have utilized many famous and obscure songs from all genres in a Scorsesean manor – jukebox or sing-along tunes with familiar voices and beats that set tones, imply back-stories, and get us toe-tappingly into their tall tales. So let’s look back and listen up to the music in the entire Coen’s canon starting with their cheap but brilliant 1984 debut.
Continue Reading »

This article is a contribution to Film at 11’s blogathon, updating Andrew Sarris’ The American Cinema with selections on post-1968 directors. Given the theme of the month here at MovieZeal, you can guess which director(s) we will be evaluating. For those unfamiliar with Sarris’ work or the canons within which he placed directors, see Film at 11’s initial post here.

LIGHTLY LIKEABLE

Joel and Ethan Coen (1954, ’57 – )
FILMS: (noteworthy entries in italics) 1984 – Blood Simple, 1987 – Raising Arizona, 1990 – Miller’s Crossing, 1991 – Barton Fink, 1994 – The Hudsucker Proxy, 1996 – Fargo, 1998 – The Big Lebowski, 2000 – O Brother, Where Art Thou?, 2001 – The Man Who Wasn’t There, 2003 – Intolerable Cruelty, 2004 – The Ladykillers, 2007 – No Country For Old Men

The most impressive accomplishment by Joel and Ethan Coen is how, in spite of working in wildly disparate genres (exploitation, noir, gangster, screwball, remake), they manage to not just make films, but to make Coen films. One would say of most directors, “Their first film was just practice, so we can forgive it if it bears little resemblance in content or quality to their later work,” but Blood Simple, the Coens’ debut, is so scarily assured and effortlessly confident that we can see unmistakable similarities between it and their Oscar lauded No Country For Old Men. How many other directors can claim a distinct style that has been preserved over the course of 12 films and 23 years?
Continue Reading »

Ethan and Joel Coen

We’re trying something a bit different this month at MZ by devoting all of April to the Coen Brothers (as you can see, our nifty random banner up top is already cycling through classic frames from their films). We’ll be reviewing each of their films chronologically on every Monday, Wedensday, and Friday, beginning with Blood Simple later today. As well, we’ll be participating in Film at Eleven’s blog-a-thon later this month, updating Andrew Sarris’ seminal The American Cinema with an entry on the Coens. Also expect insightful articles and witty observations on their evolution as filmmakers, Top Ten Lists (that crack cocaine of the internets), and featured guest contributors.

Look for essays and features from (in no particular order) Craig Kennedy at Living in Cinema, Joseph Demme of Cinexcellence, Daniel Johnson from Film Babble Blog, Dylan Fields (aka Fletch) of Blog Cabins (and purveyor of LAMB), Nick Plowman at Fataculture, Daniel Getahun from Getafilm (I just made that connection, Daniel), Rick Olson of Coosa Creek Mambo, and hopefully a few others who haven’t confirmed yet. Take a second to visit some of their excellent sites.

Basically, we’ll be ingesting all things Coen until Joel and Ethan come shooting out of our eyeballs. Not to be missed!

Funny Games

The second round of our debate on the validity or worthlessness of Funny Games. A summary of the posts so far:

• Round 1 of our debate, including an overview of the Double Shot ground rules
• My original zero star review
• Luke Harrington’s 4 star review
• Ghost Lyon’s 1 1/2 star review of Haneke’s original 1997 version

Here is round two of Luke and I’s debate. For redundancy’s sake, I am arguing against the film, while Luke is arguing for it. Comments and further insights are, of course, encouraged and welcomed (although I noticed a distinct trend toward siding with Luke last time…tsk tsk guys, I’m obviously correct here).

Continue Reading »

Note: the second round of our debate can be found here

Tentatively titled DoubleShot, this feature will involve two of us hashing it out in the public forum over a film we strongly disagree on. Although battle axes and morning stars in a cage match to the death would undoubtedly be more entertaining for you, the blood thirsty masses, we have instead elected to duel with words and wit. Here are the ground rules:

• Round 1: Each critic makes one argument for/against the film, specifically citing the opposing author’s review. Each critic then gets a rebuttal.
  
• Round 2: Round 1 is repeated, with two more assertions and the accompanying rebuttals.
• Round 3: Each critic gets a closing statement and a chance to respond to the other’s overall position.

Obviously, we encourage participation from you, whether you have seen the film in question or not. This exercise will only be successful if others get in the ring with us.

Funny Games

Our first film up for debate is Michael Haneke’s recent remake of his own film, Funny Games. A good primer would be to read our original reviews.
You can read my zero star review here.
You can read Luke’s 4 star review here.
Ghost Lyon, another contributer, reviewed Haneke’s original version, which he gave 1 1/2 stars, and you can find that review here.

Here is the first round of points and counter-points. Look for round 2 and 3 later this week.

Let the games begin (no pun intended).
Continue Reading »

I am, I believe, optimistic to a fault sometimes. My experience in the past with short films has been less then joyous. Go to a local short film festival and you will be treated to what I mean. Shorts seem to be, for the most part, an excuse for directors with sub-par talent to get their ‘films’ seen by people other than their immediate family. But these are the Oscar nominees for short films, right? They have to be better than the usual experimental art-house dreck that gets labeled ’short film’, right? Right?

Well, here are my thoughts on who should win/who will win, although to be honest, most people make their Oscar predictions based on buzz and marketing, and since neither of those things exist for the short film nominees, I’m shooting in the dark.

At Night (Christian E. Christiansen & Louise Vesth, Denmark)
I’m not going to even slightly suggest that cancer, suicide, comas, and death aren’t subjects worth dealing with in film, but to have all of them crammed into a 40 minute span with no break is a bit much, even for my masochistic self. You need moments of humor in order to grapple with such heavy topics, and this story of 3 women in a cancer ward at Christmas has none.
Will it win? I hope not, but it is depressing enough to be a front runner.
Should it win? No. It shouldn’t.
Continue Reading »

Well, here we are again—Oscar time, when everyone will tune in for a long, long four hours to watch Hollywood explain to the world, for the 80th time, why Hollywood is just so gosh-darn awesome. Excited? I know I am. As always, however, some of the awards handed out may prove a bit mystifying to the general public. Best Animated Short, for instance. Who watches shorts anymore? That’s right—bohemian film buffs living in New York, and pretty much no one else. But the award is still there, reminding us of a simpler time when the clips before the movie were entertainment, instead of ads for Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart. So for those of you who need to mark your Oscar ballots, I now present a rundown of the five pictures up for the award…

Even Pigeons Go to Heaven (Samuel Tourneaux, France)
In this stop-motion missive, a priest tries to sell a man a machine that he claims will take him to heaven. The animation is excellent, but the morality play is a little facile and a bit overdone.
Will it win? Possibly. Oscar does love iconoclasm.
But should it? Any film that features Death as a central character is okay by me.
Continue Reading »