Posts Tagged ‘chocolate’
2 items.
Dec10
I got the idea for today’s comic when we were talking about Time Magazine’s publication of their Top 10 films of 2008 during The Triple Feature Monday night.. The ice cream analogy wasn’t discussed at the time, but the more I got to thinking about it, the more it fit.
On the whole, I don’t find much to disagree with in term of Richard Corliss’s picks. I think it’s a good mix of populist and obscure. That he puts Wall-E at the top of his list is a great harbinger of things to come. As much as I loved Iron Man this year (and wouldn’t shut up about it), Wall-E is who I’ll be cheering for come awards season. I really believe it’s a film that will stand the test of time and it accomplishes that in what is tantamount to a few, simple brush strokes (so to speak).
But back to Speed Racer and The Dark Knight. I don’t mean to characterize Speed Racer poorly. Although I was apprehensive of the film while it was in theaters, I fell in love with it once it was on DVD. The movie truly is an underrated gem.
But on Corliss’s list, it sticks out like a neon thumb. Glowing even brighter in the absence of the gothic gloom of The Dark Knight which was so perfectly assembled by Christopher Nolan that it is probably the most critically and financially successful film of the year. By leaving it off the list, Corliss is ignoring something important that happened in movies this year. A film like The Dark Knight doesn’t make A HALF BILLION DOLLARS from the domestic box office for nothing.
Certainly critical or financial success shouldn’t dictated prominence on an end of the year list. There is something to be said for expressing a personal preference. Judgments on art are always subjective anyway.
But despite Speed Racer’s hidden quality, he looks a little bit out of touch by promoting a film that was pretty my panned by critics and ignored by audiences at the start of the summer blockbuster season that cost three and a half times more to produce than it reclaimed at the box office against the first “comic book” movie that is generating serious buzz as an Oscar contender. In his pursuit to pick an unconventional choice, he leaves many readers scratching their heads.
Food for thought.
That’ll do it for me today. Thanks for stopping by and I’ll see you here on Friday! Have a great day!
[ 1 Comment ]
I had a lot of fun drawing Tom’s wild mood swings in today’s comic. Always fun to do a little cartoon-y over exaggeration.
Cami and I didn’t see Valentine’s Day over the weekend and our lives were no less the richer for it. But I must admit that I was surprised by it’s $52 million haul at the box office.
This goes back to what I was talking about on Friday. I think people were pre-disposed to seeing this movie by virtue of it’s branding. They felt compelled to see a movie CALLED Valentine’s Day ON Valentine’s Day. It’s the laziest, easiest response to “Hey, we need something to do for our Valentine’s Day together. I know what we should do!”
I’m certain the large cast had something to do with it as well. The producers basically played the odds and gambled that at least ONE of those actors would get you to buy a ticket. It looks like their gamble paid off.
I hope the success of Valentine’s Day doesn’t spur a bunch of copycat movies that stack the deck with 2 dozen different well-known actors. Having so many big names to feature makes it sound like the story doesn’t support them. I mean, you can’t really develop that many characters at once and be successful. Even Love, Actually – which has built up a lot of good will over the years – falls down on this point.
My sister-in-law saw Valentine’s Day with friends and my wife asked her a lot of questions about it. I think it reflects the “car crash” interest in this movie. People want to watch it because they want to see if they can pull it off. According to my sister-in-law, they don’t.
I won’t spoil anything for you in case you want to see it, but she referenced two different points in the script where the audience audibly groaned at the contrivance on screen. So, buyer beware.
I will say this… For those of you thinking about going to see this movie for Julia Roberts, my sister-in-law warns that she is on screen for about 6 minutes. But, again, considering there are 19 different actors in this thing and the movie is 125 minutes long… an appearance of about 6 minutes is pretty much on the nose. Do the math. It shakes out right.
I’m curious if anyone here saw Valentine’s Day this weekend. If so, what were your thoughts? Feel free to leave your comments below!
[ 12 Comments ]
