JER’S TURN: THE HORROR OF REMAKES, REIMAGING & REBOOTS OF STORIES AND FILMS

JER: Here is a topic that I believe both JOHNNY CHAZZ and I have danced around, but never really took it for a full spin. I am talking about the brainless notion to take quality stories, films or ideas and re-work them for a whole new generation to enjoy. In other words, the concept…or misconception acceptability by the general audience to allow these re-visioned, recycled pieces of garbage to be taken in as entertainment!

At a recent outing to my local theater, I always find myself constantly looking forward to the displaying of new posters, banners and standees that decorate the theater’s lobby with the similar anticipation of a child waiting for Disneyland to open! As my eyes began to fixate and take individual inventory of the presentations made available… here is a rundown as to what the movie- going audience has to look forward to.

First off, the ‘re-imagined’ version of THE SMURFS: the movie takes place in present day and the annoying blue little pests somehow end up in New York with hopes to return home. I don’t know what is worst…taking them out of their native Smurfville or that they befriend Neil Patrick Harris in our world! Oh, then there is Hank Azaria playing the evil wizard Gargamel. Double- oh: the movie’s opening gross brings the films at Number Two with $35 million dollars. Triple- Oh: The studio announced plans for a sequal set for 2013! UGH!

RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES: Although I am looking forward to this film, it is ‘re-boot’ of the original series, this being the origins story as to how the apes got to be smarter than humans. So then, we are supposed to forget about the Tim Burton film altogether and glue- in the original Charlton Heston 1968 classic irght after RISE. Wow, that is a lot of mental cutting and pasting to do! At blog- time, the film opened Number One with $54 million. Still really wanting to see this one!

CONAN THE BARBARIAN in 3-D: This is an accident I am not looking forward to witnessing. The trailer looks horrendous with Conan looking like he stepped out of a WWE battle- royale match! The trailer’s music has turned heavy metal with plenty of CGI face- lifts and far too many slow- mo action shots to allow the audience to really take in all of the money shoveled into this blotted action flick. I am a purist when it comes to the CONAN film, meaning, I thoroughly continue to watch the original with Arnold Swarzenegger! I know, I know… poor Arnie has become the butt of so many personal mud- slinging jokes these days… but there was something very magical in the 1982 sword and sorcery fantasy film! This jumbled mess ranks as “reboot, re- imagined and remake”. What’s next? Conan in leather chaps riding a Harley carrying a pair of bushido blades strapped onto his back? The trailer could only be complete with an even heavier metal soundtrack with a dubbed voice- over resembling your local radio ads for Saturday Mud- Bog Monster Truck Battles!

THE AMAZING SPIDER- MAN: Another ‘reboot/ remake’ of a story we just saw ‘re- imagined’ back in 2002! Personally, it is too soon to have us see another visional version of the story we had already began to accept as both origin and stories! What was wrong with director Sam Raimi’s films? The box office dollars and sequels didn’t seem to go against the audience’s cries for more! Other than just more CGI, I really didn’t see anything new that this trailer presented that we didn’t already see in the first film.

Other coming attractions include remakes, reimagined, reboots and retakes on the following titles: FOOTLOOSE, FRIGHT NIGHT, THE EVIL DEAD, THE THREE MUSKETEERS, TOTAL RECALL and ROBOCOP! Seriously….enough already!

In this so- called sophisticated world filled with technological advances including I- phones, I- pods, Kindles, I- pads, smart phones, text messaging and Skype… is the world of imagination gone so sour that we have to keep recycling material as recent as ten years ago? Really? When did it start and why does it continue? Have we deemed ourselves to such a heightened level of sophistication that everything must be ‘updated’ because our sensory neurons cannot take anything that isn’t involving CGI (Computer Generated Images) or 80’s haircuts? All joking aside, the cause has been serious since the start and it has become worst!

I really don’t think it is the audience crying for this change- up in the original presentations. So, my judgmental index finger points an accountable digit at studio execs, writers and anyone else who passes the “green light” to move forth with a production blessing!



Yes, this really hangs in my TV room!

 One director I am going to hold accountable in particular is Tim Burton! Before you pick up your pitchforks and torches and seek me out to be hung in the town square for blasphemy, allow me to explain! I am a fan of Tim Burton, a huge fan of Burton’s work. To slightly brag, I actually own one of the shirts worn by Johnny Depp's Edward and Diane Weist's Avon pill- hat from EDWARD SCISSORHANDS!

Burton was a gloomy, but highly imaginative force to be reckoned with. Blending his artistic days as a Disney animator and his own specialized look at the world around him, he presented such contemporary classics as PEE- WEE’S BIG ADVENTURE, BEETLEJUICE, EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, ED WOOD and his presentations of THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS and THE CORPSE BRIDE; it would seem as if the man could never run out of original ideas… well, he did. With his takes on previous materials including PLANET OF THE APES, SLEEPY HALLOW, CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY it now seemed as if Burton was ready to just add a twist of his demented imaginary eye to some very bad tellings of SWEENEY TODD (he snipped the original ending off the Broadway musical it is based from!) and ALICE IN WONDERLAND (a horrible question brought forth: “What if Alice grew up and went back to Wonderland?”)!

The “what- if” question was also posed by director Steven Spielberg when he conceived the basis for his 1991 disaster, HOOK. “What if Peter Pan grew up?” Hey Steven and Tim, why don’t you stick to the already great stories that are tailor- made to your individual styles, respectfully and present that outline instead! Spielberg was the prime candidate to direct a Peter Pan film in his days…but he ruined it! It is a blatant opened- palm slap onto the forehead!

I have to mention director Gus Van Sant’s 1998 ‘stab’ at the remake of the immortal classic, PSYCHO. Van Sant literally shot his movie frame by frame, constantly viewing a portable DVD copy of the original 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film for references. Well then, why remake it? What was the point? Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates was taken on by Vince Vaughn and Janet Leigh’s Marion Crane was filled- in by Anne Heche… both latter actors, in my opinion, brought absolutely nothing to the classic characters portrayed by the fine actors in the classic telling. What was the point, then…to reshoot a black and white film into color? To see a little red blood as apposed to the dark blacks? To make Alfred Hitchcock roll in his grave? I am still baffled…

What about taking an original film’s story, updating it from its time and calling it something else completely different? I will shine the light on two observations I personally have made.

Clint Eastwood had made his directorial debut with a film entitled PLAY MISTY FOR ME in 1971, named after a very popular jazz piece called “Misty” in its time. The film involved Eastwood playing a local Disc Jockey at a remote radio station in Carmel, CA who befriends and later has a romantic fling with radio fan, Evelyn Draper, played with psychotic flavor by Jessica Walter. Things get complicated when Eastwood falls for a pretty little thing and cannot seem to shake Evelyn off. There are the moments of awkwardness by sudden, unannounced appearances by Evelyn and delusional dreams of a happy future… did I mention the unstable and psychotic episodes she throws at anyone who gets in her way? It would seem obvious that the basic storyline is the foundation for the 1987 thriller, FATAL ATTRACTION.

One other comparison would begin with 1970’s A MAN CALLED HORSE. The film takes place in 1825 when an English aristocrat, John Morgan (played by Richard Harris), who is captured by Indians as an enemy. As time progresses, Morgan comes to accept the ways of his Native captors and wishes to join their tribe as a brother. He must pass the very dangerous and deadly ritual named “Ceremony of the Sun” before he can shed his pass and move into the ranks of the tribe. This film’s plotline and comparative storyline can arguably be compared to the 1990 Academy Award winning film DANCES WITH WOLVES.

There is a very small silver lining to this dark and pendulous cloud looming overhead. Not all of these labeled films have been bad. So let me separate a “good” and “bad” list for you. Maybe you will not recognize that some of these films are remakes, so I placed the year the newer movie was released followed by the original source’s release date. These are a small number I came up with:

GOOD: SCARFACE (1983/ 1932), TRUE GRIT (2010/ 1969), FATHER OF THE BRIDE (1991/ 1950), CAPE FEAR (1991/ 1962), HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (1999/ 1951), THE WOLFMAN (2010/ 1941), THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008/ 2003), STAR TREK (2009/ 1966), KING KONG (2005/ 1976/ 1933), THE MUMMY (1999/ 1932), THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2003/ 1974), THE ITALIAN JOB (2003/ 1969), OCEAN’S ELEVEN (2001/ 1960), GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN (1984/ 1981), DRACULA (1979/ 1931)

BAD: A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010/ 1984), HULK (2003/1978), THE KARATE KID (2010/ 1984), FRIDAY THE 13^th (2009/ 1980), MY BLOODY VALENTINE (2009/ 1981), THE BAD NEWS BEARS (2005/ 1976), THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (2009/ 1972), HALLOWEEN (2007/ 1978), HALLOWEEN II (2009/ 1981), THE OMEN (2006/ 1976), THE FOG (2005/ 1981), TARZAN: THE APE MAN (1981/ 1932)

JOHNNY CHAZZ: It's really quite depressing to see the list of films here, Jer that our movie-going audience has to look forward to. Let’s list them: “The Smurfs”; “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”; “Conan The Barbarian 3-D”; “The Amazing Spider-Man”. This is typical of what we have to endure year after year during the summer months (refer to earlier blogs posted by J. Chazz) and there is no justification for my heading to the theater until some point in early to mid-October.

Your point however, Jer, regarding studio execs, writers and anyone offering the “green light” to move forth with a production blessing is well taken. Summer movies are about box-office revenues and making a name for the studio. You mention that the world of “imagination” has been trimmed, but I hold audiences accountable for a portion of this since they continue to buy-into these shoddy re-makes dealing with subject material that have been stale for decades now. In general, most re-makes in the summer months are just plain lousy.

Newman & Gleason: THE HUSTLER

Now, a film that I would probably add to that list off the top of my head would be the re-make of “The Hustler” (1961) titled “The Color of Money” (1986) with Newman and Cruise. There was simply no comparison between the two films in terms of sets, direction, lighting, dialogue and casting. Case closed.

Another film that would also make my “Bad” list would be the re-make of “The Wicker Man” with Nicholas Cage – a sad rendition of an outstanding and disturbing cult classic.

My top-10 re-makes that DID seem to work for me would include the following:

* The Fly (1986): Turned a corny original film into a true thriller. The effects, casting and tones of the film worked on every level to create a modern-classic.


* Cape Fear (1991): Scorsese and DeNiro really made this one work with riveting performances, outstanding sets and the performance of a young Juliette Lewis.


* Scarface (1983): I will agree with you on this one Jer, as the De Palma’s idea of using the Cuban cartels instead of the Italian mob was an excellent choice considering the perfect setting on Miami Beach. Al Pacino’s performance is completely unforgettable as the ruthless Tony Montana.


* Love Affair (1994): Some may disagree here and I absolutely love the original (“An Affair to Remember”) with Deborah Kerr and Cary Grant. Still, although this film was actually made two times before the 1994 release, but Katherine Hepburn and Warren Beatty’s performances are actually quite good and it’s hard not to shed a tear when watching this.

* Pan’s Labyrinth (2006): Now some of you might be asking why this film is on my list. Not only does it qualify as the best (yes, the best) fantasy film of the past 10 years, but it is – in so many ways Guillermo Del Toro’s remake of both “Alice in Wonderland” as well as “The Wizard of Oz”. It works on so many levels and does what the prior films did not do: slowly blend the fantasy world and the reality world into one as the film progresses….just outstanding.


* The Birdcage (1996): Don’t get me wrong – “La Cage Aux Folles” was truly amazing for its time. Still, I have come across very few people who did not absolutely adore this remake – myself included. What is vital here is that Mike Nichols focused on the essence of character behavior more than the plot. The film sparkles, is high-energy and the performances are genuine and well paced.

* Victor Victoria (1982): How intriguing to see this foreign film is made by an American studio here. Originally made in German, the remake offers us musical numbers with Julie Andrews and Robert Preston that are crisp and arrangements that weave in perfectly with the overall movement and direction of the film. Andrews is also quite impressive in terms of acting performance as well.


* Scent of a Woman (1992): Here is a terrific remake from the 1974 Italian film “Profume Di Donna” giving Al Pacino an Oscar as well as launching the career of the little-known Phillip Seymour Hoffman. The sets, the score and the dialogue are all touching and sincere. Thumbs up!

* The Ring (2002): Hats off to this exciting and thrilling re-make which was well received by American audiences. Originally titled “Ringu” in Japan, this story made its way to America starting a trend in a sense to re-make many foreign films here in the states. The film is a terrific thriller and maintains a chilling effect throughout with the outstanding performance of Naomi Watts.

* The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Based on a series of best-selling crime novels, here is a film that has yet to be released, but is one of intrigue to myself. The question as with any remake, is: will it be inferior to the original? Based on the original Swedish version which was released last year and grossed nearly $100 million, this new edition appear in late December, 2011 and we'll see how this American version compares. David Fincher directs and stars Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara.

JER: A very impressive list of films brought forth… some of which I had forgotten to include in my list! JC, I need to make a slight correction on one of your films you are referencing to. THE COLOR OF MONEY is not a remake of THE HUSTLER, it is a sequel. Paul Newman continues to play “Fast” Eddie Felson in the sequel and still takes on the embarrassment of losing and being ‘hustled’ by Minnesota Fatts (Jackie Gleason). He takes his streets- smarts and takes on the ‘loose cannon’ crack- shooting Vincent (Tom Cruise) as his protégé.

I nearly twinged in my seat when you placed THE BIRDCAGE on your list of good remakes that worked. I recall giving my two cents on your blog topic posted on June 8^th, 2011 entitled “Recognizing Director Mike Nichols” to which I slammed everything that film presented itself with that just didn’t hold a candle to the original 1978 French classic LA CAGE AUX FOLLES.

I actually stayed away from foreign films that were remade to fit the American palettes, but since you brought it up by mentioning THE RING, SCENT OF A WOMAN and THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO… then I have to mention a few worth talking about.

As your feelings were expressed by THE RING, I have to bring up the 2004 version of THE GRUDGE produced by Sam Raimi. The film was directed by Japanese director Takashi Shimizu, who helmed the original Japanese film entitled JU-ON in 2000. There were certain legends and beliefs that probably wouldn’t have translated appropriately by any other director, however, Shimizu did an excellent job in introducing a Western audience to its traditional and specific taboos that assisted in the creep factor in this modern haunted storytelling.

Both THE RING and THE GRUDGE opened an Eastern door into the Japanese world of horror and thrillers with other topical remakes including THE EYE (2008) taken from its original Japanese 2002 film GIN GWAI. 2008’s SHUTTER was remade from its original Thai 2004 version. Yet another 2008 release, this time for ONE MISSED CALL derived from its original 2003 Japanese edition and finally 2005’s DARK WATER, taken from its 2002 Japanese release entitled HONOGURAI MIZU NO SOKO KARA.

We have seen several French films make its way to American audiences from its own crop of remakes as well. Previously mentioning THE BIRDCAGE from its (way funnier) original LA CAGE AUX FOLLES, I have to bring to light the Westernized version of 1985’s 3 HOMMES ET UN COUFFIN with its 1987 THREE MEN AND A BABY! But the most embarrassing American remake from a classic French film has to be 1993’s POINT OF NO RETURN,  taken from director Luc Besson’s 1990 euro- thriller, LA FEMME NIKITA! Yikes!

The point being made here is that everyone begs, steals or borrows from anyone or anything else it can get its grubby little paws on! Nothing is sacred or respected. I shudder at the now- confirmed “prequel” to THE WIZARD OF OZ entitled OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL. The film tells the story of how the Wizard found his way to Oz to rule the enchanted land; it is set for a 2013 release. One ray of hope is that it will be directed by Sam Raimi.

Another prequel coming our way is THE THING. Wait a minute, the prequel to THE THING (1982) which, in itself was a remake of the original 1951 classic THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD is also called THE THING set for release in October 2011? OK, I guess… follow along with me and we should get through it safely. This story takes place with another Antarctica research team that finds the alien ship and causes a fist- to- cuffs confrontation between graduate students wanting to study the “thing” and scientists wanting to cut it up!

I AM ONLY KIDDING!!!!

 I guess the only thing we have to hold our breathes for would be a prequel to GONE WITH THE WIND, in which we meet a young Scarlett O’Hara, played by Willow Smith, finds that she had once had a run- in with her future love interest, Rhett Butler (Jaden Smith is considering the role) while in a Southern playground! (Folks, this is a parody… I am only joking, so please stow your nooses away!) Hmmm, Hollywood, are you listening?

JOHNNY CHAZZ: Jer - Touché in regards to how we are coining the 're-make' phrase in terms of "The Color of Money" with reference to "The Hustler" as a 'sequel'. Still, I think so many people still view the 1986 film as being a re-make in a sense considering the resemblance and plot. It is a film that finds itself years in the future, but remains a story that was told in similar fashion (yet far superior) 25 years earlier. With respect to this, I will always view it as an attempt to re-live and revive interest in "The Hustler".

Now, as for the re-make of “La Cage” ("The Birdcage"), please keep in mind that I did anticipate some static from our audience and definitely from you regarding this selection. You know as well as I that I almost always favor the original / foreign film, but there was something about the colors and the energy of the re-make that just worked – Je ne sais quoi……

I am glad that we had the chance to discuss the foreign-film remakes as there are so many have been attempted, yet failed miserably. Your reference to “The Grudge” is well-received as it is a film I have seen (as well as its Japanese predecessor) and I must agree with your selection there. To say that the film woke American audiences up to the ‘creep factor’ shown in 'Ju-On' is a vast understatement.

As for “La Femme Nikita” my friend, ‘Yikes,’ as you state, is the appropriate adjective selected here.

We also tremor at the thought of re-working the “Oz” story into what will hit the big screen in the near future. So many films have borrowed from this story including our blog last week (Mulholland Drive) to a film I discussed in this week’s forum (Pan’s Labyrinth). As for “Oz: The Great and Powerful”….I have absolutely no clue as to what direction that film will travel – but, the yellow brick road will likely not be the road taken.

With regards to the re-make of the 1951 Sci-fi flick eventually resulting in “The Thing” in 1982, I can see your point Jer. This is a film I have forgotten about entirely, but are they really making another one in 2011? Hang it up please.

Hollywood is listening Jer ~

JER:  Thank you for those final words of encouragement, JC. I sure hope someone out there is listening. As I am about to put the lid on this subject… I was horribly reminded of two recent comedies that ripped the guts from its predecessors.



Peter Sellers as Clouseau

Where do I begin…or better yet, the question best posed here is ‘when will it end?’ 2006 pushed forth an abomination of a remake of THE PINK PANTHER with Steve Martin taking on the roll of Inspector Jacques Clouseau, originated by the one and only Peter Sellers. The original PINK PANTHER series began in 1963, to which, the world would be introduced to the slapstick timing and hilarious accent that only Sellers could present forth. It would also be the start of a wonderful and laugh- filled relationship between Sellers and director Blake Edwards who would helm the following sequels: A SHOT IN THE DARK (1964), THE RETURN OF THE PINK PANTHER (1975), THE PINK PANTHER STRIKES AGAIN (1976), THE REVENGE OF THE PINK PANTHER (1978) and TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER (1982) which used archived footage to complete the film since Peter Sellers had passed away on July 24, 1980. There just cannot be another Inspector Clouseau than Sellers, with respects to the very funny Steve Martin. It just doesn’t work for me.



Dudley Moore is ARTHUR

On that same note, the unbelievable attempt at presenting the most recent ‘knife through the heart’ catastrophe that is 2011’s ARTHUR starring the overly- overrated Russell Brand in the lead role. Any respectable film fan cannot bare to watch this with any amount of acceptance, knowing damn well that the role could have only been played by the charming Dudley Moore. His stature, comedic demeanor and blast of drunken laughter and slurred speech made Arthur a lovable mess of a character back in the original 1980 release. I honestly do not have any interest whatsoever in reviewing or screening the ‘remake’… period! It comes down to that! I love the original, I love how it takes place in New York City and I love that it takes place in 1980 and that the film begins with the classic Academy Award winning theme, appropriately entitled “Arthur’s Theme: The Best That You Can Do” sung by Christopher Cross.

This was quite lengthy, but not by a long shot to continue on my soap box. So, for now, I put the box away and will save further rants and raves for another time. Keep it locked- in for next week, when JOHNNY CHAZZ takes his turn on the podium with volumes set at 10! As always, we will SEE YOU NEXT WEDNESDAY!

Don't forget to stop and visit the official YOUTUBE page for CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT! Here you will find vintage trailers, tribute clips and many other great treasures! Click the link below and see "Favorites" for a list! ENJOY!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint

JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: THE "OVER/ UNDER" GAME

JOHNNY CHAZZ: Ok Jer and CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT fans, “Would you like to play a game?” All war games aside, we will keep this one clean, safe and fun. This week, I propose a little game of “Over/ Under” and this is basically how it works…

We choose two actors, two actresses, two films, two directors, and for kicks, two popular movie snack bar items and in each category we have one (1) who or that we feel is “overrated” and one (1) who or that we feel is “underrated”. In the end, there should be a total of ten nominees and five representing each category. Sound confusing? Allow Johnny Chazz to show you to your seats, and please enjoy the show:

“OVERRATED” AND WHY:

Actor: KEANU REEVES – No talent, no flair and no ability to understand the method behind a performance. His films and roles are nothing short of lousy.

Actress: JULIA ROBERTS – Receives credit for doing nothing….nothing in the least. Her roles are not demanding and the credit she receives for performances and the "sexiest" woman of Hollywood thing have absolutely no merit.

Film: FORREST GUMP (1994) – Where do I begin? This film is easily the most overrated film of all time other than "Titanic" (1997) and they rival one another. The direction is lousy, the cast and performances are extremely sub-par and I could not wait to find the nearest exit. The film added nothing to my life or to my day for that fact. What is even more sickening is to think that films such as "Pulp Fiction", "Quiz Show" and "Shawshank Redemption" all lost to this movie for Best Picture.....unreal.

Director: ROBERT ZEMECKIS – I will rate his top 5 films from 1 to 10 and not even reach 10. Here we go: “Back to the Future” (4); “Used Cars” (1.5); “Forrest Gump” (1.5); “Cast Away” (1.5); “The Polar Express” (1). This totals 9.5 for a director that is a big name and really never made a single film that I would even come remotely close to recommending.

Snack Bar: ANYTHING “GUMMY” (FISH, BEARS) – They taste bland, spoiled, make your stomach upset and virtually rip your gums right out of your face.


"UNDERRATED” AND WHY:

Actor: KARL MALDEN – Worked closely with Kazan to become a true actor. Outstanding roles included: “On the Waterfront”; “One Eyed Jacks”; “The Cincinnati Kid”; “Birdman of Alcatraz”; and “Patton”. He starred across the likes of Gary Cooper, Burt Lancaster, Marlon Brando, Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Steve McQueen and so many more. Kirk Douglas once told his son (Michael Douglas), "If anyone can teach you how to act, it's Karl Malden."

Actress: JULIETTE BINOCHE – Rarely does Juliette steer herself into a role that she cannot handle. She is relentless and poised, yet maintains her elegance and innocence in every performance from films like “Chocolat” and “The English Patient” to the likes of “Cache” and “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”. Born in Paris, France this is once actress that I would cast in a heartbeat and I am in awe that she has never won an Oscar for Best Actress (only supporting for “Chocolat” and “The English Patient”). What is relevant and worth noting is that she was the first actress to ever win the European “Triple Crown” for acting (Venice, Berlin & Cannes). Juliette quotes: “I want to make films that are political and social; Films that dare to ask”.

Film: THE CONVERSATION (1974) – Not only was this film deserving of the Academy Award, but the cast, the performances, the direction and the screenplay make it one of the top-10 films of all time on my list. It is close to the perfect film.

Director: JEAN-LUC GODARD – He defined independent and honest film-making while understanding that no story must be linear in telling fashion...

Snack Bar: BON BONS (Old-fashioned treat, cool for summer and always tasty)

JER:  Wow, JC, this is a very intriguing topic and a ‘game’ I want to participate in. I liked your quote of “shall we play a game” taken from WAR GAMES, by the way! …OK, hmmm…let’s begin!

“OVERRATED” AND WHY:

Actor: KEVIN JAMES- Only because I didn’t want to sound redundant with electing KEANU REEVES, being JC’s choice, but I do have to go with this vast waste of no- talent space! Are we supposed to accept him as the next lovable ‘chubby’ comic actor? We had Oliver Hardy, Lou Costello, John Belushi, John Candy, Chris Farley and now we are condensed to Kevin James??? I can say that what makes the other plump comedians humorous was that they had their own point of delivery and a knack to kind of tug at your sympathetic heart strings a bit… James makes me want to cringe in my seat whenever I see him in yet another film! With nauseating turns in vomit- inducing movies like PAUL BLART: MALL COP, GROWN- UPS and ZOOKEEPER, it would seem as if you are now widdling woodchips from how low the barrel has been scraped! BRAD PITT, JIM CARREY, NICOLAS CAGE and CHRISTIAN SLATER are all close runner- ups!

Actress: Again, the nomination of name by JC has been taken...this time, JULIA ROBERTS…but that is OK, because there are many more to choose from. The likes of ANGELINA JOLIE, KRISTEN STEWART, KIERA KNIGHTLY, MICHELLE WILLIAMS and PENELOPE CRUZ all come to mind! I will give props to JC for his ROBERTS choice, because she would be the queen of “overrated” actresses to this court of disastrous heirs. In this category, I nominate more than one, making it a jumble of “overrated Actresses”…dubbing them all ‘duchesses of dullness."

Film: TWILIGHT (2008) Let me see if I got this straight... vampires in love with humans. I guess we skipped a generation when they bypassed 1987's THE LOST BOYS for the same storyline in a far more superior and way cooler film! This revolting and tedious flick has bland and embarrassing performances from the “single- expressioned” Kristen Stewart and the equally brooding Robert Pattinson. Here’s a thought, kids… save your money and stay home and watch TV’s “The Vampire Diaries” instead! Now that’s taking the same story and telling it right! I actually thought the VAMPIRES SUCK movie spoof was better than this toilet flush! Another piece of info, coming from a real vampire…they DO NOT SPARKLE!!!

Director: Tyler Perry- Jeez, has the world gone insane? Have we fallen into some trance that we cannot wake- up from? I, obviously, belong in an extreme minority category, since his films open number one every single time! WHY??? Is the entertainment audience that hungry for something remotely humorous? I am seriously considering my own series of degrading, racially- charged films starring a multi- colored sock- puppet! I would choose a sock- puppet, since that is the equivalent to any cast member of any of his films! I personally believe that Perry has single- handedly taking black comedy back into the Stone Age! It makes pioneering black entertainers like Flip Wilson, Redd Foxx, Richard Pryor and even Buckwheat roll in their graves from disgust!

Snack Bar: The 2011 version of Nachos! A container of microwavable cheese and a sealed bag of Nacho chips have taken the place of hand- ladled spicy cheese catching the nooks and crannies of proportionally stacked Nacho chips that were served by the box loads. My first job was working at my local movie theater at the age of 15 and I took great pride in the preparation of the snack bar favorite in my days. I would begin warming the cheese at a mid- point as to not burn or crust it. Then, I would open the can of the aroma- filling jalapenos and slightly pour and stir in some of the juice to the cheese… giving it the right consistency and flavor! Furthermore, I would pack- in the chips and overlay the box to give my patrons their money’s worth! My process would have me cascading the cheese over each chip to make sure that every individual one got their drench on! Alas, living in today’s cheap and fast world of food and concession… I must confess that I felt short-changed and cheated by this manufactured and processed version of my old favorite. That’s the last time I shell out that kind of money for a bag of air and its condiment.



Actor: TIM CURRY

 "UNDERRATED” AND WHY:

Actor: GARY OLDMAN, Previously mentioned in an earlier blog topic of my choice, I dedicated an entire entry to this fine actor. Always a chameleon, you just never know what to expect. One thing that is guaranteed is attention to detail and a full embodiment of the character he portrays! TIM CURRY is another actor who comes to mind. Who else can play Darkness in LEGEND, Dr. Frankenfurter from THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW and the Butler from CLUE? This actor has taken on a variety of different character roles and pulls them off each and every time ranging from comedy to drama, musical to fantasy! I say we all do the ‘Time Warp’ again in celebration!

Actress: BARBARA HERSHEY. I am probably going ‘old school’ with my choice, but she did make a grand and unforgettable appearance as Natalie Portman’s demanding and slightly- psychotic mother in BLACK SWAN recently. On top of this overlooked scene- stealer, Hershey has also made noticeable appearances in two Martin Scorsese films (BOXCAR BERTHA, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST) and in Woody Allen’s HANNAH AND HER SISTERS. Hershey always seems to turn in top- notch performances with hardly the recognition it deserves. Hershey has only been nominated once for an Academy Award in the Supporting Role in 1996’s PORTRAIT OF A LADY. Other noted runner- ups would include Ellen Burstyn (THE EXORCIST, THE LAST PICTURE SHOW) and Mila Kunis (BLACK SWAN, FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL).

Film: This is touchy, because my personal view points will come into play. I honestly believe that the following titles deserve a more respected place in the minds of film audiences around the world… they are:

THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992) Yes, I think it is that great and I think it still gets the short of the stick by many…I don’t see why. It honestly believe that it is both a sweeping epic with adventure and peril, drama and romance with a very authentic storytelling delivered by director Michael Mann. I recommended this film in a previous blog topic.

INCEPTION (2010) It was nominated from Best Picture, but it fell short of its true recognition and its rightful place in the spotlight. Director Christopher Noland is a master- film maker who has grabbed my full attention as to what he will deliver to the viewing audience next! I am already anticipating his next ‘BATMAN” entry into his trilogy entitled DARK KNIGHT RISES set for 2012.

THE WRESTLER (2008) Directed by Darren Aronofsky (BLACK SWAN) the film, Mickey Rourke and the ‘documentarian” style of cinematography and direction are a combination that made it such a delightful sleeper hit.

Finally, other ‘underrated’ films deserving honorable mention: DOUBT (2008), GONE BABY GONE (2007), APOCALYPTO (2006), MILLER’S CROSSING (1990) and ELEPHANT (2003).

 

J.J. ABRAMS



CHRISTOPHER NOLAN

Director: CHRISTOPHER NOLAN and J.J. ABRAMS. I feel there is a tie in this category as I feel that both directors have not honestly been given the recognition or ‘just desserts’ they deserve! I mentioned INCEPTION as one of my ‘underrated’ films and director Christopher Nolan was snubbed from a Best Director nod for this refreshingly original thriller. With films like MEMENTO (2000), INSOMNIA (2002), BATMAN BEGINS (2005) and THE DARK KNIGHT (2008), Noland is a writer/ directing force to be reckoned with! Watch out, Hollywood, I feel we are only seeing the tip of this mammoth iceberg! J.J. ABRAMS is the new wunderkind on the block! Taking a page from the book of Steven Spielberg, Abrams had made his name by stapling his brand to such successful television programs like FELICITY (1998- 2002), ALIAS (2001- 2006), LOST (2004- 2010) and FRINGE (2008- 2011). He has also made a very strong and definitive etching in the film industry with directing such recognizable films as MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III (2006), the revamped STAR TREK (2009) and this summer’s sleeper hit (and my choice for “Best Film this Summer”) SUPER 8 (2011). Abrams is currently working on his STAR TREK sequel as well as more surprises under his imaginative sleeves!

Snack Bar: P’nuttles. Do they even serve these tasty treats at the concession stand anymore? If not, what a shame that an entire generation is missing out. Description: peanuts roasted in butter toffee, would create a hard and crunchy shell over the peanuts. You got both the salty and the sweets in every bite! What else can I say, these were great and I always looked forward to grabbing a bag before catching a flick.

Thank you for introducing this fun game, JC. Ok, blog- readers…your turn! What are your “Over/ Under” considerations? We would be very intrigued to find out your take on your opinions! Please send us your comments and follow- up to read your posts and replies! Let the fun begin!

Come back and visit us as I, Jer, take us into a topic of cinematic discussion. As always, we will SEE YOU NEXT WEDNESDAY!

Have you visited the official CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT page on YOUTUBE? Check out classic and contemporary trailers, scenes and other great trips down memory lane! Just click the link and check out the "Favorites" on our site! Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

JER'S TURN: THE CINEMA TAKEDOWN- WHICH IS THE BETTER DAVID LYNCH FILM? "BLUE VELVET" OR "MULHOLLAND DRIVE"

JER:  Back in May 10, 2011’s blog entry, I introduced a new topic segment titled THE CINEMA TAKE-DOWN! The object is to pick a category and pit one item against the other. This is a UFC No-Holds-Barred fight to the finish…who or what will rein supreme? We will soon find out…The card this week: WHICH IS THE BETTER DAVID LYNCH FILM- BLUE VELVET or MULHOLLAND DRIVE?

In my corner, weighing in from 1991, born and raised in Hollywood, CA: MULHOLLAND DRIVE

In Johnny Chazz’ corner, weighing in from 1986, born and raised in Lumberton, USA: BLUE VELVET

“Let the Take-Dooooooown….begin!”

There is a huge undertaking involved when examining a fraction of any artist’s work… much less, someone like director David Lynch who is greatly admired by many for his “art-house” approach to cinema… thus breaking the mold in obligatory storytelling. There are die- hard fans, occasional viewers of Lynch’s films and then there is the group categorized as the “I just don’t get it” crowd. Die- hard fans may always go to the 1977 cult classic ERASERHEAD or the highly successful 1980 eight- time Academy Award nominated THE ELEPHANT MAN. When it comes down to it, David Lynch and his repertoire of films are not for everyone. It could only be understood that we will have fans of some, but not of all of his films collectively.

I decided to go with a film that I felt more familiar with, MUHOLLAND DRIVE. Why? Simply because it takes place in Los Angeles… Hollywood, to be exact. I go to Hollywood as often as I can and I know the flavor and intent that Lynch had in mind when making this film. The location can be relatable to a typical Lynch film…the comparisons being that they both dive into the world of fantasy and the feel of reality left on an indefinite pause, the blurring of lines of what is to be considered right and wrong and the euphoric sense of self-being when caught in the eye of the storm…an overwhelming sensation of being someplace where dreams can come true! OK, it’s time to talk about my film…

The film opens with a midnight limousine ride through one of L.A.’s more popular and secluded streets, Mulholland Drive, overlooking the twinkling lights of the Los Angeles nightlife. We meet up with who we can only conclude is a wealthy brunette woman (Laura Elena Harring) riding in the back of the limo along with the chauffeur and another man in the passenger seat…possibly a bodyguard. In one of its never-ending stretch of twists and nerving turns, the limo driver pulls over by a ditch on the side of the highway and pulls a gun on the woman in the backseat. Occurring at the same time with a direct collision course towards the limo, two speeding cars filled with joyriding teens are racing towards the top of the winding road… only to find that one of the vehicles fatally crashing head-on with the limo…concluding the woman is the only survivor.

Walking away amnesic, she makes her way down the hill into the posh neighborhoods along Sunset Boulevard…all the while trying to keep her composure together from surviving both the accident and attempted homicide. The next morning, she sneaks into a high-end apartment as a female tenant loads her luggage into a taxi parked in front of the complex.

We cut to (what we can only assume is) LAX as blonde Betty Elms (Naomi Watts) arrives from Ontario with dreams and aspirations to becoming a Hollywood starlet. The plot thickens when we find out that Betty is the niece of the apartment tenant who allows Betty to stay at her apartment while she is away filming a movie of her own out of town. As Betty arrives, she is startled to find the amnesic brunette in the complex. The brunette introduces herself as “Rita”, taking the name from a Rita Hayworth poster hanging in the bedroom wall and realizes she doesn’t remember who she is. With a kind and sympathetic heart, Betty tries to assist and reaches into a purse belonging to “Rita”, only to find thousands of one-hundred dollar bills banded together in several stacks along with a strange blue key. Rita doesn’t know how she got the money. With no identification to be found, Betty offers to assist Rita in solving the mysteries of who she is together.

The story takes odd twists and turns with other subplots to add to the mix…somehow stringing everything together to create a conclusion. Far too many other story lines and characters involved that I would rather not divulge. It has to be seen than to be read about here.

The film is haunted by an eerie, synth-heavy soundtrack composed by Angelo Badalamenti, who had previously scored Lynch’s BLUE VELVET and his television- produced “TWIN PEAKS”. A constant churning of low-keyed chords carries the film and helps create the dark and emotionally disturbing feel of the film and its characters’ fateful plights. The soundtrack never overpowers the film, yet, it knows when to slightly move into a scene. It is a voyeur who watches from behind a curtain and knows when to strike… but cautiously and cat-like in its introductions. The music slightly finds a more melodic and happier tone when we are introduced to Betty. A change of pace to help create a sense of innocence and optimism we are led to believe is the basis of the character’s introduction.

Director of Photography, Peter Deming, uses a variety of different color palettes to paint on his canvas. Colors are bright and sharp, when they need to be. These are most noticeable during the daytime exterior shots: Betty arriving at LAX, her walkthrough at the apartment’s courtyard, the meal at Winkies…however, things grow dark when the lights go down. Dark blues and blacks become the focus in darkness, both in exterior and interior sequences. A special recognition must be made when the story takes us to Club Silencio…foreboding! Another focus must be placed whenever we see Mr. Roque. Lynch fans will, no doubt, recognize him as the haunting “Man From Another Place” and his rewinding backward dance in “TWIN PEAKS.” The sequences have Mr. Roque sitting in the middle of a bare room… A spotlight illuminating above his seating area and another cascading across a curtain behind him. Much ‘eye-candy’ can be taken away from this film, as do most Lynch films provide.

Lynch knows how to use Los Angeles as its own living, breathing character as well. He could show you a glimpse of the more touristy side of the great city but, instead, focuses a great deal of the film exposing the audience to the seedier side… the side never shown to visitors. It becomes an uncomfortable sight for some: dark, mysterious and slightly dangerous to come across. Los Angeles, like the film, has two sides to it. It reveals a lighter side with hopes and good intentions and it then finds itself decaying with an underlining of deceit and sinful pleasures.

MULHOLLAND DRIVE is not intended to be a film that would have opened in 2,500 theaters on its first weekend. It is not intended to be inundated with advertising and trailers every direction you turn. It would not have its name plastered on t-shirts, mugs or posters through clever marketing teams, nor, would it make a killing on DVD sales after its run in theaters. It is not BLUE VELVET, which proved to be a more commercial film for Lynch… far more than even he could have predicted and more than word of mouth carried the film through with its controversial content and that “ear thing” wrapped around it!

In short, it is a movie that knows how to intrigue you into watching it innocently and it knows how to hold your attention if you don’t know how to pull away from it. Like a horrible car accident, you pass by it; slowly to view, yet, find the scene of the crime revolting and stomach churning… at the same time, your eyes cannot tear away from what it has already taken in. The film should not be taken seriously and you shouldn’t try to figure it out. It is a play on dreams and alternate realities. Stories are revealed to us with our perception and acceptance as ‘real’, when the reality might be that we are experiencing someone else’s ‘dream’ instead. Lynch might be deceiving us, but it is what he does best. He leaves us questioning characters and stories, right from wrong and the ying from the yang. Maybe films should leave us guessing and leaving us to our own devices to walk away with our own individual point of view!

JOHNNY CHAZZ: Considering for a moment the vast, colorful, cinematic and ultra-bizarre directorial career of David Lynch, I am so pleased with the topic selected this week by Jer. Now for the task. So now is my chance to defend what I feel may well be the best film from David Lynch.

My first viewing of BLUE VELVET came in 1988 during a class at film school. If I am not mistaken, it was one of the last films of the course in American Film since the movies we studied were basically in chronological order. My only previous David Lynch experience had been DUNE a few years prior and that, in no way, prepared me for what was to be unveiled during the showing of BLUE VELVET. What is really interesting is the fact that in the same year (1986) Woody Allen stated that BLUE VELVET was by far and away his favorite film of the year.

To be able to appreciate high-quality films as what we have seen throughout the career of director David Lynch, one must have a combination of maturity, a willingness to pay careful and mindful attention, open-mindedness, patience and a raw appreciation for the little things that go into movie-making.. Character, sound, anything bizarre and color – that probably describes Lynch to a “T”. His background as a painter undoubtedly shows up in his films and gives the stylistic and artistic look that is second to none. It takes time, really – and becoming a die-hard fan of David Lynch often times requires paying a visit to all of his movies (and television work: i.e. “Twin Peaks series) to understand the basic idea that he is trying to convey.

BLUE VELVET is unique when compared to most of Lynch’s other works throughout his career. Other than the likes of THE STRAIGHT STORY, BLUE VELVET is a linear narrative that basically maintains a coherent and orderly nature. This is not to say, however, that the plot or the storyline are simple – they remain complex making it a film so intriguing. When compared to more recent films such as INLAND EMPIRE or MULHOLLAND DRIVE (even LOST HIGHWAY is well represented here), BLUE VELVET is really quite simple to follow, but the subject material remains complex.

We are treated to a wonderful opening that will forever remain imprinted in my mind. Bobby Vinton sings “Blue Velvet” in the small-town setting of "Lumberton, U.S.A.". Lumberton really does not exist, but the generic idea is there and Lynch’s homage to his love of small towns becomes immediately apparent. Kyle MacLachlan is our main character, other than Laura Dern, who is home from college on a Spring Break. As he meanders through the yard / fields near his home one afternoon, he discovers a human ear which has been severed and is lying on the ground. Upon discover of the ear, “Jeffrey” (Kyle M.) is immediately in a state of shock and decides to take the evidence of a possible homicide to the local police station. This then leads to a relationship that escalates between Jeffrey and the beautiful Laura Dern who team together to set-out on their own investigation of what was really happening and who the ear belonged to. Eventually, their dinner date at the diner sparks a plan to visit the dingy apartment of nightclub singer Dorothy Vallens who is played by the majestic and captivating Isabella Rossellini. Dennis Hopper soon makes his appearance in the film revealing himself as a sort of psychopath (Frank Booth) and the story progresses in a riveting, yet disturbing fashion from there. Hopper plays the role to perfection like nobody else really can and causes a real fear-factor for other actors and the audience alike.

What keeps BLUE VELVET so interesting and yet so frightening is the idea that the American “Dream” that is portrayed in the opening scene is not only a mockery of, but stand in stark contrast to what we see on the screen for the rest of the film. The only real break that the audience is given is the mild romance that builds between Kyle and Laura which almost signifies a form of puppy love.

The “ear” scene as you alluded to, Jer, is certainly a disturbing one… but pales in comparison to the abusive scenes in Dorothy’s apartment with Frank Booth (the masochistic behavior and the fact that she actually likes it in a sick way). Additionally, the nude scene involving Isabella Rossellini roaming aimlessly outside at night in almost a zombie and hypnotic state is so completely disturbing, but really quite sad and pathetic with the same token. Her addiction to a life serving Frank Booth and a life of broken dreams and surreal nightclub performances (perhaps a career that once was and never came to fruition) finally hits rock-bottom and this is what, often times, takes people and the characters of David Lynch to really “wake up” out of the dream-world he places them into.

The film makes a political statement in so many ways – with one in particular. The “American dream” is one that Lynch has always loved and appreciated, but it is constantly rotted underneath and destroyed by people who are either sick, greedy or both. The dreams of the clean cut grass, the birds singing and the white picket fence are wonderful aspirations, but the world today is going in different directions and ‘the forces that be’ are keeping America from realizing its potential and re-living the golden-age of America seen in the 1950’s and early to mid-1960’s.

The bare fact that this was the first film where Lynch (other than his student short films years prior which few people saw then or even now) portrayed a stark contrast to the way ‘American life could be and the way it really was’ launched his career. BLUE VELVET allowed Lynch to tap into a world that had a nightmarish quality while weaving in bright colors, deep reds, violence that was only seen in the aftermath (the still-body in the apartment; the ear; etc.) and that innocent quality seen in all of his protagonists – something we would see in the main characters of LOST HIGHWAY (Bill Pullman being taken on a nightmarish ride into an alter-world), MULHOLLAND DRIVE (Naomi Watts arriving in Hollywood only to have her dreams of becoming a star actress crushed), and INLAND EMPIRE (Laura Dern travels a road of despair as an actress suffering from her own delusions.)

BLUE VELVET remains in my top-20 best films of all-time and sometimes creeps into that top-10 list. The story is not overly difficult to follow and not exactly engaging either, but a theme which blends the 1980’s with the 1950’s that takes us from the American dream in the opening sequence through the dark underworld of Frank Booth and Rossellini just to bring us full-circle back to the American dream… allows the audience to think about which world we are really living in today. One thing to remember about Lynch, however, is that he never wants his films to be “easy to watch” and BLUE VELVET is the film that gave Lynch his beginnings into developing such a powerful trend.

JER: After reading your entry,JC, I am still a little perplexed by your argument as to why you would think BLUE VELVET is a better film than MUHOLLAND DRIVE. Let me start from my end... to begin, I think that BLUE VELVET is a wonderful film with well- written characters and a driving need for the weird and bizarre. My only argument is that it is probably the most commercially- recognized film from David Lynch. He is not a ‘commercial’ director. I believe studios have tried in the past (case in point, THE ELEPHANT MAN and DUNE) but it doesn’t seem to fit him…like a pair of pants that are three sizes too big. They try to stay on, but it keeps slipping off because it just doesn’t fit! ‘Commercial’ success does not fit David Lynch. I don’t think that Lynch purposely sought- out to make a ‘commercial’ film… but he may have accidentally created one! As you had mentioned, it has all of the classic and key ingredients for a Lynch film. I just think that this batch of cookies came out too perfect. It doesn’t taste as homemade as some of the other baked goods he has in his pantry.

MULHOLLAND DRIVE is a decedent dessert: far too rich for the palates of most but a special treat for those willing to consume what it has to offer. It might even be avoided by most because of lack of general- audience appeal. I think that it is one of the main reasons I thoroughly enjoy this film. I have seen it many times and I still have a hard time grasping all of the many subplots and the final conclusion. It is open to interpretation and I enjoy that option. No two people can walk away with the same thoughts and understandings after viewing this film.

Could it be that maybe we have it all wrong? Maybe, as an audience, we have demanded that plots, stories and characters need to be fully fleshed- out for own selfish ‘understanding’ and not allow interpretation or imagination to be a part of our final deduction of films? Have we created a ‘lazy’ trend in not developing the brain or imagination glands to fully grow because we have dulled them with worthless dribble? If that is the case, then I welcome you to take MULHOLLAND DRIVE as a work-out regiment and request that you start putting those imagination glands to the test!

JOHNNY CHAZZ: The performances in both films are, without a doubt - first rate. To add, the subject material in both films is also extremely unique and creative. Both examine what lies beneath the idealistic ideas and perceptions of what small-town America is (BLUE VELVET) and what Hollywood - or the big city is really about (MULHOLLAND DRIVE). Perhaps the primary difference that we see between BLUE VELVET and MULHOLLAND DRIVE is the idea of fantasy and dreams weaving their way into a picture. MULHOLLAND DRIVE is completely imaginistic from start to finish where BLUE VELVET maintains not only a true essence of realism, but the straight narrative is something rarely seen from Lynch, but certainly refreshing. BLUE VELVET was also much more shocking in terms of subject material for its time than MULHOLLAND DRIVE- and the shock factor is integral to the way directors like to play with their audience. Lynch described BLUE VELVET as ''A film about things that are hidden - within a small city and within people". Now, Lynch is certainly the king of surreal films and has mastered his technique over the years leading up to the extremely surreal, somewhat horrific and dreamlike, such as INLAND EMPIRE. We must acknowledge that Lynch is one of the few directors who have ever been able to take something horrific and disturbing and turn into an object or a moment of beauty through sound, color and imagery. What I will leave you with as a final thought is this, Jer: MULHOLLAND DRIVE may well have been the climax of Lynch's film career, but BLUE VELVET was the breakthrough film that builds that bridge to get him there.

JER: It might have been a tougher task to pit these films against each other than I could have imagined from the beginning. I think the issue at hand is that the two films are both very similar and yet, distinctive at the same time. Both bare the very recognizable markings of a standard David Lynch film, there is no denying that point. The other is that Lynch never followed a conventional nor traditional approach to anything he ever did. As JC mentioned earlier, Lynch began as a painter. How does one go to an artist and ask him or her to describe an abstract piece of work? Artists work on an impulse, sometimes based on emotions, to try to capture those reflexes onto to canvas or their own particular tools of art. Lynch says that images come to him in dream-like visions, to which he tries to reenact them onto to screen. This isn’t any different than a visionary artist trying desperately to recreate those images into a painting, or sculpture or any form used by the creator.

With that said, I believe he might have a “draw” as an outcome to this CINEMA TAKEDOWN. The conclusion has to be rendered based on asking Michelangelo which work of arts does he love best; his sculptures or his paintings? That would also be like asking a parent which child do they love more? The fair and only foreseeable conclusion here is to agree that both films offer a distinctive flavor or representation of this ‘artist’ and marks a point in his life that was expressed and notably captured onto the canvas Lynch prefers… the canvas of cinema!

What are you thoughts? Is there a ‘counterpoint’ you would like to express or offer an opinion on? Please do so, we always invite them. Comment those feelings and let us know if you feel stronger about one or the other. On that note, JOHNNY CHAZZ will draw from his expansive bag of tricks for an interesting take on cinema…so, here’s hoping to continue having you stop by weekly and we will await your visit when we SEE YOU NEXT WEDNESDAY!

Enjoy this facinating video entitled "The Art of David Lynch". Click the link and enjoy the ride!

http://youtu.be/hAj7SvktAEQ

Don't forget to stop and visit the official YOUTUBE page for CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT! Here you will find vintage trailers, tribute clips and many other great treasures! Click the link below and see "Favorites" for a list! ENJOY!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint