<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.9.2 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:39:00 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>The Blog</title><subtitle>The Blog</subtitle><id>http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/atom.xml"/><updated>2009-09-22T14:35:00Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.9.2 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Hugh Jackman, Back Door Man.</title><id>http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/9/22/hugh-jackman-back-door-man.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/9/22/hugh-jackman-back-door-man.html"/><author><name>Erich Van Dussen</name></author><published>2009-09-22T14:28:18Z</published><updated>2009-09-22T14:28:18Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Over at New York Mag they've got <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/09/hugh_jackman_on_living_green_n.html">a quick Q-and-A</a> with Hugh Jackman that is billed as being about his thoughts on Neil Patrick Harris and the Oscars. It's not, really, as the piece instead looks at the actor's involvement with environmental causes.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Could you live without air-conditioning in New York?</strong><br />Yeah. I open my windows all the time. I don't like air-conditioning very much. I'm an Aussie, you know, back door, front door open, that's air-conditioning, you know?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On the other hand, he does admit to thinking that Harris was "so good" at the Emmys, and that he hasn't been asked to host the 2010 Oscars. I smell Pulitzer.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>TIFF Memories.</title><id>http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/9/9/tiff-memories.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/9/9/tiff-memories.html"/><author><name>Erich Van Dussen</name></author><published>2009-09-09T12:24:58Z</published><updated>2009-09-09T12:24:58Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>The 2009 Toronto International Film Festival starts this Thursday and runs through Saturday, September 19. Previewing what films are included in any year&rsquo;s TIFF slate is a tantalizing chore (<a href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/festwatch">one I&rsquo;ve undertaken</a>), but here&rsquo;s a different kind of tribute to the institution: My list of favorite films from past years&rsquo; festivals.</p>
<p><strong>Boogie Nights (1997): </strong>Raw, sophisticated, unsentimental filmmaking from Paul Thomas Anderson, featuring an early Philip Seymour Hoffman performance. I remember coming back from TIFF that year and experiencing a frisson of pleasure followed by a feeling of awkwardness as I described to my buttoned-down colleagues how the best of the fest was an epic narrative about the 1970s porn industry.</p>
<p><strong>The Sweet Hereafter (1997): </strong>If Canadian films are often depressing &ndash; and they are &ndash; then native-born filmmaker Atom Egoyan may just be the patron saint of TIFF. Here he marvelously assayed Russell Banks&rsquo; novel of secrets and tragedies in a small rural town.</p>
<p><strong>L.A. Confidential (1997): </strong>I watched this at a 9am Saturday screening at the old Uptown Theatre three-plex, once the centerpiece of the festival but now long-gone, demolished for condominiums. Curtis Hanson&rsquo;s masterpiece blew me away, and today remains one of my most-admired cinematic constructs: A nearly perfect movie.</p>
<p><strong>Last Night (1998): </strong>A quintessential Canadian movie, from writer/director (and TIFF wunderkind) Don McKellar. A weird mix of urban storytelling and end-of-the-world sci-fi melodrama, the film was packed with sly north-of-the-border in-jokes and references that I would still be deciphering years later.</p>
<p><strong>Rushmore (1998): </strong>I had a hole in my schedule on a Wednesday afternoon, and ducked in to see Wes Anderson&rsquo;s second feature on the strength of a rumored appearance by Bill Murray. I didn&rsquo;t laugh so hard all week &ndash; and wouldn&rsquo;t, for the rest of the year.</p>
<p><strong>Requiem for a Dream (2000): </strong>For me, TIFF is usually a solitary experience &ndash; I go for the movies, not for socializing or networking opportunities &ndash; but I watched Darren Aronofsky&rsquo;s second film in a public screening on a Monday afternoon with my future fianc&eacute;e and a friend from Rochester, both in town for the fest. Typically the audience bursts out of the theater when a TIFF selection ends (there&rsquo;s always something else to see), but Requiem&rsquo;s intensity was such that the three of us were rooted in our seats while we absorbed what we had just seen. I noticed that we weren&rsquo;t alone.</p>
<p><strong>Sideways (2004): </strong>I saw this at an 8:30am screening on Sunday, my last day of the festival that year. I had already checked out of my hotel with the intention of seeing a full day of movies before hitting the QEW for home, but after watching Alexander Payne&rsquo;s sublime treasure I knew any subsequent movies would be anticlimactic. I was even inspired to stop at a Canadian winery on the way back to Rochester.</p>
<p><strong>The Squid and the Whale (2005): </strong>Smart, funny (and intensely personal) filmmaking from Noah Baumbach, a TIFF regular. I&rsquo;ve seen three of his movies at the festival, including <em>Mr. Jealousy</em> (1997) and <em>Margot at the Wedding </em>(2007); this was his best work.</p>
<p><strong>Borat (2006): </strong>Pure comedies are typically rare in the TIFF schedule, but Larry Charles&rsquo; feature &ndash; with a star-making performance by Sacha Baron Cohen &ndash; was a glorious exception to that unwritten rule. I watched this in a VIP screening room at the Varsity multiplex with a couple dozen critics; none of us were immune from Baron Cohen&rsquo;s bawdy charms.</p>
<p><strong>Far From Heaven (2003): </strong>I nabbed the last seat in the house for a Saturday-evening press screening of this Todd Haynes picture. I sat in the front row, and really didn&rsquo;t care.</p>
<p><strong>The Visitor (2007): </strong>Thanks to TIFF, this made my annual 10-best list a year before its theatrical release.</p>
<p><strong>No Country for Old Men (2007): </strong>I missed the last few minutes of this screening to make another film in my schedule, but I caught up with it stateside and reaffirmed the brilliance of the Coen Brothers&rsquo; vision.</p>
<p>Of course, not every movie shown in Toronto is destined for greatness. The three worst movies I can recall seeing up there? <em>Elizabethtown </em>(a rare misstep from Cameron Crowe), <em>All the King&rsquo;s Men </em>(a rare misstep from Sean Penn), and <em>The Other Man</em>, with Liam Neeson pursuing proof of his wife&rsquo;s infidelity. That one screened at TIFF last year, and is just now preparing for a fall 2009 release. Fortunately, plenty of other more worthy films &ndash; including many from this year&rsquo;s festival, I imagine &ndash; will be available to occupy us.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>More Wiig, Please.</title><id>http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/9/9/more-wiig-please.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/9/9/more-wiig-please.html"/><author><name>Erich Van Dussen</name></author><published>2009-09-09T11:37:18Z</published><updated>2009-09-09T11:37:18Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span class="thumbnail-image-float-left ssNonEditable"><span><a href="javascript:showFullImage('/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2Fwiig.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1252496555472',172,127);"><img src="http://rochesterfilm.squarespace.com/storage/thumbnails/3528148-4094382-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1252496563347" alt="" /></a></span></span>Comedy is not pretty &ndash; especially if you&rsquo;re a woman. Over in <a href="http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2009/09/04/can-kristen-wiig-stop-stealing-movies-and-start-starring-in-them.aspx">Slate</a>, Seth Stevenson salutes Brighton native <strong>Kristen Wiig </strong>as &ldquo;the undisputed star of the past few seasons of <em>Saturday Night Live</em>,&rdquo; only to point out (bad news alert!) that this brilliant comedian keeps getting cast in movies for parts in which she&rsquo;s asked to do little or nothing.&nbsp;</p>
<p>There are worse things in life &ndash; even by Hollywood standards &ndash; than to become famous for being the best thing about a popular television show. But given that SNL has proven itself almost as concerned with launching movie careers for its stars as with making audiences laugh every weekend, it&rsquo;s fair to conclude that Wiig, a hit on the small screen, deserves at least a chance to prove herself in movies. Her blink-and-you-missed-them appearances in two smart but little-seen comedies of the last year (<em><a href="http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Ghost_Town/70101370?lnkce=seRtLn&amp;trkid=222336&amp;strkid=2056944282_0_0&amp;strackid=3006b288d2ea8f18_0_srl">Ghost Town</a></em> and <em><a href="http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Adventureland/70099787?lnkce=seRtLn&amp;trkid=222336&amp;strkid=2129559278_0_0&amp;strackid=4e7402a7215febf3_0_srl">Adventureland</a></em>) make me crave more Wiig.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Certainly not everyone can &ldquo;carry&rdquo; their own movie &ndash; and with Hollywood budgets getting ever more bloated, it&rsquo;s understandable that studios may be less likely to take gambles. But Stevenson&rsquo;s invocation of Will Ferrell&rsquo;s career as a beacon for Wiig to follow makes sense: Based on the bulk of his SNL output I never would have expected to be enjoying him so much in movies, but he makes it work. So, I suspect, could Kristen.</p>
<p>Come on Hollywood: give Wiig a chance. Supporting roles are great, but an actress this funny deserves a spotlight of her own.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Of Spaceships, Sequels, Sigourney And Scott.</title><id>http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/8/4/of-spaceships-sequels-sigourney-and-scott.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/8/4/of-spaceships-sequels-sigourney-and-scott.html"/><author><name>Erich Van Dussen</name></author><published>2009-08-04T12:05:43Z</published><updated>2009-08-04T12:05:43Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>The news has burst furiously out of Hollywood's chest that <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118006722.html?categoryid=13&amp;cs=1&amp;ref=bd_film">Ridley Scott will direct another Alien movie</a>-- either the fifth or the seventh installment (depending on whether you count the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0370263/">AVP</a> quasi-franchise). This time it'll be a prequel to Scott's original film; and no, it looks as though Sigourney Weaver will not reprise her role as the almost comically beleaguered Ellen Ripley.</p>
<p>That last part is good news; the rest, I'm not sure. Sequels in general are typically nothing to get excited about -- they can be great fun, but those are most often the exception, not the rule -- and prequels in particular are often excuses to print money rather than logical or justifiable extensions of whatever made the original work any good.</p>
<p>In this case, it's worth noting that the proper <em>Alien</em> franchise has never really been about <a href="http://www.hrgiger.com/frame.htm">H.R. Geiger's</a> fantastic <em>vagina dentata</em> creation. Rather, the beastie has been a narrative device against which four very different filmmakers chronicled the bizarre story of Weaver's character: Call it <em>Alien: The Ellen Ripley Chronicles</em>. Without her it's difficult to imagine a true <em>Alien</em> installment, given that the alien wasn't the star of the other movies in the first place.</p>
<p><span><span class="full-image-float-left ssNonEditable"><span><a href="javascript:showFullImage('/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2Fthumbnails%2F3528148-3762656-thumbnail.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1249387701538',171,125);"><img src="http://rochesterfilm.squarespace.com/storage/thumbnails/3528148-3762659-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1249387701538" alt="" /></a></span></span></span>In fact, there's a precedent in Scott's own resume that suggests what a bad idea this is. In 2001 he made <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212985/">Hannibal</a></em>, a patently awful sequel to a phenomenally popular film whose producers made the mistake of assuming was more about the villain than the hero. Scott doesn't know how to make a bad-looking movie, but lush production values couldn't save <em>Hannibal</em> and may not be able to redeem the <em>Alien</em> prequel.</p>
<p>It's hard to imagine how this won't turn out to be a mistake. And as Hannibal and <em>Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull</em> taught us, mistakes like these can often taint the experience of the great original films. Weaver has already indicated she won't participate in this; now, won't someone try to talk Scott out of his decision?</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Free Movies? Sign Me Up.</title><id>http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/7/14/free-movies-sign-me-up.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/7/14/free-movies-sign-me-up.html"/><author><name>Erich Van Dussen</name></author><published>2009-07-14T11:16:01Z</published><updated>2009-07-14T11:16:01Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Who said government never did anything right for the people? Here's the remaining schedule of free movies playing this summer, courtesy of the city of Rochester and the county of Monroe.</p>
<p><strong>Movies in the Bowl: </strong>Thursdays, starting at dark, at the Highland Park Bowl:</p>
<ul>
<li>July 16: <em>Harry Potter and the Sorcerer&rsquo;s Stone</em> (2001) (PG)</li>
<li>July 23: <em>A Christmas Story</em> (1983) (PG)</li>
<li>July 30: <em>Hotel for Dogs</em> (2009) (PG)</li>
<li>August 6: <em>The Goonies</em> (1985) (PG)</li>
<li>August 13: <em>Kung Fu Panda</em> (2008) (PG)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Movies at the Beach: </strong>Tuesdays, starting at dark, at Monroe County&rsquo;s Ontario Beach Park:</p>
<ul>
<li>July 14: <em>Iron Man</em> (2008) (PG-13)</li>
<li>July 21: <em>Fred Claus</em> (2007) (PG)</li>
<li>July 28: <em>Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan</em> (1982) (PG)</li>
<li>August 4: <em>The Dark Knight</em> (2008) (PG-13)</li>
<li>August 11: <em>Quantum of Solace</em> (2008) (PG-13)</li>
</ul>
<p>Granted, they're not all gems. (Fred Claus? Yeesh.) But there are more keepers than losers, and they're free summertime experiences -- a perfectly reasonable use of our tax dollars at work.&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>OK, That's One Good Reason.</title><id>http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/6/24/ok-thats-one-good-reason.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/6/24/ok-thats-one-good-reason.html"/><author><name>Erich Van Dussen</name></author><published>2009-06-25T03:26:14Z</published><updated>2009-06-25T03:26:14Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><em>New York Magazine</em> has a <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/06/ten_best_picture_nominations_w.html">list of reasons</a> why the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/24/oscars.expansion.nominees/index.html">newly expanded Best Picture Oscar nominee slate</a> is a good thing. Most of their reasons are crap, but one stuck with me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>7.</strong> Hey, comedy might finally get its due! With five extra slots, surely at least one funny movie will be nominated (<em>Funny People</em>, maybe?). And perhaps someday the studios will program a few non-depressing movies for the fall, instead of just broken-family dramas and Holocaust-y stuff. And this could push a few of our more serious thespians over to the light side &mdash; wouldn't it be great to see Daniel Day-Lewis and Viggo Mortensen loosen up in an Apatow bromance?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, no, actually, it wouldn't. But so many great comedies have been overlooked so consistently over the years, that the thought of a door being opened even a crack is encouraging. So ... thanks, <em>New York</em>.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>It's Very Beautiful And Very Cold, And You're Not Allowed To Touch Anything. Also, An EIK And Master Bath.</title><id>http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/5/28/its-very-beautiful-and-very-cold-and-youre-not-allowed-to-to.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/5/28/its-very-beautiful-and-very-cold-and-youre-not-allowed-to-to.html"/><author><name>Erich Van Dussen</name></author><published>2009-05-28T16:54:10Z</published><updated>2009-05-28T16:54:10Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Cameron's father's house <a href="http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/370-Beech-Street_Highland-Park_IL_60035_1109385563">is for sale</a>. Cameron Frye, that is, of <em><a href="http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Ferris_Bueller_s_Day_Off/498716?lnkce=seRtLn&amp;trkid=222336&amp;lnkctr=srchrd-sr&amp;strkid=2118876747_0_0">Ferris Bueller's Day Off</a></em> fame.</p>
<p>Only $2.3 million will get you into the legenday house that angst built. No word on whether the garage comes fully stocked with a&nbsp;<a href="http://jalopnik.com/391696/1961-ferrari-250-gt-california-sells-for-10976000-setting-world-record-as-most-expensive-car-ever">1961 Ferrari GT California</a>, or diapers with which to polish it. Regardless of whether you can afford the house, consider the car. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Dear Hannibal: Bite Me.</title><id>http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/5/15/dear-hannibal-bite-me.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/5/15/dear-hannibal-bite-me.html"/><author><name>Erich Van Dussen</name></author><published>2009-05-15T15:21:48Z</published><updated>2009-05-15T15:21:48Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>After a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt8KlLjrwSs">chilling introduction</a> (courtesy of Brian Cox) in Michael Mann's <em><a href="http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Manhunter/60004275?lnkce=seRtLn&amp;trkid=222336&amp;lnkctr=srchrd-sr&amp;strkid=390534983_1_0">Manhunter</a></em>, followed by Anthony Hopkins' definitive interpretation in <em><a href="http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Silence_of_the_Lambs/14546747?lnkce=seRtLn&amp;trkid=222336&amp;lnkctr=srchrd-sr&amp;strkid=1476745221_0_0">The Silence of the Lambs</a></em>, filmmakers (Dino DeLaurentiis, I'm looking at you) have effectively drained every ounce of fun from the character of Hannibal Lecter. In fact, the only restraint shown by Hollywood all this time has been a reluctance to create a Lecter movie without a novel by <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_1_9?url=search-alias%3Daps&amp;field-keywords=thomas+harris&amp;sprefix=thomas+ha&amp;sprefix=thomas+ha">Thomas Harris</a> (Lecter's creator) to adapt it from. Now even that rubicon is being crossed.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.abc2news.com/entertainment/story/Hopkins-to-feast-as-Hannibal-again/dv5iK30ktEWZb4Dq-y0UfA.cspx">Hollywood is making another Hannibal Lecter movie.</a> No new Harris novel (not that the last two were any good, but whatever), no justification other than money. They've even roped Cate Blanchett into starring as Clarice Starling, because acting in good movies has apparently proven too easy for her.</p>
<p>Really, if Anthony Hopkins needs to make a mortgage payment this badly, he can just stay with me. I've got an extra room with his name on it. But if he goes through with this new Hannibal movie, the only room worthy of him will be the one with the toilet.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Wolverine, and Comics Vs. Movies.</title><id>http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/5/5/wolverine-and-comics-vs-movies.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/5/5/wolverine-and-comics-vs-movies.html"/><author><name>Erich Van Dussen</name></author><published>2009-05-05T00:18:31Z</published><updated>2009-05-05T00:18:31Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Here's an interesting article in last week's <em>Slate</em> about <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2217342/">Wolverine</a> -- the character, not the movie -- and how he rose from hardscrabble obscurity to become a comic-book persona whose popularity now rivals (oh, let's just say it: eclipses) that of the more well known Batman and Superman.</p>
<p>One thing the article doesn't mention is the scope of the distinction between comic success and that of the movies. Wolverine was created in 1974, and picked up a year later in the X-Men comics just as that series was about to skyrocket in sales. Since then there has not been a month in which Wolverine has not appeared in one or more issues of various comic books -- and often many more, as spin-offs and satellite series and mini-series have been created for the sole purpose of milking the success of this feisty cash cow.</p>
<p>Let's conservatively estimate that Wolverine has appeared in, say, three books a month for those 35 years. That's 1260 issues. Now&nbsp;let's further say that a standard screenplay could probably be narratively expressed in about four issues of your basic comic book. That means that since his creation, Wolverine has been a leading man in the equivalent of 315 full-length feature films -- or 319, if you add in the three actual X-Men movies and <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em>. By comparison, Clint Eastwood did five Dirty Harry movies; Bruce Willis, only four <em>Die Hard</em>s.</p>
<p>With all that, the fact that the screen character of Wolverine seems stale after only four features says a lot about either the weakness of movies as a storytelling medium ... or the tolerance of comic fans for recycled stories. I'm just saying.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Shortest. Film Reviews. Ever.</title><id>http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/4/22/shortest-film-reviews-ever.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rochesterfilm.com/the-blog/2009/4/22/shortest-film-reviews-ever.html"/><author><name>Erich Van Dussen</name></author><published>2009-04-22T11:40:38Z</published><updated>2009-04-22T11:40:38Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>I'm not into Twitter, but as a writer the idea of extreme brevity intrigues me. I wonder what a 140-character film review would look like...</p>
<p><strong>STATE OF PLAY: Journo &amp; blogger look into murders/political scandal. Crowe is heavy and great. Long TV show = dense, satisfying thriller.&nbsp;</strong></p>
<p>That was 138 characters. Could this be the start of something small?</p>]]></content></entry></feed>