Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The Fabulous Four’ Review: Beaches (and Lots of Mojitos)

      by

      This raunchy comedy features Bette Midler, Susan Sarandon, Sheryl Lee Ralph and Megan Mullally on a bachelorette weekend.“The Fabulous Four” stars Bette Midler, Susan Sarandon, Sheryl Lee Ralph and Megan Mullally as old pals who cut loose during a bachelorette weekend in Key West.Marilyn (Midler), a recent widow, is marrying a guy she just met at the D.M.V. But first, she’s itching to grind on an exotic male dancer. In the last year and a half, this kind of all-star girls trip flick has become its own genre (see also: “80 for Brady,” “Summer Camp” and “Book Club: The Next Chapter”). This one, directed by Jocelyn Moorhouse and written by Ann Marie Allison and Jenna Milly, is the raunchiest and loopiest so far. Slapdash but executed with gusto, “Fabulous Four” feels like it was made after guzzling three bottles of champagne — and honestly, that’s an apropos way to watch.The central conflict is that Marilyn is a self-absorbed TikTok influencer and Lou (Sarandon), a self-righteous stick in the mud who considers her estranged best friend’s wedding a personal affront. Lou blames Marilyn for turning her into a lonely cat lady — and, fittingly, gets tricked into the vacation by a phony claim that she’s won one of Ernest Hemingway’s polydactyl felines, descendants of his six-toed pet Snowball that continue to roam the grounds of the author’s former Florida home. (Sarandon’s saucer eyes light up endearingly as she clutches a pet carrier to her chest.)Rounding out the foursome are Kitty (Ralph), a cannabis farmer with a born-again daughter (Brandee Evans) who wants to stick her in a religious retirement home (“Heaven’s Gate?” Kitty groans, “More like hell on earth”) and Alice (Mullally), a lusty singer who roams the margins of the plot blurting as many gasp-inducing one-liners as she can.The jokes dance right on the edge of what you’re willing to giggle at in a matinee with your mother-in-law. Somehow when Lou meets a love interest (Bruce Greenwood) who happens to be clutching one of Key West’s famous wild chickens, the script restrains itself from a wisecrack about his rooster. There’s a little too much reliance on half-baked physical comedy. Midler kicks up her heels with such pizazz that her shoes literally go flying offscreen; later, she twerks, and she’s pretty good. More impressively, she and her fellow professionals do their utmost to add at least one layer to their caricatures. Midler allows her narcissist’s vulnerability to poke through, while Sarandon, tasked to look severe, wins us over every time she loosens up. (One scene has her blitzed on edibles and hallucinating a cat performing heart surgery.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Didi’ Review: 13 Going on Nerdy

      by

      A vibrant coming-of-age story about an awkward teenager in California in 2008 is also a love letter to the director’s mother.When a filmmaker makes a semi-autobiographical movie that’s also a story about growing up, it’s very often about learning to see. In “The Fabelmans,” Steven Spielberg’s youthful stand-in becomes obsessed with looking at the world through a camera lens, and the film functions almost as an apology for a lifetime of always inserting the camera between himself and the world. “Roma” recreates Alfonso Cuarón’s Mexico City in the 1970s; “The Souvenir” recreates Joanna Hogg’s northern England in the 1980s; “The Cathedral” recreates Ricky D’Ambrose’s American suburbs in the 1990s. In each case, we’re given a glimpse of memories the way the directors remember seeing them, often half-captured or framed in a way that proves meaningful to the protagonist’s maturing perspective.What we realize, watching these movies, is that any self-reflective adult restaging youthful memories will see them from a new angle, understanding them in a way their younger self never could. That’s what Sean Wang accomplishes with “Didi,” a film about a Taiwanese American boy named Chris stumbling through the summer in Fremont, Calif., before he starts high school. Chris (Izaac Wang, no relation to the director) lives with his grandmother (Chang Li Hua, the director’s grandmother), his mother Chungsing (Joan Chen), and his older sister Vivian (Shirley Chen, no relation to Joan), with whom he fights viciously.Like this summer’s “Janet Planet,” which recalls the excruciating nature of being bored and 11 in the summertime, “Didi” leans hard into the exact variety of aimless discomfort that comes with being 13. It’s 2008, so Chris spends a lot of time poking around YouTube, which back then was filled mostly with random, amateur drivel that occasionally went viral. He and his best friends, Fahad (Raul Dial) and a kid everyone calls “Soup” (Aaron Chang), play stupid pranks and film them, like blowing up an old lady’s mailbox. Chris has a MySpace account, but his friends are starting to move toward the cleaner, more sophisticated Facebook. He is obsessed with skateboarding, and with filming skateboarders on his little camcorder. And he has a massive crush on Madi (Mahaela Park), who’s a grade ahead of him.Chris’s family calls him Didi, the Mandarin term for “little brother.” His friends call him Wang Wang. He isn’t quite sure who he is, and hesitates before introducing himself to new people. Entering his teen years, he’s stuck fast in that awkward stage where nothing quite makes sense, everyone is annoying and life is filled with an endless tug of war between immaturity and something more grown-up. Chris and his friends use crude slang to refer to sex and girls and anatomy, but they’re all virgins, and they know it; this is their time for posturing, for trying on personas for size, figuring out who they’re going to be next.Chris is a stand-in for Sean Wang, who built the movie on top of his own memories. So while those recollections are highly specific to the setting and the time period — Chris uses all the AOL Instant Messenger acronyms, chats with the SmarterChild chatbot and checks a friend’s MySpace page to see if he’s still in their Top 8 list — they feel universal, too. When Chris flubs a first kiss, we feel his embarrassment. When he flips out at his mother, and friends look at him askance for his behavior, we feel his confused shame. “Didi” is as much about realizing how others see you as it is about learning to see them for who they really are.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      Why Is ‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ Projected to Set Records?

      by

      Opening-weekend estimates have been a Hollywood fixture since the 1980s. But surveys of moviegoers can fail to capture those who infrequently visit the theater.Savvy moviegoers may have noticed that these are very uncertain times at the box office. Not only are ticket sales this summer down about 17 percent compared to last year, according to Comscore, but it seems challenging to anticipate what will hit and what will flop.The domestic opening-weekend totals for would-be tent poles “The Fall Guy” and “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” came in lower than expected, while “A Quiet Place: Day One” and last weekend’s “Twisters” far exceeded their estimates.So how do Hollywood studios and their analysts make these predictions? And what explains why they fail?Box office projections, typically derived from more general audience sentiment data known as “tracking,” have been a fixture of the industry since the 1980s. The idea that studios should know in advance how a film will perform — down to a specific dollar figure — was promoted by the Coca-Cola Company, which bought Columbia Pictures in 1982 and thought it should be run more like a conventional maker of consumer products.“They were used to certain metrics of units sold,” said Kevin Goetz, the founder and chief executive of the analytics firm Screen Engine/ASI and the author of “Audience-ology.” “They pushed the National Research Group to come up with an estimate figure for their movies, and thus began what is essentially a parlor game of predictions.”How Does Tracking Work?To get a dollar estimate for a given movie, tracking companies poll prospective audience members weeks or even months in advance. Their questions are designed to gauge three metrics: awareness, interest and choice, meaning where the film ranks among others the respondent is interested in seeing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Movies

      A Rarely Seen David Bowie Rom-Com Gets a New Life

      by

      “The Linguini Incident,” a low-budget ’90s film directed by Richard Shepard and featuring Bowie and Rosanna Arquette, makes its way to Blu-ray in a director’s cut.Even David Bowie’s biggest fans might be unaware of his solitary foray into romantic comedy, and for good reason: It was barely released in 1992, and has been all but impossible to see since. Now, its director has restored, reclaimed and recut the film in question, “The Linguini Incident,” which made its Blu-ray debut this week.Richard Shepard was only 25 when he directed the quirky, New York-set indie, which was his solo feature directorial debut. (He directed an earlier film, “Cool Blue,” alongside Mark Mullin.) As was typical of the era, the low budget was gathered from multiple sources. “The whole movie was financed very weirdly,” Shepard said in a Zoom interview. “We had home video money and foreign sales money and mysterious money — a lot of mysterious money.”His first casting coup came early, when he landed Rosanna Arquette, already a star with “After Hours” and “Desperately Seeking Susan” on her résumé. So what made her take a chance on this young novice? “I loved the script,” Arquette said in a phone interview. “I just thought it was well-written and funny … and then, lo and behold, we had David Bowie, so that was really exciting.”Shepard sent the script to Bowie on a lark, with the idea that he and the fellow rock legend Mick Jagger could play the film’s flamboyant restaurateurs. “We naïvely just sent it to them, to play those small parts, with no money offered, no anything,” Shepard recalled. “We get this note back from Bowie saying, ‘I’m interested in your movie, but I don’t want to play that supporting role. I would like to play the lead.’”Shepard with Bowie, center, on the set of “The Linguini Incident.”via Richard Shepard
      Bowie wanted to play Monte, a British bartender at a hip, downtown restaurant who tries to talk one of his co-workers, the aspiring escape artist Lucy (Arquette), into a green card marriage, but is instead sidetracked into helping her rob their employers. Marlee Matlin, Eszter Balint, Buck Henry and Andre Gregory were among the cast; the future Oscar nominee Thomas Newman would compose the score, and Robert Yeoman, Wes Anderson’s go-to cinematographer, was behind the camera. The film was shot in 30 days in 1990.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      These Effects Wizards Made ‘Twisters’ a Blast at 4D Showings

      by

      For special presentations of that blockbuster and others, companies like CJ 4DPlex have turned splashing and shaking moviegoers into a lucrative art.Illustration by The New York Times; Universal PicturesFirst you get the aroma of the meadowlands. Then, a vision of an Oklahoma prairie fills the screen and, as the grass undulates, a soft breeze wafts over you and your seat sways. The wind is not ominous — not yet.These sights, sounds, feelings and scents open a 4D presentation of the tornado thriller “Twisters.” For the past decade and a half, companies like CJ 4DPlex have turned splashing and shaking moviegoers into an art, fine-tuning their instruments to lure fans into theaters. Carefully tracking through each scene, they look for moments to heighten the experience in a way that adds meaning without distracting from the narrative.In a typical 4D presentation, audiences pay on average $8 more than the price of a regular ticket to sit in pods of four chairs that can pitch and tilt subtly or with extreme force, using technology first developed for military flight simulators.Extra mechanics inside the chair can punch you in the back when, say, a Nazi lands a blow on Indiana Jones, or buzz to the rhythm of the thumper that attracts a giant sandworm in “Dune: Part Two.” As Paul Atreides and Chani ride the worm onscreen, the chair shakes so violently that there is no mistaking their peril.The smells in a 4D theater — options include “gardenia,” “burning rubber,” “gunpowder” and “beef town” — come from a tiny opening in front of the seat. Some films have custom scents. “Wonka” had a whiff of chocolate. “Beauty and the Beast” had a touch of rose. There are also holes that can blast cones of air and water, good for the first jump scare in the horror prequel “A Quiet Place: Day One.”Then there are the flexible straws that hang between your feet and wag quickly back and forth smacking your ankles. This might simulate what Raymond Diaz, the general manager of the Regal Times Square theater, described as “a critter running around the floor.” A frightening prospect in New York.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      Sympathy for the Diva: Why We Love ‘Difficult’ Stars

      by

      A new Faye Dunaway documentary wants to turn us from gossips into cheerleaders.Before Faye Dunaway makes her big entrance, you hear her snap from off camera: “We need to shoot. I’m here now. Come on!” When we meet her inside her apartment, she’s using a piece of paper to fan herself with a petulance that’s reminiscent of Queen Charlotte from “Bridgerton.” This is the feisty opening to the HBO documentary “Faye,” and it doesn’t do much to dispel decades of rumors painting Dunaway as a temperamental diva. Difficult, erratic, vain, narcissistic: These descriptors have etched themselves into the reputations of many famous women, and they have also been countered in all sorts of media. Much like Barbra Streisand’s memoir, “My Name Is Barbra,” or the 2018 Grace Jones documentary, “Bloodlight and Bami,” one clear purpose of “Faye” is rebuttal: to let Dunaway reconstruct the narrative.Like many in my generation, I first saw Dunaway in “Mommie Dearest,” the 1981 film — either a disaster or a masterpiece, depending on whom you ask and their tolerance for camp — in which she played another supposed she-devil: Joan Crawford, whom the movie depicts as an abusive mother and a fame-hungry prima donna. Unlike Roger Ebert, who called it “one of the most depressing films in a long time,” I was transfixed by “Mommie Dearest.” I couldn’t get enough of Dunaway’s shellacked eyebrows, the murderous rose-garden scene, the “no more wire hangers” theatrics. There’s an entire age cohort whose sense of Dunaway is all scrambled up in this role. Instead of meeting her via classics like “Bonnie and Clyde,” “Chinatown” and “Network,” we met her as Crawford, berating everyone in her path. As Dunaway says in a 1984 interview clip shown in the new documentary, “There’s an inevitable tendency of people who both work in the industry and the audience to associate, to think you’re like the parts you play.”If you’re not up on the reputation that Dunaway now has to dispute, a quick scroll through Reddit threads about her should get you up to speed. There are first-person accounts, too, many of which appear in HBO’s documentary. In one clip, Johnny Carson asks Bette Davis — rumored to be a bit of a harpy herself — to name the most difficult person she ever worked with; Davis, looking prim in a white bucket hat, shoots back, “One million dollars, Faye Dunaway,” to great laughter. In a clip that’s not shown in the documentary, Brenda Vaccaro, who worked alongside Dunaway in the 1984 movie “Supergirl,” says that Dunaway “would terrify people” — though she also calls her a “brilliant actress” and adds that “you can see the struggle.”“Faye” uses a mix of straight-to-camera interviews, family photos, archival footage and plenty of film clips to humanize little Dorothy Faye, a girl from Bascom, Fla., who quickly achieved Hollywood-icon status. It also dwells on that “struggle” part and enlists talking heads to spring to Dunaway’s defense. We learn about her alcohol dependency and her late-in-life diagnosis of bipolar disorder, both of which Dunaway finally sought treatment for after years of unexplained mood swings, depression and erratic behavior. Sharon Stone, Dunaway’s chum and mentee, talks about the intense pressure on actresses to be thin and says that Dunaway has only ever been kind and generous to her. She becomes fiercely protective when the subject of “Mommie Dearest” comes up: “Everybody wants to make fun of her for ‘Mommie Dearest,’ but you tell me how you play that part,” she says. “The joke is on the director, the joke is not on the artist.”At each stage, we the audience have our own parts to play: fans, bullies, executioners, cheerleaders, allies.Mickey Rourke — whose own reputation isn’t exactly untarnished — starred in “Barfly” with Dunaway. He was, he says, “in awe of her and kind of a little intimidated.” He attempts to soften Dunaway’s image, but that task becomes complicated when people like Howard Koch come along to share their experiences. Koch was first assistant director on the set of “Chinatown.” In his first phone call to Dunaway, he says, she guessed that he was a Sagittarius, then informed him that this astrological offense meant they would never get along. He then dishes about Dunaway’s demanding that Blistex be applied to her lips before every take. Jack Nicholson, we learn, had a loving nickname for her on the set: “Dread.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      How Horror Movies Solve Their Cellphone Problem

      by

      When one quick call can eliminate danger and undermine screams, filmmakers have to figure out a workaround. Sometimes it can even deepen a story.A cellphone lies in a rustic Airbnb, smashed by an intruder. Then, when another is procured, a faulty connection interrupts a call to 911.A navigation map on a smartphone glitches as a driver plunges deep into the woods.Criminals on a kidnapping job are ordered to surrender their phones “to be completely certain that you can’t be tracked.”An exasperated partyer in rural Ontario wonders aloud to a member in his group, “How long is it going to take for you to realize there’s no reception out here?”These are some of the ways that recent horror movies have gotten around what is at this point an age-old problem: the cellphone. In working order, they can render predicaments more solvable and certain situations easier to escape — potentially. Before the late ’90s, there was little need to make such a show of connectivity failure. Lines would go down or get cut, sure, but isolation in the age before mass cellphone usage was easier to come by and therefore easier to believe onscreen. Back then, the tropes didn’t have to trope so hard.Then came the cell, and movies like “House on Haunted Hill” (1999) and “Jeepers Creepers” (2001) featured characters realizing they were holding useless plastic flip-bricks as their situations grew hairy. (In the former, the possessed house kills the signal before any of its inhabitants; in the latter, young adult siblings bicker over a low battery notification after witnessing what turns out to be a winged demon.) With smartphones, there was even more to neutralize, like GPS maps and internet searches. Movies taking pains to explain away cellphones were so prevalent that by 2009, I could collect more than 40 clips for a supercut exploring this development in the previous decade or so.In “The Watchers,” a navigation app becomes glitchy.Warner Bros.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ Review: Reynolds and Jackman Return

      by

      The wisecracking semi-hero is back, but now he’s part of a bigger universe.“Disney’s so stupid,” Deadpool declares trollishly at the beginning of “Deadpool & Wolverine.” It’s the sort of jab — in this case, at the studio distributing the film we’re watching — that we’ve grown used to from this dude, a potty-mouthed exterminator in a face-obscuring suit vaguely reminiscent of Spider-Man. Not quite a hero, not quite anything else, Deadpool is an answer to the conflicted but upstanding superheroes of 21st-century Hollywood. He kills messily, he makes a lot of inappropriate jokes and, in an industry that practically decrees a profit-boosting PG-13 rating, his movies are always rated R.Despite first appearing in Marvel comics, Deadpool (played by Ryan Reynolds), a.k.a. Wade Wilson, also used to stand slightly outside of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But in the six years since his last big-screen appearance in “Deadpool 2,” the Merc with the Mouth has been shoehorned into the M.C.U., along with the X-Men, for reasons involving Disney’s 2019 acquisition of 20th Century Fox. (Which was promptly renamed 20th Century Studios, and you can be sure Deadpool will joke about that too.)Deadpool explains all this very quickly at the beginning of “Deadpool & Wolverine,” just to catch us up. He has a lot of expositional ground to cover, since he also has to clarify how this movie will avoid desecrating the memory of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), a.k.a. Logan, who was laid to rest in the excellent eponymous swan song from 2017. “We’re not,” Deadpool announces. Deal with it.The first two Deadpool movies set out to skewer the conventions of superhero cinema, with “Deadpool” (2016) scrapping conventional opening credits for alternate text jabbing at tropes: “A British Villain,” “A Hot Chick,” “A Moody Teen,” “A C.G.I. Character” and also some words we can’t print here. Deadpool broke the fourth wall constantly, remarking to the audience about what was happening or about to happen, as well as the paltry budget of the film and the silliness of him, a minor and ridiculous character, being in a movie at all.But times sure have changed, and not just because those movies made a whole lot of money. Yes, “Deadpool & Wolverine” still features quips about residuals and digs at characters in DC’s rival comics universe, and a bunch of them made me chuckle. It still features Reynolds making fun of himself; it has some fun set pieces, clever sight gags, amusing surprises, left-field references and adoring pauses to admire Jackman’s biceps and abs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More