OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL (2013)

Tanggal Rilis : 8 March 2013 (USA)
Jenis Film : Adventure | Family | Fantasy
Diperankan Oleh : James Franco, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz

Ringkasan Cerita OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL (2013) :

Disney kembali membuat film bergenre Action/Adventure/Fantasy dengan judul “Oz the Great and Powerful” yang akan dirilis pada bulan Maret 2013. Film ini disutradarai oleh Sam Raimi, yang terkenal dengan The Spiderman Trilogy & Alice in Wonderland! Begitu Anda mendengar judul “Alice in Wonderland” saja, Anda pasti langsung terbayang landscape yang indah bak negeri dongeng dan segala keunikan dunia fantasi di dalamnya. Dan benar saja, kalau Anda menyaksika trailer Oz the Great and Powerful, Anda akan langsung terkagum dengan dunia dongeng yang digambarkan di dalamnya.

Film ini berkisah tentang Oscar Diggs (James Franco : Spiderman, Spring Breakers), seorang ahli sulap dari sebuah sirkus kecil dengan karakter eksentrik, yang menemukan dirinya terbawa dari Kansas yang membosankan, ke Land of Oz. Saat pertama kali tiba di negeri ajaib ini, ia mengira dirinya telah menemukan puncak kejayaan dan ketenaran akan menjadi miliknya hanya dengan menjentikkan jari. Semuanya itu berubah ketika ia bertemu dengan ketiga penyihir: Theodora (Mila Kunis : Black Swan, Ted), Evanora (Rachel Weisz : The Mummy, Constantine, The Bourne Legacy), dan Glinda (Michelle Williams : Dawson’s Creek, My Week With Marilyn).

Ketiga penyihir tidak yakin bahwa Oscar adalah penyihir terhebat yang dinantikan oleh semua orang. Oscar pun terlibat dalam pertempuran epik yang melanda Land of Oz dan penduduknya. Berbekal keahlian sulap yang dimilikinya, Oscar pun sedikit demi sedikit berubah menjadi penyihir hebat Wizard of Oz, dan juga berubah menjadi pria yang lebih baik. Nah, apakah film fantasi dengan budget yang mencapai sekitar 200 juta dolar ini mampu menghibur dan memuaskan para penggemar kisah Oz?

[IMDb rating : 6.8/10]
[Awards : 1 win & 3 nominations]
[Production Co : Walt Disney Pictures , Roth Films]
[IMDb link : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1623205/]

[Quality : BRRip 720p]
[File Size : 775 MB]
[Format : Matroska >> mkv]
[Resolution : 1280x536]
[Source : 720p.BluRay.x264-SPARKS]
[Encoder : nItRo]

BillionUploads
| Part1 | Part2 | Part3 | Part4 | Part5 |
Join with HJ-Split, Download HJ-Split
Credit to original uploaders
======================================
Megaload
| Part1 | Part2 | Part3 | Part4 | Part5 |
Join with HJ-Split, Download HJ-Split
Credit to original uploaders
======================================
Sharebeast
| Part1 | Part2 | Part3 | Part4 | Part5 |
Join with HJ-Split, Download HJ-Split
Credit to original uploaders
======================================
Zippyshare
| Part1 | Part2 | Part3 | Part4 | Part5 |
Join with HJ-Split, Download HJ-Split
Credit to original uploaders
======================================
180upload
| Part1 | Part2 | Part3 | Part4 | Part5 |
Join with HJ-Split, Download HJ-Split
Credit to original uploaders

Download English Subtitle
Download Indonesian Subtitle

THE GREAT GATSBY (2013)

Tanggal Rilis : 10 May 2013 (USA)
Jenis Film : Drama | Romance
Diperankan Oleh : Leonardo DiCaprio, Joel Edgerton, Tobey Maguire

Ringkasan Cerita THE GREAT GATSBY (2013) :

Film ini mengisahkankan tentang seseorang yang pernah berkeinginan untuk menjadi penulis, kemudian berubah mengikuti trend masyarakat pada masa itu dan ‘banting setir’ ke dunia ekonomi dan obligasi. Sebut saja pria tersebut Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire). Sebagai seorang pria dengan ekonomi yang biasa-biasa saja, Nick berani memutuskan untuk mengontrak rumah di pinggir teluk Long Island, berjajar dengan rumah-rumah gedongan yang berdiri kokoh menenggelamkan kediamannya.

Nick memiliki sepupu wanita yang tinggal di seberang teluk, West Egg, Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), bersama sang suami, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). Di sana Nick mendengar hal-hal menarik yang kerap menjadi buah bibir masyarakat New York saat itu. Adalah Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), seorang miliuner kaya raya yang misterius dan selalu dijadikan tajuk utama dalam pemberitaan media masa. Miliuner yang nyatanya tinggal di sebuah istana besar tepat di sebelah rumah Nick.

Tak sulit bagi Nick untuk mengenal sang miliuner tersebut lantaran ia merasa sejak kepindahannya ke Long Island, ia selalu diamati oleh seseorang dibalik jendela dari istana Jay. Hingga pada suatu ketika, Nick mendapatkan undangan untuk menghadiri sebuah pesta di rumah Jay yang selalu diadakan setiap minggu secara besar-besaran. Pesta tersebut bahkan lebih meriah ketimbang pesta-pesta lainnya yang pernah ada. Dan Nick menjadi satu-satunya orang yang diundang secara resmi oleh Jay, karena ternyata, setiap politisi, pekerja seni, bahkan pebisnis yang hadir untuk pesta di rumah Jay tidak pernah diundang. Seperti pesta tersebut menjadi tameng dari sesuatu hal.

Diselimuti rasa penasaran sekaligus bangga, Nick pun datang kesana dan bertemu dengan sang miliuner. Sebelumnya memang banyak desas-desus yang tersiar mengenai sosok Jay tersebut. Ada yang bilang Jay adalah seorang pahlawan perang, namun ada juga yang bilang Jay adalah seorang mafia yang bekerja sebagai pembunuh. Siapakah Jay Gatsby sebenarnya? Apa kiranya hubungan miliuner misterius tersebut dengan sepupu Nick? Dan benarkah yang didesas-desuskan mengenai dirinya? (Oleh : Evelyn Afnilia)

Sumber : sinopsis-box-office.blogspot.com

[IMDb rating : 7.5/10]
[Awards : 6 nominations]
[Production Co : Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, A&E Television Networks]
[IMDb link : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343092]

[Quality : HQ TS]
[File Size : 550 MB]
[Format : Matroska >> mkv]
[Resolution : 720x304]
[Source : TS.XviD-MiLLEMNiUM]
[Encoder : nItRo]

BillionUploads
| Part1 | Part2 | Part3 | Part4 |
Join with HJ-Split, Download HJ-Split
Credit to original uploaders
======================================
Zippyshare
| Part1 | Part2 | Part3 | Part4 |
Join with HJ-Split, Download HJ-Split
Credit to original uploaders
======================================
180upload
| Part1 | Part2 | Part3 | Part4 |
Join with HJ-Split, Download HJ-Split
Credit to original uploaders

Download English Subtitle (Not available yet)
Download Indonesian Subtitle (Not available yet)

Cannes Review: ‘The Great Beauty’

Brashly stepping up and standing beside Giovanni from Antonioni’s “La Notte” and Marcello from Fellini’s “La Dolce Vita” is Jep Gambardella from Paolo Sorrentino’s “La Grand Bellezza.” Go out on the town with this bunch and you are sure to observe plenty of outrageous behavior and perhaps have a melancholy romantic entanglement. Just be sure you are in a five thousand dollar tailored-suit, or don’t bother humiliating yourself.

Translated into English the title of Sorrentino’s film means “The Great Beauty,” but, please, let’s leave it in its mother tongue. There’s not a single frame of this abundantly gorgeous film that isn’t pure Italian. Gambardella’s world-weary look back at his sweet life, eclipsed by his turning sixty-five, is a dizzying fantasia of flash and filigree, and what it lacks in direct narrative is well patched-over with frenetic and emotion-rich sequences. This movie is a sight and sound workout.

“La Grand Bellezza” is so indulgent it actually has three opening scenes – all marvelous. First, one of a series of moments unrelated to the plot in any strict way. The camera floats around a historical religious site, where Asian tourists snap photos. A man falls to the ground, perhaps victim to Stendhal Syndrome. Then black, and a scream. What follows is among the finest choreographed bacchanalia sequences I’ve laid eyes upon. At its close we meet Jep (Toni Servillo), debonair, cultured and just intellectual enough to feel great sadness at a beautiful life wasted on frivolous hedonism.

The third opening is Jep at work – he is an interviewer for culture journal and he’s watching an performance piece where a naked woman wearing makeshift hijab and Soviet flag painted on her pubis rams her head into the side of a two-thousand year old aqueduct (as a perfectly framed train crosses the background at magic hour.) During the following interview Jep reduces her to tears and exposes her as a fraud with just a few sharp remarks. He isn’t cruel, he’s just seen it all, and, most importantly, he’s unimpressed.

These episodes continue – Jep quietly strolls among Rome’s most decadent and elegant settings at a slight remove. He easily seduces a gorgeous but intellectually unstimulating women. He ditches her, uninterested in looking at her Facebook photos, announcing in voice over that, at his age, there is simply no time to do things he doesn’t want to do.

In time we learn that Jep as he is now is not quite what Jep envisioned for himself. As a young man he wrote a novel, and was involved in leftist causes and, naturally, had a pure, perfect love that got away. To Sorrentino’s credit we only catch glimpses of this through flashbacks or overheard dialogue. Not much will stop the mad rush of Jep’s study of the carnival that is modern Rome.

Along the way he meets a 12-year-old girl that’s an action painter, visits an underground plastic surgery church, sees a man who can make giraffes disappear, looks at a photographer’s lifetime of self-portraits, meets up with an old comrade/heroin junkie looking to marry off his 40 year old stripper daughter and, eventually, hosts a dinner party for a 104-year-old Mother Teresa-esque saint. This last one comes at the end and, not surprisingly, is the encounter with the most depth – though you shouldn’t worry that the movie goes all soft or anything.

The great thing about “La Grande Bellezza” is that, once you get on its wavelength, you soon recognize that if one sequence isn’t doing it for you, the next one might. At two-and-a-half hours Sorrentino offers up a maximalists’ delight. Even with the expanded running time, however, it is very difficult to know or care about many of the side characters in Jep’s life. “Wait, which one was that?” may be a common refrain among those discussing the picture afterwards.

SCORE: 7.7 / 10

Categories: Reviews

Tags: Cannes 2013, Cannes film festival, Jordan hoffman, La Grand Bellezza, Paolo sorrentino, Review, The Great Beauty

10 Great Black & White Films From the Last 20 Years

The upcoming Spring releases of two much-hyped black-and-white movies – Noah Baumbach’s “Frances Ha,” starring co-writer Greta Gerwig as an aspiring dancer, and Joss Whedon’s barebones stab at “Much Ado About Nothing” – left us wondering what modern movies have succeeded without the benefit of a full palette. So, with that in mind, here’s a look back at ten gloriously colorless (or largely color-deprived) movies from the last two decades.

“SCHINDLER’S LIST” (Steven Spielberg) 1993

The most famous director of all-time has loads of classics under his belt, including “E.T.” “Jaws” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” but most critics view “Schindler’s List,” Spielberg’s deeply personal Holocaust drama, as his masterwork. Speilberg used color only sporadically through the film, most memorably on a small Jewish girl’s red coat as she attempts to navigate the chaos of the Krakow ghetto, and in the final scene as Schindler Jews are shown at Oskar Schindler’s grave site in Jerusalem.

“ED WOOD” (Tim Burton) 1994

Before he viewed powdering and propping up Johnny Depp as passable filmmaking, Tim Burton was was crafting some of the most entertaining movies of the late eighties and early nineties, including “Beetlejuice” and “Edward Scissorhands.” But Burton’s best examination of outsiderdom might have been “Ed Wood,” his biopic of the “Plan 9 From Outer Space” director, with Depp shining in the titular role. Burton returned to black-and-white with last year’s stop-motion fantasy “Frankenweenie” — a well-received return to form for Burton that was quietly one of the most fun-to-watch animated movies of the year.

“CLERKS” (Kevin Smith) 1994

In 2013, Kevin Smith has his fair share of detractors, and his directing career has proven to be a case of diminishing returns. But love him or hate him (and certainly you do one of those two things) Smith’s crudely acted, shoestring-budget debut “Clerks” has been hugely influential on the modern comedy scene, paving the way for mumblecore and the Apatow empire by making aimless dialogue about sex and “Star Wars” totally kosher, just so long as it’s entertaining. The movie also went on to inspire a (colored) sequel and a highly underrated animated television spin-off. Smith recently announced he will round out the “Clerks” saga as a trilogy, and make “Clerks 3? his final film.

“FOLLOWING” (Chris Nolan) 1998

Christopher Nolan’s first feature, made for a nearly unfathomable $6,000 dollars, feels like a $250 million universe from “The Dark Knight Rises.” But the twisty neo noir is still a Nolan flick through and through, featuring a meticulous plot, non-linear narrative, and obsessive characters with motivations you can’t quite pin down until the end. Nolan scores craftiness points not only for his clever story, which revolves around a shifty loner who begins to follow strangers, but also his ability to pull it off on an essentially non-existant budget.

“THE GIRL ON THE BRIDGE” (Patrice Leconte) 1999

Patrice Leconte is one of the few filmmakers whose range and restlessness might put Steven Soderbergh to shame. This glisteningly monochrome 1999 charmer about a knife-thrower (the great Daniel Auteuil) who uses suicidal young women as targets for his circus act plays like a mad French emulsion of a Federico Fellini film. Starring the gorgeously gap-toothed Vanessa Paradis as a girl with all the love in the world but no one on whom to pin it, this woozy romantic does more with shades than most movies could with a full Technicolor palette.

“THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE” (Joel and Ethan Coen) 2001

Buried in the shadow of three better-known Coen Brothers works (“Fargo,” “The Big Lebowski,” and “O Brother, Where Art Thou”), the often-overlooked “The Man Who Wasn’t There” is among the two-headed directing monsters’ best. As usual, the Coens were none too kind to their protagonist, sending the reticent Ed Crane (an exceptional Billy Bob Thornton) on a bottomless downward spiral following a failed blackmailing scheme. The neo noir throwback features appearances from Coen regulars Frances McDormand, Jon Pilito, and Richard Jenkins, as well some inspired villainy from James Gandolfini, and a pre-stardom Scarlett Johansson.

“SIN CITY” (Robert Rodriguez) 2005

Robert Rodriguez’s adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel was just as entertaining as it was uber-violent, and brought Mickey Rourke back onto the Hollywood map with his memorable turn as the murderous, damn-near unkillable Marv. The gory neo noir, which also starred Clive Owen, Benicio Del Toro, Rosario Dawson, and Bruce Willis, opened the door for more R-rated graphic novel adaptations – including “The 300? “The Watchmen” and Kick-Ass” – to make it into theaters. The long-anticipated sequel, “A Dame to Kill For,” is due out later this year.

“GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK” (George Clooney) 2005

George Clooney established himself as serious filmmaker with “Good Night and Good Look” a behind-the-scenes look at hard-smoking, no-nonsense Edward R. Murrow’s toe-to-toe face-off with Joseph McCarthy at the height of the Red Scare. It didn’t hurt that Clooney put together an impressive cast that included Robert Downey Jr., Frank Langella, Jeff Daniels and an unforgettable David Straitharn as the stone-faced Murrow. Serving as a slick criticism of the Bush administration’s War on Terror, “Good Night and Good Luck” made a compelling case for television – probably our most sneered-at medium – to be used in an ongoing battle against dishonesty and injustice.

“PERSEPOLIS” (Vincent Paronnaud & Marjane Satrapi) 2007

Part coming-of-age tale and part exploration of the complex effects of United States interventionism, Marjane Satrapi’s animated adaptation of her autobiographical graphic novel suited the screen every bit as well as it suited the page. Satrapi’s tale of growing up amidst the political turmoil of 1980s Iran served as a touching reminder that while the grown-ups of the world grapple with religion and geopolitics, kids everywhere mostly just want to wear sneakers, drink a little booze, and listen to Michael Jackson. Strapi credits the movie’s black-and-white luck to her background in underground comics.

“THE WHITE RIBBON” (Michael Haneke) 2009

Michael Haneke is one of the few foreign directors regularly recognized in the United States, and for good reason: his work, from “Cache” to “Amour,” is consistently beautiful and wrenching. “White Ribbon,” his bleak examination of oppressive rural life in pre-World War I Germany, is just as haunting and heavy as his better-known works, and almost impossible to imagine in color. ‘The White Ribbon” went somewhat under the radar in the US, but took home the Palme d’Or at Cannes in 2009.

Editor’s note: I’d add “Tabu,” “Lake of Fire,” “The Day He Arrives,” and pretty much everything made by Béla Tarr and Guy Maddin. What are some of your favorites, or films that we’re forgetting? Let us know in the comments section below.

Categories: Features

Tags: Black & White, Ed Wood, Frances Ha, Much Ado About Nothing, Schindler's list, The White Ribbon

Eric’s Bad Movies: ‘Barney’s Great Adventure’ (1998)

Even the most desensitized aficionados of cinematic perversion cringe at the thought of “Barney’s Great Adventure,” a terrifying drama about three children who foolishly tamper with the dark powers of “imagination” and thereby conjure into existence an anthropomorphic dinosaur whose mirthless playtime revelry leaves them psychologically scarred and unable to cope with the realities of life. Draw near, if you dare, and pay heed as I relate the horrific tale.

The tone is established by the song that plays over the opening credits, in which young listeners are given this dangerous advice:

“If Barney the dinosaur
Comes knocking on your front door
Just go and play with him
Find your way with him
To the world of imagination.”

Having told impressionable viewers that they ought to run off with anyone who comes to their house claiming to be a TV dinosaur, the film begins its grim story in earnest.

It is summertime, and a family is headed to Grandma and Grandpa’s farm in upstate New York, where Mom and Dad will leave the kids for a week while they go off and enjoy some time far, far away from their children. The boy, Cody (Trevor Morgan), is a miserable little bastard who HATES the boring farm and is “too cool” to play along when his younger sister, Abby (Diana Rice), tries to engage him in conversation with her stuffed Barney doll. Cody absolutely despises imagination, creativity, and joy. Cody and Abby have a baby brother who doesn’t matter and I don’t know why he’s in the movie. Also, Abby has brought along her friend, Marcella (Kyla Pratt), who is African American and is in the movie so that the movie wouldn’t only be about white people.

Fun fact: Every person who appears in this movie is now a heroin addict!

As soon as they get to the farm, Cody runs off with the Barney doll and hides it in the bathtub. Has he realized that the doll is a pernicious token of evil? No, he is just being a brat. Abby and Marcella, unable to find the toy, use their imagination — whereupon the shower turns itself on, and suddenly, there in the place where the doll had been stands Barney himself. The girls summoned him, in much the same way that saying “Bloody Mary” three times in the bathroom mirror will make Bloody Mary appear, or the way that mentioning “Star Wars” and hockey while eating Cheetos will conjure Kevin Smith.

Surely this is the most terrifying thing that has ever happened to these children, right? I mean, it’s not even close, right? No matter what trauma or fear the kids might have experienced heretofore, it would be nothing compared to the shock of finding a fictional character standing in their grandparents’ shower.

But Barney, whimsical demon-spawn that he is, just laughs and asks for a towel. Appearing in bathrooms is not unusual for Barney the purple talking dinosaur! Why, sometimes he’ll show up in a child’s dark closet or under its bed in the middle of the night, just for kicks. Nothing delights Barney more than surprising the pee — the very pee — out of the children who love him.

Fun fact: To create the unique sound of Barney’s giggle, audio engineers mixed recordings of geese, donkeys, and the screams of damned souls in Hell!

Abby and Marcella are overjoyed to meet their idol, and instantly agree to do his bidding, whatever it may be, all hail to Barney. Cody remains dedicated to being surly. “Look, pal,” he says. “Real dinosaurs don’t talk.” HE’S GOT YOU THERE, YOU WIDE-BOTTOMED HARBINGER OF SORROW! But Barney replies, “I’m as real as your imagination!” — which 1) isn’t an answer and 2) means he is not real at all, since things that exist in one’s imagination are, by definition, imaginary. (To be fair, Barney is not accustomed to having existential arguments with anyone over the age of 5.)

Cody refuses to believe Barney is real. “If you’re here because of my imagination, then you’re about to disappear!” he exclaims, demonstrating more logical reasoning than anyone else so far. He closes his eyes and says, “I do not believe in you.” But it doesn’t work. Once summoned, Barney cannot be destroyed. “That’s OK, Cody,” the immortal plush reptile says. “I believe in you!”

Fun fact: In ancient Sumerian legend, Barney was a vengeance god who escorted disobedient children to the underworld, where he feasted on their flesh for eternity!

What transpires next, occupying the remainder of the film, is an adventure so nightmarish and surreal it would make Luis Buñuel throw up in his hat. A shooting star passes overhead and delivers a large, basketball-sized egg to the barn. Barney and the kids find the space egg and want to know what’s inside it, and though the movie is very pro-imagination, in this case it is necessary to use actual science. So they take the egg to a kooky lady named Mrs. Goldfinch, who has a house in the woods that serves as both a library and an egg museum. She is the local expert on birds, eggs, and the Dewey decimal system.

Mrs. Goldfinch and Barney and the kids sing a song about the mystery of the egg as they bounce merrily through the place, pulling books off shelves and making guesses. (“Maybe it’s a chimpanzee!” says one of the kids, stupidly.) At last the answer is revealed by one of the books: the egg contains a Dreammaker! Nobody knows what that is, but it sounds nice. It will hatch once the five rings on the shell change color, but only if the kids have returned it to the barn by then. That ought to be a very simple task, and it would be in the real world. In this world, however, all the people responsible for transporting the egg back to the barn are clumsy and butterfingered, and the egg itself is apparently coated with a lubricant, because it is CONSTANTLY getting away from them.

Doh! I dropped the egg and it rolled down the hill into the back of a wagon! Zoing! Now the wagon is driving into town, right in the middle of the Merrivale Apple Day Festival! Yikes! I got a hold of the egg, but then it flew out of my hands and landed in the marching band’s tuba, and the tuba player blasted a really strong note and blew the egg across the street through the open door of that fancy French restaurant! This egg is gigantic, yet invisible to everyone except us and evidently as light as a feather!

Do you like movies where the characters have to keep doing essentially the same thing over and over again? Of course not. Nobody does. The fiends who made “Barney’s Great Adventure,” in addition to disregarding the customary meanings of the words “great” and “adventure,” also intentionally devised a story that cannot be enjoyed. It is a Sisyphean ordeal, if Sisyphus had occasionally paused from his labors to sing “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star,” “Old McDonald Had a Farm,” and other songs from the public domain.

Fun fact: Even though it was an American production, “Barney’s Great Adventure” had to be filmed in Canada because of strict anti-obscenity regulations!

Cody gets over his aversion to imagination, at one point imagining an ordinary log into a biplane so that he, the girls, and Barney can catch up with the hot air balloon that now has the space egg. (Don’t ask.) The egg is recovered and taken back to the barn, where it hatches into an ALF-looking thing that shows everybody their dreams. Which seems pretty useless, since people generally already know what their own dreams are. And not to get technical, but if all you do is show people’s dreams, you’re not really a Dream maker, are you? Just one more damnable lie from this grueling, hell-spawned torment masquerading as a children’s movie.

Categories: Columns

Tags: Barney's Great Adventure, Eric's bad movies, WTF

It Runs in the Family: Six Great Directors whose Parents Were Great Directors

Brandon Cronenberg, son of Canadian body-horror master David Cronenberg, is hardly the first child of a famed filmmaker to follow in his father’s footsteps, with everyone from Rob Reiner to Nora Ephron making a name for themselves with a little help from parents in the business. But with the release this week of his debut directorial outing, the celebrity culture satire “Antiviral”, he’s proving himself much more indebted than most to the style and character of the family legacy. Where most kids struggle to step out from under the shadow of their parents, Brandon Cronenberg seems to enjoy staying well within the shade, working in such a similar register to the films of his father that it’s impossible to avoid the comparison.

That said, the younger Cronenberg remains in good company: some of the cinema’s most well-regarded filmmakers had to contend with parental legends of their own, emerging on the other side of acclaim with their own unique artistic voices in tact. And so to celebrate Brandon Cronenberg’s coming out party—and to wish him the best in more singular endeavors—we’ve come up with a list of 6 notable directors whose parents, directly or by example, taught them the rules of the game.

SOFIA COPPOLA
Parent: Francis Ford Coppola
Best Film: “Somewhere”

Though her father is responsible for some of the most well-regarded films of the 1970s, Sofia Coppola has proven herself over the course of just four films—with a fifth, “The Bling Ring”, due out in June—to be as important a cinematic voice to her generation as Francis Ford was to his. She made her name with the Oscar-winning tourist picture “Lost In Translation”, but it’s her last film, the masterful “Somewhere”, that confirmed her talent beyond reasonable objection. And where many the elder Coppola’s films, particularly “The Godfather” and “Apocalypse Now”, were steeped in a kind of exaggerated hyper-masculinity, Sofia is a veritable icon of modern feminist filmmaking.

OLIVIER ASSAYAS
Parent: Jacques Remy
Best Film: “Irma Vep”

Spoiler Warning? This is the last scene of “Irma Vep,” though it hardly *spoils* anything)

Perhaps the major figure of the contemporary French cinema, Olivier Assayas is, rather appropriately, the son of one of the classic French cinema’s most important screenwriters. Jacques Remy wrote for everyone from Rene Clement to Roger Vadim; and while his predates the nouvelle vague, his popularity in the mainstream during the 40s and 50s no doubt helped compel a young Olivier to seek out most radical alternatives. In his wonderful new film “Something in the Air”, Assayas dramatizes himself as an impressionable teenage falling into a crowd of rebels and experimental cinema enthusiasts, and it’s not hard to imagine the spectre of his father’s success looming in the background.

SERGIO LEONE
Parent: Roberto Roberti
Best Film: “A Fistful Of Dollars”

Roberto Roberti isn’t exactly a household name anymore, but the father of spaghetti western auteur Sergio Leone was a central presence in Italy’s burgeoning silent cinema, producing more than fifty films between 1912 and 1926. It wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that the silent film grammar in which his father was fluent had an indelible impression on Leone’s sensibility, whose defining western style—he favored long takes and faces held in wordless close-up—strongly recalls an earlier era.

JACQUES TOURNEUR
Parent: Maurice Tourneur
Best Film: “I Walked With A Zombie”

It’s heartening that Jacques Tourneur, a long-standing purveyor of low-budget RKO horror films, is finally beginning to receive a degree of retroactive (and well-deserved) critical due, because films like “Cat People”, “The Leopard Man” and, of course, “I Walked With A Zombie” are as important to the b-movie canon as any picture you’d care to name. Jacques was also the son of Maurice Tourneur, whose oeuvre has always been regarded as more plainly respectable; after immigrating to America in 1914, he became a prolific director of silent films, and is now remembered as one of the most cherished (if minor) filmmakers of the period.

JOHN HYAMS
Parent: Peter Hyams
Best Film: “Universal Soldier: Regeneration”

Peter Hyams made a career out of ludicrous action, bestowing the cinema which such vaunted modern classics as the Jean-Claude Van Damme vehicles “Timecop” and “Sudden Death”, but it’s his son, rising star John Hyams, whose transformed the raw materials of that legacy into something like pop art. Like his father, John works with low-budget action heavyweights like JCVD and Dolph Lundgren, and, like his father’s films, John’s are often excessively violent and jubilantly vulgar.

The difference is one of approach: where Peter was a reliable but unexceptional craftsman, John fancies himself more the self-styled artiste, taking as many cues from Gaspar Noe and David Lynch as he does the old-school action canon. His recent “Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning” was well-received by critics for pandering quite conspicuously to the arthouse crowd, making a show of its “Lost Highway” references and relying on strobe lights and atmosphere as much as guns and fists.

AZAZEL JACOBS
Parent: Ken Jacobs
Best Film: “Terri”

Azazel Jacobs has taken more or less the opposite strategy to careerism as Brandon Cronenberg. His father, Ken Jacobs, is a widely respected experimental filmmaker of the purest variety, the kind of avant-gardist whose opus is a seven-hour found footage installation. Azazel, on the other hand, has found considerable excess making mostly accessible independent dramedies. His most recent film, the critically acclaimed Sundance hit “Terri”, seems a kind of directorial calling card for a filmmaker clearly on the rise, and it suggests that Azazel’s ambitions are considerably more commercially oriented than his father’s ever were.

Categories: Features, Lists

Tags: Antiviral, Brandon cronenberg, Calum Marsh, Jacques Tourneur, John hyams, Sergio leone, Sofia coppola, Somewhere

The Great Debate: SXSW vs. Sundance

Our Great Debate this week addresses an explosive question that has incited arguments among philosophers and brought nations to war: Sundance or SXSW? I am pleased to take the Sundance side of the debate; joining me on the opposing (losing) side, speaking up for SXSW, is Rob Hunter of Film School Rejects. Both parties stipulate that they hold both film festivals in high esteem, and that it’s not an either/or situation, this is a rhetorical exercise, yada yada. Let’s debate!

Eric D. Snider, Team Sundance: Let me say up front that I love both festivals. I look forward to them every year, each for different reasons. But by almost every standard of measurement, Sundance is the better festival. The average quality of the films is generally higher at the ‘dance — I know there are clunkers, but I’m talking overall — and the films that play in Utah’s snowy climes are more often the ones that go on to be significant spokes in the indie-cinema wheel. SXSW is more fun and has better weather, but those qualities are merely cosmetic.

Rob Hunter, Team SXSW: It appears that I’ve already won this so-called debate as you’ve not only conceded your love for SXSW but also acknowledged it’s more fun than Sundance, but I’ll go through the motions anyway. The quality of films argument is a bit misleading for the simple fact that many of the “best” movies there also find a home at the ‘west. So you can argue that Utah sees them first, by a matter of weeks, but their appearance in Austin pretty much negates the “better” distinction. And if I’m seeing the same movies in both places then those cosmetic qualities you spoke of start to play a bigger role.

Snider, Team Sundance: Rob, you ignorant slut. Surely the fun quotient is not the most important factor. Yes, SXSW is more fun than Sundance. You know what’s more fun than both of them? Disneyland. Does that mean Disneyland is the better film festival? No. That’s dumb. Why would you even say that? Are you even listening to yourself?

I enjoy a good time as much as the next person (unless the next person is Gary Busey), but that’s not what makes one film festival better than another. The quality of the films is the most critical factor. And while you’re right that SXSW shows SOME of Sundance’s standouts, it certainly doesn’t get all of them. In addition, SXSW’s average is brought down by — let’s be honest — a lot of world premieres (especially among narratives) that simply aren’t very good. I don’t mean that as a slam on SXSW, which is much newer than Sundance and has different priorities. But if quality is the key component, Sundance has SXSW beat.

Sundance also plays a large role in shaping the course of independent film for the year. Last year’s lineup included “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” “The Sessions,” “Safety Not Guaranteed,” “V/H/S,” “Searching for Sugarman,” and “The Queen of Versailles.” Quality aside, there’s no denying those were some of the most talked-about and influential indie films of 2012. And Sundance does it every year. How often are the reverberations of SXSW’s premieres felt once the fest is over?

Hunter, Team SXSW: They say insults and name-calling are the last refuge of an out-argued and drowning man who feels compelled to wear wizard hats to cover his sparsely populated pate, so I’ll be avoiding a descent to your level except to say that I am far from ignorant.

The debate here is in regards to which fest is better, and since that’s a highly intangible and subjective term it has to broken into smaller qualifiers. The fun quotient is one such qualifier, and there’s no question that SXSW wins that round. There’s simply more to do in between films, and even the fest runners bring the funny and entertaining through their bumpers and creatively-written “No talking, cell phones, etc” warnings before each film. And your incorrect claim that Disneyland is fun aside, your analogy is nonsensical. You may as well argue that the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is the better film fest because it featured more volunteers.

And while SXSW doesn’t get all of the Sundance standouts, this year shows that it can get the best. “Upstream Color,” “Before Midnight,” “Prince Avalanche,” “Mud,” “Don Jon,” “VHS2,” “The Spectacular Now,” “The East”… Sure, they missed “The Way Way Back,” but at least SXSW was smart enough to not grab “Fruitvale.” Sundance has just as high a percentage of duds as SXSW because it’s a matter of math as much as anything else.

The difference is that Sundance has a certain illusory cachet about it that makes people “think” its films are the best of the best even when they’re not. Your own example of “Beasts of the Southern Wild” shows that they can even make amateurish, over-reaching garbage smell like award-worthy roses.

But how about the audience quotient? Because it only took one trip to Sundance for me to recognize that it is not a film fest designed for movie lovers. It’s a buyer’s market designed for people on cell phones who have no compunction about walking out early from every single film they see.

Snider, Team Sundance: I will have you know, sir, that this is a prescription hat.

It’s appropriate that you ignored my question about how often SXSW films make a splash outside of SXSW, because it was a rhetorical question, because the answer is PRETTY MUCH NEVER. You may not have liked “Fruitvale” at Sundance (making you part of a very small group), but do you doubt it will be a significant part of the conversation this year?

There’s nothing about Sundance that gives its films a false aura of excellence. To say that is to ignore the many Sundance films that are panned and disregarded: if you think Sundance critics go easy on stuff just because it’s a “Sundance movie,” you’re not paying attention. (And not for nothing, but plenty of so-so films get a HUGE crowd response at the Paramount Theatre during SXSW — and then, appropriately, fall into oblivion.)

Both fests have good and bad movies. We agree on that. I contend that if you were to watch and grade every single film at both festivals in any given year, the average Sundance score would be higher than the average SXSW score. If you were to count only the films making their world premieres at either fest, the difference would be even more stark. That’s just math, “Rob Hunter” (if that is even your name).

Sundance’s press and industry screenings do attract douchebag industry types whose cell phones glow during the film and who leave once they decide they’re not going to buy the film. But the Sundance public screenings are often exciting gatherings of movie fans from around the world, a mixture of glitz-and-glamour and good old-fashioned cinemania. Those lucky people are often among the very first to see excellent movies that are destined for cultural significance later in the year.

We have reached the end of our debate time. The moderator is waving the flag. I will give you the last word, Mr. “Hunter.”

Hunter, Team SXSW: Your argument seems to hinge mostly on timing in that Sundance gets these “important” films first, but by that standard we could just as easily be arguing that Cannes or Toronto are the better fests as the movies that hit big there often become the conversation throughout the following year. And I can’t argue with the calendar.

Your math-ish contention about watching, grading, collating and analyzing every single film at each fest is a hypothetical that shan’t ever be proven. And I can’t argue with a negative.

Your distinction between the P&I and public screenings at Sundance raises an interesting point though. I’d argue that festival audiences in general are not ideal audiences with which to watch films, but while I witnessed walk-outs and cell phones at every single screening I attended at Sundance they were more prevalent in the P&I ones. And I can’t argue with you being mildly correct in that distinction.

Your argument that you didn’t make is the one I agree with most. Sundance is most definitely the best fest for filmmakers in that the perception and cache surrounding it all often provide enough attention to secure distribution deals and such. Movie fans don’t care about that though, and the fact that they can see many of those same movies a few weeks later in a warmer, friendlier location with better food options, beautiful walking trails and scantily clad human billboards pretty much seals the deal on the audience side of things.

But my final point regarding which of the two film festivals is better comes down to an irrefutable fact from which you will have no possible rejoinder… I’ve never seen Jeff Wells at SXSW.

Snider, Team Sundance: I lied when I said I’d give you the last word (and also when I told you I loved you). Please permit me to conclude by saying that I believe Sundance is the better film festival — but as a movie lover, if I had to choose (which I don’t), I would rather attend SXSW. But Sundance is better, so there.

Categories: Features

Tags: Eric Snider, Rob Hunter, Sundance, SXSW, The Great Debate

‘Oz’ Is Both Great and Powerful at the Box Office

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He’s just counting his money.

Yes, as expected, “Oz the Great and Powerful” completely destroyed the box office this weekend, racking up an impressive $80.3 million domestically for the biggest release of the year as well as the third biggest March release in film history.  Only last year’s “The Hunger Games” ($152.5 million) and 2010's “Alice in Wonderland” ($116.1 million) did better.

The success of “Alice in Wonderland,” of course, prompted Disney to begin production on “Oz the Great and Powerful,” with the studio releasing the film on the same weekend in hopes of replicating “Alice in Wonderland’s” monumental $1 billion final take.

But while those kind of numbers seem unlikely — “Oz the Great and Powerful” earned an additional $69.9 million overseas for a total of $150.2 million worldwide, while “Alice in Wonderland” took in $210.1 million worldwide in its opening frame — “Oz the Great and Powerful” does seem set to more than recoup Disney’s estimated $215 million investment.

Betting that kind of money on a relatively unproven star like James Franco was a pretty big risk. But with work already well underway on a sequel (or midquel, or… whatever), it looks like this is one gamble that is going to pay off big time.

The same can’t be said for anything else at the box office this weekend, however. “Jack the Giant Slayer” dropped to second place in its second weekend, earning just $10 million. That brings its domestic total to only $43.8 million so far, putting it on track to become one of the biggest financial disasters in recent memory. And new release “Dead Man Down” turned out to have a strangely prophetic title, as the Colin Farrell revenge flick opened to just $5.4 million.

Looks like this weekend, “Oz the Great and Powerful” used up all the fairy tale endings.

Here’s a look at the full box office chart, courtesy of Hollywood.com:

1. “Oz the Great and Powerful” – $80.3m (our review)
2. “Jack the Giant Slayer” – $10m (our review)
3. “Identity Thief” – $6.3m (our review)
4. “Dead Man Down” – $5.4m (our review)
5. “Snitch” – $5.1m (our review)
6. “21 and Over” – $5.1m (our review)
7. “Safe Haven” – $3.8m (our review)
8. “Silver Linings Playbook” – $3.7m (our review)
9. “Escape From Planet Earth” – $3.2m (our review)
10. “The Last Exorcism Part II” – $3.1m (our review)

Categories: News

Tags: Box office, Oz: The Great and Powerful

Review: ‘Oz the Great and Powerful’

As a professional, I’m loathe to ever step out of the theater while a film is rolling, but a dire need to relieve my bladder during “Oz: The Great and Powerful” reached an unbearable point. I did a quick dash down the stairs and to the gents’, forgoing my one and only opportunity to skip through a hallway singing “we’re off to take a whizzer.” With great speed I settled back in my seat, to find James Franco’s transported Kansas huckster racing in histrionic fear with his computer generated compatriots – pretty much just as I’d left them.

I turned to my wife and whispered, “what’d I miss?” The blank look she shot me in response said it all.

The thing is this: neither she nor I disliked “Oz: The Great and Powerful.” Indeed, as one who holds great fondness for the early, more aggressive work of Sam Raimi I found sequences in this film to be his best in years. But don’t think for a minute that its story is anything other than a joke, a mere excuse to play around with outrageous colors and let actors chomp on some splendid digital scenery. Considering how these movies usually go, this attitude is wonderfully refreshing.

The opening of “Oz” is remarkable. With a funhouse credits sequence that exploits 3D like a kid let behind the ice cream counter, Raimi sets up shop at a traveling circus. There, a somewhat rakish magician (Franco) is caught mid-bullshit with a local gal he’s got his eyes on. On stage, his stentorian tone and hokey act have a genuine charm. These short scenes among the tents is some of the most loving “join the circus” stuff since Woody Allen’s “Shadows and Fog” from 1991.

When an angry, singlet-wearing strong man chases Franco away, his hot air balloon (don’t ask) heads straight into a tornado. Evoking Raimi’s former leading man Bruce Campbell, Franco turns his face to jelly as the camera zooms in and around him at unconventional angles, dented calliopes flying at his head, until the image expands from a 4:3 ratio to widescreen and color takes over.

 

He’s landed in the land of Oz, where he’s soon introduced to witches (Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz), talking monkeys and a little girl made of ceramic. In classic Preston Sturges form he’s mistaken for the prophesied Wizard who will bring peace and order to the realm. Franco does little to protest the claim, especially once he sees his throne, scepter and Scrooge McDuck money pit. Frankly, the characters don’t matter. The dialogue doesn’t matter. The performances, however, are quite extraordinary. Franco’s delivery of “so long, suckers!” does a great deal to inform this movie. Moments later, in a lake, he shouts “I can’t swim!” There’s no one else around, so you wouldn’t be wrong in asking “who’s he talking to?” The raised eyebrows and slightly silly tone is all a little bit of a put on, but not so much that kids (or idiots) will notice. Neither Franco nor anyone else goes full Depp in this one.

Milking it more than Franco, however, is Michelle Williams, whose dimples ought to have their own SAG card. As Glinda the Good Witch each moment she’s on screen is a complex waltz between irony and sincerity. It’s the type of performance Catherine O’Hara would give in one of the more high concept “SCTV” sketches – the ones where there weren’t any noticeable jokes. Only here it is in a gorgeous costume beside state of the art effects.

Now, finally, we get to the real star of the movie: Oz. You don’t get much more iconic than the Emerald City, and Raimi’s team nails it. There’s a fealty to the original film (lots of red smoke, the guards’ costumes, etc.) but it’s all done up big and beautiful. The third act of “Oz: The Great and Powerful” goes on and on and on, and under normal circumstances I’d be tapping my watch in anticipation of that final boss fight. This time, however, the visual aspects of the film more than made up for my complete lack of emotional attachment.

Raimi made a choice and it payed off. By treating the scenario as “almost a joke,” I stayed engaged because I was amused. Franco’s bluffing big speech to the troops at the end was so goofy I couldn’t help but laugh. Normally by this stage in a Hollywood effects-driven movie (say a ‘Wrath of the Titans’ or ‘Jack the Giant Slayer’) I’m just slumped over in my seat waiting for death. By lowering the stakes to the point of near-non existence, Raimi manages to keep things engaging, which is a very real act of wizardry in and of itself.

Grade B

Categories: Reviews

Tags: James franco, Michelle williams, Mila kunis, Oz: The Great and Powerful, Review, Sam raimi

The Great Debate: ‘Happy Gilmore’ vs. ‘Billy Madison’

Welcome to our monthly column, The Great Debate, where two genuinely intelligent critics face off to decide who rules Thunderdome. For this comedic edition, Film.com’s Laremy Legel will argue in favor of the slightly genius “Happy Gilmore.” Holding the flag for “Billy Madison” is Ben Kaplan, host of the Internet-acclaimed FilmDrunk podcast and founder of Automatik Clothing (T-shirts from the future). Gentlemen, let’s get it on!

Laremy Legel, Team “Happy”: “Happy Gilmore” works on a number of levels, though admittedly many Sandler films  have proven to be false idols over the last decade. Hi, “Jack and Jill”! But 1996 was a simpler time, wasn’t it? We still had a Pharaoh, and Hootie and his Blowfish were crushing the box office. Then, in February, “Happy Gilmore” quietly slid into theaters. Truth be told, not many folks saw it back then. But for those who did… Ah, what an impression it left.

So, Ben, I guess my opening gambit is this: Are you too good for your home?

Ben Kaplan, Team “Billy”: I may not be good enough for a 20,000 square foot palatial estate with a jet-skiing pool and maid’s quarters. Fortunately, “Billy Madison” is definitely not too good for the Madison Estate. (And neither are Professor X’s gifted youngsters, apparently. The Madison Estate was also used in the X-Men documentaries. Seriously.). Plus, 1995 was an even simpler time than 1996, when Billy Madison was playing water polo (or was it Marco Polo?) with the unforgettable Veronica Vaughn. Back when Nudie Magazine Day still meant something in this country. Ahhh, 1995, we miss you.

So, with that, I will answer your question with a question: How can you possibly defend a movie that does not even have Chris Farley as a scene-stealing bus driver?

Laremy Legel: I see your Chris Farley and raise you a Bob Barker! Bob Barker! Of Barker’s Beauties!

You’ve definitely got the advantage where living quarters are concerned, I completely cede that point. Poor Happy struggled to even get Nana’s home back. And well played on Veronica Vaughn, but I feel smugly confident about Julie Bowen’s Virginia Venit. Bowen went on to the hit TV show “Ed” — now she’s crushing it on “Modern Family”! Two Primetime Emmys don’t lie, scoreboard, #yolo.

But enough messing around, it’s time to pull out the big guns. Not to be a downer, but doesn’t the funniest joke in “Billy Madison” involve micturation? This is what you’re bringing to the table?

Ben Kaplan Damn! Foiled by Bob Barker once again!

I can’t lie — I had to look micturation up, and sadly the Internet did not take me to Urban Dictionary, AKA “The Modern Man’s Dictionary.” Yes, Grandma saying that she is Miles Davis cool because she frequently micturates her pants is funny indeed. The truth of the matter is the funniest joke in “Billy Madison” occurs when the moderator of the decathlon declares everyone officially stupider for hearing Billy’s response in the debate (“The Puppy Who Lost His Way,” anyone?), awarding him no points and asking God to have mercy on Billy’s eternal soul.

I can’t stand giving my opponent here any ammunition, but “Happy” does feature arguably the best supporting role in the history of cinema. Not a day goes by, not a day, that I do not quote a line from this great actor’s scenes. How was this not your opening argument for the film?

Laremy Legel: Are you talking about Shooter McGavin? I hope you’re talking about Shooter McGavin. Hmmm, this feels like a trap.

“I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul,” is indeed money in the bank. See, that’s the thing that’s hard about arguing against “Billy Madison.” I love “Billy Madison”! And the penguins! Did they tell you to do this, Ben? This is like the Civil War all over again. Now I completely get why Daniel Day-Lewis was so troubled.

Okay, okay, keep it together, Legel, you’ve got an Internet popularity contest to win.

Here is a real reason “Happy” must be chosen above “Billy.” Science! Did you know that Happy’s swing would actually work in real life? THAT IS SCIENCE. You’ve been beaten by science.

Oh wait, did you mean Ben Stiller? Now you’ve just pulled lawn duty! Arrgh, the suspense is making me crazy!

Ben Kaplan I can’t believe you pulled out the Sports Science card! Nearly an unfair advantage. I am just glad science is here to remind us that Happy Gilmore’s swing changed the golf game forever.

And while I can’t argue with Shooter McGavin’s legendary performance (finger guns AND he fires his caddy mid-round? Tremendous!), I am, of course, referring to Ben Stiller. And who pulls “lawn duty”?? It’s Landscaping Duty, Legel! Have you ever left the house? “You can have a warm glass of shut the hell up”? “You will go to sleep or I will put you to sleep”? Those lines are classic, and they echo in eternity.

I leave you with this to chew on: Billy Madison’s dad is played by Darren McGavin. You think he is related to Shooter? He must be, right? Probably his brother.

Laremy Legel: You fell right into that one. Now I have you quoting “Happy Gilmore” back to me. A classic blogger’s trick! We call it trollin’ and rollin’. Funny terms for things keep the blog engines running, that’s what my pappy always said.

Now that I’ve got you on the run, I’ll drop some more knowledge on your head. First off, “Happy Gilmore” made more money. Secondly, it has a higher RottenTomatoes score. Thirdly, the IMDB score on “Happy” is higher. Fourthly, I win. Other than the critics, general audience and the Internet, you’ve got a good case.

[Takes a bow]

Ben Kaplan Trolled and rolled!?! Drats! Well, while you may have me with all of your fancy “statistics,” try this on for size:

Billy Madison’s dad is played by Darren McGavin (FACT). What if Darren McGavin IS Shooter (Darren “Shooter” McGavin??), and Billy’s dad is also Happy’s nemesis!? I don’t know what it all means, but I have a feeling that this conspiracy goes all the way to the top. Or it could just be total coincidence, but I really don’t think so.

Billy also has a scene in which we get to laugh uproariously at someone who is literally engulfed in flames (the cooking contest during the decathlon). Have we ever laughed that hard at a human fireball before or since? I think not.

Also, Veronica Vaughn. I’m standing by that one.

Laremy Legel: I feel like “Apocalypse Now” probably had one of those fireball scenes, but there’s no way I’m researching that particular point (again). I’ll even give you Bridgette Wilson-Sampras. Sure, go ahead, continue with your ogling. Happy ain’t care.

But your blatant attempt to muddy the waters with the conspiracy theory can’t go unchecked. So here’s a bit more trivia (Latin for “tributary”) that will completely knock your socks off. It’s clear from watching “Happy Gilmore” that Shooter McGavin wants you to do what he says. Or you’ll pay. Go lay by the bay! Case closed, amiright?

In summation, even you’ve got to admit that “Happy Gilmore” trounces “Billy Madison” in every category that matters. It’s really not even close. “Happy Gilmore” is doing an end zone dance while “Billy Madison” waits forlornly for his nudie magazine.

Regardless, we’re about to turn this over to the voters, whom I’m certain will carry me to victory because democracy never lies. Any last words, hombre? Perhaps I’ll see you after match, in the clubhouse?

Ben Kaplan I vaguely recall a “funny man on fire” in the Director’s Cut Extended Edition Criterion Collection of “Apocalypse Now.”

While I concede that “Happy” wins in categories that you no doubt skewed to suit your argument, “Billy” wins handily in the following categories:

1) Steve Buscemi applying lipstick

2) Giant penguins drinking umbrella cocktails
3) Adam Sandler talking gibberish
4) Chris Farley driving a bus while wearing 9 chins

You play a tough game, Legel. While I am honored to have fought this historic battle with you on the Internet, I only hope someday our paths shall cross again. Maybe next time we can debate “Ace Ventura” vs. “Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls.” Bumblebee tuna, anyone?

Categories: Features

Tags: adam sandler, Billy Madison, Chris Farley, Happy Gilmore, steve buscemi, The Great Debate, Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, Steve Buscemi