Cranky Hanke’s Weekly Reeler: Keeping it at Bay June 24-30

In theaters

Shortly before this column appears online, I was sitting in a theater getting a slight jump on the public by seeing Michael Bay’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. It was either see it at 10 a.m, or see it at midnight and while neither time greatly appeals to me, I make it a practice not to undertake 147 minute movies—that will be much nearer three hours by the time you factor in trailers—at midnight whenever possible.

It will surprise no one that I am not looking forward to Transformers with keen anticipation. I hated the first film and see nothing to indicate that this one will be appreciably different. Do I hear cries of “bias?” Well, yes, I’m biased. That happens when you’re going to see a sequel to a movie you found spectacularly obnoxious. I admit I am curious to see whether or not it’s true that Michael Bay has afforded one of the robots testicles. It seems improbable to me, but then again this is the guy who found rats that would copulate on cue and worked them into Bad Boys II (2003).  That he didn’t have them explode is a miracle of restraint. That is probably the first and last time Bay has been accused of restraint.

While caring very little about the movie, I do find myself once again fascinated by the fans as they lie in wait on Rotten Tomatoes just waiting to go ballistic on any critic who dares find Transformers—a movie they’ve mostly not seen, mind you—less than terrific. There are some choice comments to be found. I particularly liked, “I guess if you are a movie critic, your continued income is based upon how valid and clever your reviews are.” Who would have thought?

And from the Home for the Functionally Illiterate we have, “dude..u thought Happening was good??? it says alot about ur taste in movies… just go back and review Moulan Rouge or Brockback Mountains..those movies suits u the best…thats for ur 2 cents but no thanks..i can’t believe someone is payin you to write crap.” (This one is based on the idea that you can discredit any critic if you can find some movie of debatable quality he or she has liked.) I won’t even try to make sense out of, “Go write some poetry or cry that a tree just got cut down ya hippie. If giant transforming robots bores you then you have no idea what your looking at and should stick with said poetry and tree hugging. Hippie.”

Far and away my favorite, though, is this pearl of wisdom—“How can you say that Transformers is boring? You clearly have no idea what movies are about!” So there.

It slightly surprises me that anyone is bothering to release anything else this week, but not only do we get Nick Cassavetes’ My Sister’s Keeper in general release and the Israeli drama Lemon Tree at the Fine Arts, but Focus Features is taking Sam Mendes’ Away We Go wider this week. That one you won’t find in the upcomers in the print edition of the Xpress because news of its appearance this week came long after the deadline. I admit to a certain fascination with the idea of Mendes making a comedy, but I can’t help having reservations about the results.

Of course, Easy Virtue (which, by the way, had its biggest opening in North Carolina in Asheville this past weekend), The Brothers Bloom and Up are still playing—and there are two shows of Anvil! (Friday and Saturday at 9:15 only at the Fine Arts) still to be caught before it takes its leave.

Notable DVD releases

As one of the handful of people who genuinely liked P.J. Hogan’s Confessions of a Shopaholic, I have to admit I’ll be adding this charming, whimsical and slightly fantasticated romantic comedy starring Isla Fisher and Hugh Dancy to my shelves. And if you didn’t see it in theaters, it’s at least worth a rental. Also worth a rental is Iain Softley’s much maligned—and far from perfect—Inkheart, though I’d probably draw the line at actually buying it.

Waltz with Bashir was a film I admired more than I liked and I have no desire to see it again, but since so few people locally went to see it in the theater, I’d recommend giving it a try at home—especially, if you’re in the market for something a little different. There just aren’t that many animated documentaries. And for those who think I’m elitist and don’t care about “normal” movies, I offer for your consideration Louis Malle’s My Dinner with Andre (1981). Here we have a film I’m supposed to like for its profundity and insight and all that. Well, it actually rates as pretty close to the most mind-numbing two hours I’ve ever spent in a theater. If you want pretentious and dull, you can’t do any better than this.

On TV

Turner Classic Movies wraps up its “Great Directors” month with W.S. Van Dyke, Stanley Kubrick, Budd Boetticher, Federico Fellini, David Lean, Norman Jewison, Alfred Hitchcock, George Cukor, Sidney Lumet, Cecil B. DeMille, Robert Z. Leonard and Anthony Mann. Even though I find myself at odds with some of the choices—I’ve yet to be convinced that Boetticher is even interesting, let alone great, and the same goes for Anthony Mann, while Robert Z. Leonard seems pure studio craftsman with no discernible style of his own—this series continues to be a pretty nifty crash course. My only caveat is that it’s hardly a definitive list of great directors—merely a look in on some of the greats and quite a few of the significantly less than great.

It’s certainly nice to see W.S. Van Dyke on the roster. “Woody”—sometimes known as “One Take”—Van Dyke is an often overlooked filmmaker, because of his ability to crank out movies with almost alarming proficiency. He signed his name to 31 movies between 1931 and 1939. By the end of 1942, he’d made another 10, but was by then dying from cancer and committed suicide in early 1943. The sheer number of movies he made has caused him to be undervalued, as has the variety of genres he worked in—everything from documentaries to comedies to mysteries to operettas to soap operas to action/adventure to spectacles. He made the first Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan picture, Tarzan the Ape Man (1932) and all three of the 1930s “Thin Man” movies, not to mention the best of the Jeanette MacDonald-Nelson Eddy movies. (If you look him up on the IMDb, you’ll find him listed as “uncredited” on some films, but this is because the IMBd seems unaware that in the 1930s, the phrase “A W.S. Van Dyke Production” was the equivalent of today’s “A film by W.S. Van Dyke.”)

TCM offers a day of Van Dyke movies on Wednesday, June 24 starting at 6 a.m. and including Tarzan the Ape Man (1932), Naughty Marietta (1935), San Francisco (1936) and the first two “Thin Man” movies, The Thin Man (1934) and After the Thin Man (1936). They’re slick, they’re efficient, and they’re among some of the most entertaining movies you’ll find anywhere.

In a somewhat similar vein, we find one of the few other filmmakers who could retain his personality while working at the MGM factory—George Cukor. Cukor’s movies are less fast-paced than Van Dyke’s and he’s sometimes dismissed as a “woman’s director” (that’s code for “gay”), but take a look at some of Cukor’s best work on June 28. Among other notable titles, there’s Dinner at Eight (1933), David Copperfield (1935), The Philadelphia Story (1940) and The Women (1939)—all rich works from Cukor’s MGM period.

 

SHARE
About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress from December 2000 until his death in June 2016. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

14 thoughts on “Cranky Hanke’s Weekly Reeler: Keeping it at Bay June 24-30

  1. Justin Souther

    I admit I am curious to see whether or not it’s true that Michael Bay has afforded one of the robots testicles.

    For the record, this is in the film.

    The scary part is that it’s debatable whether or not this is the most tasteless thing in the movie.

  2. Matt Howard

    I have my ticket to the midnight showing.
    Yes, I like big stompy robots, nay love them. But I also get that they dont have universal appeal.
    Hey, I cant stand sports.

  3. Ken Hanke

    The scary part is that it’s debatable whether or not this is the most tasteless thing in the movie.

    I don’t think it is.

  4. Ken Hanke

    But I also get that they dont have universal appeal.
    Hey, I cant stand sports.

    Now, see, there we could probably have a very nice chat on the latter. Well, I kind of like badminton.

  5. I have my ticket to the midnight showing.
    Yes, I like big stompy robots, nay love them. But I also get that they dont have universal appeal.
    Hey, I cant stand sports.

    I have a 10 year old boy, so you know that I am going. I did like the last one… I’ve learned to embrace my inner-Bay.

  6. Matt Howard

    I found the new Transformers a bit of a let down. Pointlessly crude and human-centric too.
    Mind you, I went into the first one with low expectations and came away plesantly suprised. But I was hoping for a better movie this time round and did not get it. It did have it’s moments. I enjoyed all the Decepticon head trauma Optimus Prime dished out, but you could cut out half the movie and call it an improvement.
    The things I did like about the movie, I credit the effects wizards at ILM, not Bay.

  7. “my inner-Bay”

    There should be a low-cost operation to remove that, treating it like any other malignant growth.

    It does amuse me that a cartoon series conceived to sell a toy line (which as far as I can determine, was itself based on the notion that “Hey, boys like playing with toy cars and robots! Let’s stick ’em together!”) has become a movie franchise apparently conceived, outside of an excuse for explosions and property damage, to sell cars. I kept seeing obnoxious ads for the Camaro which also plugged Transformers, or were they ads for Transformers which also plugged Camaros? Tis a puzzlement.

    Of course, we still have “GI Joe” to fear as well (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, of all people, *is* the Cobra Commander!)

  8. I have a 10 year old boy, so you know that I am going. I did like the last one… I’ve learned to embrace my inner-Bay.
    That’s akin to embracing your inner Satanist.

  9. Ken Hanke

    I found the new Transformers a bit of a let down.

    That’s the kindest remark I’ve encountered.

  10. Ken Hanke

    Of course, we still have “GI Joe” to fear as well (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, of all people, *is* the Cobra Commander!)

    It interests me to see how generational all this is. To me, G.I. Joe is a 12 inch doll with 21 moveable parts. That’s it. Even his “Kung Fu Grip” is a bit past my era. The cartoon and all the rest of it is irrelevant to my childhood, but then I took my G.I. Joe, covered him in tin foil and made a stop-motion 8mm movie (those 21 moveable parts were a boon) with Joe as a giant robot. I was ahead of the Transformers curve, I guess. I was also about 10 years old.

  11. Ken Hanke

    That’s akin to embracing your inner Satanist.

    Aleister Crowley may rise from the grave and slap you.

  12. Matt Howard

    I do have some kind things to say about the movie. But then again, while I while I dont wear it on my sleeve like some people, I am a hopeless transformers geek. The robot on robot violence was great! But there was way too much crude humor and bad racial stereotypes in between the good parts.

  13. >It interests me to see how generational all this >is.

    It is. And also depended on one’s interests. I was around almost at the right time to in theory be part of the “nostalgia” audience for these things, but my parents were against violent toys and cartoons, plus when they debuted I was under ten and even without parental restrictions more apt to watch either Flintstones reruns and the like or Laurel and Hardy (back when a “Scrapbook” syndicated package was still airing), so I don’t think either would have interested me anyway.

    I played with Mr. Potato Head (perhaps the one guaranteed good thing about a “Toy Story 3” is that it will forestall an attempt to turn *that* into a movie franchise) and then progressed to Legos (which have spawned video games I have no interest in, and now have more movie/pop culture tie-ins in their sets, but otherwise are not likely to go beyond their sphere and are relatively little changed, outside of recently adding Lego cows, suitable for blocking the progress of one’s Lego trains). And oh yes, I read books.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.