It’s been ten years since the DVD release of the classic “slob vs. snob” comedy Caddyshack.
Now, for the 30th anniversary, Warner is putting Caddyshack on Blu-Ray (list price $24.98), accompanied by a new documentary called “Caddyshack: The Inside Story”. It features new interviews with much of the cast as well as behind-the-scenes stories about the making of the film and current-day visits to the filming location.
As is typical of studio strategy these days, the accompanying DVD release, although reasonably priced at $12.97, does not have the new doc on it. Thankfully, we caught it on the Biography channel. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be airing again any time soon, but I would hope it would pop up again as the release date gets closer. It’s a fun reminiscence of a great comedy. The Blu-Ray will be out on June 8 and also includes the featurette from the previous DVD release, “The 19th Hole”.
by Roger Ash
In anticipation of the release of The Princess and the Frog on DVD and Blu-Ray tomorrow, Disney hosted a virtual roundtable with the film’s directors, Ron Clements and John Musker. When Johanna asked if I’d be willing to attend, I jumped at the chance. First, I love Disney animation, and the return to classically drawn animation with The Princess and the Frog made this one of the films I was really looking forward to this past year. When I saw it on the big screen, I was in heaven. I had a smile on my face the whole time. (Well, except for the sad parts.) Second, Clements and Musker have co-directed many of my favorite modern Disney animated films such as The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Hercules. This event was custom made for someone like me.
If you haven’t seen the film, here’s a brief description. This may contain some spoilers, but if you’ve seen the trailer, this will give away no more than that. The movie is a twist on the Frog Prince story set in New Orleans. Visiting Prince Naveen is turned into a frog by a Bokur (a Voodoo Priest who practices black magic) named Dr. Facilier. When a young woman named Tiana kisses the frog Naveen, hoping to turn him human, she turns into a frog herself. With the help of their friends — Louis the alligator and Ray, a Cajun firefly — Naveen and Tiana attempt to find Mama Odie, a Voodoo Priestess, whom they believe can reverse the spell. There’s more to the story, but I don’t want to spoil anything.
The roundtable began by viewing two special features: deleted scenes and live-action reference. The four deleted scenes were
These scenes were never animated and are shown in storyboard form. They were all repurposed and used in different forms in the film, but it’s interesting to see how the story developed.
It may surprise you to know that live-action reference is often shot to assist animators. While they don’t actually trace the action, it can be useful to see actual movement, how fabric flows, how light sources can affect the scene, and other such elements that bring a sense of reality to the animation. The two filmed sequences shown were for Mama Odie’s song “Dig a Little Deeper” and for a scene between Tiana’s friend Charlotte and Naveen’s servant Lawrence. Clements and Musker talked through these sequences, which are intercut with animation, explaining how these were used to help with the finished animation. It’s another enjoyable peek behind the scenes.
John Musker and Ron Clements
Following the video, Clements and Musker both answered questions about the film. Proving that no story is created in a vacuum and animation is a time-consuming process, Clements said that “a few years ago, Pixar had explored a version of “The Frog Prince” set in gangland Chicago. John Lasseter wanted to switch the locale to New Orleans, a city he loves, but the project was eventually shelved. Meanwhile Disney had explored various versions of “The Frog Prince” going all the way back to the time of Beauty and the Beast. In 2006, Disney bought the rights to a book called The Frog Princess, which was the fairy tale with a twist. When the princess kissed the frog, she turned into a frog as well. When John Lasseter was put in charge of Disney animation in February 2006, he asked John and me to take a look at all the previous versions and come up with our own. We combined the New Orleans setting with the twist, added some new characters and pitched a take that became the basis for the movie.”
The twists to the story were important, as was keeping the classic Disney feel to the film, as Clements later explained. “From the beginning, we thought of Tiana as someone who would never have been a big fan of Disney fairy tales. Our attempt was to take a lot of the archetypal elements of these films — the prince’s loyal manservant, the fairy godmother, the wishing star, death and resurrection, etc. — and add some kind of twist to them. But we were always thinking of this as a kind of retro film, trying to recapture a bit of what Disney magic means to us.”
They go on to say that the look of the film is influenced by Bambi and Lady and the Tramp, as well as the city of New Orleans itself. A notable exception to this is Tiana’s song “Almost There”, which has a look all its own. According to Musker, “The styling was based on the great Harlem renaissance artist Aaron Douglas. Sue Nichols Maciorowski, a wonderful viz dev artist brought his work to our attention.” Another Disney employee who had an effect on the film was post-production intern Jaimie Milner, who was used for some reference for the look of Tiana.
The pair praised the work of the voice actors, with both mentioning how much fun it was to work with Jim Cummings, who voiced Ray the firefly. They also said that Randy Newman was their first choice to write the songs and music for the film and how important his contributions were to the final movie. “We wrote the script without songs but knowing where they might fall,” said Musker. “Randy then wrote songs that in some cases absorbed some of our dialogue. Randy’s writing of Facilier’s song, in which he gave him several sardonic asides, influenced us to try and put that quality and tone into his other, non-musical scenes as well. [Newman] wrote the songs over the course of a year and a half as we animated the movie, although we would always animate the song after he had written and recorded it. (In animation, voices are recorded before animation, not dubbed in later.)”
For those of you who like to find visual in-jokes in animated movies, there are numerous ones in The Princess and the Frog, including caricatures of various Disney employees and nods to previous films. According to Clements, “Almost all this stuff was deliberate and done for our own amusement. Actually, most of the Mardi Gras floats are based on movies John and I worked on. Along with the ‘Mermaid’ float, there are brief shots of an ‘Arabian Nights’ float, a Greek mythology float, and a pirate float. There are also caricatures of John and I on the mermaid float throwing beads to the crowd. There are many other caricatures of people who worked on the movie that pop up throughout. Many other Disney references as well. We don’t want any of this stuff to be distracting. Just a little something extra for whoever may catch it.”
Getting a peek behind the scenes of The Princess and the Frog made me excited to watch it again. It is a wonderful return to classic Disney animation with a modern twist. But don’t just take my word for it, give the movie a look for yourself and see what you think.
Ponyo is the newest Studio Ghibli movie to come to DVD in the U.S. Thanks to Ed’s laptop, I was able to sample this in Blu-Ray. (Although we had a bit of trouble getting the thing to talk to my television. I thought it would be as simple as plugging in the cable to the HDMI port, but it seems that you have to disable the laptop screen to get the TV image to show; otherwise, the software gives you “does not support protected content” messages. Piracy would have been faster and simpler. Pardon my digression.)
Ponyo is writer/director Hayao Miyazaki’s take on the Little Mermaid story. The title character, voiced by Miley’s sister Noah Cyrus, is a a plump goldfish (although I think of her as more like a koi, those ornamental carp), the daughter of an underwater magician (Liam Neeson) and an ocean goddess. She falls asleep in a jellyfish bubble that gives her her first glimpse of the human world and the boy Sosuke (Frankie Jonas, younger brother of those Jonases), who lives in a seaside fishing village. She becomes trapped in a glass jar when a huge boat stirs up all kinds of trash from the bottom, and Sosuke frees her, beginning their friendship.
It’s a charming fable — every kid dreams of a magical pet friend — with an obvious but still potent message against pollution and for imagination and wonder. Ponyo’s quest to be human (which makes her look, at first, like a cross between a frog and chicken) and reunite with her friend ends up setting loose too much magic, which threatens to cause a tsunami and drown the village. I’m glad I was watching this with Ed, who’d seen this before, because he could answer my questions like “if she’s a fish, why is her dad a human?” and “who’s her mother then?” If I’d been more patient, the film would have explained some of this.
The underwater introduction is cutely creepy, but it took me a while to get used to the human-headed fish. Then she started talking, which made me go through the cycle all over again. And her little sisters were strange in their group-ness, as though a swarm of ants turned into fish. I’m okay, though, with some things about the undersea world seeming alien. The “silent” storytelling at the beginning, like the openings of Wall-E or Up, is a startlingly impressive sequence with only music and sound effects to introduce viewers to the world of Ponyo. You must subsume yourself to it for the fantasy to work.
Overall, I was most astounded by the colors, pastels but also stunning brights. The animation is masterful, as expected, with all the sea and the waves and Ponyo running on them (accompanied by Wagnerian music, of all things, but it does capture the power of water). It’s so well-done you don’t notice how much work it must have taken until you stop and think about it. The kids move like children do, awkward and energetic and determined and uncertain. Some of their behavior reminds me of Peanuts, while Ponyo’s sisters look at times like Popeye’s Sweepea. I like the interplay of the generations, as Sosuke talks with inhabitants of the nursing home (Betty White, Lily Tomlin, Cloris Leachman) where his mother (Tina Fey) works.
Although I have some qualms about celebrity voice casting, Tina Fey’s vocal portrayal in this is excellent. She does a good job of exasperated, as a woman whose husband isn’t home enough (he’s out at sea, captaining a ship) who has to take care of a crazy kid and his runaway friend. Their daily life is fascinating, with shortwave radio to contact dad and a generator for when the power goes out and a signal light on their balcony to communicate with the ship with flashes.
There’s a lot of slightly scary suspense in this film, as when dad sends these wave/whale dark monster things to recapture his daughter. Both parents, Ponyo’s and Sosuke’s, think they know the right thing for their kids, wanting to keep them innocent and protected. Sosuke’s mom is right when she says that Ponyo’s a fish and she’s not meant to live in a bucket, but magic can fix that. The two kids just want to be friends. And Ponyo wants ham.
The story seems younger-skewing than Miyazaki’s other films, more suitable for six-year-olds than teens, but it was a fine film, with lots of neat visuals. It made for a lovely Sunday afternoon viewing. In terms of extras, there’s an introduction to the film in which Disney producers praise Miyazaki, and then two more categories: “Behind the Studio” (for the animation enthusiast), which has all the background information on story, characters, score, and voices, including Miyazaki interviews and shots of voice recording, and “Enter the Lands” (for the kids), interactive quizzes and such on the various Ghibli films. (The studio provided a review copy.)
I know long-time readers are curious as to what I thought of the Blu-Ray experience. I hadn’t seen the film before, so I couldn’t directly compare, but it did seem bright and beautiful, with a good feeling of depth. Not 3-D, but not flat either. I don’t feel compelled to upgrade, but I can see why those particularly interested in the most superior visual experience promote the format.
The Scooby-Doo revamp movie, Scooby-Doo: The Mystery Begins, must have done okay, because they’ve just announced a sequel.
Scooby-Doo: Curse of the Lake Monster will premiere on Cartoon Network this fall, with a DVD release in early 2011. Scooby-Doo: The Mystery Begins was the most-watched telecast in Cartoon Network history, it turns out, and the second movie will similarly follow the Mystery Inc. gang in live action with a computer-generated dog. All of the cast is returning for the film, in which they take summer jobs at a country club owned by Daphne’s uncle, where there’s a Frog Monster on the loose.
To promote the movie, now filming, Warner Bros. Consumer Products has launched a contest. Enter the Scooby-Doo Mystery Movie Sweepstakes for your chance to win a trip to L.A. to visit the set of new Scooby-Doo movie. If you don’t win the grand prize, there are also 10 first prize packs that include Scooby-Doo: The Mystery Begins and the Scooby-Doo! First Frights video game (either Nintendo Wii or DS).
The sweepstakes ends March 31, 2010. The grand prize winner and three guests will win a trip to Los Angeles and have the opportunity to take a VIP tour of the set of the new Scooby-Doo movie, view actual film sets, and possibly meet the cast.
She’s Out of My League opens on Friday, but I was lucky enough to see a preview earlier this week. I recommend it.
When it comes to R-rated comedy romances, I’m never sure what to expect. Some of them are raunchfests or expect you to find laughs in watching a bunch of potheads kill time. This one takes a different direction. While quite funny, it also has a sense of heart. Fundamentally, it’s an ugly duckling love story, the tale of how a nice guy learns he’s worthy of a relationship with a hot girl.
Jay Baruchel (previously in Knocked Up and Undeclared) is gawky Kirk. He’s still obsessing over Marnie, his ex-girlfriend who broke up with him two years ago. One of the reasons he can’t move on: his family has “adopted” her and her new boyfriend.
Jay Baruchel, T.J. Miller, Nate Torrence, Mike Vogel
Kirk and his high school buddies work at the airport. He’s still hanging out with the same people he did all his life, with a job going nowhere (ironic, right?). He’s well-spoken and thoughtful, and his dry wit shows he’s too smart for those around him, his family and friends.
Alice Eve is Molly, the “10″, a conventionally pretty blonde. She’s generically skinny but busty, with big white teeth in a nice smile. She’s not particularly distinctive in looks, but she also demonstrates personality, making her character more than a plot device.
You have to get through her introductory scene to realize this, though. Her first appearance attempts to be something like the introduction of Jayne Mansfield in The Girl Can’t Help It (only with less cartoony slapstick), where everyone in the room stops what they’re doing to notice how gorgeous she is. Frankly, her looks can’t live up to the expectation. Once past that, though, things settle down and the movie treats her beauty more reasonably.
The two, on their first date (which Kirk doesn’t realize is one), bond over hockey, which I found timely after the recent Olympics. Molly wants someone nice and different from her past boyfriends, while Kirk is paralyzed with fear and nerves due to his low self-esteem. His friends are the wrong guys to get advice from, while Molly’s best friend, Patty (Krysten Ritter, who’s making a career out of these roles), exists to advance the plot and spew profanity, which resulted in much laughter in the theater I was in. I don’t find a vaguely goth-looking foul-mouthed girl inherently funny, but apparently that’s just me.
The introductory scene does show that Kirk is the only guy who treats Molly like a person instead of sex on legs, since he’s the only one not distracted from doing his job. We’re supposed to take her harassment as comedy, something played from laughs, demonstrating the guy perspective that drives the plot. That’s why, later on, when we’re asked to understand how hard it is to be a hot girl, that scene doesn’t work. Up to that point, while Molly is a reasonably well-rounded character, we haven’t seen anything from her perspective. This is Kirk’s story, so suddenly switching to worrying about how hard her life is isn’t believable. The movie was complicit early on in the same behavior we’re now supposed to condemn. But that’s the only real misstep.
Otherwise, this film does a lot of things right. It’s not too long, and it moves well, keeping events going. It even makes Pittsburgh look like an attractive and fun place to be. And the idea of a Hall & Oates cover band called Adult Education is funny in itself; to see it is just icing. The film does deserve its R rating, though, due to language. There is copious use of both the F-word and saying “Jesus” as an expletive.
I must compliment Baruchel’s work, because he does a great job carrying this movie. His portrayal is nuanced, good-hearted, and sweet. He demonstrates an old-fashonied skill at handling both verbal and performance humor. Baruchel really rounds out Kirk to be a person instead of a walking joke, someone to care about, not just laugh at. His work with Eve creates a comfortable relationship you root for.
I’m guessing this was a relatively low-budget film, because the only other actors I recognized were Debra Jo Rupp, from That 70s Show, playing Kirk’s mom, and Marnie, Lindsay Sloane, whom I always remember from Grosse Pointe. Also notable is Nate Torrence (Get Smart) as Devon, one of the buddies. He’s naive, and unlike the other guys, married, and he makes weird allusions, including plenty of Disney movie references. He doesn’t curse, and his good humor and general ineffective niceness round out the guys’ gang well.
The movie isn’t too gross, although there are two scenes that will stick in your head. One involves a large dog and a guy embarrassed after getting too excited; another … well, if you ever wondered how someone could outdo Steve Carrell’s waxing scene in The 40-Year-Old Virgin, they found a way here. You can view the trailer at the official website.
In December, Variety reviewed Iron Cross, a film that opened only in Los Angeles to be eligible for awards season. They panned it, saying it “will be remembered as Roy Scheider’s swan song and little else.” (As they point out, “Scheider died in February 2008, before filming was completed”, which also indicates how long the movie has been on the shelf.)
Late last month, Gawker reported that the review had been removed from the website. (It has since been restored.) Turns out that the movie’s producers had paid Variety $400,000 for ads for an Oscar campaign, and they were upset that the review wasn’t positive. The director, Joshua Newton, was telling people that the reviewer’s “views on the film are not shared by anyone else at that publication” and the review was only published because the critic was able to “sneak it into the publication”. (Neat trick, that.)
This is why accepting funds from those you cover, especially if reviews are involved, is such a tricky minefield. Those who spend money, especially in those amounts, tend to expect things in return. And no matter what you think they understand about “conflict of interest” and “separation of ads and content”, they still seem to believe that enough spending can buy a good review.
The LA Times blog later reported that the review was put back. It was removed because the director complained that the piece contained “factual inaccuracies”, and the paper took it down to investigate. They concluded that they stood by the review and restored it.
But wait! The story isn’t over. Newton has now sued Variety, alleging “contractual breach, negligence, fraud and deceit, and unfair business practices. … He’s asking for general damages, punitive damages, restitution of funds paid, and an injunction to prevent Variety from further comment on the movie but has not specified a monetary amount.” So he wants his ad money back, plus more, because he made a crappy movie and someone reported it as such.
Ironically, Variety just fired its chief film critic (not the guy who wrote the Iron Cross review) to save money. They now plan to use freelancers only. Maybe it’s time for writers to look into liability insurance in case someone else thinks they can use the courts to bully them into having the “right” opinions.
