I don’t smoke weed, but if I did, I’d spend today getting high and watching a marathon of movies that are (supposedly) better when you’re stoned. Why? Because it’s 4/20, the high holy day for marijuana fans. You’ve probably seen a billion of these lists, which recommend the same bunch of psychedelic classics beloved by stoners everywhere. So, instead of including such obvious choices as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, and other familiar titles, I’ve picked some alternatives to the usual 4/20 favorites, because after awhile, the same old visuals just don’t do it for me — I mean, those sick, degenerate reefer addicts — anymore.
…Read more

We’re less than a week away from the release of Tropic Thunder, and as the reviews and puff pieces make their way onto the web, there’s one thing clearly uniting the media’s coverage: talk of Tom Cruise’s appearance in a small role as a Hollywood studio boss. Everyone seems to agree that he steals the show and that his performance — or the joke surrounding it — is one of the comedy’s major highlights, if not the actual best part.

Of course, we can expect a good cameo from Cruise every now and then. He showed up for a bit part in Young Guns and played himself as playing “Austin Powers” in Austin Powers in Goldmember. But from what it sounds like, his role in Tropic Thunder is featured for longer than might qualify as a cameo. Some are regardless referring to the performance as an “extended cameo”, and in theory it certainly fits in with the huge crop of so-called “ironic cameos” that have become popular in movies and TV in the last ten years.

Still, despite my not having yet seen the movie, I’m thinking that Tom Cruise’s involvement in Tropic Thunder is more like the following list, which consists of merely small roles filled by big stars. You might consider some of them to be technically cameos, especially the ones that aren’t integral to the plot and/or call attention to themselves. But with each of the roles I’ve included, I consider them to be either the best part of their respective movies or at least a major highlight, which is how Cruise’s appearance is being touted. Anyway, forgive me for trying to come up with something different than simply a best cameo list, even if the focus here seems less than clear.

…Read more

Now that we know, courtesy of Stu at Defamer, that Werner Herzog’s remake of Abel Ferrara’s Bad Lieutenant is not so much a remake as it is like a new entry into a franchise, a la the James Bond movies, we at SpoutBlog wonder what other ’90s indie favorites could be continued with similar yet “completely different” installments.

I remember back in the day thinking that Clerks should be a franchise, each film focusing on a different crappy job experience, but now that Clerks II has come and gone, that idea will likely never be realized. Of course, the concept of sequels unrelated to the original aren’t new — just look at any sequel title substituting the number 2 (or II) with the word Too. But nevertheless, here’s a few suggestions for other crazy foreign auteurs to take into consideration:

1. Kids - Looking back, Larry Clark’s then-shocking debut is pretty tame. Nowadays you see teens doing worse things on commercial television. So, how about someone makes another Kids movie every decade or so to expose us to the latest generation of teenagers and how appallingly different they are from the previous generation. It would be like Apted’s Up documentaries, except it wouldn’t follow the same people.
   …Read more

The sequel to Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle opens in theaters today, and you can read my SXSW review of the movie, titled Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay, over here. Though I enjoyed it, H&K2 disappointed me for taking on too much plot. But apparently some other reviews are favoring the second installment, and according to Craig Phillips at Green Cine, the matter has critics divided.

Phillips, who marginally prefers the sequel, uses the opportunity to revisit those sequels that improved upon the original. Obviously, the list includes The Empire Strikes Back, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and The Road Warrior. However, surprisingly, The Godfather Part II is not in the top ten, because he considers the first and second films tied, and he claims both Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Gremlins 2: The New Batch are only honorable mentions, because their definite superiority is up for debate (true, I’ve never been able to decide if I like them better than their respective counterparts).

…Read more

Empire reports that a Jim Henson biopic is on the way, and few people could be more excited than yours truly. However, like Empire, I would hate to see a generic biography directed by somebody like Penny Marshall. Yet I’m not so sure if I like their idea of getting Michel Gondry any better. Maybe Spike Jonze, but not Gondry. No matter what, though, this movie has got to have a creative edge. It doesn’t have to be too crazy. It doesn’t even have to confuse the real world with the Muppet world in a Dreamchild sort of way. Of course, it should feature Muppets playing real-life people from Henson’s life. Maybe take Robert D. Slane’s already completed screenplay for the biopic and cast all the parts with Kermit and the rest. But have a real actor portray Henson.

That would be the most logical and appropriate way of making a Henson biopic, but here are some other ideas, just in case Empire Film Group wants to throw out Slane’s script and start fresh: follow just one night in the life of Henson, specifically the night he went through hundreds of takes of a seemingly simple shot for Emmet Otter’s Jugband Christmas (see the blooper reel above to see what I’m talking about); follow Henson’s after-life, specifically giving us two-hours of him spinning in his grave due to the poor handling of the Muppets since his death; follow my conspiracy theory that Henson was killed by a CGI assassin; or just have Jonze loosely remake his own puppeteer-based Being John Malkovich with a Henson portrayer in the Cusack role and Kermit in the Malkovich role. OK, I’ll stop before I get any sillier/stupider. Anyway, you see what I’m getting at. Henson really deserves something more than your typical everyday biopic. And it has to be anything but serious.

Yesterday BoingBoing pointed to an article on The Psychologist Online by Huw Green that argues that David Lynch’s work, particularly Inland Empire, is an accurate depiction of what it’s like for someone with a psychotic illness to encounter reality.

I immediately thought of last week’s episode of FilmCouch, in which I used Lynch, a new documentary about the filmmaker, as a point of entry to talk about his recent work. I compared Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire to recent films penned by Charlie Kaufman, namely Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I argued that Lynch’s films are far more effective due to the fact he, unlike Kaufman, refuses to provide the viewer with the necessary tools to keep track of the breaks in narrative convention.

Green’s article points out nearly the same thing (without the comparison to Kaufman). Measuring Lynch’s effect on the viewer, Green says:

…Read more