Commentary Reviews
”Stephen King’s The Stand” 1994 (TV) Commentary
Commentary by director Mick Garris, writer/producer Stephen King, editor Pat McMahon and actors Rob Lowe, Ruby Dee, Miguel Ferrar, and Jamey Sheridan
4/5
First of all let me explain that “The Stand” has been my favorite book since I first read it upon its hardcover release in 1980. I was in the hospital after having my first child and that was certainly an interesting read for a new mother. When the expanded version came out I thought I’d died and gone to heaven; when I heard that King was writing the script and producing the 8-hour miniseries, I was sure I had.
But when I heard some of the casting I immediately got wary. I wasn’t nuts about Gary Sinise as Stu, but was willing to give the benefit of the doubt since he’s such a fine actor. However, when I heard that Molly Ringwald was going to play Frannie my heart sank. Not only didn’t I think she was a very good actress, I was afraid that she would ruin the whole movie since Frannie is a central character, one of the most important ones. Again I was willing to believe that the filmmakers knew what they were doing, but I expected much less than when I’d first heard the announcement. I wasn’t familiar with many of the other actors although I was tickled to see Miguel Ferrar, Laura San Giacomo, and Rob Lowe in the cast.
I ended up loving the miniseries almost as much as the book despite the many cuts and changes they had to make. I felt I was very right about Ringwald almost ruining it with her exaggerated gestures and gummy smile and badly faked overacting, but I was able to forgive it with the overall quality of the movie. I felt that the other actors were absolutely perfect, esp. those that played Larry, Trashcan, Tom, Ralph, and Julie Lawry in particular. They really were the characters come to life.
The commentary was good, mostly the parts with Mick Garris and the actors--in particular the parts with Jamey Sheridan and Miguel Ferrar. Rob Lowe was interesting but tended to talk more about how he approached the part than the actual making of the movie. I was very disappointed in the commentary parts by Ruby Dee which I had looked forward to, as her comments often didn’t seem to match the action on the screen and she tended to hesitate for long periods of time or wander off the subject. The King parts were a coin toss; sometimes he’d talk about the movie, sometimes he’d talk about writing the book, sometimes he’d talk about something totally unrelated. There were some very long stretches with no commentary at all, which made me go back to the menu and check to make sure it hadn’t gotten turned off.
You have to quickly figure out who’s talking because after the primary introductions in the beginning, they switch back and forth from Garris/Dee to Garris/Lowe to Garris/Ferrar/Sheridan to Garris/McMahon to King all by himself. They more or less match up who’s talking to what’s on the screen, though a few times it seemed a bit off or the talker wandered away from what was happening in the film.
Several things I’d hoped to hear during the commentary never came up, such as the odd dressing of many of the younger women as I don’t know anyone who wears a skirt on a motorcycle or would take the time to put on tons of makeup before knowingly going to their death. They do talk a bit about the music, and Mick Garris is good at pointing out certain parts where the music enhanced or even changed the way he had planned scenes. I do wish they’d talked more about the set dressing which I thought was some of the best I’ve ever seen. They did have some very humorous comments regarding the old Osmond soundstage in Utah where they built Mother Abigail’s house, the hospital sets, and a host of others. Most telling, Garris and King separately make a point of saying that the network was insistent on using certain actors though they don’t say who, and Ringwald is the only one that they don’t make a note of praising the performance of; they even mention the extras several times! They also say that they had to do a lot of give-and-take both with the gore and the actors, so I suspect that neither one was happy about using Ringwald but didn’t have much of a choice.
Overall not a bad commentary, just not as good as I’d hoped it would be. If you’re an aficionado of the book/movie in particular I’d say watch it, but if you’re more into hearing about moviemaking, this one may not be for you. Still, it is far better than the incredibly lame “Making Of” extra—don’t even waste your time with that one.
Men In Black 1997
Commentary by director Barry Sonnenfeld and actor Tommy Lee Jones
4/5
I first saw “Men in Black” in the theater just before it ended its run, and it’s been one of my top 10 favorite movies ever since. I’ve been a fan of Tommy Lee Jones since “The Eyes of Laura Mars” (1978), although my favorite role of his is “Volcano” (1997). (I think he’s the #1 Sexy Ugly star in Hollywood.) I’m also a fan of Will Smith although nowhere near as long, since the first movie of his I saw was “Independence Day” (1996)—but it made me an instant fan.
This is a pretty good commentary, they don’t go off the track too often and Sonnenfeld is the comedian to Jones’ straight-guy routine; together they’re pretty darn funny at times. Sometimes Jones doesn’t pick up the joke and it falls flat, but those are few and far between. It’s clear that they get along well personally and had fun making this commentary, which is always a bonus.
One important thing I noted is that both of them make mention of and usually praise most of the actors in the movie—including the dogs, both stuffed and real, used for Frank the Pug—but not once do they say anything about Linda Fiorentino other than to note her presence on the screen in her first scene. I’ve heard that she’s not usually well-liked on the set, and listening to the way they deliberately ignored her I think that may be a grain or two of truth to that rumor. They have nothing but good things to say about Will Smith’s performance and even noted how many of the stunts he did, getting minor injuries several times in the process but never letting up.
I learned quite a bit about making movies in general along with certain specifics, such as how actors handle working with inanimate props that stand in for CGI characters (most notably EdgarBug after he sheds his Edgar-suit) and how the entire story can be changed in post-production. Also that much of this movie was ad-libbed by Smith and Jones, most of which Sonnenfeld liked so much that he stood up to the producers to get it into the film instead of the scripted lines.
The nicest thing was that the movie sound was muted when the commentators were talking and turned back up when they stopped talking to note a particular scene, which was very enjoyable and made it easy to follow both movie and commentary.
The disk also had a visual commentary though it didn’t work as I watched the movie on a computer and it required an aspect ratio that the player didn’t have. Not the best commentary I’ve ever heard but very good and worth giving a listen to.
Evolution 2001
Commentary by director Ivan Reitman and actors David Duchovny, Orlando Jones, and Sean William Scott
5/5
This is probably the single funniest commentary I've ever heard next to “This is Spinal Tap”, and considering the movie that probably isn't too surprising. I was surprised, however, to find that not only the director but the three of the main stars of the movie do this commentary with him. If you've seen the movie and know the chemistry between those three, you know that this is hilarious.
I didn't learn much about the craft of filmmaking in this one other than some editing they did to remove a couple of unnecessary sub-plots, but I did pick up a lot about how actors work together. They got a lot of good laughs over remembering things they did to each other during production, esp. Duchovny and Jones messing with Scott while he was on camera, and it was like sitting around with a bunch of friends reminiscing. I had heard that a lot of the dialog and more outrageous parts was ad-libbed by the actors and that was confirmed, including the mooning scene which was an unplanned joke by Duchovny that he didn't think would stay in the movie.
They had nothing but good things to say about just about everyone, and didn't omit any of the other main actors in their comments. Reitman particularly liked the "brothers" who come up with the solution of what to use to "infect" the alien menace, and many laughs were had over the nuances of their performances. Everyone praised Julienne Moore's work and how well she fit in, with Scott occasionally mooning over her amid much teasing from the others.
Overall, a very, very funny and sometimes outrageous commentary without much hard information. If you watch commentaries to listen to directors/special effects people/writers tell you about their craft, skip this one. If you want to laugh even more than during the movie, don't miss this one.
Independence Day 1994 Widescreen Director’s Cut
Commentary by director/co-writer Roland Emmerich, and Dean Devlin, co-writer
5/5
This has been one of my favorite movies since I first saw it shortly after its release to video; it’s also one that I’ve always regretted not catching on the big screen. I was thrilled when the director’s cut was released, as I’d read that they’d cut some fairly important scenes for time for the theatrical release. Most of those, in my experience, should be left in the film unlike cuts made for plot, which are usually better left out. In this incidence the restored cuts clear up at least 3 sub-plots: why the stripper is working on the day of the invasion, how Goldblum’s character figures out a virus for the mothership, and the bottom line of the strained relationship between Randy Quaid’s character and his kids.
I began by watching the commentary from the special effects supervisors, but found it dry and with no more information than I’ve found in the extras and on IMDb. So about twenty minutes in I switched to the other commentary and am I glad I did! Emmerich and Devlin do a wonderful one, with tons of great information on moviemaking as well as snippets of incidents that happened during the making of the film and asides about the actors and how they handled their parts and got along on the set.
Every so often Emmerich and Devlin would go silent and then burst out laughing and admit they’d been watching the film, which I always find amusing. Emmerich points out a few scenes that he wishes he’d done differently and why, as well as how they would have, if they’d had time, cleaned up a few of the special effects sequences. Best of all was when both of them pointed out how much ad-libbing was done during this movie, and the why and how of it. Emmerich explained how many directors don’t like their actors to ad-lib, but he listens when an actor would like to try another take on a scene or change the dialog. I was surprised to find out that much of the dialog between Jeff Goldblum and Judd Hirsh during the drive to Washington, as well as the final spaceship sequence between Goldblum and Will Smith, was totally ad-libbed. It added a neat new dimension to the movie for me.
Definitely one of the better commentaries and very much recommended.
Juno 2005
Commentary by director Jason Reitman and writer Diablo Cody
5/5
After seeing the sometimes outright silliness and occasionally off-kilter humor of the movie, I knew I had to watch the commentary with these two. I figured that someone who could write a movie that found humor in the tragedy of teenage pregnancy had to be a riot, and I was right! And Jason Reitman is his father Ivan’s son, with a very similar sense of humor and very well-spoken to boot (unlike some directors I’ve listened to that couldn’t tell you how to tie your shoe despite their amazing work in film).
The first thing you notice about this commentary is how well these two get along; it’s not just a mutual admiration society, they tease and pick at each other mercilessly so it’s like listening to two old friends watching a movie together. And it only gets better from there.
Reitman frequently points out many moviemaking tricks, from the window on the donut box to the difficulty of finding--and eventually having to make--a six-foot licorice rope. He explains that he shot the movie in a very straightforward and unadorned way, without a lot of camera tricks or dolly work other than a few particular shots. He also explains the over-the-shoulder shots, which were really important in how the viewer comes to understand Juno depending on whether she’s being looked at straight-on or down at. I quickly realized how this film would have been a lot different without the continuity of those shots as each one was pointed out.
Both highly praise both cast and crew, Ellen Page and Michael Cera in particular but everyone is mentioned, even the skateboarding kid who has 1.5 seconds of screen time. The only thing I noticed was omitted was a mention of the director of photography and cinematographer, both of whom are usually talked about in commentaries by directors. However, I think that Reitman had enough on his hands with everything else he wanted to talk about, and didn’t intentionally omit those important people.
Overall a highly recommended commentary for those who are interested in the in-depth behind-the-scenes working of moviemaking as well as just enjoying listening to the creators joke with each other and enjoy reminiscing about the shoot.
C.H.U.D. 1984 Director's Cut
Commentary by director Douglas Cheek, story writer Shepard Abbott, and actors John Heard, Christopher Curry, and Daniel Stern
5/5
Okay, so I can have really bad taste in movies, even worse than "Dude Where's My Car". "C.H.U.D." is one of my guilty pleasures, one of those movies that's so bad it's good.
This is one of the best commentaries I've ever heard, right up there with "This is Spinal Tap" and "Blair Witch Project". The actors were ripping on the movie, talking about why it's so bad and how much fun they had making it, and doing a MST3k on it. Stern complains about how awful his hair looks, Heard remarks on how one scene looks remarkably like Stern is poking him in the rear end (and later snaps, as Stern crawls up a sewer hatch behind him, "Hey, you were going after my ass again!"), Curry bemoans his bad acting, and so forth. The remarks about the "penis neck C.H.U.D." are worth the cost of the DVD! Trust me, even if you don't like the movie you may like this commentary; I had at least a couple dozen true LOL moments. I watched the entire damn movie a second time; I could not turn that commentary off!
Cloverfield 2007
Commentary by director Matt Reeves
3/5
The first thing I want to note is that most of what the director talks about in this movie can be found in the extras, such as what was shot where (on location in NYC versus a backlot or green-screened stage) and how the movie came to be made. Second, his voice tends towards a monotone which at times makes the commentary a bit dull, although he does become a bit more animated as the movie goes on. However, there is some good information on this style of “guerilla” filmmaking, which as he explains became a necessity between where they were on location (the Coney Island parts are really interesting) and how little time they had to make the movie. Not the most interesting commentary I’ve heard, but worth listening to if you have not seen the extras yet and are a real student of this type of filmmaking.
House of D 2004
Commentary by writer/director/actor David Duchovny
5/5
Do let me mention that I love this movie more every time I see it, and finally had to watch the commentary on about viewing #7.
This review is regarding the commentary with David Duchovny, the writer/director who also acts in the movie. I suspected that this would be a good commentary after having heard the one he did for "Evolution", and I was right. Besides being very informative about the craft of movie-making (especially how to do it on a small budget), it was also very amusing and insightful into all parts of what he did with this film. He talks a lot about everyone else who worked on the movie, also pointing out crew members who ended up in the movie which, for some reason, I'm always particularly tickled by.
He also points out special and/or important parts and how everything tied in together from the beginning. I hadn't realized how many of the elements in the beginning of the film tied in with the end; I got the obvious ones such as the House of D becoming a garden and the cigarette butts in the toilet bowl, but not regarding the color green.
The only thing I didn't care for about this commentary is that they didn't lower the film's volume quite enough at times it could be very distracting, especially when Duchovny's voice is doing the narrative voiceover AND the commentary AND speaking as the character on-screen. Overall, however, this is an excellent commentary both for people who enjoy learning how movies are made in general or just want to hear more of the background information on this one in particular.
The X-Files: I Want to Believe 2008 Extended Edition Commentary
Commentary by Director/Writer Chris Carter and Writer Frank Spotnitz
5/5
I already knew that both Chris Carter and Frank Spotnitz do great commentaries since I've heard them before on the regular "X-Files" series episode DVD commentaries, so there was no way I was missing this. And it did not disappoint; I'd say it's in the top 5 commentaries I've ever listened to with tons of interesting information not just on movie-making in general but also this particular shoot. They frequently point out the work that others do, most notably the lighting crew and set decorators in addition to the usual actor kudos, but they seem to give a nod to just about everyone involved and, at the end, apologize for anyone they didn't mention.
It's clear that these two are old friends, and it's one of those commentaries where it's like sitting around with friends listening to them reminisce about making the movie--very comfortable, easy to understand, friendly and, despite the dark nature of the film, often very funny. Both men have naturally expressive voices and never talk in a dull monotone or over each other, and upon occasion seem to start talking to each other about the film and forgetting they're being recorded!
I watched the Extended Edition, which has 3 restored scenes and the commentary explained why they were taken out though I don't agree--I think all of them should have been left in. One of the most interesting parts is when Carter mentions that they're recording this commentary about a month before the film went to theaters and didn't know if they would manage to keep the plot completely hidden or not. Be sure to watch the credits; for the EE they added photos of everyone whose name pops up on the screen as well as set shots taken by Carter and the still photographer. This is possibly one of the neatest things I have ever seen in a movie, period.
If you like the movie, I would highly recommend the commentary then the gag reel and other extras--everything on the 3 disks in the Special Edition I bought was well worth watching. When I watched this commentary it was the seventh time I'd seen the film--five times in the theater, once digitally on my iPhone, and finally on our 42" HD TV. Already I can't wait to see it again to incorporate all the I heard in the commentary, and will probably watch with commentary one more time in a few months. Yeah, that's how much I like it all.
Across the Universe 2007
Commentary by director/writer Julie Taymor and music producer/composer Elliot Goldenthal
5/5
This is a very good commentary if you're fascinated with how movies are assembled and edited, the changes made in post-production, and how music can be used to manipulate the viewer. It doesn't give a lot of hard and fast info on basic moviemaking, but it does give an excellent idea of how writers/directors think when making something this unusual and unique.
Taymor does most of the commentary and she often prompts Goldenthal to tell about the music. When he does, he reminds me very much of the pre-show classical Concert Talks we go to at the symphony where you learn a bit about the music you're going to hear. It's informative, but he doesn't do much otherwise especially when talking about the original score. See commentaries or extras with Hans Zimmer and Mark Snow for more information on scoring movies if that interests you.
The most amazing thing I learned about this movie is that a good 80% of the singing was done live while filming, NOT re-recorded in a studio and dubbed over. It explained a lot about the overall emotional appeal of the movie and really impressed the hell out of me.
Also if you don't' know what other things Julie Taymor has done you might be a little confused about her frequent references to live stage musicals; the only show of hers I've seen is "The Lion King" but even knowing she did that should explain a lot about what you see in this movie. This woman clearly has a wild imagination that she's not afraid to explore and use to its greatest advantage, which is only to the good.
Overall, a very interesting and informative commentary that I highly recommend if you're not determined to find out a lot about set dressing and lighting and cinematography and would rather just listen to the director tell you how and why she made this.
