Director Joss Whedon invited a few friends to his house to shoot a movie – a cool new version of Shakespeare’s beloved romcom “Much Ado About Nothing.” On Wednesday, June 5th, the Academy will launch season two of Oscars Outdoors with a sunset screening of “Much Ado” in their spectacular open air venue in Hollywood. Josh and cast will be on hand to intro the movie and answer your questions after - and you can be there too if you’re a KCRW Angel.

Click here to view the embedded video.

 PLEASE NOTE! 

• Your confirmation e-mail will include a voucher…prepare to show it (on your phone or printed) for parking!
• We will try to accommodate everyone, but this event (like all Matt’s Movies screenings) is first-come first-served!
• Get there early for best seats
• Be sure to dress warmly, and bring a blanket or low lawn chair
• Picnic baskets, beer, and wine permitted
• No pets (service dogs allowed)
• There will be food trucks on site
• I pray thee: if you don’t know the story, read the Wiki synopsis…it will dramatically increase your enjoyment of the film! 

Not an Angel? Join now HERE and then sign-up for our screening!

“Much Ado About Nothing” opens in limited release June 7th.

Well, I would love them, if they weren’t so lame. I mean, for $250 million you should be able to have things blow up and come up with a story that makes sense. Wow, you might even throw in characters you could give a damn about, too. I mean, I know those big bloated action pix make a ton, but might it be possible for the studios to even make more bringing intelligent adults (like me) back into the multiplex?

I do go occasionally, if only to be reminded why I don’t go more often (can you say “Prometheus?”).

So why don’t the studios think that story is important? In my recent interview with Morning Edition and LA Times critic Ken Turan, he explained it this way:

This is a dollar driven business. And it’s not clear to the studios…first of all it’s hard to make an intelligent film. It’s just harder…with special effects you just throw money at it and you’ve solved the problem. You throw money at a script and you may get nowhere. So it’s harder to get it done, or it’s not clear that it means more money and it just becomes something the studios are not averse to but it’s not a priority.

Me and my friend Megan before “Star Trek: Into Darkness”

Which is why I left the first J.J. Abrams “Star Trek” movie so excited a few years back and why I returned to see “Into Darkness” last night. And loved it.

Now admittedly, I have a relationship with this franchise (see picture), and that makes it easier for the filmmakers to create a world that is emotionally satisfying in a way that the majority of blockbusters are not. But a reboot also poses it’s own set of problems – you’re often trying to please two, often mutually exclusive, audiences – in this case, altacockers like me who grew up with Kirk and crew and are attached to the “old ways,” and the young folks who don’t know Sulu from Hulu and expect some bang for their buck.

I just can’t believe how Abrams and crew succeed for both crowds. And I think that’s because they are so focussed on story as the starting point.

Yes, we can sit here and pick the plot apart for logic flaws. But the point is that with a focus on story and character and great dialogue, those flaws are not so glaring. And when you do identify them, you’re much more forgiving. I had to really put my mind to it to figure out what really didn’t make sense in this film (of course there’s plenty), but frankly I don’t go to movies like this to think.

I understand the reticence to put a priority on story. But I think the studios are leaving money on the table. Look at the top grossing movies of all time. What’s a common denominator for most of them? Underlying all that expensive production value and star power, there’s a real story (I cannot explain the success of the “Transformers” movies). 

I know I’m not breaking any new ground here, but I think it bears repeating. Mostly because I want to be able to put my Spock ears (or other geeked-out fanboy accouterment) and head back to the theater for a popcorn movie more often!

I want to give a shout out to Jon Favreau, another director who gets this concept. I loved the first “Iron Man” and don’t forget “Zathura,” a great – if overlooked - sci-fi film with story and character. His use of practical (rather than CG) effects also gives the film a kind of heart that the big digital epics just can’t touch. The DVD has a great featurette about how they used in-camera effects…I’m trying to get my hands on it. Here’s a sample…

Click here to view the embedded video.

KCRW’s Jenny Radelet put together this great piece about pilot season, and why it might be time to change it. Listen HERE.

And check out David Duchovny in “The TV Set”, a terrific 2006 movie written and directed by Jake Kasdan that hilariously – but accurately – caught the essence of pilot season craziness.

Click here to view the embedded video.

And congratulations to everyone who signed a deal to make or work on a pilot, got one produced, or even had one picked up. And to the rest of you, best of luck in next year’s pilot season lottery!

Click here to view the embedded video.

The new film “The Kings of Summer” beautifully captures that perfect sun-filled summer of youth – frolicking in the great outdoors with best friends, filled with unbounded joy and an ever-growing sense of self. It’ll make you nostalgic for a time that only really exists in movies and memory.

Matt’s Movies will screen “The Kings of Summer” for KCRW Angels on Tuesday, May 21st in West LA, followed by a Q&A with director Jordan Vogt-Roberts.

Not an Angel? Join now HERE and then sign-up for our screening!

“The Kings of Summer” opens in limited release May 31st.

I, like, many men of a certain age, LOVE Orson Scott Card’s sci-fi novel “Ender’s Game” and have been dying to see it turned into a movie. And on November 1st, we shall get our wish.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Orson Scott Card

Of course, I fell in love with the book (as I did any book where kids were the heroes) long before the the author came out against gay marriage and espoused his dark, misguided views about homosexuality itself. But now that he has spoken publicly on the subject I come back to that question: Can I see this movie with a clear conscience? Frankly, it strikes me as kind of sad that I would even be battling this issue in my brain – how can a couple of hours of light entertainment be compared to the fight for civil rights?

And yet, I do believe in that you should trust the art and not the artist.

Are Leni Riefenstahl’s movies any less brilliant because of what she believed and the propaganda they were intended to espouse? Does my awareness of those beliefs and those messages change the equation? If I pay for a ticket to “Ender’s Game,” would a donation made to, say Freedom to Marry balance out the moral ledger? If I go to a media screening, am I in the clear? Is it fair to punish everyone else associated with the film for this one man’s wrong-headedness?

By posting this, thereby promoting the film, have I already done the wrong thing?

See previous thoughts on the subject HERE and HERE.

I’m not an early adopter, but it’s not because I’m afraid of new technology or don’t get it. I’d just rather let other people work the kinks out and jump on board when the thing hits critical mass…and when the economics make sense.

But when I do jump on board, I become a bit of a fanatic, especially with economic motivation (eg how much cable costs). And so it was when I bought my little Roku box, which allowed me to steam awesome movies and TV (through services like Netflix, Amazon and Hulu) without having cable (see my 2012 blog post: “Sever the cable cord! Dump the dish!”).

Perhaps the biggest drawback of my particular setup is that you often have to go looking for stuff you want to want on multiple services, which is a pain in the butt. If only Roku would add a channel that takes you to www.canistream.it, which tells you where you can watch your stuff on something like 25 different services.

I am still a giant fan of Roku, but there are other options out there, and The Business producer Darby Maloney posted some great information from Kim Masters’ conversation with The Verge editor-in-chief and co-founder, Joshua Topolsky. Check it out HERE.

Happy viewing!

Click here to view the embedded video.

In “Stories We Tell,” actor, writer and Oscar-nominated director Sarah Polley turns the camera on her father, siblings and friends to better understand the life of her mother Diane, a fascinating and complex woman. What she unravels is a revelation for her and her family; the way she tells the story is a revelation for the audience.

Matt’s Movies will screen “Stories We Tell” for KCRW Angels on Wednesday, May 1st in West LA, followed by a Q&A with Sarah Polley.

“Take This Waltz” and “Away from Her” proved that Polley is a filmmaker to be taken seriously, but the tact and technique she used in making this most personal film is really more akin to movie magic.

Click here to view the embedded video.

In 2004, Shane Carruth tweaked heads with his ultra-indie time-travel film “Primer.” Now, he’s released his equally stunning and equally mysterious second film called “Upstream Color.” Sensual and nearly wordless, it poses disturbing questions you never thought to ask – and leaves them delightfully unanswered.

Matt’s Movies will screen “Upstream Color” for KCRW Angels at the Arclight Beach Cities THIS Wednesday, April 10th.

Like his movies, Carruth remains a bit of a question mark. Self-taught, he wrote, directed, edited, starred in and composed the music for “Primer” and “Upstream Color.” He made both for peanuts -in fact “Primer,” which won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance, reportedly cost $7,000. So I’m delighted that Carruth will be there after our screening to answer your questions. 

Home video ushered in a new era of what you could call “micro-cinefilia” – the ability for film geeks to comb over their favorite movies frame by frame for mistakes, inside jokes and hidden meanings. The DVD, and it’s ability to super slo-mo super easily, allowed the practice to soar to even more ridiculous heights.

Stanley Kubrick is arguably the subject of more of this kind of scrutiny than any other director. Not only was he a brilliant filmmaker who made deeply complex movies with abstract themes, but he was a perfectionist, obsessed with detail and subtext. There are those that insist that every detail in a Kubrick film was carefully considered. On top of that, he rarely commented about the meaning of his movies. Mix all that up and the result is catnip for those types of filmic felines who see art as a puzzle to be solved.

A new documentary called “Room 237” interviews five of those particular cats, who deconstruct “The Shining” until there is almost nothing left of it. It’s amazing to see how these very smart people pick the movie apart and then put it back together again to suit their particular theories. Amazing, but a little disconcerting.

The particular details that they’ve each identified are really quite remarkable.  I was truly inspired by their keen eye and historical and cinematic knowledge.  I was also bemused by some of their assertions.

According to these “experts,” “The Shining” is filled with allusions to man’s violent history and particularly to the Nazis. Or maybe it’s Kubrick’s subtle confession that he was hired to create faked-footage of the first lunar landing. There are shots that are allegedly a big the middle-finger to Stephen King, who wrote the novel on which the movie is based.

Some of the ideas are intriguing; most of them seem like a realllly looooong stretccch.

I enjoyed “Room 237″ (a reference to the horrible hotel room at the center of the film), but I have to say something about it made me bristle. Perhaps its the assuredness with which these individuals profess their theories, in a way, putting words in the master’s mouth. Maybe it’s the underlining insinuation that by cracking Kubrick’s code, they are somehow his creative and intellectual equal. But mostly I think it bothered me because it was such an extreme example of the ”I’m smarter than you” syndrome that’s so rampant in the world of film criticism and among the cinerati in general; so rapped up in this endless game of intellectual oneupmanship, these people never seem to actually enjoy the movie. And that’s a darn shame, especially when it comes to Kubrick – and particulalry “The Shining” – which has so many wonderful moments to just revel in. How can a kid riding a Big Wheel be so unsettling?

Sure, understanding art can make its the enjoyment that much deeper, to bring it new life. I think that’s what they did with the terrific Kubrick show at LACMA. But a movie is a living, breathing thing and should be enjoyed as such. Putting it under such a powerful microscope is akin to an art autopsy. And what is left of the patient after that?

Click here to view the embedded video.

PS…what do you eggheads make of this?

Click here to view the embedded video.