Well, seems as though its been a while since I was able to post. Been sick as a dog, one heck of a cold. Sorry for the delay though, since there's been so much going on.
First, I would just love to comment on a director's rountable I read the other day on MSNBC.COM. It really was quite funny. Among others we got to witnsess the incredible arrogance and stupifying out-of-touchness of George Clooney, Ang Lee, Paul Haggis and Steven Spielberg. Wow, is about all I can say.
I know that movies are entertainment and I also understand that by injecting politics into these posts that I risk alienating people who would rather enjoy than debate. But it simply isn't honest debate to discount the very thing that the writers and directors insist has influenced them. They speak of their political views and the views they tried to inject into their films as often as possible, so to discuss a movie and ignore the things that influenced it would be an incomplete discussion at best.
This roundtable discussion was one of the most pompous self agrandizing displays I hae ever witnessed. It was condescending, insulting and maddening.
George Clooney, for example, declared that we, the public, needed reviewers. Without them, he said, people would not know what to think of a movie until they're told what it;s about. What a revelation! Clooney is so much more intelligent than his audience that they actually need to be spoon fed the plot and the moral of the story, else they just wouldn't get it. That was revealing wasn't it? He also declares to be so gifted an actor that he knows just when to ignore the director! In fact, directors who insist on what Clooney deems too many takes are not film makers at all, rather they're "film collectors." This pompous windbag manages to insult both movie makers and movie goers in one page! Hats off to George. As a special aside he's not at all fond of Rex Reed for portraying him as the hack that he is. Boo hoo.
Paul Haggis offers us his socielogical take on race relations when he informs us his movie was neccessary because race relations in LA have changed since the Rodney King riots, they, "...gotten worse." Well, no doubt based on extensive sociological research Mr. Haggis' opinions don't ring home as fact. Of course, once a reviewer has explained them to me I might feel differently.
And ah, Mr. Spielberg, so convinced that his opionion mirrors Americas that he's not even willing to consider that people might disagree. He tells us that George Bush has been good for movie making because people aren't being represented in the White House, that film makers have found ways to express their sentiments and represent them. That'd odd, I thought people had voted for Bush? Apparently George Bush won election in some War of the Worlds type scenario. Thank goodness Spielberg made a film called Munich and gave voice to the cowawrdly terrorists to represent the people. After all, his views are so mainstream and compassion for terrorists runs high in middle America. This is the very definition of out-of-touch my friends. So wrong on so many things yet so arrogant as to believe his opinions are appluaded everywhere, but only by other true "intellectuals." Mr. Spielberg goes on to opine that the whole "neo-conservative" movement has been good for film. They just love the prefix "neo" because it is so closely related to neo-nazi and all Republicans are, you knop, nazis. Such a dumbed down intellectual accusation that it's just insulting.
Perhaps the most creatively full of shit is Ang Lee. Mr. Lee, when asked by the interviewer if he is surprised by the lack of protests from the religous right over Brokeback Mountain, charges, "I didn't expect them to be so silent in order to avoid inadvertently publisizing the film."
Ah, now there's a creative argument for his gay cowboy romance. If you protest to the content, you're a homophobic bigot. If you are indifferent to it you're part of a national conspiracy to ignore it and hope it goes away. So then, the only true and proper response to his film is to praise it. Luckily most critics and every dimwit associated with the Academy has played along with this scenario. What a nice intellectual corner to paint people into Mr. Lee. Agree with me or else be labeled. Again, not a very intelligent position but at least creative.
So long as these people insist on making their bizarre political causes an integral mixture of their art, then we are forced to consider their agendas when speaking of the films. It's not as though we want every movie we see to be a political hotbed, but, with arrogant and ludicrous statements like these, Hollywood forced your hand. Ant reviewer that loves to spout on about socioeconomic influence and racial influence and on and on, but refuses to acklnowledge agenda building as a film makers goal is simply a fraud. Their reviews nothing more than a freshmans term paper. Look at their comments, what they hoped to accomplish, they're unmatched arrogance, and then review their films.
I can see by the way Walk the Line and Cinderella Man were snubbed that it's not really ever going to happen. Until it does though, the Academy and most reviewers have no relevance at all.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Friday, January 27, 2006
Youthful Magic in Narnia
Sometimes it’s easy to forget that each viewer brings his own particular set of baggage to the viewing of a movie. Each member of the audience around you has experienced life differently and has a unique world view shaped by that experience. The fact each movie viewer brings these things to a film explains why some movies resonate with you and some don’t; why your able to suspend your sense of disbelief for some movies and not others; why some characters just grab you while others are forgettable.
It’s the beauty of film. It can be a different experience for each individual. A mass can leave the theater and some of them will have been disturbed by a movie, some uplifted, some provoked to thought and others just not moved one way or the other. It has to do with age, certainly, with upbringing, economic standing, a preponderance of trying times in ones life or a complete lack of struggle all together. The unique combination of factors that make up an individual also shapes how a person sees, and is affected by, a movie.
I was reminded of this when I viewed the Chronicles of Narnia for the second time recently. The first time I saw this movie I was not overwhelmed by it. I liked it, I didn’t love it. It was one of those movies that I found enjoyable but it didn’t really resonate with me. The scenery was gorgeous, the effects masterful and the story had all the elements for wonderment, but for some reason I just wasn’t whisked away like everyone else seems to be.
But then I saw this movie sitting next to a seven year old boy. He saw things in the movie that I didn’t, he felt things in the movie that I didn’t, experienced emotion from it that I just couldn’t. It was both an interesting and odd experience because I had to examine the reasons behind his ability to become involved to such an extent and the reasons why I couldn’t.
When Tilda Swinton’s character, the White Witch, became the obvious villain and began to mistreat Edmund, he expressed surprise. “I didn’t know she was going to be bad,” he whispered.
You didn’t? I knew from the first second she was introduced. I knew from the way Mr. Tumnus spoke about her. I knew her kindness was really treachery. But he did not. He saw someone being kind and immediately thought the best of her. Never mind what he had heard about her, he gave her the benefit of the doubt and was fooled in a way that no adult could be. That I couldn’t be. There was a charming naiveté about the way he saw both the movie and the world around him. It would be a nice thing to have sometimes wouldn’t? The kind of world view that eventually gets beaten off the very young? And what does it say about me and my world view that I could not, even for a second, take her kindness at face value?
Later, when Edmund is accompanying his siblings to the Beavers house, Edmund is acting suspiciously. “He keeps looking between the mountains where the witch lives,” he whispered. “He’s going to do something, he’s gonna make a mistake.”
Me, I hadn’t noticed Edmund’s glances. I never would have considered for a minute that Edmund was about to make a mistake because I already disliked him and assumed he was he was just operating with villainous intent rather than “making a mistake.” Again, I was not about to give Edmund the benefit of the doubt nor was I going to attribute his actions to youthful impertinence. To me, he was just a jerk. And I was not so taken with Edmund that I was watching him closely enough to catch his glances at the witches castle. You see, I summed him up as villainous and dismissed him. I assumed I already knew how he would behave and shifted my focus to other characters. The young viewer with me was not so quick to write him off. So innocent and given to trust human nature that he was still uncertain how Edmund would act.
It was nice and sad to see his eyes filled with wonderment. Most adults just see great CGI, they don’t get so caught up in the world of Narnia that they’re lost in it. They can’t be fooled by the characters so they don’t find the great joy in the redemption of Edmund. For the young man with me Edmunds redemption was a reassuring affirmation of his belief in people. For an adult it was unbelievable because he was a jerk and a brat, people don’t change like that, it was just not realistic to us. I would love to be naïve enough, just for a while, to see a movie from that viewpoint one more time.
Director Andrew Adamson did a tremendous job with this movie. It took a more youthful vantage point to make me see it. He made magic with the movie, handled the characters with just enough tenderness and levity to keep the dynamic and likeable. He did things with the film I just couldn’t see on my own. I mean, who but the very young could see the wisdom and fantasy in Santa dispersing weapons?
Special mention to Tilda Swinton here, she was amazing. The entire cast was terrific and Liam Neeson was wonderful as the voice of Aslan, though the Disney purist in me insisted on wanting to hear James Earl Jones. For a guy who’s previous credits included the more jockular Shrek films, Adamson surprised me with the tenderness and and complexity he gave this movie. Perhaps he filmed it from the perspective I should have had when viewing it.
It’s the beauty of film. It can be a different experience for each individual. A mass can leave the theater and some of them will have been disturbed by a movie, some uplifted, some provoked to thought and others just not moved one way or the other. It has to do with age, certainly, with upbringing, economic standing, a preponderance of trying times in ones life or a complete lack of struggle all together. The unique combination of factors that make up an individual also shapes how a person sees, and is affected by, a movie.
I was reminded of this when I viewed the Chronicles of Narnia for the second time recently. The first time I saw this movie I was not overwhelmed by it. I liked it, I didn’t love it. It was one of those movies that I found enjoyable but it didn’t really resonate with me. The scenery was gorgeous, the effects masterful and the story had all the elements for wonderment, but for some reason I just wasn’t whisked away like everyone else seems to be.
But then I saw this movie sitting next to a seven year old boy. He saw things in the movie that I didn’t, he felt things in the movie that I didn’t, experienced emotion from it that I just couldn’t. It was both an interesting and odd experience because I had to examine the reasons behind his ability to become involved to such an extent and the reasons why I couldn’t.
When Tilda Swinton’s character, the White Witch, became the obvious villain and began to mistreat Edmund, he expressed surprise. “I didn’t know she was going to be bad,” he whispered.
You didn’t? I knew from the first second she was introduced. I knew from the way Mr. Tumnus spoke about her. I knew her kindness was really treachery. But he did not. He saw someone being kind and immediately thought the best of her. Never mind what he had heard about her, he gave her the benefit of the doubt and was fooled in a way that no adult could be. That I couldn’t be. There was a charming naiveté about the way he saw both the movie and the world around him. It would be a nice thing to have sometimes wouldn’t? The kind of world view that eventually gets beaten off the very young? And what does it say about me and my world view that I could not, even for a second, take her kindness at face value?
Later, when Edmund is accompanying his siblings to the Beavers house, Edmund is acting suspiciously. “He keeps looking between the mountains where the witch lives,” he whispered. “He’s going to do something, he’s gonna make a mistake.”
Me, I hadn’t noticed Edmund’s glances. I never would have considered for a minute that Edmund was about to make a mistake because I already disliked him and assumed he was he was just operating with villainous intent rather than “making a mistake.” Again, I was not about to give Edmund the benefit of the doubt nor was I going to attribute his actions to youthful impertinence. To me, he was just a jerk. And I was not so taken with Edmund that I was watching him closely enough to catch his glances at the witches castle. You see, I summed him up as villainous and dismissed him. I assumed I already knew how he would behave and shifted my focus to other characters. The young viewer with me was not so quick to write him off. So innocent and given to trust human nature that he was still uncertain how Edmund would act.
It was nice and sad to see his eyes filled with wonderment. Most adults just see great CGI, they don’t get so caught up in the world of Narnia that they’re lost in it. They can’t be fooled by the characters so they don’t find the great joy in the redemption of Edmund. For the young man with me Edmunds redemption was a reassuring affirmation of his belief in people. For an adult it was unbelievable because he was a jerk and a brat, people don’t change like that, it was just not realistic to us. I would love to be naïve enough, just for a while, to see a movie from that viewpoint one more time.
Director Andrew Adamson did a tremendous job with this movie. It took a more youthful vantage point to make me see it. He made magic with the movie, handled the characters with just enough tenderness and levity to keep the dynamic and likeable. He did things with the film I just couldn’t see on my own. I mean, who but the very young could see the wisdom and fantasy in Santa dispersing weapons?
Special mention to Tilda Swinton here, she was amazing. The entire cast was terrific and Liam Neeson was wonderful as the voice of Aslan, though the Disney purist in me insisted on wanting to hear James Earl Jones. For a guy who’s previous credits included the more jockular Shrek films, Adamson surprised me with the tenderness and and complexity he gave this movie. Perhaps he filmed it from the perspective I should have had when viewing it.
Interesting Article on Ratings Board
Ratings board attacked in scattershot documentary
Friday January 27 3:45 PM ET
In "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," veteran documentary filmmaker Kirby Dick lets the Motion Picture Assn. of America's much-maligned film ratings board have it from both barrels.
So incendiary is the attack on the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) that it's doubtful if any company other than IFC would finance such a film because nearly all film companies are linked through corporate parents to the studios.
Granted, CARA is an inviting target. The board is a secret, unregulated organization whose members have no apparent qualifications other than being parents yet have the power to prevent films from reaching certain audiences and, according to one interviewee, by its very existence prevent some films from being made. But by employing Michael Moore techniques with entertaining graphics, mocking cartoons, unrelated footage from Columbine and Buchenwald and an ambush-style investigation into board members' identities, Dick risks evoking sympathy for board members who, after all, are only going along with a system put in place by others.
The film, screened here in the premieres section, has an airdate in the fall but could turn up at other festivals in the meantime. Any controversy it provokes is a good thing, as few filmmakers don't believe the current system needs reform.
The ratings system created by longtime MPAA president Jack Valenti in 1968 with its letter grades to gauge content and themes for parents was designed to counteract a multitude of local censorship boards across the country -- the most notorious was in Dallas -- whose conflicting and contradictory standards bedeviled national distribution of many films. The ratings system's great success was to eliminate this local censorship and ward off federal moves toward regulating film content. Yet this context is not clear in Dick's film, which seems unwilling to give CARA any credit for creating a sane, manageable system for labeling movies with adult content.
That said, the points the film makes against the board are well taken. The MPAA insists on keeping its rating board members anonymous, to protect them from undue pressure and influence supposedly, but most filmmakers and many moviegoers, too, would like to know who is rating their films.
What are their qualifications? Well, the way Valenti set it up there are none. These are "average parents," according to the party line. In the film, Newsweek critic David Ansen dismisses this mythological American parent as a "convenient fiction." A handful of people meeting in the San Fernando Valley can hardly represent parents across the nation. Later investigation reveals that contrary to MPAA assertions, the children of many of these raters are well past the age when movie ratings apply to them.
The major complaint from the indie sector is, as October Films co-founder Bingham Ray puts it, "The system is set up to favor the studios." "South Park" producer Matt Stone notes the differences he experienced coming before the board as an indie and then as a studio filmmaker. As a studio filmmaker, he received detailed instructions how to change an NC-17 film into an R, while as an indie he was left to guess.
Board decisions in recent years reveal a strong middle-class, male, heterosexual bias. The board has declared that female orgasms in certain films go on "too long," and it comes down hard on shots of female pubic hair. Gay sex receives harsher treatment than straight sex. Graphic violence, even against women, skates free of the dreaded NC-17 rating.
One key revelation is that two members of the clergy, one Catholic and one Protestant, sit in on appeals board hearings that convene when filmmakers appeal ratings.
What will make many viewers uneasy, though, is Dick's central quest. He hires female detectives to figure out the identities of members of both the ratings and appeals board. They succeed, but the image of a detective and one of our best documentarians sifting through a garbage can on a nighttime street makes you squirm. The "Candid Camera" gotcha shots of members shopping or eating lunch belong in a movie about a stalker, one that should be rated R.
Dick also drags in archival footage of the House Un-American Activities Committee and a brief mention of the infamous Hollywood blacklist and the MPAA's role in that sorry episode to further discredit the lobbying organization. This seems unfair because today's MPAA is hardly the same organization of right-wing nut cases.
Dick's strongest points are that these raters receive no training and are given no standards by which to judge movies. Experts in child psychology or media or social studies are not consulted. Nor are they allowed on the board.
The days of counting F-words or pelvic thrusts need to end, and in the film's quieter moments, Dick makes this case compellingly.
Director: Kirby Dick; Producer: Eddie Schmidt; Executive producers: Alison Palmer Bourke, Evan Shapiro; Directors of photography: Shana Hagan, Kirsten Johnson, Amy Vincent; Music supervisor: Dondi Bastone; Editor: Matthew Clarke; Animated graphics: Ka-Chew!
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Movie List From Fellow Blogger
I found an interesting Movie list today on a fellow bloggers post. Check it out, it’s a pretty interesting way of categorizing her movies. There’s movies she wishes she hadn’t watched, movies you wouldn’t want to watch with her because she knows all the words, etc. Of course, I have to wonder why she put Batman on her list of movies she wished she’d never seen. Take a look, it’s creative.
Directors
Ok, time for some great directors. Sometimes I think these guys, unless they’re really extraordinary, don’t get nearly enough credit. They’re like lineman in the NFL, you only seem to notice a director when he’s extremely good or extremely bad. The steady competent work doesn’t get you any recognition and as a result very few of these guys ever get to make a name for themselves outside of with big movie buffs. So here is my list of favorite directors; as with all these lists it’s not going to be complete but evolving. I should also note that this list is not in any particular order. They’re not ranked so you don’t have to write to me outraged that I put Lucas below Spielberg or vice versa.
1. Steven Spielberg: This ones a given. Jaws, Indiana Jones, Saving Private Ryan, what more do you need? Forgive him for A.I., he knows not what he did.
2. George Lucas: Easy.
3. M. Night Shyamalan: Strange name, amazing results. The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable put him on this list easily.
4. John Carpenter: The Fog, Precinct 13, Halloween. Instant horror classics.
5. George Romero: Night of the Dead, Day of the Dead..you get the idea. Horror movies with characterization? Social commentarty? Plot lines? Hubris!
6. Joel Schumacher: Unbelievable list of great movies for this guy. Flatliners, St. Elmos Fire, The Lost Boys, Falling Down, 8 MM, A Time to Kill, Batman & Robin and more.
7. Bryan Singer: The Usual Suspects, X-Men, X2 and Apt Pupil.
8. Ron Howard: Splash, Cocoon, Parenthood, Backdraft, A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13. I forgive him for Willow.
9. Robert Benson: The very underrated Nobody’s Fool with Paul Newman, the classic Kramer vs. Kramer, Places in the Heart and the critically acclaimed The Human Stain.
10. Christopher Nolan: Batman Begins and Memento. Talented guy just getting revved up, can’t wait to see what’s next.
11. Robert Rodriguez: Sin City, all of the Spy Kids franchise, El Mariachi, Desperado and From Dusk Till Dawn. Sin City 2 now in pre-production!
12. James Brooks:As Good As it Gets, Spanglish, Broadcast News, Terms of Endearment. Also producing the Simpsons Movie, and has produced the Simpsons for years, so he’s a sentimental favorite!
13. Gore Verbinski: Pirates of the Caribbean (and the upcoming sequels), The Ring, Mousehunt.
14. John Woo: Face-Off, Broken Arrow, Paycheck, Mission Impossible 2, Hard Target and Windtalkers.
15. Peter Jackson: Easy. King Kong, The Lord of the Rings trilogy and Frighteners.
16. Martin Scorsese: Gangs of New York, Cape Fear, Goodfellas, Casino and more.
17. Wolfgang Peterson: In the Line of Fire, Enemy Mine, Troy, The Perfect Storm, Outbreak and Air Force One. Coming soon is Poseidon.
18. James Cameron: The Terminator, T2, Titanic, The Abyss, Aliens and True Lies.
19. Bryan De Palma: Scarface, Mission Impossible, Carrie and Bonfire of the Vanities
20. Sam Raimi: Spiderman, Spiderman2, Spiderman 3, Evil Dead, Army of Darkness, For Love of the Game, the Gift and Darkman. The Evil Dead 2006 with a new screenplay and new Director has been announced!
21. Michael Curtiz: Casablanca.
22. Alfred Hitchock: The Birds, Vertigo, Rear Window. The best of the best here.
23. Clint Eastwood: Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, Space Cowboys, True Crime, Bloodwork, Pale Rider, Unforgiven.
24. Ridley Scott: Alien, Blackhawk Down, Gladiator, Hannibal, Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven and more.
25. Tim Burton: Corpse Bride, Beetlejuice, Batman, Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow.
1. Steven Spielberg: This ones a given. Jaws, Indiana Jones, Saving Private Ryan, what more do you need? Forgive him for A.I., he knows not what he did.
2. George Lucas: Easy.
3. M. Night Shyamalan: Strange name, amazing results. The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable put him on this list easily.
4. John Carpenter: The Fog, Precinct 13, Halloween. Instant horror classics.
5. George Romero: Night of the Dead, Day of the Dead..you get the idea. Horror movies with characterization? Social commentarty? Plot lines? Hubris!
6. Joel Schumacher: Unbelievable list of great movies for this guy. Flatliners, St. Elmos Fire, The Lost Boys, Falling Down, 8 MM, A Time to Kill, Batman & Robin and more.
7. Bryan Singer: The Usual Suspects, X-Men, X2 and Apt Pupil.
8. Ron Howard: Splash, Cocoon, Parenthood, Backdraft, A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13. I forgive him for Willow.
9. Robert Benson: The very underrated Nobody’s Fool with Paul Newman, the classic Kramer vs. Kramer, Places in the Heart and the critically acclaimed The Human Stain.
10. Christopher Nolan: Batman Begins and Memento. Talented guy just getting revved up, can’t wait to see what’s next.
11. Robert Rodriguez: Sin City, all of the Spy Kids franchise, El Mariachi, Desperado and From Dusk Till Dawn. Sin City 2 now in pre-production!
12. James Brooks:As Good As it Gets, Spanglish, Broadcast News, Terms of Endearment. Also producing the Simpsons Movie, and has produced the Simpsons for years, so he’s a sentimental favorite!
13. Gore Verbinski: Pirates of the Caribbean (and the upcoming sequels), The Ring, Mousehunt.
14. John Woo: Face-Off, Broken Arrow, Paycheck, Mission Impossible 2, Hard Target and Windtalkers.
15. Peter Jackson: Easy. King Kong, The Lord of the Rings trilogy and Frighteners.
16. Martin Scorsese: Gangs of New York, Cape Fear, Goodfellas, Casino and more.
17. Wolfgang Peterson: In the Line of Fire, Enemy Mine, Troy, The Perfect Storm, Outbreak and Air Force One. Coming soon is Poseidon.
18. James Cameron: The Terminator, T2, Titanic, The Abyss, Aliens and True Lies.
19. Bryan De Palma: Scarface, Mission Impossible, Carrie and Bonfire of the Vanities
20. Sam Raimi: Spiderman, Spiderman2, Spiderman 3, Evil Dead, Army of Darkness, For Love of the Game, the Gift and Darkman. The Evil Dead 2006 with a new screenplay and new Director has been announced!
21. Michael Curtiz: Casablanca.
22. Alfred Hitchock: The Birds, Vertigo, Rear Window. The best of the best here.
23. Clint Eastwood: Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, Space Cowboys, True Crime, Bloodwork, Pale Rider, Unforgiven.
24. Ridley Scott: Alien, Blackhawk Down, Gladiator, Hannibal, Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven and more.
25. Tim Burton: Corpse Bride, Beetlejuice, Batman, Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Ebert is Just Getting Silly Now
Go read Roger Ebert's review of Transamerica. Transamerica is Hollywood's 450th movie about homosexuality and gender confusion this year. Of course, they’re all original, open-minded, long time coming and enlightened films.
While Ebert is marching the straight and narrow down the PC path and doing his duty, giving this film a great review, it's also astounding to see the amount of psychobabble, American bashing crap that's found in this review. It's really not fresh or amusing anymore, it's just obsolete and droll. Please scroll down to the part where Ebert solves the scientific debate of homosexuality’s origin. Ebert, the scientist, then goes on to agree with the theory that the people in this movie could never be accepted or treated decently by middle class Americans. You bunch of unenlightened working stiffs that, you know, pay his salary.
Going further down the PC trail to insanity Ebert also seems to endorse the concept that Mexicans and Indian-Americans have a genetic predisposition to open-mindedness. Huh? That's what you love about liberals like him; behavior that's considered immoral or unacceptable by some is not the fault of anyone because it's genetic. People other than Americans are open minded because it's genetic. Americans are judgmental because they're mean and narrow-minded. Hmm. How did we get exempted from the pattern? Can't we have standards about morality because it's genetic? Why does every other culture and lifestyle get a free pass for their misdeeds with these people but Americans get condemned?
Look Ebert. Next your out with Delta Burke and Kirstie Alley making the dollar menu at McDonalds ring like a pinball machine, stop and look around at those middle class Americans you seem to frown upon. They’re hard working, resilient and decent people. And they pay you and Hollywood big money to engage in some of the easiest jobs on the planet. So give us all a break with your condescending nonsense--if people in this country want to have standards of behavior and adhere to them, if they further believe these standards serve the society at large (and by large I don’t mean just Ebert, Burke and Alley) than that's their right. Their prerogative. What you call closed minded some call common decency some just call it their opinion. It's a cheap shot and intellectual dishonesty to paint everyone who disapproves of a certain behavior as closed-minded. What couldn't fall under that umbrella? Drug use, if you don't like it you’re just closed minded. After all, addiction is genetic; genetics makes it not your fault, which in turn makes it a lifestyle, which means it should be acceptable. This is the line of logic they use to excuse just about everything and to point fingers at those people that don't agree. Enough.
While Ebert is marching the straight and narrow down the PC path and doing his duty, giving this film a great review, it's also astounding to see the amount of psychobabble, American bashing crap that's found in this review. It's really not fresh or amusing anymore, it's just obsolete and droll. Please scroll down to the part where Ebert solves the scientific debate of homosexuality’s origin. Ebert, the scientist, then goes on to agree with the theory that the people in this movie could never be accepted or treated decently by middle class Americans. You bunch of unenlightened working stiffs that, you know, pay his salary.
Going further down the PC trail to insanity Ebert also seems to endorse the concept that Mexicans and Indian-Americans have a genetic predisposition to open-mindedness. Huh? That's what you love about liberals like him; behavior that's considered immoral or unacceptable by some is not the fault of anyone because it's genetic. People other than Americans are open minded because it's genetic. Americans are judgmental because they're mean and narrow-minded. Hmm. How did we get exempted from the pattern? Can't we have standards about morality because it's genetic? Why does every other culture and lifestyle get a free pass for their misdeeds with these people but Americans get condemned?
Look Ebert. Next your out with Delta Burke and Kirstie Alley making the dollar menu at McDonalds ring like a pinball machine, stop and look around at those middle class Americans you seem to frown upon. They’re hard working, resilient and decent people. And they pay you and Hollywood big money to engage in some of the easiest jobs on the planet. So give us all a break with your condescending nonsense--if people in this country want to have standards of behavior and adhere to them, if they further believe these standards serve the society at large (and by large I don’t mean just Ebert, Burke and Alley) than that's their right. Their prerogative. What you call closed minded some call common decency some just call it their opinion. It's a cheap shot and intellectual dishonesty to paint everyone who disapproves of a certain behavior as closed-minded. What couldn't fall under that umbrella? Drug use, if you don't like it you’re just closed minded. After all, addiction is genetic; genetics makes it not your fault, which in turn makes it a lifestyle, which means it should be acceptable. This is the line of logic they use to excuse just about everything and to point fingers at those people that don't agree. Enough.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
George Romero and Stephen King
Stephen King has written a new book and dedicated it, in part, to one of my favorite movie people, George Romero. His classic zombie movies are reportedly referenced several times in the book and it appears, from all I have heard about the book, that it might be a sort of homage. It’s Stephen King’s shot at a zombie saga and it seems to add a rhyme and reason to the zombies inception and gives the story a sort of modern day twist. I don’t know that if it makes things like zombies more or less scary when you explain the origins. Was 28 Days Later less scary than Night of the Living Dead because there was no mystery, no sense of something supernatural about it?
Anyway, the premise of cell is that one day a “pulse” reaches anyone who is talking on a cell phone at that particular moment and turns them into a flesh-eating zombie. Whether or not this is a manmade thing or some supernatural device I don’t know. I haven’t read the book but I certainly will. Anytime Stephen King wants to take a crack at Romero’s genre I have to see what happens. Especially since it is obvious he wrote the story with Romero’s movies in mind and with a seemingly good understanding of who the master was. Sounds like a blast to me.
Anyway, the premise of cell is that one day a “pulse” reaches anyone who is talking on a cell phone at that particular moment and turns them into a flesh-eating zombie. Whether or not this is a manmade thing or some supernatural device I don’t know. I haven’t read the book but I certainly will. Anytime Stephen King wants to take a crack at Romero’s genre I have to see what happens. Especially since it is obvious he wrote the story with Romero’s movies in mind and with a seemingly good understanding of who the master was. Sounds like a blast to me.
Adios to Chris Penn
Chris Penn, brother of the more famous and far dumber Sean Penn, was found dead in his Santa Monica Condo this morning. According to all the news accounts I have seen police are ruling out foul play and an autopsy will determine what killed the 40 year old actor.
Penn was actually a decent actor, I always liked him in the limited roles he got. He had looked considerably heavier in recent appearances—not Chris-Farley-My-Hearts-Exploding, or Kirstie Alley I’m-only-a-nutty-scientologist-because-they-have-huge-buffets-in-their-compounds heavy, but a little overweight.
I will always love Penn for playing Travis in Best of the Best 2. Nobody but me likes that movie but I was entertained by it. Come on, Wayne Newton introducing death matches? What’s not to like?
He had a bit of a comic touch I think, though he never really seemed to explore it. Penn had some funny expressions and was reasonably amusing in a limited role in Rush Hour 2.
Anyone that’s played Grand Theft Auto San Andreas has heard his voice plenty playing the role of one of the crooked cops opposite Samuel Jackson. He’s had tons of minor and supporting roles, just nothing really big time. A minor part in Starsky and Hutch, True Romance and Mulholland Falls. If memory serves his biggest film would have been Reservoir Dogs.
It’s yet another strange coincidence for this here blog as well. See, last night I was watching CSI Miami and I saw Eric Roberts. Then I realized I hadn’t seen Roberts in quite a while. I liked him in the Specialist with Stallone and I loved him in Heaven’s Prisoners, a film nobody knows about, with Alec Baldwin. Of course he was great in Best of the Best and then I thought of Best of the Best 2 and that crazy Travis, and this morning he’s dead. OK, it’s a bit of a stretch but it’s still a coincidence. I was even thinking of writing a little about Eric Roberts and the Best of the Best movies today, surely I would have mentioned Penn.
I hesitate to say it, but both of these guys seem a little underutilized. Penn had some good moments and the ability to blend humorous tones into serious roles. I still think Roberts has a pretty good screen presence and he makes a great villain. I am a little shocked not to see more of him.
For Chris Penn’s complete and rather arge filmography, see our friends at IMDB.
Penn was actually a decent actor, I always liked him in the limited roles he got. He had looked considerably heavier in recent appearances—not Chris-Farley-My-Hearts-Exploding, or Kirstie Alley I’m-only-a-nutty-scientologist-because-they-have-huge-buffets-in-their-compounds heavy, but a little overweight.
I will always love Penn for playing Travis in Best of the Best 2. Nobody but me likes that movie but I was entertained by it. Come on, Wayne Newton introducing death matches? What’s not to like?
He had a bit of a comic touch I think, though he never really seemed to explore it. Penn had some funny expressions and was reasonably amusing in a limited role in Rush Hour 2.
Anyone that’s played Grand Theft Auto San Andreas has heard his voice plenty playing the role of one of the crooked cops opposite Samuel Jackson. He’s had tons of minor and supporting roles, just nothing really big time. A minor part in Starsky and Hutch, True Romance and Mulholland Falls. If memory serves his biggest film would have been Reservoir Dogs.
It’s yet another strange coincidence for this here blog as well. See, last night I was watching CSI Miami and I saw Eric Roberts. Then I realized I hadn’t seen Roberts in quite a while. I liked him in the Specialist with Stallone and I loved him in Heaven’s Prisoners, a film nobody knows about, with Alec Baldwin. Of course he was great in Best of the Best and then I thought of Best of the Best 2 and that crazy Travis, and this morning he’s dead. OK, it’s a bit of a stretch but it’s still a coincidence. I was even thinking of writing a little about Eric Roberts and the Best of the Best movies today, surely I would have mentioned Penn.
I hesitate to say it, but both of these guys seem a little underutilized. Penn had some good moments and the ability to blend humorous tones into serious roles. I still think Roberts has a pretty good screen presence and he makes a great villain. I am a little shocked not to see more of him.
For Chris Penn’s complete and rather arge filmography, see our friends at IMDB.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Oliver Stone and the Twin Towers
Oliver Stone
Let me just go ahead and head this movie off now before I actually have to watch it. I’m sure that you have all read that Hollywood has decided an appropriate mourning period has passed and the go-ahead has been given to start the deluge of 9/11 movies. I am not against this, film is an art, film is cathartic and film can definitely provoke thought and public debate. There is power in well done movies, there is healing in well done movies and there is escape. I am not of the mindset that 9/11 movies are inherently tactless or that making one is akin to sacrilege. Something I believe about movies and the sometimes terrible things they can depict from history: It’s a truism that when a nation is ready to allow something to both intrigue and entertain them that the nation is recovering and proving that no mortal wound has been inflicted. It’s like that guy that jokes all the time no matter how grave or tragic the situation—it’s just how he copes. As a country, literature and cinema have always been a large part of how we cope.
But, yes, there’s always a but-Oliver Stone? Come on Tinsel Town, do you really have to hand this project to the most conspiracy crazed, sensationalistic, fact-twisting nut you can find? The man that alluded to the involvement of Lyndon Johnson in the Kennedy assassination? The man that turned Richard Nixon into a predictable and trite caricature? The man who once mangled a screenplay so bad that the original writer asked to have his name removed from the credits (Natural Born Killers—Originally written by Quentin Tarentino). Is this the time for Stone to wheel out his ridiculous cavalcade of theories? I sincerely hope this isn’t the case, I hope Stone knows that this is a good time to sheath his insanity for a bit. Save the Bush did it for oil, Marines are smuggling oil home in their boots and Dick Cheney still works for Haliburton and Haliburton owns, oh, I don’t know, Al-Jazeera, and Cheney invents the Bin Laden tapes and plays them on his station, Al Jazeera, in order to push oil prices…..I don’t know, it’ll go something like that, I’m not as good at weaving the long, half-baked conspiracies as Stone is. Why don’t they just let Michael Moore make the film…I mean if truth and accuracy aren’t even remotely important, let them co-direct it. That could be funny. Not that truth in movies is always important, but when your touching on actual events you should at least try for a pinch of truth. Sure, dramatize the events, that little bit of creative license isn’t a big deal, but a little more realism and a little less I’m-wearing-tinfoil-on-my-head-because they-listen to my thoughts would be nice now and again.
I was particularly fond of his ham-handed attempt to display football as some barbaric inhuman event. You know the scene I mean. A guy is tackled so hard his eye pops out. How did he even film that without laughing? That movie was one of the biggest, most predictable, unoriginal piece of crap ever. Remember that HBO show in the 80’s? First and Ten, with Delta Burke before she swallowed the cast of Designing Women? The exaggerated portrayal of football players as constantly drunk, steroid taking, wife beating, drunk driving, mindless brutes that ultimately became the victims because “the man” discarded them when their bodies wore out? The overt allegations of racism, the allusion to the white man throwing away the black man after he’s used him for all he’s worth? All that way before. North Dallas Forty sort of like that. The Program very much like that on the college level. Done before, Oliver, and better.
That’s not to say all of his films are stinkers I loved Platoon but did not like Natural Born Killers—two of my least favorite actors, Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis are in it.
I understand that Stone occasionally has some gravitas when he tackles a subject. He was a decorated veteran in Vietnam, he elicited the help of 9/11 family members in makin this film, he got permission to use some actual names of real victims. Most of this hyper-sensitivity is likely the result of studio pressure well aware of the PR disaster lurking one misstep around the corner in the handling of this topic, still it offers some glimmer of optimism for the movie.
I admit in a sick sort of way I am curious to see what Stone does with this movie. I love Nicholas Cage, so that’s something. Maggie Gyllenhall, sick of being famous for screwing that gay cowboy, is taking on a good size role. And Stone didn’t write the movie, so that’s something. I just don’t know how a guy famous for drug use on the set and for eating mushrooms with the cast and crew of Natural Born Killers is a good fit for this topic. Maybe he’ll surprise me.
In the one-more-bizarre-coincidence portion of the piece (the first one being my writing about Night of the Comet and then finding out about a possible sequel) we have more amputees in movies. Oliver Stone has cast Aimee Mullins, a actress with no, that would be zero, legs below the knees to play a reporter in the movie. Mullins has been in one movie, Cremaster Three, and a few TV specials, this will be her first role in a big budget film. Of course, Olive Stone may wax poetic about how George Bush stole her legs, filled the prosthetics with oil from Iraq and bathed Dick Cheney in it, but that’s up to him. The critics might have other ideas. Stone fell out of favor with them recently when Alexander was roundly lampooned.
Reader Feedback
Thanks to everyone for the feedback and comments! One of you wanted to take a crack at his own list of great directors and though I, being a proscrastinator, haven't yet finished mine, I thought I would comment on his. First the list:
1. Ron Howard. I don't really need to explain why do I?
2. Mel Gibson. All his movies are worth watching. Especially the ones that he directs.
3. James Cameron. Not only is he a great writer/director/concept artist, he pushes the technological envelope with every movie that he makes. However, unlike other people, he uses the technology to enhance his story and not for the sake of coolness. He is a great storyteller first and a gadgeteer second.
4. Steven Spielburg used to be great. I don't like his recent movies very much, but his record is too impressive to ignore.
5. Joss Whedon. He is the screenwriter and director of the movie Serenity, the TV series Firefly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (3rd season), and Angel. A young highly talented man.
6. Alfred Hitchcock. If only he were still alive and making movies...
7. Martin Brest. The writer director of Meet Joe Black.
8. Roland Emmerich. His movies are fun.
9. Michael Bay. His movies are fantastic if you could just suspend you disbelief and leave your mind at home.
10. John Carpenter. He has made well over a dozen instant classics. Somehow, his movies always seems low budget, but they are always gripping and leave you wanting to watch more.
Not too many I could really argue with here. Hitchcock is a given and I did really, really like Joe Black, Scent of a Woman, Midnight Run and Beverly Hills Cop, so Martin Brest stays. I know, he also did Gigli, but come on, he's suffered enough and it can't un-do his past accomplishments.
Michael Bay is just plain fun and I love that this guy included directors that were just fun. One thing I wanted to avoid was some pretentious critics list with a bunch of artisticly talented people that made movies no one saw or really, truly enjoyed. This guys list fits that bill pretty well.
I love the James Cameron thing, Sure, he's big, he's commercial, he's not always critically aclaimed, but he has a place here. He created one of the most polarizing, love it or hate movies ever with Titanic. Yep, sorry to say that I liked it, please dont' throw fruit at me if you see me on the street.
Also, before Titanic there was the Terminator masterpieces and one of my favorite movies, the Abyss. Cameron surely has a place in the discussion of best directors. He may even be the most innovative. It would take a great amount of snobbery, I would think, to leave him off the list.
John Carpenter changed modern day horror. Perfected it really. Halloween, They Live, Escape From NY,Starman, the Thing, The Fog, he just churns out potential classics and even brings his own creepy music.
If I were to remove one guy here it would be Roland Emmerich, but I understand his reasoning. He's kind of fun. I didn't like Day After Tomorrow very much, but I don't think the direction sank the movie, it just wasn't well written. But I loved The Patriot and had a blast with Independence Day. Over all though, his body of work could be a little stronger and little more voluminous. One too many Godzillas and Day After's for me. I would re-evaluate him sometime in the future.
Over all though, great list. Thanks to everyone for the feedback, please keep it coming!
1. Ron Howard. I don't really need to explain why do I?
2. Mel Gibson. All his movies are worth watching. Especially the ones that he directs.
3. James Cameron. Not only is he a great writer/director/concept artist, he pushes the technological envelope with every movie that he makes. However, unlike other people, he uses the technology to enhance his story and not for the sake of coolness. He is a great storyteller first and a gadgeteer second.
4. Steven Spielburg used to be great. I don't like his recent movies very much, but his record is too impressive to ignore.
5. Joss Whedon. He is the screenwriter and director of the movie Serenity, the TV series Firefly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (3rd season), and Angel. A young highly talented man.
6. Alfred Hitchcock. If only he were still alive and making movies...
7. Martin Brest. The writer director of Meet Joe Black.
8. Roland Emmerich. His movies are fun.
9. Michael Bay. His movies are fantastic if you could just suspend you disbelief and leave your mind at home.
10. John Carpenter. He has made well over a dozen instant classics. Somehow, his movies always seems low budget, but they are always gripping and leave you wanting to watch more.
Not too many I could really argue with here. Hitchcock is a given and I did really, really like Joe Black, Scent of a Woman, Midnight Run and Beverly Hills Cop, so Martin Brest stays. I know, he also did Gigli, but come on, he's suffered enough and it can't un-do his past accomplishments.
Michael Bay is just plain fun and I love that this guy included directors that were just fun. One thing I wanted to avoid was some pretentious critics list with a bunch of artisticly talented people that made movies no one saw or really, truly enjoyed. This guys list fits that bill pretty well.
I love the James Cameron thing, Sure, he's big, he's commercial, he's not always critically aclaimed, but he has a place here. He created one of the most polarizing, love it or hate movies ever with Titanic. Yep, sorry to say that I liked it, please dont' throw fruit at me if you see me on the street.
Also, before Titanic there was the Terminator masterpieces and one of my favorite movies, the Abyss. Cameron surely has a place in the discussion of best directors. He may even be the most innovative. It would take a great amount of snobbery, I would think, to leave him off the list.
John Carpenter changed modern day horror. Perfected it really. Halloween, They Live, Escape From NY,Starman, the Thing, The Fog, he just churns out potential classics and even brings his own creepy music.
If I were to remove one guy here it would be Roland Emmerich, but I understand his reasoning. He's kind of fun. I didn't like Day After Tomorrow very much, but I don't think the direction sank the movie, it just wasn't well written. But I loved The Patriot and had a blast with Independence Day. Over all though, his body of work could be a little stronger and little more voluminous. One too many Godzillas and Day After's for me. I would re-evaluate him sometime in the future.
Over all though, great list. Thanks to everyone for the feedback, please keep it coming!
Friday, January 20, 2006
John Carpenter
I just realized something I meant to mention a while ago concerning remakes. I am not completely for or against them and I think they have to be considered on a case by case basis. Sometimes, like in the case of Poseidon, special effects advancements might make an interesting difference. Or a talented writer/director might actually liven up a story that was already pretty darn good.
Good remakes? I thought Amytville Horror was an outstanding remake and Ryan Reynolds showed some very unexpected dramatic ability. Likewise I enjoyed Flight of the Phoenix.
This all brings me to this: Oddly, the two worst remakes this year were both of John Carpenter movies. Cooper Layne, author of the updated screenplay, managed to absolutely massacre the Fog. So many things were wrong with this abomination that I don't think there's room enough here to discuss them all. Everything that should have stayed the same, changed. And Vice Versa. That suns it up.
Now, Assault on Precint Thirteen. Why on earth would you take the supernatural element out of a John Carpenter movie?James DeMonaco, please tell me you wrote this at gunpoint? Why not just make an all new cops and robbers flick? This was about as far removed from the original as possible. And it was terrible.
I hate when they ruin good movies. If you feel the need to chop them up to the point where you can barely recognize them, why are you remaking it? Could you have really found that much merit in the original if you feel it has to be completely evicerated? No more Carpenter remakes, please. Leave him alone.
Don't ever remake Dirty Harry either. I'm not kdding! Don't do it!
Imagine Me and You
And so, dear readers, another month another opening of a film shamlessly, artlessly and lazily using homosexuals as a plot line. Well, well, what a surprise. Apparently there's no stopping this until we're all gay, is that the point?
This is the heartwarming tale of a man and woman, engaged to be married, that find trouble when the bride turns out to be attracted to the lesbian flower girl, according to the plot synopsis.
Touching. These writers and directors are teetering on the edge of absurdity and all they can do is scream "Look! There's homosexuals in our movies! Aren't we incredibly talented and enlightened?"
Um, no.
"But...but they're adopting kids!"
Humm....ok....well, thanks anyway hack.
More drivel destined to bring in about 20 viewers and critical acclaim. Whats next? Something really shocking like a relationship featuring..gasp! A man and woman?
This is really Hollywood displaying an alarming lack of creativity, again. Seems like we're having this little talk once a week or so doesn't it? Does that give you any indication of how dull these guys are getting? Does every movie descritption have to read like a bad porn plot?
Gay Cowboys? Lesbian Brides? Yeah, you guys have your fingers on the pulse of America allright. Good thing we have you enlightened people around to make films and show us what life is really like. Jeez, there's hope for any writer in America to work in Tinsel Town if this is the best they can do.
This is the heartwarming tale of a man and woman, engaged to be married, that find trouble when the bride turns out to be attracted to the lesbian flower girl, according to the plot synopsis.
Touching. These writers and directors are teetering on the edge of absurdity and all they can do is scream "Look! There's homosexuals in our movies! Aren't we incredibly talented and enlightened?"
Um, no.
"But...but they're adopting kids!"
Humm....ok....well, thanks anyway hack.
More drivel destined to bring in about 20 viewers and critical acclaim. Whats next? Something really shocking like a relationship featuring..gasp! A man and woman?
This is really Hollywood displaying an alarming lack of creativity, again. Seems like we're having this little talk once a week or so doesn't it? Does that give you any indication of how dull these guys are getting? Does every movie descritption have to read like a bad porn plot?
Gay Cowboys? Lesbian Brides? Yeah, you guys have your fingers on the pulse of America allright. Good thing we have you enlightened people around to make films and show us what life is really like. Jeez, there's hope for any writer in America to work in Tinsel Town if this is the best they can do.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Great News Movie Fans
I just saw a rumor making its rounds on various websites. I don't know how I missed it as the first such report appears to have been made in September! The most credible of these sites is Aint it Cool News, but at least 3 other sources have mentioned it. I hope it’s true and I hope it’s done right. I have been clamoring for it to be done for a decade or more and my dream might just be realized. It’s also a very odd coincidence because I just mentioned this movie in my post of last night!
The rumor is that Kelli Maroney is reprising her role as Samantha Belmont and teaming with Thom Eberhardt, the writer/director of the original, and filming a sequel to Night of the Comet! Man, that has me salivating.
This campy, cheesy 80’s popcorn movie was so much fun and so typical of the time. It’s almost a period piece really. Right down to the Cyndi Lauper hit Girls Just Want to Have Fun being on the soundtrack. It’s all here, teenage recklessness, corporate bashing, unbearable materialism in America, all the old 80’s mantras.
God this movie was fun. The basic premise is this: Two sisters, Samanthan Belmont played by Kelli Maroney (Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and Regina Belmont played by Catherine Mary Stewart (The Last Starfighter, Weekend at Bernies) are fortuitously spared sudden death by a comet that sweeps over earth on Christmas Eve. Everyone else has arranged comet parties and stood outside seeking a glimpse. They were, of course, vaporized.
The sisters awake to find themselves totally alone. Moments of grief hysterically interrupted by the revelation that the shopping malls are fair game. Samantha pines for her boyfriend, since turned to dust, and sensible Regina seems to find freedom in this new state of affairs. Her best line coming as she gets sick and tired of hearing about Chuck, Samantha’s dead boyfriend. “Samantha, you were born with an asshole, you don’t need Chuck!”
The sisters quickly find it’s not going to be all that easy. Some people, rather than being completely turned to a fine red powder, have been mutated. Flesh eating zombies and people in various states of mutation begin hunting down the pair at every turn. Some greedy corporate types that foresaw the coming tragedy but saw profit in it turn up to offer a cool twist. This movie was just an absolute blast and an easy cult classic.
You can catch it from time to time on the Sci-fi Channel, but it’s horribly edited and really not the same film. I have heard that some cable networks are offering it on Pay Per View, try and catch it. Reports are rampant that the negative has long been lost and this film just wont ever see the light of DVD. It’s a shame because this movie will be funny and creepy 20 years from now. It’s so 80’s and the whole Valley Girl thing is so funny. If you get a chance to watch it please do.
Eberhardt also directed the terrible Captain Ron and the little known Gross Anatomy with Mathew Modine. He’s done little of note since but I love the fact that he is back for the sequel. Here’s hoping it’s not some terrible B movie with zero budget. I want the full treatment. Valley Girl all grown up, should be a blast. No word, by the way, that I can find on whether or not Catherine Mary Stewart will be back. I hope so, those two played wonderfully off of one another and added a nice dynamic to the original. I do think Mary Woronov is coming back, she was most recently seen in the Devils Rejects and gives me some hope there is a budget after all. We will see. In the meantime, someone start a letter writing campaign and get the original on DVD!!!
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Coming Soon
I would like to continue this bizarre list-making obsession of mine in soon to be posts! I think the next one, coming tomorrow or soon after, will be a list of my favorite directors. After that, I think I would like to explore my favorite movie soundtracks a bit. I'll give you a little preview....
I think the theme from Halloween remains the most simplistic and bone chilling theme I have ever heard in a horror film. It me be the most effective and functional theme ever. I also feel that the instrumental from St. Elmos Fire is a tremendous mood setting piece with the power to depress the audience a little and yet somehow get us ready for the redemption of the characters. It is melancholy and makes me want to reminisce for some reason. I always found that song to be poignant, sad and very powerful.
Directors you say? Well, sure to make the list are the Usual Suspect, Spielberg, Lucas, John Woo because he's fun and more. Check back later today, I promise you something!
Thanks to the reader who submitted his own top 10 list of films, I will try to comment on that later as well. Also thanks to the reader who appreciates the inclusion of Old Boy on my list of twists!
So much to do....I promised a review of Crash and you will get it! Also would like to look back at a forgotten film that is not on DVD and should be, a campy sci-fi movie called Night of the Comet. Someone please tell me who to contact to get this film on DVD!
Also, if you haven't read the most recent reviews they are: Walk The Line, Hostel and The Family Stone. Please scroll down and let me know what you think of them!
I think the theme from Halloween remains the most simplistic and bone chilling theme I have ever heard in a horror film. It me be the most effective and functional theme ever. I also feel that the instrumental from St. Elmos Fire is a tremendous mood setting piece with the power to depress the audience a little and yet somehow get us ready for the redemption of the characters. It is melancholy and makes me want to reminisce for some reason. I always found that song to be poignant, sad and very powerful.
Directors you say? Well, sure to make the list are the Usual Suspect, Spielberg, Lucas, John Woo because he's fun and more. Check back later today, I promise you something!
Thanks to the reader who submitted his own top 10 list of films, I will try to comment on that later as well. Also thanks to the reader who appreciates the inclusion of Old Boy on my list of twists!
So much to do....I promised a review of Crash and you will get it! Also would like to look back at a forgotten film that is not on DVD and should be, a campy sci-fi movie called Night of the Comet. Someone please tell me who to contact to get this film on DVD!
Also, if you haven't read the most recent reviews they are: Walk The Line, Hostel and The Family Stone. Please scroll down and let me know what you think of them!
Poseidon 2006
Here is a movie that I am eagerly awaiting--a remake of The Poseidon Adventure, a movie often credited with starting the whole disaster film genre. I can’t tell you why exactly, but the 1972 version is a movie that I always loved watching; one of those movies I just can’t turn off when I see it on. It was full of tense moments and did such an magnificent job making us care about the fate of those people. That is hard to do in a movie that features so many characters. It’s like establishing a deep and dynamic character in a very short story; the time and space in which you have to accomplish this feat is so limited. Friday Night Light’s was a great example of a movie that tried to make the audience connect with a multitude of characters and just couldn’t pull it off. The Poseidon Adventure, however, with a tightly written script and some amazing acting showed us how to do it. It was the kind of movie where you expected that some of them wouldn’t make it but you absolutely dreaded that moment in the movie when you would find out for whom the bell was tolling. I was so young when I saw it but can still distinctly remember feeling chilled as Shelly Winters panicked at the prospect of having to swim an extremely long distance to safety. The brilliant direction in this movie gave us all moments of claustrophobia and really helped us to empathize with Winters dread and panic. But then there was the steady and soothing Ernest Borgnine, the guy that made us feel like maybe they all could make it. Red Buttons was the jittery little guy with the big heart, I was pulling for him all the way. It was such a terrific movie, such moments of tension and disbelief. All in the age before special effects really took off, when most films still HAD to be plot/ character-centric to survive at all.
Poseidon 2006
The new version is simply titled Poseidon. It’s going to be directed by Wolfgang Petersen who was masterful with Enemy Mine and In the Line of Fire but a bit bombastic directing Air Force One and Troy—both enjoyable films, they simply could have been much better. He certainly has a heck of a cast to work with. This lineup includes Richard Dreyfus, Kurt Russell, Josh Lucas, Kevin Dillon and Jacinda Barrett (Bridget Jones, The Human Stain). It’s curious, but in the original the desperate passengers rallied around a priest who exhibited natural leadership and calm, his name was Rev. Frank Scott, incredibly well acted by Gene Hackman. In the cast listing for 2006’s version there is no Frank Scott listed as a character, not sure if he’s been replaced by a new character or just renamed and stripped of his collar. We’ll see. I hope they aren’t going to monkey with the original version too much. In case you aren’t aware of the plot, it’s a bit Titanic like, without the sappy romantic interludes. An enormous cruise ship is hit by an even larger tidal wave and capsizes, killing many passengers in the process. Pockets of survivors exist in the air pockets now mainly existing along the floor of the ship, which is now the ceiling, and try making their way out of the ship to be rescued. They weren’t just a bunch of random characters or empty-headed hot chicks with convenient white t-shirts soaked through either. They were interesting and compelling people such as: an old Jewish couple on their way to Israel to see their grandson, a young boy, a strong willed and shockingly cold priest, and a NYC Cop with an ex-hooker as his new wife. Well, Wolfgang Petersen’s resume is solid and compels me to trust him with this remake. Just keep the original in site Mr. Petersen, it’s not simply an action extravaganza, it doesn’t need to be peppered with bizarre plot twists and out-of-the-blue villains. It’s all about the characters and making us root for their survival. The original really was that simple and it worked just fine.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Best Plot Twists/Surprise Endings
A growing list of movies that we feel have excellent plot twists and stunning surprise endings. As always, reader feedback will help this list continue to grow and improve!
- The Usual Suspects
- Fight Club
- The Game
- Se7en
- 12 Monkeys
- The Omega Man
- Mulholland Drive
- The Ring
- The Crying Game
- The Others
- A Simple Plan
- Fargo
- Arlington Road
- Empire strikes Back
- The Sixth Sense
- Presumed Innocent
- Old Boy
- Pulp Fiction
- Donnie Darko
- Twilight Zone the Movie
- Unbreakable
- The Village
- Psycho
- Rosemary’s Baby
- Scream, 2, and 3
- Fallen
- Memento
- Shattered
- Planet of the Apes
- Soylent Green
- Saw
- Vanilla Sky
- L.A. Confidential
- Primal Fear
- The Devil’s Advocate
- Basic Instinct
- Saw II
- What Lies Beneath
- Identity
- The Negotiator
- The Skeleton Key
- Frequency
- Wild Things
- Stir of Echoes
- I Know What You Did Last Summer
- Frailty
- Secret Window
- Taking Lives
- Basic
- Copycat
- Kiss the Girls
- Holes
- Dead Again
- High Tension
- Urban Legend
- Bloodwork
- Reindeer Games
- F/X
- The Lost Boys
Reader Feedback
I am getting a lot of comments about my underrated movie list. It seems as though most of you agree with 99 percent of it, but there are 2 movies listed you just don't agree with. So, rather than concede defeat and remove them, I want to defend their inclusion on the list.
The movies in question are The Usual Suspects and Memento.
Now let me say one thing before I get going: The majority of those people writing to me seem to be hardcore film fans or major movie buffs. They are not absolutely representative of the public at large. I would expect fans like you to have seen and appreciate these films. What I am proposing is that the public at large (your average everyday fan) might have missed these movies. In fact, when talking about films with the general fan I never, ever, hear these movies mentioned. In the domain of public discourse these movies never turn up.
Now, I understand that these movies have been veiwed and voted on a number of times at IMDB. But to be fair, it's likely hard core movie fans going to that site and voting, so I don't know how much weight I should give that. And yes, it's also true that these directors got a boost in terms of their careers on the heels of these films, but just because your own industry recognizes your talent does not mean the general public does. I mean, how many people (other than fans like us) even know who directed these movies?
In theaters The Usual Suspects opened with a less than 1 million dollar weekend. It took in 1.2 million total before foreign release and DVD sales. Not exactly a blockbuster now was it? And why not? Lack of critical acclaim? No, they liked it. Lack of faith in critical opinions among the public? I believe so. Please see the glowing reviews of the craptastic Family Stone for proof that critics are experiencing a severe disconnect with the general movie-going public.
Memento fared much better in the box office after a very slow start in limited release. IMDB reports an opening weekend of less than 300,000 dollars in limited release. Overall take is reported at a little more than 25 million. Not bad; not exactly setting records either. This film could have done much better than that.
I maintain my opinion that these movies are undervalued. Recognition within the film industry of the people involved and some votes on IMDB does not change my mind. I never hear anyone talk about these movies. I never hear them mentioned in critical circles nor do I see them listed anywhere other than on obscure movie sites.
That's my story and I am sticking to it. Keep the comments coming, let me know if you bought any of that staunch defense!
The movies in question are The Usual Suspects and Memento.
Now let me say one thing before I get going: The majority of those people writing to me seem to be hardcore film fans or major movie buffs. They are not absolutely representative of the public at large. I would expect fans like you to have seen and appreciate these films. What I am proposing is that the public at large (your average everyday fan) might have missed these movies. In fact, when talking about films with the general fan I never, ever, hear these movies mentioned. In the domain of public discourse these movies never turn up.
Now, I understand that these movies have been veiwed and voted on a number of times at IMDB. But to be fair, it's likely hard core movie fans going to that site and voting, so I don't know how much weight I should give that. And yes, it's also true that these directors got a boost in terms of their careers on the heels of these films, but just because your own industry recognizes your talent does not mean the general public does. I mean, how many people (other than fans like us) even know who directed these movies?
In theaters The Usual Suspects opened with a less than 1 million dollar weekend. It took in 1.2 million total before foreign release and DVD sales. Not exactly a blockbuster now was it? And why not? Lack of critical acclaim? No, they liked it. Lack of faith in critical opinions among the public? I believe so. Please see the glowing reviews of the craptastic Family Stone for proof that critics are experiencing a severe disconnect with the general movie-going public.
Memento fared much better in the box office after a very slow start in limited release. IMDB reports an opening weekend of less than 300,000 dollars in limited release. Overall take is reported at a little more than 25 million. Not bad; not exactly setting records either. This film could have done much better than that.
I maintain my opinion that these movies are undervalued. Recognition within the film industry of the people involved and some votes on IMDB does not change my mind. I never hear anyone talk about these movies. I never hear them mentioned in critical circles nor do I see them listed anywhere other than on obscure movie sites.
That's my story and I am sticking to it. Keep the comments coming, let me know if you bought any of that staunch defense!
Monday, January 16, 2006
Hostel
Hostel: A unique, Once-In-A-Decade Thrill Ride
Eli Roth, the writer and director of Cabin Fever, has given us one of the most tense, heart pounding, arm chair grabbing and edge-of-your-seat thrilling horror movies in recent memory. I have to say I was a little surprised because, at the risk of being bombarded with emails asking me if I am crazy, I didn’t particularly like Cabin Fever. It was OK, dark comedies are tricky to pull off as it is, so I suppose it was a very ambitious undertaking. An A for effort but I found it to be off the mark.
That being said Hostel is a clear step in Roth’s journey into becoming an amazing writer. There is a definite attempt to develop some characters, though it’s sort of incomplete, and he has an unbelievable knack for putting us right in the characters' shoes.
For example Josh, played by Derek Richardson, seems to be a little more gun shy about simply running amuck and having sex with everything that moves than his two companions. There are some definite hints that Josh may be harboring some homosexual feelings that are reinforced by his being the only character reluctant to engage in a sexual encounter with a prostitute in Amsterdam and demonstrated a few times more on a long train ride. Whether or not his reluctance is based on some moral objection is a bit ambiguous and this latent homosexual tendency is never actually explored in depth or fully explained. It has seemed as though Roth had an idea here but it was aborted as he lost himself in the rush of brutal horror sequences and endless sex jokes. It’s almost unfortunate because it may have actually added to the characters complexity a little bit and might have served as a springboard into some interesting situations and/or dialogue.
None the less, this movie isn’t really about well developed dynamic characters or poignant conversation. It’s more about putting some stereotyped characters in quasi-unique situations and then scaring the shit out of the audience. To that end; well done. The basic plot of the film entails 3 college aged guys backpacking through Europe and making their way from one Hostel to another. Josh, Paxton and Oli are told about a far removed little town where the women are plentiful and the men scarce, giving them excellent odds for amorous activity. So, smoking all the legal pot they can handle the three set off for the creepiest little town you can imagine and find themselves almost instantly having sex with beautiful young women. But there is an inevitable price to be paid for such reckless abandon. In fact, Roth seems to want us to understand the dangers inherent in blindly pursuing life's pleasures with little thought to consequence because the principal characters have several chances to escape their gruesome fate by simply abstaining. There are several indicators that something isn’t right in this town that’s not even on a map and had they stopped being horny for an hour or two they just might have figured it out.
Though it’s not generally a subject worth noting, I have to say that the sets in this movie, from the town, the nightclubs, the Hostel and the eventual warehouse scenes are absolutely perfect. I can’t imagine a place that would have been more creepy. Why is it that a dirty, grimy warehouse or bathroom is all the more scary when it’s in some foreign land than in say, New York City or LA? Well, for one there’s this sense of being cut off from everything familiar. That might be OK until something goes wrong and then you just don’t know where to turn for help and you’re so very far from home. Nothing’s familiar and nothing's comfortable. There’s a sense of true escape being just impossible. There’s desolation and hopelessness at every turn.
Roth was truly amazing at making me feel tense during this movie. Yes, there was gore, plenty of it, but nothing that would normally make me wince like this film did. It’s all stuff I have seen before but still, it was somehow made worse here and I’m not ashamed to say I just can’t put my finger on all the "why’s" of that fact. It’s likely a culmination of the tight pacing, foreign setting, excellent direction and the plotline that do it. You see, the monsters in this film are not strange undead characters struck by lightning and endowed with superhuman powers. Instead they come in all shapes and sizes, display initial reluctance to perform their gruesome feats on occasion, and could be living next door to us. They are mortal men doing this; not to satisfy some need for justice at having been drowned in a lake or for having been burned at the stake, but simply to satisfy curiosity or bloodlust. This is both a fascinating and terrifying take. The movie explores the actions of sadistic, murderous, demented psychopaths. These people have a need to torture, maim and kill for no real reason. They appear to be amoral and seem to have no empathy or remorse. It is extremely unsettling to know that it is not just one or two people that are participating in this, but a slew of them. And not once do you stop to think that there is just no way that there are that many people partaking in this sick passion, so skilled is Roth’s direction and so tight is the script.
Without ruining anything for you let me say that there exists a very interesting revenge component to the movie. A nice little piece of writing that turns the tables on the audience and gives them a little bloodlust of their own. It leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth, as though you stop and wonder: Did I just root for that to happen? Jeez, I’m as bad as the monsters in the film now. The shoe is on the other foot and I’m the one applauding torture. How did that happen?
It takes unmistakable skill to make an audience empathize with characters that are being tortured and slaughtered when you’ve seen it all before. It takes amazing talent to make the audience feel actual and honest fear for a character. To take the scene when you’re looking through the eye holes of a mask from the captive's point of view, a scene we’ve all seen before, and make you gasp a little at the predicament you feel the character in. I can’t remember the last time that I paused during a film to realize that I was gripping the armrest of my seat so firmly that it was uncomfortable. I also can't remember the last time that I actually saw a fellow audience member turn his or her head and sigh deeply, as though going through something that was so draining that they felt exhausted.
Sure, there were things that could have been done better. The sexual antics and attitudes of the three main characters was a bit overdone and heavy handed. The callousness of some of the participants in the evil going’s on was a little over-the-top. And it would have been nice to know the characters just a little better, so that I could have been invested in their well-being just a bit more. But, all in all this was one of the scariest and most tense experiences I have ever had in a theater. I can't wait to see what Roth turns out when he is a seasoned and more experienced writer. This movie was just a little short of being a true horror classic and, in my opinion, it was well worth the experience.
A little more attention to character and a bit more subtlety will serve him well as his career continues. Roth is a definite work in progress and I would bet the farm that he will eventually write and direct a horror classic that goes down as something definitive of the genre.
Go experience Hostel because that’s what you do with a movie like this; you can’t just view it in some detached manner. You can’t watch it—you feel it. That’s the hallmark of a great movie and this certainly qualifies. Our friends at Football and Beer told me before-hand that this movie felt like the movie-goer's equivalent to skydiving. It has that same adrenaline pumping, heart pounding rush of action and danger. It was a fantastic description of this film. A true rare experience and well worth the price of admission. Moviemojo heartily recommends this film.
The Family Stone
The Family Stone Feels Like a Kick in the Stones
The Family Stone
It’s so easy to get the critics going. They’re so predictable and so often on a soap box that it’s difficult to take them seriously anymore. It’s almost as though a checklist of politically correct requirements exist and they watch films checking them off as they appear, the more liberal dogma in the film the higher the rating. Now, this is something that can be overlooked as long as the movie is actually good. I mean, if you avoided every Hollywood movie with a liberal agenda you’d see about 2 movies a year. The problem seems to be that somewhere along the line the requirement for a movie being good seems to have vanished altogether. Just drop in some messages, a few of the well known protected classes, ridicule the very things most Americans still believe in, and, like Pavlov’s dog, the mindless critics come running to give you that 4th star.
Again, this isn’t to say I’m easily offended. I’m not. Drop in all the liberal messages and agendas that you want, so long as it’s well written, well directed and well acted; I will like it. The Lethal Weapon series, for example, was famous for Joe Donner dropping messages in on purpose, like pro-choice t-shirts being worn by minor characters and the whole bit about the dolphin safe tuna. You know what? The movies were fun and I didn’t care about the minor agenda. It didn’t take over the movie though. It seems that as time passes the agenda has become more important than things like plot and characterization. Originality even.
The latest is example of this is The Family Stone. It’s been a long time since I’ve sat through such pretentious, predictable and formulaic drivel. I can say with certainty I’m not the only one who felt this way because, for the first time in recent memory I witnessed people walk right out of the movie. The closest thing I have seen to this level of audience displeasure was a steady rumbling of disapproval heard throughout Dark Water.
One of the principal characters and, coincidentally, the least interesting story line, was the archetype of liberal dogma's representative of a protected group, that it was actually laugh out loud funny.
This dysfunctional family features, like every single family on earth apparently does, a gay son. Not just gay though. He’s also in an interracial relationship. And deaf. And adopting a child with his gay lover. No seriously, I’m not making this up. In order to advance this bizarre agenda many story lines and characters that could have been more interesting go virtually unexplored.
The story begins with Everett Stone, played by Dermot Mulroney bringing his girlfriend home for the first time, and for the Holidays. Meredith Morton, played by Sarah Jessica Parker, is supposed to be uptight, sort of cold, and terrified of not being accepted. Everett’s family is, for some reason hell bent on not liking her. She is given a luke-warm reception, picked on, talked about, ridiculed and ostracized right from the moment she walks in the door.
Particularly fierce is the angry Amy Stone, played by Rachel McAdams. Dianne Keaton as Sybil Stone is equally nasty. So bizarre is Sybil Stone that she can seemingly accept all manner of behavior from her children but she can’t accept a stressed out, nervous and surprisingly fragile Meredith Morton.
In the first hour of the film Sybil laughs away at her children’s cruelty, their illicit drug use, promiscuous sex and dysfunctional behavior while steadfastly ignoring the silent plight of the poor girl that just wants to fit in. Mind you, Sybil is supposed to be the sympathetic character, blurting out such gems as the nonchalant, “Bret popped Amy’s cherry!” Now please, can we have a little realism here? Is there any self-respecting parent out there who would talk about her children this way? Now, aside from being just weird and unrealistic, it didn’t serve the story a bit nor did it advance the plot. It was just Diane Keeton reprising her tired, tired role as some uber-liberal that was just so enlightened and accepting that she knows better than all of us.
Later, Sybil will actually say that she wishes all her children were gay. When Parker’s character questions the wisdom of such a weird statement she is immediately vilified, humiliated and run off. She questions the "accepted" dogma that gays should have children and the indignation of the family is hard to sum up. Who is she to question this? After all, someone has apparently decided that this debate has been settled and that’s that.
Now, when the crude and vile Sybil decides she does not want Meredith marrying her son she reneges on a promise made to her son years prior. When called on this her eloquent response to her son, in regards to breaking a solemn promise is, “Tough shit.”
Ignored in this mess of agenda pushing and overt cruelty towards Morton (obviously supposed to be the
McAdams plays the perpetually angry Amy Stone who appears to have some interesting back-story but we never hear of it. What’s with the attitude? The anger at the world and unending nastiness? The battered car, failed romances and on-going dance with the flame that so lovingly “Popped her cherry”? Well, we never find out. Instead of a decently developed character she’s just some white noise the writers use to bash Meredith at any turn and repeatedly demonstrate her unacceptability and uptightness. Oh, you didn’t know? Questioning dysfunctional behavior, crude attitudes towards your children, and being nervous around a hostile family whose acceptance you desperately need makes you uptight and vile. You learn something new every day.
McDermot’s character starts to develop into something interesting, a character with some passion and backbone, but it fizzles quickly. He hangs his potential fiancée out to dry at an embarrassing dinner scene and shamelessly decides he’d rather have her sister at the film's midway point. All that stuff about him being a deeply feeling, protective and empathetic character are summarily tossed out the window with no explanation and little regard for consistency of character.
All the usual plot suspects are here. Get your tired dramedy check list handy. Family tragedy? Check. Irreverent, funny and likeable sibling? Check. Love trysts? Check. Solemn father trying to hold it all together? Check. It’s all here, it’s all been done and done better.
But the critics? Oh, they loved it. A gay interracial couple with one deaf guy. Adopting a child you say? Ding, ding, Pavlov’s dog, quickly turn your thumb up! Embrace this trite drivel; drive people to the theaters where they will assuredly be disappointed. But at the very least they will have been exposed, no matter how unwittingly, to the agenda.
This giant disaster of a movie was written by a Fashion Executive straight from Ralph Lauren. Do us a favor Thomas Bezucha, move from the typewriter and back to the sewing machine. One more of these movies and I’ll wish for a good set of sewing needles with which to poke my eyes out.
The bottom line is this: If you want a good, touching and well written Dramedy then go buy Parent Hood on DVD. It’s a better film, a more touching film and it actually features likeable consistent characters. I don’t yet have a rating system like thumbs up or stars, so let me say that if I did, then The Family Stone would get 0 stars, 2 thumbs down and 0 out of 4 anything.
Reader Emails
I want to answer some emails from readers this evening. Also, I want to make sure you all know that I will answer any comments and questions right here and as often as I can.
First up an outstanding suggestion for an addition to my underrated movie list. Thanks to the reader who let me know that Frailty should be added. I assure you it will be, my list will reach 100 by tomorrow night and Frailty will be among them. Now, I know some of you think that it got plenty of recognition and I understand that point, however in the general public discourse this film gets very little mention. I have asked around and there are plenty of people that have not seen it. If your among them take a tip from the reader who suggested and myself: go see it! It's an outstanding movie, well directed, suspensful and beautifully acted.
The next reader wants to know where they can find, specifically in what scenes, the movie Urban Legends I posted. Well, you can't find them because they're non-existent. Those are just myths about movies that have persisted for years but they aren't actually true.
In fact, the only such myth that I think does in fact exist is SEX being spelled out in the Lion King. I have seen it myself and I am pretty sure it is there.
If you're curious and want to try it yourself, look for a scene where adult Simba flops down on the ledge of a cliff. A bunch of flowers go flying over the edge into the starry night and dissapear slowly. Play it frame by frame and look for the flower petals to briefly form the word sex. I think it's there, granted it's been years since I looked. It wouldn't be the first time some animator wanted to get clever and have some inside joke. Don't ask me how someone noticed this though, that's an extensive study to undertake if you ask me.
I want to thank the people who wrote to me just to say nice blog, keep going, I appreciate that. Please let the comments continue, it's part of what makes this enjoyable.
First up an outstanding suggestion for an addition to my underrated movie list. Thanks to the reader who let me know that Frailty should be added. I assure you it will be, my list will reach 100 by tomorrow night and Frailty will be among them. Now, I know some of you think that it got plenty of recognition and I understand that point, however in the general public discourse this film gets very little mention. I have asked around and there are plenty of people that have not seen it. If your among them take a tip from the reader who suggested and myself: go see it! It's an outstanding movie, well directed, suspensful and beautifully acted.
The next reader wants to know where they can find, specifically in what scenes, the movie Urban Legends I posted. Well, you can't find them because they're non-existent. Those are just myths about movies that have persisted for years but they aren't actually true.
In fact, the only such myth that I think does in fact exist is SEX being spelled out in the Lion King. I have seen it myself and I am pretty sure it is there.
If you're curious and want to try it yourself, look for a scene where adult Simba flops down on the ledge of a cliff. A bunch of flowers go flying over the edge into the starry night and dissapear slowly. Play it frame by frame and look for the flower petals to briefly form the word sex. I think it's there, granted it's been years since I looked. It wouldn't be the first time some animator wanted to get clever and have some inside joke. Don't ask me how someone noticed this though, that's an extensive study to undertake if you ask me.
I want to thank the people who wrote to me just to say nice blog, keep going, I appreciate that. Please let the comments continue, it's part of what makes this enjoyable.
Reviews
Still haven't read my Walk The Line review? What are you waiting for?
Coming soon will be the reviews of Crash, Hostel and The Family Stone.
Coming soon will be the reviews of Crash, Hostel and The Family Stone.
My Poor Chicago Bears
Yep, I know this is a movie blog. But aside from being a huge fan of cinema I am also an ardent supporter of the Chicago Bears. Yesterday was a dark, dark day for me! Be sure to catch a recap of the game--complete with humorous commentary-from our friends at Football and Beer.
Also coming soon to that amusing little blog will be a nice history of video games, the 20 best television shows ever and a summary of video games that changed the industry. Check out the blog, it's pretty funny. A link to this blog can always be found in my links section!
Also coming soon to that amusing little blog will be a nice history of video games, the 20 best television shows ever and a summary of video games that changed the industry. Check out the blog, it's pretty funny. A link to this blog can always be found in my links section!
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Horror Movie Favorites
Scary Movies As Art Forms
A love for horror movies is a mysterious thing. I can’t say for sure where it comes from or why it persists long after your old enough to be somewhat resistant to them. A great horror movie can scare you naturally—that is an adult audience member just gets lost in it and succumbs easily to the bumps and jumps. These movies are rare and precious.
A good horror movie, of which there are many, often requires us to intentionally suspend disbelief and just enjoy. They really can’t scare us unless we let them. It’s a more active form of audience participation than most movies require and it’s usually worth the effort. That’s why horror movies represent such a gamble; if a moviegoer takes the energy to prepare for a horror movie and the payoff isn’t there the disappointment is exaggerated and the film despised.
For me, it started when I was very young. The house was dark and I woke up in the middle of the night. Leaving my bedroom I could hear the most simplistic yet creepy music I have ever, to this day, heard. It was a haunting melody and had the unbelievable ability to put me on guard right away. My progress to the source of the music, the living room, slowed. I had become unsure.
I could see my parents sitting in the room bathed in the glow of the television, that simple, scary music rising to a crescendo.
I poked my head around the corner just in time to see Michael Meyers plunge a butcer knife into some unsuspecting high school student.
Terrified I shrunk back around the corner. But I couldn’t resist. I had to see more. One more peek: There was Meyer’s again, that terrible mask with the creepy brown hair and empty looking eye holes.
Shrink back again.
Another peek.
I was hooked. Eventually a gasp of some sort alerted my parents to my presence and stopped the horror movie I was put, wide-eyed, back to bed.
And so it began. Ever since I could easily appreciate any piece of art that could elicit this visceral response. That’s a talent. I realize that horror movies are sort of seen as the trashy second cousin to cinematic achievements but it’s unfair. It takes hard work and talent to scare people. Every bit as much as it does to make people happy, sad or both. People who look down their noses at horror movies and think them easy to make aggravate me to no end. Just once I would like to see a critic say, “This movie could have had better actors, could have had characters a little more well developed, but it scared the crap out of me and I loved it.”
I found a tremendous website with a great list of upcoming horror movies for 2006and a ton of great links. It’s obviously made by great horror fans and it’s called Bloody Disgusting!
Also check out the cool reviews and in-depth list of horror films at All Horror Movies.
What follows is a very partial and very incomplete list of some of my favorite horror movies. One way or another these movies raised the hair on the back of my neck.
- Halloween
- Friday the Thirteenth
- TheGrudge
- Hellraiser
- Night of the Living Dead
- Day of the Dead
- Dawn of the Dead
- Land of the Dead
- The Hitcher (Might properly belong in suspense/thriller)
- Boogeyman (I can't understand why horror fans dont like this more. I had great fun with it).
- The Ring
- Pet Cemetary
- The Evil Dead
- I Know What You Did Last Summer
- Night of the Demons
- Wish Master
- Wes Cravens New Nightmare
- My Deadly Friend
- Nightmare on Elmstreet
- Wishmaster
- Night of the Creeps (Alien Slugs, how can you not love it?)
- 976-Evil
- Fright Night
- Saw
Friday, January 13, 2006
Underrated Movies
Why Some Movies Make It and Some Movies Don't
It is a tragedy when a great film goes unwatched because the public didn't know about it or because it didn't appeal to them. This happens more frequently than one might think. A slew of finely crafted movies get overlooked because they were poorly marketed. Worse yet, many entertaining "popcorn movies" get snubbed by critics on a constant basis . Critics review movies for the public, but all too often they are not representing the common movie watcher's views and interests. Whether a film is spurned by the pedantic or by the plebian, it is detestable when these films are not properly appreciated.
Unfortunately, most critics have sunk to an elitist, narrowminded perspective that the public cannot relate to. Because of this, the public does not trust reviewers anymore and some great movies were ignored by the masses.
The only way that some of these underwatched movies could have been seen would have been through good reviews from the critics, and/or great word-of-mouth advertising.
Critics Have Lost Their Credibility
Many movie goers view critics as having two interests in mind when they review movies:
1. They have an inflated ego; because of this, they extol on the virtues of obscure movies, trying to "inform" the public of something they don't know. Which leads naturally into...
2. They want to illustrate that they are more insightful, more aware, and more educated than the average person. They see movies as art, while the average movie goer sees them as simple entertainment. I can appreciate a movie for both its artistic integrity and for its entertainment value just as many other average movie goers can.
I feel that after seeing a few too many movies, most critics become jaded. They don't see each new film on its own term. The banality of the more "run of the mill" films are not entertaining to them anymore.
The average movie goer of today wonders, "What does a critic have to offer that a testimonial from another movie goer won't?" There is now a great disparity between the criteria for an average person to enjoy a film and the criteria required for a critic to appreciate it.
A critic's opinion and the general public's opinion differ primarily in their reason for viewing a film. A critic views it to analyze it, judge it, to compare it to other films, and to point out its weaknesses and strengths. Conversely, the public watches a film in order to be entertained. They prefer to temporarily escape from their reality and relax.
Underappreciated Movies:
Here is my list of movies that were either never seen, or underrated by supercilious critics: (Either way, these movies deserve more credit!)
1. The Game
2. Equilibrium
3. Unbreakable
4. The Final Cut
5. Suspect Zero
6. Perfect World
7. Sliding Doors
8. The Usual Suspects
9. Intersection
10. Memento
11. The Island
12. Shaun of the Dead
13. A Knight's Tale
14. Prophecy
15. Fright Night
16. Heat
17. Dogma
18. Fight Club
19. Happiness
20. Office Space
21. American Psycho
22. True Romance
23. Dark Blue
24. About a Boy
25. Wimbledon
26. Garden State
27. Flight of the Navigator
28. Man on Fire
29. Cuffs
30. Iron Eagle
31. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
32. Donnie Darko
33. Evil Dead
34. Freaks
35. Texas Chainsaw Massacre
36. Scarface
37. Eraserhead
38. The Warriors
39. They Live
40. Heathers
41. 12 Monkeys
42. Edward Scissorhands
43. eXistenZ
44. Event Horizon
45. Big Fish
46. Suspiria
47. Demons
48. Dark City
49. Lost Highway
50. Arlington Road
51. Big Trouble in Little China
52. Buffalo Soldiers
53. Cube
54. Freeway
55. Go
56. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
57. Gattica
58. Pump Up the Volume
59. Stake Out
60. The Seventh Sign
61. Disclosure
62. Best in Show
63. Not Another Teen Movie
64. Waiting
65. Van Wilder
66. Romeo is Bleeding
67. Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels
68. Snatch
69. Galaxy Quest
70. October Sky
71. Requiem for a Dream
72. The Family Man
73. Boondock Saints
74. The Cutting Edge
75. Spirited Away
76. Starship Troopers
77. The Butterfly Effect
78. Team America:World Police
79. Deep Blue Sea
80. Diggstown
81. Frailty
82. Serendipity
83. Someone Like You
84, Rising Sun
85. Wrong Turn
86. It Could Happen to You
87. Night of the Creeps
88. In Good Company
89. Stakeout
90. Less Than Zero
91. The Ref
92. St. Elmos Fire
93. 13 Ghosts
94. Payback
95. Dead Again
96. The Abyss
97. The Boondock Saints
98. The Specialist
99. Assasins
100. Under the Tuscan Sun
101. Sin City
102. Crash
103. A History of Violence
It is a tragedy when a great film goes unwatched because the public didn't know about it or because it didn't appeal to them. This happens more frequently than one might think. A slew of finely crafted movies get overlooked because they were poorly marketed. Worse yet, many entertaining "popcorn movies" get snubbed by critics on a constant basis . Critics review movies for the public, but all too often they are not representing the common movie watcher's views and interests. Whether a film is spurned by the pedantic or by the plebian, it is detestable when these films are not properly appreciated.
Unfortunately, most critics have sunk to an elitist, narrowminded perspective that the public cannot relate to. Because of this, the public does not trust reviewers anymore and some great movies were ignored by the masses.
The only way that some of these underwatched movies could have been seen would have been through good reviews from the critics, and/or great word-of-mouth advertising.
Critics Have Lost Their Credibility
Many movie goers view critics as having two interests in mind when they review movies:
1. They have an inflated ego; because of this, they extol on the virtues of obscure movies, trying to "inform" the public of something they don't know. Which leads naturally into...
2. They want to illustrate that they are more insightful, more aware, and more educated than the average person. They see movies as art, while the average movie goer sees them as simple entertainment. I can appreciate a movie for both its artistic integrity and for its entertainment value just as many other average movie goers can.
I feel that after seeing a few too many movies, most critics become jaded. They don't see each new film on its own term. The banality of the more "run of the mill" films are not entertaining to them anymore.
The average movie goer of today wonders, "What does a critic have to offer that a testimonial from another movie goer won't?" There is now a great disparity between the criteria for an average person to enjoy a film and the criteria required for a critic to appreciate it.
A critic's opinion and the general public's opinion differ primarily in their reason for viewing a film. A critic views it to analyze it, judge it, to compare it to other films, and to point out its weaknesses and strengths. Conversely, the public watches a film in order to be entertained. They prefer to temporarily escape from their reality and relax.
Underappreciated Movies:
Here is my list of movies that were either never seen, or underrated by supercilious critics: (Either way, these movies deserve more credit!)
1. The Game
2. Equilibrium
3. Unbreakable
4. The Final Cut
5. Suspect Zero
6. Perfect World
7. Sliding Doors
8. The Usual Suspects
9. Intersection
10. Memento
11. The Island
12. Shaun of the Dead
13. A Knight's Tale
14. Prophecy
15. Fright Night
16. Heat
17. Dogma
18. Fight Club
19. Happiness
20. Office Space
21. American Psycho
22. True Romance
23. Dark Blue
24. About a Boy
25. Wimbledon
26. Garden State
27. Flight of the Navigator
28. Man on Fire
29. Cuffs
30. Iron Eagle
31. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
32. Donnie Darko
33. Evil Dead
34. Freaks
35. Texas Chainsaw Massacre
36. Scarface
37. Eraserhead
38. The Warriors
39. They Live
40. Heathers
41. 12 Monkeys
42. Edward Scissorhands
43. eXistenZ
44. Event Horizon
45. Big Fish
46. Suspiria
47. Demons
48. Dark City
49. Lost Highway
50. Arlington Road
51. Big Trouble in Little China
52. Buffalo Soldiers
53. Cube
54. Freeway
55. Go
56. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
57. Gattica
58. Pump Up the Volume
59. Stake Out
60. The Seventh Sign
61. Disclosure
62. Best in Show
63. Not Another Teen Movie
64. Waiting
65. Van Wilder
66. Romeo is Bleeding
67. Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels
68. Snatch
69. Galaxy Quest
70. October Sky
71. Requiem for a Dream
72. The Family Man
73. Boondock Saints
74. The Cutting Edge
75. Spirited Away
76. Starship Troopers
77. The Butterfly Effect
78. Team America:World Police
79. Deep Blue Sea
80. Diggstown
81. Frailty
82. Serendipity
83. Someone Like You
84, Rising Sun
85. Wrong Turn
86. It Could Happen to You
87. Night of the Creeps
88. In Good Company
89. Stakeout
90. Less Than Zero
91. The Ref
92. St. Elmos Fire
93. 13 Ghosts
94. Payback
95. Dead Again
96. The Abyss
97. The Boondock Saints
98. The Specialist
99. Assasins
100. Under the Tuscan Sun
101. Sin City
102. Crash
103. A History of Violence
Lillian Taublib and Amputees in Movies?
Ok, well here’s a quirky little tidbit that I will follow up with an article I found. Someone let me know that it seems odd for Steven Spielberg to have gotten all this attention because he used real amputees in the filming of Private Ryan because other directors have been doing this for a while (this came from a reading of my lame movie trivia section).
One loyal reader, OK, I only have one reader, sent me the interesting article below about a new stunt school that trains amputees only—so prevalent is their use in explosions and car accident scenes that casting calls for people missing limbs are apparently common place. Never knew that did you? Neither did I.
Amputees were also widely used in Dawn of the Dead (to portray Zombies missing limbs), also in Land of the Dead A.I. , Starship Troopers, Shaun of the Dead, Band of Brothers and more. They are listed in casting books as “specialists” along with people that are extra tall, heavily tattooed, or whatever else a casting director might be looking for.
The same person who sent the article below said this trend continues in foreign films where it is not strictly behind the scenes. There is apparently a Brazilian film called Delicate Crime featuring Lillian Taublib, that has garnered critical acclaim at the Caines, with Ebert and Roper, and other film festivals, Taublib, a one-legged actress, acted her way from a minor character into the star of the movie and the romantic interest of the leading man.
That’s a whole lot of movies featuring amputees. They are threatening to overtake homosexuality as the leading characters in films and television shows. This should be quite a battle for screen time.
By C.A. Wolski
Stunts-Ability trains people with disabilities for work as stunt performers in the entertainment industry.
R. David Smith might not be a household name but he has made dozens of anonymously memorable appearances in such big-name films as Predator, A. I.: Artificial Intelligence, and Windtalkers. Typically, his face is hidden under layers of makeup and latex and he exits the scene in a suitably graphic way—getting blown off a roof or his arm torn off his body. But Smith’s presence on the screen is notable for another reason. He is a member of an elite Hollywood fraternity—the disabled stunt performer.
FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
In addition to having been a working stunt man for the last 20 years, Smith is the founder and executive director of Stunts-Ability. When he founded the San Diego-area non-profit organization in 1993, his goal was to provide the film industry with a cadre of professionally, trained disabled stunt performers. About 75% of stunts involving dismemberment or the use of adaptive devices like wheelchairs are still performed by able-bodied stunt people. “There’s a [Screen Actors Guild] policy that states—and this is verbatim—all stunt coordinators shall use the disabled in descript and non-descript roles,” he says. “But the thing was, nobody was training them, so they couldn’t put somebody in an area that was dangerous to them.” This was the “Catch 22” Smith decided to correct.
Stunts-Ability not only helps the disabled-would-be stunt performer learn the correct way to fall, leap, and roll, but also how to act on a set and in front of the cameras. Most of Smith’s students in his free classes are amputees. For the amputees and the other disabled people he trains, the chance to have steady work as a stunt person is more important than it is for an able-bodied person. “I think the record shows that for most people with disabilities their job becomes a bigger part of their life than the able-bodied person,” he says.
Smith’s disability is congenital. He is missing his left arm below the elbow. Precluded from following his childhood dream of becoming a fireman, Smith decided to pursue acting. It was while studying acting at Paramount Pictures in the late 1970s that he had his first experience as a stunt man on the film Metalstorm. He followed his Metalstorm appearance with stints on The A-Team and numerous other television and film productions. “I’m better at stunts than I am at acting,” he says, explaining the shift in his career. “I can throw a few lines and get blown up [and] I make more money doing stunts than I do acting.” However, he says that if there had been an organization like Stunts-Ability when he was starting out, he would have avoided the injuries that now plague him.
EARNING A LIVING
In addition to earning a living, the disabled stunt performers get something else—medical benefits. “A lot of the amputees don’t have medical,” says Smith. “If you make $7,500 in a year you get [Screen Actors Guild] medical—it’s called plan 3. On A. I., I worked 4 weeks—there were eight of us who worked on that—everybody got medical after that.”
There are also benefits to the film industry using disabled stunt performers. When able-bodied performers portray the disabled, they often have their arms or legs tied up, causing injury from a lack of blood flow or from being unbalanced when doing the stunt. Production companies can receive up to a $5,000 tax break if they use a Stunts-Ability performer. There is another advantage for the filmmakers: a sense of realism. “If you notice in most movies, whenever a stunt guy gets blown up in [a war movie] now he goes flying through the air kicking both arms and both legs,” says Smith. “The reality is that’s not going to happen. We work with a lot of veterans. We had a guy…who said when he stepped on a land mine, one leg went one way and one went the other.”
In addition to training these specialized stunt performers, Smith has become a kind of disability activist. “There are over 50 to 60 million Americans with disabilities,” he says. “They are the least represented minority.”
As part of his role as advocate, Smith visits up 30 schools a year spreading the Stunts-Ability philosophy to the students, educating them that the disabled are human beings and not scary. But there is another reason Smith goes to the schools, and that is to inspire disabled children that they can pursue their dreams—whether they want to be a stunt player or a fireman or whatever life they desire.
VALUE IN THE EYES OF CLASSMATES
If there are any disabled students at the school, Smith includes them in the assembly. By thrusting disabled youngsters into the spotlight, he gives them value in the eyes of their classmates. “When we go into schools, and a disabled kid [is]…in the audience, I bring them up and say ‘This is my buddy,’ and [their classmates] already see you as a hotshot Hollywood…star,” he says. “And I know I got them and you see every kid looking at you and I say, ‘This is my friend Bobby or this is one of my best friends Barbara and she’s missing a leg or an arm. I can’t be here every day, but, you know what? These are the people, to me, that are the heroes.’ I let those kids have my phone number so they can call me anytime they want.”
Surprisingly Smith sees the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as a double-edged sword. “I think education is the best thing,” he says. “We’ve got to make society more comfortable. It’s not just the person with the disability [that needs] to feel comfortable. We’ve got to be able to make the able-bodied community feel comfortable with us. I think through that something like stunts has always been cool to people…all of a sudden in a kid’s mind you’re a star, then you can give them what I believe is the truth and educate them that way.”
Smith does not expect Hollywood to give the Stunts-Ability-trained performers jobs just because they are disabled. “You’ve got to also know your craft,” he says. “Don’t expect people to hire you just because you have a disability. They’ve got to be trained, they’ve got to pay their dues. You can’t just expect Hollywood to hire them on a movie because they have one leg or because you’re handsome. You’ve got to work hard at it until you get it.”
Smith’s recent work on A. I. as a robot was a model of how he would like Hollywood to react to disabled stunt performers. “The beautiful thing about [A. I.] was we helped [the casting director] with 130 amputees across the country and Steven hired eight of us and one of us was a principal—and that was me,” he says. “I’ll tell you one thing about Steven Spielberg that I really admired more than anything is that he was like a little kid—he would sit there during breaks and he would talk to the amputees and say ‘how did you lose your legs?’ He had no problem with that. He wasn’t trying to be cool.” Spielberg told Smith that if there were more trained, disabled stunt performers he would use them.
The opportunities for the disabled are changing, thanks to organizations like Stunts-Ability. One of Smith’s disabled stunt men has even realized a dream he was denied—the younger man is a firefighter. “At least when a kid grows up and he wants to be a fireman, at least give him the opportunity to prove himself before you shut him down,” he says.
One loyal reader, OK, I only have one reader, sent me the interesting article below about a new stunt school that trains amputees only—so prevalent is their use in explosions and car accident scenes that casting calls for people missing limbs are apparently common place. Never knew that did you? Neither did I.
Amputees were also widely used in Dawn of the Dead (to portray Zombies missing limbs), also in Land of the Dead A.I. , Starship Troopers, Shaun of the Dead, Band of Brothers and more. They are listed in casting books as “specialists” along with people that are extra tall, heavily tattooed, or whatever else a casting director might be looking for.
The same person who sent the article below said this trend continues in foreign films where it is not strictly behind the scenes. There is apparently a Brazilian film called Delicate Crime featuring Lillian Taublib, that has garnered critical acclaim at the Caines, with Ebert and Roper, and other film festivals, Taublib, a one-legged actress, acted her way from a minor character into the star of the movie and the romantic interest of the leading man.
That’s a whole lot of movies featuring amputees. They are threatening to overtake homosexuality as the leading characters in films and television shows. This should be quite a battle for screen time.
By C.A. Wolski
Stunts-Ability trains people with disabilities for work as stunt performers in the entertainment industry.
Steven Spielberg hired eight amputees to work as stunt performers for the movie A.I
R. David Smith might not be a household name but he has made dozens of anonymously memorable appearances in such big-name films as Predator, A. I.: Artificial Intelligence, and Windtalkers. Typically, his face is hidden under layers of makeup and latex and he exits the scene in a suitably graphic way—getting blown off a roof or his arm torn off his body. But Smith’s presence on the screen is notable for another reason. He is a member of an elite Hollywood fraternity—the disabled stunt performer.
FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
In addition to having been a working stunt man for the last 20 years, Smith is the founder and executive director of Stunts-Ability. When he founded the San Diego-area non-profit organization in 1993, his goal was to provide the film industry with a cadre of professionally, trained disabled stunt performers. About 75% of stunts involving dismemberment or the use of adaptive devices like wheelchairs are still performed by able-bodied stunt people. “There’s a [Screen Actors Guild] policy that states—and this is verbatim—all stunt coordinators shall use the disabled in descript and non-descript roles,” he says. “But the thing was, nobody was training them, so they couldn’t put somebody in an area that was dangerous to them.” This was the “Catch 22” Smith decided to correct.
Stunts-Ability not only helps the disabled-would-be stunt performer learn the correct way to fall, leap, and roll, but also how to act on a set and in front of the cameras. Most of Smith’s students in his free classes are amputees. For the amputees and the other disabled people he trains, the chance to have steady work as a stunt person is more important than it is for an able-bodied person. “I think the record shows that for most people with disabilities their job becomes a bigger part of their life than the able-bodied person,” he says.
Smith’s disability is congenital. He is missing his left arm below the elbow. Precluded from following his childhood dream of becoming a fireman, Smith decided to pursue acting. It was while studying acting at Paramount Pictures in the late 1970s that he had his first experience as a stunt man on the film Metalstorm. He followed his Metalstorm appearance with stints on The A-Team and numerous other television and film productions. “I’m better at stunts than I am at acting,” he says, explaining the shift in his career. “I can throw a few lines and get blown up [and] I make more money doing stunts than I do acting.” However, he says that if there had been an organization like Stunts-Ability when he was starting out, he would have avoided the injuries that now plague him.
EARNING A LIVING
In addition to earning a living, the disabled stunt performers get something else—medical benefits. “A lot of the amputees don’t have medical,” says Smith. “If you make $7,500 in a year you get [Screen Actors Guild] medical—it’s called plan 3. On A. I., I worked 4 weeks—there were eight of us who worked on that—everybody got medical after that.”
There are also benefits to the film industry using disabled stunt performers. When able-bodied performers portray the disabled, they often have their arms or legs tied up, causing injury from a lack of blood flow or from being unbalanced when doing the stunt. Production companies can receive up to a $5,000 tax break if they use a Stunts-Ability performer. There is another advantage for the filmmakers: a sense of realism. “If you notice in most movies, whenever a stunt guy gets blown up in [a war movie] now he goes flying through the air kicking both arms and both legs,” says Smith. “The reality is that’s not going to happen. We work with a lot of veterans. We had a guy…who said when he stepped on a land mine, one leg went one way and one went the other.”
In addition to training these specialized stunt performers, Smith has become a kind of disability activist. “There are over 50 to 60 million Americans with disabilities,” he says. “They are the least represented minority.”
As part of his role as advocate, Smith visits up 30 schools a year spreading the Stunts-Ability philosophy to the students, educating them that the disabled are human beings and not scary. But there is another reason Smith goes to the schools, and that is to inspire disabled children that they can pursue their dreams—whether they want to be a stunt player or a fireman or whatever life they desire.
VALUE IN THE EYES OF CLASSMATES
If there are any disabled students at the school, Smith includes them in the assembly. By thrusting disabled youngsters into the spotlight, he gives them value in the eyes of their classmates. “When we go into schools, and a disabled kid [is]…in the audience, I bring them up and say ‘This is my buddy,’ and [their classmates] already see you as a hotshot Hollywood…star,” he says. “And I know I got them and you see every kid looking at you and I say, ‘This is my friend Bobby or this is one of my best friends Barbara and she’s missing a leg or an arm. I can’t be here every day, but, you know what? These are the people, to me, that are the heroes.’ I let those kids have my phone number so they can call me anytime they want.”
Surprisingly Smith sees the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as a double-edged sword. “I think education is the best thing,” he says. “We’ve got to make society more comfortable. It’s not just the person with the disability [that needs] to feel comfortable. We’ve got to be able to make the able-bodied community feel comfortable with us. I think through that something like stunts has always been cool to people…all of a sudden in a kid’s mind you’re a star, then you can give them what I believe is the truth and educate them that way.”
Smith does not expect Hollywood to give the Stunts-Ability-trained performers jobs just because they are disabled. “You’ve got to also know your craft,” he says. “Don’t expect people to hire you just because you have a disability. They’ve got to be trained, they’ve got to pay their dues. You can’t just expect Hollywood to hire them on a movie because they have one leg or because you’re handsome. You’ve got to work hard at it until you get it.”
Smith’s recent work on A. I. as a robot was a model of how he would like Hollywood to react to disabled stunt performers. “The beautiful thing about [A. I.] was we helped [the casting director] with 130 amputees across the country and Steven hired eight of us and one of us was a principal—and that was me,” he says. “I’ll tell you one thing about Steven Spielberg that I really admired more than anything is that he was like a little kid—he would sit there during breaks and he would talk to the amputees and say ‘how did you lose your legs?’ He had no problem with that. He wasn’t trying to be cool.” Spielberg told Smith that if there were more trained, disabled stunt performers he would use them.
The opportunities for the disabled are changing, thanks to organizations like Stunts-Ability. One of Smith’s disabled stunt men has even realized a dream he was denied—the younger man is a firefighter. “At least when a kid grows up and he wants to be a fireman, at least give him the opportunity to prove himself before you shut him down,” he says.
Movie Stuff
Here’s a small collection of movie trivia and a few instances of Urban Legends creeping up in Hollywood.
I know, this is a cheap entry, but these can be interesting! Anyway , they were compiled from various sources and I hope you like them.
•During the Omaha Beach scenes, the soldiers with limbs missing were portrayed by real amputees.
Fred the janitor in scream is Director Wes Craven in make-up
When Stu was hit on the head with the phone by Billy, that was actually an accident on Skeet's behalf. Because the fake blood was so slippery, the phone slipped out of Skeet's hand and hit Matthew in the head. Stu's response, "F**cken' hit me with the phone dick!" was actually Matthew's real response. The filmmakers however thought it was funny and kept it in. – Taryn
In Gale's van right above the little T.V. if you look real carefully you can see a "Happy Days" bumper sticker. A reference to Henry Winkler who played the principal who also played Fonzie on Happy Days. – Smiley
Chris Farley was originally considered for performing the voice of Shrek before he passed away. –
While being on the stakeout, Emilio Estevez and Richard Dreyfuss play a movie quote game to pass time. Eztevez asks Dreyfuss to recognize the quote: "This was no boating accident." and Dreyfuss has no idea - although he was the one who originally said it in Jaws (1975) as Matt Hooper - the shark-expert. – Webmaster
Stephen King is the author or the Book "Carrie", which came out in 1974. It was the first novel he wrote. King had thrown the first pages of the story in a garbage pail, but his wife rescued them and urged him to finish the work. Signet paid $400,000 for its paperback rights.
The ghost of a boy who died in the apartment where the movie was filmed can be seen in the final version of Three Men and A Baby
A tiny actor portraying a Munchkin hanged himself on the set of the Wizard of Oz and his death was not only captured on film but can be seen in the movie.
I know, this is a cheap entry, but these can be interesting! Anyway , they were compiled from various sources and I hope you like them.
Saving Private Ryan
•During the Omaha Beach scenes, the soldiers with limbs missing were portrayed by real amputees.
Scream
Fred the janitor in scream is Director Wes Craven in make-up
When Stu was hit on the head with the phone by Billy, that was actually an accident on Skeet's behalf. Because the fake blood was so slippery, the phone slipped out of Skeet's hand and hit Matthew in the head. Stu's response, "F**cken' hit me with the phone dick!" was actually Matthew's real response. The filmmakers however thought it was funny and kept it in. – Taryn
In Gale's van right above the little T.V. if you look real carefully you can see a "Happy Days" bumper sticker. A reference to Henry Winkler who played the principal who also played Fonzie on Happy Days. – Smiley
Shrek
Chris Farley was originally considered for performing the voice of Shrek before he passed away. –
Stakeout
While being on the stakeout, Emilio Estevez and Richard Dreyfuss play a movie quote game to pass time. Eztevez asks Dreyfuss to recognize the quote: "This was no boating accident." and Dreyfuss has no idea - although he was the one who originally said it in Jaws (1975) as Matt Hooper - the shark-expert. – Webmaster
Carrie
Stephen King is the author or the Book "Carrie", which came out in 1974. It was the first novel he wrote. King had thrown the first pages of the story in a garbage pail, but his wife rescued them and urged him to finish the work. Signet paid $400,000 for its paperback rights.
Strangest Moive Urban Legends
The ghost of a boy who died in the apartment where the movie was filmed can be seen in the final version of Three Men and A Baby
A tiny actor portraying a Munchkin hanged himself on the set of the Wizard of Oz and his death was not only captured on film but can be seen in the movie.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Someone's Getting Fired.....
From Fox News
Thursday, January 12, 2006
LONDON — Judges of Britain's top film awards were unable to view Steven Spielberg's new movie "Munich" as nominations closed Thursday because distributors mistakenly sent them DVDs coded to play only on North American machines.
The movie is not due for release in British movie theaters until Jan. 27, so many members of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts could not see the movie in time.
Bafta has 5,000 eligible voters, 3,500 of which live in Britain and the rest primarily in the United States, where the movie opened in theaters last month.
Sara Keene, whose Premier PR firm represents the film's British distributor, United International Pictures, acknowledged Wednesday the error may reduce the movie's award prospects.
Most Hollywood DVDs are coded to restrict its distribution. That way, a studio can choose to release a film on DVD on one continent while still showing it in theaters on another.
DVDs coded Region 1 are supposed to play only on DVD players sold in the United States and Canada; British players need DVDs coded Region 2.
The mix-up resulted from a human error at a laboratory where the preview DVDs were processed, according to Premier PR.
“There was a technical problem," Keene said. "Someone pushed the wrong button."
Spielberg has previously been honored by the Bafta awards — the British equivalent of the Oscars — with a special prize for excellence in film making.
His new film “Munich,” is based on events following the killing of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics.
British Film Judges Unable to View 'Munich'
Thursday, January 12, 2006
LONDON — Judges of Britain's top film awards were unable to view Steven Spielberg's new movie "Munich" as nominations closed Thursday because distributors mistakenly sent them DVDs coded to play only on North American machines.
The movie is not due for release in British movie theaters until Jan. 27, so many members of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts could not see the movie in time.
Bafta has 5,000 eligible voters, 3,500 of which live in Britain and the rest primarily in the United States, where the movie opened in theaters last month.
Sara Keene, whose Premier PR firm represents the film's British distributor, United International Pictures, acknowledged Wednesday the error may reduce the movie's award prospects.
Most Hollywood DVDs are coded to restrict its distribution. That way, a studio can choose to release a film on DVD on one continent while still showing it in theaters on another.
DVDs coded Region 1 are supposed to play only on DVD players sold in the United States and Canada; British players need DVDs coded Region 2.
The mix-up resulted from a human error at a laboratory where the preview DVDs were processed, according to Premier PR.
“There was a technical problem," Keene said. "Someone pushed the wrong button."
Spielberg has previously been honored by the Bafta awards — the British equivalent of the Oscars — with a special prize for excellence in film making.
His new film “Munich,” is based on events following the killing of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics.
Enough is Enough
Here's a nice article from Fox News.com
Finally we'll get some exposure for those transgendered music artists. Seriously, stop this insanity. We have to be the most polarized bunch of hyper-sensitive, politically correct, all-accepting people in the world. We have Black Television Channels, Gay television channels, black radio stations, mexican television channels and on and on. Of course, we don't have white male anything...expect maybe hatred, there's no shortage of that. It's OK to say we study too many Dead White Men if your an academic type moaning about the choice of authors in your English class, but would it be OK for someone to say we don't need Gay Radio? Gay movies? Gay TV shows? Are they like pod people? Is this a plot to take over the world? Suddenly the gay and transgendered populations must (despite natures best attempts) be exploding because they're everywhere. Straight people should be getting a complex by now, they just don't fit in anymore. Gay is where it's at apparently. I didn't know it was as a trend like this but wow. Way to go gays. All you need now is a line of books....wait, got that. Your quest for domination is nearly complete! I know, you need a sport! Why should handicapped people have all the fun? We need Gay Olympics! Paralympics, Special Olympics and Gay olympics. It fits. Come on people, raise those rainbow flags, its time for the gay olympics. Lesbians events will include a 400 meter dash in steel-toed workboots and Mullet growing. Apply online at gayolympics.com
Sony Music Launching Label Geared to Gay Artists
Thursday, January 12, 2006
LOS ANGELES — Sony Music and the founder of a gay cable network are forming a record label that will feature gay, lesbian and transgender musicians.
The label will be called Music With A Twist. It was co-founded by Matt Farber, who created the Logo channel to target gay audiences.
The label plans to use talent scouts to find emerging artist who have generated a buzz in the gay community and who have potential for mass appeal.
Financial terms fo the deal have not been disclosed.
Music With A Twist plans to sign artists covering a variety of music genres. It will also release compilations of songs
Finally we'll get some exposure for those transgendered music artists. Seriously, stop this insanity. We have to be the most polarized bunch of hyper-sensitive, politically correct, all-accepting people in the world. We have Black Television Channels, Gay television channels, black radio stations, mexican television channels and on and on. Of course, we don't have white male anything...expect maybe hatred, there's no shortage of that. It's OK to say we study too many Dead White Men if your an academic type moaning about the choice of authors in your English class, but would it be OK for someone to say we don't need Gay Radio? Gay movies? Gay TV shows? Are they like pod people? Is this a plot to take over the world? Suddenly the gay and transgendered populations must (despite natures best attempts) be exploding because they're everywhere. Straight people should be getting a complex by now, they just don't fit in anymore. Gay is where it's at apparently. I didn't know it was as a trend like this but wow. Way to go gays. All you need now is a line of books....wait, got that. Your quest for domination is nearly complete! I know, you need a sport! Why should handicapped people have all the fun? We need Gay Olympics! Paralympics, Special Olympics and Gay olympics. It fits. Come on people, raise those rainbow flags, its time for the gay olympics. Lesbians events will include a 400 meter dash in steel-toed workboots and Mullet growing. Apply online at gayolympics.com
Sony Music Launching Label Geared to Gay Artists
Thursday, January 12, 2006
LOS ANGELES — Sony Music and the founder of a gay cable network are forming a record label that will feature gay, lesbian and transgender musicians.
The label will be called Music With A Twist. It was co-founded by Matt Farber, who created the Logo channel to target gay audiences.
The label plans to use talent scouts to find emerging artist who have generated a buzz in the gay community and who have potential for mass appeal.
Financial terms fo the deal have not been disclosed.
Music With A Twist plans to sign artists covering a variety of music genres. It will also release compilations of songs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)