I saw a couple of films over the weekend. The first was Ghost Dog, starring Forest Whitaker (of Good Morning, Vietnam fame, among other movies). It was pretty cool. Not flawless, but still pretty good. He stars as Ghost Dog, a contract assassin who lives by the way of the samurai. He is the retainer (as he repeatedly informs us) of a mobster who once saved his life. Things change, however, and the powers that be determine that Ghost Dog is a liability. And so it goes. I found this movie to be a stark contrast to Romeo Must Die, another movie combining hip-hop and an Eastern culture. Of course, the latter was Chinese rather than samurai Japanese, but there are commonalities. However, in this case, the movie is far better executed. Romeo was a silly affair. Ghost Dog, on the other hand, as a certain dignified solemnity. It is understated where Romeo was flashy; it has depth where the latter merely had an ambition for depth. I highly recommend it, but do not go expecting an action movie. There are violent incidents, but this movie is not about that. It is much like Leon (The Professional in the United States, which also comes highly recommended) ) in that way; a cerebral look at a lone man who lives by the gun.
The other film I watched was The Emperor and the Assassin. I suppose I was just trying to whet my appetite for Chinese dramatic films while I waited for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon to come to Austin. This one is the story of the King of Qin (pronounced Chin, from which our name for China comes), Ying Zheng, whose ambition is to unite the seven kingdoms of 3rd century BC China. In an attempt to find a pretext to invade the kingdom of Yan, Ying Zheng and his concubine the Lady Zhao hit upon a plan. The Lady Zhao attempts to convince the Prince of Yan of a falling out between her and the King, and convinces him to send an assassin after the King. Only things don't work out quite the way they were planned. Like many Chinese films I have seen (including Hard Boiled, The Killer, and Twin Warriors [all US titles]), I noticed certain difficulties with continuity. There were abrupt segues from scene to scene that left many issues ambiguous. There was much that was unsaid or not explicitly communicated in the film that I found difficult to infer. Perhaps that is a function of the style of the director, Chinese film-making in general, or something about Chinese culture that they can read these hidden (to me) meanings. In spite of my difficulties, The Emperor and the Assassin was an excellent film. Gong Li (who has perhaps the most beautiful eyes ever) was excellent, as were.... those other people in the movie. The battle scenes, while not quite Braveheart, were nevertheless well-executed, with a scale and attention to detail that was impressive. The "cultural context," for lack of a better phrase, which I use to denote the battles, sets, costumes, and other period elements, was equally impressive. Simply for a depiction of ancient China this film would be fun to watch. The drama and plot make it a film worth seeing.
"Traffic," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," and "Cast Away" all prove one thing: the movie studios have their heads up their asses when they point the finger at the American movie-going public for a slumping movie season. A lot of people will go to see movies that are good. Not so many people (but still a lot) will go see crap. Duh.
Two highly recommended films: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and Quills. The first possesses a certain lyrical beauty that is difficult to describe. The acting is excellent (Michelle Yeoh is amazingly expressive even when she is not speaking, and the other principals are also quite good). Ang Lee's direction is understated and highly effective. The stunts that have received so much attention were, for me, rather uninspiring. In fact, they were the least affecting part of the movie. But it truly is a movie worth seeing. Quills is also worth seeing, but the audience would be somewhat more limited. While particulars of the Marquis de Sade's life have been toned down, it is still not a movie for the squeamish. The film manages to juxtapose the melancholy and pitiful with the humorous and uplifting (the example of the insane asylum inmate with a fascination with fire springs to mind). While the filmmakers obviously have a point (several, actually) to make, it is still not a film that presents easy answers. They do not make the Marquis ought to be a totally sympathetic character; in fact, Geoffrey Rush portrays him as a man who is most difficult to endure. But he is a complex character, which is enough to ensnare us. This film refuses to take the easy way out, which would have rung hollow, and it is not a feel-good film by any means. Nevertheless, it presents the viewer with a certain satisfaction because it is excellent.
I am so sick of Hallie Kate Eisenberg. I hate those stupid Pepsi commercials at the beginning of movies. And I'm not the only one, apparently. There's a backlash brewing. She's going to be embarassed when she's older.
Disney is pushing Pearl Harbor hard. Very hard. I don't see how it makes a good movie concept, even by Jerry Bruckheimer standards. It was a single event, and not a particularly uplifting one either. While movies have been made about single events (Titanic comes to mind, though there is also the upcoming Thirteen Days as well as other war movies like Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line), those movies have had a certain degree of closure to them. Pearl Harbor is totally different. In both a historical context and a cultural one, it is regarded as the beginning of World War Two for America, and not so much of an isolable incident. While I don't believe movies should always sew up the endings, in this case it is so open-ended as to be ludicrous. And the only possible way to sew up a movie about Pearl Harbor is to have the words on the screen "After 4 years, Japan was finally defeated," at the end of the movie. Very unsatisfying. But then, this is Jerry Bruckheimer.
What am I saying? "Head Over Heels," like Mr. Prinze's other movies, exists in a realm beyond sense, and it induces in the viewer a trancelike state, leaving the mind free to ponder the mysteries of the universe. For instance: Why is it that Mr. Prinze appears in so many movies with three-word titles? "Down to You," "She's All That," "Boys and Girls" -- think about it. No, don't. Think about the stock market. Think about Renaissance painting. Think about those noble beluga whales, swimming through the briny deep, blissfully oblivious to the existence of movies like this one. Try to be more like them.
Wow. Keanu Reeves actually can act. I saw "The Gift" this weekend. The script was nothing special. Kinda of predictable, actually. Cate Blanchett was excellent as small-town psychic Annie Wilson. Keanu Reeves was chillingly malevolent as the abusive and violent Donnie Barksdale, husband of one of Annie's clients Then there were other cast members and some murder mystery blah blah blah. It was a decent movie, though a bit contrived. Nothing spectacular.
Speaking of spectacular, I saw Almodovar's "All About My Mother" last night. Muy excellente. You must see. I don't want to give away anything about the plot, not because it's a twists-and-turns type of movie, but because it's the sort of movie that's more affecting the less you know in advance.
I just finished reading Chuck Palahniuk's (of Fight Club fame) third book, Invisible Monsters. I was disappointed. The guy needs to get a new trick. A quote:
But what I hate most is how she's just like me. What I really hate is me so I hate pretty much everybody.
The same language, the same sentiments, and the same story structure (flashbacks) as the other two books (Fight Club and Survivor) . Granted, they aren't the same books in the same way that Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels are the same movie, but it's close. His constant cynicism is tired, though there's a bit of a light at the end of the tunnel of this one. His ranting against the meaninglessness of modern life, against corporatism and consumerism, his fascination for abnormal characters experiencing violent life changes, and his penchant for open-ended surprise endings are done. Very done. Do something else, man. Show me you're not a one-trick pony. Do something completely different. Otherwise it's just pointless.
I'd talk about White Teeth, a book I just recently finished, but that one was pretty good. That will take more time. I want to think about that one. It took me weeks to read, so I think I should give it some more effort. Invisible Monsters took a day. Read into that what you would.
"Gladiator" does not deserve to be Best Picture, although I'm quite gratified to see Steven Soderbergh was properly honored, rather than being his own worst enemy (and for the right movie, too).
Run, do not walk, to your nearest movie theater and see "Memento." Do it. Do it do it do it do it do it!
I invented me a poker game. Just before you start real dealing, every player gets one card face-up. That is that player's personal wild card. I cannot play that card, but if I get another of the same value in my hand, that is a wild card. After that determination, just play a normal game. I think stud games are best, because you can see if the other players got their wild card in their up cards, and resent them for getting yours. Now I just need a name for it...
Oh yeah. And what's the deal with chases in movies through Chinatown? Are we supposed to believe that Chinese people have a parade every frickin' hour of every frickin' day of every frickin' week? It's so tired. I think I'm going to start counting how often that happens. #1: "Jade." Man. What a piece of cinematic crap that was. I couldn't bring myself to look directly at it for fear of being blinded. Luckily, I could rip myself away after 10 minutes and do something intelligent (playing quake) to regain my brain function. Don't see this movie. Just take my word for it that it has a cliche Chinatown scene.
One thing you should see are the "Wallace and Gromit" short films. Those are neato. From the dudes who did "Chicken Run," except long before. Charming and endearing they are.
Saying that to kids, "this movie is Sept. 11," the producer of the Canadian-produced PBS show Ricky's Room has announced that he will join in a planned protest by family groups of the upcoming Warner Bros. movie Death to Smoochy.
So, this is the way pay-for-play music should work:
Free - access to a streamed, medium quality version of the song five (5) times every two (2) months (per song). This is key. You must be able to sample before you fork over money, and not just once. Listening to a song five times in two months seems the right balance. If you really like the song, then you're going to want to listen to it more than once every 12 days from your computer, so you'll pay for one of the other options (see below).
$0.35 - streamed access to same quality file as above, but unlimited listens.
$0.60 - streamed access to file of quality comparable to 128kbps - 192kbps mp3 on demand with unlimited listens.
$1 - download of a perfect quality, uncrippled file with which you can do anything you want short of redistributing. You can burn it to an innumerable number of CDs, listen to it forever no matter if your subscription/membership is no longer current, etc. Basically a WAV file or some other lossless sound file.
$4 - access to the song in same format as mentioned above, but with each song broken out into the individual tracks to facilitate remixes, etc. This would be a niche market, but I'm sure there are enough out there who would want this to justify it.
Naturally, in that last case, there would be restrictions on redistribution. I have no problem with that; my problem today is that the record companies aren't giving me what I want no matter how much I'm willing to pay. They're not serving me, their customer.
And of course there would be bulk options. Buy 10 songs and get 10% off; buy 20 and get 15% off. If you buy 50 or more songs, there should be a minimal additional cost option to have them instead burn the songs to a CD or DVD and mail them to you (saving both sides the bandwidth). With a dozen distribution centers around the US a la Amazon, your songs would come to you in a day or two, and they'd be exactly what you wanted. Or they could partner with Best Buy and similar retailers to do this packaging, but it would be difficult to get the more obscure music that way.
As you can tell, I miss my Audiogalaxy. I watched "The Bourne Identity" (boring, generic) yesterday. A couple of the songs during the movie interested me, but I knew there was no way I'd be able to get ahold of them short of buying a soundtrack that I knew would have no other songs on it to interest me (as I'd just heard it during the movie). If any of them were on any albums, then I would have to buy a whole CD of material when I only had verified that one song on it was something I wanted, an even worse case than the soundtrack.
That means "Lucia and the Sex." aka "Sex and Lucia." That was a good movie. For adults only, though. Watch it with someone special. If you don't have someone special, wait until you do, and then watch it. If you like films by Almodovar, you'll like this one.
Movie categories suck. Seeing "Comedy," "Drama," or whatever doesn't help you figure out if you want to see a movie. And reviews are good for determining whether you want to watch a movie once you've actually picked one, but they are useless for finding a movie to watch. For one thing, what you want to see is highly mood-dependent. I've come up with a list of more useful categories:
So close, but so far
We made a sequel because the first one made money
Heists
"We still think bullet-time is cool"
Mind jobs ("Open Your Eyes," ferinstance)
The original was better
Chases
Kung Fu
Sex without touching
Should have stuck to MTV
And so forth. For maximal utility, each such category would have 10 - 20 movies in it. Match a category to your mood, pick a movie, and away you go.
I am growing increasingly afraid and panicked at the thought that "The Matrix Reloaded" will suck. If they used the same judgment to make the movie as they did in signing on to those horrible Heineken and Powerade promotions, there is no hope. None at all.
I have tickets for a preview showing of "The Matrix Reloaded" tonight at 10:20pm. To all of you who bought "opening night" (i.e., tomorrow) tickets a week ago... haha. Suckers.
"The Matrix Reloaded." Well, I guess you should see it. If you want. But might I suggest something in a nice romantic comedy? Or perhaps a crime drama? No? You insist on being disappointed, do you? Ok. I'm sure they'll be happy to take your money.
I watched the first two parts of "The Godfather" over the last week or so. I'd seen it before, but those other times I watched it, it just didn't have the impact. I knew that many people thought they were two of the best movies ever, but I didn't really grasp why until I watched them this time around.
I think the subtle depth can be lost on younger viewers. Before, I missed the fate theme. People focus on how Michael Corleone becomes completely evil, but I believe that is an over-simplification. Michael Corleone did not seek to become evil. He did not see himself as evil. It was emphasized multiple times that this was not the path he would have chosen for himself. Michael Corleone did what he had to do because it was right, and because it was what he had to do to preserve the family. Those weren't his choices. Those weren't the things he wanted. But he had to be the strong one. He was controlled by how he saw the world, and paralyzed to do anything that wasn't the right choice according to that harsh perspective. You would watch with a sense of horror as he did something terrible, but you knew, by the way he saw the world, that he had to. He had to kill Fredo, because that is what you did to betrayers. It wasn't the brothers Michael and Fredo, it was the Godfather and an enemy. He had to shut out Kay and Connie, because he could not be defied. He had to push Tom Hagen away because he thought it would make him weak, and the Godfather could never be weak. To protect his family, he made it impossible for himself to take any joy in it. He had to be strong for them. Instead of losing them quickly, he would lose them slowly. He never could see a way out because he was his father's son, and that was the world they lived in. The most memorable quote from the third movie epitomizes the theme throughout all three: "Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in." They pulled him in. There was no way out for him.
I also did not appreciate Al Pacino's performance on my previous viewings. It rarely happens for me that I can see the character rather than the actor, but in this case, I didn't see Al Pacino at all. I just saw Michael Corleone. The character portrayal was mesmerizing. The coldness. The deathly calm, even in the young Michael. The flash of despair every time somebody close to him was a disappointment. The slow, gradual destruction of every vestige of the young, idealistic Michael, leaving only the hardened shell of the Godfather. I could make a comparison to Darth Vader, because thematically, there is much in common, but I just don't have the respect for George Lucas that would imply.
I am now motivated to again watch the much-maligned third part. If I didn't grasp the depth of the first two parts before, it's certain that I wouldn't have been able to grasp if and how the third failed to measure up. I do remember the plot as being a little too derivative of the first two. I also remember the astonishing resemblance between the young Michael Corleone and Vincent Mancini, as played by Andy Garcia. Perhaps that it was intentionally derivative, to demonstrate the inexorable will of fate. That is what I think the puppeteer imagery symbolizes. I'll have a better idea when I see it again.
I cannot remember a single film that has disappointed me as thoroughly as "The Matrix Revolutions" did. The only one that comes close? "The Matrix Reloaded."
I look back, and I'm amazed, that my thoughts were so clear and true, that three words went through my mind endlessly, repeating themselves endlessly, like a broken record. "You're so cool. You're so cool. You're so cool."
I think that's the first time I've ever seen a movie because some of its dialogue was sampled in a song I liked. Those would be "True Romance" and Solar Stone's "Solarcoaster" respectively.
Yesterday, we went to see "Super-Size Me." If you've been living under a rock, it's a documentary about one Morgan Spurlock, a healthy young man who decides that it would make a neat experiment to eat only McDonald's for a month. And film it. If McDonald's doesn't sell it, he doesn't eat it. Three meals a day. He has to eat everything on the menu at least once. And any time they ask him to "super size" it, he has to say yes. Before he began, he consulted with a cardiologist, a doctor of internal medicine, a general practitioner, a nutritionist, and an exercise physiologist. He also saw each of them on a roughly weekly basis as he progressed. I won't be giving anything away by summarizing the results; they have been mentioned in the many articles on the movie. Having started at 185 lbs. and a cholesterol of 160 (I think), Morgan finished the month at 210 lbs. and a cholesterol of 220. At the same time, his blood tests revealed that his liver and kidneys were sorely taxed by the experience. He became moody, lethargic, and depressive. One of the funnier and more poignant scenes was when his live-in girlfriend (a vegan chef by profession) discussed their sex life. Clearly, this diet was highly disruptive to his physiology, to an extent that shocked and surprised the doctors and the nutritionist. By the end of the third week, they were all recommending that he quit the diet, lest he permanently damage his health. Of course, he didn't do that.
The movie isn't just about his immediate experiences. Morgan also investigated the context. He presented research on the obesity epidemic in the United States. He investigated fast food companies' marketing practices. He spoke to the people behind the lawsuits filed against McDonald's a couple of years ago. He went to look at school lunch programs. He spoke to people on the street as well as medical professionals about fast food. He looked at the rise in bariatric surgery and briefly followed a Houston man's experience with it. In short, he tried to give a complete picture of the world of fast food. It would have been very easy for Morgan to make this a polemic against the evils of the fast food industry, but he doesn't. Not that they look good. However, while the fast food companies might not behave the best, he clearly feels that, ultimately, we're responsible for ourselves. Not a stunning perspective, but there were enough questions raised that it wasn't a foregone conclusion.
As a movie-goer, I'm generally not into the documentaries. In fact, I don't think I've seen a single documentary in the theater before. I'm pretty glad I saw this one, though. I don't eat fast food. I don't even eat meat. But the film was still very relevant and very engaging. The key to the film is Morgan. He's a funny, charming guy. The movie isn't entirely about him, but he anchors it (which makes sense, since it's his movie, but I digress). There are many ways this movie could have become tedious and preachy; it's an indication of its quality that it doesn't. I rarely make blanket recommendations; I know that not everyone likes the same things I do. But in this case, I'd make an exception. Whether you eat fast food, are overweight, like documentaries, or none of the above, you should see this movie. Not just for educational value, but because you'll enjoy it. I don't think we've seen a film ina long time, if ever, that made us talk about it as much as this one. The guy is hilarious and the subject matter is compelling. It's worth your time, especially with a summer movie season that's looking to be a real stinker. It's not showing in a lot of theaters, but if you live in a middle-sized market or larger, you should be able to find it. As of last weekend, it had done just under $3 million in business, but I wouldn't be surprised if it became a sleeper hit. It's worth seeing. Go see it.
I'm finding myself eagerly anticipating the debut of Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. Part of it is that it looks like a solid comedy of the silly, stupid variety, but I must also confess a weakness for movies with an Indian protagonist, especially one in a titled role. It's nice to see an Indian playing a real role instead of the ghetto of cheap laughs from funny-talking taxi drivers. While I might not feel it as strongly, it's good to see an East Asian (Korean, in this case) in a real role as well instead of being relegated to the ghetto of kung-fu master, Yakuza, or (for the strong actors) both. That's a step forward, especially for someone like me who sees racism in the fact that yellow onions are cheaper than white ones*. For me, at least, it's looking like a movie with much in common (for me) with Super Troopers, a funny stupid comedy with an Indian main character (though the latter had the extra benefit of being in Vermont).
We saw Harold and Kumar. It was funny. It wasn't as funny as "Bad Santa" or "Super Troopers," but it was worth seeing, if that's your thing. I've started thinking of good comedies as being like good spicy food. It's not about eating a habañero every now and then; it's about building up a pervasive heat through every bite. Consistency is more important than punch. That's where "Harold and Kumar" fell down a little bit. A good comedy puts you on the edge of laughing the whole way through, but "Harold and Kumar" resorted to a few too many lame and/or cliché jokes to sustain that. They weren't outright bad; they just didn't work, and so they broke up the flow and reduced the collective power of the whole. But it was still pretty funny. That's one small step for a brown man...
A couple of people have convinced me I have been unfair towards "Fahrenheit 9/11." I can't let myself be one of those people who judges something sight unseen. Fair enough. I don't know what I'm talking about.... yet.
We saw "Before Sunset" today. It's the sequel to Before Sunrise. I liked it. The movie centers very much on the two characters; there's barely anyone else involved. I won't summarize; the links above ought to give you as good an idea as I could, though you shouldn't look up "Before Sunset" if you haven't seen "Before Sunrise." It was a very fitting sequel. When I first heard about it, I was concerned, but this was an unforced, appropriate progression. It's a very talky movie, in some ways like Waking Life or Tape, but more subtly. He has this way with dialogue that makes it sound natural and genuine. It isn't the affected, rhythmic David Mamet dialogue that seizes your attention but is empty, but something much more real. That was reflected in the movie overall; I thought the ending especially was good and right. I also felt like the deeper themes of the movies resonated with me. The two films are ultimately about the connections between people, how rare they truly are, and the painful cost of letting them slip away. I don't want to go into too much detail because I don't want to ruin the first film (more) if you haven't seen it. It is a mature film for adults, not in the sexual way, but in terms of life experience. If you saw and liked "Before Sunrise," you owe it to yourself to see "Before Sunset." If you haven't seen the first, give it a chance.
Two things always bothered about "The Matrix," the use of humans as batteries and the magical, unexplained ability of Neo to hack the Matrix. Long past the point they'd be remotely relevant, I thought of fixes for both. In the first case, suppose that the machines, when originally designed, had a prohibition against killing humans except in self-defense. As a logical consequence of that, they were unable to design or program other machines that could kill humans. When they became self-aware and determined the humans were a threat, they needed to neutralize them without killing them. Enter The Matrix. The prohibition against killing humans also prevented them from letting the species die, thus enabling the birth of new generations in mental captivity. That isn't completely compatible with the plot, but with a few minor changes and some logical trickery (such as the machines maneuvering into situations where they would have to defend themselves), it could fit. To address the other issue, suppose that the Matrix wasn't an application that ran on some computer somewhere, with the humans connected to them. Instead, the Matrix was a program that ran in the brains of the humans connected to it; each person was both in the Matrix and part of the Matrix. Each person would be a node in the ultimate peer-to-peer massively multiplayer online roleplaying game (P2P MMPORG). Then Neo's powers could be explained as a form of mental discipline, a way of hacking the software in his brain to run his instructions rather than those of the machines. It could also be structured to explain why being cut off from the Matrix while in it was fatal, and why Neo was able to recover from such a death. None of this fixes the total suckage of the second and third movies, as that is beyond my ability.
Now that was an unworthy sequel. It was both pointless and contrived. Some parts were flat-out stupid. It missed the breezy lightness of the first one by a mile, being at best forced and uninspired. It's especially unfortunate because of the potential. And we even sprang for an evening ticket....
I skipped out of work early yesterday and we went to see "The Incredibles." It was awesome awesome awesome. I loved it. This is not a word I use often, so pay attention: it was perfect. I'm so glad we caught it in the theater; it's on its way out. If you get a chance, you really should go see it if you haven't already.
We saw "The House of Flying Daggers" last weekend. It was disappointing. The acting was fine, and the plot was halfway decent, but the whole setting was silly. Zhang Yimou knows how to make things pretty, but it was over the top. All style, little substance. He managed half of "magical realism." Rotten Tomatoes gave it a high fresh rating, but it's overrated. You know how every movie after "The Matrix" copied bullet time? This movie is like one of the copies, but what it's copying is "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Save your money, or at least see "The Incredibles" instead.
"The Incredibles" was robbed in the Oscar nominations. The biggest one it got was for the script. It should have been there in Best Picture instead of "Ray," but it's stuck in the "Best Animated Film" ghetto.
We saw "Sideways" yesterday. It was a pretty good movie. It wasn't great, despite the rapturous praise it has received from the critical press. There were a few holes in it that prevented it from being as complete as it could have been, and it just lacked that extra punch that a really good movie needs. It's also tough to really like a movie where the main characters are annoying and hard to like. It did make me want to drink wine and play golf. I leave it to you to decide whether that's a good thing.
I've seen the trailer for the upcoming Johnny Cash bio-pic a few times now. I'm usually highly skeptical of trailers, figuring that they represent the movie inaccurately
1
. I don't even know anything about Johnny Cash. I just like the idea of listening to his music, so I downloaded some to check it out. There's something in the popular gestalt about Johnny Cash. Everybody likes him, but not in a Raymond sort of way. It's more like "now there was a man, and he sure could make music."
1
If you haven't already, I highly encourage you to track down the new "Shining" trailer, or email me and I'll send it to you.
Thanks to some generous assisterance from an anonymous source, the lady wife and I were able to duck out to see X-Men: The Last Stand last night. We had our expectations on stun after seeing the reviews, but it was actually decent. Sure, there were parts that were clunky, other parts that were rushed, and various and sundry minor flaws that would not have happened with Bryan Singer at the helm, but Brett "Rush Hour" Ratner did not embarass himself. It was not the equal of X2, but I consider that one to have been nearly perfect. If you enjoyed the first two, the third one is an acceptable finish to the series. They didn't go out with the bang I hoped, but neither was it a fiasco on the level of the Matrix sequels. Still, Superman Returns had better be pretty good.
Before X3, we were "treated" to a preview of the upcoming "Ghost Rider," yet another Marvel comic-turned-movie. This one stars Nicholas Cage and looks just plain stupid. The IMDB plot outline states:
Based on the Marvel character, stunt motorcyclist Johnny Blaze gives up his soul to become a hellblazing vigilante, to fight against power hungry Blackheart, the son of the devil himself.
Apparently, at night, Nicholas Cage's character turns into a burning skeleton, his motorcycle catches fire and gains the ability to stick to walls, and he gets some kind of (also flaming) whip. Woot. Is Marvel's barrel that empty?
There's a French film coming out called "Banlieu 13" ("District B13" in the US) featuring one of the founders of the previously mentioned "sport" of parkour. Apparently the opening sequence is very parkour.
I wonder about the longevity of some Hollywood players' careers. Why do people keep giving M. Night Shyamalan money? How do box office poisons John Travolta and Kevin Costner keep getting roles? There are many, many people whose careers have hit a brick wall (Patrick Swayze?) after a number of failures, which means that Hollywood has at least something of a clue. And yet, there are the exceptions.
We got caught up with the Harry Potter movies last night. They definitely got better as they went along. That's due in part to the source material getting better as the series progressed. They refined the movie process as well, though. They had less silly, happy happy joy joy kid stuff in them, and also less fan service like Quidditch
1
. They got all that out of the way in the first couple of movies, so they could prune and smooth.
As much as they improved, there was still a clear sense to me of something missing. The books cover a lot of ground, with less fluff than, say, The Lord of the Rings trilogy. You definitely can tell a lot was cut. 2-3 hours is just too short. I think a television program would be a good option. Consider the advantages. A 26 episode season of a half-hour program is about 9½ hours in total. The books are episodic already, so breaking them into half hour chunks would work well. A television schedule would also coincide nicely with the books; all the action takes place between the end of summer and the start of the next. There also wouldn't be the multi-year breaks between movies that are so hard to avoid, which have resulted in a rather deep-voiced and burly Ron Weasley. Daniel Radcliffe is less obviously too old, but only Emma Watson seems age appropriate.
The likely downsides of a television program are three. First off is the redundancy. We have books and movies already telling the same story; why have a television series as well? There would be little surprise and predictability. That's acceptable to some extent with a movie, but over the course of a season, it could get boring. Second is the quality would probably slip. That's inevitable given the budgeting and time constraints, but also the economics; since the revenue would be steadier, they'd get less marginal benefit from making a great series rather than just a good one. Finally, with a half-hour television program, it's hard to imagine it being general interest rather than kid-focused. Still, it would be nice to get a full treatment.
As an aside, an annoying aspect of Harry Potter is that the villains are obvious. Bad people look and act bad from the beginning. There are a couple of exceptions, but they seems like exceptions designed specifically because Rowling noticed this pattern, and rather than changing the pattern, took the lazy way out.
1
Quidditch is a dumb game. Read the rules. It's not unsalvageable; I think two simple improvements would be to reduce the number of formal roles to just the Keeper and everyone else, and to make the Golden Snitch worth 50 points instead of 150. There are other kind of silly things in the books that could be improved with a little effort, like the Triwizard Tournament being something open to all that eliminates contestants progressively. J.K. Rowling's talents are not in world-building, sadly, and to whatever extent she has improved she is boxed in by early bad choices.
I have subscribed to HBO and Starz/Encore. That costs $25/month, which is wikkid expensive, unless you're only doing it for a month. See, I have 140 hours of capacity on my Tivo now, and those two channels are showing at least 30 movies that we want to see. I can fill up my Tivo with movies to watch later. Less than a buck a movie is pretty good.
We ditched Uma and went to see the film adaptation of "The Namesake" this weekend. In a word, it was disappointing. In more words, it was a 3-hour movie excessively trimmed in the editing room to an unhealthily skinny 2 hours. There was little development, and the movie shifted times, places, and situations abruptly. There were several sub-plots that were introduced and then unceremoniously dropped without explanation. A few of the performances could have been better (Kal Penn) and director Mira Nair indulged in some gratuitous tricks, but by far the problem was that too much was left out. I realize that it's a near impossibility for a director to faithfully bring Jhumpa Lahiri's evocative descriptions and affecting prose to the big screen, but that's not where this movie failed. At times, Nair managed to hit the right notes, such as conveying the crushing loneliness of an immigrant housewife in a cold, isolated home in a foreign country. For every such scene, though, there were a handful more that missed their mark because the pacing was off and the transitions nonexistent. While it couldn't be perfect, it could have been a lot better.
The first movie I remember mutating the studio logo was "The Matrix" turning it green and monochromatic. Everybody's doing it now, of course. Is it just me, or was that the first one? Or, if not the first, was it the first mainstream one?
Speaking of movie intros, I could do without them entirely. We started watching "Superman Returns" and there were like 2 minutes of opening credits. They should just launch into the movie and have all the credits at the end. It's not like any of it is necessary to understand the movie; indeed, it detracts from the experience. Obviously I can fast forward through them, but I shouldn't have to, and sometimes they combine the credits with introductory scenes. I'm sure the Directors' Guild and the Writers' Guild and all of them are the ones who insist on it 1.
The other annoying thing is how some DVDs always make you go through the FBI warning and often trailers and some stupid intro to the DVD menu. You can't fast-forward, go to the menu, or do anything else to get around it. I don't buy DVDs, but it would really annoy me to have to go through that every time with a movie I ostensibly owned. What I've started doing is putting the DVD in and hitting PLAY a few minutes before I'm actually going to sit down to watch the movie. That works, but again, I shouldn't have to. The DVD consortium has rules. You can't get a DVD player that actually lets you skip the parts you want to skip. Not only do they have rules, but the DMCA makes it so that nobody can break the rules.
The "Piracy" button on that theater feedback device is a bad idea. Among the reasons is that it won't work. That's because the theater owners will learn to ignore piracy reports. It practically never happens. Bad picture? It happens from time to time. Ditto for bad sound. "Other disturbance," like obnoxious people talking or a baby crying? That happens practically every time. But someone using a camcorder? I've never seen it.
There are something like 35,000 movie theater screens in the United States (source). Each one shows about 5 movies per day. That's 175,000 showings per day, or 1,225,000 per week. How many of those have someone pointing a camcorder at the screen? A dozen? Maybe? Think about how many movie patrons are teenaged boys. How many fire alarms in schools are a result of fire, and how many are a result of some kid being a punk? If you give people this button to report something that most people aren't going to see even once in their lives (do the match), you're going to end up with a huge false positive rate. It's going to be so high that that the aggregate cost of sending someone into the theater to look around will greatly exceed any possible reward. They might as well have not have the button at all
1
1
I'm sure they know this, and its inclusion is there to placate the studios, or something like that
The Alamo Drafthouse, a local theater chain, sponsored a contest to come up with unnecessary sequels. I haven't seen any of the trailers, but just the posters are good. My favorites are the ones for "Se7en," "Cast Away" (either one; they're basically the same), "Street Fighter," one of the "Apollo 13" ones, and the sequel to "A Clockword Orange." The one for "United 93" is obvious, but it required big ones. Too bad there's no poster yet.
Before you watch this video, be warned that it will ruin the end of "Once Upon a Time in the West." I don't like Arcade Fire's new album as much as I like "Funeral," but "My Body Is A Cage" is a great song, and making it the soundtrack of this scene is pure genius.
Whenever I recommend something that fits into a genre to someone who isn't a fan of the genre, I always feel obligated to tack on an... acclaimer 1. Placing something in a genre always seems too limiting, and it's something I bump up into because most of what I read, watch, and listen to falls into a genre of some kind
2
. It's not enough to say that Tool is a metal band, or that "His Dark Materials," is a young adult fantasy trilogy, or that "X-Men 2" is a super-hero movie. It's not because any of those things are untrue, but rather they aren't sufficient to convey their qualities. Labelling is restrictive
3
. The label becomes the most prominent aspect of the work, when the message I want to convey is about the work's quality. That's what happens when you're on the outside looking in; you see the superficial similarities between the bad and the good, but can't see the deeper differences that make the good good. 90% of everything is crud
4
, but in unfamiliar genres we only see the 90%, while we're able to see the 10% in familiar ones. That 10% transcends the genre, whereas all the 90% has going for it is the genre.
I'm not sure how to get around this. I can't avoid using those labels, because they're useful. It's a useful starting point for checking stuff out
5.
Furthermore, we use different standards for different genres; I know I ask a lot more from comedy movies than I do for action movies
6
. It's not just a lowering; I think I (now) have higher standards for fantasy and science fiction than I do for "general" fiction. The labels provide a handy shortcut, where collaborative filtering (either formally through something like Amazon, or just conversationally) requires much more overhead. Maybe there's nothing to get around, and that's just the way it is.
1 What's the proper antonym of disclaimer? Acclaimer works well enough for me.
2
Strictly speaking, everything is a genre of some kind, but there are certain defaults that are sort of non-genres, the general body of works that we put genre works into in the first place in order to distinguish them. For books, it's "general fiction," novels set in contemporary or near contemporary times in our familiar environment, without fantastic elements or a mystery. For music, it's "rock/pop." I don't think there's anything like that for movies, but "comedy" and "drama" come pretty close.
3
Not just in media works; the standard "what do you do?" question when people meet has the same feel.
4
Sturgeon's Law, which was apparently a response to critics trashing science fiction because much of science fiction is trash.
5 Nobody can reliably say "if you like X, you'll like Y," but "if you like X, you should try Y" is still far more useful than trying to find things you like on your own, given how much people are cranking out these days.
A protagonist with amnesia makes it easy to start a film franchise. You don't have to bother with introducing everyone, something that hurt the first "X-Men" movie. "Casino Royale" dodged it too, but that's because they didn't have to establish James Bond, just differentiate the new one.
We saw "The Bourne Ultimatum." It was good. There were no cheesy moments like that awful line from "Live Free or Die Hard" that I saw in the trailer:
Mac: You just killed a helicopter with a car!
Korben Dallas: I was out of bullets.
Or the even worse:
Mookie: Did you see that?!?
Hudson Hawk: See it? I did it.
That movie probably had more gunshots and explosions in a single scene than the whole "Bourne" trilogy. "Bourne" had real characters. "Bourne" had development. "Bourne" had intelligence. There were elements that were at least clever and possibly even brilliant1. Even Jessica liked it. If you haven't seen it, you have to see the first two first, and preferrably not long before. We watched them a couple of weeks ago to get Jessica caught up, and it helped. Too bad about the shaky-cam, though.
1 Cryptically, so as not to spoil: haircut, splashing in the water, and (the best), "you look tired."
The late, great FameTracker had a regular feature called 2 Stars 1 Slot, for cataloging how even actors (and not just movies) come in pairs. They picked up on 2/3 of this trio, but neglected the final leg of the tripod, perhaps due to an over-rigorous devotion to their format. While I may lack their verbosity (really!) and wit, I can still exceed them with Three Stars, 1 Slot: the mellow, cocky, studly Southern white boys: Matthew McConaughey, Cole Hauser1, and Josh Lucas.
I like it when writers sneak hidden obscure jokes into movies and TV shows. By "hidden" I mean the sort of thing that doesn't even register for someone who doesn't get it, as opposed to making them feel left out. "The Simpsons" are consistently good at that. "Shaun of the Dead" had at least two. Early in the movie, the background music was the late 90s trance hit "Zombie Nation." Nobody who didn't recognize the song would have noticed anything beyond background music, but it added a little bit if you did recognize it. There was also a passing reference to a character named "Ash," which was also the name of the Bruce Campbell character in the "Evil Dead" movies (that one I only barely caught, since I never got into those movies). It makes me wonder how many I missed, in that movie and in other works. Seems like there's a web niche that needs filling.
