Latest Movie :
Recent Movies

Pay attention, kids

With XMas having passed, the web now turns to it's yearly job of try to "top" the famous "Nintendo 64 Kid" video from a few years back. I've seen a bunch already this year, and I was noticing a depressing trend: It's not "cute" with current-gen gaming systems.

Call it nostalgiac projection (i.e. 30something geeks like me liked N64 Kid because "that was us") but, well... seeing this year's crop of kids flipping their shit about an XBox 360 mainly made me think more on the lines of "Great. Dollars-to-donuts that kid is going be cheap-sniping and/or hurling unspecific xenophobic insults at me on Live within a week." Humbug.

But this... this is something else. Take a look:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1926915





The "hook" here, if you haven't already seen it, is that the kid gets a 360 (for his birthday, though this is being called an xmas vid all over the web) and what looks like a mega-super-edition of Halo3 and reacts, well... gratefully. As in, instead of losing his shit in a giant joygasm, he's completely overcome with gratitude to his parents for the gift. You kinda have to wait for the last few moments for a bit of info that puts it all in context as to what might've helped shape his Tiny Tim-esque outlook on life, but the main thing is that the kid seems both TOTALLY surprised and accutely aware of what a lavish expense it is for mom and dad - he's got quite the vocabulary for a young kid, but the word "entitled" doesn't seem to be among them.

Kids, watch careful: THIS is what your parents are looking to see when you tear into the "big" gift.

Escape to the Movies: "Sherlock Holmes"

What, you were expecting me to take the day off?



And here's INTERMISSION, in which I do the year-end top-ten thing:\
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6940-MovieBobs-Best-Of-2009

Merry Christmas! (Or holiday of your choosing, of course.)

Ornaments

Just in time for the Holidays, here's some fun nonsense courtesy Christopher Knight and the L.A. Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/12/a-warhol-christmas-at-the-white-house.html

Short version: The kids over at Andrew Breitbart's twin conservative-entertainment-professional wildlife preserves, "Big Hollywood" and "Big Government," (which politically saavy people, liberals especially, should be checking at least once a day; because it's basically a one-stop source for tomorrow's crazy today) were in a snit about the White House Christmas Tree. Specifically, that newly-minted official-decorator Simon Doohan (an underground-art type, apparently) had included some collage-art ornaments made from image-scraps including a photoshop of Obama on Mt. Rushmore (okay, a little tacky) and transvestite performer Hedda Lettuce (I have no idea.) The worst offense, though, was a fragment of a Chairman Mao pic - further evidence, y'see, of Obama's hidden communism...

...except for the detail that the image in question was actually Andy Warhol's PARODY painting of Mao - the one wherein he defaced the dictator's famous portrait with lipstick and mascara.

Oops.

Scroll down through the comments on Knight's article for Breitbart (who, all kidding aside, strikes me as far too sharp to keep getting caught in this shit - dude needs to crack the whip on his people) making an utter fool of himself defending the "reporting" (best to take the LOW bet on how long it takes for Reducto ad Hiterlium to rear it's head.)

Karate (?) Kid

Comingsoon has the new trailer for the "Karate Kid" remake, which for those who hadn't heard takes a pretty radical story-deviation from the original: Instead of the titular "kid" (Jaden Smith, son of Will and Jada) moving to a new town, he moves to a new COUNTRY - to China, specifically. Beyond that, the main beats look similar with the kid taking shit from bullies and fighting back by learning martial-arts from Mr. Miyagi - played in this version by Jackie Chan. Yes, Jackie Chan.

Trailer looks like about what you'd expect, right down to that awful song that was overused in every sneaker commercial and highlight reel of the last two years, but it's got my interest for two reasons. Firstly: There looks to be A LOT of location shooting in this, so it's going to be interesting to learn how much (and what kind) of input the Chinese government had over the portrayal of, well... anything. Secondly: It's a little shocking to see Jackie Chan seemingly acting his ass off in the role. You'd think this would be the definition of a "paycheck" part, and Chan has been alarmingly candid about how little regard he has for his English language films, but in the footage here he's playing Miyagi straight and serious with a "patrician hardass" vibe that's worlds away from the fun-loving regular joe guy he plays in... well, pretty-much everything.




For what it's worth, Chan learned HIS craft in the infamously-punishing children's program of the Peking Opera School, meaning he's had lots of experience with rough-hewn, unforgiving instructors of young students; so maybe that's where this surprising-looking spin on Miyagi is coming from.

Oh, and just to get started early on what will easily be the most annoying (yet true) bit of fanboy-bitching of the year right off the bat: WHY is it still called "The Karate Kid" when it no longer has any connection to Japan and they clearly AREN'T using Karate? (I imagine that the filmmakers are smart enough to know this but don't want to lose the title, and furthermore I'd bet that there'll be a running gag about it on the lines of The Kid calling it "Karate" and having to be corrected.)

Brittany Murphy, RIP

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=26568

What. The. Fuck?

Not much to say about this save that it sucks. She worked so intermittently (save for a decade of playing Luanne on "King of The Hill") and often in such forgettable projects, people generally overlooked how talented she was.

Escape to the Movies: "Avatar"

You were expecting, maybe, "Did You Hear About The Morgans?"


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/1333-Avatar

And, as always, here's this week's "Intermission" column, which is also (mostly) about "Avatar."

2 steps forward, 1 step back?

When you're a movie geek, some days look like this:

ITEM: After departing the "X-Men" series to make a perhaps-too-introspective "Superman" movie that me and like five other people still like and, in doing so, freeing up the combined efforts of Tom Rothman and McG to steer the franchise into one of the most spectacular protracted artistic-suicides in memory (seriously, at least the original "Batman" movies ENDED after the fourth one... they made a whole OTHER MOVIE after "X3!!!"); Bryan Singer will apparently RETURN to direct "X-Men: First Class," a prequel (reboot?) with Cyclops, Jean, Storm etc. in their student-age days at the Xavier School. So, "Harry Potter" but with the X-Men. SOLD! Best of all, this almost-certainly means no Wolverine, so the other characters might actually get to DO something for a change.
http://www.joblo.com/singer-back-for-x-men

But then...

ITEM: "Spider-Man 4" is apparently officially "stalled" (as in, not moving forward) because - surprise surprise! - Sony and Sam Raimi are fighting over the villain. Raimi wants Silver Age mainstay "The Vulture," Sony wants... NOT The Vulture. If true, this is exactly what happened with #3: Raimi wanted Sandman and Vulture to continue his preferred trend of using the classic Spidey enemies, Sony (and Marvel) forced his hand for the more marketable Venom. Amazingly, damn near EVERYONE - even non-geeks - is aware that this went down last time, yet they're possibly at it AGAIN? I wonder who the studio-preferred nemesis would be... they wouldn't REALLY try and make him go with the (amazingly even MORE worthless than Venom "Carnage," would they??)
http://iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7951:spider-man-4-production-on-indefinite-hold&catid=43:exclusive-features&Itemid=73

UPDATE: AICN is reporting that the Spider-Man story isn't true, or rather that the work-stoppage isn't true, since the "arguing over the bad guy" thing has been out there for a few weeks now: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43405

ALSO, apparently it's called "Spider-M4N" now.

Iron Man 2

Apple (and now everyone else) has the Iron Man 2 trailer, already up:


http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/ironman/

Not much that hasn't been seen if you poked around for the Comic-Con footage, but looks pretty good. "New" money-shot is Iron Man and War Machine teamed up fighting what looks to be a bunch of other armored enemies (or are these full-on ROBOTS now? THAT would be pretty great.)

Obviously, hardcore geeks like myself are watching stuff like this looking for different stuff than most of the audience, who're likely just glad for the "yes, there's an Iron Man 2" factor. What might we be "looking for?" Why, "Avengers" crossover-clues, of course! So what's going through MY mind? Well...

First good listen to Mickey Rourke's Russian-accented dialogue for Whiplash. Digging the juxtaposition of the self-made hardcase baddie with the sleek, high-end good guy. More noteworthy, to me at least: Whiplash makes it clear he has a mad-on not just for Stark, but the Stark "family line." For the record: IMDB lists actor John Slattery as playing Howard Stark and also a role for "Young Tony Stark," so... flashbacks?

That's interesting, since the previous film also took time to mention that the elder Stark had been big in the morally-dubious military/weapons field, too; AND Stark's appearance in "The Incredible Hulk" indicated that he's been aware for some time of the WWII-era Super-Soldier program, i.e. the source of that serum that turns Tim Roth into The Abomination... which, for those without a devoted nerd in your life to point such things out, was marked with a scientist's name that "confirmed" that this is supposed to be the same stuff that gave Captain America his powers. So, I'm thinking: Is THIS (Stark Industries going back to WWII and possible involvement with Cap and/or the forerunners of S.H.I.E.L.D.) a big part of how they'll tie all this together? (Dear lord... if some fragment of Captain America turns up as the "tie-in tease" for this, I'll shit a solid gold brick.)

Also: No good look at Sam Rockwell as (apparently) the main bad guy, Justin Hammer. In the comics, Hammer is one of the Marvel Universe's endlessly-useful "weapon-making-bad-guys," an evil counterpart to Stark who's made gear for something like 70-80% of the supervillains. He also figures prominently in both the "Armor Wars" and "Demon In A Bottle" story-arcs, the two most-prominent ongoing stories in Iron Man prior to "Civil War." "Armor Wars," incidentally, involved Stark fighting bad/corrupted robots and robo-suits made by the army and others using his tech, which would make sense given the Senate scenes and the other robots/armors in the trailer. (I won't say what it is and advise you not to look, but the reliably-sloppy IMDB lists another specific Marvel character in the roster, though the listed-casting a certain scenes from this trailer lead me to conclude that someone has a wire crossed somewhere.)


Nice to see Nick Fury getting some trailer-love, and in addition Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow looks even better than I'd hoped for.

Alice in Thunderdome

Sometimes, it's helpful to remember that all the GOOD points of the Hollywood "blockbuster machine" having been taken over by the general mindset of a 13 year-old boy (see: Marvel Films' "Avengers" master-plan) come with their price - namely that 13 year-old boys can be pretty daft a lot of the time.

For example, around that age, it's customary to arrive at the assumption that EVERYTHING can be improved by turning it into some kind of Epic Battle - especially if the Epic Battle is also Grim n' Gritty - up to and including otherwise-good-natured superheroes and whimsical fairytales. It's this kind of thinking among 13 year-olds during my time as such that was largely responsible for Image Comics, and right now it seems to be responsible for re-imagining every movie property in the context of a Boris Vallejo/Julie Bell tableau (or, in studio-speak, "we're goin' for a "Pirates of the Carribean" angle."

To that end, here's the new-er trailer for Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" dealie, which despite what you're brain may be telling you he HASN'T already made seven or eight times...
http://wdmp-wdsmp.rd.llnw.net/wdsmp/AIW/Trailer5/AIW_Trailer5_480.mov

Gotta give `em credit, at least, for seemingly hitting every damn mark of this type of "reimagining:" Pseudo-sequelism? Check. Hero-as-vaugely-chosen? Check. Most-prominent baddie as world-conquest supervillain? Check. Massing armies of storm-troopers? Check. And dig what appears to be Alice striding out into the midst of a Braveheart-fight in full battle armor, or Depp's Mad Hatter wielding a broadsword. Or maybe it's kidding, and this is all out of context...

Kingdom of Gladiator Hood

COMING SOON has the first actual trailer (an "international" sizzle-reel type thing) for Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" movie:



...yeah. This is another one of those teasers, like the early ones for "Sherlock Holmes." that're so concerned with reminding you of other recent movies the target-demo may have liked (in this case: 300, Gladiator, King Arthur, LOTR and so on) that there's really no way to tell what the hell it is until the title comes up - before that, this might as well be the trailer for "Untitled Medieval Russel Crowe Actioner #5." That it doesn't look especially different "aesthetically" from "Prince of Thieves" over a decade ago is... not a good sign. Still, one must remember that this is Ridley Scott, who's movies are usually better than their trailers (or, in some cases, the version that actually opened - if you've not seen the director's cut of "Kingdom of Heaven," DO SO: It's one of the best films of his career.)

The history of this production has been ridiculous - assuming that ANY of it has been true: Depending on who you ask, this may or may not have started as a project called "Nottingham," which would've been a revisionist version of the story with Robin as an illegitimately-lionized thug with a flair for self-promotion and the Sherriff as the put-upon good guy trying to bring him down even with "the people" against him. Sounds cool, right? Well, whether or not that was ever the case, it wasn't for long: The next anyone heard of it, no one could confirm which of the two roles Crowe would be playing, and a NEW rumor surfaced that he'd actually be BOTH - either as some kind of "meta" casting or another "revisionist" take in which "Robin" is actually Nottingham's secret-identity, which he creates in order to subvert The Crown himself. Also a nifty take, also apparently not-happening.


There's also been some unsubstantiated talk that the people paying for the production more-or-less "demanded" that Scott/Crowe deliver a straight-ahead "unofficial-sequel-to-Gladiator" style take; resulting in this film which Universal is describing as another "real history behind the legend" go-round of the familair outline - i.e. Robin as disillusioned Crusades veteran who forms a woodland guerilla posse to fight unfair taxation.

Damn The Gods

CHUD points the way to a new, longer trailer for the "Clash of the Titans" remake. It's basically a longer, smoother version of the first teaser so most of it you've already seen, and it's also still cutting to that heavy metal track everybody but me pissed and moaned about (drumming scorpion = win) but definately worth checking out for our first official glimpses/confirmations of Pegasus, Mount Olympus and The Kraken - which looks like a fairly elegant solution between the traditional giant-octopus and Harryhausen's four-armed mer-whatsit.


http://chud.com/articles/articles/21854/1/THE-KRAKEN-RELEASED/Page1.html

More importantly, the much-maligned "Titans Will Clash" tagline has been replaced by the newer, inifitely more awesome "Damn The Gods"... which now solidifies my earlier inkling that this remake is taking it's cues from "Jason & The Argonauts" in addition to it's official progenitor.
"Damn The Gods." I love that. I LOVE that.

The moment?

The critics are starting to see "Avatar," (no, I haven't yet) and the early world is damn-near through the roof... EXACTLY the kind of feedback this particular movie needed to hopefully turn around all the "Dances With Smurfs" negativity that's been building around it since people first got a look at the plot. So... is this when it happens? Is this "Titanic" all over again, where everyone was sure it was a disaster in the making and then everything comes together when it finally shows?

I dunno... but thus far the most important report I've been waiting for was from Jeff Wells, who's probably the most stridently anti-fanboy, anti-genre-blockbuster guy doing movie-blogging right now - the epitome of someone who's just NOT looking to show kindness to a $300 Million mostly-CGI tentpole about blue aliens and marines in mecha-suits. Well, as of this morning... he's calling it a masterpiece:
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/12/a_fine_madness.php

In fact, I don't think I've ever seen Wells react this way to this sort of movie. Overnight, he's gone from one it's cheif nay-sayers to proclaiming that it will get (and deserves to get) a Best Picture nomination:
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/12/avatar_in_the_r.php

What does this mean? I dunno, but it's unexpected and definately gives me a good feeling.

Escape to the Movies: "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans"


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/1219-Bad-Lieutenant

And here's this week's "Intermission," which is all about the film's director/adventurer/superhero Werner Herzog:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6866-Kneel-Before-Zog

New "OverThinker" at ScrewAttack

FYI guys, the new 30th episode of "Game OverThinker," a side-by-side of "Modern Warfare 2" and "New Super Mario Bros. Wii," is up NOW at ScrewAttack:
http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-A-Tale-of-Two-Games

Sorceror's Apprentice

So, folks... what do we make of this trailer for Disney/Bruckheimer's new fantasy-actioner "The Sorceror's Apprentice," another of the growingly-common subset of genre films attaching a 'name title' to what appears to be an original story in order to look more like a franchise blockbuster?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h_fMAV7jXc

The basic idea seems to be a bare-outline "Harry Potter" reworked from a classical British "special boy" structure to an American one - i.e. instead of admittance to a prestigious elite academy being the seemingly-ordinary "Chosen One's" passage to skill-honing and higher destiny (the Dickensian/British model) he'll be schooled in badass-lonerhood by an older badass-loner, "Karate Kid"/"Rocky"-style. All told, doesn't look half-bad - gotta love the dragon and the animated Empire State eagle. Though, yes, the presence of Nicolas Cage means at least a 50/50 chance of otherworldly brilliance or out-of-place awkwardness.

Finally, GOOD NEWS about "The Wolf Man."

Universal's remake of "The Wolf Man," with Benicio Del Toro as the title monster, has had easily the most (publically) problematic production of any film in recent memory: The first director was fired/quit just as it was gearing up, there were public spats about practical-vs-CGI FX between creature-maker Rick Baker and the production, and recently new editors were hired to "punch up" the finished footage. All signs pointed to the usual trouble: A potentially-cool genre film getting watered-down by a studio afraid to make something awesome and maybe even a little dangerous. It also, even from it's trailers, looked A LOT "bigger" and thus more expensive than many might have been expecting, which could only ADD to the concern if you follow these things: Even if your movie is about a monster who's only real ability is tearing people limb-from-limb, a studio spending big money usually wants a "safe" PG13 rating to garauntee maximum profit.



So, then, it comes as not just good news but potentially SPECTACULAR news that "The Wolf Man" has been rated R for "bloody horror, violence and gore." Now, that DOESN'T necessarily mean all the problems haven't resulted in a less-than-great film, but it IS a strong indicator that things might be going in the right direction. An R-rating, at it's fundamental level, usually means that the film was made "uncompromised" to a certain degree; it also possibly tells us that Universal might think they have something pretty good on their hands, since a "bad" genre film would absolutely get saddled with a PG13 in order to increase it's earning capacity.

If it's "that" good, I'm interested to see what it's reception does for journeyman director Joe Johnston, who's been making solid films without becoming much of a "name" for DECADES now. If this works out, it could end up a big secondary buzz-point for the "Captain America" movie he's set to make for Marvel (if that's still happening, there hasn't been WORD ONE about it since they announced they were making it.)

Spider-Man 4 to get it half right?

File this under "probably strange enough to be semi-true," but Movieline says they know who the new people are in "Spider-Man 4": http://www.movieline.com/2009/12/exclusive-spider-man-4-circling-john-malkovich-anne-hathaway.php?page=1

Sez them, Sony Pictures vetoed "The Lizard" for being too strange; so the main enemy will be "The Vulture" - possibly to be played by John Malkovich. Sez them also: The story about Felicia Hardy ("The Black Cat") turning up is also true, as is rumored casting of Anne Hathaway, except instead of Cat she'll become a female counterpart to Vulture. (Vulture has wings, for the record. That's pretty much the whole idea.)

Some of this sounds like bullshit, some of it doesn't. Vulture is 100% plausible. He's part of the "main cast" of 60s Spider-Man enemies that Raimi prefers to draw from (Rhino, Mysterio, Shocker, Electro and Beetle are most of the others) and he fits in nicely with the general theme of main bad guys from the better-recieved (than #3) first films - i.e. an inventor using his technology to go on a crime/revenge spree. It's also true that Raimi has been trying like hell to get him into the series for a long time - he was supposed to be "co-baddie" in Part 3 before Marvel/Sony insisted on Venom. If you're wondering why Lizard is apparently too strange for the screen but alien-goo-monster Venom wasn't, simple: Money. Venom is one of Marvel's most consistently-marketable properties on the toy/shirt side (he's never been able to carry a book, though.)

The "made-up" part, if there is one, is probably Hathaway-as-Hardy-as-"Vulteress;" but not enough to be dissmissed outright. A recurring theme (THE recurring theme?) in Vulture stories is that he's an old man, and his flying-suit technology is always getting stolen by younger, more ambitious wannabes. If so, it's likely that this was in the script from the beginning and someone had the idea to borrow the name of an existing supporting-player for her civilian identity. Unfortunately for them, as always happens with these things, a casting sheet got to the fans before the announcement did, and now instead of going "heh, thats a reference" they'll be all bent out of shape at the character not being in it's original form (doubly true here, since let's face it - LOT'S of people wanted to see a flesh-and-blood actress in that outfit.)

Movieline isn't a "fanboy" site, so if this is either close to or very far away from truth, there'll be word from Sony soon enough.

Escape to the Movies: "Ninja Assassin"

The Blind Side

Alright, enough is enough.

I didn't write anything at first after seeing "The Blind Side" because it left my largely unaffected save for the same general annoyance given off by it's trailer, which I'd already covered. But seeing it blossom into some kind of real success, and now people are talking an OSCAR for Sandra Bullock (Sandra Bullock!!??) I'm compelled to get into this.

"The Blind Side" is fucking horrible. At first seemingly forgettable, but it HANGS there like a sore... I find myself coming back to it in my head, realizing just how awful certain aspects of it are. It's worse than worthless - it's an "anti-good" film; it's existance lessens the world around it.

It's based loosely on a sports book of the same name from the author "Moneyball," which details the rise to prominence of the Left Tackle position in professional football. The "human interest" aspect of the story focused on Michael Oher, an NFL pro who started out as a near-homeless teenager who's life turned around after a local rich family more-or-less adopted him. He's black, they're white, is the "hook." The film gives lip service to the sports-history context, but it opts to focus mainly on Oher's story... without actually focusing on him. Instead, it reworks itself into a star-vehicle for Bullock as the tuff-love matriarch who takes him in.

And that's the main problem - all "Blind Side's" other sins... the unoriginal structure, the formula "big" scenes, the treacly sentiment and the overall "feel-good-movie-matic" aura of the whole enterprise - might be forgivable if it weren't also such a smug, self-satisfied piece of white-guilt-reassurance. Oher is a specter in his own story: A one-dimensional "big lug with a heart" caricature who's only function is helping his benefactor's feel better about themselves. The plot is about how Oher escaped the dead-end of the ghetto with help from these people, but the STORY is about how encountering Michael and his world has made his adoptive mother a more enlightened, socially-aware human being. Fuck that shit.

And that's not even taking into account all the out-of-nowhere "the HELL!?" scenes. At one point, Oher gets to tear a bunch of his old-neighborhood crack dealers apart with his bare hands even though they've all got guns. No, really, and it's cut like something out of a Jason Statham movie. Later on, Bullock goes all Erin Brokovich on the same dealers, apparently able to cow them with sheer force of word. Please. The film also manages to sidestep the main note of moral-gray from the real events - there was some eyebrow-raising about Oher's adopted family, and tutor, and others involved in his redemption being financially-connected to the college he ended up signing with, do the math - by the old standby of placing the only dialogue questioning it into the mouths of a "mean" character. Earlier on, one of Bullock's "bitchy" friends asks her "is this some kind of white guilt thing?," which is meant to make curmudgeon's like me feel bad about mentioning the fact that it kinda IS.

It's a piece of shit, and the idea that it has any kind "momentum" right now is incredibly disturbing.

quick bit

On my way out, but just quickly:

"INTERMISSION" is now up, this one is about Ignmar Bergman:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6821-On-The-Road-With-Bergman

Also, if you get the chance - DON'T skip "Fantastic Mr. Fox." Ignore the underwhelming, slapstick-heavy trailers. It's a beautiful little romp of a thing, possibly the best thing Anderson has been involved with since "Rushmore." The notion that Anderson directed this "hands-off" by email is baffling once you see it - it looks so completely and utterly "him" from the titles to the colors to the staging... even the tiny little costumes on the animals. And there's a random exchange about songwriting that I know I'll be quoting for the rest of the year.

The main thing I was unsure about was the risky decision to use deliberately fake-looking puppets an animation. The "sets" all look exactly like sets, with visible joints and brush-strokes, you can see the "fingerprints" of the animators in the real-fur animal characters (when a pregnant Mrs. Fox is said to be "glowing," the next cut replaces her with an internally-lit double clearly made from painted plastic) effects are accomplished using cotton for smoke, cellophane for water and the barest hint of rotoscoping... even the cinematography is stage as though shot by a camera that can only move in 2 directions - in, out, back, forth - at any given time. Topping it all off, the animation itself avoids smoothness at all costs - it looks as though the puppets were moved only ever-OTHER-frame.

But the ultimate effect is really hypnotic. The "trick" is that it's all about the details. The puppets are astoundingly detailed - the animals have tailored clothes, real fur, rows of realistic teeth, expressive faces and eyes that not only have pupils but irises - and intricately animated: Lips curl back over teeth, tongues move to enunciate and whiskers twitch in-sync. A minute or two in, it clicked for me: Anderson has always been fixated on cinematic artiface - look at the lovingly-obvious water-tank shots in "Life Aquatic," or the unmistakably-unreal animated fish in the same. An amazing amount of work went into "Mr. Fox," and he wants you to SEE that work happening.

Gvie it a look.

His blood runs through my instrument

The real brilliance of Seth Green and Matthew Senreich's "Robot Chicken" is that it may be the first sketch comedy series to fully grasp the concept that, while blasphemy is funny, blasphemy against "official" religions is pretty hard to do these days: It's played out, for one thing, and the ever-decreasing irrelevance of organized faith in much of the modern world means that there aren't as many people who'll actually be offended.

SECULAR "religions," on the other hand, are much more a part of our lives now, and the jokesters who "get" that tend to be the ones who're on the real cutting-edge now - think Stewart/Colbert's open mockery of journalistic gravitas, South Park's constant assault on politically-correct piety, "Borat's" goosing of the politeness-instinct, that sort of thing. Or recall that in it's early prime "The Simpsons" drew gasps for it's evisceration of the sitcom nuclear-family ideal.

"Robot Chicken's" idol-to-be-shattered of choice is the religion of Nostalgia: Their main recurring them is taking the movies, TV shows, cartoons and - especially - playthings that my generation (which is, of course, also Green & Senreich's generation) tends to hold sacrosanct because of the impression they made on us at certain ages. And they're damn good at it - I've seen an aquaintance who regarded themself a casual student of the "nothing can offend me" school of psuedo-nihilism respond with bug-eyed shock at RC's re-fitting of "The Neverending Story's" famous "SAY MY NAME!!!" exchange into an (innevitable, in retrospect) sexual context; and I have an aunt whom I'm fairly certain would burst into tears if someone showed her the "Wizard of Oz alternate-ending" sketch.

With that in mind, my favorite RC sketch of all time is probably the short bit goofing on Dan Fogleberg's song "Leader of The Band." If you're not familiar, here's the song:



So... yes, one of those sappy/sentimental ballads; but if you knew of it beforehand you probably also know it's up there with "The Cowboys" or "Brian's Song" in the "stuff guys are allowed to cry during" pantheon. People play this song at their father's/grandfather's funerals. There's a pretty good chance that at some point, somewhere in the English-speaking world, someone is fighting back manly tears while quoting from this in the vicinity of a casket and/or headstone.

So, here's what "Robot Chicken" did with it...


http://robotchicken.wikia.com/wiki/Leader_of_the_Band

When I saw that the first time, I remember thinking "That's WRONG!!!" and THEN realizing that this was the first time I actually MEANT it in a long time. Brilliant stuff.

Escape to the Movies: "The Road"



I wish it was better.

("Intermission" should be up around 5pm ET on The Escapist)

Babies

hat tip: Chud:
http://chud.com/articles/articles/21679/1/MOVIE-MAKES-STUNNING-CLAIM-THAT-BABIES-ARE-CUTE/Page1.html

Well, doesn't THIS have "this year's March of The Penguins" written all over it...




Can't lie, looks cute, kinda surprised nobody thought of "find an excuse to run video of babies for 90 minutes" until now. There's actually a HUGE, more-than-a-little creepy market out there for what amounts to "infants-as-art-objects"... In fact, I'm just gonna go ahead and blame this movie NOW for the fucking Anne Geddes movie we'll probably get about a year later.

Precious: Based On the Watching of the Movie "Precious: Based On the Novel "Push" by Sapphire" by MovieBob

So I finally saw "Precious: Based On the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire," which has become this year's movie that people judge you as a person based on your opinion of it (see also: "Life is Beautiful.") You're either moved-to-life-altering-tears by director Lee Daniels' presentation of an illiterate, morbidly-obese teenager (Gabourey Sidibe) gradually dragging herself out of a nightmarishly-abusive home life with help from friends, teachers and social-workers in 1987 Harlem; or you're a heartless bastard who's either "trying" to dislike it or you just can't take the heat.

Honestly? I'm torn: What you've heard about the acting is true - Sidibe is a revelation, Mo'nique comes close to very nearly eradicating bad memories of... well, pretty much everythign she's ever done anywhere ever (seriously.. was she EVER good in ANYTHING before this?) and somehow Daniels defies all known laws of nature and wrenches a great turn out of Mariah Carey. Maybe Daniels in the wrong profession: He should be an acting coach, exclusively assigned to actresses who've previously failed to demonstrate anything resembling ability (he also produced the Halle Berry Oscar-victory piece "Monster's Ball.)

What he probably SHOULDN'T be doing is directing entire films, because everything in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" ranges from uninspiring to laughably bad. Problem numero-uno is the actual story - once you get past the sheer SCALE of the abuses heaped on Precious (you can practically hear the carnival barker: "Incest! Force-feeding! Baby tossing!") it's difficult to ignore that it's not much more than a grimier, nastier Lifetime movie; right down to Paula Patton's (to be fair, very well-acted) walking-cliche role as the saintly Alternative School teacher who takes it upon herself to rescue Precious.

More problematically, Daniels injects some fantasy/dream sequences, ostensibly representing Precious introverted escape whenever things get too intense, that play-out like bad comedy. He also indulges in ham-fisted irony, as when Precious looks at herself in a mirror and sees a blonde caucasian model instead (gee, do you think that reflection will look different by Act 3??) and a shockingly trite bit where the world-opening effects of education on Precious are visualized by spinning the camera around her and projecting a "great moments of the 20th Century" news-clip assembly onto the walls - an easy contender opposite "New Moon's" seasonal-transition bit as the year's worst use of montage. And don't get me started on the film-school-look-at-me moment where Precious imagines herself and her mother inhabiting a scene from Vittorio De Sica's "Two Women." The hell!?

There's also a few bits where the film seems (perhaps inadvertently, so just be clear I'm suggesting incompetence and not malice) to join it's villains in making fun of Precious: Moments of condescension like Precious' voice-over opining of "they talk like people on TV shows I don't watch" while sitting-in on political chatter between Patton and her partner (why does she know what it sounds like, then?) and did it really require the scene where Precious steals a bucket of fried chicken and devours it while sprinting down the street?

It's impossible not to be effected by the level of squalor on display or the tremendous performances (honestly, the actors yank the film from bad to pretty-good more or less by themselves), but as a functioning film it's DEEPLY flawed. Shower the cast with praise and statues, fine... but the placement of the film itself on any kind of "year's best" list is - at best - charity and at worst self-deception.

WATCH/READ THIS: "Ode to Minions"

I dunno how many people remember to check it out here and there, but Matthew Taranto and Chris Seward's "Brawl in The Family" is consistently one of the better webcomics out there; especially considering it's working from a premise - goofing mainly on Super Smash Bros.-related franchises - that you'd think wouldn't have much room for growth.

To celebrate "strip #200," they've pulled out the stops for a musical episode. It's pretty damn great (the last three panels just SLAY ME), you can check it out HERE (make sure you enable the music):
http://www.brawlinthefamily.com/?p=938

And, since this is the Internet, here's a youtube of the panels "cut" to the song:

Escape to the Movies: "New Moon"

Guess how it was. Go on, guess.



And here's this week's "Intermission," which is also about "Twilight" though significantly more introspective in tone:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6797-Twilight-of-the-She-Geeks

I wholeheartedly support this unlikely and possibly baselass rumor

Heading out to a "Ninja Assassin" screening and a midnight of "New Moon" - since my press-invite seems to have gotten lost in the mail or whatever - but this was a little too on-topic to pass up.

The big "geek rumor" of the last few weeks has been that Sam Raimi and the "Spider-Man 4" production have been casting around for actresses to play Felicia Hardy, aka "The Black Cat." Fans of breasts and those with financial stake in any manufacturer of Adult Female Halloween costumes, rejoice.

Character is a professional thief, sometimes equipped with magical "bad luck powers," with the uncanny ability to creep about unnoticed in spite of a physique and costuming preferences that insure she enters a room about thirty full seconds before she enters a room, if you take my meaning. Mainly started out as a shameless "Catwoman" knockoff, but became a mainstay once artists' enthusiam for drawing her (and fans' enthusiasm for buying products bearing her... let's say "face") somewhat cornered writers' into doing something interesting with her; in this case making her (pyschologically) into a female role-reversal on her own male fans: She's obsessed with Spider-Man, but strictly as an object of fetish - standard-characterization is she's got it bad for Spidey as-in "the guy in the red/blue costume," and has an almost-violent lack of interest in who he actually is without it. For those playing at home, THIS is why Peter Paker's life always has to be stacked to suck so much - so that we can still feel bad for him even with stuff like "consequence-free no-strings on-call copulation with stunning blonde sex-addict" also hanging around his background. (Speaking of writers, it took approximately 2 1/2 pages under Kevin Smith's pen for Cat to "come out" as bisexual, right at the point when that was still somewhat novel for female superheroes. That's a record, even for Smith.)

As is common with these things, even though NO ONE from the production has confirmed that this is even remotely true, "anonymous sources" (read: people's agents) have been leaking rumors of pretty-much every age-appropriate female actress working as being "considered for the role." Julia Stiles, Rachel McAdams and others got name-dropped right away, with Anne Hathaway (dear god, do I even dare DREAM!?) being the most-recent. The only reason you're not hearing Scarlett Johansson's name is that she's already "Black Widow" in "Iron Man 2" and "Avengers."

Left unsaid is how pissed Warner Bros. will be if this is true and they're now "prevented" by not wanting to look dopey from the otherwise-obvious inclusion of Catwoman in the next "Batman."

Star Trek, again

To celebrate the release of "Star Trek" on DVD, The Escapist has bumped my theatrical review of the film back onto the homepage. Sounds like a good idea to me...


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-presents/721-MovieBob-Reviews-Star-Trek

Escape to the Movies: "2012"



And yet MORE about "2012" and Roland Emmerich in this week's INTERMISSION:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6772-Disasterpiece

This is why South Park still matters

Just got done watching the newest "South Park," titled "Dances With Smurfs." Let it be said for the record that not only do Parker and Stone now officially hold the Heavyweight Championship in the category of Glenn Beck mockery; but that the long, drawn-out "are they really going there" reveal of what they're really looking to slap-around is one of the best "South Park Misdirections" ever, easily.

As usual, you can watch the whole thing at southparkstudios.com right now:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/251890

That'll do nicely

Below, the trailer for the Louis Leterrier directed remake of "Clash of The Titans."



I just want to point something out here: The very first thing we see in this trailer is a giant scorpion. Not the stars. Not the locations. Not an important object or even an inkling of the plot. GIANT. FUCKING. SCORPION. I'm sold. This looks awesome.

And why am I apparently the only guy on the web who doesn't find something inappropriate about the heavy metal in the trailer? It's 67 seconds of angry bloody dudes in swordfights with giant scorpions, Medusa and The Gods - this is EXACTLY where Metal is supposed to go!

...and you don't even have to play it backwards!

Here's a bit of a flip-side "rhyme" entry to the Natalie-Portman-becomes-veganism-evangelist piece from last Thursday: Actor Adam Baldwin - impressively still riding on the geek-godhood train evidently granted everyone who was on "Firefly" - believes that he has detected a sinister, subversive message hiding deep within the popular culture... specifically, hiding deep within the 1970s "Sesame Street" tune "We All Sing The Same Song."

No, really. Here's some money-quotes:

"Yet, embedded in its visually intoxicating muppetry and otherwise innocently entertaining educational content there lurks highly controversial political messages designed to promote multiculturalism and global citizenship"

"A main tenet of the multiculturalism and Enviro-Statism inculcated by Modern Liberal educators and as practiced on “Sesame Street” — exemplified in “We All Sing the Same Song,” is the diminishment of the unique greatness of American culture."


But to get the full effect, you really need to check out the whole thing. Here's his initial article:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abaldwin/2009/11/03/sesame-street-all-monsters-are-equal/

And here's the follow-up piece:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abaldwin/2009/11/09/sesame-street-habitat-for-political-correctness/

And, of course, to complete the picture, here's the vile work of propaganda that's got him so worked-up in the first place:

"Boondock Saints" press event

Part of the lead-up to having review-screened "Boondock Saints" last week was the opportunity to sit down for a roundtable interview with Troy Duffy, Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus and Billy Connolly. Coverage of the event, and some more specific ruminations about the film and it's following, can now be found in this weeks "Intermission" article:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6742-Oh-I-Want-to-Be-in-That-Number

Escape to the Movies: "A Christmas Carol"

I wonder which word they WON'T be using if it underperforms at the boxoffice...

Points for cojones, at least. Barrie Osbourne is producing a biopic of Muhammad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/nov/02/matrix-producer-plans-muhammad-biopic

They'll be using the same format as Moustaphha Akkad's "The Messenger" back in the 70s: i.e. avoiding the taboo depiction of The Prophet via camera placement and POV shots.

Y'know what'll be nice about this? A near-total lack of controversy. Since there's no chance that nutters in America will protest, calling it "terrorist propaganda;" that anyone in the actual Middle East will stage ultraviolent mass demonstrations against it, or that members of other world religions will piss and moan about Hollywood being "nice" to Muslims and "mean" to them. Nope, should be a pretty uneventful production... ;)

Berentein Bears... really?

So say The USA Today, Shawn Levy - the Michael Bay of safe, empty family-comedy - will direct a live-action (huh?) adaptation of "The Berenstein Bears" for Walden Media:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-11-03-Berenstainbears03_ST_N.htm

A series of children's books spanning a few decades or so by now, the main setup is basically your average nuclear-family sitcom cast with talking bears: Doltish but well-meaning father, emminently wise mother, troublemaking son, bratty daughter. I always thought Mama Bear came off as kind of a bitch, honestly...



This, I guess, is the price we'll have to pay for "Where the Wild Things Are."


The books are basically self-contained life-lessons without much in the way of antagonists or continuity, so apparently Levy's film will make use of "kiddie franchise adaptation plot #6:" Transporting the characters to "the real world" to interact with incredulous humans. Because that was such a good idea in "Fat Albert." I eagerly await seeing which popular youth sport Brother Bear will show hitherto unheard of proficiency at, what sort of "wacky" modern clothes Sister Bear will wind up in during the innevitable makeover-with-new-friends scene, and finding out which big chain store will plunk down the product-placement dollars for the honor of having Mama and Papa get lost in - amazed at all the crazy technology and gadgets. I think I remember that Papa was supposed to be a lumberjack, so hopefull there's a scene where he gets his hand on a chainsaw. (You can have that one for free, Shawn.)

Escape to the Movies: "Boondock Saints 2"

Must be tofu, cuz beef don't shake like that

So, apparently, I must now add "Veganism" to the ever-growing list of "things I have to pretend to like if I ever meet Natalie Portman":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/natalie-portman/jonathan-safran-foers-iea_b_334407.html

For the record: I don't really have any "problem" with Vegans, though I DO have a problem with Natalie Portman becoming one. Namely... well, remember "Closer?" "Hotel Chevalier?" Yeah... that figure is just NOT going to exist under a veggies-only diet. Ah, well...

One of the things that has always perplexed me about vegetarianism (and hardline animal-liberation ideology in general) is how often it's framed as a kind of mutual-morality issue: That it's wrong to eat or experiment on animals because some believe they are just as capable of emotion, emotional-reaction and even moral reasoning as human beings are. To me, that seems backwards... I'M against cruelty to animals largely because I'm inclined to conclude that they AREN'T capable of moral-reasoning - at least not to the degree we are.

See, I've met TONS of human beings who deserve to be treated unkindly, to say nothing of outright CRUELLY - mostly because that's how they've treated myself and others. Hitler deserved to be treated with cruelty. Osama bin Laden deserves cruelty. Have you ever heard of an animal that did anything to deserve the same? I certainly haven't.

For all anyone has been able to prove scientifically, animals are TOTAL innocents: moral/ethical "blanks;" which means they aren't capable of EVIL. If, on the other hand, we were to prove that they were capable of good, logic would dictate that they are ALSO capable of evil - one cannot exist without the other. Wouldn't this, then, mean that a simple solution to the problem of how to consume meat protein without harming something "good" be to eat only the "bad" animals? Surely, it couldn't be hard to find and execute the Hitler of Cows or the Manson of Turkeys, yes?

Science could probably make this whole thing irrelevant if they wanted to: If we can clone whole animals effectively, it can't be too far of a step to only clone PARTS of them. Imagine being able to GROW edible cuts of meat without having to worry about the pain inflicted on a whole steer...

In other news, I hear Leatherface is stumping for immigration reform...

As President Obama continues the Democrat's sisyphean quest for Health Care reform, perhaps he can take some measure of comfort from the fact that - in the same weekend wherein he learned that Joe Lieberman plans to vote with the Republicans against the Public Option; we now learn that he at least has the support of one John Kramer, aka "Jigsaw," the serial-killer protagonist of the "Saw" movies.

"Saw 6," the most recent episode, opens with the Jigsaw-mandated self-imolation of two corrupt mortage loan officers, then for the main course serves up some "git th' bastard!!!!" torment of a heartless insurance company boss and, for good measure, the group of eeeeeevil overly-slick MBA brats who serve as his main team. Yes, the slowly-petering-out gorefest franchise has officially taken one of genre-film's classic first-steps toward oblivion: The socially-relevant "message" installment. Presumably, Jigsaw (or, rather, Jigsaw's posthumous minions) will battle Climate Change by stapling a polluting CEO's mouth to an exhaust pipe in Part 7; or feeding Wall Street derivatives-traders' intestines through a stock-ticker in Part 8.

Okay, for what it's worth marrying the standard outline of the post-Part-3 "Saw" movies to this particular cause of the month makes a certain amount of sense: Jigsaw is/was a terminal cancer patient who forces victims who don't "appreciate" their lives to endure gruesome endurance tests to teach them a lesson. Still, the risk of merging a franchise like this to a topical issue is always a matter of elevation versus deflation: If you're going to insert a serious socio-political argument - in this case the need for healthcare reform - into something as inherently silly as "Saw," the franchise must rise to meet the import of the issue OR the issue must become silly to mee the franchise. Those wondering which version has happened more often are advised to go watch "Superman 4: The Quest For Peace" again.

See, the "Saw" movies have always had a certain "preachy" quality as part of their hook: People struggle their way through torture traps while Jigsaw grumbles a narration largely made up on his own warped philosophy on life and death. THAT basically works, since Jigsaw's ramblings (and Tobin Bell's by-now iconic performance) matches up with the high-grade-schlock asthetic of the films-proper. Simply swapping that dialogue out with bumper-sticker bullet-points about insurance reform (Bell's vocals work overtime to make sure we never get tired of hearing him growl the word "policy") but keeping the actual movie around it as goofy as ever turns the whole thing into unintended comedy... a straight-faced version of those SNL "Weekend Update" bits where an ironically-appropriate fictional character delivers an editorial ("and now here with an opinion on gun control, Mr. Yosemite Sam.")

At the very least, even though it's now functional only as a kind of unwittingly-hillarious self-parody, it's at least more watchable on a technical level than the last two. If nothing else, hopefully this newfound technical acumen can carry through all the way to "Saw 10"... wherein, I imagine, Jigsaw will do battle against offshore drilling.

Haggis quits Scientology

Apparently, this isn't a hoax:

Paul Haggis ("Crash") has publically ditched his 30+ year membership in the controversial Church of Scientology for both personal and political reasons: He resented the church telling his wife to sever ties with her family, and he's furious at the church's support for Proposition 8:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33484589/ns/entertainment/

Internet Hall of Fame

Web personality "That Dude in The Shades" has, quite graciously, featured me in his ongoing series "The Internet Hall of Fame." The induction/interview is embedded here:


cross that one of the list...


A friend from YouTube points me to an image that effectively ends a rather passively-undertaken "search" the origins of which date back to about 1995 or so. Some folks have the Loch Ness Monster, some folks have evidence of Extra-Terrestrials; I've got, well...



P.S. Anyone on the convetion circuit who knows who these two are?
Yeah... if one of them is actually a guy, I don't wanna know. Okay? ;)

Escape to the Movies: "Paranormal Activity"

Review of "Paranormal Activity," now up at The Escapist:



EDIT: Here's this week's "Intermission," as well:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6687-YouTube-Killed-the-Video-Star

JOY!!!

Embedded below, the opening cinematic to "New Super Mario Bros. Wii." Not precisely the epic air-raid/nostalgia-fest that the "Mario Galaxy" prologue was, but cute all the same. Depicted on the pile of giant presents in the background are this installments round of power-ups, including the classic Fire-Flower, the re-designed incarnation of Galaxy's Ice-Flower, the Propeller-Helmet and, yes... that would be a Penguin Suit. However, the REAL bigsuperhappyfun confirmation comes at exactly 0:17...


I've been waiting since 2003 to be able to say this...

THE KOOPALINGS LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A boy can dream

One can rest assured that, in the modern Hollywood, the town is currently FULL of producers and executives who's job it is to "option" material with their fingers hovering over the metaphorical "button" in regards to various other 'offbeat' youth-oriented/Gen-X-beloved literature should "Where The Wild Things Are" become a decent-sized success.

Naturally, this right here will NEVER happen, but... if I were to walk into a theater at some point in the next year and see some approximation of the following imaginary teaser poster up on the wall, I imagine I might pass out right there on the spot...



EDIT: Just to be clear, I know it would be a bad idea, I'm just pointing out that I'd be immediately fascinated to see how it played out.

new "Intermission"

This week's "MovieBob Intermission" column is about Roman Polanski. Because it's kind of obligatory at this point...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6659-Might-as-Well-Get-to-the-Polanski-Thing

Escape to the Movies: "Where the Wild Things Are"

You really, really, REALLY need to go see this.

Is it too much to ask?

Is it too much to ask that a moratorium be called on invoking Michael Vick EVERY FUCKING TIME a celebrity who is NOT Michael Vick get's into legal trouble?

You hear this shit all the time now: "If you {{insert felony recently committed by famous person}} you get a slap on the wrist... BUT IF YOU KILL A DOG!!!..." the implication, of course, being that what Vick did was so unimportant as to make his 18 month punishment an instant laugh line. There's also a sick undercurrent of cultural pandering frequently involved, as though dog-murder is one of those things "you wouldn't understand."

Chris Rock - who's usually above crap like this - was the most recent offender in this regard, with the comparison in question being (who else?) Roman Polanski. Now, granted, he's probably mostly joking, but still. Honestly, are there NO better martyrs to "unfair" incarceration than this guy?

Escape to the Movies: "DVD show"

Jack shit came out this week, so here's some DVDs instead ;)

"MovieBob: Intermission"

I've been extended the opportunity to pen a weekly (I believe) column for The Escapist, in addition to the reviews. Yay!

Entry numero uno can be found at the below link, a rundown/summation of my day at a roundtable press event for "Zombieland" which included a group interview with Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg. Enjoy:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6592-MovieBob-in-Zombieland

Escape to the Movies: "Zombieland"

This is a SPOILER-FREE review, just so you know. You will NOT learn "the secret" from me, and if you DON'T see "spoiler-free" on Zombieland reviews I reccomend you not read/watch them.

Capitalism

Saw the new Michael Moore movie today. Curious to see how it actually does.

At this point, "responding" to Mr. Moore's movies is obviously pointless: These aren't a guy making his case in a debate, they're polemics - and there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, as always one can point to obvious places where he's playing fast and loose with the facts, or mischaracterizes his opponents, or goes to dubious lengths to hit emotional buttons (at one point he runs some Katrina footage and mock-ponders why "it's never Bernie Madoff waving on the roof," which I imagine even the most 'liberal' fan may respond to with "uhh... because he didn't live below sea-level?") or opts for dramatic effect over facts; but to complain about that is to mistakenly conflate the word's "Documentary" with "News Reporting." These are the facts: That Michael Moore believes that Capitalism is a no-longer-functional economic model (though he stops short of an outright endorsement of "that other 'ism,") that "Capitalism: A Love Story" is a film in which he uses staged comedy bits, archival footage, news and interviews edited together in order to express this belief; and that it's quite successful in that aim.

The attention-grabbing title ("OMG! A movie against capitalism!?") is actually a pretty good encapsulation of the whole enterprise: it LOOKS a lot more controversial than it really is. While Moore states onscreen "Capitalism is evil" (as part of an ironic fake-out where he somberly calls for it to be replaced by... DEMOCRACY!) and for good measure has a bunch of Catholic priests agreeing with him, the film itself is less concerned with debating economic philosophy than it is with fanning the flames of outrage over the subprime meltdown and the bailouts. In a Q&A that followed the showing, he compared the 21st Century debate over capitalism and socialism as the rehashing of "a 16th Century economic system and a 19th Century one." Of course, "Predatory Banking Practices in The Early 21st Century: A Love Story" isn't as snappy a title.

Interestingly, it's kind of strange to see a Michael Moore movie that winds up being essentially upbeat: As of the film-proper, Moore is still obviously high on the election of Obama - which the film frames as the ultimate result of a literal citizen's revolt which Moore sums up as "Holy SHIT!" - and leaves off with the impression that things are looking up. As such, is less of a "call to arms" and more of a "pep rally," so I wonder if that'll make it more or less popular.

Of special note to history buffs will, of course, be the fact that Moore and his researchers actually managed to uncover the famous Franklin Delano Roosevelt "Second Bill of Rights" speech film footage, which had been presumed lost and is featured in the film in it's entirety.

"Nightmare" trailer

Myspace has the HD trailer for Platinum Dunes' "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake up, here's the embedd:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=63620005

I have three immediate strong reactions to this, which I'm inclined to imagine will be shared by a great deal of the web-surfing horror-fan contingent:

#1: The apparent fidelity to the original film(s) is genuinely shocking: Not only do a bevy of the first installments most iconic scenes seem to have been preserved; but the composition, color-palette and even the lighting looks the same. The shot of the pool-party looks like a direct screengrab from "Freddy's Revenge." Hell, is that the same factory, even? Color me intrigued, since PD's previous 80s-horror revamps were both top-to-bottom overhauls.

#2: No really good look at the Freddy makeup yet, maybe they'll try to save that for opening night, but we do get to hear what is probably Jackie Earl Haley's "official" Freddy Voice. THIS part is definately NOT aping the originals... the usual malevolent, self-satisfied cackle seems absent from Freddy's disposition here. If nothing else, it shows that Haley has been granted room to move around in this.

#3: The opening moments of the trailer would seem to confirm the early rumors that there was going to be an added "wrinkle" to the story this time involving the presence of significant doubt as to whether or not Freddy was actually GUILTY of the crimes he was killed for. This will be controversial to fans, but I can understand the angle: A big part of the story in the original film is solving the mystery of just who Freddy Krueger actually is/was. Since the audience this time around can no longer be surprised by those revelations, it makes sense to stage new ones.

I remain fully skeptical that Michael Bay and his Dunes friends are capable of EVER producing a good film, but color me a lot less skeptical than I was ten minutes ago.

Polanski, Part II

Well, this didn't exactly take long even on a Sunday...

Predictably, L'Affaire Polanski ceased to be about the particulars of extraditing an ex-pat American from Zurich on 30 year-old bail-jumping and sexual misconduct charges before the door was closed on his cell; and is now officially a political hot-potato encompassing the entertainment biz, gender, class, family-values, culutre-clash and other "pet issues" of the Chattering Class. Being the weekend, the opinions of Mssrs. O'Reilly, Beck and Grace have yet to be heard from, but all edges of the Web are already well spoken-for. Let's see who's taking a swing:

First up, "Big Hollywood," Andrew Breitbart's nominally-conservative-psuedo-celebrity wildlife preserve. You probably know Breitbart most-recently as the guy shepherding the two kids from the ACORN Video through the media cycle. BH is basically a multi-contributor editorial blog wherein right-leaning movie people vent about their left-leaning industry, making it something of a kind of one-stop-shopping-spot for people you forgot existed doing their best Michael Savage impression. First reporting on the Polanski story from there fell to the site's Editor in Chief, John Nolte; previously launched to Internet Celebrity as "Dirty Harry" from the now-defunct Liberty Film Festival Blog. The site is literally CRAWLING with nutcases, but Nolte is a straight-shooter who can be counted on to be as fair as one can be while still writing what are fundamentally opinion-pieces. He comes down solidly on the "no excuses, bring him back, lets have the trial" side, but with characteristic lack of hyperbole:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/27/polanski-may-finally-face-u-s-justice/

Pretty cut and dry, right? Okay, now just for fun, here's some samplings of the commentary that's been offered up in response by the site's readership:

"I predict that Obama will pardon him at the urging of Bill Clinton."

"Some days it really does seem that the counter revolution is finally happening."

"The degenerates of Hollywood finance the coalition of scum, slime, filth, vermin and manure that run the Democ-rat Party."

"Woody Allen, anyone?"


*Sigh.* This is the problem with people for whom political-leanings define their existance: Nothing is outside the realm of left-vs-right, everything MUST be made to benefit one end to the exclusion of another. The questions at hand are, from where I sit, transpolitical: Either he ought be punished or ought not be, either there are mitigating circumstances or there aren't. By cynically framing Polanski's supporters as automatic agents of "the left" and his probable conviction as a cause for "the right;" it cheapens the issue and serves only to score the minor "culture war" victory of forcing "the left" to defend him for fear of ALLOWING said victory.

From the other side (in multiple senses) in this piece of Huffington Post; still struggling to find a reason for it's own existance in a world without the Bush Administration. Interestingly, this particular defense comes from the co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality - a potential irony not lost on a slew of the responders:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/polanskis-arrest-shame-on_b_301134.html

And these are just the "amateurs"...

Wanted, Desired, Caught

In case you were nervous that 2009 was going to close without a big "Hollywood Values vs. Reg'ler Amrrrrc'n Values" dustup in the media, worry not. Roman Polanski has been arrested:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/index.html

Short version, for the younger readers: Polanski plead guilty to a statutory rape charge in the 1970s (the girl in question was 13, drugs and alcohol were involved). So goes the story, he'd worked out a plea-agreement with the judge and prosecutors by which he'd recieve a time-served sentence for 1 charge of unlawful intercourse. Polanski claims to have discovered that the judge - who's since passed away and was the subject of ethical complaints relating to this case for decades - was apparently planning to "surprise" the media-sensation trial by reneging and hitting him with a much more serious sentence. The director's response was to skip bail and flee America for France, who's extradition treaties with the U.S. do not cover the laws he's accused of breaking. That was more than 30 years ago. Polanski has continued to work steadily, recieving an Oscar for "The Pianist" recently, and has sought return to the U.S. on several occasions either by requesting a mistrial or a dismissal. He's been joined in those requests by his then-victim, who has said she wants the ordeal to be done with. However, the Los Angeles prosecutor's office has remained steadfast in saying that if he enters the U.S. they plan to arrest him and put him on trail again, this time for fleeing the original sentence.

Yesterday, Polanski entered Switzerland - which evidently DOES have the proper extradition treaties with the U.S. - to attend a retrospective of his work at the Zurich Film Festival. Swiss police were waiting at the airport, having recieved a request for arrest from U.S. authorities to assist them, and arrested him for the outstanding charges. He is now detained, awaiting the outcome of extradition deliberations. He is allowed to appeal the arrest in Switzerland, but a likely outcome as of this moment is him being sent back to the U.S. to face whatever is waiting. The third player in this, France, is already coming to his defense and chastising the Swiss government.

Unless the French manage to "roll" the Swiss on this one, this becomes a BIG deal. People have been waiting to "have this one out" for a long time; and the image of a guilty statutory-rapist living luxuriously abroad (in France no less!!!) whilst The Industry largely campaigns for his release and rewards him with Oscars has made this case a favorite whipping-boy for the media-critic arm of the "values voters" contingent. Set aside, for a moment, your personal feelings about the case and just think about that particular firestorm-in-waiting. You think this event isn't a GODSEND to them? They get to "fight" 'liberal' Hollywood AND 'godless' Europe. Nancy Grace is salivating like a rapid bassett hound as we speak...

Should be interesting.
 
Support : Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Copyright © 2011. Izmovies - Watch Full New Movies movies Youtube - All Rights Reserved
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Proudly powered by Blogger