(not really) Friday the 13th part XI

Attention: Rights-holders to the "Friday the 13th" franchise.

Make THIS movie:




It will make you piles of money.

You're welcome.

Read more »

Columbine Dad on CBS News: Teaching evolution causes school shootings

Have you been watching these "Free Speech" segments on the new Couric-ized CBS Evening News? The basic idea is that CBS will turn over a bit of nationally-telecast airtime to basically anyone who wants to get on a soapbox about anything. Like a lot of Network News' attempts at remaining relevant, thus far I'd say they've been a great idea poorly realized. Most of the "big" moments have come from well-knowns like Rush Limbaugh, and what's the point of that? I can hear what Limbaugh or any famous person has to say anytime I want... he has HIS OWN SHOW.

I want to hear from people I'd otherwise never hear from, I want ordinary folks speaking their mind. And I have only two "requirements" for them to be considered successful at doing so. ONE: Be entertaining. Perform. You're on TV. TWO: Be incredibly insightful or batshit crazy. No middle ground. One or the other. Ho-hum folksy reasonability is bad TV. I either want to see Yoda give me the secrets of existance in the form of a simple limerick or I want a guy in a foil hat whipping out a pie-chart that proves Paul Wolfowitz is secretly a member of the Green Lantern Corps.

The other night, CBS finally got it right. They invited on the father of a Columbine Massacre victim to give his take on the phenomenon of school shootings in the wake of the recent tragedy at an Amish school in Pennsylvania. Gawker, via YouTube, here provides the clip in case you missed it:




Direct Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma8MEzG_V_0

Summary of charges: The removal of school prayer and creationism and broader-societal permissiveness regarding suicide and abortion have made America morally weak, and evolutionary theory being taught in schools is particularly to blame because it replaces absolute right and wrong with kill or be killed.

Let's put aside for a moment what you think about this man's opinions (you already know what I think.) I want to ask the politically-minded in my readership, liberal, conservative or otherwise, to consider a few things.

Back over the summer, Ann Coulter caught some (largely deserved) flak over a portion of her latest book involving the concept of victims being re-cast as experts. As is usually the case with Coulter, her argument was a kernel of genuine logic framed in hyperbolic attack-journalism tones. The basic point was that, in Coulter's view, "the left" (her words, not mine) was responsible for ruining honest public debate by frequently re-branding the sufferers of various tragedies as experts on the larger cause of said tragedies; with the goal being to render one's opponent unable to respond for fear of seeming callous toward a victim.

The most obvious embodiment of this concept, to Coulter and her ilk, was Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist who's son was killed in Iraq and who subsequently embarked on a series of speaking engagements. The argument here, which I find unfortunately (given the sources) difficult to completely disagree with, is that Sheehan's loss, however tragic, does not immediately annoint her any kind of expert on war or the geo-politics thereof. To put it another way, living through Katrina didn't grant anyone a degree in climateology.

The flaw in Coulter's logic (in ALL of Coulter's logic, really) is that she ascribes the notion of propping up victims (or victims propping themselves up) as experts with their victimhood as sole qualification exclusively to the "left," and the above clip/link clearly indicates that this is as much a "red" problem as it is a "blue" one. I'm not here to give the gentleman from the CBS clip a hard time, just asking people to consider the broader implications at play here: What this man had to say, honest opinion or not, is just the standard boilerplate of the religious "right" for the last few decades or so; but coming from this particular person it's going to resonate much more strongly with many more people than it otherwise would've because, the currency of modern media culture his victimhood is meant to imbue him with the instant weight and gravitas of expertise.

Viewed now in the context of a "both sides" problem, is "expertise by way of victimhood" out of hand? Does it hurt the decorum of honest debate? Are we becoming a nation of "Oprah" guests, where feelings and emotion hold greater currency than reason and facts?

Read more »

UPDATE: indie theatre's "Jackass" protest-closing

A few corrections and clarifications before the saga of Greg Boardman, the independent theatre owner who closed down his theater ("with one of the finest sound systems in the world!" as he was sure to mention) in "protest" over the existance of "Jackass: Number 2", becomes old news.

FIRST: I neglected to note in the original posting that Mr. Boardman also counted "Beerfest" and "The Covenant" among the films that led him to temporarily shut down.

SECOND: Other outlets reported, and I repeated, erroneous information as to Mr. Boardman's buisness situation. The Lorraine Theater is located in Hoopeston, Illinois and not Northern California as had been said. The confusion arises because Mr. Boardman does LIVE in No. Cal and runs his business venture from there. So if you're looking to check out the Lorraine Theater (it has one of the finest sound systems in the world, y'know) you can do so in Hoopeston, Illinois.

THIRD: I'll never deny being a cynic at heart, but regarding my earlier postulation that this struck me as being more of a publicity stunt than a "protest of resistance" by Boardman since he's probably not being "forced" to screen these films as opposed to other ones, here's a clarifying quote from Boardman courtesy IMDB/Studio Briefing and the Chicago Tribune (boldface mine):

"I can fly back there anytime I want and show any movie I want. ... How man people can say they have their own movie theater and can do that?"

Link to full version here:
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-10-02/#film3

Read more »

DragonForce! or "How'd I managed to miss THIS?"

I judge great music by how it makes you feel. Great Jazz should make you want to walk around "noticing" things. Great rock should make you want to dance. Great rap should make you want to dance... but defiantly, because Whitey has been keepin' you down all week.

Great metal, on the other hand, should make you want to grab your broadsowrd, climb to the top of the nearest mountain during the next available thunderstorm and challenge the demon gods of Earth, Wind, Water and Fire to glorious final combat.

With that in mind, I ask you... How is it that up until this week I had not been formally introduced to DragonForce??



I bought this album tonight after work, so... to anyone unlucky enough to share the road with me in the near future: I'm sorry, but this stuff makes me want to drive like there's a goddamn Orc Army on my tail ;)

Read more »

Theatre closes rather than show "Jackass 2"

Greg Boardman, owner of the independent movie theatre The Lorraine in Northern California, closed down his shop a week or so ago in "protest" over "Jackass 2." The fellas over on Libertas are, somewhat predictably, giddy for this:

http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/?p=2543

I said my peice on this in a response to their story, a portion of which I'll repeat here:

I had never, ever heard of Greg Boardman or the Lorraine theatre prior to reading about this earlier today. My immediate, fully-formed response is that this is a marvelous, impressive, commendable, ingeniously-mounted…

…completely shallow, self-serving and gallingly-obvious PUBLICITY STUNT. Mr. Boardman, one huckster to another: Well done, sir, well done.

Oh, come on. Don’t tell me ANY of you are actually BUYING this? Give me a break. I don’t doubt that this fellow’s sincerity in being repulsed by Jackass… but read what he said CLOSELY:

” “There’s just so much lousy material out there — people vomiting on the screen,” said Boardman, 52, who grew up watching movies in the Lorraine and now runs the business from Northern California. “I have one of the finest sound systems in the world, and I don’t want to waste it on such drivel.” ”

That one little bit right there TELLS YOU that Mr. Boardman is both A.) a previously-unknown natural-born genius of self-promotion and B.) completely and utterly full of it.

FIRST, note the very general-sounding description of Jackass in specific but all “bad movies” by association: Broad enough to appeal to both “liberal” parents concerned about violence and “conservative” ones concerned about sex.

SECOND, catch that bit at the end where he’s sure to add in the plug for one of the prime selling points of his independent theatre, “one of the finest sound systems in the world?” Slick.

THRID, and most importantly please observe that Mr. Boardman not only OWNS the theatre, but the actual article explains that he recently aquired and re-opened it as a new business venture. This means that he is not part of a chain, and is running the show, and thus NO ONE was forcing him to show “Jackass 2″ or anything else. He could’ve shown 2nd runs of “Monster House” instead. Or could’ve scooped up “Everyone’s Hero” for a run. He could’ve shown classics. (All of those, btw, would have cost him less to exhibit than Jackass.)

He’s in CALIFORNIA, he could’ve put out an open call for local independents to submit their stuff. Hell, there are roadshow/revival entities by the truckload out there that specialize in delivering certain kinds of programming to places just like the Lorraine. BUT doing that just makes you one of a dozen other indie theatres doing what they can to get by. But THIS… this “protest” against bad-taste in general… THIS makes him and his theatre statewide and now nationwide news. He and his establishment are now mini-celebrities, and probably MAJOR ones where it counts: in his neighborhood of business.

Mr. Boardman is going to re-open his theatre (this weekend to show Open Season, apparently) to BOFFO boxoffice, the place will now be “on the map” for the locals and he’ll undoubtedly get some devoted repeat-customers for his “stance.” And good for him. This is American ingenuity and creative-thinking at it’s best, and for his saavy as a self-promoter Mr. Boardman has my salute and my admiration; ANYONE who can pull a stunt this transparent and have THIS many people buy it is a flat-out master. His kung-fu is strong indeed.

Read more »

Robert Downey Jr is IRON MAN? Seriously??

Aint-It-Cool-News reports...
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30225

And now Variety apparently confirms...
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117950941&categoryID=13&cs=1

That director John Favreau has cast Robert Downey Jr. as Marvel Comics character Tony Stark, better known as Iron Man!

Yeah, photoshop job. Whaddaya want?

After becoming the poster-child for burnout celeb-dom following a series of drug-related problems awhile back, Downey Jr. has done an incredible job of bouncing back these past few years. He turned in an amazing lead performance in "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," my favorite movie of 2005, did awesome supporting work in "A Scanner Darkly" and even brought genuine life to his thankless bad guy role in "The Shaggy Dog." Who knows how this came together, whether he sought out the role or the other way around... but there's no way to overstate the significance of this partin regards to his career: He's gone from being regarded as an unhinged, washed-up also-ran to toplining one of the biggest potential action-blockbuster franchises on the horizon right now. Robert Downey Jr. is the REVERSE Tom Cruise. (Cruise, btw, was supposed to make this movie waaaay back when.)

My immediate read is that Downey should give at least some of his thanks for actually getting this to Johnny Depp, who's ultra-profitable "Pirates" turn probably has made a lot of studios a lot more open to the idea of casting offbeat indie veterans as leads in projects like this. And for the record, it's a pretty juicy part in it's own right: Stark is a mega-wealthy playboy/industrialist inventor who, after an accident, (Vietnam shrapnel in the original 60s books) converts the cybernetic parts he now (secretly) sports to continue living into a suit of high-tech armor he uses to (also secretly) become superhero Iron Man. The character had his two biggest periods of notoriety in the mid-1960s as Marvel's resident Cold Warrior in chief (a quintessential capitalist using his all-American ingenuity to battle baddies from Communist territories like the Soviet "Titanium Man" or the Chinese "Mandarin") and then again decades later during a popular story arc that saw Stark confront a threat from within: his own alcoholism. Currently, he's leading the bad-guys-whom-we're-still-not-calling-the-bad-guys side in Marvel's "Civil War" crossover

It'll be interesting to see how the various press fronts cover this. Though let me give you a brief preview:

The mainstream movie press will be focused on this as the symbol of Downey's career rebirth come to full bloom. (Next up: Showy gimme-my-Oscar role!)

The elitist movie press will wail once more that the sky is falling in the wake of another "fine actor" "lowering" himself to the realm of those silly, silly funnybooks.

The geek world is going to have (oh hell, we're ALREADY having) a coniption at the news that a real actor of offbeat merit is taking up the helmet. The immediate, and spot-on, comparison will be Michael Keaton as Batman. The "buzz" on this one is now officially good... and will remain so until if or when someone gets the first picture of a "sucky" looking costume.

The snarky-side of the geek world will have endless amounts of fun with the juxtaposition of Downey's own noted addiction troubles with that of the (comic-book) Tony Stark. This will eventually be noticed muuuuuch later by...

...the mainstream movie press, who will make this THE question Downey gets most-often asked about by junkey journo's feigning familiarity with the material, which will eventually lead...

...director John Favreau to get really sick of re-explaining what the geek set already heard him say months back: That the alcoholic aspects of the character won't be focused-on in the first movie :)

Read more »

REVIEW: All The Kings Men (2006)

"All The Kings Men" is being promoted as a star-vehicle for Sean Penn, owing to his showstopping performance as an all-additude-all-the-time political demagogue. But when actually sit down to watch it (not that I'm recommending you do so) you discover it's star is Jude Law as the idealistic newsman who becomes a sidekick to Penn's character... and then you realize that it's okay, because it becomes readily apparent that the film itself is also under the impression that Penn has the lead. You don't feel very good about either realization, because it's the earliest and clearest signal that you're about to endure a nearly 2-1/2 hour mess.

Set to a hillariously overbearing score by James Horner, the film follows the same outline as the classic Depression-era novel (and Academy Award winning original film) on which it is based: A names-changed biopic of Louisiana governor Huey Long, here rechristened as Willie Stark (Penn.) Stark is a self-described educated hick who starts out as a local anti-corruption muckraker, but finds himself in statewide spotlight when a shoddily-constructed school he had railed against collapses and kills three children.

Suddenly the media of the day is rushing to Stark for answers with all the gusto (and, come to think of it, all the missing foresight) of those who thurst microphones in the direction of Gangsta Rappers in the wake of the L.A. Riots. In short order he's drafted to run for Governor (excuse me, Guv'nuh) a task which is hampered by his nonexistant skill as an orator... Until, that is, he discovers that he's been set up as a third-party prop to split the "hick-vote" in favor of the very "fat cats" he's running against. All at once, Stark transforms into a fire-and-brimstone superstar-preacher on behalf of worker's rights.

Penn sells the HELL out of this switch, probably the finest turn of his career in at least a decade... but in catching fire as he does he procedes to suck all of the oxygen out of the rest of the movie. It's the kind of performance that can't help but shift all attention to itself... which is fatal if the film hasn't been structured to accomodate such (i.e. this is why "Silence of The Lambs" keeps Hannibal Lecter locked up 90% of the time) and THIS is such a film.

The story unfolds largely through the eyes of Law's Jack Burden, a Southern aristocrat who shunned his family's cash and connections in favor of a newsman's job. He becomes enraptured by Stark in the early campaign, and becomes his personal advisor when he wins the Governor's seat. It's through his person that we're meant to experience the disillusionment that comes with watching populist People's Champion's innevitable metamorphosis into a tyrant. Were the film able to keep itself grounded to this perspective, it would make more sense when time abruptly skips forward and the tea-totaling, devotedly-married Stark has become a corruption-mired, scotch-swilling womanizer. Were the film able to restrain Penn, or at least his screen time, this would be more forgivable; but you can't play a character as a near-total enigma when the music and the direction are telling us that he's our primary focus. The audience is going to want to know WHY he's changed, and the tired axiom about absolute power corrupting absolutely isn't going to cut it.

More to the point: Law's character has been principally drafted by Stark, he learns, as an envoy to the Louisiana aristocracy from which he comes: Specifically his old friend Adam Stanton (Mark Ruffalo,) a tormented doctor and son of the state's last great Governor and elderly power-broker Judge Irwin (Anthony Hopkins) who was a surrogate father to Jack. Also in the mix is Anne Stanton (Kate Winslet) who is Adam's sister and (wait for it) the unrequited love of Jack's life. As Stark muscles through what would now be called a far-left agenda of taxing the state's wealthy to build schools and hospitals, the old-boy power structure lines to up impeach him on charges of corruption... which Stark responds to by becoming even more corrupt as he tries to stop them. Hm... wonder how this'll end for everyone involved? Maybe not well, y'think?

The film doesn't work. In fact, it's a collossal failure: Hammy, one-dimensional characters, pretentious overdirection and that wonderfully inappropriate score. It's showiest character is ultimately it's most empty, and it's potentially interesting characters are shunted to the sidelines. Only perennial character actor Jackie Earle Haley, in the nearly-silent role of Stark's personal bodygaurd Sugar Boy, comes off as a truly engaging presence outside of Penn during his fiery speeches.

What's left is disasterous, but also instructive: This is the textbook example of the folly of setting out for "important and award-winning" as a goal instead of just "a good movie." I've seen a lot of crummy Oscar-bait in my day (looking at YOU "Cold Mountain") but this has to be the worst in a long time.

FINAL RATING: 2/10

Read more »