Latest Movie :
Recent Movies

Christmas Comes Early For Me

Unexpected gifts are nice, particularly when they just seem to happen without a lot of forced impetus. Case in point, thanks largely to "The Golden Compass" tanking New Line Cinema is suddenly all humble and eager to make nice with Peter Jackson, meaning that a Jackson-produced (and potentially Sam Raimi directed?) movie of "The Hobbit" is finally a go deal:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117977891.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Meanwhile, thanks largely to my studious recordkeeping in the matters of trivial cash bets made about popular culture over the years, Jodie Foster recently made me about forty-two dollars and change wealthier a few days ago:
http://www.afterellen.com/people/2007/12/jodiefoster

God bless us, everyone.

"The Dark Knight" Trailer #2


Posting a trailer for the "Batman Begins" sequel on the INTERNET, you say? Yeah, I know. Craaaaaaazy idea, but who knows - maybe it'll catch on...

So, by now we've all seen this, yes? By now http://www.atasteforthetheatrical.com/ probably has more hits than a banner ad for custom Foil Hats at the top of a Ron Paul fundraising page (I kid, guys! I kid. No need for the angry emails.)


And if not, JoBlo.com was nice enough to toss an embedable version up on their video site - gracias, fellows. It's a great trailer, so raving about it is easy... and also a little boring. The raving-about-it, that is, not the trailer itself. Fact is, everything that we already KNOW was awesome about "Begins" is just about everything that seems to STILL be awesome about this trailer - with the possible exception of Heath Ledger's "holy SHIT"-inducing turn as The Joker, which will be new to you if this is your first day ever accessing the World Wide Web. In other words, let's get the big broad "yippee!" out of the way - great cast, great score, great look, great trailer - and move on to Movie Geek Ambrosia: Frame-by-frame minutia hunting!!!!


NOTE: You've gotta keep hitting the "start over" button on this particular player to start the actual trailer as opposed to JoBlo's intro animation.


00:12 - Yeah, it's in there a little bit but I don't think you can really call Ledger's "Joker Voice" a full-on Nicholson impression.


00:20 - I can't wait to find out the context of THIS shot. Bruce Wayne spends Rao-knows-how-much money setting up a super-secret underground lair to hide all his bat-gear in... but he'll just chill out in his office, surrounded by windows, wearing his costume?

00:25 - Batman, framed as an unmistakable silhouette, standing on the edge of a skyscraper surveying the city through binoculars. Perfect. Gandalf-vs.-Balrog-perfect. Last-two-minutes-of-"The-Mist"-perfect. Threesome-with-Korean-twins-perfect. Moments like this are why I forgave "Begins" for going the armored-costume route and doing that damn Jason Bourne shit with the combat cinematography.

00:30 - Homage to the Burton/Nicholson Joker's most famous pose?

00:47 - The Joker's important identifying characteristics (white face, green hair, smile) are so basic that it's easy to miss just how major of a revamp TDK's version seems to be, but here's what looks like the first BIG difference: His hands are the color of normal flesh, seeming to confirm that this version of the Joker is simply wearing makeup. This'd be, unless I'm mistaken, a first - the "canonical" Joker has had "bleached" skin all over since his earliest appearances (though there wasn't an explanation for it until much later) and nearly every other version has followed suit if it's brought it up at all. Not sure I'm digging that or not, but it's interesting.

00:56 - There y'go, the first "official" trailer-closeup of The Joker. Like I said, in the details it's a pretty radical departure from the Conrad Veidt "Man Who Laughs" design that's been the standard model for decades, but I like it. Still not clear how pronounced the "smile slits" at the far sides of his mouth actually are, but if he CAN unhinge his jaw like "Ichii The Killer's" Kakihara (an early rumored inspiration) it'll be inhumanly awesome.

01:05 - There's the "Batpod," aka "Hey! You'd BETTER not call it the Bat-Cycle! Whaddaya think we're makin', a comic book movie!??" Dopey name, fun looking vehicle... except those big protrusions on the front had better NOT be guns.

01:09 - Another "official" reveal, another guy in a clown mask standing behind Joker. Confirmation: Joker has some sort of henchmen. So far, they all seem to be guys, so all you guys with the kinky fixation on Harley Quinn, probably time to lower that particular expectation. (all you gals with the kinky fixation on Harley Quinn? Hi, I'm Bob. We should hang out some time.)

01:14 - no (so far) visible changes to The Batmobile... er, Tumbler. TUMBLER! I meant to say Tumbler, honest! Sorry, sorry, don't be angry, producer guys. I won't forget again. I swear!

01:16 - Bet that's important...

01:18 - Bat ...sigh, POD again, better look at what had STILL better not be big-ass guns.

01:21 - By Odin, Maggie Gyllenhaal is sexier fully-clothed from the neck-up then most women are buck-naked and fresh out of the tub. 100% improvement as a replacement for Katie Holmes.

01:26 - SMACK! See, if I was playing Joker in this scene, that shot right there would've taken about fifty-two takes - assuming she actually slapped him, I mean. I'd be inventing new ways of just-slightly missing my mark. Yes, I have problems, nobody needs to go pointing that out.

01:36 - Crap. Batpod's frontal offensive weaponry does pretty clearly seem to be guns in this shot. Bloody fucking hell. By no means a deal-breaker, but still... Batman doesn't use guns. That's hugely important, and not just in a "thats how it is in the comics" respect - there's a huge suspension of disbelief element that comes into play here: "Batman abhors firearms" is the only workable answer to the obvious question of why a non-powered superhero operating in a city rampant with traditional street-level crime doesn't carry a gun. Yes, we know, it's REALLY because shooting crooks isn't as cool as taking them out with a Batarang... er, I mean unnamed-bat-shaped-throwing-knife, sorry producer guys... but still, it's important. Here, if he's got NO issue mounting a gun on his bike, why wouldn't he just keep a Bat-Glock in his belt?

01:37 - Hm. Okay, reflected in Joker's window here we see some flared object going by, preceded by the "firing" shot of the Batpod and followed by explosions. MAYBE the "guns" are some kind of rocket/explosive launcher? Maybe. Hopefully. Live-with-able, at least, and certainly anything is better than the damn machine guns that kept popping out of the Batmobile and Batwing in the Burton film.

01:39 - Money shot, is what that's called.

01:55 - Ledger doing his take on the mandatory Joker Cackle. Damn good. Yes, we know, EVERYONE is second-best to Mark Hammill's version, but that's still damn good.

01:59 - Wish I knew the first damn thing about musical terminology so I could say "that part of the score right there where the horn-type instruments start slowly rising" is a clear callback to Danny Elfman's "Batman" score, ultimately still the most valuable and lasting contribution to the character and franchise from the Tim Burton era.

This really is, notably, much more a trailer about Joker than it is about Batman. Not surprising, since we've already seen Bale's Batman and know that he owns in the part, but you get a sense of how clearly the marketers understand the need to REALLY hard-sell Ledger in the role. Hardcore fans may scoff at the idea, but it's a fact that to the mainstream audience the idea of a "serious/scary Joker" being played by ANYONE other than Jack Nicholson is going to be a pretty big initial moment of resistance.

REVIEW: Atonement

Possible Spoilers

It goes without saying that every movie deserves to be watched all the way to the end for a proper apraisal, but only a few actually require it. If you saw even the trailer for "Transformers" (or to use an example that DIDN'T suck, "300,") you essentially saw the movie, and no real profound surprises were going to be had. "Atonement," on the other hand, DEMANDS that you get all the way to the very end and then chew on it for awhile; as it's eventual "wrapup" serves as a form of highly-literate "gotcha!" as to why the film starts out so seemingly startlingly typical and derrivative.

A period costume drama, the first act occupies the innevitable Sprawling British Country Estate, occupied by the innevitable Stuffy Rich Folks and their innevitable Jolly Lower-Class Servants. Kiera Knightley is, innevitably, the Eldest Unmarried Daughter of the house; innevitably lusted-after in secret by James McAvoy's handsome but cut-off-from-her-by-the-class-system Servant Boy (how'd you guess???) Also on hand are Saoirse Ronan as Briony, the thirteen year old younger sister of the house who is, innevitably, a spooky, introverted troublemaker because... well, because in movies like this Sprawling British Country Estates all come equipped with snooping, scheming Spooky Kids to serve as walking symbols of how the pastel faux-innocence of the time concealed dark truths made darker by The Repressions Of The Time.

"Modern" films (and books) seeking to adopt the style of genuine period melodrama innevitably (okay, I'll stop it with that, you get the point by now) grab some sort of seemingly incongruous "attention-getter" story detail in order to "say something" about our pop-cultural learned-memories of the time. Post-modern racial awareness or 20/20 historical hindsight are the old standbys, but here it comes down to naughty language: Servant Boy fires off a suitably drippy mash note to Eldest Unmarried Daughter, only to realize too late that he's accidentally sent her another bit of writing - a rather to-the-point celebration of her more... "tangible" attributes - "And THAT'S how Instant Messenger Flirting was invented!" would make a great alternate ending - that was supposed to be just for him. Do-it-yourself pornography? My, but isn't he resourceful...

Lucky for Servant Boy, it turns out Eldest Unmarried Daughter is way into that sort of thing, and the two of them are promptly going at it in that very proper Costume Melodrama way where they could either be very discreetly making love or very aggressively alinging furniture with the wall. Unlucky for Servant Boy, Briony both reads the note and sees the act, leading her to flip her lid and (following an unrelated bit of profound unpleasantness) accuse Servant Boy of a heinous act that gets him bounced from the scene in a dramatic (and, yes, innevitable) Harsh Realization Of The Realities Of The Class System - because after all what's a walking-symbol-of-how-the-pastel-faux-innocence-of the-time-concealed-dark-truths-made darker-by-The-Repressions-Of-The-Time SUPPOSED to do?


Semi-lucky(er) for Servant Boy, he's doing his time in a "modern" period costume drama, which can only mean that World War II breaks out not long after and soon he's trekking across battle-scarred France trying to get back to Eldest Unmarried Daughter. Meanwhile, Briony has reached adulthood and, just now figuring out that she really screwed the pooch on this one, is seeking the Atonement of the title.

So, basically, there's a lot of the expected Masterpiece Theater/Merchant-Ivory schlock to wade through - none of it unpleasant but none of it especially unique - en-route to a couple of last minute reality-warping shifts that serve to explain WHY everything has seemed so maddeningly akin to a cliche-ridden Book Club offering... and will be regarded by audiences either as brilliantly devious or inexplicably cruel. I won't give the reveal away (only those with a really keen eye and ear will be able to figure it out ahead of time) but it's quite a thing. And while it doesn't explain away every little narrative sin onhand (at least one major surprise is telegraphed embarassingly early) it's probably the cleverest way for a period piece to write itself a license to indulge in near-camp melodramatics.

Coming to the rescue otherwise is the cast, the expected mix of seasoned British character players (hey, look! Brenda Blethyn!) and rising stars chasing period-piece street-cred (next up for McAvoy: Big Matrix-ish actioner "Wanted" with Angelina Jolie, right on schedule.) For what it's worth, Knightley is better here than she was in "Pride & Prejudice," but I still think she's being incorrectly typecast in these films because of her look and accent. Her most interesting turn so far was in "Domino," though given how hugely misunderstood THAT was it's unsuprising she's not doing more like it.

FINAL RATING: 7/10

Japan Loves Me

(hat-tip: JoBlo, TwitchFilm)

Y'know how I know? Because they just made THIS movie:



Title: "The Machine Girl." Premise: After a Japanese Schoolgirl sees her boyfriend murdered and gets her arm hacked off by a family of Yakuza Ninjas (!!!), she embarks on an ultra-violent revenge killing-spree using a high-powered machine gun mounted in place of her missing arm.

I live for this stuff.

REVIEW: The Golden Compass

If you're adapting any sort of previously-created material into a movie and you want to do it properly, you've basically got to be beholden to TWO things: You're vision as a filmmaker and the vision of the original-material's creator, and not necessarily in that order. Compromising to anyone else will, generally, leave you with a lesser product. Bottom line.

MILD POTENTIAL SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT:

So, here's how we got here: About seven years ago, the film world got rocked hard by the one-two punch of "Harry Potter" and "Lord of The Rings" being both massively-successful and massively-excellent. Actually making a fortune off something that you're NOT ashamed to admit you took part is an increasingly rare development in Hollywood (see: "Bay, Michael - career-of") and everyone wanted in on the party, which amounted to the entire Barnes & Noble Young Adult Fantasy section getting bought up and filed under "greenlight." Unlike most "me-too!" aquisition frenzies, a fair amount of these projects have actually made it to the screen; some of it good ("Lemony Snicket,") some of it grand ("Narnia,") some of it problematic ("Eragon") and some of it ghastly ("The Dark is Rising.") And somewhere, among all this, someone either clueless or amazingly optimistic snuck Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy onto the list.

A walking answer to the question "What if Richard Dawkins and Terry Brooks made a baby, and he was a bit of a humorless twit?," Pullman fancies himself the Bizarro World C.S. Lewis. To that end, he conjured up the "Materials" kid-lit cycle as a kind of atheist/humanist counterpunch to Christian allegory of Lewis' "Narnia." The key difference between the two works (aside from, of course, the whole "entire worldview" thing) comes down to that word, allegory: The "Narnia" cycle remains (though not without it's hiccups) merely evocative of it's authors beliefs most of the way through, while Pullman opts to toss the "juicy parts" right up front with his narrative of a multiverse-spanning war between free-thinkers, scientists and (just for good measure) psuedo-pagan "witches" and the sinister despotic forces of, well... God. As in specifically the Christian God. As in I-Am-Who-Am. That God. Yes, irony of ironies: For all that time that the Christian Right spent turning itself into a pretzel trying to convince their followers that the much more popular Mr. Potter and his friends were part of a covert assault on fundamentalism; the stuff of their literal nightmares was sitting quietly by itself just a few rows down the bookshelf. Oops.

So, not only are the filmmakers saddled with material that's (literally) BEGGING for an angry protest, it's also a profoundly strange creature even without all the "topical" stuff: Starting out in a "steampunk" Victorian fantasy-land of airborne Witches and talking, armor-clad Polar Bears - where everyone's soul lives outside their body as a shape-shifting animal spirit "daemon" - and getting progessively more bizzare as it starts dimension-hopping in the second two installments. This is the sort of material that requires the sort of uncompromising boldness described above. To work properly, it would need both a genre-appropriate mini-epic running time and a total commitment for better or for worse to the actual themes at play. "The Golden Compass," unfortunately, has neither of these things... so it's a wonder it doesn't completely come apart. This isn't a bad film at all, in fact for it's often-problematic genre it's actually pretty excellent in parts. It just never really works as a whole.

Hoping to head-off the innevitable (and, for a change, not-entirely nonsensical) ire of religious groups, the filmmakers have attempted to cut the "specifics" out of the mythos. Thus, the fascist, heretic-oppressing Magesterium is merely "suggestive" of The Vatican, while The Authority is never explicitly identified as God. Nice effort (though how they're going to work out the second two volumes where the theology gets REALLY explicit is beyond me) but ultimately a waste: It's done them no good, as the expected protesters and rabble-rousers are having a cow anyway; and more immediately it's given them even MORE stuff to have to explain in a movie that's already way, way too front-loaded with exposition.

At least 2/3rds of the film is taken up just nailing down who all the characters, groups, sides, places and gizmos are; and when it finally DOES pick up real speed in the third act it's just a bit too brief. Indeed, a pair of climactic battle scenes (a shockingly cover-the-kiddie's-eyes violent fistfight between two Polar Bear knights and the obligatory "everybody versus everybody else" open-field melee) are gloriously realized... but it's all too little, too late. Unable to flesh Pullman's narrative out to it's needed pace and seemingly unwilling to do a heavy "make this work in the time we have" rewrite, they've settled for a bullet-points recap of the book with the big moments all accounted for but no great ressonance connecting them.

It's all very well-cast, with newcomer Dakota Blue Richards proving herself a tremendous find in the lead role of Lyra. Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig have the main "name" adult roles as Miss Coulter, an icy villianess kidnapping poor children for horrific Magesterium experiments and Lord Asriel, a Magesterium-defying scholar with his own agenda; while the expected who's-who of stalwart British character talent dutifully fill out the margins as the various kings, scholars, doctors, "Gyptians" and witches needed to deliver heavily-accented chunks of expository revelation every ten minutes or so. Christopher Lee turns up for about 30 seconds, while Ian McKellan has the Bruce-Lee-as-Kato role as Iorek Byrnison, an "Armored Bear" who becomes Lyra's right-hand ass-kicker.

When it comes down to it, I was never expecting this to be the equal of "Rings," "Potter" or "Narnia," chiefly because the material just isn't quite as good starting out (Pullman IS a fine talent in the genre, make no mistake, but take out the look-at-me Catholic-baiting and this particular series is strictly second-tier) but there's no getting around the fact that this film just isn't anywhere near as good as it could have been if they'd just had a little more (sorry, Mr. Pullman) faith in the material. There's a great cast here, occupying a fascinating and splendidly-realized otherworld and participating in a genuinely intriguing story. But it's rushing through everything much too fast, and kid-gloving it's way through it's most interesting ideas. It's afraid of it's own shadow, and thats not where any fantasy movie wants to be.

FINAL RATING: 6/10

The Fifty-One Percent

I take a fair degree of crap, (along with constructive criticism, not the same thing) here on the interweb and elsewhere, for taking a negative view of humanity as a whole. Some would even go so far as to use the term "elitist," which (when applied as a negative) used to be an insult meaning "guy who thinks he's better than everyone else" but now tends to be an insult meaning "guy who thinks." To be frank, for the most part I can live with either one. I'm far less fond of the various permutations of "hypocrite;" more specifically the question of how a blogger who calls himself a Patriot and plasters a giant American flag at the top of his page can be so "down on" his fellow countrymen vis-a-vi their various voting and filmgoing habits - i.e. the opening paragraphs of THIS review: http://moviebob.blogspot.com/2007/11/review-mist.html

Now, my normal inclination would be to point out that that's essentially the same thing as asking "how can someone who claims to love hamburgers hate McDonalds?," but since I've got a fairly juicy bit of objective evidence for my discontent to present shortly I'll entertain the query and offer the best answer I've got: I love America because of the ideals it represents, was founded on and on it's better days actually lives up to. Go actually READ the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Seriously. Then read up on the guys responsible for it on the intellectual side. Read Jefferson. Read Franklin. Hell, want to mainline the good stuff? Read up on Thomas Paine, the guy who helped inspire those fellas. Within all that, the basic fundamental greatness of America is revealed: America is great because there IS an "I" in it - because all of the then-revolutionary ideas in this nation's inception grew out of a STILL-radical notion that the protection of the rights and freedoms of The Individual were of paramount importance.

That, I'd posit - with only the sum total of human history to back me up - is the reason WHY this country works and indeed works so well: Placing primacy on the individual encourages... DEMANDS, in fact... that said individuals live up to the label, i.e. that they be capable of free thought, independent reasoning and possess a reasonable degreee self-sufficiency. This is how we manage to weather things like Civil Wars, Depressions and mentally-deficient leadership better than most other large-scale nations: A society that derives it's strength from collectivism (see: Imperial Rome, the Middle East NOW, the Soviet Union) can be devastated simply by striking the "weakest link," while a society largely comprised of individuals capable of independent thought and strength can endure through major 'wounds' because the fates of all AREN'T all bound together.

Individualism, of course, has it's drawbacks; chiefly that it's HARD. Making your own decisions, living with them, having to offer folks you don't agree with the courtesy of coexistance... these aren't easy tasks. Not everyone is up to them. Some would rather sacrifice liberty and individuality for an easier route... a "greater good." They would prefer that a State - or perhaps a Church, or a Dictator - simply tell everyone exactly what they are and are not allowed to do or say or think, thus taking the terrible burden of decision-making and responsibility off of them. There're a lot of words, historically, to describe such people; but I prefer the most direct: They are weak, and they are COWARDS.

In our current world, the greatest illustration of this basic conflict comes on the question of Government Censorship - because it cuts to the very heart of the question: Do you have the fortitude to be an individual where living in a free society means having to frequently endure the doing and saying of things you find distasteful in order to ensure that YOU may do and say things others find distasteful? Or are you weak in mind and spirit, and thus willing to not only discard your freedom but steal the freedom of others in exchange for a more "mellow" state of things? Do you want expression to be free and unfettered, accepting the "Survival of the Fittest" prolonged slugfest that comes from such? Or do you want expression to be controlled by The State in order to avoid any feathers getting ruffled or tummies being made upset? Just about every great "social issue" of our time comes down to that essential pair of choices.

Now, then. The reason I tend to get so down on "the folks" sharing America with me is that, looking at the broad societal trends of our time, I can seldom escape the mounting dread that Americans in that first category, i.e. the folks who actually value freedom, was slipping into the minority. It's a fast-paced, scary world, and that tends to make people wobbly and more eager to throw freedom away in order to feel safe or pretend to right some percieved wrong. But I never had a hard number to attach these impressions to.

Until today.

"The Escapist," the really wonderful online Video Game news organization currently best-known for hosting the brilliant "Yahtzee" Croshaw's "Zero Punctuation" game reviews (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation), carried with it a poll by the Opinion Research Corporation regarding how American's were feeling about the idea of the Government stepping in to regulate violent/explicit video games. Lots of numbers in there, but here's the big one: 51% of those surveyed "believed the government should be regulating the actual content of the games." Not just the SALE of the items, or the application of a rating system. 51% of Americans, apparently, want the Government telling artists what they can and cannot put in their work.

You can see it HERE:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/79582-New-Survey-Shows-Majority-of-Americans-Want-Government-Regulation-of-Games

51%. A margin wide enough to win an election. 51% of Americans do not want to be free, and do not want others to be free. 51% of Americans want The Government to curtail individual rights, the very foundation of our country, in order to make them feel safer and comfier. Because they are weak. Because they are cowards. Because they don't have the spine to deal with making their own decisions. They want the Government to do it for them, and for you.

In other words, folks, 51% of Americans have no business calling themselves "Americans."

I am not dead

Yeah, so... busy as hell week. Lot's of morning hours. Not enough sleep. Not a damn thing came out this weekend to review. So, if anyone missed me... sorry. More stuff to come this week.

However, I couldn't let this go by without adding my voice to the chorus on at least one matter: F*ck "Gamespot" and the horse they road in on: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/rumor-gamespots-editorial-director-fired-over-kane-and-lynch-rev/

Also, please enjoy this funny-ish banner mockup, probably to start showing up whenever I post a bit relating to business in any way:


 
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