Yesterday, the trailer hit for the new Green Lantern movie starring Ryan Reynolds. Green Lantern is my second favorite comic book character in the universe (behind The Flash). Of course that made me both excited and nervous for a big screen adaptation. Going in, I thought the property had the most cinematic potential, but also the most propensity to go off the rails.
So what did I think. The trailer rocks. Reynolds makes a great Hal Jordan. He's cocky, but still uncertain about whether he can shoulder the responsibility. The glimpses we get of Sinestro and Hector Hammond are fantastic. And a movie with Kilowog and Tomar Re! Awesome. The only two pieces that I'm unsure of are Blake Lively as Carol Ferris and the suit itself. Lively has one line at the beginning of the trailer that felt wooden. We'll see there. And we never really see the CGI suit in motion. I had that concern going in and still do.
All in all, this has a great look and an epic scale. Can. Not. Wait.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Inebriation: An Inception Parody
There are a lot of Inception parodies out there. This is one of my faves:
Thursday, November 4, 2010
iListened to... The /Filmcast
The /Filmcast
Hosted by David Chen, Devindra Hardawar and Adam Quigley
Focus: Primarily film, but also television and film criticism
/Filmcast was the first podcast I ever started following on a regular basis so (spoiler alert!) needless to say I am a fan. Each week, the /film website releases two podcasts: the flagship podcast (which airs live most Sunday or Monday nights) and an "After Dark" episode. The main podcast includes discussions on what the hosts have been watching that week, film news and a longer featured movie review. The After Dark can include any topic, ranging from listener email to more in depth discussions on casting or other movie news.
There are a number of things I love about this podcast. First, it is amongst the most well-produced podcasts out there. The audio is always great. They treat every podcast as though it may be your first exposure to them. David Chen introduces every episode with a brief description of the podcast and briefly introduces each subsequent section. It's a minor detail, but when you are listening to another podcast and they just start talking without any context, you come to appreciate the details. You never get lost within this podcast which is a definite widespread failing amongst the podcasting community.
The hosts are all knowledgeable, opinionated and well-spoken. Again, there are a lot of hosts that seem content to turn on a microphone with some friends and see what happens. The /Filmcast trio always brings their "A" game and it shows in the presentation. Chen, as the host, is ready at a moment's notice to provide further information about every film and television show they discuss. That said, they are also clearly friends and colleagues and engage in good-natured ribbing throughout the episode.
/Filmcast also regularly features a fourth guest host. Usually, it is a fellow film blogger like Matt Singer from IFC News, the guys from The Totally Rad Show or Katie Rich from Cinema Blend. However, they have also attracted notable directors. In fact, Rian Johnson (Brick, The Brothers Bloom) has developed into David Chen's arch-nemesis on the podcast (and I meant that in the most hilarious possible way).
Two more minor elements of the podcast that I appreciate as a listener. First, while it is an "explicit" podcast, the language is pretty tame. Profanity is usually used to punctuate an opinion or reveal how deep the hate goes for a particular casting choice. I don't need my movie news to come with an R rating. Second, the hosts are committed to avoiding spoilers unless they give the listener fair warning. Lately, they have taken this to the extreme of bleeping out spoilers that inadvertently were revealed during an episode. I know I'm not going to have to worry about getting a plot detail revealed unless I decide to hear it.
However, the thing that truly sets /Film apart in my eyes is the mirror it holds up to the film community. The most striking example of this was a recent episode with guest host Armond White of New York Press. White is best known as a contrarian reviewer, one who goes against the popular grain to praise Transformers 2 and tear down Inception.
During the film review and After Dark, the hosts pressed White, but never debated him. As a result, listeners were treated to a fascinating discussion of the state of film criticism and an alternative view of what makes a motion picture art. I didn't come away agreeing with White, but he gave me a lot to think about (which is more than you can expect from most podcasts).
Notable recent episodes:
- /Filmcast Ep. 100 - Robin Hood (GUEST: Rian Johnson, Director of Breaking Bad)
- /Filmcast Ep. 109 - Inception (GUEST: Armond White from New York Press)
- The /Filmcast: After Dark - Ep. 109 - The State of Film Criticism and Inception Theories (GUEST: Armond White from New York Press)
- Ep. 112 - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (GUEST: Jeff Cannata from the Totally Rad Show)
- The /Filmcast: After Dark - Ep. 112 - Clapping After Movies (GUEST: Jeff Cannata from The Totally Rad Show)
- Ep. 121 – Paranormal Activity 2 (GUEST: C. Robert Cargill from Ain’t It Cool News)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Shrek 4: The Final... Nail
Of course, the film is subtitled "The Final Chapter." My hope is it is the final nail.
When Shrek debuted in 2001, it was a kick to the groin (and I mean that in a good way). Computer animated kids' movies consisted of the latest Pixar release and... the short movie they would show before the Pixar release. The only real challenge to Pixar was Antz (aka, the other ant-centered movie released the same year as A Bug's Life). You remember that one, right? Woody Allen, Sylvester Stallone, Jennifer Lopez, Sharon Stone... yeah, didn't think so.
Shrek comes out and immediately it is rightfully hailed as a legitimate alternative to Pixar and Disney. Hell, part of it's charm was the sand it kicked in the face of Disney. Farquaad's castle is a thinly veiled mockery of The Magic Kingdom and Shrek and Donkey's arrival at the castle is still my favorite scene in any Shrek movie.
The original Shrek had all of the flatulence jokes the kids love and all of the pop cultural references that keep the adults from clawing their eyes out. It had the wise-cracking sidekick. It was a winning formula...
...that has been beaten into the ground for the last decade. Call me a spoilsport, but almost every non-Pixar release for the last ten years has seemed like a pale imitation of that original Shrek. It doesn't feel like Shrek has three sequels; it feels like it has dozens. Ice Age. Over the Hedge. Open Season. Shark Tale. Ugh.
The Shrek series itself has never come close to the fun of the first. It received a slight shot in the arm from the introduction of Puss in Boots, but Shrek ultimately became the very thing is was mocking: the excesses of cartoon marketing. And the giddy, subversive thrill got sucked right out of Far Far Away.
Then a funny thing happened. Over the last two years, computer animated movies became fun again. Not by rediscovering that "Shrek formula" everyone had tried to copy, but by telling good, original stories. I liked Monster House and Monsters vs. Aliens. I love Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. I LOVE How to Train Your Dragon. They are visually rich movies, with characters I care about and writing that serves the story and not the audience. And nary a pop cultural reference or wise-cracking supporting character amongst them.
So it seems appropriate to me that this would be the moment for Shrek: The Final Chapter. It is time to close the book on Shrek, Ice Age and the rest of the imitators out there. Hopefully, we are entering a new era where computer animated films rely on good storytelling to engage audiences of all ages. Hopefully.
Image from unrealitymag.com
Friday, May 7, 2010
Pop In and Watch This: Arrested Development
Available on DVD, Netflix Watch Instantly and IFC
The wife and I have become addicted to Modern Family (Wednesdays, 9:00 EST, ABC). Most reviewers refer to it as the best new comedy of the season. For me, it's the best comedy on TV right now. The writers seem to be mining the show's premise for every laugh possible. I love Phil, love Manny, love Gloria. I love the screwed up family dynamics.
Which of course brings me to Arrested Development. For those unfamiliar with the show, it was a Fox comedy that premiered in November 2003. Broad critical acclaim and a cult following gave it two renewals, but low ratings finally caught up with it and Fox canceled the show in February 2006.
The show follows the travails of the Bluth family, whose patriarch (played by Jeffrey Tambor) is jailed in the pilot for defrauding investors in his real estate company. Michael Bluth (Jason Bateman) is the duty-bound son attempting to keep the family from imploding. No easy feat as he has to contend with a narcissistic sister, her bad-psychiatrist-turned-worse-actor husband, an older brother who aspires to be a magician, a younger brother struggling to get away from his domineering mother and a son who has a crush on his cousin.
Like Modern Family, Arrested Development sets up a series of situations in each episode and then wrings every last ounce of humor from the setup. Sometimes, this means the pay off for a joke may happen seasons later.
I recently rewatched Season 2 for the third time and it is amazing how well this show stands up to repeated viewings. If anything, it's funnier the second and third time. The various references to hands and seals are even funnier once you learn the youngest brother's fate half way through this season.
During the third season, an already meta show goes even more hilariously over the top as it approaches its near-certain cancellation. One episode contains very thinly veiled references to HBO and Showtime, two networks that were considering picking up the show. Sadly for fans, Mitch Hurwitz, the show's creator decided he'd had enough and the show ended.
A movie is still being discussed, but frankly I'll believe it when I see it. This show was a launching pad for a cast that has gone on to become stars in their own right (Bateman and Michael Cera especially). I can't imagine a studio taking a chance on a poorly rated show that ended five years ago with the salaries a lot of the players would command. David Cross, who plays Tobias, said as much in this interview with TV Squad.
No matter what happens with the Bluths on the big screen, we will always have three of the funniest seasons of television to watch. Over and over again.
The wife and I have become addicted to Modern Family (Wednesdays, 9:00 EST, ABC). Most reviewers refer to it as the best new comedy of the season. For me, it's the best comedy on TV right now. The writers seem to be mining the show's premise for every laugh possible. I love Phil, love Manny, love Gloria. I love the screwed up family dynamics.
Which of course brings me to Arrested Development. For those unfamiliar with the show, it was a Fox comedy that premiered in November 2003. Broad critical acclaim and a cult following gave it two renewals, but low ratings finally caught up with it and Fox canceled the show in February 2006.
The show follows the travails of the Bluth family, whose patriarch (played by Jeffrey Tambor) is jailed in the pilot for defrauding investors in his real estate company. Michael Bluth (Jason Bateman) is the duty-bound son attempting to keep the family from imploding. No easy feat as he has to contend with a narcissistic sister, her bad-psychiatrist-turned-worse-actor husband, an older brother who aspires to be a magician, a younger brother struggling to get away from his domineering mother and a son who has a crush on his cousin.
Like Modern Family, Arrested Development sets up a series of situations in each episode and then wrings every last ounce of humor from the setup. Sometimes, this means the pay off for a joke may happen seasons later.
I recently rewatched Season 2 for the third time and it is amazing how well this show stands up to repeated viewings. If anything, it's funnier the second and third time. The various references to hands and seals are even funnier once you learn the youngest brother's fate half way through this season.
During the third season, an already meta show goes even more hilariously over the top as it approaches its near-certain cancellation. One episode contains very thinly veiled references to HBO and Showtime, two networks that were considering picking up the show. Sadly for fans, Mitch Hurwitz, the show's creator decided he'd had enough and the show ended.
A movie is still being discussed, but frankly I'll believe it when I see it. This show was a launching pad for a cast that has gone on to become stars in their own right (Bateman and Michael Cera especially). I can't imagine a studio taking a chance on a poorly rated show that ended five years ago with the salaries a lot of the players would command. David Cross, who plays Tobias, said as much in this interview with TV Squad.
No matter what happens with the Bluths on the big screen, we will always have three of the funniest seasons of television to watch. Over and over again.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
KickAss, "Realistic" Violence and the Role of Parents
Kick-Ass hit this weekend and by all accounts is an entertaining and critically well-received movie.
Oh, and it's also apparently the most morally reprehensible film ever projected in a multiplex.
At issue is Hit Girl, an 11-year-old cursing, killing machine who cares about nothing in life except her vengeance seeking father and getting that new butterfly knife for her birthday. According to some, including Roger Ebert with SPOILERS, this takes things one step too far.
Really?
First, on this being a real world depiction and realistic violence: yes, the high school and its inhabitants seem very grounded in the real world (or at least as real a world as Hollywood ever creates in high school movies). There are nerds and bullies and beautiful girls who are unaware of the main character's existence. However, the movie takes a hard right turn into an unrealistic world early in the film. When?
When Hit Girl and her father appear on screen.
The movie at that point stops even pretending at realism. It's absurdist. The humor in the situation comes not because we as an audience find 11-year-old killers hysterical. It's because the girl's existence is so incongruent with reality, it is funny.
Now is this character engaged in realistic violence? In the world of movie criticism, yes. In the real world, no. See, "realistic violence" in the official movie critic's dictionary means "blood." As in, you stab a charcter they bleed. You shoot them they bleed. If you aim a gun, pull a trigger and the person falls over, it's not realistic. Do the same and their head explodes, it is realistic.
So yes there is "realistic violence." And much of it is perpetrated by a character whose existence is not realistic. Using weapons that are not exactly off-the-shelf at Walmart. Even the use of the normal weapons is fantastical. In the trailer, Hit Girl shifts her head to avoid a bullet (as though a bee had just buzzed by her head), releases two empty clips from her gun, throws two full clips into the air and has them land back in the gun in one fluid motion. That is what passes for realistic violence.
There's more I could say about the film itself, but I'll close on this note for parents: this is not a movie for kids. There are clues to this. It is rated R. Its title is Kick-Ass. There are a lot of reviews that give you the detail you need. If you are thinking of letting them go, see it yourself first. If you are still going to let them see it, have a conversation about it. In short, parents should parent. That goes for all movies, but this one more than most.
Oh, and it's also apparently the most morally reprehensible film ever projected in a multiplex.
At issue is Hit Girl, an 11-year-old cursing, killing machine who cares about nothing in life except her vengeance seeking father and getting that new butterfly knife for her birthday. According to some, including Roger Ebert with SPOILERS, this takes things one step too far.
"This isn't comic violence. These men, and many others in the film, are really stone-cold dead. And the 11-year-old apparently experiences no emotions about this. Many children that age would be, I dunno, affected somehow, don't you think, after killing eight or 12 men who were trying to kill her?"The fundamental issue for Ebert and other reviewers is that Kick-Ass depicts realistic superheroes performing realistic violence. That Hit Girl will be emulated and that 11 year-old girls will suddenly take a shot at being cold-blooded assassins.
Really?
First, on this being a real world depiction and realistic violence: yes, the high school and its inhabitants seem very grounded in the real world (or at least as real a world as Hollywood ever creates in high school movies). There are nerds and bullies and beautiful girls who are unaware of the main character's existence. However, the movie takes a hard right turn into an unrealistic world early in the film. When?
When Hit Girl and her father appear on screen.
The movie at that point stops even pretending at realism. It's absurdist. The humor in the situation comes not because we as an audience find 11-year-old killers hysterical. It's because the girl's existence is so incongruent with reality, it is funny.
Now is this character engaged in realistic violence? In the world of movie criticism, yes. In the real world, no. See, "realistic violence" in the official movie critic's dictionary means "blood." As in, you stab a charcter they bleed. You shoot them they bleed. If you aim a gun, pull a trigger and the person falls over, it's not realistic. Do the same and their head explodes, it is realistic.
So yes there is "realistic violence." And much of it is perpetrated by a character whose existence is not realistic. Using weapons that are not exactly off-the-shelf at Walmart. Even the use of the normal weapons is fantastical. In the trailer, Hit Girl shifts her head to avoid a bullet (as though a bee had just buzzed by her head), releases two empty clips from her gun, throws two full clips into the air and has them land back in the gun in one fluid motion. That is what passes for realistic violence.
There's more I could say about the film itself, but I'll close on this note for parents: this is not a movie for kids. There are clues to this. It is rated R. Its title is Kick-Ass. There are a lot of reviews that give you the detail you need. If you are thinking of letting them go, see it yourself first. If you are still going to let them see it, have a conversation about it. In short, parents should parent. That goes for all movies, but this one more than most.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Watch THIS Instantly... Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze
Primarily my 7-year-old boy (though my 5-year-old girl and 2-year-old boy are digging it as well)
What's It About...
This is the sequel to the first live action TMNT movie. It follows the continuing adventures of four pizza-loving, wise-cracking turtles who battle evil under the watchful eye of a wise old rat. In this movie, the turtles' enemy Shredder discovers the secret to the turtles' power and creates his own mutants. Chaos ensues.
Why Kids Will Love It...
Pizza. Martial arts. Turtles.
Parental Cheat Sheet...
The turtles wear different colors. Leonardo wears blue and is the leader. Raphael wears red and has a temper. Michaelangelo is the comic relief and wears orange. Donatello is the smart one and wears purple.
The rat is their teacher and is named Splinter.
Wrestling Fans! Kevin Nash plays Super Shredder.
Running Time...
88 Minutes
Parental Advisory...
Cartoonish violence and some minor profanity
Available on...
Netflix Watch Instantly
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Did Hollywood Really Learn Anything? (and Other Questions Raised by Avatar)
We are in what is likely the final big weekend for Avatar as Alice in Wonderland takes over the valuable 3-D real estate next weekend (assuming this does not come to pass). So it's a good time to review not just the film, but it's impact on film-making...1. James Cameron remains box office champ. There were a lot of questions leading up to Avatar's release, to say nothing of Ferngully and Smurf jokes. When it's all said and done, Cameron owns the new domestic and international box office records. He beat his own records set with Titanic and did it with his very next major theatrical release. There are plenty of criticisms about the movie, but nobody, NOBODY, knows Hollywood like the self-proclaimed King of the World. All of which leads us to...
2. Will Hollywood learn the right lessons? The out-of-the gate answer is a resounding "no." Avatar became a box office juggernaut for a few reasons: 1) 3-D technology, 2) timing, and 3) word of mouth. The 3-D technology is the biggest miscalculation going on in Hollywood economics today. Avatar is a successful 3-D movie because, at every phase of production, it was designed to be a 3-D movie. What you see on the screen is a director understanding the technology and using it to draw an audience into a new world. Simply converting a movie like Clash of the Titans to 3-D in post-production can never be as effective. Sure, studios will earn a premium on the initial weeks of release. But when the next 3-D movie is right around the corner, the movie's time in relatively scarce 3-D theaters will be cut short. Avatar did not have anything to boot it from those 3-D screens until this week, and has had great word of mouth as a movie that can only be experienced in some stadium seating. None of the movies heading to theaters now will have those benefits.
3. Weta Worksop is a powerhouse. For the better part of 30 years, ILM was the only game in town for major studio releases. Then a small independent film based on an obscure author's work placed Weta Workshop in New Zealand on the map as its first real competitor. The company's work on Avatar has leapfrogged it beyond ILM. Now, even George Lucas' best buddy Steven Spielberg is hanging with kiwis to play with newest toys. In the same way ILM was Lucas' true legacy, Weta is quickly becoming Peter Jackson's.
4. Remember the international markets. At its heart, Avatar told a simply story with whiz-bang special effects and great action set pieces. It's made more than the GDP of countries like Liberia and Bhutan. A lot of the reason is that it translates really well everywhere while offering visuals no one has ever seen. For those who thought the plot and dialogue of Avatar was insipid, guess what? Expect a lot more where that came from.
5. Electronics companies better getting working on the home theater 3-D systems really fast. The hemorraging of the DVD market is something that has been covered a lot. However, in exchange for that $3 dollar premium for 3-D glasses, studios are going to lose even more DVD sales. A great 3-D experiences requires you to sit in a theater. The Avatar: Special Edition Director's Cut on the average television screen just won't cut it. I would expect Avatar to sell a lot of DVDs, but ultimately consumers are going to learn that they can't replicate the theater experience at home. Sony and others are starting to address this, but it will be years before your average household can match the full immersion the viewer gets in Avatar. I personally am in no way jonesing for my own DVD copy of Pandora as I know it can do nothing but disappoint.
I loved Avatar and will probably try catch it one last time on the big 3-D screen. It is having a bigger impact on film-making, marketing and distribution. And, frankly that is not entirely a great thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
