What a Dick...

Get this and "Teeth" and make it a KILLER GENITAL EXTRAVAGANZA!

UPDATE: I just read a review that said "The best movie about a killer dick that I've ever seen."

ACTUAL Post I made on Chat just now.

"I hear Hawaii's nice.

that's wehre they filmed Lilo & Stitch"

Mike needs to slow down on his martinis.

"KICK ASS" Does

Go see it.

It's completely ridiculous, very violent and vulgar.

But it's the most fun I've had at the movies in a very long time.

Playing Catchup Movie Reviewer Man...

"The Ghost Writer"... utterly pedestrian. I felt like it kept threatening to become a good movie but didn't bother. I guess Polanski was too busy fighting extradition to make a good flick. A lot of GREAT cast members utterly wasted here. And the ending is just too silly. 2/5

"Shutter Island"... interesting but ultimately depressing. Especially if you take the view that the final action was taken soberly, which I do. The ending keeps me from even wanting to like it. Leo did a good if not great job, he's definitely one of the better actors out there right now though. 3.5/5

"Green Zone", same take as Shutter Island but for different reasons. More of an anti-war film than "Hurt Locker", if you don't want to think about our country's institutional corruption / stupidity, definitely skip it. But if you skip it for any reason, you're not missing much. 3/5

"Asian Sluts Attack"... just kidding. I made that one up. And truth to be told, there aren't a whole lot of pretty Asian porn stars. Most of the very few that are cute look 12. That's just not a turn-on. They'd have to look at LEAST 16 for that.

Amusing Film...

Finally got around to watching Avatar tonight.

Visually: pretty good but a bit of a letdown watching the 3D in 2D considering the ridiculous ravings about the effects.

But I love the storyline. More specifically, I love the reactions it has provoked.

I almost laughed more than once watching the film, thinking about all the ranting against the "pro-natives" slant of the script. Mostly because it comes from folks saying it's somehow wrong that Cameron - or rather the writer of the UK comic book from whom he apparently stole 90% of the story - is using the story to slam the U.S. military or America's way of life.

To which I must say: What the hell do you think it is we really DO?

Of course our government butchers folks inconveniencing the interests of big business.

It's how things get done. But since when do little people matter when enough folks decide they're in the way?

SPOILERS, if you ain't seen it yet.
I love stumbling over examples of stupidity serendipitously.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/350fozta.asp
I think my favorite part of this review is something I've seen more than once: attacking the Smurfs' "paganism". In the context of the film, they have a tangible link to the spirit of their world. The humans mocking their faith in the film makes sense, because they've not seen the power of the trees in action. Idiot movie reviewers seeing the power of the Mother Spirit in action and mocking it as nonsense makes no sense whatsoever. These retard Ebert wannabes don't even mock the Trees as being anti-Christian. (Which would at least make more sense.)

Well THERE's a Good Reason to Pirate Movies!

Never thought of it like that, but DVDs ARE really f'd up.

I think Disney started the non-skip-able commercials in front of the movie, didn't they?

BOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

"Dane Cook Wants to be The Riddler in "Dark Knight" Sequel "

Not one good idea on that page. Stick to "Good Luck Chuck", Dane (if that IS your real name).

That one serious film Cook did sucked donkey balls (can't recall what it was, he blackmailed a serial killer into making him an apprentice). I cannot imagine him bringing anything good to the table for a Batman film.

I don't really care which villain they pick, so long as they have a great writing team to make a good story behind him.

The casting of Catwoman would be a hard one to pull off though. Jolie's a hack skank and Rachel Weiss ain't young or hot enough. And Michelle Pfeiffer was lame.

Besides, everyone knows the only REAL Catwoman is Julie Newmar, Lee Meriwether or Eartha Kitt.

Makes you wonder what a good casting would be. An ideal Catwoman would be a young Zeta Jones-ish type. Long, dark hair is a must. No blondes or dyke-hairdos.

But I'm not hopeful since Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal were pretty lame choices too.

I just hope they can keep the badass streak going. And leave Robin the hell out of it.

Was Princess Bride's Score in D-Minor?

Dude! I just found out the evil six-fingered Count Regen in "Princess Bride" is Christopher Guest! As in "Spinal Tap"'s Nigel Tufnel!

I can't believe I never made that connection before.

That's all.

And in other movie news "It Might Get Loud" is coming to our town's Landmark theater on October 9th.

This one should be worth it just for Jimmy Page alone. I have no clue what Jack Stripe's about, but the Edge does some interesting things with effects and sound.

Can't wait!

UPDATE: from John-O: "10/23...or maybe 10/30. We just don't know."

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!! (My Charlie Brown impression.)

Statist Propaganda?

I sometimes wonder. There's this new film coming out called "Law Abiding Citizen". It's about a guy that takes revenge for his family being murdered. He kills the guy that did it and I guess the judge, etc. etc.

I want to see it, simply because 1) the justice system sucks and 2) I love seeing govt dipsticks getting their comeuppance.

But I wonder if this film isn't being made to show the dangers of govt agents run amok. As in, to make it easier for the populace to see soldiers, spec war operatives and spooks as "a danger to the system".

After all, the Dept of "Justice" has already targeted veterans as being possible terrorist threats. And the feds have already been revealed as having bribed filmmakers and TV networks to further their agendas.

Thoughts?

UPDATE: Funny... I should have read my news stuff before posting this:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111078

It Figures

Michael Bay Signs $50M Deal To Fuck Up 'ThunderCats'

Whatever DID happen to that "Battle of the Planets" movie? That's one of maybe three childhood memories I have left that haven't been raped yet.

SQUIRREL!

http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/up/

UP is simply great fun. I can only imagine it's much better in 3D as well.

It occurs to me that all the older Pixar (and similar films) could be easily re-imaged for 3D. If they saved all of the computer animation files, it should be a pretty easy thing to do. I would think the Pixar films re-released in 3D would do pretty well and it should be a pretty simple thing to manage with digital distribution.

Anyone watched it in 3D yet? What did you think?

Movie Reflections...

"Is Anybody There?"

Excellent film. I don't know why I expected this movie to be light-hearted and funnier, but I did and I was wrong.

Considering some recent news in real life, it's hitting harder emotionally than I would have expected. And funnily enough, considering an answer I just gave in the movie question post, I find myself reflecting and analyzing this one quite a bit. And enjoying the fact that I'm doing so as well as the questions and answers arising from it all.

The Beer Cannes Inquisition (continued from elsewhere...)

started here @ Troy's
continued here @ Peddie's

what is the first film you ever saw?
99.9% sure it was Star Wars, 1977.

what is your favorite film of all time?
Aliens

what is your favorite line in a film?
"There's a sport!" (Only Dave & Jay will get that.)

what film made you realize that film was an art?
No sure exactly what this is supposed to mean. Did so on a conscious level? I have no idea. It probably wouldn't have been until after we made Consternate. I didn't used to think too deeply about film. I think it's over-analyzed. I usually don't want to think too deeply about films I really like.

what movie do you consider your guilty pleasure?
Not saying. "Roadhouse", "Point Break" and other GREAT GUY films are NOT guilty pleasures for me. My guilty pleasures are ones I don't admit to telling other guys I watch because I actually FEEL guilty about watching them. So while I can think of at least one, it's staying a secret. (I know Dave's though.)

who is your favorite movie character of all time?
Han Solo / Indiana Jones. I put them together cuz I always felt like they were the same character. That's from having both movies come out when I was a kid. (And damn Spielberg, Lucas and Ford for raping my childhood with Indy IV!)

what is your favorite movie snack food?
popcorn (with carrots sticks!)

who is your favorite director of all time?
Peter Jackson.
I don't tend to think about directing at all unless I think it's really BAD. Then I'm pissed that the director "broke the spell", usually for the rest of the film.

who is the most impressive filmmaker working today?
Dunno. Again, I don't care enough to keep up with who the creative crews are unless they REALLY suck.

Peddie's answer is interesting on this one. It made me think on something that has been bugging me in our CGI-dominated SF universe. At least Lucas (early Star Wars days) and other pioneers in special effects had to deal with technical limitations in directing. I believe we're beyond that point now. But the directing in special effects seems to be getting WORSE. Why is that? You would think that without the limitations on camera work the opposite would be true. Maybe NOT having limitations on directing pushes directors away from what our brains recognize as "realistic"? Vox once wrote that a lot of the problems with shitty CGI is that the effects are defying the limitations of real-world physics. Our brains recognize that and that it looks "wrong". That's probably accurate.

what quality do the best directors share?
Showcasing actors and getting the best out of them. Everything else is secondary. Even if it's a freaking cartoon! If I don't care about the human behind the pixels, the film sucks.

who is your favorite actor/actress of all time?
Anthony Hopkins. He shows depth when doing nothing.

who is your favorite actor/actress working today?
same

who would you cast in a film about your life?
Jim Sturgess. He doesn't have my dashing bent nose, but he's close enough for Hollywood.

finish these sentences:

if you could remake one movie... Watchmen, with a new director and the caveat that I get to turn it into a 12 part series. Just like the book. A lot of wasted potential there. And no damn slow motion.

i never wanna watch a movie with... inflated but ultimately unmet expectations.

the perfect movie is... The Dark Knight.

Angels and Demons Blows

More typical Hollywood bullshit. The more I think of it, the more I get pissed. And not for its anti-religious views, either. Mostly because this film tempered those moments and had some surprisingly touching portrayals. (Maybe Dan Brown's trying not to piss off as many folks this time?)

Although the same feeling I had about the first one applies to this film too: People of faith in God and His Truth think it's perfectly okay to murder and cause there to be murder to further His ends. Just once I'd like to see one of these men revealed as mere greedy worldly charlatans instead of dying in a blaze of glory fully "dedicated" to Him.

But the stupid lucky coincidences and the predictability of this film are annoying to say the very least. I wish Hollywood would simply stop making shitty films. (Of course, in the two Dan Brown films, they're stuck with shitty source material.)

I also REALLY wish they'd stop ruining the plots with their far-too revealing previews. (Terminator 4, anyone? WTF?)

Oh well. I suppose I shan't hold mine breath on either score.

So my advice? Skip Angels and Demons. Go see Star Trek instead. You'll enjoy yourself a lot more.

Need proof? (Watch it all, the last line is the best)


Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

The Sequel That's Just BEGGING To Be Made!

SON OF Man's Best Friend!

Yes, that incredible (and it was!) Ally Sheedy / Lance Henriksen film about a DNA-altered Rottie that pisses acid and swallows cats whole!

Why not? Every other shitty movie ever made is being "reimagined" or having sequels made a decade or two late.

Last House on the Left? He Knows You're Alone? Prom Night?

It's not as though a desire for quality films could possibly be the reason preventing this one from being made.

They have to add at least one super-power to the mutt though. Laser beams from it's eyes?

Why Watch The Watchmen?

The good:

Visually it was very well done. A near-perfect visual adaptation of Dave Gibbons' work. Good (but not great) special effects. Dr. Manhattan detonating folks was disturbing but cool to watch.

Directing, from an adaptation of the Gibbons art POV, very well done. (Except for the slow-mo crap which has been done to death and really just needs to die. No more bullet time, no more panoramic frozen-in-time crap a la Swordfish, no more slow-mo ever again. No one will miss it, really.)

It really did capture a lot of the visual feel of the comic. On a Sin City level, though both the comic and the movie on that one are just awful on about every level. (Frank Miller is stupidly and spectacularly juvenile. Just about everything I've read of his since Dark Knight Returns is plain awful. And I suspect it's all just him mocking his audience while raking in gobs of dough.)

The bad:
The cartoonish violence was just awful. I don't mind graphic violence. But these are humans fighting, not SUPER-humans. Even Silk Spectre is sending guys flying. IIRC, even Ozymandias wasn't super-human. And he wasn't depicted as such in the film either. So WHY the ridiculous-looking antics? Why have folks flying 30 feet away after being kicked? It just looks stupid. This is yet another Hollywood convention that needs to die ASAFP.

The psyche session wasn't interesting at all. Probably the best issue of the entire series and it might as well not even be in the film. That's something that could have been put into a DVD special like the pirate ship thing. It could have been paced appropriately slow to the point of boring. Kovacs "dying" would have been 10 times more interesting and had a much bigger impact psychologically.

The pacing BLOWS. This is a thinking man's comic book, as much as any comic can be. Maybe a contradiction in terms to some, but it isn't so much a slap you in the face with its dick experience as the movie is. The movie is way too much action, not enough subtlety. I said it before watching it, that it should have been a HBO mini-series instead of a film. The pacing pretty much ruins it for me.

Overall, I don't know how well it works as a movie. I tend to think not very well, but my perceptions are mixed up because of the comic and always will be. So I would have to ask someone that knows nothing about the comic series to get a feel for a decent answer.

Other interesting crap:
http://watchmen.wikia.com/wiki/Watchmen_Wiki

Nitpick alert: Watchmen is NOT a graphic novel. It was a twelve-issue limited series when originally released.

Quick aside: How fucking pathetic is this?
http://io9.com/5156140/warner-bros-forced-watchmens-laurie-to-go-cold-turkey

Another quick aside: Malin Akerman actually looks much better as a blonde, something I almost never say. And it's not just because pics of her tits come up on a Google search. Found those accidentally... honest. I accidentally clicked on the pics too... honest... mmmmmmmm...

What The Hell?

AMC is speeding up movies to get more movie into less time. How supremely gay. Everybody on First Blood sounds like a fucking midget.

And you KNOW you're a libertarian when you're watching Rambo knock the asshole cop off of the chopper (killing him) then later shooting the sheriff and you think "Yeah, they all really did have it coming."

Sour Grapes...

UPDATE: Go rent this one. Very good film. I forgot to put a review on it after seeing it and stumbled over this entry looking for something else. So I forgot... sue me.

UPDATE UPDATE: That was a lame review, so I'll take a few minutes to do a real one. "Bottle Shock" is simply a fun film. Much in the same way that "World's Fastest Indian" is a fun film. (And one of the best movies ever made, BTW. If you've not seen it, slap yourself and buy a copy. You're welcome.)

"Bottle Shock" has a very good script, well-delivered dialogue, good helpings of humour and the directing is at times very beautiful. Like "Indian", it is a very human film, in stark opposition to the "typical plastic-ey Hollywood crap" sort of film making. Alan Rickman is very good. Bill Pullman surprised me in this one. He gives his character more depth than I'd expected. Especially for a quiet at-home rental, I think this one will please almost any film fan.

END of UPDATE

Might have to go see this one:

In 1976, an esteemed all-French jury gathered in Paris for a blind tasting to compare eight of France's greatest wines against a dozen upstarts from California. In an upset worthy of Hollywood, the United States trounced France, winning top honours in both the red and white categories.

Now, Hollywood has finally found its way to the story. Not one but two films based on the so-called Judgment of Paris will duke it out for attention this year. Bottle Shock, a rollicking comedy-drama based on true events that stars Alan Rickman, opens in Toronto on Aug. 6 and is slated to roll out to theatres across the country later in the summer. The second film, Judgment of Paris, based on the official story by the only journalist to attend the Paris tasting, Time magazine's George Taber, is due later this year. (From HERE - interesting article.)

It might be nice to see an art film at an art theater every once in a while. I just hope it's much better than the shitty "Sideways".

So what's worse?

Having a story suck because the writer is too busy shoving feminist crap (or whatever ideological POV) into it or simply because the writer himself sucks?

Listening to Joss' blatherings on the interview Peddie linked to on Jay's blog (HERE) as well as a few You Tube feminism videos (HERE) just shows that he would rather annoy his audience with lectures than tell a good story in his products. And he quite frequently accomplishes this perfectly!

What I hate about having endured this guff - right out of the man's mouth - is that it colours my perceptions of his work even though I like most of it (more accurately I like the product of the writers working in his various universes).

Okay, women are the physically weaker sex. Buffy and the Slayers are exceptions. They are magical beings of destiny and all that jazz. Okay, I can buy that. Suspension of disbelief and a role reversal. No problem.

But take a look at Joss' "GIRL POWER" legacy:
- The final Buffy episode. (BTW: a fine example of how NOT to write dialogue)
- The black woman and the tiny 98 lb waif kicking everyone's ass in Firefly / Serenity. The latter in complete defiance of simple physics. At least in the Sarah Connor Chronicles, she's a freaking robot.
- Every "normal" chick besides Buffy's mom and Dawn becoming at least super-empowered (Cordelia), more often than not to to god status (Willow, Summer, Fred) while the guys generally show off their incompetence (Xander, Wesley, Simon and sometimes Giles depending on what episode it is).

Now, the last point is the one that galls me the most. And it wouldn't except for the fact that NONE of the guys get upgrades. Hell! Spike & Xander got DOWNGRADES!

The one minor exception is Riley, Buffy's sex toy soldier dude. And what happened there? He burned out and nearly croaked trying to keep up with Buffy. Before going back to being "just human".

So is Riley's failure to perform and Spike's castration via brain chip just Joss projecting his personal sexual impotence unto his characters? Or maybe he's been steeped in feminism too long and he despises his own masculinity? Who knows?

Joss suggests men's hatred towards women is rooted in "womb envy", so obviously sense doesn't come into play in these discussions too much.

(And these are just off the top of my head. I haven't even thought about this too much else I'm sure I can dig up plenty more.)

I just do not get why someone with interesting stories to tell feels the need to consciously force-feed feminist crap to his audience. If it happens organically, fine. If the characters and the universe are consistent to themselves, fine. After all, it's a very cool thing to see a show and have a character make a gut check and overcome. The sex of the character shouldn't matter.

I mean, what guy finished watching "Aliens" and thought "Gee, that might have been a good movie if it was a guy hero instead of Ripley"?

Whedon forces the issues and often makes his work into transparent garbage while doing so.

To return to my original question "Should there even be a distinction made between the two?" I say: "Yes, there should be." The one making bad product with a conscious agenda is worse. At least a bad writer has the excuse that he's a bad writer.

The "point-makers" are willing to suck on purpose to further their agenda. That's really lame.