The Cinemologist

The Cinemologist has moved!

2011-03-05T19:08:00.003-05:00

Please find us at our updated site:

The Cinemologist

Analysis: Blue Valentine

2011-02-26T23:28:00.000-05:00

Blue Valentine is a fragmented story of a fragmented marriage. As the writer and director, Derek Cianfrance is the artist of this dismal and unapologetic depiction of a marriage that's lost it's love. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams play Dean and Cindy, two young lovers whose marriage has dissolved to a loveless schedule. They do what they are supposed to do as a couple, but there is no love.

Plot: Told from two different times, the beginning and end of their relationship, Blue Valentine shows what could be interpreted as the disease of love. The film breaks up the plot into two separate times, the past and present. It's occasionally hard to follow when the plot cuts through different times. The actors underwent major transformations to portray the two different times, but the darkness of the film made that hard to notice at first. This plot structure deals in dichotomies: a young, unstoppable love and a dead, withering marriage. This style also lends itself to a critical viewing of the early times. I found myself looking for personality quirks or pet peeves that could lead this marriage to the fate we see on the other side, but there seems to be nothing that alludes to the unfortunate outcome. The absence of the middle, or the act II of their marriage, is missing, but let's explore that in the story section.

Story: What could have happened to cause these two people to fall out of love? When showing their courtship, the couple seems fearless in their love. Dean pursues Cindy and finally manages to talk her into a goofy night on the town in which the couple behave like two giddy lovers, dancing and playing the ukulele in the streets. The scenes of their courting are reminiscent of other films' portrayal of a couple destined to be together forever. Flash forward to the present time, and we find that not to be the case. The fact that the film doesn't show you the middle of their relationship is a unique choice. As a viewer, you find yourself wanting to see that section, to comb through and discover catalyst of this deterioration of love. I believe that Derek left this section out on purpose, that in the story of these character's lives, there was no single event or action that caused their relationship to fall from grace. I would imagine that the real people that this sort of event happens to do the same thing, they look back on their relationship to find out what went wrong. I'm sure they have as much trouble finding a cause than we did in the theater.

Characters: As I just stated, judging just by the courtship scenes, we feel like we're watching a couple whose love is infallible, but we know more about their lives than this, at least that's true about Cindy. Cindy, it seems, doesn't know what love is. Her father is a violent and abusive husband to her mother. She resigns herself to ask her grandmother what it feels like to fall in love, but it seems as though grandmother experienced the same plight that Cindy will. Dean is given less of a back story, but one that seems similar to Cindy's. We find out that his mother and father split up when he was young, and that he no longer has contact with his mother. That loss of a maternal relationship has to have a negative effect on a child. Knowing this, we can see through this young love to find an splinter of doubt that will lead these star-crossed lovers to their eventual declination. In the present tense, there's an interesting display of their relationships. Dean lives his life for his family. His job is not so much the thing he goes to as much as the thing he comes home from. His life is with his family and he aims to make his wife and daughter happy. He fails miserably at the latter. The only time Dean ever displays any passion is when it comes to Cindy. Cindy never offers us an insight into why she's so unhappy. You'd think that living with someone whose only goal is to make you happy would be a gift, but it would appear not. She asks him during a drunken foray into a cheesy, futuristic sex motel why he doesn't pursue the things he's good at. She essentially asks him why he's content with the way they are right now. She phrases the question in terms of what would be best for him, but there are definitely undertones in her question. Could she be asking him to chase his skills as a musician to enhance their lives or to get him to leave her? There's also the possibility that she's so depressed that she's asking how can he be content with living with someone like her.

Themes, Motifs, & Symbols: Love, or rather the absence of love, is the major theme here. The absence of love in the marriages of the character's lives is the foreshadowing that explains what could have happened to these characters who were once so in love. In the opening scene of the film, we find out that Cindy forgot to lock the gate to their dog's pen who has escaped. This results in the dog's death. This event plays as both a precipitating event as well as a symbol for this family. I believe it provides a metaphor for them to realize that their love is dead. The final image of the film was strikingly oblique and was one that I'm continuing to think about even now. The film ends with Dean walking away from his wife and daughter after she asks for a divorce, and in the background, children are shooting off fireworks. Fireworks, obviously are usually reserved for celebrations, and as we know, nothing on screen is an accident. It makes me wonder what CianfranceCianfrance is trying to say.

Oscar Picks

2011-02-25T20:46:00.000-05:00

Well, it’s Oscar weekend. You know what that means! Grabbing the biggest drink you can find, ordering a pizza, and settling in with an excitement that tapers off by the third hour when your ass starts to hurt from sitting for so long. Here, I will present whom I expect to win for this year’s Oscars. I’ve not seen every film that’s up for an award, so where I’m lacking in personal experiences (almost all of the shorts), I’ve made up for in research.

Who will win and who should win aren’t always the same. So, if necessary, I will list beside who I think should win.

Best Picture

- True Grit
- The Social Network
- Black Swan
- 127 Hours
- The Fighter
- The King's Speech
- The Kids Are All Right
- Toy Story 3
- Winter's Bone
- Inception

Who Will Win: The King's Speech
Who Should Win: The Social Network

Although I believe that The King's Speech was a wonderful movie, I believe that, in time, it will fall by the wayside as The Social Network continues to define the era in which it was made.

Best Actor in a Leading Role

- Javier Bardem (Biutiful)
- Jeff Bridges (True Grit)
- Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network)
- Colin Firth (The King's Speech)
- James Franco (127 Hours)

Who Will Win: Colin Firth
Who Should Win: Colin Firth

Firth remains one of cinema's greatest actor. Winning last year for A Single Man, I fully expect him to take home the gold again this year.

Best Actress in a Leading Role

- Natalie Portman (Black Swan)
- Anette Bening (The Kids Are All Right)
- Nicole Kidman (Rabbit Hole)
- Jennifer Lawrence (Winter's Bone)
- Michelle Williams (Blue Valentine)

Who Will Win: Natalie Portman
Who Should Win: Natalie Portman

Natalie just did awesome in Black Swan. I wouldn't be upset if Jennifer Lawrence won though.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role

- Christian Bale (The Fighter)
- John Hawkes (Winter's Bone)
- Jeremy Renner (The Town)
- Mark Ruffalo (The Kids Are All Right)
- Geoffrey Rush (The King's Speech)

Who Will Win: Christian Bale
Who Should Win: Geoffrey Rush

Actually, I think Christian Bale should win too, but I wanted to talk about Geoffrey Rush. I wouldn't be upset if he won, his character was great in The King's Speech. But he's going up against fan-favorite Christian Bale who always gives 110% to his roles.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

- Amy Adams (The Fighter)
- Helena Bonham Carter (The King's Speech)
- Melissa Leo (The Fighter)
- Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit)
- Jackie Weaver (Animal Kingdom)

Who Will Win: Melissa Leo
Who Should Win: Amy Adams

I enjoyed Melissa Leo's character, but I was more interested in Amy Adams'. Either way, The Fighter is definitely bringing the supporting actors' Oscars home. Poor Marky Mark.

Best Animated Feature Film

- How To Train Your Dragon
- Toy Story 3
- The Illusionist

Who Will Win: Toy Story 3
Who Should Win: How to Train Your Dragon

If you don't already know my preference of How To Train Your Dragon over Toy Story 3, then I suggest you look here.

Best Art Direction

- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
- Inception
- The King's Speech
- Alice in Wonderland
- True Grit

Who Will Win: The King's Speech
Who Should Win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Period pieces often win this category, but I think that Harry Potter did a wonderful job in the art department of staging a magical world in reality and making it look like it actually exists. I am highly biased though.

Cinematography

- Inception
- True Grit
- The King's Speech
- Black Swan
- The Social Network

Who Will Win: Inception
Who Should Win: Inception

I expect Inception to win most of the visual categories.

Costume Design

- True Grit
- I Am Love
- The Tempest
- The King's Speech
- Alice in Wonderland

Who Will Win: The King's Speech
Who Should Win: The King's Speech

Period pieces ALWAYS win this category. If one of those pieces is Best Picture, consider it a shoe-in. I used to hate that they always won until I talked to a costume designer about the intricacies that go into accurate costumes. I am no longer bored by costume design.

Best Direction

- Darren Aronofsky (The Black Swan)
- David O. Russel (The Fighter)
- Tom Hooper (The King's Speech)
- David Fincher (The Social Network)
- Joel Coen and Ethan Coen (True Grit)

Who Will Win: David Fincher
Who Should Win: Darren Aronofsky

Darren Aronofsky is a master at bringing mental issues to the surface. Add in some extreme creepiness, and he has my vote for this year. Too bad the Academy won't agree.

Best Documentary Feature

- Exit Through the Gift Shop
- Restrepo
- Gasland
- Inside Job
- Waste Land

Who Will Win: Exit Through the Gift Shop
Who Should Win: N/A

I've only seen two of these features: Exit Through the Gift Shop and Restrepo. The votes seem to be tied between Exit Through the Gift Shop and Inside Job. It basically boils down to popularity against content. Even though I wasn't that big of a fan of Exit Through the Gift, I think it will pull ahead due to popularity and the fact that everyone wants to see if Banksy shows up to accept.

Best Documentary Short Subject

- Killing in the Name
- Poster Girl
- Strangers No More
- Sun Come Up
- Quigang

Who Will Win: Killing in the Name
Who Should Win: N/A

I didn't see any of the entries in this category, so I don't actually know who should win. Before I did my research, I picked Killing in the Name simply based off its title. It seems the internet agrees.

Film Editing

- 127 Hours
- The Fighter
- The Social Network
- The King's Speech
- Black Swan

Who Will Win: The Social Network
Who Should Win: The Social Network

This category is kind of a toss up. Based on unique editing styles, I'd say 127 Hours would win, but in straight story-telling editing, The Social Network will pull it in. Editing is a process I've not learned much about, so accept my pick in the category at your own risk.

Foreign Language Film

- Biutiful
- Dogtooth
- In A Better World
- Incendies
- Outside the Law

Who Will Win: In A Better World
Who Should Win: N/A

Again, I didn't get to see any of these, so take this recommendation with a grain of salt. The interweb seems to agree on In A Better World to win the category.

Makeup

- Barney's Version
- Wolfman
- The Way Back

Who Will Win: The Wolfman
Who Should Win: Barney's Version

I only think Barney's Version should win because it's the only other one that I've seen besides Wolfman, and I don't want Wolfman to be able to say it won an Oscar. It was not good.

Music (Original Score)

- How to Train Your Dragon
- Inception
- The King's Speech
- 127 Hours
- The Social Network

Who Will Win: The Social Network
Who Should Win: The Social Network

It won a Golden Globe, so I think it has the best chance to win the Oscar as well. Oh, also, it was good.

Music (Original Song)

- "Coming Home" (Country Strong)
- "I See The Light" (Tangled)
- "If I Rise" (127 Hours)
- "We Belong Together" (Toy Story 3)

Who Will Win: "We Belong Together"
Who Should Win: "If I Rise"

Maybe I'm just anti-Toy Story 3, but I want A.R. Rahman (the winner from Slumdog Millionaire in the same category two years ago) to win.

Short Film (Animated)

- Day and Night
- The Gruffalo
- Let's Pollute
- The Lost Thing
- Madagascar, a Journey Diary

Who Will Win: Day and Night
Who Should Win: N/A

Day and Night was the only one I saw because it was before Toy Story 3. It was really interesting though. The internet agrees with me.

Short Film (Live Action)

- The Confession
- The Crush
- God of Love
- Na Wewe
- Wish 143

Who Will Win: Na Wewe
Who Should Win: N/A

Afraid I didn't catch any of these either. Internet says Na Wewe. Never disagree with the internet.

Sound Editing

- Inception
- True Grit
- Toy Story 3
- Unstoppable
- Tron: Legacy

Who Will Win: Inception
Who Should Win: Inception

Again, I'm thinking Inception for both sound categories.

Sound Mixing

- Inception
- The King's Speech
- Salt
- The Social Network
- True Grit

Who Will Win: Inception
Who Should Win: Inception

Best Sound Mixing is one of those categories where no one actually knows what they're talking about, myself included. So take this with a grain of salt. Just don't take Salt.

Best Visual Effects

- Alice in Wonderland
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
- Inception
- Hereafter
- Iron Man 2

Who Will Win: Inception
Who Should Win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Again I say, Harry Potter's visuals make it an accessible fantasy film. Strange category though. Alice in Wonderland was dumb. Could you see any effects through all of the Dr. Pepper ads in Iron Man 2? And did anyone actually see Hereafter?

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

- The Social Network
- 127 Hours
- Toy Story 3
- True Grit
- Winter's Bone

Who Will Win: The Social Network
Who Should Win: The Social Network

Aaron Sorkin is one of our best writers. Combined with a film the quality of The Social Network and we've got a winner.

Writing (Original Screenplay)

- Another Year
- The Fighter
- Inception
- The Kids Are All Right
- The King's Speech

Who Will Win: The King's Speech
Who Should Win: The King's Speech

Read about the creation of the story of The King's Speech. It's really interesting. Inception, was an interesting story, but it was too full of plot holes and inconsistencies to take home the trophy, I believe.

So there are your picks. I hope you enjoy the Oscars this year. Maybe Anne Hathaway and James Franco will breathe a breath of fresh air into the traditionally boring ceremony.

How To Train Your Dragon > Toy Story 3

2011-02-22T16:56:00.000-05:00

When the category for "Best Animated Feature" began at the Academy Awards in 2001, DreamWorks Animation took home the prize with the help of Shrek. With the exception of one other win for Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, DreamWorks has come up short to Disney/Pixar almost every year. When Kung-Fu Panda was up against Wall-E in 2008, Jack Black said it best when he said, "Each year I do one DreamWorks project then take all the money to the Oscars and bet it on Pixar!"

Don't misunderstand my post as anti-Pixar in the slightest. Though I loved Kung-Fu Panda, it didn't stand a chance against Wall-E. And generally, Pixar is more infallible that DreamWorks as evidenced by Monsters vs. Aliens which I consider their worst since Over The Hedge. No, this article is geared more towards this upcoming Oscars' category specifically.

It seems the general consensus is that Toy Story 3 is a shoe-in for the win this year. It's easy to see why. Toy Story was Pixar's first film, and Toy Story 3 has been the highest grossing film for them yet, earning over $1 billion; more than twice as much as How To Train Your Dragon.

My base argument here is that, although Toy Story 3 was a "good" movie, I don't believe that it really added anything new to the series. It was merely the same characters on a new adventure. I'm not against sequels, but although the overall time sequence is furthered, the general plot of the movie is not much different from the other two predecessors. Toys that come to life get separated from their owner and must make their way back while dealing with their own personality quirks.

How to Train Your Dragon presented with a new and well-thought-out idea. They created a world in which dragons are a nuisance and feel like a real part of that world. Adding interesting characters that were very well voiced by unique actors upped the plot to a fun and inspiring adventure. I'm always interested when a person can create a new universe of plausibility through details. How to Train Your Dragon has many plot elements such as: dragons vs. humans, familial and communal acceptance, misunderstandings, as well as your token love-story.

This film was also the only one of the past year in which I felt like I didn't waste money for a 3D ticket. I thought the application of 3D in this film was used to perfection. There weren't any silly, gimmicky shots. The most memorable scene was one in which the 3D did exactly what it was supposed to do, enhance the scene without drawing attention to itself. In the scene, Hiccup and Toothless have finally perfected their symbiotic flying method and are experimenting by soaring through the clouds. This film single-handedly changed my opinion on the necessity of 3D. I'd all but given up on the effect.

I have a feeling that familiarity and money will put Toy Story 3 at the top, but I hold out hope that a sweet, sleek and unique film might bring home the gold.

P.S. - The Illusionist was boring and exceptionally "French."

Written by: The Doctor and The Walrus

2011-01-25T16:52:00.007-05:00

Last April, I finished 90 days of P90X, quite possibly one of the most difficult 90 days of my life. For those of you not familiar with the program, it's 13 weeks, 6 workouts a week. The workouts themselves range from resistance training to yoga. But for 13 weeks, there is no rest. I mention this here, because it has become clear to me that writing has to be the same. For those periods when you are writing, it needs to be relentless. That's what leads me here. When things became difficult during my workouts, I leaned on my workout partner for support. But more importantly, I leaned on my partner to push me on those days when I just didn't think I could do it. My friend The Doctor and I have talked writing projects for awhile now, and both of us are guilty of periods of consistent work, strung between periods of complete inactivity. So I thought perhaps we could push each other. Things always take on a different urgency when someone is counting on you.

So let's do this. No screenplays this time around, let's write some prose. I'll start, 300 words or so and then it's The Doctor's turn. Let the story go where it will. The goal is to write every other day, but if we miss a day here and there so be it. The main thing is that we're writing and the story is moving along. So that's the task, now get to it.

Here you go.......

I was thirty-seven when I lost my mind. I guess I shouldn’t really say that I lost it . It was still there. I should probably say that I just stopped listening to it. I ate, slept, fucked, and went to the gym just like I always had. But as I sat at my desk on that cold snowy Virginia afternoon in January, it became clear to me that my mind was on a permanent vacation. I looked out the window on the 10^th of January 2011 at the colorless sky, and the mounds of snow where the shrubs used to be, and I just knew that I would never be happy there again. So I did what any respectable man in his mid-thirties would do. I quit my job and moved to Key West.

The warm Gulf breezes skipped softly across my face as I stepped off the plane. In the distance there were palm trees swaying quietly, and a flower that I had never seen before bloomed right outside the terminal entrance. It was 26 degrees when I left Virginia that morning and there I stood with both feet firmly planted on the island for the first time. It was 76 degrees and the wind tossed my suddenly too long hair to one side. I had only brought one bag with me from the mainland. I figured if my move stuck, I could always go back and get the rest of my things at a later date. Beyond that, I hadn’t given the actually being there much thought. Getting out was the part I planned, I didn’t really do much thinking about the getting in.

Movie of the week: Predators

2010-07-07T07:47:00.000-04:00

I immediately failed on my new column already, but that's ok, because I was going to change the format anyways. I've already written my review on Toy Story 3, and I didn't get any questions about it, so what we can do now is this. This week's movie of the week is "Predators" starring Adrien Brody and produced by Robert Rodriguez. It doesn't come out until Friday, but I will see it this weekend and have a new post for you on Sunday. E-mail or comment me some questions you have about the film and I'll answer them on Sunday. Until then, keep it reel!

Movie of the Week: Toy Story 3

2010-06-27T13:34:00.000-04:00

I just thought of a new article I could start. On Sundays, I'm going to name a movie of the week. Throughout the week, I'll try and relate other articles to the movie, you can write in with some questions you have about any aspect of the movie and on the following Sunday, I'll list a new movie and write a post about the previous one. I'll go ahead and give you some background on this week's movie.

Toy Story 3 was released last weekend to box office and critical acclaim. To date, Toy Story 3 has made around 270 million dollars worldwide.

I finally got to see if yesterday and I really liked it a lot. Pixar can do no wrong in my book. I'm going to be flabbergasted when one of their movies flops. If ever it should happen.

I noticed an intriguing incident while I saw it. When that Disney intro hit and that familiar music played over the revelation of the castle, I got this feeling over me that was just in utter anticipation of the movie I'm about to see. Through some Pavlovian response, that short measure that indicates the Disney emblem just enchants me. The graphics from the Disney logo have changed over time obviously, but to my knowledge, not much has changed in the music that accompanies it. Now sure I feel a bit weird about getting insanely excited over a Disney movie as a 25 year old man, but I think that's a testament to the power of movies. Disney has put their name on several great pieces of work over the past 87 years. This stimulus/response action that I experienced could have just come from the Lion King alone. I must have seen that movie 40-50 times; at least 5 in theaters.

Now, specifically about Toy Story 3. I thought it was really very good. I will admit that I've never seen Toy Story 2, so I believe I was missing out on some of the references from Buzz and Jessie. The rest of the plot was an endearing and heartfelt story that seemed relevant and natural to the Toy Story canon. The voice acting was superb as well; most notably from Tom Hanks and Tim Allen. Ned Beatty did a wonderful job as the maybe not-so-good Lotso. Throw in a bit of Joan Cusak, Michael Keaton and Whoopi Goldberg and you've really got something to work with.

The story was just a bit on the predictable side, but you can't really expect children to be entertained and understand what's going on when the movie is in the form of "Memento" or something. The movie seemed, to me at least, to be a closure to the series, but I guess there could be a way to bring about another sequel if they really wanted to.

In summation, I'm going to have to give Toy Story a GAF score of 98, which I believe is it's current standing on Rotten Tomatoes. So if you haven't seen it, then make some plans for the theater, so that we can discuss it further in a week! Until then, keep it reel.

I haven't forgotten about you

2010-06-21T21:51:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the lack of updates lately. Many thanks to The Walrus for picking up the slack. I'm in the process of making a new chart for GAF scores since my last one got deleted.

Tomorrow marks my first day of Screenwriting class, so I'll let you all in on what I learn.

I've also been making a lot of contacts in the area to start learning the process of independent filmmaking. Stay tuned.

Right is Right

2010-06-16T16:03:00.002-04:00

Well I'm back after a couple months hiatus and it is the haunting little movie to the left that has me excited enough to post. As you may know The Doctor" gave me three movies from my Netflix queue to "push-up" to the top. Movie #1 was "Once" and my brief take on that is somewhere below. Movie # 2 was "Let the Right One In". I'm back once again to give credit to The Doctor for the recommend, but more importantly to say, this movie ROCKS!!!!

I'm a vampire fan. I've read "Dracula" about six times, I've watched good and bad adaptations of the classic story, and I've even jumped aboard the "Twilight" bandwagon. My favorite vampire works will always be "The Vampire Chronicles" by Anne Rice, but that's a subject for another day. So I'm all in when it comes to the mythology of the immortals.

"Let the Right One In" is a nice little piece of Swedish film making. I had read a couple of brief articles about the movie before I started watching, but nothing that would give away any of the major plot points. I knew there was a vampire, but that's about it. Boy was I in for an experience.

Well the movie starts in almost total silence. The credits are stark white letters on a black background. It reminded me of the original "Dracula" We take for granted so many times in movies music and sound. Loud crashing cymbals, or the shriek of a violin are horror staples, but nothing sets a more eerie tone than silence. This tone is at the heart of the picture. It is beautifully shot, the acting is spot on, and the pacing is deliberate but never boring.

As the movie begins there are just images. A boy standing at the window, a cab dropping off a couple passengers, the shades being drawn. It's unsettling not to know who you're supposed to identify with, who these characters are, and what they are doing. As the movie progresses, this unsettled feeling continues, and I believe is at the core of the experience. Horror movies and thrillers often fall flat once the gig is up. As soon as we realize who the killer is, or who stole the money, we can relax. To me that works directly against the objective of the film. If a movie is to horrify us or thrill us, then that sense of confusion and uneasiness has to remain. What we usually get instead is cheap scare tactics or over the top gore to take it's place and way too often the general populace falls for it hook line and sinker.

So as the movie played on, I fully expected to be let down again. But from one scene right on through to the next, it managed to keep me just slightly off center. I didn't care too much for the young actor that played 12 year old Oskar, but Lina Leandersson that played the vampire Eli was fantastic. Her angelic face and quiet sweet disposition were wonderfully balanced against the things she does and what she is. As these two characters grow closer and closer, I found myself actually routing for them, both individually and as a couple. But every time I thought I knew how it was going to turn out something would happen to turn my expectations on their ear and unsettle me once again. Now don't get me wrong, this movie wasn't one reveal after another. At no point does it resort to the quirky twists and turns we see so often. Instead as we get to know these characters, little by little, we think we are getting to know them. In reality we only know tiny bits about them and their situation. But years of movie going and years of having characters written and acted in caricature have taught us to expect certain things. "Let the Right One In" doesn't allow us to do that. Each action and reaction seems to come organically from the situation and from a place of honest motivation.

By the end, I was hooked hardcore. As the situation slowly unraveled and the end got closer and closer, I was fully invested with the characters, so even if I did see the final scene or two coming well in advance, I didn't care because I felt like the ride to get there had been genuine and true. The two folks I watched it with were less impressed, but for me, it was the best movie I've watched all year. It was quiet, and sweet, and unsettling all at the same time. In a season where we will see one big budget action movie after the next, it was refreshing to sit in the dark for 90 minutes with such an honest and beautiful piece of movie-making. Think about that for a minute and then you can go. When was the last time you heard a horror movie described as "beautiful and honest"?

Walrus Out.

Once Upon a Time

2010-04-27T14:08:00.003-04:00

I wanted to take a minute while I had one and give a little shout out to The Doctor. A little while back you may recall a discussion about Netflix and the "correct" way to use the queue. The Doctor is a self described "pusher-upper", while I am more of a play it as it lies kind of movie goer. So in response to his assertions, I gave him the chance to "push-up" any five movies on my queue to the top. So I did, and now you're up to date.

One of the movies that he suggested I see immediately was "Once". This tiny little movie, written and directed by John Carney clocks in at just over 80 minutes. That doesn't seem like a lot of time to tell much of a story, but come to find out, it's plenty. This movie is genuine, heartfelt, and in the end beautiful. It's effects will be felt days and months down the road.

I could launch into the typical critical analysis of the movie, siting actors and locations as well as plot devices and production value. Instead, I would like to talk about something far more universal that came up watching this movie over the weekend, the idea of a love story.

I had a couple people over for dinner and a movie this weekend, and instead of giving them an option of what we watch, I just popped "Once" into the DVD player. The question immediately came, "What are we watching?" So the task now fell to me to condense an entire movie, which I haven't seen either, into a couple of sentences. So based on what I know about the movie and what I had read, I replied. It's "Once". Kind of a love story, with music." Satisfied with my description, we all settled in to give it a go.

So as the movie unfolded, I could tell that my companions were watching with varying degrees of interest. At one point I even caught one of them snoring a bit. But the nap was short lived and by the end I believe we all had a pretty good grasp of "Once" and what it had to offer as a movie. When it finished and we began talking, the first question I fielded was, "I thought you said that was a love story?" So right off the bat I was thrust into defending not only my statement from before the movie, but also my belief that I was correct. As we got further into the discussion, it became clear that my adversary was of the belief that it couldn't be a love story because the two principals didn't end up together. So it got me thinking. Can it really be called a love story if the main actors don't end up together in the end? Now before we get too far off base I want to clarify. I'm talking about traditional love story here. I don't want any conversation about a man and his dog, or a man's love affair with the game of baseball. I'm talking actual relationship here. Can it be called a love story if the participants don't end up together? Or better yet, is it as satisfying.

I've got some opinions on the subject, but duty calls, so I won't go into them now, but put your mind to work and let me hear what you think. I'll check in shortly with my 2 cents worth.

I'm not really sure what this is.

2010-04-12T23:14:00.000-04:00

So, I got some advice from a fellow filmmaker about how to start making films. He told me to take it slow, but fast and make as many 1-3 minute shorts as I can. So this day has been spent writing out some ideas. Tonight, I sat down and played one out. I don't know what I was hoping to get from it, maybe a nicely written screenplay, but it didn't happen like that. What follows I guess can best be described as just a written form of the scene I want to compose. What someone would be thinking while watching this..if they knew him. I really have no idea. I'll let you decide. So, here it is. My "first draft" of a short called "Addict". (P.S.- If you come up with a better name, which shouldn't be hard, let me know).

Addict.

He sits. Watches tv. Or at least pretends to. There's nothing good on right now, but he wouldn't even know. There's a half empty handle of scotch whiskey mocking him from the kitchen. His eyes tell you how thirsty he is. They tell you how much he wants to shut that fucking bottle up. He sees something, but he knew before he saw it that they'd come. People always talk about the "demons of addiction." Some shitty metaphor about the feeling an addict gets when he wants his fix. It's not a metaphor. He sees them clear as day. They never show their faces, or step into light. It's like they don't want to be seen while they do it. The shadows stretch out for what he wants. He sees their hands inching closer, but he knows those hands won't reach it. It's his own pale, clammy hands that have to do the deed. He used to be afraid of them, but now it's like a dog running through the house. No, he's not scared of them. What he is afraid of though, is what they want their filthy hands on so fucking bad. How the fuck is it possible to love something that scares the shit out of you. There's a tag still on the bottle from the store. $42.79 is the price, but what is the cost? He looks around his shitty apartment. It's clean, but that's only because he doesn't have a job to go to anymore. His thoughts drift towards his daughter and wife for nothing more than a second until that bottle pushes it out. Why did he get the good stuff? Evan Williams or Maker's Mark can do the same job at half the price. Why did he put on a suit to go to the liquor store? It's always that same old bastard anyways. No doubt he remembers him. Dressed in a suit and buying the good shit won't make him feel better when he gets home. Maybe he'll invite a friend over tonight and gloat about his bottle. Nah, he can't afford to share. God dammit he wants the booze. He realizes now that it could be in a fucking paper sack and it wouldn't matter right now. Sometimes he plays a game with himself. He stares at the bottle and sees how long he can resist. It's only fun because he knows he'll get there eventually. He's thirsty. He's always thirsty. He's forgotten how not to be thirsty. It's time. He tries to take his mind off of the bottle and watch TV. Some dumbass show is on, but he tries to watch it. His eyes don't listen to him. They pan the room for way too long and settle where he knew they were headed before they disobeyed him. Fuck it looks good. It's packaged well. Makes him feel sophisticated when he drinks it. Even though he sold his clock to get the money for it. Blended scotch whiskey...served on the rocks like it's suppo---SHIT! DO I HAVE ANY FUCKING ICE?!---He knocks everything out of the way to get there. He can't know fast enough. When his panic is quelled, he realizes that he's only said three sentences all day and they were all about the bottle. He stands over the bottle. Plays the game again. Sometimes he wins; sometimes he loses.

Fuck. He always loses.

So, this is my first foray into this world. Please feel free to comment on any aspect of it. Provide me with pointers, advice or whatever. Thanks for reading.

Great Expectations

2010-04-12T13:37:00.003-04:00

I had a conversation with a co-worker this morning that got me thinking. How much does our expectations inform our enjoyment of movies, and in looking back how does that experience color our recollection of the movie over time? The whole conversation grew from our disagreement about the worth of the Star Wars Prequels. My correct belief, that they were nothing more than shiny little objects to dangle in front of a consumer driven population to get them to consume, versus his incorrect belief that they could stand alone as worthy pieces of film, even without the three originals. Once we got past the initial hateful words and one glancing head slap, we actually came to some agreement over the effect of nostalgia on the whole scenario.

For me, I was but a tiny Walrus pup when Star Wars was released in 1977. But I was old enough to know it was something I just had to see. More importantly, I was old enough to pester the crap out of my grandfather until he would take me to see it. I remember sitting in that dark theater barely big enough to keep the seat from folding me up into a little flesh and blood lawn chair of my own. When the opening sequence started to roll, I realized that I couldn't read very good yet, so I shouted out, "Pop, What does it say?" He read it to me, and I was hooked. We repeated this exchange another dozen or so times for Star Wars, and even though by the time Empire came out a couple of years later and I could read, he still sat there beside me holding my seat and read it to me. So needless to say I have a warm place in my heart for the Star Wars franchise in general. But how much of the value I place on those movies comes from the experience of a 5 year old and his grandfather going to the movies, and how much of it came from the enjoyment of the movie itself.

Flash forward to 1999 and the piece of crap that was The Phantom Menace. I like most people that came of age in the 80's was really looking forward to seeing how it all began. I was super excited to see how Luke and Leia were born. I wanted to see Anakin's transformation into Darth Vader. But most of all, I wanted to see what a gifted story teller like George Lucas still had up his sleeves after all this time. So I was into this thing from the beginning. I bought my tickets in advance, I stood in line, I made it on opening weekend, and like most of the world, I was disappointed. Now I don't want to get into the movie in general. But my feeling after seeing it was one of deflation. So much was promised and expected, and so little delivered. But as time went on, I managed to convince myself that the payoff was coming. After all, we've got two more prequels to go. Surely George has something great for us coming. Well it never happened, and in one way or another, I believe the Star Wars prequels were the beginning of the end for me and the "event" movie urgency.

So that brings us to the conversation with my co-worker. I have no tenderness or sense of loyalty to Episode I, II, or III. But as soon as the conversation turned to IV, V, and VI, I was more than ready to fight for their reputation. So how much of that defense came from the movies themselves and how much of it was influenced by the fact that I got to spend all that time with my grandfather?

Movies are one of those activities that over time become an experience. It's not just about the characters up on the screen. It's about the place you see it, the people you see it with, and all the things that are going on in your life and the world around it. Go see a blockbuster romantic comedy with your sparkling new girlfriend, and then watch it again two weeks after you catch her cheating with the guy from her Yoga class. I can't imagine the film would have such a sweet taste the second time around. It's almost impossible to drop our baggage at the door and just watch the movie. They come with us into that space, whether it's in a 200 seat IMAX theater or our very own living room. Our entire lives worth of experience bursts from these suitcases, our past and present swirling together for two hours, until finally the lights come up, we gather our belongings and make our ways to the exit. We are affected by movies, and our enjoyment of them is affected by everything around us.

We can all agree, that if pressed, we could probably write a very scholastic sounding, professional movie review. We could push from our minds everything we've read about the film, and what everyone else thinks about it. We could probably even put aside our prejudices and preferences to come up with a very well written, perhaps even amazing piece on either side of any movie we've seen. But what fun is that? Movies are meant to be felt, and lived, and experienced. We bring as much into the theater as the movie we are watching. Does it even matter why we feel the way we do about this movie or that movie? In the end, it's about the experience and our role in it. Maybe the movie is a let down. Maybe the main character just reminds us of a childhood friend. Should we question what it is that makes us feel about a movie, or just be glad we feel something in the first place?

For me, this line from Dead Poets Society sums it up pretty well. "The powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?"
Isn't that really the point?

The Fear of Becoming Jaded

2010-04-05T00:19:00.000-04:00

As I sit here tonight, I'm pondering my review of Clash of the Titans (2010), I wonder how I've changed. I'm concurrently discussing the movie with the friend I saw it with who loved it. As I'm defending my points to her, I'm realizing that not so long ago, I would've left the theater after this movie reeling on its awesomeness; probably using words like, "ZOMG!" and "kewl!".

So, it's no surprise that I've been watching highly praised classic movies and reading everything I can get my hands on in preparation for graduate school, but to what cost? I remember asking one of my music professors from undergrad what it's like listening to new music for someone who's studied Mozart, Beethoven et. al for years. Her reply was that the first time she hears it, she determines its quality, then the second time around she starts getting into it analytically. Granted a ten minute sonata is not quite the time constraint of a two hour movie. But I think I'd like to try to tackle a similar perspective. My feelings on a movie are completely different from ten minutes after I leave to three days after.

I've been comparing viewing this movie to the time I saw Live Free or Die Hard. I remember getting very excited about seeing it, even to the point of getting annoyed with my then roommate who was way ahead of me on the movie analysis track. His constant pessimism to how he thought the movie was going to turn out was a huge buzzkill on my excitement for it. (It turned out, of course, that he was right). This scenario mimics the exact same scenario I was in with Clash with the exception that I might actually be wrong (!).

Rightness or wrongness aside, being someone who plans on spending the rest of my life studying film, am I forever doomed to nitpick every movie? I stand by my points of contention with the movie, but have I forgotten how to let go of my brain and just enjoy what I'm seeing on the screen? Is this an issue of over-analyzing or being spoiled from too many 'classics'? Did I just have a personal opinion about the movie because the original affected me so much? I had no problem suspending my realities for Hot Tub Time Machine (2010) and enjoying that farcical reflection of the past.

Anyone have any tips or suggestions on how to go through film school without becoming Jaded?

Close Encounters of the Third Dimension [My Graduate School Entrance Essay]

2010-04-04T23:44:00.001-04:00

The past fifteen months have seen an explosion of 3-D movies being released to the public. The box office power of Avatar (2009) and its subsequent rise to the number one spot on the box office list of top grossing movies worldwide, has festered an unquenchable thirst in distribution studios for higher ticket prices. When Monsters Vs. Aliens (2009) presented an opening weekend total of $58.2M, Steve Mason (2009) at the online publication SlashFilm determined how the 3-D release impacted sales. The per screen average for the 2-D showings was $4,780; compared to 3-D showings averaging $11,700. Distribution studios are single minded entities that are focused solely on numbers. 3-D movies, while profitable, lend themselves to hackneyed and gimmicky stories told through incomprehensible images and overuse of the technology; and, in general, are a step backwards from the progression made to make movies a more immersive experience.

3-D technology has been around for over a century; yet, the fad has not found a stable foothold in the realm of cinema. There are as many reasons for the cyclical popularity of 3-D technology as there have been resurgences of the medium. 3-D production is costly and thus that cost is exported to the viewer who, according to Mason (2009) pays an estimated $2.45 more per ticket. When movies are slated to be made in 3-D before production begins, directors are more apt to include overtly gimmicky shots that exploit the technology. In the case of such films as the upcoming Clash of the Titans (2010) and both part one and part two of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2010, 2011) which were upgraded to 3-D status post-production, the film maker was unable to make full use of the technology while filming. Aside from a lack of production quality and ever present budget restraints, Mark Pesce believes that the technology of 3-D images can actually result in a medical condition known as binocular dysphoria (qtd. in Ramadge).

John Patterson (2009) of The Guardian tells of the different techniques and slight changes in technology 3-D film have seen since its inception. Basic technology for 3-D movies has remained relatively unchanged since 1890. 3-D movies are shot and projected stereoscopically. When looking at two slightly off-center images, the brain perceives these as one 3-D image. This lack of continuity between the cinematic 3-D world and the real 3-D world can distort to brain’s ability to make sense of the pictures it sees. Slight changes in the evolution of 3-D technology have not produced much change in the experience as a whole. Before the recent resurgence, anaglyph technology was the preferred means of access to the third dimension. Anaglyph images are produced, once again, by projecting the same image from two different perspectives. The difference is that each projector is sending the movie through a different colored filter; red for one and cyan for the other. The recent change has come in the form of polarized lenses. The idea remains the same in that the projections are sent in different polarizations that the lenses differentiate (Patterson, 2009).

3-D technology is a misnomer as the image does not recreate a true three dimensional image. The technique of creating the third dimension is merely a trick of the brain that causes us to perceive the images as extending from or into the screen. This technique lends itself to an over exertion of the brain’s attempt to compensate for the perceived error. While we’re focused on the characters that are usually in the midground, images in the foreground and background should be out of focus, but aren’t. This causes problems for some viewers who get headaches from constantly viewing 3-D. Some research has hypothesized that extensive viewing of 3-D images could cause binocular dysphoria (Pesce, 2010).

The man responsible for the most recent 3-D tidal wave is ardent 3-D supporter James Cameron, whose Avatar (2009) has become the highest grossing movie of all time when not adjusted for inflation (2010). Though Avatar’s success is the reason many studios are paying for already produced movies to be upgraded to 3-D status, Cameron doesn’t believe that every movie should be in 3-D. Cameron believes that the use of 3-D is to be used as a tool upon the director’s discretion and not a forced application from the studio. At the Santa Barbara International Film Festival, James Cameron spoke at a director’s panel on the use of 3-D stating, “…I think it should come from the film maker and people who want to embrace that as part of their palate…and if they don’t, they shouldn’t. And the studio shouldn’t just start rubber stamping 3-D on scripts; which, of course they will” (SBIFF, 2010).

The rapidity of the major changes in film technology is likely affecting local theaters that aren’t backed by major companies. Should the 3-D movement continue to expand, theaters will be forced to upgrade their projection systems to accommodate 3-D and keep their attendance high. Most theaters only recently upgraded to digital projectors to catch up to the ever increasing amount of digital productions coming out; and to ask for them to invest in another new technology could be the deciding factor for some theaters already on the verge of failure.

3-D has proven to be utilized in film as little more than a medium for gimmick shots. Movies like My Bloody Valentine 3-D (2009) are prime examples of an overuse of the technology that results an amalgamation of items thrown at the viewer’s head to force a reaction. 3-D has the potential to improve storytelling in movies, but is rarely used in such fashion. Coraline (2009), one of the few exceptions, proved that 3-D could be used to enhance the visual representation of what we see on the screen. The director, Henry Selick used 3-D to show a strong discord between the parallel worlds Coraline alternates through. When in the ‘normal’ world, 3-D is diminished, signaling that Coraline sees this world as flat and boring. When she finds the passage to the other world, the 3-D is heightened and the world seems both more real and surreal. The third dimension serves as a tonal cue creating more than an overuse of attacks from various movie props.

With the exception of Coraline, we have only barely seen the third dimension aid the film maker in storytelling. It seems most movies made from the start as 3-D have been a breeding ground of gimmick shots. How do the masters of 2-D storytelling feel about 3-D? Martin Scorsese stated, “We see in depth, for the most part. We go to the theater – it’s in depth. Why couldn’t a film like ‘Precious’ be in 3-D? It should be… I’d love to do one. It just seems natural that we’re going that direction. It’s going to be something to look forward to, but to be used interestingly” (qtd. in Sciretta, 2010). Directors like Scorsese have taken the new technologies throughout the years and built upon each using its full potential.

An odd storytelling concept introduced by the inception of 3-D is where the movie stylistically starts. In 2-D films, the movie is limited to the screen. It is given the illusion of depth through the traditional use of lighting, camera angles and props. On the other hand, in 3-D movies the visuals can start in the space between the viewer’s eye and the screen. When attacked by an object of the film, the image seems to extend out of the frame and enter into the viewing space. These examples have been the agreed upon norm for 3-D movies. In this new age of 3-D, the technology is being looked at in a different way. In Eric Brevig’s Journey to the Center of the Earth (2009), the 3-D is shot in a way where majority of the elements extend further into the screen rather than out into the audience. This approach lends itself to a more immersive experience than the opposite. It allows the viewer to see through the screen into a world beyond rather than having the viewer lean back in response to seeing an image coming at them.

Aristotle’s Poetics (c. 335 B.C.), an analysis from over 2000 years ago ranking the elements of drama still holds true today. Aristotle ranks the six elements of drama in order of importance as follows: 1) Plot; 2) Theme; 3) Character; 4) Diction/Language/Dialogue; 5) Music/Rhythm; and 6) Spectacle. Aristotle stated that Spectacle, 3-D being an excellent example, is the least important aspect of drama. This doesn’t exhibit an anti-third dimension but rather states that many other factors should be focused on before one implements the use of 3-D.

3-D has cycled in popularity throughout the past century; each time it makes a reappearance, it seems it is here to stay. Why does it continue to fall in and out of popularity? The reason 3-D technology cannot grasp a foothold in modern cinema is its continued denial of what the audience wants: an affordable and truly realistic storytelling experience that makes its own depth rather than relying on the technology to do the work.

Works Cited

“Aristotle’s Six Elements of Drama.” Kentucky Shakespeare Festival. Web. 6 Mar. 2010.

“Avatar.” Box Office Mojo. IMDb.com, Inc. 7 Mar. 2010. Web. 7 Mar. 2010.

Cameron, James. “Director’s Panel.” Santa Barbara International Film Festival. Santa Barbara. 7 Feb.

2010. Public Address.

Mason, Steve. “Box Office: Monsters vs. Aliens With Almost $12K Per 3-D screen! The Future of

3-D is Looking UP!” SlashFilm. 29 Mar. 2009. Web. 6 Mar. 2010.

Patterson, John. “A history of 3D cinema.” Guardian.co.uk. Guardian News and Media Limited. 20 Aug.

2009. Web. 7 Mar. 2010.

Ramadge, Andrew. “3D TVs need safety tests, says CHOICE.” News.com.au. News Limited. 15 Feb. 2010.

Web. 6 Mar. 2010

Sciretta, Peter. “Martin Scorsese Says Even Films Like Precious Should Be In 3D.” SlashFilm. 2 Mar. 2010.

Web. 6 Mar. 2010.

Review Vs. Criticism

2010-04-04T15:26:00.000-04:00

In an effort to save readers from accidentally running across spoilers, I feel I should point out the basic differences in articles you're bound to see around here. When it comes to particular movies, there are two types of articles written: reviews and critiques.

A review is basically an opinion piece on a movie, usually new. This type of article will keep those tidbits of cinematic realization from you so that your enjoyment is not diminished. A critique is an analytical look at a film and will study all aspects of the plot. This equals spoilers.

Consider yourself forewarned. If you've yet to see a film that is being critiqued, then know that it will discuss the plot whether or not it will spoil it. Reviews are safe territories that are spoiler-free.

P.S. - Bruce Willis is dead the whole time.

That's Right, I Saw It!!!!

2010-04-04T00:14:00.008-04:00

With a little time on my hands and a little jingle in my pocket, I found myself with a free Saturday and looking for a movie to see. I know, I know! After my last post, I'm probably the last person that you would expect to see in the theater on any given Saturday. But in my defense, it was a matinee showing and the theater was hardly occupied. So I settled in for what I suspected would be two hours of mindless entertainment. With my expectations low to begin with, I was not disappointed.

The premise behind Hot Tub Time Machine is right in the title. There's this hot tub, and it has the power to take it's occupants through time. In this case, the unknowing travelers, John Cusack, Rob Corddory, Craig Robinson, and Clark Duke find themselves whisked back to the 80's in said hot tub time machine after a night of partying at a once hip ski lodge. It takes our temporal travelers just one trip down the slopes and a walk through the lodge to figure out their problem. Popped collars, hot pink ski boots, and leg warmers all mark the times, but when they see a fellow skier popping a cassette tape in his Walkman it makes it clear just how far they are from where they started the previous evening. So with the problem firmly established, and the ramifications of their presence in the past (See the Butterfly Effect for clarification...) they embark on an hour and a half worth of shenanigans to figure out how to get back home with the least amount of damage.

I don't get too hung up on the silly devices writer's use to put their characters in a given situation. Strange coincidences and gimmicky plot devices are all over the place in the movie world. All I really need is a couple of believable characters, a few laughs, and maybe even some gratuitous nudity, and I'm good to go. John Cusack is his usual self, and Rob Corddory is full of one-liners and awkward moments from start to finish. However, the best thing this movie has going for it is Clark Duke. He plays Cusak's Second Life loving nephew. He's out of place with these guys from the beginning. The old fish out of water role is always good for a few laughs. Add to that the fact that he discovers the identity of his father on the trip and he's got a lot to do for a character that I originally wrote off as pure comic relief. Take all that, and throw in a couple of well-endowed ladies with their tops off and you've got everything you need to keep me interested. But unfortunately that's all this movie really did. It gave me just enough moments and just enough laughs to keep me from either walking out or falling asleep. Sure I laughed, and a couple of times, quite a bit. But for a premise with so much promise and built in humor to be had, the writer's here seemed content to rely on gay jokes, and a steady stream of F*#K and a barely watchable cameo by Chevy Chase to get us through to the end. The ending is predictable, and the payoff is less than satisfying, but I was there until the end. I laughed my fair share, and I was able to sit in the theater awake for two hours. Overall not a bad way to spend a Saturday afternoon. If you're on a student's income, wait for it on DVD, or make sure to hit the matinee. But otherwise, if you've got a couple hours and don't feel the need to fill your brain with heartier fare, check it out. It doesn't suck.

Clash of the "Clash of the Titans"

2010-04-02T22:30:00.000-04:00

When one speaks of the 1981 cult classic film Clash of the Titans, you may be wondering who is in the cult. Who loves this movie even though it's terrible? Well, I'm one of them. I've always had a fascination for Greek mythology, and that movie was fun for me. Few films about Greek mythology have not been added to my favorites...until last night.

Essentially exhibiting the same problems from the first film but with much more gusto, Louis Leterrier's 2010 remake is a cinematic representation of our beloved Bubo the owl; all mechanics and no heart. This movie is more overstuffed than a NY Deli sandwich. Louis Leterrier must've just sat in a room, surrounded by photographs of various actors, locations and monsters to put in this movie. As a result of this overstuffing, this movie has no time to add anything meaningful.

A slew of master thespians wasn't enough to excavate this movie from the Underworld. Ralph Fiennes, one of my favorites, was resorted to a bearded Voldemort. Liam Neeson, at a constant 45 degree angle from the camera, seemed to just walk around not really knowing what's going on until the big "RELEASE THE KRAKEN" moment, which having heard approximately 300 times in trailers really lost its mojo. Sam Worthington's Perseus is just as mis-cast as Harry Hamlin's and is little more than a brick with a sword. Bond alumni Madds Mikkelsen and Gemma Arterton play their parts barely sufficiently. The casting seems similar to 1981's with pretty, rookie actors (Worthington, Hamlin) as the humans and aged, proven thespians (Neeson, Olivier) as the Gods.

The poor performances of the actors couldn't have been predicted, but certainly someone read over the script (written by Aeon Flux 'veteran' Travis Beachem) and said, "does anyone care about anyone?" But they didn't, and then the audience didn't. This story follows a slight outline to the previous Clash wherein Perseus is the bastard son of Zeus who's nefarious for disguising himself as various people/animals/weather and laying claim to the ladies. Adopted father murdered by Hades (Fiennes), Perseus goes on a redemption mission to kill Hades, but first he must kill the Kraken. Which conveniently is going to show up to Argos to kill people for their king's sleight against the Gods, if they don't sacrifice their princess first (who cares?). So off Persues goes, accompanied by Draco (Mikkelsen) as a protectorate, Io (Arterton) as a creepy stalker/guide and a band of merry men to assault various baddies to find out how to kill the Kraken.

Good references should be subtle and hidden. Like the Millennium Falcon is Star Wars: Episode III. Not shoved in your face like when Perseus finds Bubo (which in 3D showings, may have actually been shoved in your face. I wouldn't know), or when Hades unnecessarily hires Calibos to...do...things (who cares?). Long story short, Perseus goes to the Stygian witches (who, while blind and have their eye taken away can still follow it when Perseus throws it) who tells them to kill Medusa and use her head to kill the Kraken. They fight Calibos, scorpions, Medusa and the Kraken. Hades has a master plan to defeat Zeus for locking him in the basement. Perseus is in love with Io, I think. The sacrificial princess is not sacrificed, but is still in the splash zone of the Kraken when he comes calling. Then the princess is sacrificed, but the Kraken continues. Perseus kills the Kraken and the some other things happen. Again, I never really cared. Perseus wants to kill the Gods as a man, but being a demi-God he physically can't. He consistently rejects gifts by the Gods to aid him in his quest. The thing is, it's not like he can just turn off being a demi-God. By definition, if he wins this battle, it's because he's a demi-God, whether he wants to be or not. Dumb. Also, Pegasus is black. Okay.

I wanted this movie to be good sooooooo bad. But it wasn't. The one thing this movie had going for it was the CGI. In most cases, the effects were very attractive. The exceptions lie in Medusa's face, and the generality of the Kraken. The action was cool, and I can hear people saying now, "We just want to have fun and see people fight scorpions!". Well sure, who doesn't? But is it too much to ask to write a logical plot that involves scorpion killing? After reading other reviews, I believe I was smart to see this in 2D as I've heard that the 3D up-convert is inherently worthless.

So if you want to see tamed scorpions, Voldemort with a beard, Ents and good actors gone bad, Clash of the Titans is where you need to be.

A Reply: It's my List Dude...Let Me Worry About It

2010-03-26T02:26:00.000-04:00

I LOVE cinema. In every aspect of it, I love it. I say cinema in this post because I use cinema as encompassing all aspects of film and film related business. I don't know if that's using incorrectly, but it's my blog and I'll do what I want.

Allow me to say again, I love cinema. Why? Because it's so universal while still allotting for opposing opinions. This kind of debate can and usually does come in the form of abstract and concrete meanings of movies, but doesn't have to.

Case in point: these past two posts. Similar themes, but as I am about to show, different opinions.

I've often touted Netflix as one of, if not the, best business I interact with. Constantly improving their business to make it more accessible while always providing prices that are more than reasonable are two of the reasons I love Netflix. (This site is not sponsored by Netflix, but if y'all want to send a few free years my way, it could be.)

And thus we get to the opposition. I couldn't be more different in use of Netflix than my buddy The Walrus. The slight, and hopefully minimal animosity depicted in the title prompted me to provide a view of the other side.

I've been an off-and-on member for a few years now, mainly because I was in school and couldn't even scrounge up that well-priced subscription fee. Being in the business world with steady income, I believe that I'm now a lifer; and it sure hasn't taken me long to build up a substantial queue.

Playing opposite to Walrus' straight-laced and rigid queue, mine echos the tide; films ebbing and flowing. I'm constantly hearing about movies and I feel compelled to add it to my list same as The Walrus. However, I'm very much a pusher upper. I'm one who likes to be "in the know." Especially when it comes to movies. I see something I like, I add it and push it to the top. If something else comes along that's been talked about, it might get pushed over. Reading about them in textbooks usually equals them getting throw into the single digits.

There's also the problem with spoilers. I recently watched The Usual Suspects. I'd had the movie spoiled forever ago, but thought it was still worth watching. It wasn't. The ending would've been enthralling had I not known it, but instead, I found myself just waiting for the realization to come across the character's faces. I believe we take movies for granted. I saw an interesting question posed on Cinematical that asked, "What movie do you wish you could see again for the first time?" That question got me thinking. We only get to see a movie for the first time once. I know that sounds obvious, but think back to some of your favorites. The Sixth Sense is the uber-referenced shocker movie. Star Wars, The Usual Suspects, Fight Club, and Citizen Kane are part of those as well. Sure it's fun to go back and re-watch those movies when you know the twist, but nothing can really ever match those initial viewings; and when they're spoiled by others, it can really diminish the experience.

Another big aspect of my ever-changing queue is television. I have many television series on my queue. I hate to start and stop, and so I always evolve the queue to make sure I don't start a series before I'm ready. For the longest time, The Sopranos sat in and around the number ten spot, never quite fulfilling its destiny to make the trip home. It's such a long series, and even going straight through the DVDs, it would take me forever to see them all, and so I never began. Until one day, I sent some back and forgot to update my queue, receiving the first disc of the show by accident. Still unwilling to start the series, I sent it immediately back and deleted the whole series from my queue for fear of it interrupting some of those sacred days of DVD travel time.

Maybe as the Walrus stated, it's just a matter age, being just a few tree rings younger than the Walrus, maybe my ADHD generation just doesn't have the patience to go through that queue one-by-one. Self-disclosure: I actually have been prescribed adderall for ADHD. Or maybe it's just a different attack pattern.

Since Señor Morsa has yet to answer my comment on his post, I will ask again. Have you always been this way, or during those honeymoon years were you a 'pusher-upper'?

P.S. - F'real though, you should see Let The Right One In stat. It's on instant view, so it's not like cheating!

It's My List Dude.....Let me worry about it.

2010-03-23T14:23:00.002-04:00

So here I am ladies and gentlemen, making my first, and hopefully not last, contribution to my good friend The Doctor's little slice of cyberspace. We've know each other for awhile now, and though our tastes are often quite different, we both enjoy the hell out of a good movie. So after a much appreciated invitation, here I am, and here goes.

I don't like crowds. Let's just get that out of the way right off the bat. I'm not even talking about a football stadium full of 66,000 people, although if truth be told, they drive me nuts too, but even 30 or 40 people waiting in line to buy movie tickets drives me crazy. It wasn't always like this. In my younger days, I would bust my tail to get to the theater on opening day to see the a new release. I mean, this is a guy who saw Star Wars Episode IV when it was released the first time in the theater 12 times. So I've had my day. However, those days of opening weekend box office are few and far between these days. Instead, with the DVD explosion of the last decade, my own in house home theater complete with 92" front projection, and my own popcorn machine, I find myself venturing out less and less and opting for a home viewing.

The perfect companion for my growing anti-social tendencies came into my life in 2000. When Netflix came along, I was ripe for the picking. I've always been the worst possible video store rental customer. I take 30 minutes to an hour sizing up my options, I can never remember when a movie is due back, and I tend to be more on the Art House/Independent Film side of the aisle. So when I saw Netflix advertised in the now "online" only Premiere magazine, I signed up immediately. We were a marriage made in heaven. In those early days, they were still a little sparse on titles. They boasted 1 million DVD's, but I still found myself coming up empty on some searches. But as time passed, and they got bigger and more popular, those days quickly disappeared. So now they are my go to place for movies. I still get out to the theater from time to time, but less than 10 times a year for sure. I did see Alice in Wonderland on opening weekend in IMAX-3D, but we can just chalk that up to a perfect storm of Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, Tim Burton, and a rare free Friday.

So after much back story and a little more than a bit of beating around the bush, we finally come to the subject of this post. What's the best way to use Netflix. This question came up as The Doctor recommended a movie to me over the weekend. He recommended "Let the Right One In" and insisted that I should move it to the top of my queue. I checked, and "Let the Right One In" is way down the list in #203 on my Netflix queue. So should I move it up? What about all those other movies in between? For me the queue is the best part about Netflix. I don't have to go to the video store and make value judgements about which movie is more worthy of my attention or which movie I might like better. When I read about a movie in Entertainment Weekly, or see A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips discussing it on "At the Movies", I'll head to my computer and add it to my queue. This is almost always months before the movie even has a release date on DVD, but Netflix has it listed and "Saves" it for me. This little bit of magic is what keeps me sending them my monthly payments.

I'm a sporadic movie watcher. I'll watch 12 movies one month and then go the next two without even watching one. But Netflix keeps them all neatly organized and waiting for me. So I tend to keep my list in the order of their addition, and not in order of how interested I am in seeing the film. If it's on the list I want to see it, so does it make sense for me to keep moving stuff around. My thought has always been, "I'll get to it". Sure I miss out on a conversation here and there because I'm usually a year or more behind in seeing a movie. Is that truly so bad? Without those conversations, I'm usually able to form my own opinion of a movie without a great deal of input. Even if a movie is all over the internet and television, and takes front and center in office conversations, by the time I get around to seeing it, most of that stuff has subsided and I'm left on my own with the film. I get to decide what I think. But the biggest thing is that I can just forget about it. I watch a movie, I send it back, I get another movie. I don't have to decide. I don't have to value one over another. I don't have to do anything. For me that's perfect.

So to the Doctor, I humbly say, "It's on my list, I'll get to it eventually". And to the rest of you I look for input. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you think my argument to be flimsy and trite. Well let me hear your alternative. How do you manage your list? How do I decide? What criteria do I use to order this list? But most importantly, "When it comes to stewed prunes, is three enough, or is four too many?"

New name, new address, new scale

2010-03-22T19:54:00.000-04:00

Well, I got bored with the last set up, and to make it even harder for the few people who read this to find it, I've changed the address. I like this theme more. On top of the new name and address, you'll see the new rating scale on the right.

Our GAF score works similarly to the real GAF score. Movies rated will be given a GAF score at assessment. Meaning that the viewer will rate the movie on a 1-100 scale when they see it. Occasionally, we may rewatch the movie, and if a new GAF score needs to be given, so it shall. To show you how this works, I'll add a few movies sans review and their respective GAF score that I've seen lately.

The Usual Suspects (Brian Singer, 1995) - GAF score: 81

Shichinin no samurai "Seven Samurai" (Akira Kurosawa, 1954) - GAF score: 95

Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000) - GAF score: 88

Some Like It Hot (Billy Wilder, 1959) - GAF score: 83

Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967) - GAF score: 92

Please feel free to comment on the new site, scale or offer improvements.

Until then...keep it reel.

Good Morning

2010-03-21T11:13:00.000-04:00

Good Morning no one.

Just wanted to keep everyone updated, I've yet to give up on the blog again, it's just taking a long time to get around to it.

I chose my movie for the project. I chose Jurassic Park, which I know is part of a trilogy, but in reality, it can stand on it's own.

I began the project on Friday with the chapter on Narrative, and I should have that up soon, but I'm thinking I might wait and publish all parts of it together.

In the meantime, I'll present to you my new rating scale for movies and then give you a few of the movies I've watched this weekend with their score.

In an effort to keep touch with my Psychology roots, I've decided to use a rating scale based on a popular scale in psychology; the GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) scale. This will be slightly altered to assist in the movie reviewing aspect. The acronym's meaning will also change. Now it means the Good as Fuck scale. I'll be working on an image for the scale all day and will hopefully have it to you be tonight.

Until then...keep it reel.

Come with me. And you'll see. A world...of pure analyzation.

2010-03-15T05:16:00.000-04:00

As previously posted, I got accepted to graduate school for Screenwriting and Film Studies. I begin classes this summer, and thus I've begun teaching myself some film analysis. When I told a professor on campus that I'd never taken a film class before and I was concerned about jumping in from the beginning, he provided me with an intro to film textbook that he didn't need. I've since been combing every page of it.

I'm almost done with the textbook, and then I'll have a fair base of theory. The application of it however, is the hard part. This is where this post is heading to. Later this week, I'm going to start a project. I'm going to choose a film, and I'm going to watch it 6 times. One time for each specific chapter focused on in the book. Each viewing, I will focus on one aspect of film out of the following and in this order:

1. Narrative
2. Mise-en-Scène
3. Cinematography
4. Acting
5. Editing
6. Sound

I'll be writing a new article for each of the studies up there. My plan is to write it as I watch so that I'll be able to specifically reference scenes of the movie. Since most of you don't have generous professors handing out free textbooks, I'll post essential information in the article before I get to the meat of it. After the experiment, I'll write a new article detailing the movie as a whole and/or write how this experiment was helpful or time-wasting.

The title of this post isn't just an amazing play on words, but rather an invitation to join me in this endeavor. Feel free to tag along anyway you wish. If you'd like to get the book and follow along with each article to a movie of your choice, then do it. If you'd like to suggest a movie for this experiment, do that. Or if you'd just like to read it, that's cool too. If you want to tell me I'm dumb, then don't.

I hope to have a movie chosen for this in the next couple of days. I'd like for it to be relatively short. I can't watch 24 hours of Return of the King special edition in a week and live to tell about it (because it'd be too awesome) and of course it should be something entertaining that I don't mind watching everyday for a week. I'd like to stick with something not part of a trilogy or other series because I feel like it'd make it difficult when analyzing the story. Any suggestions?

If you're willing to join me in this endeavor, the book I'm using is, Looking at Movies: An Introduction to Film (second edition).

Until then...keep it reel.

Twitterviews

2010-03-13T20:06:00.000-05:00

A new time-waster has become popular between my friends and I on the Twitterverse. Due to the limited character space allotted for your thoughts on Twitter, my friends and I have begun a thing we like to call, "Ten Word Movie Reviews". I'll give you some examples after the jump.

EHCFlatpicker: Antichrist: Dafoe, Therapy, Nature, Penis, Sex, Gynocide, Chaos Reigns, WTF, Barf

Or:

SheaSizemore: #TenWordMovieReview for #SynecdocheNewYork: depressed Hoffman= depressed me, green poop, hypochondriacs make me itch.

Finally:

EHCFlatpicker: #TenWordMovieReviews #BigFan Patton, Paint, Rehearsal, Faithful, Giants, Friend, Mom, My future life.

So anyways, this is fun. Throw me a few of your Ten Word Movie Reviews and/or follow me on Twitter to find some more of mine. I might throw some on around here occasionally too.

L8r H8r

Movin' on up

2010-03-12T01:14:00.003-05:00

Well people, I've just been informed that I've been accepted to a master's program for Screenwriting and Film Studies. Don't get me wrong, it's awesome news. However, I will have to change the theme of this blog because I will know longer be just a "Citizen", but will have been swayed(educated) by the man(professors). Granted this process could take up to 3 years. So we'll still have some time to discuss these movies on a real-world basis.

I'm looking for some new writing sources for upcoming posts. I've watched a few interesting movies: El Topo and Russian Ark which I might get into. I've also been thinking about some nice topics to discuss.

If anyone out there is reading this, please feel free to post some ideas and/or topics for discussion. Until then...

I'm back....again

2010-03-08T13:25:00.003-05:00

I'm going to try to start writing on this bitch again. It's been almost a year, but I don't care. Sorry if you missed me. I've got ideas. Let's just see if I can get them on some digital paper.

The resurgence is in part of the fact that I'm applying for graduate school in screenwriting and film studies, so I'm thinking this may be fun to do some practice writing before I get into the heat of it.

Alright, be on the lookout for some posts. I miss you guys too.

P.S.- Ecstatic about Avatar losing best picture, because it wasn't. Was Hurt Locker? No. But still better than Dances with Na'vi.