The Mindful Lunatic

When Worlds Collide

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:49:00 +0000

It happened. The stars aligned, and the moon was in the correct position, so Michael Scott and David Brent were finally able to meet. Albeit brief, it was still a classic moment that I was happy to see before Carrell's departure.

It was great to see these two meet, and to no ones surprise, they immediately connect. Maybe it's in my nature to over-speculate about things like this, but now this raises the question, was David Brent joking when he asked if there were any job openings? I hope not. If I could choose anyone to replace Steve Carell, it would be Ricky Gervais, and I think any big fans of The Office would love to see it continue with him, if it had to be anyone.

The only problem is, would Gervais take the gig? His popularity in America stems from those who have seen the BBC office, and maybe The Invention of Lying (he was able to pay some of his bills with Night at the Museum 2) so I'm not sure how people who only know of him from hosting the Golden Globes would take it. Maybe it's not a realistic thing to hope for, there's a high chance it was just a tease, or a joke, but I can't help but to imagine David Brent's crueler personality clashing with the employees of Dunder Mifflin.

When B's Attack!: Creepshow (Examiner)

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:35:00 +0000

http://www.examiner.com/classic-movies-in-richmond/when-b-s-attack-creepshow-review

The Razzie Nominations are HERE!

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:44:00 +0000

The list is HERE, and while some may try and argue that the Razzies don't really mean anything, they truly do. They exist so that hopefully, the actors, actresses, directors, and writers of these films can see what they've done wrong, so that we never have to sit through Catwoman again. In many ways, they are just as legitimate as any other award show claims to be. The Razzies were most definitely MADE for Ricky Gervais to host, but then again, kicking dead horses isn't as entertaining as watching the high horses being kicked to the ground. But seriously, he should show up for another bigger and better roasting. Here they are, anyway.

WORST PICTURE

THE BOUNTY HUNTER
THE LAST AIRBENDER
SEX & THE CITY #2
TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE
VAMPIRES SUCK

Personally, I hope this one goes to Vampires Suck. When I heard the title of the movie announced, and that it was in the "parody" genre, I knew immediately that it would be directed by the two biggest hacks currently working in Hollywood. The truth is, it was a genius marketing idea. It's a general norm to talk about how much you hate Twilight, and everything to do with it, so making a parody of those movies is guaranteed profit. Not to mention Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer have concocted a pile of some of the worst comedies this last decade, this is no exception.

WORST ACTOR

Jack Black - GULLIVER’S TRAVELS
Gerard Butler - THE BOUNTY HUNTER
Ashton Kutcher - KILLERS and VALENTINE’S DAY
Taylor Lautner - TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE and VALENTINE’S DAY
Robert Pattinson - REMEMBER ME and TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE

Jack Black has had it too good for too long. It's really sad to see him fall as far as Gulliver's Travels, because I used to think he had an up and coming promising comedic career, especially at the beginning, with School of Rock and even Tenacious D. It seems as if the only notable thing that he's done for a while was Kung Fu Panda, and there's a chance that even that might be ruined with the sequel coming out later this year. The real question is, can he sink lower? Stay tuned.

WORST ACTRESS

Jennifer Aniston - THE BOUNTY HUNTER and THE SWITCH
Miley Cyrus - THE LAST SONG
Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis & Cynthia Nixon - SEX & THE CITY 2
Megan Fox - JONAH HEX
Kristen Stewart - TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE

Not nearly as entertaining as last years nomination of Sandra Bullock, who ended up nabbing both Best and Worst actress in the same year, but maybe this year we can finally see Megan Fox get an award that can define her entire career (past, present, and future). She has my vote.

WORST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Jessica Alba - THE KILLER INSIDE ME, LITTLE FOCKERS, MACHETE and VALENTINE’S DAY
Cher - BURLESQUE
Liza Minnelli - SEX & THE CITY 2
Nicola Peltz - THE LAST AIRBENDER
Barbra Streisand - LITTLE FOCKERS

I haven't seen enough of these movies to give an honest response, but if Cher wins, she should share the award with her plastic surgeon.

WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Billy Ray Cyrus - THE SPY NEXT DOOR
George Lopez - MARMADUKE, THE SPY NEXT DOOR and VALENTINE’S DAY
Dev Patel - THE LAST AIRBENDER
Jackson Rathbone - THE LAST AIRBENDER and TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE
Rob Schneider - GROWN UPS

I'm really not sure who I hate more, Billy Ray Cyrus, George Lopez, or Rob Schneider. But, it's pretty awesome that George Lopez was nominated for a role as just the VOICE of an animated cat.

WORST EYE-GOUGING MIS-USE Of 3-D (Special Category for 2010!)

CATS & DOGS #2: REVENGE OF KITTY GALORE
CLASH OF THE TITANS
THE LAST AIRBENDER
NUTCRACKER 3-D
SAW 3-D (aka SAW VII)

Now this, is a great addition as a category. While I did not see Clash of the Titans in 3D, I've heard that it was a terrible conversion, as well as The Last Airbender. I'm surprised Saw 3-D is here, and there's no Gulliver's Travels, to be honest. Although, maybe Jack Black pissing out fires, and farting in 3D makes the extra money worth it.

WORST SCREEN COUPLE / WORST SCREEN ENSEMBLE

Jennifer Aniston & Gerard Butler - THE BOUNTY HUNTER
Josh Brolin’s Face & Megan Fox’s Accent - JONAH HEX
The Entire Cast of THE LAST AIRBENDER
The Entire Cast of SEX & THE CITY #2
The Entire Cast of TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE

Maybe all of these movies could win, as an Ensemble of failure.

WORST DIRECTOR

Jason Friedberg & Aaron Seltzer - VAMPIRES SUCK
Michael Patrick King - SEX & THE CITY #2
M. Night Shyamalan - THE LAST AIRBENDER
David Slade - TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE
Sylvester Stallone - THE EXPENDABLES

While I wasn't a huge fan of The Expendables, I don't completely understand his nomination for Worst Director. It's probably just because whenever he's involved with anything, ever, the Razzies decide to throw him under the bus. I also don't get the David Slade nomination either, I know it's a Twilight movie, but what can you really add to change the source material that's already there? He's a solid director that tried to come in and fix up a series that Catherine Hardwicke trashed, and that's all there is to say.

WORST SCREENPLAY

LAST AIRBENDER Written by M. Night Shyamalan, based on the TV series created by Michael Dante DiMartino and Brian Konietzko
LITTLE FOCKERS, Written by John Hamburg and Larry Stuckey, based on Characters Created by Greg Glenna & Mary Roth Clarke
SEX & THE CITY #2, Written by Michael Patrick King, Based on the TV Series Created by Darren Star
TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE, Screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg, Based on the Novel by Stephenie Meyer
VAMPIRES SUCK, Written by Jason Friedberg & Aaron Seltzer

I think The Last Airbender is a no-brainer here. How hard was it to cut and paste dialog from source material that was ALREADY THERE? The fact that the execution wasn't good isn't the point, it didn't even have a good foundation to begin with. If I had never seen the Avatar cartoon series, I would probably be completely turned off from it, and never even bother checking it out after watching this movie. Hell, even KIDS were walking out complaining and ranting about this movie.

WORST PREQUEL, REMAKE, RIP-OFF or SEQUEL (Combined Category for 2010)

CLASH OF THE TITANS
THE LAST AIRBENDER
SEX & THE CITY #2
TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE
VAMPIRES SUCK

This seems like somewhat of a tacked on category, especially since there are tons of movies coming out lately that are some form of an adaptation, prequel, sequel, or remake, and a lot of the movies seem to be repeated from earlier categories. But to be fair, handing out more awards for failure is never a bad thing.

Hopefully more of the actors/directors show up this year, it's always more entertaining when they do.

Call me a Lunatic, I had fun watching The Green Hornet

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 04:24:00 +0000

The best way to sell this one to anyone is to say, you get what you pay for. If you’ve seen the trailer, that’s exactly what the movie is. A fun, action comedy that never really takes itself too seriously, and if any of those things don’t sound appealing to you, skip it.

This adaptation stars Seth Rogen as Britt Reid, a partying lowlife who uses his fathers money to do just that, and nothing but that. When his father is killed and he is forced to takeover his newspaper company, he decides that he wants to do something with his potential. This is when he meets up with Kato (Jay Chou), someone that can’t just be given a one word description, because he does just about everything. What starts as animosity towards his father and vandalizing the statue that the town built for him, leads to a level of crime fighting (mostly Kato involved fighting, of course). What’s different here, is that instead of being stereotypical good guys, they decide to pose as bad guys, but with the aim of outdoing them at their own game. I'm ashamed to say I've never heard any of the old radio shows, or seen any of the old Green Hornet movies, but I'm sure the original fans are going to have a fit, because this adaptation is more of a comedy.

If you don’t find Seth Rogen even remotely funny, pass on The Green Hornet, because a lot of the film involves his style of comedy, and playing off of the Kato character. It was a lot more humor than I expected to get, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It works for the most part, and although there are times where it doesn’t, nothing is ever cringe inducing. I have to admit, there are times where Rogen’s character becomes a bit aggravating towards the end, especially when you’re rooting for him and Kato, and he keeps screwing things up. I know that’s his character, but when it’s all on the line, maybe he could at least pull a Pink Panther and at least seem like he knows what he’s doing, even briefly. To be fair, there is a small moment like that at the end that‘s enough to make you root for him, but still.

In complete and utter joy, I watched the action scenes, that instead of being filled with wobbly, distorted, half a second per cut, shaky cam action were stylistic, and fun. Kato has his own way of seeing a fight, because he knows exactly where the enemies’ weapons are before he engages them, so he’s able to disarm them or take them out before they can do any harm. Through all of this, Kato ends up being the one the audience is rooting for, and more of a protagonist, despite the fact that Reid thinks he’s the one doing all of the work of course (which if I’m not mistaken is how The Green Hornet has always been). While none of the action scenes are game changers, they still serve their purpose in the film, and end up being a lot of fun.

For some reason, they cast Christoph Waltz as the villain and told him to stay calm, and he never really loses his cool in the movie. If there was ever a role for him to go crazy, overact, and chew scenery, it would have to be this one. But for some reason, it doesn’t happen. Call this nitpicking, but it just reminds me of Lucas casting Samuel Jackson in Star Wars and having him stand around looking bored, and occasionally talk in a stern voice. What I’m trying to say is, in a movie that’s already fairly over the top, why not have a villain that acts that way? There was nothing distinct that he brought to the character like he did with the “Jew Killer” in Inglorious Basterds, he could have just as easily been played by anyone else.

It’s predictable, and never seems to do a whole lot that’s new, but I ended up enjoying it for what it was, mainly because it does all of these things competently. It’s a fun action comedy, but unfortunately I can’t say that I’ll be rushing out to theaters to see it again anytime soon, or that I would even be more than inclined to watch it more than once. While it does have an identity of it’s own, it still comes off as a bit run-of-the-mill. Still, that being said, I would recommend seeing the movie, because it’s entertaining and funny enough to go to the theaters and see. Just don’t bother with the 3D, it was converted, and while it’s not a bad conversion, it was still completely unnecessary and obviously an afterthought.

The Green Hornet: 3/5

Do film awards shows have a lasting impact? (Examiner)

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 03:41:00 +0000

http://www.examiner.com/classic-movies-in-richmond/do-film-awards-shows-have-lasting-importance-2

Schwarzenegger Returns

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:17:00 +0000

According to The Arnold Fans website, the former Governator himself is considering 3 scripts for a new role, one of the mentioned roles has Arnold starring as an old Nazi officer in "With Wings as Eagles" (maybe they could change the name of the title, though) who is against his own party and decides to help American POWs to escape from captivity.

Here's Arnold on the new role:

Arnold Schwarzenegger: "In the future I have to adapt my roles to my age. Clint Eastwood also has done it in the same way. Extreme fighting or shooting is not possible anymore. I want to be more encouraged as an actor and I believe that I can manage this challenge. I am like a sponge, which is absorbing all the knowledge and always be willing to learn all new things."

As much as I do enjoy his over the top action films, I think it's surprising that he's deciding to try and end his career with serious acting roles, instead of approaching it with the Sylvester Stallone "I can still kick-ass with one-liners" mentality. Hopefully, we'll get a little of both. Eastwood ended his acting career (supposedly) with films like Gran Torino and Unforgiven, which were both very reflective of his older films. It sounds like Arnold wants to do something similar, and I'm excited to see that his gimmicky cameo in The Expendables won't be the last we'll see of him.

The only thing that worries me, is that I'm not sure his acting is exactly on par with someone like Clint Eastwood. Let's face it, you don't watch Commando, Terminator 2, or Predator because the acting is great, but because they are fun action movies, which define the majority of his career. I of course wish him the best, and hope he gets his Gran Torino. Maybe "With Wings as Eagles" will be it for him, it's written by Randall Wallace, who is known for Braveheart and We Were Soldiers, so that's a plus. I'm sure most people are expecting him to fall on his face once he attempts his comeback, but I'm rooting for him.

You can see the original source here.

When B's Attack!: Flash Gordon Review (Examiner)

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:42:00 +0000

http://www.examiner.com/classic-movies-in-richmond/when-b-s-attack-flash-gordon-review

Remakes and The Wizard of Oz (Examiner)

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 22:38:00 +0000

http://www.examiner.com/classic-movies-in-richmond/remakes-and-the-wizard-of-oz

Netflix Instant Must-Sees (Part 2)

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 22:18:00 +0000

I'm sure that you can decide for yourself on what movies you'll choose next time you're online watching Netflix Instant, but every Friday, I'll give you a short list of 5 of my own recommendations. I’m late posting this, I know.

Clockwork Orange

A personal favorite of mine, A Clockwork Orange, follows a corrupted, and downright evil teenager named Alex, who leads a band of his “droogs” committing horrible crimes and acts of violence wherever they go. The second half of the film takes an unsuspecting turn that delves into government manipulation, and the lengths that society can go to try and change a person. I can’t recommend seeing this enough, and if you haven’t seen it already, now is the time. While I’m at it, I’ll also mention that there quite a few other Stanley Kubrick films on instant queue now, and I didn’t want to fill the entire list up with them (The Killing, 2001 a Space Odyssey, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut, and Killer’s Kiss).

George Carlin: It’s Bad For Ya

One of the greatest and most controversial comedians of all time, his 2008 special, “It’s Bad For Ya” along with quite a few others, are now available. Unfortunately this was also his last HBO special, as Carlin passed away June of 2008. He blew up into the public eye with his most famous act “Seven Dirty Words”, where he went through a list of words that can’t be said on television. This special even sparked an FCC regulation court case, where the government gave them the right to regulate and censor, which is still upheld for most basic cable networks. If you are unfamiliar with Carlin, his comedy is more than just standup. A lot of his act is funny, while also being realistic commentary on every day life. Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, Tits, are the words, if you didn’t already know.

Exit Through the Gift Shop

You’ve heard the praise from the critics, but is it all overblown hype? I will answer myself, No. Exit Through the Gift Shop is about a man obsessed with filming everything, and when he is exposed to the underground street art world, he takes it upon himself to film as much of it as he can. I don’t want to ruin it, but it takes an unexpected turn about halfway through, that changes the entire theme and point of the movie. It’s definitely one of the unexpected gems to emerge from 2010, while it didn’t necessarily slip completely under the radar, it wasn’t exactly loud.

Oldboy

While I’m not a huge fan of the voiceovers that are used for foreign movies, it doesn’t take anything away from the second film in Park Chan-wook’s Vengeance trilogy. If you want to experience the films all together, the other two, Sympathy for Mr.Vengeance and Lady Vengeance are also available for streaming, both “spiritually” alike, but not technically connected through anything other than themes. Think Aronofsky’s “The Wrestler” and “Black Swan”. Oldboy is about Oh Dae-su, a man that is held captive for 15 years, and framed for his own wife’s murder. When he escapes, he seeks vengeance, and the motives of his captors. This film has one of the most disturbing, and unsettling twists that you’ll ever see.

Wallace & Gromit / Shaun the Sheep

What some might overlook for just being kids stuff, both of these shows are genius creations by Aardman Animations. All of the episodes of Shaun the Sheep are available, as well as all 4 of the Wallace and Gromit short films (not including the feature film) and they are very much worth checking out, my personal favorite being “A Close Shave” (Shaun‘s first appearance). Shaun the Sheep isn’t talked about nearly as much, when in many ways it’s become superior than W&G (it’s probably blasphemous that I’m saying that), it takes inspiration from older cartoons and animation and consistently is full of laughs and clever jokes. My personal favorite short, is “Who’s the Mummy?” where Shaun is mistaken for the mother of a few baby chicks, and tries to do everything he can to get rid of them.

Examiner.com

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:23:00 +0000

I just thankfully got a position at Examiner.com as the "Richmond Classic Movies Examiner", check out the new section of the site where I'll post links to my examiner articles, or go to my page directly here:

http://www.examiner.com/classic-movies-in-richmond/ryan-hill

Disappointments and Surprises of 2010

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 05:46:00 +0000

While 2010 was a year of ups and downs, I’ll go through some of the movies that I was looking forward to that let me down, and movies that I wasn’t so sure about that turned out to be great. Does this necessarily mean I hated the disappointments with the utmost passion and the surprises are my favorite movies of all time? Most certainly not, although that level of black in white would probably make it more entertaining. But here’s the list anyway.

Disappointment: The Expendables

Every time I get asked why I didn’t like this one, the questioner tries to answer for me “Oh, I know it doesn’t have much of a plot, and that’s probably why you dislike it” and that doesn’t even scratch the surface of why this was such a disappointment. Coming off of directing one of my favorite Rambo movies, I thought that Stallone had finally found a style of gritty, intense action that he would be able to stick with., and carry through the rest of his ventures. Instead, audiences were given sloppy, quickly edited shots of what could have been awesome action scenes. It’s not like they were working with flimsy, inept actors that wouldn‘t even think of trying to do their own stunts, they had an all star cast of iconic action heroes, and although quite a few are aging, that’s just no excuse. I could go on and on about how none of the characters are developed and how you could care less about them, and how the villains weren’t written well, but it’s all been said before. It could’ve been completely forgivable if the action scenes were even mildly entertaining.

Surprise: Scott Pilgrim VS. The World

Now, you might be saying to yourself, “Why would you doubt an Edgar Wright directed film?” The trailer didn’t look that appealing to me when I first watched it online, it had Michael Cera as the lead actor, I knew nothing of the Graphic Novels or that they even existed, and it just looked cheesy. After hearing nothing but good things about it I went to theatres and saw it, and then saw it again. I ended up completely loving it. This movie works on so many different levels , and I usually notice something new every time I watch it. It’s in many ways a parody, a video game movie, a comic book movie, a comedy, a martial arts action movie, even the drama scenes work. Scott Pilgrim is one of those rare gems that don’t come around too often, that takes you by surprise. I’m even reading the comic book series now.

Disappointment: Iron Man 2

I went in to this movie trying my hardest to enjoy it despite all of the negative things I had been hearing, but it just didn’t do it for me. The best way to diagnose Iron Man 2 was with the words “Spider Man 3 Syndrome”. They tried to mix too many elements in, and the viewer never really gets a chance to grasp onto one or two conflicts or plots to care about, and follow. He faced himself, had to find a new power source by learning from his father, had relationship problems, was facing the new villain “whiplash”, all while they tried to cram the Avengers pamphlet down our throats. I hate to reference The Dark Knight, but how awful would it be if in the middle of it, two of the members of the Justice League showed up and started discussing with Bruce Wayne that they want him to join up with them. I know, I know, TDK was placed in a more “realistic” crime drama like universe, but to be fair, Iron Man 1 wasn't too out there either. I know I’m going on and on, but I enjoyed the first Iron Man movie a lot, and the second was just a letdown with a few bright spots, like Mickey Rourke.

Surprise: How To Train Your Dragon

Dreamworks has had a few movies I’ve enjoyed (Shrek, Road to El Dorado) but this was the first one I’d deem comparable to Pixar films, and could go toe to toe with most animated movies in general, regardless of what studio produced them. I didn’t have great expectations going in, and it completely floored me. They didn’t necessarily do a lot of things that were new, but everything that was done worked exceptionally well. It was fun to see the direction of the dragon design to be taken in more of a “video-game” style route, where each had it’s own special ability limited amount of attacks, and weaknesses. The characters and the conflict/relationship between Hiccup and his father are fleshed out really well, all of the story elements are there to drive the movie. If Dreamworks keeps working on trying to keep their films at a high level like this, maybe the winner of the “Best Animated Film” category wouldn’t continue to be so predictable.

Disappointment: The A-Team

What could have been ridiculous, over the top action, campy fun turned into a mess like the Expendables. I’m not even sure which one had worse shaky cam editing, it all seems to blend together. While I’m not a huge fan of the older series, I do like it, and it had potential to be an entertaining action flick. Maybe it’s just me nitpicking, but none of these actors worked very well in their roles as attempting to be the original characters. The most painful was Quinton Jackson’s 2 hour long bad Mr.T impression. While it had it’s few funny and entertaining moments, the unfunny and ineptly shot action scenes outweighed them. Again, perfectly capable actors, especially one of the leads, the UFC FIGHTER. Do filmmakers think this is a good way to shoot action scenes? Incomprehensibly? I get that when the director is trying to tell a story from a first person perspective like The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield, he can use it for effect. But why here? Action isn’t effective in a film when you don’t get the full impact of the hits and can’t simply establish in your head what’s even going on. At least they had the kick-ass A-Team theme song in the movie.

Surprise: The Karate Kid

I was one of those people bashing this movie to pieces before it even came out. I’m a fan of the original two Karate Kid movies (No, there were only two) and this one looked awful from the get go. Getting Will Smith’s son to play the role? Making it modern by adding rap music? Thankfully, neither of those things took anything away from the movie, and despite the trailer being horrible, it ended up being pretty decent. Jackie Chan probably delivers his best acting performance to date, mostly in a certain scene towards the end of the film, that is truly moving. Jaden Smith shows that he is Will’s true heir, and you could probably even argue that he’s better than Ralph Macchio. I think the fact that they called it “Karate Kid” pissed people off, because it’s mainly about Kung-Fu. There were even studios flip flopping on whether they wanted to call it “Kung Fu Kid” or “Kung Fu Dream” but since “The Karate Kid” is a well recognized film name and would probably result in more money, they went with that. Is it great and memorable? No. But, it’s honestly much better than you’d expect.

I never saw The Last Airbender, and was so put off by all of the horrid reviews because of how much I loved the animated series, but there is a fairly good chance it would have made it if I saw it. It wouldn’t be fair to put it on the list if I hadn’t even seen it… But there you have it, my list of Surprises and Disappointments of 2010. What were some films that Disappointed or Surprised you this year?

The Fighter Review

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 03:52:00 +0000

Following the true story of one of the most well known boxing comeback stories in history, The Fighter stars Mark Wahlberg as boxer Micky Ward, a mere average joe amongst his manipulative, controlling family. One of whom is his brother Dicky, played by Christian Bale, a washed up boxer who is now a drug addict, revered by the Ward family and the town for his personal claim to fame: he knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard (which you have engrained into your head leaving the theater it’s mentioned so many times). Micky soon finds inspiration in Charlene Fleming, played by Amy Adams, a barmaid that convinces Micky to seek better management than his inept brother and family.

Christian Bale is notorious for having the show stolen from him, of course the primary film that I’m referencing is The Dark Knight, where his portrayal of Batman/Bruce Wayne is usually overlooked by Heath Ledger’s joker. When he’s not having the show stolen from him, he just chooses mediocre, badly written roles (See Terminator Salvation). I’ve always believed that he is a great actor, and if anyone questioned that I pointed them in the direction of American Psycho. Now, there’s The Fighter. Whenever Bale wasn’t on the screen, I felt overwhelmingly disappointed, and anticipated his return. Although he is a crackhead, and a complete jerk, somehow he’s still a fairly likeable character. He is ruining Micky, and you know he’d most likely be better without him, but it doesn’t make you like his character any less. Bale is funny, and extremely entertaining as this character that he obviously invested a lot of time into. Hopefully we’ll begin to see a continuing trend of Bale choosing more good roles like this, because he has it in him. I’d be surprised if the best supporting actor Oscar goes to anyone else.

The style of the fight scenes are a lot like what you’d see on Pay Per View, it looks as if you’re watching a real fight, which reminded me a lot of Rocky Balboa. None of these fights feel as thematic and intense as the majority of the fights throughout the Rocky films, you really want them to, but they never reach that point. The fights were definitely the most disappointing part of this movie for me, maybe that was simply because they were cut short, and seemed quick. To be fair, The Fighter’s primary focus is outside of the ring, and Micky‘s dilemma of whether to trust and work with his family or not. You never hate his family, because deep down you know that they mean well, and they don’t want anything bad for him, even if they go about helping him in a conceited money grubbing fashion. While being great from a dramatic standpoint, it also manages to be extremely funny. It may actually be funnier than the majority of straight up comedies I’ve seen this year, and that’s because it all feels genuine.

While Mark Wahlberg‘s performance is getting mixed reception for this film, I don’t think he portrays Micky badly at all. He just doesn’t stand out, because his character isn’t as eccentric as Dicky. Micky is truly the fish out of water in this family, he’s more of a normal guy being pushed around and taken advantage of because he never was the assertive or aggressive one. Amy Adams and Melissa Leo both give solid performances as Micky’s love interest, and mother. There really isn’t a performance in this film that isn’t solid, or unbelievable. That’s why it works so well, the characters are relatable and David O’Russel focused on writing them as the real people they’re based off of, rather than the bland caricatures they could have been.

A successful Boxing Film 101 Class would not teach the student to film tons of fight scenes, and training montages to fill up the entire movie, but to focus on what’s going on outside of the ring, to make the viewer love the characters, and want nothing more but for the main protagonist to succeed. Some of the Rocky films are able to capture this well, but in The Fighter, there are many more dimensions added to the great gut feeling you get at the end of the movie when it’s all on the line, and everything they have been fighting for is at stake. The audience isn’t just rooting for Micky, but his brother as his trainer, and his family for the redemption of their name. The fighter works on numerous levels, and fought it’s way into my favorite movies of 2010 just like Dicky knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard.

The Fighter: 4.5/5

Netflix Instant Must-Sees (Part 1)

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 02:01:00 +0000

I'm sure that you can decide for yourself on what movies you'll choose next time you're online watching Netflix Instant, but every Friday, I'll give you a short list of 5 of my own recommendations.

Shutter Island:

Not one of Martin Scorsese's best films, but it's still a solid entry into his works. Leonardo Dicaprio gives a good performance as always, in this psychological thriller based on the book by Dennis Lehane. Believe it or not, this came out earlier this year. Audiences saw Inception, and seemed to completely forget about Shutter Island, when this is debatably on the same level. I love how this movie ends, it really ties the entire film together in an interpretive way, similar to Inception, while also completely different.

World's Greatest Dad:

When I say that this was the most underrated and overlooked film of 2009, you probably wouldn't believe me. No one seemed to have checked this one out, and every time I show it to someone they end up loving it. While filled with great performances by Robin Williams, and the Spy Kids star (Yes, people) Daryl Sabara, it's a fairly depressing look at how our society views death and does a fantastic job at just that. A lot of people disliked it because it was fairly bleak, but it's only bleak if you look at the glass as half empty. Bobcat Goldthwait should direct more movies.

This Film is Not Yet Rated:

A great documentary that delves into the disjointed and ineffective MPAA film rating system, as the director hires private investigators to try and learn the true nature of this terrible organization. See the words that I'm using? I can't even say a word about the MPAA rating system without using words of disgust anymore. It will influence you, and have it's way with you whether you like it or not; just as the ending will have you smiling and cheering.

Blue Velvet:

If you're not familiar with David Lynch, this is definitely the best way to either reel you in, or scare you away. This movie will haunt you for days to come, and I guarantee that. Blue Velvet follows Kyle Maclachlan as Jeffrey Beaumont, who finds a severed ear in a field, leading him from the seemingly peaceful white picket fence suburbian town to indescribable madness. Remember the cool Dean Stockwell as Al in Quantum Leap? Prepare to be scarred.

The Secret of Kells:

The 2009 visual masterpiece, nominated for best animated picture, is an immensely entertaining fairy tale. I just finally checked this one out this year, and I'm glad I did. While it's not a game changer with regards to story, or plot, it is in many ways a throwback to older styles of animation, but improves on it. While it's not an animated film I'd necessarily recommend to families, or children depending on their age (it gets pretty dark.), it's really a great modern folklore.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1) Review

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:33:00 +0000

I grew up with Harry Potter. As clichéd as it sounds, it was the first book series that I got into when I was younger, and (not to sound like one of *those* people) I was one of the first kids in my school to pick it up, and coaxed my friends into reading it too. That’s how it all started everywhere, and the immense phenomenon that it's turned into is unbelievable. Right along next to Han Solo, and Captain Kirk, stands the new generation's icon of fandom.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1) doesn’t follow the standard HP formula (Home, School, Fight, Home) but has Harry, Hermione, and Ron facing new challenges off on their own. Having learned in The Half-Blood Prince, that the only way to defeat Lord Voldemort is to destroy all of the “Horcruxes” or sentimental objects that he has split his soul into, they set out to find them.

I’m not one of those people that thinks the new movies are lacking because they feel less magical, or lose a sense of wonder that the first few films had. In many ways, the series has matured as it’s gone on over the years, and gotten much darker. Just seeing the opening scene of Hermione wiping her memory away entirely from her parents, and Harry leaving his home forever, shows the audience that the childhood that’s left is finally gone. That was exactly how it went in the books too. I hate to be the one to throw out the simple explanation of “This mimics life, it gets more difficult and less wondrous as it goes on” but there it is anyways. It feels like we've been with these characters for their whole lives (and we truly have) in this movie series, and we have an attachment with them because of that.

In many ways, the newer Harry Potter films are more focused on the dramatic portions than the effects, and the action. This movie is the perfect example of that. We get to see a lot of scenes where it truly seems as if Harry is barring the weight of the world on his shoulders. Something that they didn't have enough of in HP6, or most of the previous movies. Even Hermione and Ron are feeling the weight of their mission along with him, David Yates wants the audience to know and feel just that their world could very much come to an end. One of the main reasons that this is reflected so well is because these actors have fully matured. There’s no cutesy child or amateur acting to be found here, and I’m glad that they were able to keep the same actors, for the sole reason of having them grow into their characters over the years.

There’s still some fun action to be found here, despite it’s darker tone. The scene with all of the Polyjuice Potion Harry clones, and Hagrid & Harry riding through the night, avoiding death eaters at all costs, is entertaining to watch, and intense at the same time. There’s still nothing as great as the final fight scenes in Order of the Phoenix (in my opinion, some of the best fight scenes, and music in the series) but that will most definitely be in Part 2. If you’ve read the book, you’ll know what I’m referring to. There is still enough action to keep things moving, and there is actually a more climatic ending than the last movie.

I understood the comparison to Nazi Germany (or just the oppression in general) in the book and the movies, and how the persecution of mud bloods for being half-breeds, etc, is supposed to be horrific and racist, but do we REALLY need Ministry of Magic members in mock SS uniforms chasing down the mudbloods? It just seemed way too cheesy and over the top. There’s such a thing a subtlety, and there’s nothing wrong with using it. Things like that take me out of the movie completely, and in a way the filmmakers weren’t giving the audience enough credit to draw the comparisons themselves. It’s kind of like having a Lion in a movie that has magical powers and is able to save people and do whatever he wants, dies and comes back to life, and outright admitting that he’s Jesus. Who am I kidding anyway? No one is that unsubtle.

Some of the movie does seem slow, and like it could've been sped up just a bit. As much as I hate to admit it, I even found myself zoning out once or twice. Although I do see the significance of every scene in this movie, I wonder if there’s a hardcore book fan out there that’s complaining “HEY! THEY LEFT X OUT!” because I will politely tell them “X Wouldn’t have worked in the movies, they got what they needed to into the film.” I loved HP6 immensely when I first saw it, but I have to say that watching it at home for a second time on DVD wasn’t nearly as effective. By “not nearly as effective” I mean I didn’t finish it a second time. In retrospect it just seemed kind of slow, and like too much of a precursor to the Deathly Hallows. There’s no doubt that 7 Part 1 is a much stronger movie on it’s own than 6, but I don’t know how I’d feel about it watching it as a standalone.

Overall (as many have said before), this movie does feel incomplete, and that’s because it is. Can you fully enjoy each Kill Bill, or Lord of the Rings movie on it‘s own? Sure. But they’re in parts, and they are meant to be watched together. Personally, I can’t wait for Part 2. This was yet another solid entry into the franchise, and unless the last one completely misses the mark, this could quite possibly be the most consistent series of films of all time. It’s hard to rate this one, although I did enjoy it, just because it’s the first part. But I will give it a tentative one, anyway. It could easily go up to a higher rating depending on how solid the second film is.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt.1 : 4/5

The Coen Brothers have "True Grit"

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:21:00 +0000

The latest Coen Brothers film, starring Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, follows the story of Mattie Ross, a 14 year old girl with a deep desire to protect her father’s honor by capturing the man who killed him. To do this, she must find a man that is accustomed for this job, but she ends up finding two. One that she takes a liking to, a southern drawl speaking U.S. Marshal, Rooster Cogburn played by Bridges, and a Texas Ranger that helps them out along the way “LaBoeuf” (Yeah, I had to look that one up…) played by Matt Damon, who has been tracking her father’s killer for months. What we get, is the story of an intelligent girl, who loses her innocence, an old drunkard marshal with questionable trustworthiness, and a Texas Ranger who seems honorable, but full of himself.

While this movie contains many of the Coen brothers’ little “niches” it still feels different than anything they’ve done recently , because it’s a much more straightforward, standard film. It has obvious differences from their previous films such as “A Serious Man” and

"No Country For Old Men” (two films that I thoroughly enjoy, even the endings) the major one being that it doesn’t really give you the “out of the box” feeling. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t excel at everything it does. Everything is done right, and prior to contrary belief, this is more of a second adaptation of the novel than it is a remake of the 1969 John Wayne version, the men said it themselves.

Rather than this being another guns a’blazing shoot first ask questions later western, True Grit takes more of a “western drama” route. Don’t be fooled by that title though, when the action does kick in, it’s some of the most intense that there is to offer. The big action scenes are built towards with immense amounts of emotional weight, and start out from a distance. They give you a feeling of being far away from what’s going on, and somewhat of a helpless one. It really seems as if you’re watching the events unfold with these characters that you care about. Watching each one of these scenes blew me away, and allows me to respond with “You’re doing it wrong, Michael Bay”. Movies with action don’t work if you could care less about the main characters, and especially when the director is taking the movie seriously.

But really, where this movie excels the most is in the great acting. There’s a lot of it. I love the action that is there, but don’t go into this movie expecting it to be filled with it. Jeff Bridges is fantastic as usual, as well as Matt Damon’s performance as the narcissistic Texas Ranger. The real breakout star of this film is Hailee Steinfeld, who delivers her lines with ease, as a fast talking, quick witted young girl who doesn’t ever take “no” for an answer. She really has a lot of moxie, and it never gets to the point where she becomes irritatingly headstrong (which could have easily happened), she is able to withstand the journey with the hardened Marshal. Expect to see a “Best Supporting Actress Nominee” next to her name when the movie is released on DVD.

These characters really seem as if they’re IN the setting rather than just hanging around in costume, they look dirty, unwashed, and grimy. Most especially Jeff Bridges. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he announced that he actually didn’t take showers for a few weeks to get prepared to act on set. The entire movie has cinematography to rival the cream of the crop Westerns, and immerses you into these gritty settings.

For me, this has to be one of the most enjoyable movies I’ve seen all year. I will admit, at the beginning of the film it did seem a bit slow to start, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t have the right to. There’s nothing wrong with having a buildup, and subtle character development in the beginning (which was done effectively with Mattie‘s character), so later the other elements during their journey seem to have more weight to them. True Grit doesn’t seem to have a whole lot of new elements to add to the Western genre, and I’m glad it doesn’t. What the Coen Brothers had to work with in the novel, they used, and it worked to full effect. The final moments of this film are breathtaking, and truly floored me.

I’d recommend this to anyone, but it is actually fairly violent and dark for a PG-13 movie. One of the immediate questions that came to mind after seeing it was “How is There Will Be Blood rated R, and this is only PG-13?”.

True Grit - 4.5/5

If there REALLY needs to be another Indiana Jones movie...

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 04:54:00 +0000

Do it RIGHT.

I wasn't one of those people who walked out of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull angry, or frustrated. It wasn't nearly as good as any of the other films in the franchise, but I will admit that I enjoyed it at the time. But hearing more and more rumors surfacing about an Indy 5 being in the works is just disheartening. Lucas and Friends had their shot at making a good definitive movie to mark the end of their formerly dead and done franchise (a la Rocky 6 "Rocky Balboa") but they chose to throw in hints of the legacy to be passed on to Indy's son, Mutt Williams (I hope to never live to see the day where I see a poster reading "Mutt Williams and the...").

Here's a list of rules to adhere by when making the unfortunately inevitable, unnecessary sequel.

-Do. Not. Kill. Off. Indiana Jones. I've heard the rumors, and as much as it could be an epic finale of sacrifice, there's a 95% chance that they will screw it up. I'm not necessarily trying to say that they could never make this work, but there's really no reason to do it. It doesn't surprise me that George Lucas doesn't want to do it, and that Harrison Ford thinks it's a good idea though, especially since there were similar stories circling around Han Solo dying in Return of the Jedi.

-No Sci-Fi this time. I know, I know, you can argue that hearts being pulled out of people's chests, heads exploding, and talking to ghosts to give you tips on which cup is the real holy grail are also unrealistic like fridge nuking scene, and aliens in an Indy movie, but it just doesn't feel like Indiana Jones. I get that it was an attempt to do some genre crossover, but in the end it just seemed like some sort of mixed bag of Indiana Jones fan fiction.

-Make the style similar to the original movies, but don't retread too much familiar ground (*see Return of the Jedi). Maybe have Indy and Mutt go to another country to have to find another sacred artifact that we are or aren't familiar with. Find a lot of interesting scenery and film on location, none of the over the top CG nonsense that filled the 4th movie, and the Star Wars Prequels.

-No more new characters. Work with what you already have, Mutt Williams' character hasn't been completely developed, and we could finally see a lot more of Indy growing by teaching his son. You don't need to give Mutt the obligatory love interest, and spend a good portion of the movie characterizing people that the audience could care less about. This should be about Indiana Jones, adventuring with his son and be reminiscent of Indy and his father in The Last Crusade.

-END THE SERIES. Make things come full circle, tie in points from the original movies and make the audience remember why they loved them so much. A good finale can make you forget previous missteps in the franchise (ROCKY 5). Don't continue the series on with Mutt Williams, unless there is a miraculous transformation from 4 to 5, where his character becomes just as great and interesting as Indy, enough to make the audience want to see SHIA LEBOUF star in an action adventure movie spin-off of the Indiana Jones series. It would reek of impending failure.

I for one, hope that they are able to accomplish this feat, and make a better movie than Crystal Skull. What do you think? Did you like 4? Do you think rape is ok? What do you think would make a new movie successful?

Sequels Pt.1 The Good, the Bad, and the Underrated (RAMBO edition)

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:20:00 +0000

Sylvester Stallone's RAMBO films are not cinematic masterpieces by any standards, but are still entertaining movies. As many fans know, originally, the ending of the first Rambo film was supposed to be Colonel Trautman shooting John Rambo, as he realizes he doesn't want to go to prison, and can't take it anymore. So maybe from a dramatic standpoint, "First Blood" would be better as a standalone Drama film, and whether you think that the alternate ending was more effective/powerful is up to you. But regardless, we got 3 sequels, and we might even see a Rambo 5 (which I would much rather see than an "Expendables 2"). Here I'll discuss what works with these sequels, and what doesn't.

The Good: Rambo First Blood Part 2

Yeah, it's a complete cheese-fest. But Rambo 2 is an entertaining sequel because of how crazy, and ridiculous it is, while it still manages to take itself so seriously. This one starts out with Trautman offering Rambo a chance to be released from prison, but only if he takes on the mission to go back to Vietnam, where more American POWs are allegedly being held. Here's where it gets good, the government wants him to find nothing, but of course, he finds the POWs, so they leave him there in 'Nam, to get captured himself. You could imagine where this goes from here. The reason why this is a good sequel, to a movie that should probably just be a standalone, is because you get to see Stallone doing what he does best- running around playing it completely deadpan, shooting single soldiers with explosive arrows, destroying entire camps of vietnamese soldiers where POWs were previously held, and even grabbing poisonous snakes out of the trees to tell the audience "Fuck you, I'm Rambo". This is just a short summary, and really isn't even the half of it. If you're into over-the-top 80's action movies, this is probably one of the most definitive ones of that decade, even parodied in "Hot Shots Part Deux", and Weird Al's movie, "UHF".

The Bad: Rambo 3

If you're playing a prank on your best friend, and he's in on this prank, it's not going to be as satisfying. That's probably the best way to describe Rambo 3. I don't even get the title for this one. Shouldn't it be First Blood Part 3? Or Third Blood? Oh well, I'm nitpicking. Rambo 3 has the star, John Rambo, having to go out and fight for "One last time" (Although we all know it's never the case) to rescue Colonel Trautman, who is captured in Afghanistan. But this time, you can tell that Stallone, and even Crenna, aren't taking it seriously anymore, and if I recall correctly, they even crack jokes quite a few times. While Rambo 3 contains one of the most over-the-top, ridiculous, W-T-F, Rambo moments (Taking on nearly an entire battalion of troops after Trautman tells him they shouldn't, after saying "Fuck Em!"), it still is nowhere near as entertaining as the first or second movie. The other main contributing factor to this besides the "tounge-in-cheek" approach that it took, is that it retreads a lot of the 2nd movie. It's my absolute least favorite of all of the movies, and maybe just plain "Bad" is a strong judgement, but it just doesn't work as well as the others. It's too tongue-in-cheek for my liking, just stick with First Blood Part 2.

The Underrated: Rambo 4 (John Rambo)

Critically panned, Rambo 4 was a Stallone project (Like Rocky 6) that I was surprised even got off the ground. Yes, I love Rambo 4. It's the exact film that Rambo fans (like me) wanted, and didn't expect to get. Similar to the 3rd movie, John Rambo is off living his life, and minding his own business, until a group of Christian missionaries show up and request that he takes them up the river so that they can give food and supplies to the civilians of Burma, undergoing horrible atrocities and genocide. He doesn't want to do it at first, but is coaxed into it. Of course, (despite John's warnings of "If you aren't bringing weapons, you aren't changing anything) they get captured in a raid after he takes them up the river. Rambo joins a group of mercenaries to rescue the missionaries, and of course crack a few skulls in the process (and by crack I mean obliterate). Stallone made this movie politically relevant, and based it on events that had actually happened there, but sort of goes the route of "What would Rambo do?". The best thing about this movie, is that the enemies are so horrible and despicable that you absolutely enjoy every moment of Rambo mowing down, and destroying the Burmese troops. There is even footage of some of the awful things going on there right in the opening of the film, as it then it cuts to Burmese troops playing "death games" with the citizens, betting on which ones will get killed first, or live, running through murky water filled with mines. Obviously, the tone is completely different than any of the Rambo movies (definitely closest to the first) but still has nods to the other 3 movies, while it successfully delves into it's new dark, gritty tone. It ends with the possibility for yet another Rambo sequel, which at this point I say, why the hell not? Just don't make another Rocky 5, whatever you do, Stallone.

What do you guys think of the Rambo sequels?

Next week: The Die Hard sequels

Dexter Season 5 Finale Analysis (SPOILERS)

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:27:00 +0000

Dexter Season 5 Analysis and Discussion (SPOILER WARNING)

I can safely say that Season 5 didn't top Season 4, but how could it? The writers did what they could, and tied up loose ends, but more importantly, the characters developed. I've read some posts in forums and in posts saying that the writers have been getting lazy, but I disagree. This was a solid season, and it's not bad because it doesn't end with a shocking cliffhanger, although it is probably amongst the weaker seasons (Season 3).

Lumen leaves Dexter, and he reacts even more strongly than he did after Rita's death. To some this might seem offensive, but think about it. Rita was comfort for Dexter, an anchor that he truly cared for, that grounded him in his desire to get rid of his "Dark Passenger". Lila was simply for passion and desire, who he thought had figured him out (but was actually just completely crazy for him). Lumen was the first who actually "connects" with Dexter, and lives to tell the tale. She connects with him in a sincere way, and he actually believes that she is the same as him. But we all know she isn't. She wants revenge on the men that raped and tortured her, and did the same to numerous other women, but after that was anyones guess. The night after the final kill, she realizes that she wants a normal life, and that the desire is no longer there. And staying with Dexter means that there will definitely be more of that connection to her past that she wants to leave behind, whether she likes it or not. At Harrison's party, Dexter finally takes his wedding ring off. Not signifying that he's forgotten Rita, but that he is finally moving on, not with Lumen or anyone else, but himself.

When Dexter decides to help Quinn, and cover him up after Laguerta finds the drop of blood on his shoe, they enter a pact. Quinn has seen the pictures of Dexter and Lumen mysteriously dumping black trash bags into the ocean, and that's not something that he is ever going to forget. Rather than becoming Doakes 2.0, Quinn decides that his love for Deb is worth more than a rivalry with Dexter, and when Dex helps him out, this creates this unspoken "pact". We will definitely see more of this next season.

When Deb comes into the camp cabin, I truly thought for a moment that she'd discover Dexter and Lumen, and learn everything. But she did something that showed a big change in her character, she let them go. After seeing the tapes of what Jordan Chase and his men did to those women, she finally sees firsthand what horrible things mankind is capable of. Even earlier in the season, she finally kills someone, and talks to Dexter about it. She asks him if he believes that some people deserve to die. All of these moments lead up to her confrontation with them in the cabin, and her not wanting to know who the true vigilantes were. There has also been speculation about whether she knows it's Dexter or not, but there's always a lot of speculation about everything...(i.e. I've read on the Dexter Forums that people actually believed Dexter's Nanny was helping Jordan Chase) I know this for sure, one of the producers of Dexter has already said that it's inevitable that Deb will find out eventually. It's just a matter of when, and how.

Finally, the point of this season? Dexter finally sees that one of his primary reasons for saving Lumen, is that he failed in saving Rita before. By saving Lumen, he realizes that this doesn't make the pain of losing Rita go away. But he does see that her "Dark Passenger" was able to go away, and this is some sort of hope. Lumen was someone that he could finally, fully connect with, but finding someone perfect for Dexter is impossible. I didn't mind Lumen leaving, though. It was a necessary part of the story, but her staying would mean more seasons of the "Bonnie and Clyde" serial killer couple, which could get gimmicky. Next season we'll see more of the solo, single Dad Dexter that viewers expected to get this season.

What did you all think?

I review Tangled, Does the kid in me succeed and emerge? Or does he fall deeper into the depths of my stomach?

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 03:44:00 +0000

Disney said themselves, Tangled is going to supposedly mark the end of fairy tale "Princess" movies that Disney shells out every few years. It's understandable that they would decide to do this, mainly because an obvious factor in the success of the Pixar films is that they don't target a specific group, but try to appeal to Adults and Kids (Boys and Girls alike). It's even been stated that "Tangled" was a title given to the movie so that it would be more gender neutral, I can't think of any little boys that would want to go see a movie titled "Princess Rapunzel Goes on a Magical Journey!". Early trailers of this movie were not very enticing either, the bad, cringe worthy pop tune that they were playing with one of them I saw early on was fairly painful. But I gave it a shot...

Lets face it, if you're over the age of 12, you know how this movie is going to end. We have all seen these Disney Fairy Tales before, and in many ways that puts this to an immediate fault. It is predictable, and you have to accept it, and enjoy the movie on other merits. First, the songs. There were only about 3 or 4 total in the entire movie, which was probably for the better. The first one was what you'd expect, and was way too stock to be in a new Disney movie, in 2010. I'll give you a hint, it involves "Pursuing Dreams" and "Wanting something more". They attempted to make it funny (which is the only thing that saves it from being completely bottom of the barrel) but instead, it was a standard cheesy Princess song you'd expect to have been written 30 years ago. The second was Rapunzel's mother, and this is where the movie seems to add its own style to the songs, and takes on a "Showtunes" or a more "Broadway Musical" vibe with an amazing vocal performance by Donna Murphy as well. It's only problem was that it just wasn't very memorable, or catchy. The third is by far the best, and the funniest song in the movie, where they come across Barbarians that end up singing about how they have dreams too, just like Rapunzel says she does. This is really the only one that is memorable, and the rest just seemed fairly stock, while not in any means bad. The second song is recurring, and it is pretty similar the second time around.

The animation in this movie is completely gorgeous. As hard as this is to admit, it's almost superior to Pixar from a technical standpoint. The entire film has a clear, bright style to it that would cheer anyone up. As clear and high quality as it is, it accounts for much more detail than you'd expect from an animated film. Even blades of grass, and the water are interesting to look at because of the level of beauty and detail brought out by this style of animation.

The voice acting overall is fairly solid, but the standout in this one has to be Donna Murphy, as Mother Gothel. Throughout the movie, you know that she is the antagonist, but the writing (and her voice acting) is solid enough to keep you guessing on whether she truly cares for Rapunzel or not. She doesn't do the whole movie with a screechy, menacing voice, or an evil cackle, she is able to keep it subtle and make you really wonder. Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi have voices that are lively enough to keep their characters going, but still, Rapunzel and Flynn Rider are fairly stock as far as Disney goes. Rapunzel wants more, and to see outside of the tower, to learn her true destiny (a la Disney Princess).But Flynn Rider doesn't have wishes or dreams, for he is a treacherous, jokey, thief (a la Aladdin/Robin Hood). I have to admit, the comic relief character, Maximus (The Guard Captain's Horse) is one of the best I've seen in a while. He basically plays the Sherlock Holmes of horses, more serious about catching Flynn than any of the actual Guards. The whole idea and way he goes about trying to catch him (in such a completely serious, and over the top way) is hysterical. Any scene that he was in was pretty hilarious, he stole the show the numerous, and too few times he was given things to do. There are some fairly funny moments throughout the movie in general, and most of them are from him.

Again, the storyline is pretty stock, and most people know what's going to happen at the end. But what they pull as a plot device in the very last climatic scene (I know this is a Disney movie, I KNOW.) is so cliche, and cheesy. Even kids in the theater were thinking, "Oh, come on.". No spoilers, but when you see the final "climax" you'll be thinking what you think they might do, and you hope they won't do it, but they do. You'll just wonder like I did: "Really? You couldn't think of ANYTHING better than that?" I get the whole theme that Disney uses with Magic for the sake of Magic, but they could have at least done it in a way that was clever.

This isn't a great Disney movie, and for the most part it's even fairly forgettable. But is it enjoyable? Definitely. Would I recommended it for kids? Absolutely.Maybe the older generation is biased because we've seen all of the old Disney films, and say "HEY! We've seen this already!" when kids might not have seen them, or don't really care that some of it is cliche'd and rehashed. But for adults, it still has enough to keep you entertained, while still not topping Disney's last effort (The Princess and the Frog) Tangled is a fun entry (and possibly the last?) into Disney's true fairy tales. It's an amusing ride, and it wouldn't hurt to check it out if you're a fan of Disney, or animation.

Tangled: 3/5

Kick-Ass (Better late than never...) Review

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:59:00 +0000

Ever wonder what it would be like to be a masked vigilante, roaming the streets, looking for baddies to fight in the name of justice? Well, Kick-Ass, based on a series of graphic novels, tells the story of Dave Lizewski, an aimless kid that desires something more than just reading comic books.

There's really a great sense of danger put out in front of these characters (especially the main character), and instead of adopting a sense of "We can't be stopped, or killed" which takes away all of the tension in a movie, you realize that these characters could die, easily. "YOU'RE GOING TO GET SHOT" were the only 5 words that were going through my head in some of these scenes. This isn't the world of "Commando" where Arnold Schwarzenegger mows down hundreds of guys without getting a scratch on him, Kick-Ass is a vulnerable character that seems like he gets some sort of strange fulfillment and enjoyment out of what he's doing. Something that I thought would be a main plot point, and be present throughout the movie, but it was unfortunately dropped in the second half for more romance subplots (where the movie definitely drags, in the middle especially).

I haven't been able to say this for a long time, but Nicholas Cage (Big Daddy) has the most interesting character in the movie. The side-plot with Hit Girl, and Big Daddy almost completely overshadows Kick-Ass and his goals /ventures by the end, because it's just... much more interesting. In the beginning, I was really rooting for Kick-Ass, but by the end, they start pulling the "I don't want to be a hero anymore" junk, which I think really started to take away from his character. I suppose it wasn't a huge fault, because it in a sense- was more justified than in other movies. This isn't a surreal place, it's real life, this is a kid who gets himself in deep. The beginning of the movie seems tame compared to some of the stuff that goes on towards the end, once Big Daddy and Hit Girl are introduced, Kick-Ass is pulled into a different world.

I think that's where the biggest flaw comes into play, the side-characters are much more interesting than Kick-Ass himself. When he's trying to score with a girl he likes at school, Big Daddy is coping with the loss of his wife, and training his daughter so that they can both get revenge on the men that framed him. I suppose you could argue that Dave is just a kid in High School, so he doesn't really have the desire to be pulled into this world of vengeance and revenge, but thematically, it still makes BD and HG the most interesting characters to follow. But in another sense, it isn't really as big a flaw as I'm making it out to be. They really do characterize the side characters well, even if they end up being much more interesting than the main character. But the truth is, I think that the main character wasn't supposed to be the one that shines. Like I said, he was a kid pulled into a different world, a stupid kid that didn't know what he was getting himself into, and faces consequences that he learns from because of it.

The action scenes are awesome, and aren't hard to follow at all. Which is something I like to mention, because Directors deserve a pat on the back for their action scenes, when they aren't shot with too many cuts or shaky cam style. It's almost strange to watch a young, 10 year old girl, stabbing people to death, shooting them in the face, and murdering anyone in her path. Did I say almost? It is pretty strange. But not in a negative way, they create a great female heroine that almost reminded me of a young "Bride" from Kill Bill in some sections of the movie. The bond between her and Big Daddy is probably the strongest connection between any two characters in this movie, you really feel that he cares deeply for her, but it's almost bittersweet. From when she was born, he didn't let her have a childhood- she was trained to be nothing but a killer. But does that mean that their bond loses strength thematically? Not at all.

My last minor complaint, would be some of the dialogue, and tone changes. During one of the most intense scenes of the movie, we hear Dave's voice over, talking very light-hearted, saying things like "I won't even get to see what happens on Lost". I know it was supposed to be a joke, but why then? I was really on the edge of my seat because I liked the characters that were in trouble (for the most part) and then a cheesy voiceover comes on, basically saying "I'm in this much danger, but I'm just a kid! Crazy huh?", of course it's not that blatantly bad, but you get my drift. I knew watching this movie that it was in fact, rated "R". Which is why it was strange that a lot of it seemed to be aimed at teenagers, for some reason, some of the tone (call me crazy when I say this) was almost reminiscent of Disney's "Sky High". I say that because it just got a little bit too light hearted at points, for a movie that wanted to be serious, and dark. Maybe the studios have accepted that kids will just sneak into the theatre, and watch the movie regardless of their age. And maybe that's what they wanted, maybe they wanted a movie that seemed light hearted, with darkness surrounding it. But regardless, the tone changes don't always work.

It's a cool movie, and I know, they're coming out with a sequel (as they so blatantly threw out at the very end), which I don't have a problem with, I suppose. Usually I'd complain about how there doesn't need to be one, but it could work here. I say, go for it. But right now, it's slated for a 2012 release and it's called "Kick-Ass 2: Balls to the Wall" which is a horribly stupid name for a movie. It should just be called, Kick-Ass 2: Hit Girl.

I'm not sure what to give this one, I was teetering in between B- and a B, but I'll give it a B. It's a fun movie that I'd definitely recommend.

A Bum and a Lunatic Review Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:41:00 +0000

Check out the Culture bum at http://culturebum.blogspot.com this is the first of many joint reviews that we'll be doing

Mindful Lunatic: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, Edgar Wright’s third film, proves to me how successful Wright really is at writing comedies that work on numerous levels. He is able to blend Kung Fu style action, with comic esque video game effects, and is able to parody an entire culture while also being subtle about all of it. I had a lot of fun with this movie, and I've seen it twice already.

Culture Bum: He's got source material to work with, too, which is unusual for Wright. The movie's based on a series of graphic novels. It's a much different kind of movie from Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. I had pretty low expectations going into this movie, figuring it was just another Michael Cera vehicle. The last Michael Cera movie I saw was Youth In Revolt, which wasn't good at all. However, I thought he did a good job in this movie, playing a pretty unsympathetic character.

ML: The trailer I saw wasn't that convincing either, the only reason I wanted to go see it was because Wright was the director, and I love Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead. Cera does do a good job, because in a way it's similar to a lot of the characters he has played, except that instead of being awkward and nice, he's awkward and somewhat of a douche-bag. The whole time he complains about Ramona and how she was unfair to all of her exes and dumped them, when he doesn't realize that he basically acts the exact same way. They're more alike than they realize.

CB: As a character, Scott Pilgrim is so whiny; it's strange to have him as the protagonist. We're supposed to cheer on this selfish guy in all of these fights (the main plot is that Scott has to fight Ramona's 7 exes in battle) simply because the movie's about him.

ML: And I think it works in that sense, actually. Pilgrim is an aimless 22 year old who doesn't really seem to have any aspirations: he's just in a band- which he doesn't seem that interested in either. But the main point of the movie is him finding something that he'll actually work and fight for, and he does it for himself.

CB: The supporting characters in this are great as well. I found some of them more interesting than Scott Pilgrim himself. Kieran Culkin as Scott's roommate, Anna Kendrick as his sister, and Aubrey Plaza are all great with little screen time they've got. It reminded me of movies like Boogie Nights, where there's this whole world going on, and we're only seeing a slice of it. Background characters pop in and out of scenes, reminding us that this universe isn't just what we're seeing.

Another thing I want to talk about is the art direction- the style of this movie is it's strength. I've heard it described as the best integration of live action and animation since Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Watching this movie, it feels like you're in a comic book, or a video game, or even an episode of Seinfeld.

ML: It does have a lot of style, especially in the action sequences, which are probably some of the best I've seen in a while. While being shot masterfully, (thankfully there's no up close irritating shaky cam to be seen) they're also much better than other movies this year that were supposed to be big action flicks like The Expendables, or The A-Team. It's better simply because you can actually tell what's happening. At some points, it reminded me of old kung fu movies. There's a part where Pilgrim ends up having to fight a girl, and he doesn't want to hit her, so Ramona gets behind him and uses his arms and legs to fight her off for him. That part just screamed Jackie Chan to me, it was a lot like so many of his fights where it's entertaining to watch, and effective, but is also humorous.

CB: That was such a Jackie Chan scene. (I loved the "...her?..." in-joke about that fight scene too.) The writers did a good job mixing up the fight scenes, keeping them fresh. I know I was counting down the fights, trying to gauge how long the movie was, but I couldn't imagine how long it would have felt if all seven fights looked like an episode of Dragon Ball Z.

ML: If a sub-par, less talented director took this, he might have went a different direction and the action scenes may have become dull and boring, and repetitive, thankfully they don't ever feel that way. Another factor where I think this movie works is just the utter insanity of it. At one point, it nearly turns into a musical. Everyone actually stands around and knowingly watches Pilgrim fight, as if it's not even that big of a deal, and I loved that. Of course it also has the classic Edgar Wright quick cuts to speed things up, if you've seen his other movies you know what I mean. A legitimate complaint I have would be that not all of the humor was as consistent as his other two films, there were more misses than in Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz.

CB: Especially the first battle, with Ramona's first ex in the night club. The audience formed a circle around the fight. I couldn't tell if it was actually supposed to be happening, or if it was all in Scott's head. I did like Wright's fast cuts in SoTD and HF, and we saw some of that in SP vs. TW, but I also liked how it was almost shot like a comic book.

ML: The video subtle video game music was also great, most of it was from Zelda (Cera even has his own "Dark Link" style version of himself at the end) but there were a lot of other recognizable musical cues, some even that I couldn't quite place my finger on. That definitely is something that makes you want to watch it again, not to mention it's loaded with jokes and little bits of dialogue that you might not catch the first time (like Wrights other films as well).

CB: The background dialog is great, and I love that about Wright's movies. Particularly about the guy by the elevator at Gideon's club, who says things like, "I liked their first album better than...their first album."

ML: There was also something along the lines of "I liked the comic book better." which was also pretty funny. The exes also had their own personalities, and were all different. Like Chris Evans, who played an action star that was egotistical, and had all of his stunt doubles fight Pilgrim for him. I thought that was pretty clever.

CB: I felt the movie's biggest flaw was how it ended. Scott wanting to go back to Knives immediately (and temporarily), felt a little too Wizard of Oz, "all I've ever needed has been right under my nose!" And undercut what little emotional connection he had with Ramona in the first place. It was something his character would do, but it felt a little too forced, like Scott and Ramona couldn't just walk into the Twilight Zone door without one last moral hang-up. Knives was 17! Scott's relationship with her was predatory and manipulative, and he never showed any reason he wanted to be with her.

ML: You're right, there really wasn't a huge reason for that at the end. It did seem a bit forced that he started liking Knives again, for almost no reason at all. The only reason I could come up with was that he wanted to throw off the viewers, or because Pilgrim felt bad for her. Maybe Wright isn't to blame for that though, he is going by a graphic novel, from which I've heard that Knives is more of a throwaway character, though.

This is a fun movie. I'd recommend it to anyone, but unfortunately (at least where I live) it was already playing in the back of the theatre, in the smallest screening room. It's a shame that a movie this entertaining this opens up at #5 the first weekend, and #10 the second (while the critical failure 'Vampires Suck' opened at #2). It might be a combination of reasons, but it had decent advertisement, although not many knew the source material. It's worth a solid "B" in my book, I'm looking forward to everything that Edgar Wright does in the future.

CB: I'll match your "B," maybe even raise it into the "B+" category. This is a solid, fun movie, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of geek culture is going to enjoy it. If you've ever hummed along to the songs of Ocarina of Time, or kept your records in an old milk crate, you're going to appreciate the jokes poking fun at hipsters and geeks. If it's still in theaters around here, which should be about half an hour more around here, go see this movie. It's definitely one of the best ones to come out this summer.

Despicable Me Review

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:07:00 +0000

I thought for sure that this movie would be generic, run-of-the-mill garbage, Universal Pictures isn't really known for releasing good animated films (or maybe I just can't remember any? I think not). In a sense, I was right. This movie isn't entertaining for it being entirely unique, but for the fact that it has real heart.

What it GOT:

People complained about Steve Carell's voice acting in this movie, and I really don't see why. You can tell that he is having fun with the character and enjoying himself the whole way, and doing an accent that isn't too over the top, or too serious.

There are some dark jokes in here, and I found them pretty surprising, as well as funny. They were definitley more prominent in the first third of the movie than anywhere else, but they were still hillarious and mixed the tone up. There were a few in the beginning that I found only myself and a few others laughing at (mostly because of the majority of families in the theatre).

The minions were also pretty funny throughout the entire movie (With a few missteps of course) and they were the part of the movie that I thought would be more of a downside, from watching the trailers. But they used them in clever ways, the minions became clever, vague plot devices to help the main characters and move the story along- and it works pretty well. They have a few great gags with the minions.

The movie has strength in its heart, and when I say that, I mean that it's hard not to root for Gru as the movie goes along, and as he learns to care for the girls. The end result just had me feeling... well, happy. It's a movie that makes you feel good.

What it DON'T got:

I can't stand when movies try to add in modern Rap soundtracks, and it's even worse when they're tailor made for the movie. At the beginning, there's a song called "Despicable Me" (we know this because the rapper so obviously says the title numerous times) and it comes off as extremely cheesy. Sometimes, the creators of an animated movie need to ask "What Would Pixar Do?". Not saying that no other animated movies are good other than Pixar movies, and that they are the end all be all for great animated films... But Toy Story 3 didn't start out with a rap song about Woody and his friends.

The jokes are usually amusing , but like most childrens movies there are some that stick out as juvenile and fall into the "fart jokes" category. Unfortunately, this movie has a few of them. While they aren't completely distracting in a way that makes you hate the film, they really didn't need them. I know these movies are being made for kids, but you don't have to dumb things down for them so they'll enjoy your movie.

At some points it just doesn't feel original enough, and falls into the "stock" category. Obviously it's not a huge problem that it isn't wholly original and uses jokes or gags that we know we have seen before. They're not necessarily doing a lot that's new, but it doesn't lead to its demise.

ALL IN ALL: Despicable Me is a fun movie. It has its flaws, but they're almost completely overshadowed because the movie is... cute, and is "feel good". Yeah, I said it. It has heart. Really, there's more to like than to dislike, and that makes this one worth seeing. This is easily the 3rd best animated movie of the year, (under Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon) I'm not sure if that's a huge compliment or not because I can't really remember a lot of other animated movies that have been released this year. But still, it's an above average animated film.

Despicable Me: 3/5

Christopher Nolan does it again, with Inception (Review)

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:02:00 +0000

Inception, written and directed by Christopher Nolan is a movie that I found immensely entertaining and as always, Nolan gives his all. There are a lot of things that people have been comparing this movie to (The Matrix, Dark City, Blade Runner, Total Recall) but after I watched it, I didn't get a sense of plagiarism, but of inspiration and creativity. Inception is a refreshing film, and continues Nolan's winning track record.

What it GOT:

Nolan is great at making you really BELIEVE everything that's going on, and make something that would otherwise be implausible, seem very possible. He's probably the best director at bringing something like this into the realm of the real, as we've seen with both of his Batman films. The plot is fairly complex involving multiple dream layers, time dilation within those layers, and everything in one layer affecting the one before and after it. In a lot of ways it's complexity parallels Memento, but with a high budget and amazing visuals and special effects (See James Cameron? You can have both). It's something that I didn't expect a lot of people to grasp, but apparently I am dead wrong.

The score (Brilliantly done by Hans Zimmer) is extremely effective, and brings every scene to a different level. It's looming for most of the film, and really kicks in with a bang in the intense climatic and dramatic sequences sequences, which is very effective. While I don't think it surpassed my favorite Zimmer score (for the Dark Knight) it certainly is persistent, and consistently great throughout.

While all of the characters aren't completely fleshed out as much as they should be, the back story for Cobb is just enough for you to invest in his character, and root for him and the others to succeed in performing their task. I've heard complaints about it being an emotionless ride, but I'm sure there would have been even more complaints of the movie going on another hour long just for that extra development for side characters that wouldn't really help the overall picture. The thing is, these characters don't necessarily need to be filled to the brim with characterization. They served well as archetypes that served a purpose in these dream worlds, archetypes that helped Cobb to succeed in his own mission.

This films strongest point is the fact that it gets you talking. I've seen it 3 times, and every group of people I went to see it with were discussing it long after it was over. Mainly because it's a dense film, and has many portions that can be endlessly debated and talked about. The fact is, you probably won't ever come to a definitive conclusion, but that's the fun of the movie.

What it DON'T got:

There aren't many complaints I have for this movie. And no, it's not because I'm a Nolanite that sends death threats to critics who say The Dark Knight isn't the greatest film ever made (the death threats actually did happen, believe it or not). There could have been more characterization for the characters other than Cobb, at least a bit more. I know, I'm contradicting what I said earlier about the characters being there to serve as archetypes, but still. You didn't really get a sense of why the others were doing the job, or why they were even interested (besides for Ellen Pages character). Which is a minor point, and it's barely a criticism.

The only notable problem for me, would be that there are some shaky cam action scenes. Personally, I hate shaky cam where it's not needed. It doesn't really become a problem until the 3rd layer of the dream (the snow part) with sequences where I wasn't completely sure of what was going on. Although it wasn't nearly as bad as some of the shaky cam in other movies this year such as The Expendables or A-Team, it still effects what's going on. I want to SEE the action that's happening, I don't care if your actors aren't all Jackie Chan, at least find some creative way to make it look like they can do something. But you don't even need a double to point and fire prop guns at eachother, so why is that done in shaky cam? If it's a stylistic thing, it sucks, and stop doing it.

All in all...

This is easily the best movie that has been released this year. It's nearly flawless, and is one of the most entertaining that I've seen in the last few years. Will it hold up like Memento, arguably one of Nolan's greatest films? Only time will tell. I hope Nolan can finally get some oscar wins, or nominations for this one. I'm glad to see a movie like this do well in theaters, bravo Mr.Nolan.

*A* for Inception

Remakes, Reboots, and more Remakes

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 23:08:00 +0000

If one thing could be branded a nuisance and a gargantuan blemish on the face of hollywood and cinema today, it'd have to be remakes. I know I already touched on this a bit when I wrote about Michael Bay's Ninja Turtles remake, but it's a much bigger menace than just Bay and his studios. And by remakes, I don't just mean remakes of old films that don't need it, I mean films that are barely a year or two old (Let the Right One In), TV Shows (The Last Airbender), reboots of entire franchises for no reason, and franchises that really don't need them to begin with.

Many directors, and producers are under the impression that after 10-20 years or so, since the special effects are dated, the movie is immediately in need of a remake. If you've seen the added effects to the original Star Wars movies that Lucas so idiotically placed, you know that it's just wasted money, and adds nothing to the film itself. But, an example of using the effects for good is when there's a scene like this where it's used to revive something that before was impossible because of technological limitations at the time. Top-notch visual effects aren't always bad in movies- but it is unacceptable to use them as a crutch (just like with 3-D), or in place of an original/solid storyline, and good acting. When you have a movie that becomes so CGI filled that seems somewhat empty and lifeless, that's a problem. This is most easily identifiable in movies like the Star Wars prequels, and 300. Too much CGI drains the life out of a movie,and makes the environment seem much less "grounded", and more of a sterile environment.

I'm not trying to say that remakes will never work, and that they are a bad idea in every circumstance, but it's getting to the point where a majority of them do end up being a bad rehashing of the original material. An example of a good, recent remake would be Star Trek. The characters didn't try to completely imitate the original cast of the Original Series, but they didn't completely change the characters. And like it or not, the whole "Alternate Dimension" plot was a good way to steer clear of having to completely rehash the original movies. A movie where the characters came off as too "imitation" and not enough of their own was the recent "A-Team" remake. There's such a thing as too much imitation, to the point where it almost seems like cheesy mockery. And of course there are directors like Tim Burton who take on things like "Alice in Wonderland" (I know, not necessarily a remake) and Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory that are iconic, and try to put their own "style" or "twist" on them (some working better than others). But most of the time, it's completely egocentric and pointless, especially if the original is just fine.

I can get something like redoing a movie that had a great premise, but was done poorly.But remaking "Let the Right One In" (being remade into "Let Me In") is completely and utterly pointless, when they got it right the first time. The producer Simon Oakes has even stated:

"If you say 'remake', I think that's true to say. That's what it is. It's not a reimagining. [It has] the same beats, maybe the scares are a little bit more scary. We've been able to ramp that up quite a lot, obviously for budgetary reasons."

Why would you remake the movie if it's only about 2 years old, and not even a reimagining, but the same exact thing? It's going for not an improvement, but basically just trying to get a wider release. And even this producer has the "Bigger and Better" mentality in which he believes that somehow a bigger budget means more scares. There's not an ounce of sense in remakes like this. I get that this was a foreign film, and that most Americans would whine and complain through a movie in a different language because it's not their own, but come on.

A lot of people think that the problem is that Hollywood can't come up with any original material, but the truth is that remakes are much more profitable for studios. Most of the average moviegoers would rather go see something familiar like Friday the 13th (remake or not) than go out on a limb and see something like Drag Me to Hell, something which they might not even know much about. And that's the main reason why this sort of thing will continue. It generates money, regardless of whether they suck or not.

But to all of the Directors, Writers, and Producers out there, remember to ask yourselves these questions before getting involved in a remake:

1. Will I be so tied down to the original source material that there will be no point, or be so far away from it that fans will be genuinely pissed?
2. Is the original so dated that the quality of the film, especially the narrative and storyline deteriorates because of it?
3. Am I just trying to put my own gimmicky stamp on something? (That's for you, Mr.Burton)
4. Is this just for the money, because I know people will go see it?
5. Can I seriously make this movie better, or am I just using a bigger budget?

I know, I know. You can bring a wider audience to the original film by remaking it in America. What I'm trying to say is, studios should find a way to bring this foreign films into theatres (a la Pan's Labyrinth). You never know if you don't try.

Subtitles > Voiceovers (In most cases that is)

noreply@blogger.com (mindfullunatic) — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:37:00 +0000

The other day I went to watch the 2003 film "Oldboy" on Netflix Instant Watch, and to my dismay, they only had a version with an irritating english voiceover. But the real question that I asked myself was, why is this necessary? A voiceover adds another dimension to the movie entirely, and most of the time in a bad way. I'm not talking about old Kung-Fu, or martial arts films where it makes the experience more amusing, but foreign movies that are released in the United States really don't need it. By adding another dimension, I mean that the quality of the voice acting can distort or affect your views of the film if it's bad. It also completely strips the original actors portrayal of the character to visual acting, and nothing else, deteriorating his or her performance.

Certain movies like Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds had tons of different languages implemented, and thankfully he didn't give us annoying voiceovers, but subtitles. Pan's Labyrinth was another one that successfully utilized simple subtitles, and didn't do voiceovers. The original language kept intact also adds a level of authenticity to the films, and and makes them seem less dumbed down.

But there are times where I do think it works, for example, in movies like Supercop, where the original actor (in this case being Jackie Chan) does the voiceover himself. It's much more passable in this sense, but still, a majority of the time, voiceovers for movies in a different language are completely useless. I know many Americans would rather watch the movie with them, (and I know some people personally that did not want to watch Pan's Labyrinth because you were required to read subtitles) but the truth is that it takes away from the quality of the acting (which is obviously the base of most good movies) which takes away from the film as a whole.

But, there are more and more movies (Such as the first two I referenced) that are excluding voiceovers, and including subtitles instead, so maybe eventually they'll become dead altogether.