Film School Rejects » Opinions

A Christmas Carol: ‘Twas a Spiritless Affair, Indeed

Brian Salisbury — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:03:11 +0000

Movies have supremely warped my conception of time. No longer do I judge the fragments of the year in terms of trite notions of spring, summer, fall and winter. Instead my calendar is notated with marketing strategies of major studios. For example, the beginning of the year is award season, followed by a dumping ground, followed by the blockbusters, another dumping ground, horrorween, and finally holiday season. Having just hurdled horrorween relatively unscathed, we find ourselves staring down the barrel of a number of films ready to bank on the inescapable jubilance of the next two months. For me, this is the cinematic season that garners the highest level of concern. The thing is there are very few holiday films that I watch on a regular basis that were released after 1987. Elf would be an exception to that block given that I find it to be a pitch perfect holiday film that captures the child-like wonder of the season and is destined to be a classic. But for every Elf or Love Actually we’ve gotten over the last decade, we’ve had to suffer through a dozen Christmas with the Cranks and a smattering of Jingle All the Way’s. So when I found out that Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol was getting yet another film adaptation, I cringed. However when I heard it was going to be an animated, 3-D spectacle directed by Robert Zemeckis, my interest was officially piqued.

I am not going to waste time describing the plot of this film because if you don’t know it by now, I have serious cause to doubt your status as a citizen of Earth; you goddamned toaster! Sufficed to say, there are elements in this particular adaptation that are more faithful to Dickens’ classic unseen in most versions. Jim Carrey steps into the role of Ebenezer Scrooge while the supporting cast is stacked with some truly fine actors: Robin Wright-Penn, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, and Gary Oldman. Oh, and Carey Elwes is also in this. I am also not going to judge the optical quality of the 3-D because I believe the theater in which I saw it did not offer the best environment for full appreciation. I just don’t think it would be an objective analysis.

Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol is a mess. I’m sorry to write those words. It’s a rehashing of something we’ve seen time and time again…for the most part. As I mentioned before, there are elements included that offer a more honest interpretation of Dickens, but while that is respectable, it also destroys the pacing and flow of the film. I applaud Zemeckis (who also adapted the story for the screen) for including the more horrific elements of what was essential a Victorian-era ghost story. But why then temper that with an over-the-top abandon of intelligence by making your inexplicably shrunken Scrooge surf an icicle down a roof? When the film is faithful, it is equal parts boring and incomprehensible. When it deviates from the book and tries to add something fresh, it is mind-numbingly ridiculous. I can understand adding a measure of whimsy in order to market this as a family film, but the horrific elements will assuredly incite tears and nightmares from younger audience members anyway. I know this to be true, because I witnessed children in the theater seek refuge on the laps and inside the jackets of their parents.

Let’s talk performances, and by extension the animation of the characters themselves. Jim Carrey gives what is easily one of his worst performances to date. Don’t get me wrong, I really like Carrey in both his goofball and more pensive material, but he struggles in this. His voice work rings of an “In Living Color” sketch featuring a bad Scrooge impression. He delivers jokes in the quieter moments with so little skill that they fall completely flat and there was a thunderous silence in the auditorium each and every time. Judging by his lack of timing, you would think he had never before delivered a joke on screen; troubling considering the actor. I reject the notion that he was shackled by the old English text because the jokes that he fails to land are divorced from the archaic dialogues and are intended to juxtapose them. On the other hand, Gary Oldman’s performance is excellent. He brings a warm, unflappable optimism to Bob Cratchet and his relationship with Tiny Tim is heart-breaking. In a film in which I had no emotional investment, Gary Oldman’s performance made me want to cry. I would also be remiss if I failed to mention the spot-on casting of Bob Hoskins as Fessiwig; that rotund little madman is about as energetic as it gets.

I will say that most of the characters look fantastic; the special effects employed are phenomenal and there are moments wherein the line between animation and using live actors gets a little blurry. But unfortunately that artistry did not trickle down to many of the background characters. There is one scene in particular in which this is most jarring. During the big dance number at the Fessiwig party, all of the ancillary characters look as if they are wearing pig masks. Their faces are all overly rounded and the features are completely washed out. It is strikingly flimsy animation. And while I won’t judge the visual quality of the 3-D, I have to say that it is among the most gimmicky 3-D this side of My Bloody Valentine. Things that would not naturally be in the foreground are thrust into our faces in a desperate grab for reaction. 3-D does not have to be a gimmick in animated films and can instead add depth and scale to the story, a la Up, so there really is no excuse for the way it’s used in A Christmas Carol.

A lot of the elements added from the original text will come off as nothing short of bizarre. The ghost of Christmas present makes some portentous warning about trusting men of the cloth and has scary child zombies under his robes. Meanwhile the ghost of Christmas past, a candle, does this weird little dance where he shimmies his head back and forth for no reason at all. I don’t know if it was supposed to be funny or what, but again the audience was dead silent afterwards. Now, I am not sure exactly how much of that is from the original work, but most of the moments you will see that will have you scratching your head are from the Dickens classic; minus Jim Carrey’s ice surfing of course. These moments not only befuddle the audience but also suck the wind out of the pacing. They are like little speed bumps that jump up whenever the movie gets rolling.

But worse than that, the inclusion of the long-lost aspects of the story into the film forces well-known, often crucial points to be glossed over. It’s kind of Newtonian in that the classic bits and the relics cannot occupy the same space. The most offensive truncation is Scrooge’s tragic love story. The plot of the film literally fades from the first time they meet to their tearful goodbye. In the actual story, when they first meet, Scrooge is a jovial, caring lad with dreams and ambitions. When they part ways, he has become consumed with money and greed causing a rift between them. Zemeckis’ version offers no A to B progression for this. Suddenly the bright-faced, happy lad is a young miser counting money and railing about how he would rather die than be poor; quite a storytelling leap if you ask me.

All in all, A Christmas Carol offers some things we haven’t seen before, but at the expense of congruity and pacing. The animation is gorgeous in some areas and unforgivably lacking in others. I think my overall biggest beef with this adaptation is that it in no way got me into the Christmas spirit. I felt nothing, apart from a few brilliant moments from Oldman, and that is an enormous fault to assign to a film based on the novel that perfectly gives voice to the power of the season. This version feels mostly old hat with a few misguided attempts to reinvigorate the story. Parents will not want to take kids to this because of the more frightening material (with the added issue of it being right in their children’s faces) and adults will take one look at the trailer and write the film off as kiddy fare.

Five Reasons to Watch The Venture Bros. Season 4

Amber Humphrey — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:16:40 +0000

Returning to Adult Swim’s Sunday night line-up for what promises to be an explosive fourth season, The Venture Bros., chronicles the escapades of the titular goofy teen brothers, Dean and Hank; their neurotic scientist father, Dr. Thaddeus Venture; their mullet-sporting bodyguard, Brock Sampson; arch-nemesis, The Monarch; and The Monarch’s wife, Dr. Mrs. The Monarch (formerly Dr. Girlfriend). What began as a clever riff on Johnny Quest and the superhero genre has evolved into an engrossing series with a tangled and hilarious mythology. Over the past three years The Venture Bros. has distinguished itself from Adult Swim’s other droll animated fare, but for those who have yet to fully pledge allegiance to Team Venture (or for the more dastardly of you, The Guild of Calamitous Intent), here are five reasons why you should watch the fourth season of The Venture Bros., the most exciting show ever (to air during a 12:00 AM – 12:30 AM Sunday night time-slot)!

1. The Characters

What other show can boast a roster of characters that includes an albino scientist, a hydrocephalic former quiz show champ with a growth-hormone deficiency, a male to female transsexual retired assassin, David Bowie, a pair of evil switchblade-wielding achondroplastic moppets, a cute goth girl, and a super genius with the face of a man and the body of a baby who—owing to the fact that he was absorbed by his twin brother in the womb—wasn’t “born” until he was middle-aged? Each member of this diverse, idiosyncratic crew has their own distinct psychosis and fantastically ridiculous personal history.

2. The Theme Song

Every time I hear those blaring trumpets and dramatic crescendos, the fourth-chair flautist in me thinks about how “cool” it would have been to play The Venture Bros. theme song in the high school band. Composer JG Thirlwell has managed to imbue the song with a sense of peril and this epic instrumental is the perfect contrast to what Venture Bros. creators Jackson Publick and Doc Hammer have said is essentially a show about failure.

3. The Pop-Culture References

The Venture Bros. is the only show that can go toe-to-to with Family Guy when it comes to delivering those satisfying, moderately obscure pop-culture treats. Even though I’ve personally never had too much of a problem with that other program’s reliance on flashbacks and non-sequiturs, there’s certainly something praiseworthy, masterful even, about Publick and Hammer’s ability to give The Boys from Brazil a shout-out without disrupting continuity or logic.

4. The Humor

Because Adult Swim programming is usually surreal, absurd, or in some way socially or sexually transgressive, the shows tend to polarize audiences. I can’t imagine anyone ever saying, “Eh, well I kind of like the rambling wordplay in Xavier: Renegade Angel.” You’re either in to that stuff or you aren’t. But The Venture Bros. has a little something for every one. With its super-villains and necromancers, it will entertain fans of surrealist humor. Yet, a hyper-realistic logic is imposed on those fantastic elements, making the show more palatable for satire fans—the villains belong to a labor union with an incredibly elaborate vetting process and health benefits. Publick and Hammer also use the show’s late-night basic cable time slot to their advantage and never shy away from the risqué gag—there have been quite a few instances of implied pedophilia.

5. The Stakes

While there is a secondary character who exclusively hunts Blaculas, I’m not referring to the pointed wooden vampire slaying implement. I’m talking about consequence. I’m talking about investment. Most animated shows resolve all conflict within a thirty-minute window but The Venture Bros. has storylines and subplots that have spanned the shows three-year run. Though the mythology is nowhere near as convoluted as, say, Lost, there is enough carry-over from episode to episode to reward consistent viewing.

In an homage to the conclusion of Easy Rider, the first season’s finale saw the death of Hank and Dean. But the second season revealed that Dr. Venture had a clone bank and a new Hank and Dean were apparently installed in place of the dead ones. This was definitely a cop-out; everyone acknowledges that. However, in season three’s outrageous climax, all of the Hank and Dean clones were destroyed, forever eliminating that safety net, and with the exit of two beloved characters, the finale also proved that nothing in the Venture-verse (inept, pseudo-baddie henchmen in particular) is too precious to be blown to bits.

Why Josh Olson is an Asshole

Dr. Cole Abaius — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:10:23 +0000

A few years ago, I fell in love with the format of screenplay writing. The craft is understandably intoxicating for anyone who has any inclination toward writing – it’s all action, all dialog, and none of the fluff. So I packed up my bags, moved to the only city in the country where you can be successful at screenwriting and promptly wrote a novel. That’s right. As soon as I got to Los Angeles, I realized that I needed more description in my life (and that I was far, far too egotistical to allow my story to be a group effort), so I wrote a novel. But that doesn’t mean that I didn’t learn a metric ton by working in production.

Above all, I learned that it takes a lot of hard work undertaken with a smile to garner any notice in that world. The reason to get noticed of course is that having a helpful hand pulling you up is infinitely easier than trying to pull yourself into the business on your own. It takes enough sweat as it is just to find that hand up amidst the fog of false hopes, especially after feeling like you’ve already jumped off the cliff.

As some of you may know, Josh Olson is the Academy Award-nominated screenwriter that delivered A History of Violence to the world. He’s a talented writer with what appears to be a bright future, and if he continues on his path, he may very well earn a golden statue of his very own one day for his mantle.

So why is he an asshole?

Because he won’t read your fucking script.

Olson wrote a piece for The Village Voice Blog recently detailing the many professional frustrations of being an in-demand screenwriter whose friends of friends seem to constantly barrage him with amateur scripts that they want him to read. Essentially, his complaint is not outrageous. Asking for professional help in such a sought-after field creates an instant social conundrum – asking for help seems at once both a minor and a grand inconvenience. A pro like Olson either has to decline (which makes him look like an asshole for not helping) or accept (which makes him look like an asshole for giving earnest, brutal advice that takes up precious time to give).

So it’s not necessarily that the reason behind Olson’s complaint makes him an asshole. However, rest assured that he’s an asshole nonetheless because of his general attitude and the delivery of that reason.

First of all, who writes an unsolicited rant piece about how tough it is to do favors for people? In the article, Olson relays a story about how an acquaintance asked for guidance in the form of reading and giving notes on a two-page synopsis. How hard could that be? It’s not even a full script. Olson goes through the same thought process but then agonizes for several weeks over how to delicately tell this wannabe that his work is awful. This agonizing period, of course, is blamed on the social situation and not, you know, Olson’s inability to deliver solid criticism. It should not take several weeks to mull over two pages, especially if they are so clearly terrible.

When he does send his comments, they are greeted with the height of ingratitude. Make no mistake – Olson’s acquaintance is an asshole as well (and presumably a bad writer), but that doesn’t excuse Olson from the general heinous bitterness that a simple social interaction has caused him. One wonders whether Olson gets angry in traffic or vomits whenever his clothing isn’t laid out in alphabetical order.

Second of all, the analogies that Olson throws out are laughable. He likens asking him to read a script to asking a friend who paints houses for a living to come do your house for free. I’d expect more direct comparisons from an award-nominated writer, but this baffles me. It seems obvious that asking for notes on a script is more like asking a house painting friend for advice on how to paint a house. Maybe he can come over and tell you what colors will work best for your lighting over coffee. Maybe he can suggest a few good painters he knows if he doesn’t want the job outright. Maybe you can share your vision of how you want the house to be, and he can help you edit a bit to get that vision. But until a friend asks Olson to write a script for him, his analogy makes little sense.

Olson also tacitly compares himself to Picasso in the piece. Seriously. As if doing my work for me in proving his asshole-esque nature, he compares himself to fucking Picasso.

And speaking of fucking Picasso, injecting the word ‘fuck’ into your title and using it 9 times in 3 paragraphs shows the particular brand of animosity that’s often found amongst those in the asshole community. Plus, it’s plain old weak writing. I should know. I used it earlier because I’m a weak writer who uses curse words as a goddamned crutch.

Do not ask him to teach you how to make coffee at your house for free.

Thirdly, (we’re on three, right?) I understand that the craft of writing takes years and years to develop and that writers (and screenwriters in particular) are not as praised as they should be. They’re usually overlooked in the film world and in the production process itself. This coupled with the fact that everyone on the planet seems to want to be a screenwriter can be understandably frustrating. The problem that Olson clearly demonstrates is that he doesn’t understand how to be polite. You know who else doesn’t understand how to be polite? Assholes and people who use too many rhetorical questions in essays.

But mostly just assholes.

His situation reminds me of a friend (let’s call him Delbert) that frequently goes to movies with me. My friend pops a nerve in his neck whenever anyone talks during a film. I get it. I hate talking just as much as the next moviegoer, but I could never understand his responses. He only had two settings: 1) quietly stew and allow his experience to be ruined while his anger rose, or 2) yell something intense like, “Would you shut the fuck up?!” to the sinner in question. Delbert was astonished beyond measure when, at a screening two weeks ago, I turned around calmly and asked if the talker would please be quiet, saying thank you after my request. Mostly he was astonished because it worked in a way that yelling didn’t seem to. I think there’s an expression here about vinegar and honey, but it escapes me at the moment.

So, as a public service to Olson and assholes like him, I offer these three statements for use whenever the big, scary situation of someone asking a favor arises:

“I’m really sorry. I realize that it seems like a small request, but it would take me considerable time to give it the attention it deserves, and I have stacks and stacks of scripts to read for work and another giant stack for friends. How about I give you a call if my schedule clears up?”
“Sure. I’ll take a look at your synopsis/script, but I have to warn you that I won’t hold back in my notes. If I think it sucks, I’ll tell you so, but I’ll do it constructively no matter what.” NOTE: This only works if you understand how to give constructive criticism.
“Oh! You think I’m that Josh Olson? No, no. I’m actually international hockey player Josh Olson who was formerly of the Florida Panthers.” NOTE: This only works if you’re Josh Olson.

Here’s where I could go on a rant about how society at large has lost a sense of politeness, but the real point is that if you’re polite and genuine, you’ll never seem like or be an asshole. It just doesn’t work that way. And if someone does feel like you’re an asshole when you’re being considerate and polite, you can still sleep at night knowing that you aren’t. Basically, there are ways to handle the situation that don’t seem to enter into Olson’s mind (or at least don’t enter into his essay).

Fourthly, I don’t think that most screenwriters feel so trapped by the whole thing. I’m speculating here, but I use John August, Craig Mazin and Ted Elliott as living counter-arguments to Olson’s vitriol. All three take their personal time to answer questions from total strangers and run incredibly good websites (August’s Blog and The Artful Writer) that offer tips on writing. They are living, breathing arguments as to why Olson is, in fact, an asshole. Perhaps they still have some perspective on those hands in the fog that helped them get their first foothold in an impossible business. Perhaps they just realize that helping others isn’t such a bad thing. And that leads directly into my final and most important point.

I have to wonder if Josh Olson circa 2002 (fresh off of writing and directing the direct-to-video masterpiece Infested)would have written this same piece. I doubt it. I also highly doubt that Josh Olson got to where he is on his own. I’m not saying that it’s impossible to jump from schlock horror into a tuxedo at the Academy Awards on your own merit, but it seems far more likely that Olson had a few friends reading his stuff and giving him harsh notes. Because that’s how it works.

Maybe a few more struggling writers should display their seriousness and willingness to learn so that pros offer to read for them, maybe pros should realize that there are worse fates in the world than reading a bad script for a friend of a friend. Either way, violently crying into your soup as a representative of your trade while wondering why some don’t respect the artistic integrity of your trade is an asshole move.

In the end I have to thank Olson. Usually I have to talk to people for several minutes before figuring out whether they are assholes or not, and Olson has done a service by simply publicly identifying himself as one. I have no desire to write screenplays, no desire to become a working screenwriter in any way, so I don’t count myself among the ranks of bitter wannabes who feel slighted by the very idea he’s propelling into the world. On the other hand, I’m not a professional screenwriter so I see no need to justify what must be a very real, very irritating reality in their world. Still, it’s a good thing that he doesn’t want to read my fucking script because, if I had one, I have a feeling that I wouldn’t want him to.

Why Park Chan-Wook’s ‘Thirst’ Isn’t Worth the Hype

Brian Salisbury — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:50:36 +0000

Vampire films have been around as long as film itself. Dracula earned his wings as one of the original Universal Monsters back when the role was helmed by the incomparable Bela Lugosi. I thought about this a lot today because I think Universal Monster is a very apt term for a vampire; in a way that transcends studio labels. Vampires stories have origins in scores of ancient cultures from all over the world. Vampire cinema exists on almost every continent and, for better or worse, each entry boasts a unique set of cultural flavors. Chan Wook-Park is a fantastic director and all I heard for weeks was how his vampire opus Thirst was a gorgeous, deeply affecting film; my interest was duly peaked. Two very long hours later, I emerged in the minority. I did not like this film.

Thirst is a beautiful film……..for the first half hour. It explores the deeper, contemplative nature of faith, love, and desire. It uses vampirism as a metaphor for longing; the thirst for blood representing a universal desire for all the base experiences that define us as human. Not only that, I think it’s at once an enthralling love story and a caution of love’s potentially debilitating power to compromise you. Chan-wook Park is a brilliant filmmaker who always manages to find the heart in any piece. He discovers the most elegant way to break down a commonplace cinematic device like vampires or revenge into a character-driven allegory.

But my problem with the film is that it spends so much time layering metaphor upon metaphor that it becomes overly cerebral and begins to falter as a coherent story. So much time is devoted to digging deeper and deeper into the facets of human existence and the philosophical question of faith and religion that when the conflicting character arcs begin to overlap, the issues actually become muddled and confounded. The movie tries to satisfy too many moral compasses and juggles too many parables to the point that it can’t decide where its true meaning lies. It chases its own tail trying to reconcile all conceivable perspectives forcing the plot to meander and culminating in the reason that the film feels way too long. It’s not pretentious, it’s just faulty storytelling.

I love Park Chan-wook. I am a big fan of his methodically-paced, slow burn style. When the curtains are finally pulled back in Oldboy, you are decimated but it completely justifies the long narrative journey you’ve undertaken. The same can be said of Lady Vengeance. Her plan was 13 years in the making and we get to watch as each piece slowly falls into place vignette by vignette, but again the ending feels like the perfect conclusion to a long, eloquent character arc. The problem with Thirst is that the symbolism and the metaphors don’t support the conclusion of an arc but rather muddle it and hurt the overall composition of the story.

Going back to Park Chan-wook’s slow burn style, there is a point about 2/3 of the way through the film that feels like the big payoff moment. But instead of ending, the film redirects its energy toward that which it has already established. I’ll once again be vague here so as to not spoil anything. Park Chan-wook does a fantastic job establishing these characters to the point that we can deduce just how the events beyond that payoff point are going to unfold. But we are still forced to watch those inevitable outcomes repetitively unfold. Even if you are of the opinion that the film should not end at this point, a valid argument with which I disagree, there are plot points beyond that moment that are repeated so often as to seem perpetually looped. It transforms the nuance we’ve seen in his other films into explicitness and I feel the film suffers tonally for that change.

The actual ending of the film is the perfect example of this redundancy. Suffice it to say one character in the film has resigned to something of which the other character on screen wants no part. Let’s…..Be……Vague! It is one of those wonderful, cathartic moments of dark humor one usually finds peppered throughout a Park Chan-wook film. But again, the moment is replayed and replayed until it smacks of bad slapstick. Park gets his point across early but revisits it in such a way as to make sure we’re all in on the obvious joke. It’s like someone explaining to you why their joke is funny when you got it the first time, it’s condescending and makes the joke far less funny.

I have heard many times that this film is operatic. It stems from something a critic said and I have since heard several people apply a musical simile of some gender to it. To wit, let me throw my hat into the figurative ring and offer that this film is like a singer with one of the most beautiful voices you’ve ever heard. The lyrics she sings are moving and powerful, but each verse features lyrics from a different song. She can’t decide which song she wants to sing and my heart broke because of the utter disharmony of these captivating, separate words.

All that being said, I realize I’m in the minority on this. I think Park Chan-wook is a brilliant filmmaker, and I have really loved his other films, but Thirst didn’t cut it for me.

Oscars Shmoscars! We Pick the 2009 Scream Award Winners

Brian Salisbury — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:39:37 +0000

The wait is finally over. The anticipation all year long, the bittersweet uncertainty, the constant flaming of people that don’t like Twilight and Transformers 2 on the Internet, and having to actually sit through Spike TV programming have once again come to fanboy fruition. The nominees have been announced for the 2009 Scream Awards. Pause for applause. The fourth-annual Sci-Fi, Horror, Fantasy ceremony will air on Spike on October 27th. Sure, this event could be perceived as a ham-fisted box office stroke fest for people who can’t wait until next year’s MTV Movie Awards but I am choosing to see the small amount of merit here. There is something to be said for genre-based fan-loving award shows as an alternative to the stuffy, pretentious, now overly complicated Academy…..stroke-fest. If you want to read a masterful, comprehensive analysis of something that is boring as all hell, see Dr. Abaius’ breakdown of the new Oscar voting rules.

As much as I like to explore film as an abstract visual art medium, I am also a lover of genre and unmitigated badassitude. And as terrible as Summer 2009 was, we are on the threshold of a geek renaissance in mainstream cinema. Look at the bulk of the titles this year and set to be released in the next. We have not one, but two post-apocalyptic films, a score of vampire films, the adaptation of one of the greatest graphic novels of all time, a zombie comedy, and a film literally called: Ninja Assassin. Not only that, but Sci-Fi is really becoming auteur again with District 9 and Moon challenging us the way Science-Fiction was born to do. So for me, something like the Scream Awards presents an interesting venue for unrepentant movie geeks like me to measure our non-arthouse fare.

For full details on the the nominees and the categories, feel free to check out the full story at Coming Soon. But allow me to run down some of the categories, because they are in and of themselves fantastic, and provide both my choice and the film that will more than likely win. Because as much as I may be coming around on the idea of the Scream Awards, they do in fact rely on online and text voting to pick the winners so obviously there will be controversial decisions.

Best Horror Movie:

My Pick: Let The Right One In. Nuanced, thought-provoking, beautiful film.

Actual Winner: My Bloody Valentine. 3-D Va Jay Jay!

Best Science Fiction Movie:

My Pick: Moon. I’m assuming the only reason District 9 isn’t nominated is it was released too late. While I didn’t love Moon as much as everybody else, it’s a very smart, intense film and Rockwell knocks it right the fuck out of the park with his performance.

Actual Winner: Star Trek. I am very ok with this choice as I thought this was by far the best mainstream summer release this year.

Best Fantasy Movie:

My Pick: Up. I don’t really consider Watchmen fantasy so I have to go with Pixar’s heart-breaking, coming-of-age film (for the studio as a whole that is) that had me weeping like a tiny little girl.

Actual Winner: Twilight. Anyone who believes this piece of shit qualifies as a film is really living in a fantasy world.

Best Ensemble:

My Pick: Watchmen. This one was tough for me because I truly believe that the entire cast of Star Trek does a phenomenal job. But the source material given to the Watchmen cast was far more complex and their (overall) adherence to it and the subsequent caliber of performances makes them my pick.

Actual Winner: Twilight. Because people who read these books, who will comprise most of the voting audience, don’t know the word ensemble.

Best Director:

My Pick: Duncan Jones, Moon. This was tough for me as well. But this first-time feature film director adopts the massive undertaking of creating a quiet, cerebral sci-fi opus in a summer choked by sequels and spin-offs. The film is cool as all get out and Jones got a stellar performance out of his only actor who carries the film perfectly.

Actual Winner: I’m going to give the voters some credit here and assume Michael Bay will lose to Abrams.

Best Foreign Film:

My Pick: Let The Right One In. Much deliberation went into this one. I love Timecrimes, I got to see its premiere at Fantastic Fest two years ago. I think it is a phenomenal piece of storytelling. It is taut, captivating, and brilliantly subtle in both performances and overall execution. But Let The Right One In affected me more and I would re-watch it more readily than Timecrimes. Tough call.

Actual Winner: Let The Right One In is probably the only one the voters will have heard of.

Most Memorable Mutilation:

My Pick: Let The Right One In (Swimming Pool Scene). First of all, I love that I get to rate this. To avoid spoiling things, sufficed to say that the scene in the swimming pool is largely suggestive. The few bits we are privy to are terrifying and the scene concluded with me breathless.

Actual Winner: Saw V (Pendulum Trap). Honestly, why the fuck are they still making these? I love that they’ve run out of ideas for traps and are now plagiarizing Edgar Allen Poe.

Fight-To-The-Death Scene of the Year:

My Pick: Watchmen. The opening bout between The Comedian and his assailant is not only incredibly faithful to the graphic novel but also deeply moving and beautifully photographed. Say what you will about Snyder’s penchant for slow motion, but I always imagined a certain amount of slow, agonizing movements when I read it.

Actual Winner: X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Wolverine vs. Sabertooth). I don’t know why. Also, Kirk vs. Spock is nominated?!! Not to ruin the insanely obvious, but neither of them die in that exchange. In fact, there is never a moment when you actually believe one of them could die so that should not at all be nominated.

Holy S***! Scene of the Year:

My Pick: Knowing (Subway Crash). Another capital category here. I hate Knowing. Cage’s acting reaches new degrees of horrendous and the screenplay seems like the product of a writer who was clinically dead for four hours before coming around and penning the ending. That being said, the disaster sequences were honest and horrific and I could barely watch them.

Actual Winner: Knowing. Seriously, did you see this sequence?

So that’s it, my long-winded postulations regarding an award show most of us will not watch. I think it has a lot of potential, but will still likely be plagued by a juvenile core of voters. Thoughts?

Iron Man 2 in 3D: No, That’s Not Cool

Neil Miller — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:47:09 +0000

When he started this little rumor in the wee hours of this morning, Ain’t It Cool News head redhead Harry Knowles was filled with “geekgasmic fury bridled with awesome euphoria” as well as several exclamation point inducing shots of nerd-ecstasy. Several hours later, as many of us begin to investigate this claim that Marvel is experimenting with the conversion of Iron Man 2 to 3D, we begin to realize that this might not be as exciting as it sounds. Here’s the gospel, according to Knowles:

Right now, there is a 1 minute demo of IRON MAN 2 converted to high quality digital 3D. I’m told this one minute is totally like Kim Basinger & Mickey Rourke in 9 1/2 WEEKS. HOT! Crazy Hot! Right now the Suits at Marvel & Paramount & now also Disney are considering this 1 minute.

At the same time that this is happening, they are fishing for bids with 3 different companies to see what the cost and time it would take to convert IRON MAN 2 to a complete 3D film.

Now, lets take a moment to consider what’s actually being said here — Iron Man 2 has already wrapped principal photography. It was not shot using cameras designed for 3D, it was shot on standard cameras. That means that the film would have to be converted to 3D after the fact. Which isn’t as cool as it sounds.

But before I get into the technical nitty-gritty on this one, let me say this: I like 3D, when it’s done right. The format clearly has more to offer than a theme park ride gimmick, as evidence by its use in films such as Henry Selick’s Coraline or the over-the-top slasher extravaganza My Bloody Valentine 3D. Unfortunately, there are a lot of studios that want to apply this format to just about every movie (Dreamworks) in order to raise ticket prices. But the piece they’re missing is the creative one, the ability to make 3D about depth of field and not yo-yos flying at the faces of the audience.

Yet, even most of those movies are 3D movies from the start, which is half the battle. Those movies, including shtick-bombs like Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D are shot with a special 3D camera, which essentially has two lenses, one for each eye. Many of the other films you see in 3D are CG-animated films, which can be rendered twice, creating a 3D environment. And as my good friend Peter at /Film points out, it is easy to see why going back and re-rendering a movie like Toy Story for 3D works.

With live-action, the process is much different. The 3D effect is created by essentially creating a 3D environment and graphing the original 2D image on to a 3D polygon. You still have a 2D image, it is just wrapped around a 3D computer wire-mold. Think of the difference between a pop-up book or a shoebox diorama as opposed to a scale miniature model. Looking at the diorama appears to be more of a 2D image that’s sticking out at you, whereas the miniature model actually is in 3D. Such is the case with 3D rendering. There is a clear quality difference between live-action films shot in 3D and films that are rendered in 3D. Take, for example, the 3D elements of the latest Harry Potter movie. You can see how they created that in the video below.

Taking all of that into consideration, I’m not sold on Iron Man 2 in 3D. I will reserve final judgment for the time if and when we get to see some 3D footage, but on process alone I don’t think it’s a good idea. There are claims out there that the technology has come a long way and that it looks really great, but all of those sources are inside of a studio who benefits from you spending $14 on a 3D movie ticket, not from independent experts who have no stake in the game. Iron Man would be a cool character to see in 3D — but I’d want it done right. And for now, I think it is probably too late in the game to do it right this time around.

What do you think about Iron Man 2 in 3D?

Why Batman 3 Will Not Be Shot Fully in IMAX

Neil Miller — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:43:55 +0000

Not a month goes by that we aren’t reminded that another Batman movie isn’t in the works. I’m sure it’s just as bad for director Christopher Nolan, who is probably trying his hardest right now to get the word out on Inception, his high-concept sci-fi movie slated for release next year. After directing his way to one of the biggest movies of all-time in The Dark Knight, Nolan has become person of interest numero uno for fanboys and fangirls across the web. Everyone wants to know: when is another Batman movie happening, what will the story be, and what characters will be involved?

Throwing aside the obviously ridiculousness of such rumors as Megan Fox as Catwoman (thanks, British tabloids) and Eddie Murphy as, well, any character, I would like to address a new rumor that has popped up over at Ain’t It Cool News. According to high-flying Headnerd Harry Knowles, an inside source has said that “the third chapter of Christopher Nolan’s Caped Crusader’s saga could very well be FULLY shot in IMAX, not IMAX Digital, but the beautiful, stunning IMAX that we saw pieces of The Dark Knight in.” Bad grammar and unnecessary use of caps aside, this is an interesting proposition. Fans who beheld The Dark Knight in IMAX know what I’m talking about here — the sequences shot in true IMAX were breathtaking.

And while I, like many of you, would love to see Nolan take IMAX to the full-length level, it just won’t happen. And I will tell you why…

1. There aren’t enough real IMAX venues to make it worth it. Sure, IMAX is great — but when it comes to making a heavy duty blockbuster movie, a studio is going to look for the biggest bang for its buck. Currently, that doesn’t necessarily apply to IMAX. As of June, there were just over 300 IMAX-capable venues in over 42 countries. There are over 29,000 screens in the United States alone. It is unknown (at least to Google) how much it costs to take IMAX film and downconvert for a 35mm projection system, but I doubt that it’s cheap. Therefore, the studio — in this case, Warner Bros. — would be required to shell out extra money just to put its movie in regular theaters. Not exactly the sort of move studios jump to make.

2. It is just too expensive. Estimates place the cost of production — including the time it takes to move cameras, build custom rigs, change reels, as well as the heightened cost of materials — in the range of 50-100% higher than that of standard film production. Those sequences we all enjoyed in 2008’s episode of the Batman saga could have cost upwards of 2x more than other sequences in the film. To shoot an entire movie in this fashion, even with cost-saving advancements and aggressive innovation, could still drive the film’s production north of $300 million. And despite the fact that The Dark Knight brought in almost $1 billion worldwide at the box office, it doesn’t make sense to push production costs on the next one that high. For WB, it is a simple decision: spend $300 million and hope you make that $1 billion again, bringing in $700 million in profit (marketing and other undisclosed costs aside). Or make a third movie for $185 million (the reported budget of TDK) and possibly bring in another $915 million in profit.

3. Box office success is not guaranteed. With The Dark Knight, there were other factors impacting its box office take, including the death of star Heath Ledger in the year leading up to the film’s release. Say what you want about how much it did or didn’t impact the numbers. From where I’m sitting, it did have an effect on the film’s success. People went out to see his epic final performance, a posthumous Oscar worthy performance. That will draw crowds. As well, there is a statistical trend working against a third movie — third movies traditionally don’t do as well as their predecessors. For example:

Terminator 3 cost $100 million more than T2, and made $50 million less.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End cost $75 million more than Dead Man’s Chest, and grossed $115 million less domestically.

There are obvious exceptions to this rule, including The Bourne Ultimatum (which added $50 million to the box office take of The Bourne Supremacy) and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (which bested The Two Towers by $38 million). But both of these are incremental increases. And neither of these saw a major rise in production cost. Not to the tune of 50-100% more, that’s for sure. Put simply, the risk would be too high for Warner Bros. to sink all that money into IMAX.

4. The movie might not happen at all. Through all of this, I think we miss the most obvious points. There is no script, the director has not signed and there has been no official indication that a third Batman movie will happen anytime soon. Sure, it is easy to assume that Warner Bros. will want to make another film and capitalize on the heat generated from The Dark Knight, but that doesn’t mean they will be able to get Chris Nolan back on the horse. He has said time and time again that the story needs to be there. What if it is never there? And if the movie never happens, it can’t be in full IMAX then, can it? I know it’s semantics, but I like to reinforce my arguments — especially when I’m clearly right.

Don’t get me wrong, kids, I’m with you. I would love to see a big, beautiful IMAX explosion for a third Batman movie as much as any of you. However, right now it is little more than a pipe dream. The way I see it, there is too much risk in such a venture. And in this economy, I doubt Warner Bros. would be willing to spend the extra money on IMAX when they can have Christopher Nolan spend the same amount of money that he did on TDK and likely see similar profit margins. Could they spring for a few more minutes of IMAX? Sure. Will they spring for 2.5+ hours of IMAX? Not likely. It all comes down to simple financial risk assessment.

Feel free to spread your own opinion on the matter in the comment section below…

Inglourious Basterds: 10 Things I Liked, 5 Things I Didn’t

Brian C. Gibson — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:41:51 +0000

Editor’s Note: Warning, as with all of our ‘Ten and Five’ articles, this one does contain spoilers. Please be warned.

Inglourious Basterds has been a project talked about for almost a decade now, living only in the mind of Quentin Tarantino. Finally the film is almost here, and worth the wait. Take a minute though, and listen to a few warnings that come with this film. Just like many other QT films, this one has a lot of dialog. Fortunately though, his films are known to have some of the best dialog. So don’t expect a bunch of action, but this is QT’s most fun film to date. Also, there are a lot of Eli Roth haters…so if you hated him before, it will be tough to hate him after seeing Inglourious Basterds. Finally, one of the hottest talking points of this film has been Brad Pitt’s accent. Trust that there is a purpose for the overdone accent, and it plays like a character all by itself later in the film. What is there not to like about the prospect of a Tarantino directed World War 2 film? Well, I found a few things. But first…

10 Things I Liked

10. Cultural Profiling

You get to see some of this in the trailer, but the dialog in the film is hilarious. Brad Pitt profiles all of Germany with quips like, “why don’t you use your weiner-schnitzel licking finger” and “if you ever want to eat another sauerkraut sandwich again.” Priceless.

9. Badass Principals

Within the trailer, I’m sure you noticed a Nazi with a swastika carved into his forehead. This is actually one of my favorite ideals of the entire movie. Also, if you are going to shoot at Hitler, make sure it is done in the same way that QT would do it.

8. Subtitles

I really love the fact that QT went out and found talent from each respective country, and talent that could gracefully speak each language. Who would have ever thought, other than her German family, that Diane Kruger could be hot and speak fluent German? Some people are really annoyed by subtitles, and this might be one of those movies where you really lose notice of them.

7. Production and Costume Design

The production design and costumes on this film were incredible. The colors pop off of the screen, especially during the movie premiere. QT’s films usually have a high attention to detail and Basterds is no different.

6. The Score

If you pay close attention, the score changes very stylistically from chapter to chapter within the film. It was Spaghetti Western at a point, and harsh contemporary at other points. The score did a wonderful job at setting the right mode for each scene.

5. The Basterds

The Basterds themselves are a spectacle. It is a bit disheartening to see that they don’t have a ton of screen time. There are two amazing scenes that make you feel the Basterd’s mark on the film, but sadly there is just not enough of their ‘men on a mission’ moments.

4. Brad Pitt

To my immediate memory, Tarantino hasn’t directed an actor that carries the same clout as Brad Pitt. Warning, don’t try and debate that John Travolta, Bruce Willis or Samuel L. Jackson carry any more clout than Pitt in the film industry. Pitt is one of those actors that I have always theoretically wished to be under the direction of QT. Pitt was a bit experimental in his roles, especially early in his career with films like Fight Club, 12 Monkeys, Seven, Kalifornia, Cool World and even the Tarantino written True Romance (even though it was a very small part. I have been happy to see his experimental side coming back with Burn After Reading and now – Inglorious Basterds. One thing that I have already heard, is that his accent is too thick and even annoying. Trust in the fact that Pitt’s accent is almost like an entire separate character within the film. QT has a method to the mayhem, and this film’s mayhem is glorious.

3. Eli Roth is Badass

For those who don’t know, Eli Roth is better known as a director. He has directed films such as Cabin Fever, Hostel and Hostel 2. Roth gets a bit too much criticism from his films, and unfairly I might add. He directs his horror films with a bit of humor. Some people frown on his films and their humor, but I’m not here to talk about his directing. Stop hating, and experience all that is Donny “The Bear Jew” Donowitz. Roth put on quite a bit of muscle, and creates one of the more entertaining characters of the Tarantino ensemble. Donny carries a baseball bat, and kills Nazis with it. It’s quite fun to watch, and I say that in the least creepy way. Donny isn’t the only entertaining Basterd though, the trailer made it pretty clear that Brad Pitt will be one of the biggest draws of the film.

2. Tarantino is Back! Even though he was never gone…

Tarantino fans really do not need to be convinced to go see this film, but QT has received a bit of negative criticism over the past few years. There were not a lot of positive things said about Death Proof, even though I personally really enjoyed it. So for QT fans, start to get excited. The film never begs to be taken seriously, but expels its own tone of serious badass fun. Like most QT films there are some laughs, but there is also a bunch of blood and mayhem. Much of this mayhem comes from Eli Roth, known in the film as Donny Donowitz…also known as “The Bear Jew.” Like I said, time to get excited.

1. Italian Accents

Trust me, this will make sense when you see the film for yourself.

So after all of this praise, what is not to like?

5 Things I Didn’t

5. Alternate Universe

Spoilers Ahead. The film never actually tells you that it is not historically accurate, just never tells you that it is. There is no “based on” preface at the start of the film. You will find yourself forgiving these historical inaccuracies due to the fact that each detail within QT’s grasp is tight and cohesive.

4. Apathetic to Adolf

I didn’t know if it was supposed to be funny, or just supposed to be Adolf. I think it was supposed to be funny, but I didn’t laugh.

3. More Action Please

I promised I wouldn’t complain about too much dialog, so instead I will complain about not enough action. This is supposed to be World War 2 QT, give us some bloody war.

2. More Basterds Please

This also falls into the “More Action Please” category. The Basterds are awesome, and I would say they should have their own movie…but that is already kind of what is going on. When you see the movie though, you will find that the Basterds just play a part in the film, and not the film’s subject.

1. Subtitles

Did I mention that I can’t read?

7 Reasons Why a District 9 Video Game Would Be Awesome

Neil Miller — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:04:32 +0000

Editor’s Note: The following article may contain spoilers for the movie District 9, as it does discuss some of the film’s advanced elements. Also, thanks to our good friend Muhammad Saleem (@msaleem on Twitter) for sending over crucial feedback that led to this article.

Chances are good that you spent at least two hours of this weekend watching Neill Blomkamp’s innovative, intense alien action film District 9. And if you’re anything like us, you walked out of the theater thinking a few things: (a) that Neill Blomkamp should direct a Halo movie and (b) District 9 would make a kick-ass video game experience. It could be something along the lines of Halo meets Call of Duty, Resistance 2 meets inFamous. The film comes to us from the folks at Columbia Pictures, whose brethren, Sony Interactive, has some experience delivering some badass gameplay, so it got us thinking that not only is District 9 about to become a recognizable brand name, but it has all of the essential elements for a great action video game.

With that in mind, we humbly present 7 Reasons Why a District 9 Game Would Be Awesome:

7. Three Distinct Playable Groups – Military/MNU, Gangs, Aliens

Every great game needs good guys and bad guys. In this case, we have multiple sets of bad guys, a few sets of good guys and blurry lines all over the place. In a game version, D9 could include gameplay as main alien character Christopher Johnson, MNU agent Wikus Van de Merwe, one of the MNU soldiers and one of the members of the Nigerian gang. Or better yet, levels that allow you to play as different characters with diverse objectives. As well, we also have the element in which Wikus is undergoing a transformation throughout the film — something that could be explored in the game.

6. Great Alien Weapons

I will talk a bit about the badass alien mech suit in a moment. For now, lets focus ourselves on the 5-6 really awesome guns shown off in the movie. Guns that eradicate targets with electric energy, causing them to burst into pieces. Guns that energize targets and cause them to catch fire. And lets not forget that really wicked gun that sends men through walls with an enormous pulse. These guns can do some serious damage — they might as well do so on my computer screen or in the confines of my XBox 360.

5. Awesome Vehicles, Alien and Human

In the film, there are several cool vehicles in both the human and alien arsenals, but those are just starting points. Game creators could expand on the concepts presented in the film to bring to life cool MNU assault vehicles and alternate alien technology, creating a user experience that is much more than just one character walking with a badass gun. Who wouldn’t love to take a spin in the alien command module or defend humanity from an awesome MNU armored vehicle? I know I’d like to have that happening in my life.

4. Diverse Locales and Economic Elements

From the shantytowns of District 9 to the streets of Johannesburg to the tented internment camp of District 10, there are plenty of locales within this movie that would make for great shootout levels in a game. Not to mention the high-security MNU headquarters, which must be infiltrated in order for Christopher Johnson to return home. Heck, there is even great potential in humanity entering the alien mothership. As well, there are economic elements already present in the D9 world, including the cat food trade and the weapons trade — those could be utilized to add layers to gameplay.

3. Awesome First Person Shooter Potential

The work of director Neill Blomkamp and cinematographer Trent Opaloch is almost screaming it at the audience: this is first-person shooting at its best. Some of the film’s shots that show a point-of-view right down the barrel of an army gun to the views from within the alien mech suit at the end, this movie is tailor-made for a first person shooter environment. Think Halo, but at times potentially more chaotic and with a much heavier narrative. And in my opinion, cooler weapons.

2. Human-Alien Co-op Mode / Online Multiplayer

To me this is a given. The film’s climactic sequence is one in which Wikus (human) must help Christopher Johnson (alien) avoid the fire of the army in order to get back to his son, his ship and ultimately his way home. This screams co-op, which can be played both in person (2-player mode) and online. As well, my gamer-sense tells me that players around the world are always itching for a cool property to play online, in massively multiplayer ways. If executed properly, a D9 game could be the online multiplayer experience that keeps those bean bag chairs wet.

1. The Mech Sequence

I’ve mentioned it a few times, but I’ve saved it for last as its own reason. The alien mech suit — seen in the final scenes of the film — is quite possibly the coolest alien gadget we’ve seen in quite a while. Who doesn’t want to get into one of those awesome alien mech suits and blast some human soldiers to smithereens? If you’re answer to that question was no, then there is no help for you — you’ve lost sight of what “cool” really is.

District 9 is in theaters now. If you haven’t seen it yet, you should.

Why ‘MacGruber’ Needs to Be R-Rated

Dr. Cole Abaius — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:30:23 +0000

The other day when an interview with Bill Hader came out that discussed the upcoming concepts behind the feature-length MacGruber film, the reactions were mostly negative. Not because Hader claimed that he wanted the film to be R-rated (after proclaiming that he’d made information up in interviews before), but because most people don’t seem to be too keen on the movie.

I can’t say I’m super excited about it either, but I am thrilled at the possibility that it could be R-rated.

Here’s why.

Saturday Night Live has had a mixed track record with movies ranging from the genius of The Blues Brothers to the mediocrity of It’s Pat! which is clearly one reason for concern. The other seems to be that the sketch itself is short, sweet and always ends the same.

But doesn’t the very nature of that sketch demand a killer R-rating? Here are a few points:

The shortness and meaningless lends itself to an R-rating. I realize I’m a major fan of R-rated comedies, but I think if a film is going to be absurd, it has a rare opportunity to push boundaries, and I’d hate for it to be held back by something as arbitrary as a rating.
It has the potential to surprise everyone. This movie is in the unique position to come out of the gate swinging like few films can. The reaction to its development was almost all negative or apathetic, but with an R-rating, the film could soar over that incredibly low bar that’s been set in order to become a surprise hit for the year. It’s basically like if the Where’s Waldo? film went hard R and shocked everyone by being genius. Which, yes, I’m also pulling for.
Why the hell not? Akin to the argument I just made, it seems like there’s absolutely nothing to lose with this movie. Either it lives up to mediocre expectations or it rockets past them to entertain a ton of people. With a movie like this, it seems highly doubtful that there will be much disparity between PG-13 ticket sale potential and R ticket sale potential.

I think we all realize that it’s going to be a movie-long “MacGuyver” parody, and I actually think that’s kind of cool. With the prospect that it can be as strange and challenging as it wants to be without limitations on how many times they can drop the F-bomb or talk about taints, I’m even more on board.

That’s right. I’m talking deeply about the possible comedy of what amounts to a Pepsi commercial.

What say you?

Moviegoers Not Affected By Twitter Buzz

Neil Miller — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:56:45 +0000

The folks at MovieTickets.com sent over a very interesting little bit of poll information today, tying in the popular social media platform Twitter with mainstream moviegoers. They asked their users the following question: Does buzz on social media platform Twitter.com affect your desire to see a film?

The results were as follows:

No (58%)
Yes (12%)
What’s Twitter (30%)

Of course, before we really get into a big discussion about this, it is important to note that this poll is based on just over 1,100 votes. But it does represent a segment of internet-using movie fans, as MovieTickets.com is one of the larger ticket sales websites, and could be representative of larger segments of society. That said, I’m not surprised that almost 1/3 of users asked ‘What’s Twitter?’

If you do the math, the last census showed that about 72% of the population in the United States uses the internet (some 220 million people). In 2009, industry estimates place the user base of Twitter in the 10 to 15 million range. That means that even with a generous estimated user count, Twitter is only utilized by 6.8% of all internet users and less than 5% of all Americans.

Now, some movie-related data. So far in it’s run, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (a movie that got beat to hell on Twitter) has made $394,446,105 at the domestic box office. The average price of a movie ticket, according to a NATO survey, is $7.18. That means that on average, about 55 million people saw Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. That is, for those keeping score, more than 3x the amount of people that are on Twitter. Of course, this doesn’t take into consideration people that saw the movie multiple times, but you get the idea — it is impressive, either way.

So of course, while I love to use Twitter (follow me: @rejects) and I love to spread my own movie-related opinions and discuss all things film with my fellow Tweeters, the social media platform isn’t ultimately relevant when it comes to the success or failure of a major motion picture. As my good friend Luke (@ldmullen) said earlier today here at Reject HQ, Twitter is relevant to those who use it. Everyone else, well that’s another story.

Do you follow movie buzz on Twitter? Does it impact your decisions about which movies to see?

What Might Have Been: Neill Blomkamp’s Halo Movie

Dr. Cole Abaius — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:07:52 +0000

With the utterly mind-blowing brilliance of District 9 right around the corner, I figured I’d take a look back and lament something that might have been.

Back in 2007, producer Peter Jackson announced that completely untested director Neill Blomkamp would be helming a Halo movie. The result was mixed to negative reactions from the film and gamer community – obviously it would have been impossible to know what the man was capable of, but having a first-timer cut his teeth on something that could have been that important to fanboys seemed irresponsible.

Now, with the release of District 9 and the full spectrum of what Blomkamp is capable of, the movie speaks in a way as a giant cinematic middle finger that anyone doubted him. Blomkamp has pulled off something that most directors work entire careers to realize, and he’s done it with his very first feature. A strong statement to some and a vivid reminder of what Blomkamp could have done with Halo.

Luckily, in conjunction with that announcement and the release of “Halo 3,” Blomkamp created three short films that have all been mashed together into one, seven-minute long film showing off the bare-bones, rudimentary nature of his style. Watch, learn, and imagine what this all could have looked like with a few hundred million behind it.

Yes, the introduction is a little shaky, and there’s a definite lack of a story, but his signature is all over it. Now that we know that Blomkamp can handle intelligent science fiction with intense action scenes, all the criticisms that could be laid on a short film like this seem to fade away.

All that’s left is the hope that Blomkamp might be asked and might say, ‘yes’ to directing if Steven Spielberg can get the project off the ground and doesn’t want the director’s chair for himself.

What do you think?

Who Wouldn’t Want Christina Hendricks as Barbarella?

Neil Miller — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:14:25 +0000

Late last week, The Hollywood Reporter updated the world on the still-going production of the Barbarella remake, which has now moved from the hands of Robert Rodriguez to those of 21 director Robert Luketic. The project was set up at Universal back in 2007, but has never really gotten off the ground, as is the case with more than a few Rodriguez-led ventures (lets face it, the man is just too busy).

For those not hip to it, Barbarella follows the sexy adventures of its title character, a female mercenary who roams the universe in the distant future, undertaking missions that require fearlessness, ingenuity and sensuality. Famously portrayed by Jane Fonda in the 1968 film directed by Roger Vadim, Barbarella is known as a campy, but fun-loving sexual icon.

According to recent reports, producer Dino De Laurentis and new screenwriter Joe Gazzam will be taking a new direction, focusing more on Barbarella’s space adventures rather than the campiness. Though, much to the delight of fans I’m sure, they will be keeping with the sexuality.

Interestingly enough, the THR story also includes a user poll asking who fans would like to see as Barbarella. They list the likes of Mila Kunis, Jessica Alba, Zoe Saldana, Lindsay Lohan, Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Biel. That’s a solid enough list, Lohan aside, but I must agree with Devin Faraci over at CHUD, who suggests Mad Men star Christina Hendricks.

For Barbarella, you need someone who is pure sex — and someone who can also do sexy with a wink and a nod. And anyone who has seen more than 10 minutes of Mad Men knows that Hendricks (who plays Joan Holloway), is that and more. In fact, I cannot think of anyone more perfect for such a role than Hendricks. She’s got the physical assets, the chops and she’s ripe for a big screen breakout. She’s also not a name that comes with baggage, as is the case with someone like Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel. In this world where Chris Hemsworth is going to play Thor, why can’t we go with another fresh face for Barbarella?

What do you think about another Barbarella movie? Do you also think that Christina Hendricks would be great in the title role?

Dudes: Get Her Out of the Kitchen & Into ‘Julie & Julia’

Bethany Perryman — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:01:57 +0000

Well, the moment you’ve been waiting for has finally arrived. G.I. Joe is out! But — uh oh — you also might want to get laid this Friday. Question: do you go with the boys to see G.I. Joe, or do you call up your sweetheart and let her pick the flick? If you choose the latter, you — along with every other pussywhipped American male — will be seeing Julie & Julia this weekend. You should be for this, and I’ll tell you why. You should also be wondering what should you know in order to effectively discuss this movie over that wine you bought because you thought the label was cool (Educated Guess, anyone?), but can’t actually discern its crappy quality with your underdeveloped pallete? Look no further. We’ve got you covered.

Julia Child 101

Brought French cuisine and techniques to the American mainstream pallete
Her iconic TV Show was parodied on SNL by Dan Akroyd
Author of several books, including the hugely famous 1961 cookbook Mastering the Art of French Cooking
Lived to be 91
Julia Child was 6′2”
Her entire kitchen is on display at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC (Don’t let FSR Editor Neil Miller fool you, he was excited to see it.)
Married Paul Child in 1946
In parts of the 40s and 50s, they lived in Paris, France, where Paul worked with the US Information Agency and Julia was introduced to fine cuisine

Julie Powell 101

Blogger/Writer
Wrote Julie and Julia: 365 Days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment Kitchen
Born and raised in Austin, Texas (home of Reject World Headquarters)
Cheated on husband and used butchering meat to cope
Contentious figure in the pretentious foodie blogosphere
No one likes her. She is not like Amy Adams.

Other Interesting Facts

Julie & Julia is the first major motion picture to be based on a blog.

What’s In It For You?

She’ll be cooking — gourmet cooking (hint: more butter!) — for at least a good three weeks after she sees this one. If she sees it with you, try the “I love your cooking! You should try some of these…” line, listing all of your favorite meats. You won’t be sorry.
Suggest that she learn some “cool cocktails” or “wine pairings” that complement her new entrees. Offer to fix them. Make ‘em, but double the amount of alcohol called for in each recipe. Strong. Real strong.
Suggest that she get a blog to vent her frustrations. Assure her you’ll read it. (Don’t.) Insantly less bitching. (No guarantees, fellas.)
Remind her that expensive vacations, like decade-long trips to Paris, might end up in the both of you being prosecuted by Joseph McCarthy for being suspected as communist sympathizers.
Tell her that if you treat for dinner and the movie, she has to bring the dessert. Hey-o!

Bloggers Start Food Fight Over ‘Julie & Julia’

Bethany Perryman — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 07:31:31 +0000

It’s supposedly a tale of two tarts — one, the most celebrated and accomplished chef in the world (played by one of the most celebrated and accomplished actress in the world), and the other a — well, less accomplished secretary who decides to learn how to cook and blog at the same time. Julie & Julia is supposedly a chronicle of Julia Child (Meryl Streep) and Mr. Julia Child (Stanley Tucci)’s 1940s-50s stint as foreign diplomats in Paris, peppered in with 45 minutes to an hour of Julie Powell (Amy Adams) cooking and blogging.

There are, essentially, two impressive things about this movie: 1) it’s the first major motion picture based on a blog, and 2) despite being a complete shoe-in for success (any half-decent subject matter + Nora Ephron + Meryl Streep = dolla dolla bills, y’all), it has blown the souflee lid off of the world of the foodie. As we here at Reject HQ nosh on what we can only hope is leftover Hamburger Helper, those who live, breathe, and blog food are boiling.

Sacre bleu! Seems like Sony invited some but not all of the upper echelon of floggers (which I just decided stands for food bloggers) to the press junket and early press screenings. (FSR? We screened it, yes. But junket? No way. Those Sony people have seen the damage we can do to a craft services table.) These reviewers were hand-picked, which netted potentially buttered-up reviews of the film.

Is this spin control? Is this brilliant marketing? Is this spoon-feeding an already percolating food crowd with an appertif? Or is this a recipe for disaster?

Read some of the buzz, and you tell us:

Roger Moore of The Orlando Sentinel:

“[T]here hasn’t been an “amen chorus” of endorsement from that fractious lot. Apparently comic-book fans, horror fans and “American Idol” acolytes have nothing on food bloggers when it comes to invective and scorching their own.”

The Food Section:

“You watch Julie, but you root for Julia.”

Rucass, a commenter at Eater.com:

“I’m going to be the first to say “Yawn”, what a boring sounding movie, and a bunch of cooks and writers and even more wannabes latching on to this snoozer.”

A source at Page Six:

“Julie & Julia [. . .] won’t tackle [. . .] how Powell nearly wrecked her own marriage by having an affair with a close friend. [. . .] Some insiders speculate Ephron purposely stayed away from Powell’s confession that she had the extramarital affair to keep audiences rooting for her. ‘She ended up having an affair after her husband, who was portrayed as a saint in the book, stood by her for a year while she was cooking her way through Child’s book.’

Newsweek.com writes an article entitled “Stop Hating Julie Powell, Please”:

“In the seven years since Powell started her blog, the premise seems to have gone from Julie and Julia to Julie vs. Julia, with Julia winning.”

Gawker.com finds some of the snark with its “Prissy Food Bloggers Hate Food Blogger Movie”.

Virginia Willis chimes in with: Julia and Julie: Yes, The Swap is Intentional (negative!)

Julia Child calls Julie Powell’s blog a ’stunt’ on EatMeDaily.com.

And, just for fun, a few jewels from @lrherm, who was livetweeting a screening event:

“Nora Ephron on statement film makes about food: nothing revolutionary, not asking you to take position against corn.”
“highlight: listening to bloggers argue ‘whether film geeks or comic book geeks are geekier’. Jury’s still out.”

It certainly is.

Film School Rejects » Opinions

A Christmas Carol: ‘Twas a Spiritless Affair, Indeed

Related Reading:

Five Reasons to Watch The Venture Bros. Season 4

Related Reading:

Why Josh Olson is an Asshole

Related Reading:

Why Park Chan-Wook’s ‘Thirst’ Isn’t Worth the Hype

Related Reading:

Oscars Shmoscars! We Pick the 2009 Scream Award Winners

Related Reading:

Iron Man 2 in 3D: No, That’s Not Cool

Related Reading:

Why Batman 3 Will Not Be Shot Fully in IMAX

Related Reading:

Inglourious Basterds: 10 Things I Liked, 5 Things I Didn’t

10 Things I Liked

5 Things I Didn’t

Related Reading:

7 Reasons Why a District 9 Video Game Would Be Awesome

7. Three Distinct Playable Groups – Military/MNU, Gangs, Aliens

6. Great Alien Weapons

5. Awesome Vehicles, Alien and Human

4. Diverse Locales and Economic Elements

3. Awesome First Person Shooter Potential

2. Human-Alien Co-op Mode / Online Multiplayer

1. The Mech Sequence

Related Reading:

Why ‘MacGruber’ Needs to Be R-Rated

Related Reading:

Moviegoers Not Affected By Twitter Buzz

Related Reading:

What Might Have Been: Neill Blomkamp’s Halo Movie

Related Reading:

Who Wouldn’t Want Christina Hendricks as Barbarella?

Related Reading:

Dudes: Get Her Out of the Kitchen & Into ‘Julie & Julia’

Related Reading:

Bloggers Start Food Fight Over ‘Julie & Julia’

Related Reading: