Film School Rejects » Opinions

Why Do Vampires Always Go Back to High School?

Robin Ruinsky — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:56:21 +0000

Just imagine. You’re immortal. You have forever lain out in front of you. The road of your life is endless. You can do anything you want. Go where you please. What do you choose to do? Go to high school. Yes, you read this correctly. You go to high school.

I’ll state this right out, right up front. I’m not a fan of Twilight. And I’m not talking about the time of day when the sun is setting and the vampires are itching to rise and find a good meal among the innocent citizens of London or Paris, Berlin or Boca Raton. In my view Vampires fit very nicely in London or Paris, particularly in the days of yore. We have much scarier creatures than vampires these days. I also believe many have likely retired to Florida to bask in the evening humidity. But I digress.

Where Vampires don’t fit is the place they’re showing up more than ever. High School. So many have returned to the classroom I’m surprised not one incarnation of High School Musical has included a dancing vampire. Alright, I can’t be certain. I’ve never seen the HS Musical films.

It seems that over the years vampires have suppressed their predatory instincts and developed more than a thirst for blood. They have a new found thirst for knowledge, but not knowledge attained in an exciting way. No world tours for them. There are no visits to Versailles, no visits to NYC to take in some theater, heck not even Disney World’s Pirates of the Caribbean ride.

Nope, they enroll in high school. I have to say this again. They enroll in high school. Voluntarily. They subject themselves repeatedly to that brutal right of passage that humans look back upon with horror like victims of the Spanish Inquisition looked at the rack. Flashbacks can persist for years.

Our current crop of teen vampires is content to sit though period after period of high school math, science, history and English as if it’s all new again. The smell of a school lunch doesn’t even faze them. I realize they don’t have to eat it, but you’d think they’re so sensitive the smell of over cooked mystery foodwould drive them insane.

Why are these vampires still trying to get their diplomas? Why are they going to sex education and health class? Do they feel the need to learn the dangers of exchanging bodily fluids? Wouldn’t they get this after a hundred, two hundred years of experience?

The fangs down most popular high school vampire is that sparkly fellow from Twilight, Edward Cullen. As you might have noticed Cullen is not a chippy chappy happy fellow. I suspect that comes from centuries of enduring high school and a diet of squirrel blood. You see the Cullen clan can’t even get the hang of being bad. They live on animal blood because these days not only do vampires have to be depressed and dreamy with soulful eyes and sparkly white skin, they have to deny their very vampireness.

Has anyone wondered how these teen vampires get into school after school? Where did Edward get his transcripts? How old was the paper work and was it on parchment with illustrations by fourteenth century monks? Was it from his gig at Prague High in 1877 or his years spent at the Paris Lycee in 1960? No one notices him in the back row of the graduating class of 1912 smiling happily because his class is booked on the Titanic for their senior trip. They just think he’s the pale, pasty mystery guy.

Doesn’t anyone notice him in all the class pictures in all the high schools in all the countries in the entire world in every decade since he was a mere vampire sprout? I know, I know. There are so many questions and so few answers.

But, hey, it’s a love story about a girl meeting a Romeo who has fangs. Except isn’t Edward two hundred years old? And yet he’s fooling around with a sixteen year old high school girl? Don’t they arrest people for that? Why does the vampire get a break? Because he looks all sparkly?

Edward really needs to skip the prom and drink Bella Swan’s blood, not make goo goo eyes at her. Drink her blood, have a real good take out meal, perhaps the entire cheerleading team. Follow it up with a vacation to Minsk.

This isn’t just about Edward and all those other dreamy teen vampires. It’s about the dignity of Vampires as a mythical creature who sees humans as prey. At the end of the day it’s all so unfair to this once noble race of killers. Vampires were meant to be scary creatures you wouldn’t want to meet in a dark alley, a graveyard or even a Home Depot. It’s so wrong to see their fangs reduced to nothing more than accessories. The monster that was the vampire, the scary creature who slurped the blood of the innocent so he may live forever has been turned into a lapdog, a pussy cat, a High School student.

What would Dracula and Nosferatu think? They’d roll over in their coffins and write an op-ed for the Transylvania Gazette lamenting the downfall of the younger generation.

‘New Moon’ Director Quits Filmmaking, Doesn’t Sound Smug At All

Neil Miller — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:34:29 +0000

Director Chris Weitz has made it as far as he can go. After lackluster showings with his first few films, co-writing Antz and directing American Pie, Down to Earth, About a Boy and The Golden Compass, the latter of which he says was taken away from him by the studio and cut into a movie that he wasn’t very proud of, Weitz is hanging up the headphones soon after the release of his next movie, The Twilight Saga: New Moon. But Weitz, in what can be said is the only smart move of this whole deal, isn’t making New Moon his last film. According to his interview with MovieMaker Magazine, he’s got one more project that he’d like to complete before he surfs off into directorial retirement.

“It’s a script by Eric Essen called The Gardener,” he explained. “It’s sort of an homage to The Bicycle Thief. The intention is that we will shoot half in Spanish, half in English, in Los Angeles. On the one hand it’s a very small, intimate story, but its implications are very grand. I’m always looking for my last film, where I can put the brush down, and this is the one…It’s a beautiful story…I feel that I have now spent a decade of my life in training to know how to make films—how to accomplish every aspect of it—and I feel that if I were to do this one film, I’d feel okay just sitting back and reading. I’d really like to read some books.”

That sounds like an interesting enough project, and Weitz is a capable enough director — I can’t say that I loved either Antz or The Golden Compass, but neither was a terrible movie. And About a Boy was a damn good film. So why hang it up? As Weitz explains, his frustration with the industry has boiled over, mostly because of the studio interference that occurred during post-production on Compass. “I wanted that to be my masterpiece,” admits Weitz. “Unfortunately, the edit was taken from me and whatever chance I had at that was also taken from me, which is kind of sad.”

So what is a former mediocre director to do with himself once he’s done making a Twilight movie and an homage to The Bicycle Thief (when you say it like that it just sounds wrong, doesn’t it?) Weitz says that he’s going to take a lot of time off, maybe become a better surfer. Seriously, it’s an answer that doesn’t sound spoiled, bratty or elitist one bit. Check it out:

“You know, it sounds ridiculous, but I’d really like to be a better surfer,” laughs the director. “I’d like to learn to speak Spanish fluently; I’d like to travel around, live in Italy; I’d like to learn kung fu… It’s nice to make movies, but it’s also really hard.”

Yes Chris, it does sound ridiculous. Please get over yourself and make more movies. Improve your craftsmanship and you won’t have studios taking away your films in post-production, nor will you be relegated to directing shallow tweenie-bopper vampire movies.

Five Actresses Who Should Play the Black Cat in Spider-Man 4, And Three Who Shouldn’t

Neil Miller — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:48:06 +0000

If you read a lot of movie blogs, chances are that you’ve seen plenty of suggestions about this week’s top rumor, the question of who should play The Black Cat in Spider-Man 4. You can throw all of those suggestions out the window. Because as you know, it isn’t worth reading until we weigh in on the topic. And with that, I would like to suggest our own list of ladies who should be wearing tight outfits and sneaking into NYC banks.

Initially the rumor was that Wedding Crashers starlet Rachel McAdams would be slipping on a tight cat burglar outfit and playing Felicia Hardy — the noble, sweet and oh-so-dangerous villainess who once captured the heart of Spider-man. But that was squashed as an “internet rumor.” As well, there has also been word that Julia Stiles has read for the part. But nothing is certain for director Sam Raimi, as he gears up for production on this fourth Spider-Man flick, which is set to shoot early next year. But never fear, Mr. Raimi. Once again, the Rejects are here for you — and we have a few suggestions. Also, we have a few ladies of Hollywood we’d like to see you stay away from — far away.

Five Actresses Who Should Play The Black Cat

CAREY MULLIGAN: This sweet, cute lady would fit right into the Spider-man universe. She’s got that innocent look that fits in with the lighter tone of this franchise, and the acting chops to give the character a bit of depth. On top of that, she’s about to become the next major ‘It’ girl in Hollywood, which leads me to believe that she’ll be due to get into a higher profile project. And what better way to go high profile than to swing into a major comic book franchise?

ZIYI ZHANG: I am aware that The Black Cat is a cute, blonde, all-American white girl, but that doesn’t mean the role can’t be delivered with a bit of diversity. We’ve seen Ziyi Zhang in all kinds of American films, including Memoirs of a Geisha and Rush Hour 2, but we’ve yet to see her really settle into something on this side of the big ocean that shows off her graceful, acrobatic nature. Remember, The Black Cat is an agile cat burglar — and Zhang could deliver such agility and grace in a way that is unlike that of her American counterparts.

EMILY BLUNT: Ever since the lovely Ms. Blunt was rumored to be playing Black Widow in Iron Man 2, we’ve been itching to see her in a major superhero film. She’s got the charisma and the physical prowess to pull off such a role, and The Black Cat is a similar kind of character. That, and we do love that cute British accent of hers. Who says that Felicia Hardy has to be an American dame? I know, purists. Get over it — we want someone who can take the character to a level beyond that of being a sexy girl in tight clothes. Remember, Hardy is a troubled, lonely soul who has had a really hard life that’s driven her to become a cat burglar. We need an actress with some chops.

JANUARY JONES: Much like Carey Mulligan, who I mentioned above, January Jones is one of those actresses on the verge. She’s attained a relatively high level of stardom with just one major role — that of Betty Draper on Mad Men — and hasn’t yet done anything in the world of cinema that has made us stop and say “wow, she’s a major star.” So we think that she’d be worth a shot as The Black Cat. She’s got the look and she really needs to do something fun before we are completely convinced that she’s as drab and stoic as Mrs. Draper.

MILA KUNIS: Yet again, I pick an actress who is (a) not blonde and (b) doesn’t fit into that sexy, all-American girl stereotype. But remember, the casting of a role like this one should be all about personality — something that Ms. Kunis has in droves. The character of the Black Cat is a conflicted, tormented girl who is also devious and sexy. She isn’t all bad, but she isn’t all good either. And based on all of her previous work, I’d say that Mila could very well pull off that range of performance.

Three Actresses Who Should NOT Play The Black Cat

HAYDEN PANETIERRE: Casting an actress like this young Heroes star would be the equivalent of carrying over the “Jazz Club” scene from Spider-Man 3. We’ve seen nothing from her yet that tells us that she’s anything more than a surface-level star who, while cute, cannot bring any depth to her characters. And one thing that I seem to be mentioning over and over for The Black Cat is depth. This character is not a one-note character, but Ms. Panetierre is a one-note kind of actress.

MEGAN FOX: Sure, Megan Fox has a nice body (if you’re into objectifying women on a very base level, that is). And she seems to be the new go-to girl for big Hollywood blockbusters. But I see two glaring problems with even the thought of her in a Spider-Man movie. One, she’s a terribly stale actress. Unable to deliver emotion or anything resembling range. Two, she’s not a cute person. This is a franchise that tows the line between badass superhero movie and cute family fun. There’s nothing cute, or family friendly about Megan Fox. Which works in a movie like Jennifer’s Body, but not even remotely in a movie like this.

KRISTEN STEWART: Later this week, when New Moon hits theaters, Ms. Stewart is about to once again get a major injection of popularity into her career. And she’s done well to make a name for herself as the brooding, depressed girl next door. None of that translates to being a fun, dangerous vixen in a superhero flick. Sure, if The Black Cat is going to be a sad person who plays with her hair a lot and cries over Peter Parker, maybe. But that’s not this character. And I’d be disappointed if Kristen’s popularity translated into being considered for such a role.

So there you have it — a few simple suggestions from us to Sam Raimi. From where I’m sitting, there’s no reason why Raimi and crew can’t think outside the box on this one and cast someone we wouldn’t expect — just as long as they don’t go the predictable route and pick up someone who can’t bring anything to the character.

Who do you think should play The Black Cat in Spider-Man 4?

Is There An Upside to Piracy?

Neil Miller — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:28:24 +0000

There has been a lot of chatter on the ole’ interwebs about piracy lately. Come to think of it, there is always a lot of chatter on the internet about movie piracy. This is where it happens, where it is championed, where it is railed against and where its most common victims desire to make their money. Hollywood wants to find a way to make money online, and many users want to find away around paying for the movies they want to see.

And so it is, a tale of two viewpoints. First is an interesting story that has caused a bit of an ethical dilemma here at Reject HQ. Earlier in the week, our friends at Double Edge Films — friends enough to put a quote from Dr. Cole Abaius’ review of their film Ink on the DVD cover — were all over the place talking about piracy, and how it has affected their film. This week, Ink was pirated and quickly rose to become the #1 download on popular Bit-Torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay. This also catapulted Ink into the top 20 films on IMDb’s Moviemeter, for the first time giving this brilliant little film the attention it so desperately deserves.

We were brought into the mix when the folks at Double Edge Films sent us a message on Twitter (@DoubleEdgeFilms) asking us to cover their story. So I considered it. In long-form, they sent the following to their mailing list:

Dear Fans and Friends,

Over the weekend something pretty extraordinary happened. Ink got ripped off. Someone bit torrented the movie (we knew this would happen) and they posted it on every pirate site out there. What we didn’t expect was that within 24 hours Ink would blow up. Ink became the number 1 most downloaded movie on several sites having been downloaded somewhere between 150,000 to 200,000 times as far as we can tell. Knowing there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it, we’ve embraced the piracy and are just happy Ink is getting unprecedented exposure.

As a result, Ink is now ranked #16 on IMDb’s movie meter and is currently one of the top 20 most popular movies in the world.

This all started as a result of the completely underground buzz that you’ve each helped us create. We’ve had no distributor, no real advertising and yet the word of mouth that you’ve generated has made the film blow up as soon as it became available worldwide. So many of you came to see the movie multiple times, bringing friends and family and many of you have bought the DVD and Blu-ray from us. All of this built up and built up and suddenly it exploded.

We don’t know exactly where this will all lead, but the exposure is unquestionably a positive thing.

Ink hits Netflix, Blockbuster, iTunes and many more tomorrow! Remember to get your signed copies, t-shirts and posters at the Ink Store.

Thank you so much for the constant love and support.

Jamin and Kiowa
Double Edge Films

Since this was sent out, reports have been flooding in about Ink, saying that it has been downloaded over 400,000 times since it was pirated earlier this week. What our friends Jamin and Kiowa have gained is exposure, exposure that will hopefully propel the proper release of Ink on Netflix, iTunes and in stores.

I was personally hesitant to report such a story though, as I’m not one to champion piracy as a winning strategy. Sure, every once in a while something like this happens and there’s an implied benefit. But on the whole, piracy is, and never will be beneficial to the filmmaking profession. So I’m not ready to throw in the towel and say that piracy is going to make Ink a surprise success. The fact that Ink is a quality film will determine its success. This is an inadvertent publicity stunt.

Then there is the potential negative side of the situation, of which we hear so much about. The MPAA will never hesitate to remind us of the millions of dollars that piracy costs the studio system every year, and the effects these losses have on the viewing public. A study conducted in 2006 (as reported by The Washington Post) said that the effect piracy has on the U.S. economy could be as big as $20 billion dollars, crossing over into other sectors beyond entertainment. That was 2006. Imagine what it must be now, as the economy dips, unemployment rises and more and more folks at home sign on to Torrent sites and download movies.

Beyond that, there is fear. Fear that studios have over how much money they stand to lose if their systems are breached and their movies make it out into the wild. As an example, check out the comment made today via Twitter by Zombieland screenwriter Rhett Reese (@RhettReese) on the impact of piracy:

Zombieland currently the most pirated movie on bit torrent. Over one million downloads and counting… Beyond depressing. This greatly affects the likelihood of a Zombieland 2.

This is someone within the industry who is showing fear of piracy, and how it may affect his ability to make a sequel for a successful, fan favorite film. Whether or not his statement is completely true — as we’ve never been shown evidence that piracy impacts studio decisions on sequels — it is indicative of the mindset around piracy within the industry. And if the trend continues, it isn’t all that insane to think that it could have such an effect.

Don’t get me wrong, I know just as well as any of you that piracy is out there, that it cannot be stopped outright and that just about anyone who has grown up in the internet generation has download something illegal, be it software, music or movies. My stance is simply that I support purchasing movies. And at no point would I go so far as to say that piracy is a viable marketing tool — no matter how inadvertently it changes the fortune of a small movie like Ink.

These little “victories” for piracy shouldn’t be celebrated, because who knows if they really are victories. How many people will really go out and buy Ink after they’ve already downloaded it for free? You tell me…

Breakdown: The Animated Oscar Race Begins with 20 Films

Neil Miller — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:14:21 +0000

Yesterday, Variety published the list of films that have made the cut of 20 for the race to get the Best Animated Feature Oscar. These 20 films will eventually be cut down to a list of 5 nominees, rather than the usual 3, and ultimately cut down to the one film that will be named Best Animated Film by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences.

A few of these animated films are yet to be released, and have not yet been screened by the Academy, so it’s possible that some may be disqualified because of too much live-action mixed in, quality, etc. The final five nominees will not be announced until February 2, with the Oscars being presented on March 7.

For your viewing pleasure (and our own need to inject our opinion into this process), we would like to present the following list with comments:

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel

Instantly eliminated due to too much live-action and likelihood of the film being mediocre at best.

Astro Boy

Don’t count out the boy who can fly, but also don’t count out the Academy’s yawn-factor on this glossy style of CG-animation.

Battle for Terra

This came out? In theaters?

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

If there is a dark horse candidate in this category, it is right here. Much better than expected and very well-animated. Don’t be surprised if it ends up in the final five.

Coraline

If there is justice in this world, Coraline will get the recognition that it deserves. A splendid film that could very well win this category, especially if Pixar gets a Best Picture nod for Up.

Disney’s A Christmas Carol

A great technical achievement, much like The Polar Express, but certainly not a stand-out. Will likely earn a nomination, but not a win.

The Dolphin – Story of a Dreamer

The unfortunate victim of obscurity, this little entry from director Eduardo Schuldt is barely going to get a qualifying release here in the U.S.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Wes Anderson’s clever, energetic and fun stop-motion pic should get a nomination, if for no other reason than it was such a pain in the butt to animated. Those little characters don’t move themselves for each frame, you know.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

No.

Mary and Max

Fantastic Mr. Fox may be the highest profile stop-motion movie of the year (that, or Coraline), but Mary and Max is certainly the most ambitious. It’s a long-shot for a nomination and an even longer shot for a win, but it would be nice to see this Sundance gem get some recognition.

The Missing Lynx

This Spanish-made CG-animated flick was a last minute entry. The trailer is online and while it looks cool, I’m getting sort of a Doogal vibe. Also, no farting moose voiced by Kevin Smith, no Oscar.

Monsters vs. Aliens

The entry from the Dreamworks camp should get a nomination. But like Kung Fu Panda last year, it will play second fiddle to Pixar’s entry.

So much promise, so much lost in execution. Beautiful animation that deserves recognition, but a story that doesn’t inspire confidence.

Planet 51

This one screens for most critics this week and next. I’m not a betting man, but if I were, my money would be against it. This is the first major release from Spanish house Ilion Animation. Give them time.

Ponyo

Hayao Miyazaki may be batshit crazy, but he sure can bring together a stellar animated experience. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ponyo gets notice from the Academy in the form of a nomination.

The Princess and the Frog

Disney’s first hand-drawn animated film in a long time, and that is something that should turn a few heads. If it turns out to be half-way decent, then it should get a nomination.

The Secret of Kells

Another title destined to be lost in obscurity. It’s an Irish 2D feature that looks like something you might see on Cartoon Network’s late-nite line-up. Not impressive enough, at first glance.

Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure

Disney made a lot of noise about the return of Tinker Bell in the direct-to-DVD release of 2008, yet they didn’t even stick it into theaters for an Oscar qualifying run. They are doing so with the sequel. Who knows why…

A Town Called Panic

If I could put in a good word for any one movie on this list, it would be for the Fantastic Fest favorite that our own Cole Abaius said may cause you to “injure yourself laughing.” If this film gets nominated, we should all have some sort of restored faith in the Academy. There might be hope for them yet.

Pixar’s beautiful human story deserves to get a Best Picture nomination. A nomination and almost assured win in this category will be a consolation prize if it doesn’t.

What is your pick for Best Animated Feature of 2009?

Ruining Film: The Fourth Kind of Spoilers

Dr. Cole Abaius — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:16:52 +0000

EDITOR’S NOTE: It goes without saying that in discussing the idea of spoilers ruining a particular film, we’ll be throwing out a ton of spoilers, so don’t read this until after you see The Fourth Kind. Or, you know, if you’ve already had it ruined or if you just plain don’t care. Consider yourself spoiler-warned.

I want you to think of your favorite movie. Think about why you love it, the impact it had on you the first time you saw it, the twentieth time you saw it. Let it live in your mind for a second. Play it out on the big screen in your head and fall in love with it all over again.

Now I want you to imagine that someone ruins it for you before you get to see it.

Spoilers are nothing new, but with the release of The Fourth Kind, it seems like a new conversation needs to be had about how the film experience can be ruined. As you probably already know, the real footage from The Fourth Kind is real fake. There is no Abbey Tyler. There are no tapes of her counseling people who are being haunted by a vicious owl-alien beast. There is no reality to be dramatically interpreted by actress Milla Jovovich.

You probably know this because a) you’ve seen the movie and put two and two together* b) you googled it beforehand or c) someone on the internet spoiled it for you.

For a ton of people, it was unavoidable. At a certain point, you could barely round a corner on the internet without being bombarded with a headline spoiling the hell out of the flick. And usually doing it boastfully. As if they’d done a great public service.

Now, for the record, I don’t think that The Fourth Kind is a good movie. I think it’s an interesting experiment that ultimately fails. There are a few good scares, but it’s a frustrating experience. Still, it takes balls to create fake real footage and then go the next step of making fake footage based off that fake real footage to play it side by side. It strikes out, but at least it swings for the fences. Gives us something new.

But none of that matters. You could think the movie is absolute crap, but out there somewhere is someone who is watching it and thinking it’s an incredible flick. Maybe their favorite of all time. Laugh if you want, but that’s the nature of the beast. A film you think is a piece of cheese might be in someone’s all-time top five. Your treasure might be someone else’s trash. We all connect to different things, and even if a film falls flat, we should at least be given the chance to experience it purely.

But for some reason, it’s been open season on spoiling this film. I have no idea why, but leading up to its opening, everything from spoiler-warning-free reviews to errant twitter feeds were shouting from the rooftops about how what the film was purporting to be real was fake. How the entire premise of the film was a sham.

My favorites include titling a review “Not Real, Not Scary,” a major film website calling it a Blair Witch fakeout, and io9 flat out calling the film a hoax in its headline (you know, the things that people can’t avoid while casually browsing) a full day before the movie even had a chance to be met with the eyeballs of an awaiting nation. For even the mild film fan checking out websites, they had no choice but to have it spoiled.

Not to mention the endless twatting about the damned thing.

Essentially, people were running around making it impossible for those encountering their snark to see the film with fresh eyes. For, as you may know, not only is the film being marketed as the dramatic interpretation of true events, but it’s also presented that way. It’s central to the filmic experience, and that central premise was stolen from a ton of people (some of which may have loved the film).

I see this as especially insidious. I understand that The Fourth Kind isn’t Citizen Kane (you know, because Citizen Kane is totally real), but it shouldn’t matter. No film should be spoiled. Which is what baffles me most about the near-universal apathy toward pissing in the punch for this particular sci-fi flick.

I don’t think anyone would argue against the idea that every film deserves a chance to be seen how the filmmaker wants it to be seen, but here’s where I go off the deep end. Feel free to strap on your floaties or let me drown out there all alone. Either way.

Part of me sees this wanton disregard as indicative of two terrible roads that film criticism seems to be headed down. The first, the love of elite status over true film passion. We have become a film culture obsessed with what’s in pre-pre-production and who is almost going to be cast in something. That has led inevitably down a path where some people see it as more important to display their inside knowledge than to keep the reverence for a film in tact. That’s not film love. It’s the love of being on the inside (no matter how fabricated the feeling) and rubbing it in other people’s faces.

The second, a world where film critics forget that opinions aren’t correct. Or incorrect. Because they’re subjective. Earlier in the year Jen Yamato from Rotten Tomatoes spoiled a major impact moment in Antichrist by tweeting about it. Several other film folks, including Vic from Screen Rant (in a move he will never live down until our short term memories lapse) retweeted it verbatim. This personally spoiled the moment for me, and Vic claimed that he saw nothing wrong with spoiling a movie he didn’t care for. Whether you believe that particular move spoiled something big or not, we got to see firsthand a belief that it’s okay to spoil a film directly because of the perceived quality of the movie. It was a situation where his opinion trumped decency – and it’s a similar notion to any film blogger who has a vested interest in how well a film does or how poorly a film flops opening weekend.

And he’s not alone. Especially now.

Which brings me all the way back around. I know that there aren’t going to be a huge number standing up and claiming to be Spartacus for The Fourth Kind. I know that there are many out there who don’t think it’s a good movie. But for those of you answering my rant with, “Who gives a shit? That movie sucks!” I have to hang my head, roll my eyes a little and quietly remind you that somewhere, someone thinks your favorite movie is a piece of shit and might not have thought twice about spoiling it to your face before you got a chance to fall in love with it.

*Yes, it equals four. That’s a little bonus pun free of charge for you.

Flame on.

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.

Film School Rejects » Opinions

Why Do Vampires Always Go Back to High School?

Related Reading:

‘New Moon’ Director Quits Filmmaking, Doesn’t Sound Smug At All

Related Reading:

Five Actresses Who Should Play the Black Cat in Spider-Man 4, And Three Who Shouldn’t

Related Reading:

Is There An Upside to Piracy?

Related Reading:

Breakdown: The Animated Oscar Race Begins with 20 Films

Related Reading:

Ruining Film: The Fourth Kind of Spoilers

Related Reading:

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: