Film School Rejects » Talking Points

Discuss: What Did You Think of Quantum of Solace?

Neil Miller — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:56:44 +0000

It is very likely that many of you are heading out to your local cineplex today to see the latest James Bond film Quantum of Solace, and we’d like to know what you thought. We’ve already chimed in with our opinions in a week-long feature called “7 Days of 007.” If you haven’t gotten out to see Quantum yet, might I suggest our Quantum of Solace Drinking Game for some added fun. Also, if you are looking for a little more information before you hit theaters here are a few articles that you might find interesting:

And now the big question for all of you.

Have you seen Quantum of Solace yet? If so, what did you think? Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves below.

Group Discussion: Of All the Heroes, Why Batman?

FSR Staff — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:41:47 +0000

Robert Fure Starts Us Off…

It takes something special to stay in the public eye for nearly 70 years – Batman has not only done that, but has managed to really up his popularity to levels above and beyond his previous bests. What is it about Batman that makes him such a fan favorite despite his descents into darkness and the gritty nature of this brooding hero? Two FSR staffers discuss their views on The Dark Knight and why he’s still the top vigilante in our hearts.

Robert Fure: One of the things I like about Batman in general is that, for a good guy, he’s pretty bad ass. He’s rocking the all black look, throws sharp objects at people. His goal is to frighten the hell out of people, he jumps out of nowhere, he doesn’t mind roughing people up. Broken arms, missing teeth, Batman isn’t messing around. He’s just there to kick you in the face and toss you in jail. No discussion. In a way, while not as severe as The Punisher, he’s kind of an anti-hero when you look at him in his darker time periods.

Adam Sweeney: I absolutely agree, he really is the darkest mainstream hero in comics today. Superman and Spiderman are two guys that a girl could bring home to mom even when they’re in costume. But mess around with Batman and mama might take a batarang to the mouth.

One of the many qualities that separates Batman from the rest is that he is a self-made-man. Bruce Wayne could easily have settled for a life of women, fame, and wealth. (Isn’t that basically what GQ teaches men to strive for?) Instead, he uses the tragedies in his life, combined with an unrivaled energy and resourcefulness, to transcend normalcy. Kathleen Hammond of Time Magazine wrote an article in 2006 about Theodore Roosevelt, another self-made-man. She speaks of Roosevelt, who in his autobiography said “that his life changed forever because he set fearlessness before him ‘as an ideal’ that by dogged practice he achieved.” You could apply that same statement to Batman.

RF: For some reason, the idea of Batman punching someone’s mama is hilarious to me (sorry mom). Another thing I like is that a lot of the time he’s going out on his own. Sure he’s in the Justice League and, yeah, Robin is there sometimes, but my favorite Batman adventures are the ones where he’s off on his own. Sometimes the writers make a point about him needing help, but really he’s an independent operator. He doesn’t need someone to hug him at night and tell him good work. In fact he probably resents it a little bit, because the job is never done. He doesn’t need a girlfriend or someone to make him feel good about himself. Deep down I think we all want to be able to be that independent where we don’t need that affirmation. We don’t hate getting it, or we even like it, but not needing it is key.

AS: Seeing Batman “fly solo” (had to say it) is always riveting. What’s equally amazing about him is that he is just a man. Granted, he’s a man with wonderful toys. But strip away the suit and utility belt and what do you have? Currently, a naked Christian Bale, which I am sure girls loved in American Psycho, but more importantly you have a vulnerable human being. His life is centered around the loss of his parents and a loss of innocence, something so many people have dealt with, whether it be through death or a broken home.

He’s a man who has issues, a person who has lost and continues to have something to lose. His invulnerability puts him in situations where he is forced to make real life decisions with heavy consequences. Not the son of Krypton who has the ability to let bullets fly off his eye or a gamma radiated smashing machine, Batman is essentially one of us and still puts his life on the line, again and again.

RF: Mmhmm, that vulnerability is rare, but it’s definitely there. The pain he went through materializes in like, these moments of silence and an intense desire to almost torment criminals before putting them away. They sort of get away from it, but Batman can be a really scary character. I’d really like to see someone write him like it was a horror show. Think about it, this guy is in all black, looks like a damn bat, is over 6 feet tall, weighs 220lbs, all of it muscle and he’s creeping through the shadows, jumping out randomly, all the shit you’d expect from like Michael Meyers or something. That is not something heroes normally do. Superman rarely is going to dangle someone over a building or jump out of your closet. Batman might. A lot of comic characters fight in the daylight for whatever reason. Batman exclusively haunts the night, again this sort of anti-theme of him being unique. And that was original in its day. He’s not a clone of anyone and that’s probably why he’s so awesome to me and a lot of people.

AS: The sheer determination of the character is something to behold. He will do whatever it takes to get the job done, something that is rare in our current society of instant gratification. Does this mean we will always have a happy ending? If you buy into the darker version of Batman, and I think everyone should, then more often than not there isn’t an uplifting end. But as Harvey Dent says in the Dark Knight “the night is darkest just before the dawn.” Through his willpower and persistence Batman has been that dawn to the citizens of Gotham for 70 years, even if it meant that he took the burden of the darkness on his shoulders.

RF: He’s also got this good relationship with Commissioner Gordon, which can bring a touch of lightness to his character in some arcs. He’s on the side of the law and he’s doing right by the law, for the most part, but sort of wrong legally and in the eyes of justice. Moral justice maybe, a higher authority. Is a few years in the clink really proper punishment? Don’t we all wish that instead of putting some chump in the can for breaking your windows and stealing your stuff you could just smash through his apartment window, pummel his face, toss him out the window, then drop him at the police department. He’s the original “heroic vigilante” in comics. He hits that primal part of you that wants to say “Forget society’s rule” and just blare “Welcome to the Jungle” by Guns N Roses while drop kicking people. Maybe he’s not going against the law, he’s above it like Steven Segal only with a better hairline. It’s not that he’s breaking the law, it’s just that law limits the real justice he can dish out with his fists and batarangs. Also he has batarangs. That is awesome.

AS: But the rules help keep Batman from crossing the line, which is important. Even the greatest superhero would fall without structure. We love Batman because he does the right thing, makes the selfless decision when others won’t. Sure, he may get a headbutt or two in before the fight’s over, but the punishment fits the crime. You can’t write The Joker a speeding violation and call it a day. But you also can’t kill out of vengeance. Still, in spite of all the pain the criminals cause he somehow finds a way to hold back from issuing a death blow. Batman’s whole persona grew from that ideal, to serve as a beacon in the face of adversity, and to always fight for what is right.

RF: Very true. I guess I also have to mention, and I think we can agree, that very basically being tall, good looking, cut, an awesome fighter, and like a billionaire playboy who can get any girl in the city that he wants, has macked on Catwoman and Wonder Woman, and he drives the damn Batmobile. And hell he invented it. You just can’t top Batman, whether you think he’s awesome because of his badass darkside or some of the more honorable stuff. He nailed Poison Ivy too, I mean come on!

AS: Yeah, you could do worse than being a combo of James Bond, Hugh Hefner, a UFC fighter, and a more morally sound Punisher. But nothing has ever come easy for Bruce Wayne. You know that even with all the fame, toys, and girls hanging on his arms that he would give it all up in a heartbeat to have his parents back.

Adam’s Thoughts In closing…

What makes Batman even greater is that he has evolved to fit his respective time period. We see that more than ever with his struggle in The Dark Knight. The story of Batman really champions the idea of anti-materialism and valuing the love and support of those close to us. It speaks to us in an age of 4 dollar gas prices, YouTube, a war that has polarized our country, and a vanity driven world. I think comic book writer and artist Grant Morrison said it best. “The stronger a hero is the greater the challenges he should face.” Considering the fight Batman faces every day within himself and in the streets of Gotham, combined with his unflinching willingness to risk his life for others, it’s clear there’s no greater hero than Batman.

Why do you love the character of Batman?

Water Cooler Discussion: Who is Your Favorite Cinematic Stoner?

Neil Miller — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:40:31 +0000

First of all yes, I do understand that it is currently Monday afternoon in much, if not all of the United States. As well, I am aware that this column is called the Monday Morning Water Cooler Discussion, but I was busy recovering from the awesome 24-Hour Sci-Fi Marathon that took place over the weekend here in Columbus — so get off me, you freaks.

This week’s topic is inspired by my good friend David Medsker and the pop culture attack squad over at Bullz-Eye.com, who unleashed their list of 13 Cinematic Stoners Whose Names Aren’t Harold or Kumar upon the world this morning. Their list (which is awesome) includes easy choices such as Smokey from Friday (played by Chris Tucker) and Jay and Silent Bob (played by Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith), but it also dives into some other, slightly less-notable greats such as Carl Spackler in Caddyshack (played by Bill Murray) and Floyd from True Romance (played by Brad Pitt).

My personal favorite stoner is, and will always be, The Dude from The Big Lebowski (played by Jeff Bridges). El Duderino doesn’t do much on-screen smoking, but you can tell that he’s puffed down a joint (or ten) in his day.

So what say you? Who is your all-time favorite cinematic stoner?

Water Cooler Discussion: Do You Care About the Death of the Print Critic?

Neil Miller — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:00:13 +0000

At this point, if you follow the happenings of the world of film, you have probably heard of the discussion that is raging around the “death” of the print film critic. All across the nation, critics at local newspapers have been cut from their posts, one way or another, because of the migration of readers to the web. Or at least, that is how many people see it.

This has brought the discussion to the forefront of both the online and print worlds. Our own Kevin Carr weighed in last week in his article The Death of the Print Critic. In his article, Kevin made reference to an article over on Anne Thompson’s Blog at Variety. There, our good friend Anne has been compiling links to film pundits across the web, creating a comprehensive list of opinions.

Furthermore, there have been actual print critics who have begun chiming in on the discussion. One particularly interesting one was that of Frank Gabrenya, film critic for the Columbus Dispatch. In his Sunday editorial, Frank likened the rise of movie blogs to the reproduction of rodents and expressed his views on why real film critics are necessary. Allegedly, smaller films like The Lives of Others and The Band’s Visit could never thrive locally without a consistent voice to guide denizens of communities such as Columbus.

And while I can appreciate a good rodent procreation reference, and I appreciate Frank’s acknowledgment of our species (we in the movie blogosphere), I see this response as the whining of a man stuck in a desperate situation. Readers are migrating to the web, leaving print critics with little left to claim, so they must hold on to this aura of influence while it still exists. What they don’t seem to be willing to accept is that it is not their ability to write thoughtful opinions on film — something for which I personally have a profound respect — that is being rejected by the masses, it is their medium. Personally, I think that they would all do well to get their own blogs — just as the likes of Roger Ebert have done — and come play in our space for a little while. As a blogger, I can honestly say that we enjoy the sense of community and the diversity of the discussion created by such rapid, for lack of a better term, reproduction. There is always room for more voices, and the voices of these endangered film critics could do just as well if they would just embrace the world wide web as their readers obviously have.

But that is just my opinion. And even my opinion is one of bias, as is that of Frank Gabrenya. Mine is the opinion of someone who has something to gain in this Cold War of film journalism that seems to exist between those of us online and those who compose your local indoor dog urine receptors. What interests me, in the end, is the opinions of you, the readers, the lovers of film… What do you have to say about all this? Do you even care about the death of an entire medium? Better yet, do you even know who your local newspaper’s movie critic is? I know I do — but that is only because Frank and I sit in the same theater, at the same time for press screenings every week.

Please feel free to drop your opinions off in the comment box below.

Want some great additional reading? Check out an article from my Columbus cohort Kristin Dreyer Kramer on her site, Nights and Weekends. She has written an awesome article the likes of which this “rodent” just cannot create.

New Speed Racer Photos – Will Families Dig the Acid Trip?

Neil Miller — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:24:02 +0000

After seeing the latest trailer for the upcoming Wachowski Brothers cartoon-to-film adaptation Speed Racer, I began to warm to the concept of the flashy, vibrantly designed, CG-enriched environment that was being created in honor of 1960s Japanese animation. Pushing aside my distaste for Emile Hirsch as an actor and allowing the little kid inside of me to take the wheel for the time being, I have been able to get excited about this film’s release — not as excited about Iron Man, but excited nonetheless.

This morning, our good friends at First Showing picked up some brand new production photos from the film that will be featured in a cover story in the upcoming issue of EW. At first glance, the photos appear to be more seizure-inducing looks a this highly saturated and stylized environment, but with a closer look (and some explanation from visual effects supervisors Muhen Leo and Kim Libreri), you will see that the style of Speed Racer is a real throwback to the original series.

From the EW article:

If these photos are looking a bit more two-dimensional than usual, that’s by design. The Wachowskis “wanted to incorporate some of the limitations of ’60s cell animation in the movie,” says Leo. Explains fellow effects supervisor Kim Libreri: “The backgrounds are mostly from photographic elements that have been shot from locations around the world [and then] intensely processed to be super-colorful and super-contrasty.”

“Do you remember the 1980s video game Outrun,” asks Libreri, “with the palm trees flying past? A lot of the movie looks like that. But instead of using painted elements that they used the early days [of anime]. there are actually photographic elements flying past the road.”

I will say that as far as the viz effects go on this film, there is another level of cool here that we are yet to experience. In a recent interview with MTV, Emile Hirsch said that the film is “like nothing you’ve ever seen.” The rest of the cast has echoed those statements, almost going as far as to promise that Speed Racer will be akin to The Wachowski’s biggest success, The Matrix.

The difference, in my mind, is that The Matrix was a big kids movie — capturing the minds and short attention spans of a booming generation of internet geeks who would love to be sucked into a world where their mind (which is their most marketable feature) has full control over everything around them. Speed Racer, on the other hand, is a movie for little kids — rated G and filled with goofy, cartoonish humor. And for good reason, it is based on a popular cartoon from the 1960s.

Knowing this raises a much bigger question: will families (especially those with young children) get on board for this amazing spectacle of color and computer generated ninja cars?

I believe that therein lies the possible success or failure of a movie like Speed Racer in the family demographic. Big kids like myself and my good friend Alex from First Showing will be there on opening night, with our Christina Ricci fan club cards and our temporary “The Wachowski Brothers Pwn” tattoos, but will the little kids be there as well? If not, I can see a very strong opening weekend for this film followed by its demise a week later when families make their return trip to Narnia to see Prince Caspian. With a very full slate in May, it will be very difficult for a highly stylized, “revolutionary” family film to compete.

But since I have not yet seen the film, I’m not yet prepared to make a definitive prediction. What I can say is that Speed Racer looks cool, and could be a lot of fun — but that doesn’t always translate into great box office success. My hope is that it does go over well, as I am a big fan of The Wachowskis, but I am just not sure — at least not yet.

Sound Off: Do you think that Speed Racer will do well with families and race away with big box office totals in May?

Photos Courtesy of Warner Brothers

Fanboys Recut: Desecration or Divine Intervention?

Michelle Graham — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:59:04 +0000

For anyone out there who still remembers that there was ever supposed to be a movie called Fanboys, this news will probably come as a shock (as you’re probably really looking forward to seeing it and have read any and all snippets pertaining to the film to sate your appetite until the movie actually hits theatres) but sadly, Cinematical has confirmed it. The much talked-about version of Fanboys, the movie with a heart, the love letter to George Lucas, seems to have disappeared in a puff of celluloid smoke. Rather than a story about friends who would do anything for each other, including breaking into their idol’s home and stealing from him, it appears that there will be a group of mischevious bumblers, who are willing to break in and steal simply because they’re fans, want to see the movie and can’t wait the extra few months to see it on a big screen. Rather than the film’s original director, Kyle Newman, having final control over editing and content, Steve Brill, the illustrious director of Without A Paddle (yes, I’m serious) was put in charge for reshoots, and then went on to recut the entire movie. However, according to Cinematical’s sources, it gets better.

The original cut, the one where the characters have a plausible, logical and heartfelt reason for committing the crime (their friend is dying of cancer and he wants to see Phantom Menace before he dies) was also screened for a test audience, along with the new, spruced up, modernised (re: insertion of nudity and bad language) version. The result of this screening competition was staggering. After chopping out the still beating heart of the film due to supposed concerns about how the plot point of a character having cancer would depress audiences, the recut version scored a massive 2 (yes, that’s TWO) points higher in audience opinion. Rumours abounds as to whether members of the audience may have been plants, sent by the studio to pursuade the rest of the audience to vote for the recut version, but of course, this is nothing but smoke and vapour at the moment.

So there you have it folks. A film that many Star Wars fans have been following since conception may turn out to be a bigger pile of steaming dog pooh than .. Well, lets just say that they didn’t sign up for Without a Paddle 2. If the tone of this piece isn’t clear, this turn of events disgusts me. The movie may still be funny, but if it’s toilet humour or American Pie style, I won’t be buying a ticket. Shame, because the original concept (and probably the original cut) was excellent. A good note to end this with: still no word on a release date for this revamp, it’s nice to know that the studio has such confidence in it.

Sound Off: Do you think it was right to recut Fanboys? Does this make you more or less likely to see the film?

Talking Points: Oscar’s Big Surprises

Neil Miller — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:00:50 +0000

“I’m so surprised that Juno was nominated for so many awards this year.” Boy, if I had $20 for every time I’ve heard that over the past month, I would have enough money to buy the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. And you know what that means: Michael Bay, Best Director in 2010 for Transformers 2.

But enough of that Michael Bay-related pipe dream, this year’s Oscar race hasn’t been about surprises. In fact, for a while now we’ve known which movies are going to square off to take home a golden man. But just because Atonement, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood have garnered their expected share of nominations, that doesn’t mean Oscar doesn’t have a few tricks up his sleeve.

Of course there is Juno, the psuedo-indie darling. This year’s “little movie that could” or “delightful surprise” or whatever cliche tagline with which you can label it. Lets face it though, Juno is not this year’s surprise entry into Oscar’s fray. It is a well cast, well directed, brilliantly scribed film that hinges on a performance by an actress who has already shown us that she is something out of this world (I mean seriously, did no one see Hard Candy? I think not.) Juno is quite the darling, I will admit, and deserving of every accolade and all the press that she will receive, but lets not soil her run by calling her this year’s improbable underdog.

Besides, there are plenty other underdogs who will be announced next Sunday night as nominees. How about Ruby Dee, nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her role in American Gangster. She spent about 12 minutes on screen and with one fatal slap, she solidified her chances of claiming a little golden guy. Up against a solid gathering of nominees, you would think she won’t stand a chance. But think again, as Best Supporting Actress is easily one of the categories this year that could go to just about anyone, especially Amy Ryan, whose performance in Gone Baby Gone was amazing.

And its not just the Supporting ladies who have some surprises among them, what about the leading ladies. Cate Blanchett and Julie Christie are the front-runners, with the aforementioned Ellen Page as the expected surprise winner. But what of this 32 year old French actress, Marion Cotillard. Her performance radiated from the screen, leaving not a dry eye in the house. She could be the one that steals the show from Julie Christie, should fate decide that Ellen Page can wait.

But what about the men, you ask? Well, there is Tommy Lee Jones, whose nomination is curious in the sense that it could be for the wrong movie. In the Valley of Elah was a mess, Jones was stellar in No Country for Old Men. I guess we will all be in the dark on that one, especially if he wins. And there is Hal Holbrook, who was the shining light within an otherwise dark, detestable film. If he beats out ole Javier, there will be head scratching for sure.

And gee, those are just the acting and best picture categories. I didn’t even mention the nomination of Norbit for Best Makeup or the nomination of Lars and the Real Girl for Best Original Screenplay. And how about Brad Bird’s Original Screenplay nod for Ratatouille? Do you think that is a surprise? I certainly do.

Underneath the thick layer of Juno lovers and haters who do battle daily in the blogosphere over this year’s darling, there is a wonderful gathering of surprise nominees about whom we should be talking. With plenty of time until we have to get rolling with our man Oscar, I see no reason why we shouldn’t do the debate. That leads us to this week’s talking point…

What are the biggest surprises of this year’s Oscar nominations? Who do you think will be the biggest surprise winner come next Sunday’s ceremony?

‘Juno’ Gets Set to Crash the Oscar Party

Neil Miller — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:02:23 +0000

It’s been quite a ride for Juno and its merry cast of characters. Since debuting at the Telluride Film Festival on September 1, 2007, this $6.5 million dollar indie has risen to the top of the entertainment world’s consciousness faster than any other film to be put to celluloid in the past, let’s say, decade. It has taken its young star Ellen Page, the whip-smart embodiment of the film’s cavalier attitude and propelled her to a level of stardom that she neither expected, nor enjoys. It’s success has put its stripper-turned-screenwriter scribe Diablo Cody into one of Hollywood’s hottest commodities and it has helped director Jason Reitman become known for something other than being Ivan Reitman’s son.

Earlier this month, Juno brought home four Academy Award nominations (best picture, best actress, best director and best original screenplay) to go alongside its stockpile of nominations and wins (30 awards won, 19 other nominations according to IMDB). As well, it has also blown right past the $100 million dollar mark at the box office, placing it head and shoulders (all 5′1″ of Ellen Page to be exact) above the other best picture nominees, with No Country for Old Men’s $55 million dollar take being next in line. It has also garnered a critical consensus; many critics, including Roger Ebert and Andrew Sarris have called it the best film of the year. In fact, one other critic was quoted on Fox Searchlight’s website, calling Juno “the best film of the year by a mile.” I don’t know who guy was, but I know where you can find his full review.

But despite all of the critical and commercial success that it has enjoyed over the past six months, Juno still feels like the outcast of the Oscar race, the red-headed stepchild of the Academy’s otherwise traditional set of nominees. With heavy hitters like No Country and There Will Be Blood in the mix for best picture, many have counted Juno as not only unworthy of the win, but unfit to stand on the same platform as it’s fellow nominees.

The backlash began with Vanity Fair Oscar blogger ST Van Airsdale, otherwise known as The Reeler. In a recent entry on VF’s Little Golden Men awards site, he unleashed his venom on Juno’s worth as an Oscar contender:

[N]ot everyone wins come February 24, and, frankly, I don’t want to see Juno within a thousand feet of the Kodak Theater. I want her and her twee champions stopped at the metal detector…Juno could conceivably sneak to victory with less than a third of the Academy in its corner, thus completing its underdog lap around Hollywood and bulletproofing the myth of the Academy as a meritocratic institution. It would be politics as usual, and two years after Crash, we just can’t have that.

With a comment like “less than a third of the Academy”, Van Airsdale is referring to the tight race that has begun to unfold in the race for best picture. As Karina Longworth explains, “The hot new meme in Oscar prognostication: what if the two “serious” Best Picture frontrunners split the sane vote, thus clearing a path for Juno to take the year’s top prize with a mere fraction of the Academy’s total support?”

Van Airsdale and Longworth are just a small sampling of Hollywood bloggers and Oscar pundits that have been quick in turnaround, taking the stance that Juno could win, but that its win would be predicated more on a status of default than of genuine quality. They would have you believe that if Juno takes home a bunch of little golden guys in two weeks, that it had more to do with No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood than it did with the razor sharp comedy that seems to have slipped ahead in the hearts and minds of both fans and critics.

Yet, despite my yearning to reach out and punch someone over the backlash that has been bestowed upon my beloved Juno, I still wouldn’t have it any other way. No one wanted Crash to make it in 2005 and look what happened there. It is not every day that a film comes along that is so different from the Oscar-wrothy archetype. How dare the Academy recognize a film that doesn’t conform to its traditional standards. Juno has achieved its success not because of marketing (although the marketing was great) or because of some divine intervention, but rather it has earned its success by standing out in a sea of drab, uneventful cinema. In a year that can be characterized most accurately as the year comedy got smarter and drama got boring-er, Juno was the creme of the crop. It was the cheese to the macaroni of film fans everywhere. Ellen Page delivered a performance that was absolutely perfect, delivering Diablo Cody’s sharp dialog with the unassuming grace and skill that would normally be characterized by a much older, much more experienced actress.

So let them talk, those who would want to spoil this film’s great run toward a potentially stunning Oscar night upset. Let them attempt to demean the already impressive legacy of 2007’s biggest surprise. Those of us on the other side of the fence know better than to jump off the bandwagon so quickly, we understand that it is ok to just love a particular film and continue to cheer it on as its popularity grows. I don’t run out and talk to people about how Juno is the oddball nominee for best picture, no matter how true it may be. Personally, I am out there telling people to get to their local theaters and see it. And while they are at it, they should see the other best pic nominees as well. All of the films nominated this year were great, but only one of them was special. And if we open our eyes and our minds, we may just see that its the “special” one that could steal the show come Oscar night.

What do you think? Does ‘Juno’ deserve to stand next to ‘No Country’ and ‘There Will Be Blood’ on Oscar night?

Talking Points: What’s Your Favorite Football Movie of All-Time?

Neil Miller — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:21:23 +0000

It’s Sunday morning, that means it is time to do some talking points. More importantly this week, it is Super Bowl Sunday. Later this evening the New York Giants will step onto the field in Phoenix, Arizona and attempt to end the season-long winning streak of the New England Patriots. Eli Manning vs. Tom Brady; Tom Coughlin vs. Bill Belichick. Everyone will be there, and we can assume that just about anyone will be watching. For movie fans, we will be watching because we love the drama, the intensity and the overwhelming glitz and glamour that has engulfed the Super Bowl in recent years. As well, we hear that there are some wicked commercials lined up, including a new Iron Man trailer.

But before we get to the actual game, we’d like to take a moment to talk about football movies. For me, it has always been quirky comedies like Little Giants that have been at the top of the list. As well, no one can deny the uplifting power of Rudy, the insightful and riveting tale behind Remember the Titans or the tear-jerker that was Brian’s Song. I kid you not, but I once watched a very mean 300 pound lineman sob like a little girl at the end of Brian’s Song. Football is one of those true American games, a real test of toughness, heart and determination. And thankfully, Hollywood has always been their to encapsulate it and illuminate its most immaculate moments on the silver screen.

Talking Point: What is your favorite football movie of all-time, and why?

Talking Points: Fans and Critics Are Divided Over Rambo!

Neil Miller — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:27:16 +0000

It’s been an interesting ride for ‘ole Rambo over the past few weeks. The fourth film in the Rambo series has been met, since its inception, with a diverse range of opinions from fans, bloggers and film industry pundits alike. Some have absolutely loved the idea of a carnage-heavy, all out war homage to the first three films — raising Rambo’s body count into the stratosphere. While others debate the need and/or the purpose of going back and re-hashing another has-been Sly Stallone character, a la Rocky Balboa.

Personally, I thought Rocky Balboa was a well done, respectful way to end the Rocky saga. And not having seen Rambo, I find it difficult to comment. My instincts tell me though, that it is probably not a very good film — but that doesn’t mean it can’t be enjoyable.

And now that Rambo has driven his way into theaters this weekend, he has been met with an almost ridiculously diverse amount of responses. The critics say it is a rotten egg, with the film earning a 35% rotten rating on RottenTomatoes. Our own Loukas Tsouknidas called it “sad” and “ugly”.

On the other side, we have the fans, who have given the film very high marks on IMDB’s user rating scale. As of today (January 27), Rambo is currently at an 8.5 out of 10 rating (4,244 voted), placing it 195th All-Time… Yes, that is “In the History of Film” All-Time! Our own Kevin Carr seems to agree, saying “Sylvester Stallone may be eating at the 4:30 buffet and paying with his AARP card, but he can still make one hell of an action flick.”

So there you have it — fans and critics are deeply divided over this film. Now it is time for you to voice your opinion in this weekend’s Talking Points article!

Talking Points: Did you see Rambo? What do you have to say about it?

Talking Points: So… What Did You Think of Cloverfield?

Neil Miller — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:57:29 +0000

Alright folks, here is the deal. We have given tons of prime real estate on this site to the recently released Cloverfield, so it would be very inconsiderate of us if we did not at least see what you think about the damn film. You’ve probably already seen what we’ve had to say about it. If not, check out reviews from Robert Fure, Brian Gibson, Kevin Carr and Jessica Rogers.

But those are our opinions. We’ve already got enough of those. We now want, nay — need your opinions to make this whole thing complete. And we know you saw the movie — it’s making a killing at the box office this weekend. So speak up, people!

Talking Point: What did you think of Cloverfield?

Talking Points: Are You Going to See Cloverfield?

Neil Miller — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:32:07 +0000

We have a well-documented history of spreading the love to Paramount’s monster movie Cloverfield, as we have been following it closely since July 2, 2007 when the first teaser trailer preceded Transformers. Since then, this monster movie has become — for lack of a better term — a hype monster with a mind of its own. Thanks to viral marketing, producer J.J. Abrams’ committment to keeping information under lock and key and the lowkey personas of director Matt Reeves and his young cast, we have seen nothing but more and more build up for this January release.

On top of all that, we are seeing positive reactions from all corners of the webosphere. Our own Robert Fure hit us with an early review and said that it “is a mixture of Jaws, The Blair Witch Project, and Godzilla. It actually bears a lot of similarities to the American “reimagining” of Godzilla, but without the Doritos ads (It’s Nokia, this time) and less fish jokes, French men, and mini-Godzilli (Godzillas?). But to be fair to Cloverfield, it’s much better than that steaming pile of fish guts.”

And there is more. Of course we know that Harry Knowles goo’d all over it, but thats not all. Our good friend Alex and First Showing called it a “classic”. Another friend of the Rejects, Vic at Screenrant also gave it much love: “Will it win an Oscar or Golden Globe? Heck no. Was it fun and exciting to sit through? Hell yes. This is what the ridiculously weak American version of Godzilla that came out a few years ago should have been.”

So there you have it — that is what the pros have to say about the flick. The consensus seems to be that it is a lot of fun and that it lives up to the hype. Then again, it appears that you must take it for what it is. So that leads us to our Wednesday Talking Points:

Talking Point #1: Are you going to head out to see Cloverfield this weekend?

Talking Point #2: Based on the hype plus the positive reaction from reviewers, do you think Cloverfield is going to be a runaway hit, smoking the early year box office?

Let us know what you think in the “Sound Off” area below. Would you like to suggest a “Talking Point” topic? Just drop a line to neil@filmschoolrejects.com.

Talking Points: WB Goes Blu-ray; Is the Format War Over?

Neil Miller — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 04:33:19 +0000

Alright kids, by now you have read all about the fact that Warner Brothers has signed an exclusive deal to distribute their films in the Blu-ray format. Our Crave compadres ComingSoon.net reported the news earlier today, along with every other outlet on the face of the planet (including my favorite Next-Gen site High-Def Digest). Heck, our own Maggie Van Ostrand blogged about it here on this site not too long ago.

Right on the heals of the WB announcement comes news from Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily stating that HD-DVD has cancelled it’s CES Press Conference originally scheduled for January 6 at 8:30pm.

So is that it? Is this the end of the format war. I have received many emails and messages from friends around the industry stating that it just may be the death of HD-DVD. The cancellation of the CES “Dog-&-Pony Show”, as Nikki Finke called it, may not be an admission that Blu-ray has won, but it sure isn’t a statement of strength.

From where I sit, I see this: The split is now about 70% Blu-ray (backed by Sony, Disney, WB, Fox, MGM and Lionsgate) and 30% HD-DVD (backed by Paramount/Dreamworks and Universal). Yet, no matter the ratio, no matter the fact that Blu-ray discs out-sold HD-DVDs 2-to-1 in the first half of 2007, there are still studios on both sides. That means that while you will be able to get The Dark Knight on Blu-ray, you will still have to catch Iron Man and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on HD-DVD. For the average movie geek, it is a terrible position to be in.

Of course all of this could be trumped by the rise of on-demand film downloads and rentals. iTunes could be making a move toward movie rentals, and eventually on to delivering HD content. They already provide trailers in HD.

So there you have it — that is where we are right now. The rest of the discussion is up to you… That leads us to this weekends Talking Points:

Talking Point #1: Do you think that the format war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray is over now that WB has gone exclusive?

Talking Point #2: How do you think on-demand content and HD movie downloads will impact things if they become more abundant?

Talking Points: What Was Your Favorite Pregnant Comedy of 2007?

Neil Miller — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:00:56 +0000

Is it just me, or have most of the best comedies this year been about someone getting pregnant? Or, in the case of Superbad, someone trying to do the things that lead to spawning a child? It is a trend that hit Hollywood this year and has left us with three of the best films of the year, Juno, Waitress and Knocked Up. All three different in their own ways but all centered on an unplanned pregnancy.

In Juno, Ellen Page plays a 16 year old girl who goes to chair with the geeky Paulie Bleeker (Arrested Development’s Michael Cera) and comes away with a bun in the oven. She opts for adoption and decides to give the kid over to yuppy couple Mark and Vanessa (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner). It was a heartwarming dose of reality that brought even the most hardened badass to tears.

Kerri Russell also got pregnant this year — twice. Once as a sassy pie-making server in Adrienne Shelly’s Waitress and once as teen mother to a musical prodigy in August Rush. In Waitress, her character’s disdain with being pregnant was the perfect balance to the film’s awkward brand of comedy. As well, Jeremy Sisto delivered one of the best “bad husband” performances that we’ve ever seen.

And finally we have Katherine Heigl getting Knocked Up by lazy stoner boy Seth Rogen in Judd Apatows raucous summer comedy. If there was ever an unlikely couple to make child, it would be these two. With a supporting cast that almost stole the movie and two leads that were absolutely perfect for their roles, Knocked Up is the ultimate cautionary tale: don’t have unprotected sex with a guy that doesn’t have a job.

So there you have it, three great movies that delivered us three great leading ladies with big ole’ bellies. The only question is which one did we love the most. That leads us to this weekend’s talking point:

Talking Point: What was your favorite comedy about pregnancy in 2007?

Talking Points: CGI, Friend or Foe to Filmmakers?

Brian C. Gibson — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:03:11 +0000

With big action/fantasy releases like I Am Legend and The Golden Compass hitting the box office, we can hear audiences voicing two very loud opinions on the use of Computer Generated Imagery. On one hand you have some audiences saying that the computer generated “dark stalkers” in I Am Legend were not real enough, it ruined the fear and believability of the characters. On the other hand though, some people say that the very best part of The Golden Compass was to watch polar bears duke it out old school.

By now I’m sure that everyone has seen the trailer for The Dark Knight. Here is a film that we can assume will not have any gratuitous use of CGI. In other words, I don’t think that we can expect any characters or shots between main characters to be complete works of CGI. Looking ahead at blockbusters like Cloverfield, Jumper, Speed Racer and Iron Man, these films obviously would not be possible without the use of CGI. So can we expect another disappointment in the making, or another eyegasmic experience like Transformers?

Talking Point #1: Has a film ever been ruined your experience due to the use of CGI?

Talking Point #2: Some filmmakers consider CGI an art form. What is your opinion of CGI environments used in films like 300 or Speed Racer?

Talking Point #3: What is your favorite CGI filled film?

Film School Rejects » Talking Points

Discuss: What Did You Think of Quantum of Solace?

Related Reading:

Group Discussion: Of All the Heroes, Why Batman?

Related Reading:

Water Cooler Discussion: Who is Your Favorite Cinematic Stoner?

Related Reading:

Water Cooler Discussion: Do You Care About the Death of the Print Critic?

Related Reading:

New Speed Racer Photos – Will Families Dig the Acid Trip?

Related Reading:

Fanboys Recut: Desecration or Divine Intervention?

Related Reading:

Talking Points: Oscar’s Big Surprises

Related Reading:

‘Juno’ Gets Set to Crash the Oscar Party

Related Reading:

Talking Points: What’s Your Favorite Football Movie of All-Time?

Related Reading:

Talking Points: Fans and Critics Are Divided Over Rambo!

Related Reading:

Talking Points: So… What Did You Think of Cloverfield?

Related Reading:

Talking Points: Are You Going to See Cloverfield?

Related Reading:

Talking Points: WB Goes Blu-ray; Is the Format War Over?

Related Reading:

Talking Points: What Was Your Favorite Pregnant Comedy of 2007?

Related Reading:

Talking Points: CGI, Friend or Foe to Filmmakers?

Related Reading: