The Road- Cormac McCarthy, only the guy who wrote No Country For Old Men, has his post-apocalyptic odyssey adapted to screen. I loved this book. It's going to be a great flick. One reason? Your average fan will hate it. Oh yea. Can't wait.
Blood Meridian- Another McCarthy adaptation. I'm currently about 150 pages in. It's supposed to be one of the bloodier books in print. Anyways, it's awesome. Ridley Scott is slated to direct. The cherry on top. I can't wait for this one, it hasn't even begun filing yet either.
Star Trek- I know, I know. This has potential to blow like Moby Dick (multiple puns intended). It intrigues me though. I can't say why, as I'm really not sure. Something about it's look has me excited. And hey, if it sucks, that'll be just entertaining.
Public Enemies- think The Untouchables except you know, without Kevin Costner. This one has crime genre fans abuzz and for good reason: Michael Mann, one of the best crime guys around, directs Christian Bale and Johnny Depp in the leads. Can anyone say, 'awesome'?
Dragonball Evolution- ok, not really. HA!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Acting- what makes a good role?
Acting is one of the integral parts of movie-making. Bad acting can sink a movie faster than a leaky lifeboat (Leaky lifeboats!?). Good acting can sustain a film, even define it. What makes good acting though? It's really a matter of opinion. Of course, some people have a better opinion than others.
To me, acting is in in the nuances. The way an actor delivers a line for emphasis, their voice fluctuating where it regularly should not. The way they walk or move. The more subtle the detail, the better. Because in all honesty, who really twitches or mutters in an over-obvious way? If an actor has to do too much it is too much. Then again, some actors thrive on overacting. Mostly comedians. Or Jimmy Stewart.
What kind of roles are the best kind then? Well, if you ask the Academy it's the kind your average joe would say is good acting. This means playing the mentally or physically handicapped, someone gay, or a famous figure. Don't get me wrong, these roles are challenging. Their just too obvious. I say the best kind are the ones where an actor can build on a fictional character who has the kind of issues you may not know but notice if you look well enough. A drug addict. A person who's spouse is cheating on them. A person with social anxiety disorder. Think of how hard it is to convey the emotions requisite of a person who's problems are under the surface. Do you wear your problems on your sleeve?
When I watch Sean Penn act, I find it very smug. Almost like he knows he's got some meaty, meaningful role. When I watch Tom Wilkinson, I see an actor with versatility. It's personal opinion. I will argue my opinion is superior to yours, but I will respect that you have an opinion.
To me, acting is in in the nuances. The way an actor delivers a line for emphasis, their voice fluctuating where it regularly should not. The way they walk or move. The more subtle the detail, the better. Because in all honesty, who really twitches or mutters in an over-obvious way? If an actor has to do too much it is too much. Then again, some actors thrive on overacting. Mostly comedians. Or Jimmy Stewart.
What kind of roles are the best kind then? Well, if you ask the Academy it's the kind your average joe would say is good acting. This means playing the mentally or physically handicapped, someone gay, or a famous figure. Don't get me wrong, these roles are challenging. Their just too obvious. I say the best kind are the ones where an actor can build on a fictional character who has the kind of issues you may not know but notice if you look well enough. A drug addict. A person who's spouse is cheating on them. A person with social anxiety disorder. Think of how hard it is to convey the emotions requisite of a person who's problems are under the surface. Do you wear your problems on your sleeve?
When I watch Sean Penn act, I find it very smug. Almost like he knows he's got some meaty, meaningful role. When I watch Tom Wilkinson, I see an actor with versatility. It's personal opinion. I will argue my opinion is superior to yours, but I will respect that you have an opinion.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Sequels- bigger, louder, badder
I hate sequels. There is nothing more annoying than a sequel. Hell, then people started getting into prequels and I say to myself, "When will the madness end?" and the reality is that only when the buck stops, sequels will stop.
The problem with sequels is inherent. It's a simple formula really: Sequel = Original Movie + Bigger Budget (Opening Weekend Profit/Original Budget) - Brains. What happens when someone gets money they don't need? They spend it, right? How do they spend it? Carelessly, right? They spend it in a way that does not match the way they had before, that had ultimately led to their previous success, and hence the bigger budget. It makes everyone involved lazy. It doesn't help that the original minds behind the project get out (for good reason) to do more original, rewarding work. The studio then hires some music video rookie, give them a major budget and say, "Make it good!" (which is movie-speak for, "Make more money!")
Let us look at some sequels from the years. The Matrix sequels. Garbage, right? Why? Because the budget was huge (they built a freeway for it for goodness sakes) and the story was so complicated it was almost funny. Everyone decided it needed to be bigger and better. Pirates of the Caribbean. The first was charming and fun. The second one was nauseating anytime Johnny Depp wasn't on screen. The third one was bad in general. Every Rocky sequel minus Rocky II was garbage.
This is not to say that all sequels stink. The Dark Knight is better than the original. The Godfather Part II, awesome. The Empire Strikes Back, awesome. Terminator 2: Judgment Day, awesome. The Bourne sequels. They exist.
The problem, and this is especially prevalent today, is that studios feel the need to add with sequels rather than expand sequels. Bigger vehicles rather than better stunt driving or CGI rather than inventive choreography. Films are dumbed down for he masses so they'll go see it rather than care about it.
The problem with sequels is inherent. It's a simple formula really: Sequel = Original Movie + Bigger Budget (Opening Weekend Profit/Original Budget) - Brains. What happens when someone gets money they don't need? They spend it, right? How do they spend it? Carelessly, right? They spend it in a way that does not match the way they had before, that had ultimately led to their previous success, and hence the bigger budget. It makes everyone involved lazy. It doesn't help that the original minds behind the project get out (for good reason) to do more original, rewarding work. The studio then hires some music video rookie, give them a major budget and say, "Make it good!" (which is movie-speak for, "Make more money!")
Let us look at some sequels from the years. The Matrix sequels. Garbage, right? Why? Because the budget was huge (they built a freeway for it for goodness sakes) and the story was so complicated it was almost funny. Everyone decided it needed to be bigger and better. Pirates of the Caribbean. The first was charming and fun. The second one was nauseating anytime Johnny Depp wasn't on screen. The third one was bad in general. Every Rocky sequel minus Rocky II was garbage.
This is not to say that all sequels stink. The Dark Knight is better than the original. The Godfather Part II, awesome. The Empire Strikes Back, awesome. Terminator 2: Judgment Day, awesome. The Bourne sequels. They exist.
The problem, and this is especially prevalent today, is that studios feel the need to add with sequels rather than expand sequels. Bigger vehicles rather than better stunt driving or CGI rather than inventive choreography. Films are dumbed down for he masses so they'll go see it rather than care about it.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Comic book films
If there is one current trend that is as polarizing as comic book adaptations, I'd like to see it. You've got films like The Dark Knight and Road To Perdition inspired by graphic novels, that are sensational. Then you've got literal page-to-screen versions of graphic novels like 300, done poorly (made by the 'visionary' Zack Snyder). Then you've got films inspired by comic book characters like the X-Men and Spiderman. Some are good, some stink.
Comic books and graphic novels provide great sources for film. However. I still contend novels are better. Why? Novels provide the vision that can be adapted to the screen. Which means that the films adaptation of the novel will be judged for the content more than the visuals. Whereas a comic book/graphic novel film will be judged on the story and the visuals. Not to mention, the visuals of a graphic novel eliminate nearly all flexibility for the director to create their own interpretation on screen. Just look at 300. It's a panel for panel remake. Look at what they're trying to do with Watchmen. I get that it's gorgeous visual art, but it's still lifting the panel and putting it on screen.
Watch a film like Road To Perdition. That is the epitome of a graphic novel that is made unique and visualized nearly separate from the on paper content. In the end, it's a double edged sword no matter what. However, a good director turns his back to the crowd and applies their own vision to the content, makes it their own. That is what a good director does.
Comic books and graphic novels provide great sources for film. However. I still contend novels are better. Why? Novels provide the vision that can be adapted to the screen. Which means that the films adaptation of the novel will be judged for the content more than the visuals. Whereas a comic book/graphic novel film will be judged on the story and the visuals. Not to mention, the visuals of a graphic novel eliminate nearly all flexibility for the director to create their own interpretation on screen. Just look at 300. It's a panel for panel remake. Look at what they're trying to do with Watchmen. I get that it's gorgeous visual art, but it's still lifting the panel and putting it on screen.
Watch a film like Road To Perdition. That is the epitome of a graphic novel that is made unique and visualized nearly separate from the on paper content. In the end, it's a double edged sword no matter what. However, a good director turns his back to the crowd and applies their own vision to the content, makes it their own. That is what a good director does.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Twilight- the phenomenot
Your movie fan is broken down into three groups: the knowers, the know nots, and know not muches. The knowers are people who can recognize a good movie when they see it and a bad movie when they see it (which is oftentimes likened to watching a comedy to your average person). The know nots can recognize what makes a good movie but not what makes a bad one, hence they tend to like a lot of stuff. The know not muches couldn't discern a good movie from a bad movie even if they wanted to so they end up liking mostly garbage.
Twilight is the current mega hit in the movie biz. The kind of movie that makes ridiculous amount of money, so much so that the sequel is greenlit within the first week of the release. It's the story of a young girl who falls in love with a mysterious new boy who happens to be a vampire. She falls for him, he falls for her, they stare longingly into each others eyes and then they kiss so achingly slow it's almost painful to watch.
There are some movies that do not need to be viewed to be judged and criticized. Freddy Got Fingered, Postal, etc. Twilight is one of them. For one, it's routinely panned by critics. And as much as people like to say, "I don't listen to critics." let's be honest. It's their job and they tend to know what they're doing. Therefore, if a movie is panned by nearly all who watch it, that's hundreds of educated minds coming to the same conclusion. You know, kind of like when every doctor alive says drinking acid is bad. Another reason is that it's a teen love story. Name me one teen love story that had any substance. Crickets. Ok, next topic. It's aimed a very specific demographic; women aged 13 - 45 also known as women who are looking for romance at every turn. So when you watch the trailer and see the dashing lead say, "You're eyes make me....want to stare forever." they get lightheaded and giddy. The final reason why I can say without a doubt Twilight is not a good movie without having ever seen it; unquestionable campiness in nearly every facet. Just watch the position of the camera, the way shots are set-up, the lighting, the sets, the acting, the dialogue, go on and on and it's all campy, campy, campy.
Next time you see a trailer and think to yourself, "Man, that looks great!" Please, stop for a moment and think about what you just saw. More than likely it was an orgy of the best parts of the flick, and you've been duped.
Twilight is the current mega hit in the movie biz. The kind of movie that makes ridiculous amount of money, so much so that the sequel is greenlit within the first week of the release. It's the story of a young girl who falls in love with a mysterious new boy who happens to be a vampire. She falls for him, he falls for her, they stare longingly into each others eyes and then they kiss so achingly slow it's almost painful to watch.
There are some movies that do not need to be viewed to be judged and criticized. Freddy Got Fingered, Postal, etc. Twilight is one of them. For one, it's routinely panned by critics. And as much as people like to say, "I don't listen to critics." let's be honest. It's their job and they tend to know what they're doing. Therefore, if a movie is panned by nearly all who watch it, that's hundreds of educated minds coming to the same conclusion. You know, kind of like when every doctor alive says drinking acid is bad. Another reason is that it's a teen love story. Name me one teen love story that had any substance. Crickets. Ok, next topic. It's aimed a very specific demographic; women aged 13 - 45 also known as women who are looking for romance at every turn. So when you watch the trailer and see the dashing lead say, "You're eyes make me....want to stare forever." they get lightheaded and giddy. The final reason why I can say without a doubt Twilight is not a good movie without having ever seen it; unquestionable campiness in nearly every facet. Just watch the position of the camera, the way shots are set-up, the lighting, the sets, the acting, the dialogue, go on and on and it's all campy, campy, campy.
Next time you see a trailer and think to yourself, "Man, that looks great!" Please, stop for a moment and think about what you just saw. More than likely it was an orgy of the best parts of the flick, and you've been duped.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Shawshank Redemption- inspiration for the masses
I'm all for an inspirational story. A tale of exceeding the limits one has been confined too. Overcoming great odds. Is that not the dream everyone has? To be better? To be more? In this regard, people are suckers for a good inspirational story. The reality, as most people find out, is that life offers very little of these dynamics. I've always preferred the films that provide inspiration and realism in the same. Where even the slightest triumph can provide meaning to the characters in the film. Such titles as One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, On The Waterfront, and Cool Hand Luke. The main character may not have to even survive to provide the inspiration.
The Shawshank Redemption is considered by many to arguably be the most inspiring film made. It tells the story of Andy Dufresne, a man who is sent to prison for killing his wife and her liver although he is innocent. While inside he befriends a man named Red. Red has become content with life inside the prison, while Andy keeps up hope.
My greatest criticism of this movie is how it tries to make life inside the prison seem horrible. I'm not saying prison is a cakewalk, but I mean, come on. Are they seriously trying to make the Warden appear so evil when he has lines like this, "The woman can't cook worth shit anyways." Ooooo, I'm so scared! Then he *SPOILER ALERT* kills Tommy. Ohhhh nooooo! It tries to be hard, but in the end the story just does not offer any conflict worth a darn.
The only part of that film that truly moved me was *SPOILER ALERT* when Brooks is set free and decides that rather than live a life where he is serves no purpose, he takes his own life. That is a real character dilemma culminating in a meaningful, significant end. It reminds me of another Stephan King/Frank Darabont film called the Green Mile. It pulls no punches in it's portrayal of inspiration.
I love debating about this movie. It's one that unanimously is loved. Sometimes I wonder if it's just a mistake on my part. Too bad it ain't.
The Shawshank Redemption is considered by many to arguably be the most inspiring film made. It tells the story of Andy Dufresne, a man who is sent to prison for killing his wife and her liver although he is innocent. While inside he befriends a man named Red. Red has become content with life inside the prison, while Andy keeps up hope.
My greatest criticism of this movie is how it tries to make life inside the prison seem horrible. I'm not saying prison is a cakewalk, but I mean, come on. Are they seriously trying to make the Warden appear so evil when he has lines like this, "The woman can't cook worth shit anyways." Ooooo, I'm so scared! Then he *SPOILER ALERT* kills Tommy. Ohhhh nooooo! It tries to be hard, but in the end the story just does not offer any conflict worth a darn.
The only part of that film that truly moved me was *SPOILER ALERT* when Brooks is set free and decides that rather than live a life where he is serves no purpose, he takes his own life. That is a real character dilemma culminating in a meaningful, significant end. It reminds me of another Stephan King/Frank Darabont film called the Green Mile. It pulls no punches in it's portrayal of inspiration.
I love debating about this movie. It's one that unanimously is loved. Sometimes I wonder if it's just a mistake on my part. Too bad it ain't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)