Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Cinemeration is as Cinemeration Does

These 'movies', as it is sometimes called, are listed here. To be sure, a thing that is held close to the warm and pulsating bosom of Cinemeration is something to be treasured, not unlike a child, but very unlike a dog, or a 'canis familiaris', for you Latin lovers.
Frankly, this year has held some exuberant and surreptitious (or, if you're fond of candied sweets, 'syrup-ticious') films that were veiled by the dread hood of 'the independent vein'. No moving picture-goer should have to familiarize himself with the realm of the hipster! 
Not. At. All.
This is the time of year that calls for reflection and paying respect towards what made these 12 months so special. So buckle your seatbelt, you son of a bitch, because we're about to do some hard-core reflecting, asshole.
Quite so!
Trust me on this one- I'm not a fan of inter-racial relationships the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. I don't think that ceremony does anything else other than act as Sean Penn's Livejournal.
That being said, it's a game. The Oscars mean one thing- money. Obviously, but hey, people want Oscars. They give your movie a lot of attention. It's the attention game. There's a big group of children (hopeful oscar contenders) in front a big auditorium. Whoever raises his hand the highest and makes himself stick out the most will get picked to go up on stage. When they're on stage, they're given a pat on the back, or some candy, or something (a nomination). And the other kids pretend to be happy and applaud their classmates but all they're really doing is plotting how to get noticed more effectively next time. 
This doesn't necessarily apply to what I wanted to say about Black Swan. 
I didn't do a full on review of Black Swan because I don't really know what to say about it. It's really good, with excellent camera work and spot on direction. However, it's being tossed into the chaos that is the movies that came out this year, and I don't think it will get the attention it deserves. 
Ok, here it comes.
FACK YOU Black Swan. Stupid fucking limited release. I'm referencing both the theatrical run of the movie and how long I had to wait to finally masturbate to it. Here's the thing about Black Swan, and I guess about Natalie Portman in general. I'm in love with it. No, seriously. Black Swan really does it for me. I'm in love with Natalie Portman in a creepy way, and there's nothing she or I (or you, for that matter) can do about it. I want to be a stuffed animal in her room (no, I don't want to be a teddy bear just so I can get hugs) just so I can watch her. I'm thinking about how to effectively stalk her in a way that slightly resembles romantic comedy but at the same time screams romantic comedy. You know, not like dark alley nervous look start walking faster fog, you know, more like open air mall hiding behind sunglass rack picking out flowers accidently tripping over dachshund bright sunny day happily ever after type deal. 
Why, might you ask? 'Why?' I ask myself. She's too damn precious. And here's the kicker! She got knocked up by her choreographer! Whatever happened to not shitting where you ballet-dance, Natalie Portman? Come on, NP, he's probably a slimy frenchman who wants nothing more than to bring you down. Sure, get engaged, go ahead. I'll be there. And I won't let you be given away.
It's a very pretty and delicate movie, pretty much consistently. It's really well put together. Very neat use of camera contraptions and editing machines. Sure, she goes through some kind of spastic freako tranmorgification, but she's always going to be a sweet girl...shit. And now she's doing some kind of comedy thing with Ashton that looks terrible. It's bad enough he's in Nikon commercials and tweets more than the caged bird. 

Inception is a really cool movie and will be embraced as such. Christopher Nolan does a great job, but in terms of competing, what counts more- improving upon contemporary style, or utilizing more modern techniques? What does something like the Academy (a shithouse) hold more dearly? Who cares? 
Anybody see The Town? Pretty fackin hahd movie. The Town would put all other competition in its REAHVIEW had it come out in some different year. Ben Affleck is a repulsive monster but when he directs a movie, he directs a movie. He just picked the wrong year to direct the movie. "Fuck you,' he might say in response.
True Grit was balls, and Jeff Bridges was the Dude in chaps. Not a lot of chicks in that movie.
What else?
I already talked about how awesome The Fighter was, and check this out- it doesn't really matter to a patron like you, assuming you haven't seen the movie, but Mark Wahlberg got a golden globe nomination. I have no idea why. Just wanted to put it out there. Does he have a dog?
I plan on seeing Kings Speech sometime soon. It looks awesome and is supposed to be feeeeee-nomenal. BRRRRAAAAHHHMMMM

This year has been awesome. Fiftieth time I've said that. I've still got places to go, movies to see, Cinemerations to Cinemerate, so I bid you adieu. 

Take a look at this shit-

Here is some more pictures.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Review: The Fighter

The Fighter is a really cool movie. That's the only way to describe it. I mean, that's a lot to be said about a movie about boxing starring Mark Wahlberg called 'The Fighter' set in Massachusetts. I don't know what I expected, going into that movie, but what I got out of it was not anything close to whatever I expected.
At first, you don't know what kind of genre it's going for. It opens up with a talking head type interview with Bale, so you think it's going to be a documentary-style type deal, but then you start seeing the cameras that are filming the doc and the people doing the interview so your expectations change. It isn't until the title shot that you see what you're in for. The Fighter is a movie documenting real life in a manner similar to a gritty documentary, but captures something in people that is unattainable by way of a documentary: it shows you what going on outside of the documentary and how the people react to it. Obviously, this isn't the entire movie. It's a boxing movie, clearly, and 'the best one I've ever seen. The scenes are classical in their presentation, effortless in their preparation, and decisive in their delivery.
Mark Wahlberg does his part. He's born into a family with, like, 8 sisters that act, as my brother eloquently put it, a 'Greek chorus of Massholes'. Wahlberg downy really do authoring outstanding in the movie other than act of the impedice of the supporting characters conflict. The real story lies with the supporting arc, which is a rare find in today's cinema. Amy Adams is his love interest that fights for him as well as for herself. She's a college dropout searching for something, someone, and the viewer is lost in her journey of self discovery, Melissa Leo plays the spiteful, venomous mother who treats her children like a bear would treat her cubs. Shea really awesome and it's sad that her performance nay be overlooked in the long run. I say overlooked because Christian Bale is by far the best part of the movie. He plays a crack addict who believes that the documentary crew that follows him around is documenting his comeback into the boxing scene, instead of his crack addiction. Ok, here it comes, I'm going to say it- Bale gives a knockout performance. Bam. There it is. This movie is Oscar gold, and would be more bankable had it been released earlier in the decade, where it won't be outshined by the other amazing films that will cast a shadow over it. This movie will not win best picture or best director but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve attention and respect. It's a really, really great movie that has a specific arc that is easy and fun to follow. It's fun to watch, and that's hard to say about most sports movies.
Anyway, best picture aside, Bale is going to get an Oscar. That's just the bottom line. See the movie, and you'll know right away that this is his movie.
Ok, specifically, the movies cinematography is what makes it so watchable. It's just some guys with a camera enjoying what they're doing. You can tell they care about what they're filming. Very delicate, intensive, character driven, very bankable. Deeeeelicious! And good for you too.
So what is there not to like about this movie...not a lot. I guess the movie draws thin around the end. A bunch of critics have said that the movie 'just ends', but whatever. It is what it is, and it is great. See it in theatres.

I award The Fighter four out of four squirts.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Spielberg, Lucas, Indy, Cinemeration.

They're making another Indiana Jones movie, working title 'Indy 500: a day at the races', but that's old news. New news is that Spielberg is killing off Indiana jones at some point during the movie. 'lolwut?', I pondered. To what need? To what...end? End? Bend? Send? Pretend? That's it...pretend. Pretenderific, as it where. Where am I?
Anyhow, Indiana Jones.
Indiana Jones is a benchpost of American cinema, and of movies about heroes in general. Friendly, wholesome, good for the whole family tree. Action packed but totally sensical. Phantasmagoric. Rich with flavor, packed with fiber. Raiders got a best picture nom (nom nom nom), and Sean Connery originally didn't want to play Henry Jones, Sr., because he is only 12 years older than Harrison Ford and did not think it would look realistic. 'you're an old codger, you're doing it,' Lucas most likely proclaimed. Speaking of, I like how the film industry treats Connery as a cinematic icon that died 15 years ago when he is in fact living life to the fullest in the south of France with beautiful women fanning him with palms in his vineyard that he probably owns slaves on. True story, as a point of fact.
Now that I've touched on Lucas, here's the rub- the reason I'm not upset is two-fold. I'm not upset that they're making another Indy nor am I upset that they plan to kill him off for one reason (ok, so it's one-fold)- Spielberg insisted on both. Sure, Lucas will hop on board the gravy train that he calls the Indiana jones franchise, but Spielberg has his own plans. See, it was Lucas who wanted to do more indys. He of course got Spielberg to direct and even though he (Spielberg) had a good idea for the movie (something about a haunted house, anything is better than aliens), Lucas thought it would be a good idea to have Shia swing around on vines and aliens create a new niagara falls. Spielberg did it for one reason- he cares about Indiana jones and he cares what happens to the franchise he had a hand an foot in creating. Lucas wants attention and fame, and any press is bad press.
Lucas has no penis and is a woman. It needs to be said. The guy thought up star wars, whoop de doo. He's an idiot savant. He's the dude who made the star wars universe but dig this- he thinks empire strikes back is the worst in the series and forobviousreasons- he didn't direct it. He insisted on the happy ending for return of the Jedi because he didn't want merchandise sales to drop (in the original ending Han solo gets killed, the alliance is in tatters and the empire is recovering quickly, with Luke walking off like the lone cowboy. This is the guy who made the prequel movies kid friendly. This is the guy who cast Hayden Christiansen as anakin skywalker. This is the guy who decided to reboot the Indiana jones franchise because he thought he could squeeze more money and attention from it. The movie isn't horrible, but it is undoubtedly the worst in the franchise, and now he's making another one. That's the thing with Lucas- he gets what he wants. But Spielberg hashed creative control than he thinks- and he is doing the right thing by killing off Indiana jones. He's cutting the cord permanently- sure, Lucas, take Shia labauf. Make a new franchise. But Indiana jones is mine and will always be mine. Sure, whatever, Lucas had a big hand in making him what Indy is, but he is surely also destroying him from the inside. He's not good for the franchise, and everybody knows it. See, everybody in the film community hates Lucas the same way the scientific community hated Edison- Edison didn't invent the light bulb- a think rant did. Edison had the idea- let's make light, but other people made it happen. The same thing happened with industrial light and magic- Lucas had the idea of the star wars plan, but hundreds of technicians made it possible. It's total McCarthyism- you can't say anything about Lucas because he has so much clout. You can't tear down Lucas? He eventually collapses upon himself, in good time. He'll one day meet his end, and I feel that day coming soon. Very soon. Hopefully soon. Noon. Toon. Dubloon. Dublin. The united kingdom. Good morning!

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom


So the Hollywood Foreign Press is at it again with these Golden Globe nominations, which included Johnny Depp, twice, one for dancing like he's on magic cocaine, and another for trying not to stare at Angelina Jolies tattoos.
 The kings speech is up for sebbin globes, and is up against inception, black swan and social network for BP-D. As for Best Picture Comedy, that's a laugh in and of itself. Kids are all right is going to have to hold its ground against Burlesque and Alice in Wonderland, with The Tourist trailing close behind. As a walrus friend of mine once said, 'stop following me there's a fine line between something being good and deserving of awards and the HFP needing to suck as much juice out of the cesspool of Hollywood as they can.' Obviously there weren't as many good Comedies/ Musicals as there were Dramas this year, because as I said, this has been an all around bankable year. BP-D is going to be a very very close race, because everything looks awesome. My desire is for Social Network to win everything, but it has some competition. Social Network was by far the best movie of the year, but the HFP has dicks to suck, so we'll have to see. Did that rhyme? No, no it did not. Nat Port just may win best actress just because she's all 'up in coming' and whatnot, but it will be close with Jennifer Lawrence and Nicole Kidman. I would have sex with all three of these women except for Nicole Kidman. I'd be afraid she'd hurt me. I want either Jesse Eisenberg or Franco to win best actor but they're up against Colin Firth who will probably win, so that's going to be close too.
I want to just watch an award ceremony and enjoy it, and I have a feeling I will enjoy watching the Globes but not enjoy the outcomes. It's kind of like going to the zoo- you want to see the animals, but in the end, all you did was stare at animals all day and you probably need to pee.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Review: 127 Hours

It's been a great year for movies. Daybreakers, The Crazies, Human Centipede, Iron Man 2, Toy Story 3, Splice, Winters Bone, Predators, Get Low, The Other Guys, Scott Pilgrim, Last Exorcism, Social Network, we've still got Tron and True Grit to look forward to, not to mention Black Swan, whenever it decides to be available to humans, all in all a good year, and 127 Hours is a welcome addition to what made 2010 so awesome.
I've seen most of Danny Boyle's movies, I think. Like, 28 Days Later is pretty awesome (you can't go wrong with Cilian Murphy and Brendan Gleeson),28 Weeks Later was slightly lacking but nonetheless fairly entertaining, and I've seen Sunshine, which is sweet, I saw Slumdog which I didn't really like although I can appreciate all the effort that went into it (especially how afterwards they threw those Indian kids back into their respective ghettos), and I haven't seen The Beach but I hear tell that Leo is in it.
Alex Garland wrote 28 Days, Sunshine, and The Beach, so I'm sure The Beach has to be at least a little entertaining. Even if it was a full-length prequel to Inception where it was just Leonardo DiCaprio waiting for Saito's men to pick him up on the shore of his subconscious.
Back on point.
Going off of just the marketing they had for the movie, 127 Hours had every right to be just awful. It has a simple plot and everybody knows the ending. Sure, a guy gets stuck in a canyon and nobody comes to save him so he has to cut his arm off (I'm not ruining anything, trust me). But 127 Hours accomplishes something extraordinary- it captures every moment of this mans struggle to survive and puts you not only in the same position as he, but in the same psyche.
I'll just start with the direction, I suppose.
Boyle is definitely getting a nod for his direction, the question is will he win, and I think he has a very good chance. The movie is very purposeful; there is no hesitation. The story this movie is based on is incredible, but just from a humble Cinemerators standpoint, I would think this movie would be impossible to make in todays world of movie making (I'm garrulous, what can I say). The reason I say this is because I don't have much faith, but Danny Boyle has humbled me in a way that's hard to express. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew precisely how to make this movie and he did it. You can tell- the movie is as confident as the protagonist, and just as vulnerable.
The cinematography is also impressive, but how could it not be? The setting of this movie is in Canyon lands, which is one of the most beautiful and not to mention isolated places in the world. It's about capturing something that people never see, and also capturing those who live inside it. The canyon is alive, that much is certain. It is a living, breathing organism, and the camera soaks up every moment of light that is shed on it. Perspective, scope, all play a huge part- you feel for Aron in a way that makes you pity him- he knows he's trapped and nobody will find him, but you don't really fully understand his situation until the camera pans all the way up to show you just exactly how fucked he is.
The movie is very Danny Boyle and you can tell right off the bat. The editing makes the movie plead, which I don't necessarily like. Let me explain. There are several sequences that try to impress on you the gravity of population density- thus setting up a nice contrast with the isolation felt by Aron. But this also does something else- it makes the movie feel like a commercial for vegan food, if that makes sense. Very earthy, very grounded, very healthy. Clean, is the word. But this just makes me feel dirty in a way. It makes me feel like I'm not doing 'my part'. I'm not 'independent' enough to get this movie. This is an exaggeration. I love independent films but sometimes watching them is like talking to a person who complains about paying too much for their car and gas and everything is just such a hassle and I'm just not having a good day, want some chai tea I'm on a rant, and this is not good. What I'm trying to say is this- bottom line, the movie has a solid tone throughout, and that is something to be respected.
Ok, Franco. I have always like Jimmy Franc, and I knew this day would come. He's getting nominated, there's no doubt about that. There is just s000 much going on with Danny Boyle right now especially after Slumdog that there's no way this movie won't get a hundred nominations. It's just too easy to market to the Academy. But that's not to say it doesn't deserve them, because it does, especially for Franco. This dude makes the movie so entertaining. His don't know what to think of him at first. At first I thought 'Ok, this guy is asking for it', and that's exactly what I was supposed to think. Oops. Oops. My favorite line of the movie- 'Oops'. You end up sympathizing with him for his struggle in a hundred different ways. Everything he feels, you feel. See, this is all natural movie making. What 3D tries to shove in your face this movie smashes with a boulder. He's just such a likable actor you can't help but be wrapped up in his predicament.
There's a lot to say about this movie and that's what makes it good. I mean, sure, you can say that about any movie, but this one is different simply because I didn't think anything way going to happen. I honestly wasn't planning on reviewing this, but there is just so much to talk about. I'm going to go back and add more on later, but for now, please- see this movie. Totally worth the ticket price. It may be 'too independent' for some people but please, do the right thang and get an opinion before just labeling it as independent shlock.

I award 127 Hours 3 and one half out of 4 squirts

Friday, December 3, 2010

Black Swan is being a f****** c***

Black Swan is being a fascist crap. All I want to do on a Friday night is see Natalie and Mila and Cassel get it on, Aronofsky style. Too much to ask? Apparently so, because it's not playing anywhere in the Pittsburgh area. I actually googled, and I NEVER google, what the deal was, and everybody else is apparently as confused as I am. It's just not playing here yet, which is so lame, but I know I shouldn't complain. I'm going to see it eventually. I was seriously planning on seeing it TO-NIGHT, but the stupid limited release it's on cramps my style. Why would it be a limited release? They put ivy all over the front of the poster but that means literally nothing. It's official selection for Venice and Sundance, so what? So was Sex and the City. I actually have no idea if Sex and the City was Sundance'd, I'm just trying to make a point. Point being, they're trying to make this movie appear more arthouse than it actually is. Oscar fever to be sure, but come on you greedy bastards. This movie would make so much money if it had a wider release. It probably has something to do with the fact that Rachel Weiz and Aronofsky split the scene, not that I blame her. As much as I like Aronofsky, he looks as if Christian Bale was beaten with an 'eh, I guess he's cute' stick and then sucked into the Viggo painting at the end of Ghostbusters 2. The Wrestler and Requiem for a Dream are some pretty sweet movies.
Anyway, I'm sick and tired of waiting around for Black Swan. Just...come out, please? I'll give you money. Money. Money...mon...[zzz]

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Points of Interest, lolwut?

What does Cinemeration and a volcano have in common?

Here's the basic lowdown- Lindsay Lohan was going to portray some famous pornstar in a movie called 'Inferno: The Linda Lovelace Story', but she inevitably dropped out of it because she is a cracked out crack whore who probably has a crack baby [say crack again] [crack]. So, for a little while, it appeared that the movie wasn't going to happen, and for that little while, I fell into a deep spiral of depression. All I wanted was a Linda Lovelace movie :(((. But, hark the herald angels sing, it's been saved- Malin Ackerman is stepping in as Linda. I love Malin Ackerman for two reasons- one, and two, she's sexy. I don't know, there's something about a physically attractive woman that makes me enjoy the movies she's in. I'll probably never see the Lovelace movie simply because it's a blip on the radar, but that's what I said about Trick r' Treat, and I worship that movie more than the snake god Bast.

With the Oscars looming overhead like an overdue blood test, the Academy (God love them) has released a list of 15 pictures who are eligible for the Best Animated Feature category, and the list is, as always, absolutely hilarious. I guess it's just because they have to have 15 features, because everybody knows that 85% of the animated movies you're apt to see in theaters are horrendous Disney fecal matter. Here's the list. My personal favorites- Legends of the Guardians, Alpha and Omega, and the winner- Cat's and Dogs- The Revenge of Kitty Galore. You've got to love the Academy. What can they do? Toy Story 3 is going to win. It's not even a question. The only other film on that list that could possibly stand a chance is How to Train Your Dragon, but Dreamworks doesn't hold much credence in the Animated category, save for the fact that Spielberg is behind it, but not even Spielberg can topple Disney, let alone Pixar. I can't wait to see what they narrow it down to. At least one of my favorite picks has to make the top 5.

GHOSTBUSTERS 3 finally starting to have a downside. Well, I don't know if I'd call it a downside. I'd call it an inevitability. That inevitability is the casting of semi-decent actors from Saturday Night Live and at-best supporting actors as main characters. See, the whole point of GB3 is that it's bringing in new Ghostbusters, and because they want to market to a newer audience (at one point they wanted to fire Ivan Reitman for a younger director which is total bullshit) they're going to hire household names. Ie, Anna Faris, Will Forte, and Bill Hader. Faris is a very attractive halfway decent actor who can be great in comedies, so I'm ok with her, and I can deal with Will Forte, but I don't like Bill Hader. I just don't think he's especially funny. I don't know. The movie is going to be awesome no matter what, it's just all these little hiccups along the way that make it a little frustrating.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Some Tall Guy Wants to be James Bond

With the future of 007 now coming into view, lots of production questions are on the table, the obvious one being: who will fill Daniel Craigs shoes? Something that is becoming certain is the fact that Craig will not return for the next Bond because he is committed to David Fincher for the millennium trilogy, so where does that leave 007?
In the dog house, if this future becomes a reality.
Some guy named David Haye wants to be Bond. He's some heavyweight champion or something like that, but the bottom line is this- he's 6'3.
Here's a picture of the bastard.

I don't want to sound judgmental, but seriously folks. Is it really, honestly realistic to have a Bond that's over 6'2? He thinks he can just stroll right in and dwarf all the other Bonds, and make everybody look like an idiot?
Conveniently, there's an image on google that illustrates my concern.

Do you see what I mean? Maybe I'm overreacting. I just can't help but think about how much this would change the image of James Bond. SIX THREE, FOR CREPES CRIPES SAKE. Bond drives an aston martin, not some range rover with no roof so his head has some room to breathe. 
For now, this is only rumor, but this giant has gone on the record saying that he wants to put his hat in the ring for the next double O. Everybody probably shat their pants when this Goliath petitioned himself to be in the next movie. 'Sure,' some higher up probably said, 'Come on in, of course we'd like to discuss it with you!' At that point he probably attempted to lighten the mood. 'How's the weather up there?' He was never heard from again. That man was Amelia Earheart.
Hopefully Craig will chip off a few months to devote to being Bond again, as he is technically contractually obligated to three more movies. But with MGM in rehab, I don't know how the contract department is keeping track of obligations and that kind of stuff. I'm no lawyer.
Is it just me, or is this a little unrealistic? I had to share.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Good Movies That Haven't Come Out Yet


Somewhere, probably in Iceland, Roland Emmerich is biting his pillow.
This is the trailer for Battle: Los Angeles, a movie that is coming out March of next year. I usually read movies by their covers nowadays, and the title of this movie was enough for me not to be interested in seeing the trailer for it, even though it's plastered all over the interweb, but due to prompting by a Mr. Charles Nathan, I saw it and am mildly interested. I've got to hand it to whoever is behind this movie- this is a pretty decent trailer. The one I've attached (I would normally post the video directly but blogger is being a bag of dicks) is actually the second trailer. The first one is pretty cool too, there's just less voice overs. Which actually makes it better. See, what I like about this trailer is that it doesn't throw huge spotlights on Aaron Eck-hard and Michelle Rodrisomethingmexican. It just shows the action, which is all I want. See? A sensible trailer.
Yeah, this movie looks pretty intense, for the most part. I really like the design of the spaceships. They're super cool!
Also, I like the idea of 'the battle of los angeles'. That's what they should have called this movie. It implies the same thing as 'Battle: Los Angeles', except it sounds much cooler. The plot is going to be that aliens invade and destroy every major city and the humans make their last stand in LA. Convenient, too, because I hear LA has great tax incentives for alien movies. Also for movies that showcase the city's destruction, because it hates itself so much (If I were LA I'd hate myself too).
The music is also pretty cool, but whatever. This movie will not be very good, in all likelihood, but this trailer is pretty sweet. That's a lie, too, because I have no idea how this movie will turn out. It hasn't been getting very much attention, partly because the director is a no name and partly because it has very tired content, but all the attention it's getting is because of the trailer, and that should say something. I'm definitly seeing it, but my opinion may change as soon as TV spots start appearing like measles, because that's the time where it could go either way. That's when they start showcasing the actors, and I am totally indifferent to both of them, so we'll have to see.
I'm just glad it doesn't look like it'll be 3D. My heart can only take so much.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Disappointments, Hope, and the Manifesto

Blargh blah blargh, the world of movies is a treacherous one.
The Three Stooges might have been the best idea for a large scale comedy in years, and it was not only going to come together perfectly- it was going to put MGM back on the map. Sean Penn (yeah, ok, whatever), Benicio Del Toro, and Jim Carrey would play the stooges. How awesome does that sound? I mean, everything aside, this looked promising. Until Penn dropped out. Don't get me wrong, I hate Sean Penn more than ebola, but he was most of the steam running the train. It was looking grim, and now it's officially dead because Jim Carrey just dropped out. What's...what's going on? What is this. Who are you? ANSWER ME! Then I've got this malarkey to look at. One thing after the other. It didn't seem like my day was going to perk up at all.
Until it happened.
Right here. Blogger is really, really frustrating me right now and it's not letting me upload the video directly, but this link leads you straight to the new trailer for Uwe Bolls upcoming masterpiece 'Bluberella'. I've got to hand it to him. I thought he was going to go legit with this idea, but he's going so far beyond that. Turning it into a comedy. I really didn't see it coming, and now I feel like a jerk for ever doubting him. What a genius. This man has finally realized that you can be a shitty director and still make entertaining movies. This movie might actually be legitimately awesome. All I can say is watch the video in HD, it will complete your life.
A discombobulated series of events, to be sure, and it has left this Cinemerator dazed and confused. But I must come to my point, and that is the first article of the Cinemeration Manifesto. I've been getting complaints that I've been spoiling movies in my reviews and posts, and I am here to defend myself. Cinemeration is a blog about movies for movie lovers and thinkers and hunter/gatherers. This is not, this is not the entertainment section of CNN, this is Cinemeration. I'm going to talk about movies from the perspective of someone who cares about form and content; I'm not going to lobby movies for you, I'm not going to advertise. Trust me, Paramount couldn't afford me. Granted, I'll go easier next time I review a movie, but I'm not going to write a review thinking of ways I can prevent/encourage someone to see the movie, because homie don't cinemerate that.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Kristin Stewart is, like, omg

After reading the Movieweb for this story I was reminded of three things- one, they're still making twilights, two, the next movie is going to be in two parts, and three, Kristin Stewart is still getting work. Baffled, I went straight to my computer to cinemerate, but I then realized that I'm at work and have no control over shotty internets. Here I am, on my iPhone, loling my way to oblivion.
Here's the thing- Kristin Stewart and Robert Pattinsons characters in the next twilight have sex because they have a kid in the book (although I'm fairly certain that Bella dies horribly in childbirth after her child eats it's way out of her vagina). So, the big question on the table was 'are we going to see some Pattinson penis'? The next question was are we gonna see breasts that lack the ability to hold anything but malice, let alone talent, let alone milk. How would she breastfeed? I don't want to think about it (I want to cinemerate about it). And now those questions are answered, because Kristin Stewart is definitly getting naked for the next twilight. Here's a quote from someone of importance.

"The script actually has Kristen practically naked in it, a lot."

La dee da, I wonder who ultimately made the decision on this? Probably that director. What a perv, how dare he? How messed up do you have to be to actually want to see Kristin Stewart naked? Do you want to turn into a pillar of stone? Cause I hear that's what happens. And what is 'alot' supposed to mean? What a weird statement. The script has her practically naked, a lot. Script. [lolololol]
yeah, will I see this? No. Will I hear about this from every one of the thousand girls I know? Yes. Finally, will this satisfy viewers? And do we see patttinson penis? I think this story created more questions than answered them. We'll have to see, won't we?

By the way, just bought my Tron: Legacy tickets today. Thursday at midnight, IMAX 3D, jealous? You know you are, I know you are, and God certainly knows you are.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Jessica Alba Hates Everybody

Humdee doo, humdee dum, 
here we are, we are as one. 
Come you, come him, came gather round, 
for here a Cin'merator can be found.
And if you look up high and low,
You'll see a righteous and goodly show.
So closer come, my friend indeed,
For all of us are those who lead.

At last, something I can pin on Jessica Alba. She was quoted in last weeks 'Elle' (something I reccomend all Cinemerators to pick up, you never know when it may contain something spicy that will tickle your fancy (what the hell does that mean?) [fish slap]). Anyway, she was directly quoted as saying, and I quote [margarine]:

'[good actors] never use the script unless it’s amazing writing. All the good actors I’ve worked with, they all say whatever they want to say.' -Jessica Alba, on her career

FINALLY. The truth is out. I always wondered about that, you know. The movie making process simply can't be a collaborative effort, can it? This is Jessica Alba saying that Robert Rodriguez (Sin City) and David Wain (Wet Hot American Summer) are shitty screenwriters, when they're some of the best in Hollywood. What does that even mean? They just...don't use the script? Did Jessie see Tropic Thunder and take it literally? This is a mystery that needs to be solved. Recently (more recently than that?), some big shot screenwriter who wrote some movie called Big Fish that definitely wasn't even a good movie or even let alone Tim Burtons best movie at all came out of the closet and said that Alba is an idiot for saying this. Thanks guy, we know. Of course Alba will come out and say either how sorry she is or that she was misquoted. I really hope she wasn't misquoted. That might actually make me respect Jessica Alba (god, do I hate typing her name) a little more, just because she wouldn't give a shit what people think. It's kind of like the way I respect Armond White- I don't agree with anything he says, but it's still entertaining to listen to him. If this keeps up, I'd be willing to attend an Alba rally, where she goes on to say that good directors never direct the film, it just appears before the screen. The movie is never shot, it's always been shot. Editing? Nope. No such thing as editors. The movie is shot exactly the way it needs to be presented. If it needed to be edited, it wouldn't be a good movie, then, now would it? That's how good movies are made- the Alba way.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

David Duchovny is a Sexual Tyrannasaurus

we're on to something...

I haven't seen the first X-files movie in a really long time (it's an instant watch now...I should read up), but I know for a fact that anything is better than the second movie. I've recently had complaints that I've been spoiling movies in my reviews so I won't say what happens in the sequel, only that David Duchovny and Gillian Andersons perfect relationship was tarnished. It was like ending a meal with an appetizer, very unfulfilling and weird, not something you expected to happen. Anyway, news just broke that my wife is pregnant they are...ahem...making a fucking 'nother X-files movie..
Seriously? You don't necessarily need to know the series to see where I'm about to come from but to understand my frustration you should see the movies. Let me see if I can put it in a metaphor.
Think about the most perfect childrens story you've ever read. Something you deeply cherished- notice how I'm using the word 'cherished' here. This isn't something you liked, or even really liked, this is something you appreciated on a profound level. Ok, so you've got this profoundly cherish-able kids story, let's say it's about a friendly (but sometimes serious) T-rex and a grumpy (but sometimes playful) Stegosaurus that roam the prehistoric world together, helping other dinosaurs out and making friends in the process. Can you not feel the appreciation well up inside you like an oil rig? Now imagine that same story but in long-form, a novel perhaps. Ok, different format, same basic idea, doesn't exactly fit my childhood memory of this story but doesn't ruin anything. But this time, instead of going on an adventure together, they turn their minds towards each other and the book ends with them getting into a huge dinosaur battle. Remember that appreciation that was welling up inside you? Well, it just exploded all over the gulf of Mexico. Now- and here's something really tough to imagine- they're making another book.
'X-files 3: the Story Continues'? Mayhap a goodly title. Duchovny had this to say:

"It is in the process of being written. One awaits just the green light from Fox, who are a little disappointed from the relatively poor reception of the second film. (The film grossed $20.8 million.) The error comes, in my opinion, from the authors straying too far from the roots of the series. Moreover, the film was released in the summer. The third will be much closer to what the public expects, with government conspiracies, etc." -David Duchovny, courtesy of MovieWeb

The public expected you people to let a dead dog remain dead. Why make another one? Seriously, why? Maybe he feels that the series needs to redeem himself. He's also a sex addict (that's no lie), so maybe he wants to make another one just so he can bang Gillian Anderson. I wouldn't blame him. Yeah, the movie made $20.8 million from a $30 million budget, shouldn't that be a very large road sign proclaiming 'do not pass go, do not make another shitty movie'? Yeah, and then he blames it on being released in the summer. Ok, Davey, just because the movie is set during the winter doesn't make it a winter movie. Seriously? It's an X-files movie. The only reason it didn't make bank is because there's no way to market it anymore. How are they gonna market this one? From the minds of the people who brought you the most disappointing movie adaptation of a TV series since Charlies Angels comes the next invigorating chapter in the neverending struggle of discovering the truth. Coming soon. Duchovny seems bent on defending something he knows isn't in the least bit interesting. 
Or profitable, for that matter. Just when you think you've got Hollywood figured out. I don't know, I guess I just assumed that if a movie doesn't break even, you don't sprint to the computer to type out a sequel. Fox is just desperate. I can't think of another reason. Unless...they're not in the right mind...or from this solar system...I guess I have a little investigating to do. 

I hope that metaphor helped, because it was super fun to write. I think I might cash in on that whole children's book idea, there's money to be had in that field. To take your mind off of pesky little sequels that shouldn't be made, check out the new trailer for a sequel that came out of nowhere and is going to kick your ass.

...and nobody can get at it but me!

Friday, November 5, 2010

Review: Saw 3D

Going to the movies is in and of itself an experience. I know I've probably said this quote before, but I'll quote it again, just because it's so darn quotable. I went to the movies with my eldest brother David Lloyd not too long ago, and on the way to the theatre, we saw a poster for a film that didn't look very promising. Asked my brother, 'You think you're gonna see that? [chuckle]', said he, 'Yes.' I was confused, and said to him- 'But the movie looks like shit.' 'Yeah, maybe so,' he replied, 'but if I have at least 5% interest in seeing a movie in theaters, I'll see it.' 'Why?' 'Because I love going to the movies.'
I never forgot that. Most people go to the movies for the same reason they've been going to the movies since the beginning, but few people, and I stand by this thinking, actually go to the movies just because. I'm one of those few, and I can safely say that I love going to the movies because I love the experience. Don't get me wrong, more often than not I'm going to see a movie that I really want to see, but that doesn't mean I'm not appreciating every second of the experience.
Saw 3D was, excuse me for a second, [bites lip] an experience. First of all, I have to explain the theatre I went to. I usually go to the theatre that's closest to my old house but this time I had to go to one farther away because it was the only showing I could make, and I was seeing it with a friend. Going to the different theatre was like walking into a Saw trap. I got lost literally ten times on the way to buy the tickets. I got lost in the bathroom. Seriously- I went through the door that said 'mens room' and went out a door that flushed me somewhere on the other side of the theatre. It took me a full five minutes to find the entrance I originally went through, and I was very shaken because of it. So, being thoroughly shaken, I went into the theatre. Here's what happened next, but first, something else.
I'm very against 3D. I think it's useless and I'm not ashamed to say that most critics agree with me. On the whole it doesn't add anything to a movie; it's at best a distraction, and it's a waste of a few dollars that you'll have to throw in on top of an already expensive normal movie ticket. But, I have to admit, there are movies that are meant to see in 3D. Avatar, for instance, was obviously meant to be seen in 3D because of Michelle Rodriguez's beaming nipples. Saw 3D was shot in 3D so clearly it was meant to be seen in 3D. I'm not going to sit here and lie to you (I'm standing), I had a good time. The experience I had was, on the whole, very entertaining. I'll get into the actual movie in a second, but before I do, I want to speak to the fact that I had a reasonably good time. Compared to something that tries to be amazing and thinks it's amazing but really isn't, this movie is a real treat. It doesn't try to be anything more than what it is- a shitty blood bath in 3D. This is a movie that is meant to be fun, and it is.
As far as story goes, here's a movie that, to make sense, you have to literally memorize the previous six movies. There are so many characters, so many plot lines, so little time. The story is hilariously complicated. Instead of people sitting down and thinking of ways they could make it end cohesively, they were put in a Saw trap and had five minutes to think up an ending. This movie is gorier and more brutal than the previous Saw movies, and twice as kneeslappingly funny. The dialogue- hilarious. There's one trap where if the person screams sharp pipes plunge into their neck, and in the meantime another person needs to pull a fishhook from out the person who can't scream's stomach, and the person who can't scream obviously screams and gets pipe plunged, and the other person yells, 'ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS SHUT THE FUCK UP!' Classic high comedy! A romp for the whole family if I've ever seen one.
I don't have anything to say about cinematography. There's nothing of note. I can say that the movie could have used more stunts and less corn syrup. A very uneven balance, but that's to be expected. The editing? Marvelous. What can I say? A monkey could have edited this movie.
See, the point the Saw movies are trying to make is that when people are put into these life or death situations, they see their life from a distance and, if they survive, they emerge 'cured'. This is a concept that Saw 3D milks until the cow is dried to dust. There are even support groups in the movie for people who have survived the traps, and every one of them stands by the fact that they were cured. What is this supposed to say about society? That we're all inherently violent and evil? We're all animalistic? We all...drink the same milk? I'm confusing myself. The movie is very confusing, but there it is. The producers of Saw have always said that they'll keep making these movies until they stop making money, and that's a sensible business plan if I've ever heard one. Why not make millions off of movies that haven't needed more than $12 million per picture until now? It just makes sense. But like I was saying, they needed to wrap it up because this is allegedly the last chapter, so a lot of stuff got lost in the mix. And by a lot of stuff, I mean everything. But who cares? Nobody reads Playboy for the articles, and nobody goes to a Saw movie for the gripping storytelling. You want to see people get sawed in half, and you're satisfied by the end of Saw 3D.
All told, this movie is worth your dollar. I've seen every Saw movie in theatres out of a tradition I have with a friend of mine, and I can say that this is the most enjoyable one since the first. Think wisely before spending your dough, though, Joe. This is a ridiculously horrible horror movie, but the experience of seeing it in theatres makes it worth it. 

I award Saw 3D one and a half out of four squirts.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Suck it, Entertainment Weekly

There are some things in this world that baffle me. Sure, I get befuddled or flabbergasted from time to time, but rarely am I baffled. I was once baffled in junior high, when I thought about why dances were so important to girls, and how they obsess over something so infantile. I was baffled again in college, when I discovered 'themed parties', and once more I am baffled, this time by the Masters of the Universe that preside over the boulevards and studios of Hollywood, where the streets are paved with gold, but covered in piss. 
The James Bond empire is the second-highest grossing film franchise of all time, right behind our good friend Harry Potter. It missed beating Potter by a longshot- all told, Bond has so far grossed $5 billion from 22 films, and HP raked in almost $5.5 billion, from only 6. This is totally irrelevant in retro, however, because Harry Potter is based on a set series of books, and the Bond movies are made from the closest thing to scratch you can get- a bunch of short stories. The bottom line is simple- Bond makes a lot of money. Here's where I'm baffled- the movies make a lot of money, so why haven't they been bought by somebody yet? Here's the lowdown- a quick recap. 
MGM owns Bond, and MGM has been in the gutter until recently. It filed chapter 11 not too long ago and has been up for sale, and has recently been bought out by a slew of creditors, leaving everything MGM owned to Spyglass entertainment. That's the short version. For the long version, I suggest wikipedia-ing that noise.
Anyway, I guess I misspoke- I was baffled, but am not baffled anymore. Here's the reason I was baffled- that (excuse my language) stupid jerk-off EW article entitled 'Goodbye, Mr. Bond'. It was a totally irreverent issue devoted entirely to the fact that EW thought that Bond was done for. It was completely, unequivocally 100% disrespectful to one of the greatest and most respected film franchises in history and proclaimed that Bond will never return. Well, you can go to hell, EW, because Bond is coming back.
It's not like nobody saw it coming. This is just a restatement of facts already known- MGM is going under a big restructuring, and now the question isn't will Bond 23 go back into production, it's when. In fact, the only question on the table is whether it'll go to Sony or Paramount. The popular belief is that it'll go to Sony, because Sony owns Spyglass, but now people think that it might go to Paramount because it's much bigger, I think. I mean, I guess Paramount has to be bigger- their logo is a mountain, for peats sake! [bicycle horn]
In summation- Bond will return, it's just a matter of when. The EW article said (this was back in July) that even if MGM was saved today, the next Bond wouldn't come to screens for at least another 6 years. That's so impossible. Seriously? Six years? Jesus, they're dramatic. And then they interviewed a former MGM exec to get his input on all of this, and he said that a franchise that loses this much momentum is very unlikely to survive and, I quote, 'even for Bond, this could be deadly.' Ok, first off- he's a former MGM exec. Of course he's going to say that, he's out of the job. Secondly- they underestimate the power of money in this situation. Bond is one of my favorites, to be sure, but there's no denying that there's some serious money attached to these movies. Somebody was going to solve the Bond problem soon enough, it was just a matter of time, and a short amount at that. The MovieWeb says that the next Bond is coming earliest 2014, and that is only because Craig is committed to David Fincher for the Millennium trilogy until then. If they really, seriously wanted to, they could get a new Bond and a new Director today and finish filming by next winter. Don't quote me though, because I don't know that for a fact. I do know that everything at Pinewood Studios is totally prepared to film a Bond movie. They were seriously ready to go, until MGM fell like a ton of bricks. Everything is waiting for production, like a dormant volcano. But, they're money watchers, so they'll wait for the team to get back together.
I don't know, I could be totally wrong about the whole Craig thing. He may not even agree to come back, but there it is. Bond has fallen apart and put itself back together in the past. There was a 6 year span of no Bond from '89 to '95, and it recovered just fine. I guess the reason everybody got so dramatic about it was because Casino Royale and Quantum were so good, and Craig is undoubtedly the best Bond. So what, though? Timothy Dalton was an unbelievable Bond and he only got two movies out of it, so why not hope for the best and prepare for the worst instead of hoping for the worst and preparing for nothing?
But yeah. For anybody out there who was worried about Bond- rest easy. Bond will return. Hell, he never left. To quote the last line of the most recent James Bond movie- 'You don't have to worry about me.'

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Kevin Smith is a Speed Demon

Why are you making that face? Has it really been that long, or are you exaggerating just for the sake of exaggerating? Listen, if you don't like the way I work, then I think we better just go our separate ways. One more Cinemeration, for old times sake? There's my girl.
There's this new movie coming out in '11 (or as I like to call it, 'Oh-eleven') called Red State, and it's going to be about some people stumbling upon some kind of evangelical born-again fanatical fantastical fundamentalist community whose only concern is taking down the blacks and the gays and all those other sinners, or something like that. Religious statement? Nah, this movie'll be a puff piece. Why? Director.
Kevin Smith, for all those who are unaware [glasses], is the guy who directed Chasing Amy (which I haven't seen but have heard it's awesome), Dogma, Zack and Miri, Clerks, and its much funnier sequel Clerks 2. He is also the man behind Jersey Girl, which is a motion picture event for the whole family, and includes Ben Affleck singing Sweeney Todd raight from da haat, ya know, cause he's such a wuhkah. Fuck da yankees- go sawx.
Anyway, Red State. You can check out the whole story heuh. The thing is, it's going to be a horror movie, and Smith has only so far attempted to make made comedies. Confidence? Lacking. Anyway, the big to-do about it is that Smith got a cut of the movie ready for the cast to see by their wrap party, and that has never happened before. They're attesting it to the fact that Smith shot and edited this movie himself, but I believe that it's because he's a cinematic genius (hint- I don't like Kevin Smith). The real deal is, people, that he's a hahd wuhkah (did I make that joke already? Jesus, I'm rusty). I can just picture it all in my head.

Kevin SmithThis movie...will be my masterpiece.
knock on the door
Kevin Smith- Enter.
enter Man
Man- Hey, Kev, listen...Do you need anything? Anything other than those slabs of milk chocolate you've been eating?
Kevin Smith- It is...nearly complete.
Man- Look, Kevin, you've been in here for days. We've got over a year until the release date. You can stop editing, for Christ sake.
Kevin Smith- Why do you disturb me? Are you trying to see it before it is complete? No, it isn't finished...not yet.
Man- Look, they told me to come in here and check on you. Are you sure you're ok? Do you need anything.
Kevin Smith- Biscuits.
Man- Biscuits? You want me to get you biscuits?
Man- Any kind of biscuits in particular? Just... biscuits?
Kevin Smith- Yes, and be quick about it.
Man- Alright, man, you're the boss.
Man goes to leave
inaudible noise
Man- Did you say something?
Kevin Smith- Do not fail me again.

Gosh, can't you see it? They're praising it as a cinematic first but who gives a hoot? [honk] He said final cut is 92 minutes. Yeah, 92 minutes of steady cam in a church, whoop-de-doo. Cut and paste There Will Be Blood in less than one year and then come talk to me. Cinematic first. I've got friends in the cinema department (or as I like to call them, my 'friends in low places' (just kidding, guys, you know I love you)) who could have done that in half the time Smith did it in, mainly because they wouldn't spend half the time eating KFC. 
If you've ever seen an interview with Kevin Smith you'd see what I mean. It's just the way he carries himself, the way he talks about movies. He's super pretentious and thinks waaay too highly of himself. He gives himself a lot of credit that he doesn't deserve. He kind of acts like he's a pioneer on the frontier of cinema but in reality he's just some fat dude who puts himself in his own movies. 
Alright, I'm being a little harsh. Probably because I haven't cinemerated in a while, but who knows. I don't really like Kevin Smith but he's not that bad of a director, especially when compared to the handi-wipes that waste millions on crappy movies they have in Hollywood today. Dogma and the Clerks movies are pretty good, I just think the direction is slightly dickish. I'll give him a break, though, because Red State does sound pretty interesting, but then again, so does the idea of tripping on acid in a waterpark. Dangerous, yes, but wouldn't that be sweet? 

Friday, October 29, 2010

Points of Interest- 10/29

'TDK2- The Dark Knight Cinemerates'
Do You?
Coming Soon.

Darron Aronofski directed The Wrestler so he's OK in my book, and now a lot of news has broken about his next movie- Wolverine 2. Yes, Wolverine 2, working title- 'We're Still Getting a Team Together'. I'm not exactly sure why Aronofski agreed to do this, but the last time Hugh Jackman was in one of his movies (The Fountain) the movie turned out to be pretty sweet so I'll definitely see it, but that doesn't mean I liked the first one in any way. I mean, I get it, it's an action movie, but there it is. It actually could have been pretty sweet, too, but the whole 'X-men Origins' thing is in and of itself very lacking. They're planning on making another Origins movie entitled 'X-men Origins: Magneto' and that is going to be a travesty of equal to or greater than proportions. Now, as a lover of cinema I should be giving the whole idea the benefit of the doubt. I should, as a proper Cinemerator, play devils advocate and say that there is a lot of room for this movie to be good (and I'm sure there's plenty reasons for this movie to be good), but the alleged plot of the movie was received by MovieWeb and upon review of the plot, I can say that the light has faded. The plot is a direct sequel to the first one. The first one ends with Wolverine losing his memory. Whatever happens in between that and the first X-men movie should be, at the very best, an animated series in line with Clone Wars. Does that make sense? I don't know. I don't really care for X-men and I think that Marvel is well on its way to a downfall, but I like Jackman and I love Aronofski so this will be one to check out, not unlike a donkey show. I like the activities the animals engage in and I think donkeys are OK, I just have to put up with everything else in the meantime. Does that make sense?

One after the other, one is better than the other.
The next batman movie is going to be called 'The Dark Knight Rises'. This was made official by Christopher Nolan this week, along with the news that the main villain will not be a walnut the Riddler. The whole 'Riddler not being the villain' thing struck me as bigger news than the title, because they recently locked the man of the hour Tom Hardy as a 'main role', and everybody thought he'd be a good Riddler, but then I heard another rumor that if the Riddler made the cut as the villain he'd be like Jigsaw from Saw, you know, sinister and malicious traps and all that, and I didn't like that idea, so I'm kind of glad Nolan saw the light, but now what are they gonna do? My little brother had some good words of wisdom on the matter. He said that all women need to be put underground and feed off the worms they're lucky to have short of a zombie Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gylenhaal should be dead and stay dead, in my opinion) it would make sense to have someone like Harley Quinn step in as sort of a Joker fanatic. I think that sounds good, and it might go along with what Nolan followed up the announcement with, and that was that he's bringing in old and new villains, but not using any other villains that were previously seen in the other movies. I like that. I'm not worried at all, I know for a fact that once it comes out it will complete the best superhero trilogy ever made. Batman Begins is really underrated, and I'm kind of pouty because the next Batman might be 'The Dark Knight 2', and I don't want that. But, it's not up to me. I leave smarter people with those reigns.
The Next Mission Impossible is 'Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol'. I don't know, I don't really feel like talking about it. Isn't that asshole from Lost going to be in that movie? Fuck that. I've got better fish to fry [kicks up dirt][sunglasses].

The Hobbit. I bet you're just aching to know. Jackson was fed up with all those actors unions so he left New Zealand, claiming that the studios aren't OK with the safety of their $500 million investment being endangered by some whiny unions [cigar]. But that simply would not do, according to whoever runs things in New Zealand and caught on to the fact that they could make bank if the Hobbit was filmed there. This week, it was announced- the Hobbit is staying in New Zealand. I like that, because what else is New Zealand good for? Not tourism, obviously, because if anybody wants the grand tour they can just watch LOTR (that's 'Lord of the Rings, for you dummies. They filmed those movies in New Zealand. God, you're stupid). 
I'm at work and therefore have very iffy Internet so I can't post the actual video, but I'll fix that later. Meantime, here's the MovieWeb. It's some video about how people need to band together and save the Hobbit, and I'm all about it. Jackson is turning into the hippie of the film making industry and I am all about drinking his kool-aid. 

CHRIS EVANS Captain America, bitch, I'm on the cover of EW, what of it? See this shield? I got this shit in the fourth grade
Seriously don't know what I think about the fact that this movie is being made. It's Marvel, man. They got a good running start and made some solid movies so now they think that they can simply set up a movie empire and not even spend two seconds thinking that it might fall on its face. The Avengers? Iffy, man! I know it's badass to think about but does anybody think, I mean, really think, that the movies Marvel set up with the sole intention of connecting all of them to the Avengers are going to be anything like the early years of Marvel? Captain America? Nope. Not interested. I mean, a little interested, because it's set in the 40's, so how are they gonna connect it to the Avengers? It's official title is 'Captain America: The First Avenger', so maybe it'll be about how the Captain sets up the Avengers. Time machine? Unlikely. Anyway, the other one, Thor, might be sweet, just because it looks cool (I recommend trying to find the 9 minute long string of trailers that was released during Comic-con, and if you do find it, tell me, because I've been looking ever since). But still, Thor is a superhero. Iron Man is pretty realistic and the Hulk is slightly believable, but Thor is built entirely upon mythology. How they'll work it out I have no idea, and that's what's going to pay for my ticket. That, and the blood of my family (?).

Short day today, more to come. This last week was pretty good, next week has some promise. 

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Something of worth from Disney

There are a select few things that really bug me when I'm watching a trailer. Off the top of my head, 'From the Mind of M. Night Shyamalan' and 'In Disney Digital 3D'. The promo I'm about to show you includes one of them, and for the first time, it didn't bug me (Hint- there's nothing M. Night can do to redeem himself to me).

This is the latest from Tron: Legacy, a Disney movie that I'm so excited to see I'm literally reverting back into a child as every second goes by.
Disney can never redeem itself to me after everything it does to independant animators, workshops, Pixar, my girlfriend, and everyone else that's just trying to do a good job, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't employ a couple geniuses. Seriously, Daft Punk scoring a sequel to one of the first CG'd movies ever made is a pretty sweet idea and I'm not about to deny that I'm going to see it at midnight. All I can say is watch the video and mayhap YouTube more Daft Punk stuff, only don't stare at the screen for too long, because you might get sucked into the game, or whatever people tweaking on E freak out about.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Movies to keep an eye on

Whilst stumbling and bumbling along my usual route of internet browsing, perchance I discover'd some pages of worth, mayhap I thought it would be a right low Christian of me indeed to not allot the spoils of my scavange. Gaze upon the beast, bestowed upon humanity by The Asylum, here to wreak havoc and pillage until every Cinemerator lay dead on the moor. 
It be the previous viewing for the picture '2010: Moby Dick', a re-telling of the story that hath throttled us all and shown us the edge of oblivion, only to save us at the last moment, but ne'er to confront the thing that dwells in the shadows of the depths.
I'm going to keep a watchful eye on this movie because I would very much like to see it. Xena from Xena starring in a movie about a submarine captain (the dude who played Brad Majors in Rocky Horror and was the original Danny Zuko on broadway) who obsesses over a beast that they don't even try to play off as mythical- it's just a 400 foot whale with razor sharp teeth, why not go after it with our submarine that can't maneuver, like, at all? It's gonna be good. I can't wait.

Credit for this next movie is due to Mr. Garrette Storme, a faithful companion of mine who has many a time come to my aid as we continue our neverending crusade through the middle age of cinema.
This is no hoax- this is really happening. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for obese superheroes, but I'm even more for Uwe Boll. He is the man in every sense of the word. He makes, seriously, some of the worst movies ever made, and he defends them to the death. Literally- the article talks about it- he literally challenges his critics to get in the boxing ring with him, so long as they weigh less than 200 pounds. Boll himelf is an overweight German who I assume is drunk 90% of he time, not like there's anything wrong with that. Being drunk, I mean. Being German is another story.
Anyway, Boll is crazy. After the release of his 'movie' 'Postal', he went on record by saying that he's the only genius in all of Hollywood and other directors like Micahel Bay and Eli Roth are, and I quote, "fucking retards." What a man, I swear, you should see this guy. He looks exactly like I'm describing him- an angry German. As far as his movies go, oh man, you've got to see House of the Dead. Classic. I saw it when it came out and never forgot it. The other movie of his that I saw, Alone in the Dark, is more a statement on how movies can be as horrible as the Challenger explosion and still be put on screen. A man among ants, he is. There was an actual petition in 2008 (that he agreed to) that stipulated his retirement from directing if it received one million signatures. Two years later it hasn't even broken 400,000 and Boll has said that it's taken too long and he won't retire if it reaches the mark. This petition was sponsered by Stride gum (seriously). Me, I don't want him to retire. I have a soft spot for shitty movies and an even softer one for directos who hate everybody. Is that weird?

Monday, October 25, 2010

Review: Paranormal Activity 2

I would very much like to hold it again...

Remember way back when I said the reason I was excited to see Paranormal Activity 2 was because I thought it would be a movie I could review but not gush over? I am pleased to report that PA2 was just mediocre enough to garner a few pages of honest reporting out of this Cinemerator.
Now, the eternal question- where's my dinner where to begin?
Let me start out by saying that the reason the first Paranormal Activity was as good as it was is because it created a new genre, and with that, a new method of suspense: long, homemade shots that take a long time for something to happen. The reason that is so suspenseful is because you're waiting for something, anything to happen, so that when something does happen, no matter how big or how small it may be, the shock is magnified tenfold. Tenfold, I tell you! [monocle]
Now, obviously, the sequel is done in exactly the same regard, except it tried a little too hard to up the ante. This time, instead of having one camera pointed at just the bed for night-time footage (where the really scary stuff happens), this family has HD security camera footage that captures everything. Let me attempt to explain the story.
Warning! Spoilers.
Ok. The film opens up with the teenage daughter filming some affluent family bringing home a new baby. Yeah, the baby's cute, ok, whatever. It then abruptly cuts to some time later, where the house has had a tragic break-in, where nothing was stolen, only the place is totally trashed. 'Let's whip out the camera and get this hullabaloo on TAPE!' the teenage girl probably thought to herself whilst assessing the damage. Yeah, ok, place was broken into, great. Ghosts? I can't say. Even now, I can't say, because it's never specified. For all I know somebody just wanted to break in to the place. I don't blame them, the place is huge and awesome, plus they have a baby, and babies fetch a high price if you know where to go. Anyway the place is broken into, 'we need security cams up in here,' the dad thought. So they get super duper high tech cameras put into every room of the house, and now they feel a little safer. Time passes, and the mom says that her sister is coming over to see the baby. Nothing ghostly has happened yet, by the by, and we're in about 20 minutes to the movie. That's when the movie drops a bomb on me- the mothers sister is Katie Featherston. I did not see that coming and momentarily freaked out. Yeah, the date they give us (they do the same thing they did in the first one, you know, 'Night #1', or whatever) in this movie is August of '06, and when I saw Katie, I was like holy shit, is she still possessed? What's the deal? Is Micah dead, WHY CAN'T I REMEMBER WHEN THE FIRST ONE TOOK PLACE AM I NOT SMART ENOUGH FOR THIS MOVIE but then a couple of scenes later, Micah shows up. After the first few frames he occupies, text pops up on the screen- '60 days before the death of Micah Sloat'. Ok. That explains something significant- Paranormal Activity 2 takes place within the sixty days preceding the first movie. Ok, good thing I saw the first one. So, the movie goes on, and the first ghost activity you see comes in at about minute 45. Don't get me wrong, there's some creepy stuff before that, but stuff starts to move on its own by about halfway through the second act. The movie goes on, and the family starts to get worried about creepy stuff that's been happening, falling pans, that sort of thing, and they start to realize that their maid (a hilarious Mexican), knows something is going on and is afraid for the baby, so she starts to bless the house with weird candles and stuff. The family is not having anything of it and fire the maid slash nanny slash ghostbuster. The mother tells Katie (her sister) that weird stuff has started to happen, and Katie (as she says more in detail in the first movie) says you need to leave it alone or else it'll never go away. The mother tries very hard to forget about it, but the teenage girl won't stop harping on it. She researches ghosts and demons and there's a scene that essentially mimics a scene from the first movie, which is basically exposition about the difference between ghosts and demons. Something new that they throw into the mix is that sometimes people will make bargains with demons in exchange for wealth and power, and the teenage daughter believes that her great grandmother made such a deal, got really wealthy, but didn't pay attention to the catch- the catch being, the demon gets the first born son, and their new baby is the first son born to that family since her great grandmother made the bargain, if that's what really happened (and we should recognize this as fact if it's said through exposition, so the fact is that the grandma did make a deal with a demon). So the plot starts to thicken and there's a really sweet scene (this is kind of a spoiler so watch out) where the mother is like calmly reading a magazine in the kitchen for about 45 seconds and then all the drawers and cupboards (those words are hard to spell) all just OPEN it's awesome and she freaks out. Anyway, the climax is the mother gets dragged down the stairs one night and essentially becomes possessed by the demon much in the same way Katie became possessed in the first movie. Ok, tie in. I can dig it. After that, she becomes really weird and the family goes back to the maid they fired, who was right all along. They bring in the maid and the maid says the only way to get rid of the demon is to transfer it out of the mothers body into a blood relative. A blood relative. Katie. That's how it ties in to the first one- the demon that haunts Katie and Micah was transferred by the father of the family to save the mother. I won't tell you the ending, because it's actually kind of cool, but there it is. That's basically the plot.
The end? Nope, you're not getting out that easy.
Ok, so this movie met my expectations exactly. It was precisely as good as I thought it was going to be, but some of the pros and cons I thought it'd have were not there, if that makes sense (like I care if you understand what I'm talking about) [car honk].
First of all- let me throw something out there that I'll attempt to justify- this movie is just as suspenseful as the first one, but half as scary. The thing that made the first one really scary was the fact that nobody had every seen anything like it before. It made it look super, super real, and all the sequel is is extrapolation on the film style. Shoestring budget, that kind of thing. Trying to make it look real, but there it is. This movie had 200 times the budget of the first one ($3 million divided by $15 thousand), and you can tell. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't take anything away from the movie, but it certainly doesn't add any of the charm the first one had to it.
Another thing is the set-up. Two-thirds of the movie is 'found' security camera footage, and the other third is the teenage daughter shooting family movies, and they cut the footage together accordingly. This was done in an attempt to give the movie the same feel as the first one and intensify it by adding different still perspectives, making the viewer wait for something to happen, and more often than not, nothing happened, and that made the movie more annoying than suspenseful, at times. 
I say 'at times' because there are some pretty good moments of suspense in this movie. It is not as good or as innovative as the first one by a long shot, but the way the movie is made will, no matter what, give it a suspenseful atmosphere that is an awesome experience in theatres. What I said about the first one is just as true for it's sequel- see it in theatres, because it's no good on a TV. 
Here's a thing I've got to talk about- the dialogue. Like the first one, you can tell much of the dialogue was improv'd. Here's the thing, and I want you to read carefully- the dialogue in Paranormal Activity 2 almost gives away the secret that this is all fake. None of the characters are half as endearing as Katie and Micah were in the PA1. The dialogue in the first one was awesome and real because the characters didn't have to worry about tying it in to a sequel. The dialogue in PA2 needs to be specific because it needs to complete the story of the first. There isn't as much exposition as the first movie and that is intentional- the director tried to make the story come full circle through the dialogue instead of through characters commenting on what's happening and that is the fatal flaw of Paranormal Activity 2. As a devout movie goer, I pay a little more attention to the story and therefore can appreciate how it all ties in to each other, but as a man-about-town looking for a good scare, I could give a shit about character development and exposition- I want to see some damn demons. These movies are scary because of the scary stuff that happens to these people and the reactions they have to what's happening, not how it all is bound together by some elaborate mythos that will haunt your dreams because it's so mind-warping. There's one scene where the dad has to leave in a hurry and the daughter doesn't want him to go because she's scared and their conversation as he hurries out the door is hilarious. 'I'll be right back honey I'm sorry but I really need to go, I'll just be gone two hours. You can handle this, you're an adult, it's only two hours. Watch out for the baby. I'll be back in two hours.' And that's just a taste. See what I mean? I guess that was a bad example, try this instead- in the first movie, all the director had to say to get good dialogue out of the actors was anything along the lines of 'freak out'. In this movie, the director had to make sure what they were saying made sense and connected to the previous movie, which is a restriction placed on the actors that will not get you good lines, but more importantly, it won't make the movie look realistic.
The movie itself is very, very slow- slower than the first one by a mile. The first one was slow because there needed to be a buildup of tension with the demon, you know, one thing happening the first night and then it doubles and doubles and doubles night after night until the satisfying climax. Paranormal Activity 2 has no arc. There's no huge buildup of demon activity- for example, the first time the family says 'I think we've got a ghost', I thought to myself, 'no you don't. It's the wind.' whereas with the first one I was thinking 'put the camera down and get an exorcist you're all gonna die'.
Here's another thing- this movie will not make sense to anyone who hasn't seen the first one. That kind of thing didn't matter at all to PA1, but PA2 revolves entirely around how it connects to the first movie. It'll still be enjoyable to newcomers, but does not present anything new.
As far as the actual movie goes, I enjoyed it. I would actually go as far to say that I really enjoyed it- but this isn't a movie that I'm gonna go out and buy, because it's not that kind of movie. The reason I like movies like this is because it's enjoyable to see in theatres, and you're hard pressed to find a movie that isn't made with DVD sales on their minds the entire time. I have to say, it's not as good as the first one, but it's still pretty good. I recommend seeing it in theatres before it's gone, it's worth it.

I award Paranormal Activity 2 two and a half out of four squirts.