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. 

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Review: Carrie (1976)

Ok. Sorry. It's just that, I know sometimes people will just click the Social Network Facebook link and then exit out before actually reading what I took oh so much time to write about, and I want everyone to read this, because I'm having a hard time containing myself.
Man, I really should review movies I don't love to death. I'm seeing Paranormal Activity 2 on Sunday so hopefully that will be a movie I can write about but not gush over.
I'm going to make several disjointed claims about the 1976 'Carrie', and will attempt to back up such claims.
Carrie is not only a benchmark of 70's horror, it is a benchmark of 70's cinema. It exemplifies, in the most honest way, the process of making a movie with what you've got. The movie makes no excuses and is unashamed, which bears a similarity to Carrie as a character, but I'll get into that later.
The production designer, Jack Fisk, was nominated for an Oscar in 2007 for There Will Be Blood, so that explains why this movie looks so amazing. You'll notice the scenes in the locker room, the slaughterhouse, Carrie's home, and (especially) the prom are all perfectly melted together to form the world of Carrie. The only downside (and I mean, seriously, the only downside) to this movie is the cinematography. It was shot by some no-name and the result is a very blurred movie. I understand it may have been intentional- the whole movie is like a dream sequence- but still, it's not something you just don't notice after the first five minutes. 
The direction- sinister. Brian de Palma, baby. He's the man who brought us Mission: Impossible and, yes, Scarface. How do I describe the direction? It's certainly not the thing that made this movie memorable, but it definitely would not have been the same without de Palma. This isn't a movie that relies solely on one or two things, the cast of design, for example- this movie is a team effort- which is why I really liked the prom in this movie- it's the climax, and it is perfect. I'm not just talking about the scene where Carrie snaps, I'm talking about the scenes where they're setting the prom up, and the prom itself. All I can say is to watch this movie, if only for the prom scene. 
The prom in this movie is a lot of things. One, it is the best high school dance I've ever seen on film. Even when Carrie and Tommy are outside, waiting to go in, you know what's inside those doors. 'Are you scared?' Tommy asks Carrie. 'Don't worry, they're a good crowd. Really, they are,' And he's right. This prom kicked a lot of ass. I'm not trying to sound like one of those guys who got, like, way too excited for prom, but if you see Carrie, you'd see what I mean. This prom was awesome. Ok. I can't dance around it anymore. I've got to talk about Sissy Spacek. This will lead back into prom, I promise, get that look of your face.
*fun fact- Brian De Palma would send out set invitations for this movie, because of all the attractive women, and Steven Spielberg was a frequenter. He asked out every girl on set, and the only one that said yes was Amy Irving, and they got married and had a kid. All because De Palma had some action.
I'm not trying to sound like a womanizer (it's very difficult, you understand), but there really aren't a lot of actresses I enjoy watching on film. I don't really make a point to seek them out, they usually just find me. Sissy Spacek is now one of my favorite actresses. She is unreal in Carrie. Her transformation is so devastating. She goes from, obviously, the totally oblivious freak with a crazy mother to prom queen to demon. The scene following where she tells her mother to SIT DOWN is absolutely mesmerizing. That is the montage of Carrie getting ready for the prom. And she. Is. Ready. God, you know, I read the book Carrie over the summer, and I can safely say the movie is way better than the book. It might be that I just couldn't get fully into the book, but I did not get the transformation Carrie goes under to get ready for prom. She goes from seriously the most abominable looking girl to the most gorgeous woman I've ever seen. I fell in love with Carrie. God, did this movie kill me. Her mother warned her- 'they're all going to laugh at you', and they did. They all laughed at her and she snapped. If she had just listened to her mother and stayed at home, nobody would have died. And oh man, do they die. The whole prom goes into chaos. You have to see this movie. Carrie can't believe this is happening- she's having such a good time, but that's not it. She's having a miraculous time. She's literally having the greatest night of her life, and then they all seem to betray her. They really are a good crowd, until something goes wrong that they laugh at, that is. After the blood comes down, all you can hear is the dripping from the can. It's all in slow motion. You see every individual shocked face slowly form into maniacal laughter, and then it happens. She snaps. I can't explain the following moments without completely doing an injustice to the movie. 'Carrie White burns in Hell'. She turns into something powerful, into something her mother said she'd turn into. Her mother was right, and Carrie knows it. See how scatterbrained I am over this movie? It's all an internal commentary on our belief systems, to sound as political as possible. Carries mother might be crazy, sure, (Piper Laurie is UNBELIEVABLY CRAZY IN THIS MOVIE), but she's right. She was right the whole time, at least in Carries mind, and this movie is filmed in such a way that it's a POV of high school from Carries perspective. Her home life, her life at school, her amazing night at prom, and the greediness that overcomes her once she is handed unlimited power. Everything, seriously, everything about this movie is terrifying, but not in the conventional sense. Not in the sense that makes it a horror movie; I can't assign a genre to Carrie. It's everything. God, the shot where she wins prom queen. All in slow motion, she's so happy, she's so infinitely happy, she's glowing. She can't believe this could ever happen to her, and she's not the kind of girl who would have expected it to be anything amazing, which is another reason why her character is so classical- almost mythical. She's very, very classically portrayed as a character we've never seen before. The guy who wrote it wrote IT (the miniseries), and IT was my favorite Stephen King movie, before I saw Carrie. Carrie is not only the best Stephen King movie out there, it is the scariest and most tragic movie I've ever seen, and I mean it. I can't believe I hadn't seen it before last night. It is seriously something to mull over. How things can change so quickly. Carries life withers away so fast, up until the scene where the house melts into the sinkhole.
I'm going to go watch it, right now, and you should do the same. I'll update this post soon enough, because this is not all I have to say about Carrie.

I humbly award Carrie four out of four squirts.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Points of Interest

i'm going to cinemeration!

Last week, there was some concern that the conflict between the studios behind The Hobbit and the actors unions who have been on strike against the picture would never end, and it seems Jackson has ended that concern. He's pulling the production out of New Zealand, which means two things- one, the long-standing relationship between Jackson and his home country will never be the same, because this movie would have given the country millions, and two, there is now a 15% chance these movies will not be good.
The main reason is, of course, money. There's $500 million invested in these pictures, and Jackson did the right thing by protecting this investment and getting the hell away from the god-damned MEAA. This is very frustrating to me. I'm the kind of guy who wants indecision with movies I care about to be hanged by the neck until dead.
In other news [shuffles paper], Bilbo Baggins has been cast- Martin Freeman. He's the guy that's in Hot Fuzz and Love, Actually [gush]. This is all good, like I care who plays Bilbo. Bill Nighy, in more interesting news, will play the voice of Smaug the dragon, which will be interesting. I always saw him as kind of a dragon.

Black Swan is going to be flarking awesome. I can't remember the last time I wanted this badly to see a movie at midnight. I like the director a lot and Knightly and Kunis dance in little dance clothes and they're really cute and stuff.
Anyhow, check all of this bullhiggy out. Creepy, creepy stuff. Viral websites. Fun for everybody. Talk about a good trailer, though. I watch it all the time and am very pleased to be reminded that there are still some people out there who actually give a damn about good marketing. I've said this before about movies in the past- some movies don't need good marketing, but all movies should at least try, regardless. Black Swan succeeds.

Can suck it. They own literally everything, and now they control all the rights to The Avengers and Iron Man 3, two movies I feel a deep connection to [throws hat to the ground].
Disney bought Marvel for $4 billion last December, so they've owned all this for a long time, but still. They have to have everything. Disney is like the kid who says 'please sir, can I have some more?', except the kid is twenty feet tall made entierly of biceps.

MEL GIBSON apparently not a desirable person to work with anymore. He was supposed to have a cameo in The Hangover 2, but that is not happening anymore. Tod Phillips went on record by saying that he did not have the full support of the cast and crew behind having Gibson on set, and now a new story is developing that alleges that Zach Galifinakis was basically the only guy who didn't want him there. This surprised me, because I figured Galifinakis to be the kind of guy who could not only deal with anything, but also the kind of guy whose voice would have no leverage in the matter. 'That's great, Zach, now stand over there and do something funny. Rolling.'

This is technically old news, but I'm gonna lay it down anyway, because this is my blog and while it is my blog it is my castle. Two weekends back, Let Me In debuted at number seven. This is what you get for remaking a foreign arthouse movie (it's a remake of Let The Right One In, if ya'll was unawares) for American audiences and expecting a blockbuster. Nothing. I don't know how I feel about it, though. I don't like the director (the dude who directed cloverfield), and I don't like the idea of remaking a movie less than two years after the original release, especially a movie I like, but there it is. I really like the story of LTROI, so the remake will probably be good because it has some elements of the original. It was well reviewed, sure, but that means nothing to the box office. Jeez, grow up, America.
Ok- here's something that surprised me. Jackass 3 is currently the number one film at the American box office. It debuted at $50 million god-damned dollars. Where did this movie come from? I had no idea they were even planning a Jackass 3. There was a Jackas 2? I guess I'm not enough of a duechebag to be on he up and up with Jackass. Which brings to mind- how old are these people? That one midget they have, is he even still alive? How long do they live for? I'm being offensive and I'm sorry. I just don't get midgets, man, seriously. Isn't it something that gets worse over time? How does that work? Or maybe they live super long lives because they're so small. I'm not a doctor. people.

Mhmm, I thought so. Paranormal Activity 2 is so far getting good reviews. I'm not surprised. This is the kind of genre that has been so unexplored that there's a lot of room for development. I'm seeing it on Sunday and am very excited about it. What's not to be excited about, seriously? The reviews concensus was that it's nothing that's going to change your perspective on the whole trippy security camera front, but it's still satisfying. I'm not expecting greatness, I'm expecting something to hold my interest for more than five minutes. Is that so much to ask? Nowadays, yeah. It is.


There's really not much else. Nothing is really happening this week in movies. I, um...yeah. Buy a t-shirt. Long sleeve is currently in development.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

At Last, something awesome.

Ok, I guess I'll use this post for something useful. Here's the latest from my pals over at MovieWeb- the latest from my pals over at MovieWeb. 
Yup- they want Mahky Mahk to be the fahkin' CROW. You know, Mahk, he's a wuhkah, he's one of the good guys, that sunna bitch. 
The Crow, if you people don't know, was some movie from the nineties that didn't do very well but did develop a huge cult following because the star of the film, Brandon Lee, died during filming. Brandon Lee was the son of Bruce Lee, that one chinaman who did karate or whatever 
.*seriously, though- see 'the way of the dragon'- it's a movie about Bruce Lees life (aka a biopic, silly me), and it's super badass. They play it on AMC sometimes. Like that helps you in any way.
Apparently, one of the prop guys accidently shot off a blank (hahahahaha) too close to Brandon and he died. This is a big deal because it cemented the Lee curse- Bruce Lee also died during filming, while he was making 'Enter The Dragon'.  
And naturally people went nuts when Brandon Lee died, saying he could have been one of the greats, when in actuality The Crow isn't that good. It spawned like a million useless sequels and I have no idea why they want to remake it. MovieWeb says that Wahlberg will most likely turn down the part, because they say it won't interest him enough. But I know the real reason- he don't wanna die. Well, that can't be it, because if he thought he might die, he'd definitly agree to do it. He's not afraid to die, why, you tryin' to DENY that? A hahd wuhkah like Wahlbuhg? Fahk off.

Now, on to business.

viggo actually paid me to be in this picture

Come on, doesn't this picture simply beg and plead- 'buy me, if ye be Cinemerators'?
Yes, it feels good, being on top of the world. I hope my body doesn't mind- it's going to be roomies with that shirt for a long time! I smell a sitcom.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Good Movies That Haven't Come Out Yet

Hey guys, here I am again, sitting in class, learnin' bout stuff, blogging the night away. My iPhone is so cool that it gives people x-ray vision and makes them healthier. Check your blood pressure, bitch, I speak the truth.
[reorganizes desk]
A movie is like a woman- you never know what to expect, and you can't trust them. It might lure you in with promises of happiness, integrity, and children, but in the end it's never what you hoped it would be.

Me: 'Well, I just met this movie, and it seems really nice, I just really hope it works out'

One of my many friends: 'Dude, just remember what happened last time you felt ready to give your heart to a movie. Remember the pain.'

Me: 'Alright, man, look- lay off. She's the one, ok? The one.'

Check it out fool.
This is the next David cronenberg movie- 'A Dangerous Method', and here is a list of reasons that it might be good.

1)Cronenberg makes good movies, and is getting better with age. You know him (or don't, whatever, be prepared to be briefed) the Goldmblum version of The Fly [cheeseburger]. He is considered one of the masters of 80's horror and has maintained his reputation, and his last movie, Eastern Promises, was super badass and wasn't even a horror movie.

2) The cast. Viggo. Need I say more? I will anyway. Viggo got an Oscar nod for Promises, and is a nauseatingly amazing actor. Michael Fassbender. Yes? Yes. He's Archie Hicox from Basterds and is also playing the young magneto in the next X-men movie. He's really cool and is slowly climbing the ranks of fame. Oh, and Keira knightly. I really like her. She's really pretty. [faints]

3) the idea sounds really cool. I took psychology in high school and did not exactly pass with flying colors, but I remember thinking that Freud and Jung were badasses, and there hasn't been a solid movie about the two of them yet. I'm just kidding about not passing with flying colors. I aced it.

Like I said, it still could go either way, but regardless, click the link above if you want to see some sweet pics. Those pictures are the reason I decided to blog about it. My thought process on seeing the pictures one by one:

1st pic) Ok, viggo is lookin good, as usual.

2nd pic) that Keira? Lounging on the couch? Is this happening, viggo AND Keira?

3rd pic) Now who's THIS guy? that Keira in blow-J position? Mayhap a love triangle?

I hope my heart doesn't get torn to shreds. I can't handle it again. I'm a tender man, a quiet man- one of reserve, and one of passion. I bid you well.

Monday, October 18, 2010

The Scream Awards is fluff-o-rama

Every year, I tune in to the scream awards, just because I like watching all the little ants in Hollywood make what is essentially a macaroni-art awards ceremony. 'Look what I did at school mom!' Well, this year is definitly one for the fridge, right next to my B- in earth science.
The actual ceremony happened yesterday, and it's airing on Tuesday, and I don't think I'm going to tune in after I read the results. Be warned, this is a spoiler- I'm going to name winners here, so if you're one of those guys who simply hangs on the edge of your seat during the scream awards, go fuck yourself.
I'll just dive right in.
They gave best villain to Mickey Rourke. He was up against DIETER LASER (Human Centipede). Seriously? A guy with electric whips is more horrifying than a guy who stitches your face to someones ass? Don't get me wrong, Iron Man 2 is a pretty solid movie (pun intended), but Laser is a much better villain. I just assumed that went without saying.
Ok- here's some more bullpoop. The nominees for best horror film were Thirst, Paranormal Activity, Nightmare on Elm Street, Zombieland, and the Crazies. When I saw the nominees I was pretty surprised to see that Zombieland was even in the horror category because the movie is a comedy, but I was astonished to see that it won. I'm baffled. Why? I love Zombieland, but why not give that award to a movie that is genre defining and original, like Paranormal Activity? What a pisser.
They gave best fantasy actress to Kristin Stewart. She was up against 2 oscar nominees and the girl from Alice in Wonderland and I was so shocked when I read she won that I cut myself. Kristin Stewart is a blob. She is a blob with no brain. People call her a one-track actress, but that implies that she has at least one emotion, and that is incorrect. She has no emotion. I am honestly baffled that Stewart hasn't collapsed into a black hole yet because she is that devoid of humanity. When she gets in front of a camera you'll notice an awful lot of light around her, and that's because she's so awful that not even light can escape her abyssal plain.
I used to watch True Blood but I can't really get into it anymore. I like it, sure, but this award ceremony made me feel a little pissy towards it. Not like these awards matter in the least bit- it's the principal of the thing. Case in point- my ultimate grudge- Anna Paquin won an award over Charlotte Gainsbourg. Ok- True Blood is alright, but it's a tv show. I'm confused, what is subject for entry for the scream awards? Can I upload a video of my blowing my brains out and get something posthumously? That's honestly how I feel after reading that somebody won an award over Charlotte Gainsbourg. If you don't know how I feel about her, read my review of Antichrist. I can't get into it because I'll veer way off topic. It's a travesty. That woman deserves the Nobel peace prize.
Like I said, these awards mean nothing, it just gets my goat that those a-holes over at Spike exploit everything that makes an award ceremony respectable. I don't have the link, but the opening video for the awards is a shot-for-shot remake of the Back to the Future trailer, which is ok I guess because BttF turned 25 this year, but it had the modern day Michael J Fox in it, and it was just saddening to see him be used like that, shaking all over the place, I don't know. It just didn't feel right. It was like watching a childrens beauty pageant.
Yeah. So don't watch the scream awards. Or do. I don't care. I'm not your mother.


Quick, before it's taken down- Scream 4 Trailer

This is the leaked trailer for Scream 4, and I want you to know two things- one: the FBI will be at my door any minute to arrest me for posting pirated copyright and two: the T-shirt came today. Picture soon to follow.
Quick review of the trailer- all in all, exactly what I hoped it wouldn't be- lame. It's a fairly lame trailer, but that is also for you to decide. It'll most likely be a decent movie, but the likelihood that it'll blow is also fairly decent. The trailer is supposed to be a teaser, and in that regard it is a bad teaser. It shows you far too much. Trailers are like women hitchhiking. Show a little skin, and the truck driver will pick you up, but show too much, and the driver will see that you're a tranny and pass you right up. It's a delicate, forgotten art, trailers. Good teasers are very hard to come by, and they almost always precede a movie that fairs well at the BO, and I'd like to think that at least half of that money came from dedicated movie-goers like yourself, who take the time to appreciate good marketing. Not to say Scream 4 doesn't have a good marketing plan, because it does. This movie doesn't even need a trailer- it'll break the piggy bank no matter what. And don't get me wrong, I respect that. I respect Wes Craven- I think he's a visionary who not only exemplifies the genre he is famous for, but takes the time to exploit it; a director who can represent a genre and at the same time put a rubber nose on it is a force to be reckoned with. Craven knows what he's doing- he always has, and I expect Scream 4 to live up to the hype.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Zach Snyder is literally everywhere

300 is a rock solid six-pack of a movie, bitch, and I'm proud to say I enjoyed plus or minus 40% of it. The rest was over stylized fluffy garbage (I hate to be rough, but it'll never learn if I'm not). Dawn of the Dead ('07), however, is incredible. The opening scene? Sure. I'll take it. It may be one of the best horror remakes, or stand alone horror films, even, I've ever seen. Granted, a movie like that can only go so far before it hits a roadblock, but DotD plowed through every obstacle in it's way, chainsaws blazing. Watchmen? Yeah. Sure, it's good. I was really excited for the release and got exactly what I expected, nothing more. Perfectly decent. Again, though- I'm about 80% watchmen. The other 20% is over stylized snuff [bad boy!].
Ok, so with these short reviews combined, what does that lead the average movie goer to expect out of a new film from the director of these movies, Zach Snyder? A goodly portion of stylized fluff, I assume.
I didn't see that owl movie Snyder directed nor do I plan to, but that looked 100% snuffy fluff. Seriously- owls? Don't get me wrong, owls are pretty badass. They have serrated wings that allow then to fly without a sound before swooping in on a kill. Badass. Jim Sturgess voicing an owl trying to find old owls to save the owl-kingdom? Fliffy fluff.
Snyder is helming the reboot of the superman franchise, and he has a lot of shadow to walk in. The Richard Donner Superman is easily one of the coolest movies ever, and Snyder wants to do basically what Donner did- eat his family to survive the cruel winter make an original Superman. The Bryan Singer superman was pretty good but it didn't try to reinvent anything, and the superman franchise is begging for reinvention- I'll say again, Quest for Peace. [pogo stick] [cracks gum] [widdles wood]
Details just surfaced for the reboot and Snyder is going back to the roots of Superman, right around the time he became the mild mannered business man Clark Kent. Here's the thing, though- the word on the street is that Snyder might cast Tom Welling and that Durant chick as Clark and Lois (respectively). This is malleable, because if you don't recognize those names, let me take you to school- they're the Clark and Lois from Smallville, the tv show. So Snyder might get a lot of heat because it looks like he very well make what will essentially be the Smallville movie, and that is not cool, at least in my book. If you're going to reinvent the way Superman appears on screen, fine- do it. Please do it. But don't make a smallville movie. I didn't watch smallville but I know for sure that it would be a bad idea.
It's kind of a catch-22, though (I actually have no idea what a catch-22 is so bear with me). It's like being married to the director. You may not get cast simply because it's gouche (no idea what that word means)and unprofessional. Welling might be a super-duper Superman, but if he got cast, it would be the Smallville movie, and that is not a situation that could be avoided with marketing. What are you gonna do, change Clark Kents name, so it doesn't look like 'Smallville: the Movie'?
And then there's the fluff.
I don't know what's going to happen. I'm not worried about it, because I'm not a die-hard Superman fan, and because I could kind of care less what Snyder does. He'll make a movie that will marginally interest me, so I'll see it, why not. I'll tell you why not. In next episode. [lololol]

Friday, October 15, 2010

Points of Interest

'Luke, I am your fruit basket.'

Hm, that seems like a pretty lame title for such an anticipated movie. They could have at least called it 'Spiderman 4- the quest for peace' or something like that.
Anyway, big news broke about this week concerning casting for the upcoming fitcha felm, and that news concerned some dick by the name of Rhys Ifans (you can't have that name and not be at least a little dickish) being the new villain. He'll play a professor of Garfields (new spiderman) who turns into a lizard (his name is The Lizard) and rapes Mary Jane and Peter has to find a way to...stop him...I guess.
The Lizard was originally played by Dylan Baker in the old spidey franchise, only he wasn't a lizard, he was just some nerdy dude with one arm. You might recognize this guy Ifans, though. He was 'the foot' in The Replacements, a guilty pleasure of mine. Starring Keanu. Wait...wait. Starring Keanu. All roads lead to Keanu. Amazing!

I'm pretty happy Star Wars exists. It's not only one of the coolest things that's ever happened to movies, it's one of the coolest things ever. Like, seriously. [hair flip]
Anyway, a little while ago, Entertainment Weekly (aka some monkeys in a room trying to write Shakespeare) released a special edition issue for the 30th anniversary of Empire, and they included some pretty sweet never-before-seen stuff, including an as-yet released amateur video of Carrie Fischer's audition (just kidding, Lucas hasn't rendered that for 3D yet).
That aside, Vanity Fair released more sweet photos from the making-of Empire Strikes Back, and they're pretty awesome, check it oot.
Empire Strikes Back is one of the best movies ever made, for many reasons. One- it redefined how action and sci-fi movies appropriated money, and two- it was a Star Wars movie that had very little involvement from George Lucas. He has gone on record saying that he considers Empire to be the worst Star Wars in the series, even though it is pretty much unanimously considered by critics to be the best of the franchise. I (and my brother, too) think Lucas is an idiot savant. Sure, he can create universes like Star Wars and Indiana Jones, and he knows how to make a good movie, but as soon as he dips his dick into the screenplay and direction and casting, we're done for.
*case in point- Hayden Christensen. When they were casting the guy who would play one of the most recognizable villains in the history of cinema, I'm sure more than a few guys had to have been ahead of Christensen. I (and my brother, too) think that Lucas came in to the auditions one day and saw Christensen audition, and while the entire panel of auditors were probably like 'I'm not even gonna give this guy a bit part,' Lucas probably stood up dramatically and proclaimed- 'He is the one.'
So yeah, check this shit out. It's pretty cool. Star Wars is always pretty cool.

Tron is a winner.
Everything that has so far been released for Tron has been awesome. The trailers, the banners, Jeff Bridges...this movie is being perfectly marketed. I hate to say it, but I have to hand it to Disney. No. No. I didn't mean to say that [bad boy!]. What I mean to say is this- I'm glad Disney is doing something that, for once, marginally interests me [good boy]. Yikes. I can't believe I just said 'I have to hand it to Disney'. Please, please don't misunderstand- Disney is the enemy. Disney is Joseph Pulitzer an everybody else is a little newsie trying to make it in the world (shit, Newsies was Disney).
I'll shut up about Disney. People either get what I'm saying and don't care or don't want to know what I'm saying and don't care. Either way, people don't care. People have given up fighting with Disney.
*side note- if you want to see a good movie, see 'The Pixar Story' (I think that's what it's called). It's about how Pixar stood up to Disney on more than one occasion in order to make a name for themselves and make themselves a seperate entity. That's why I like Pixar- they've got balls.
Alright, I'll get to the point [throws off sunglasses]. Like I said, everything about Tron has so far been awesome, and I recently got word that the movie is being scored by Daft Punk. What a bomb to drop. I got all 'aquiver and googled that shit, and it's true- scope this example, biotch. That's just a taste. If you want more, it, or something. I'm not your mother.

James Cameron is thought to be knee deep inside of the Avatar sequels, but that is apparently not the case, because now he may be on board to direct a remake of Cleopatra, starring Angelina Jolie.
*cool fact- the reason it's being pushed on Cameron is because the screenplay is being fast-tracked by Paramount (that may not be right) because it's supposed to be' really good'. I think they just want Cameron to direct something they think has the potential to be really epic and marginally interesting, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I just don't want Cameron knocking up Angelina and Angelina telling Brad she just adopted the kid. 'Throw it on the pile,' Brad usually responds.
Anyway, yeah, they ('they' being Hollywood executives) want Cameron to maybe wait a little longer before diving 7 miles underwater to film something that is apparently worth diving seven miles underwater for.

Lemme tell you why I suck as a blogger. Two stories I've posted about have been ruled out as a fallacy by the wise sages that reside deep within the bowels of Hollywood. Ok- thing number 1. The first thing.
Lawd, was I excited about this. The story was, and it was apparently 'officially announced', too, was that Emma Stone was going to play Mary Jane Watson in the Marc Webb (hehe, his name's Webb [bad boy!]). This is apparently not the case- she's in the movie all right, but she's going to b playing Gwen Stacy. Now, here's the deal. I know nothing about the comic books but am a fan of the Raimi films, so when I read the article that Stone would play Mary Jane I got excited because I assumed Watson was the main love interest, and because Stone is a very cute redhead. Lo, I am wrong on all counts (not about the redhead thing- she's bankable). Not only is Stone not playing Mary Jane, but Mary Jane isn't even the main love interest in the reboot.
*again, I don't know anything about the comics, so please don't complain. Don't deny it. You were gonna complain. You made a face.
This is all good though, because Gwen Stacy is being played by Stone and Gwen Stacy is the main love interest (Gwen Stacy). Good news goes along with that, because Stacy is a blonde, and Stone is a natural blonde.
Yeah, I'd like to know how they found that one out. Webb comes out of Stones audition, fixes his hair and tie, 'yep, she's natural'.
I don't care either way. This movie is probably going to kick ass, especially because it has the Foot from The Replacements as the villain, and Andrew Garfield really knows how to wear a scarf, and I always thought of Peter Parker as a little scarfy.
Ok- thing 2.
A little while ago I posted a story saying that J. Phoenix (I still have no idea how he spells his name. I want to say Wakeen, but I'm pretty sure that's wrong) was going to play J Edgar Hoover's gay lover in a biopic about the man, directed by Clint Eastwood. This is also apparently a falsehood, because Clint Eastwood has no idea where people got that idea.
His response to these allegations (no joke)- 'I don't know where people got that. Didn't he become a rapper?'
Awesome. What a guy. I just imagine him sitting at a mahogany desk, writing his screenplays, knowing the world is watching, and not caring what they see [doves].

...looks siiiick. Gawd, I can't wait to see this movie. I love Darren Arronofski. Jesus, does he make sweet movies. Gift from God, no foolin'. The Fountain- sweet. Artsy, I like it. Cool images. Requiem for a Dream- badass. Made me want to do smack. The Wrestler- broke my heart, burned the pieces, buried it in mud, and peed on the grave. And now, Aronofski (who bangs Rachel Weiz on the reg), is making another incedible movie called Black Swan.
I can't get into the plot because I'll probably molt from excitement.
*I have to say this- watch the trailer. So good. One of the best trailers I've ever seen.
Before I get too giddy, I'll get to 'th point. Check out this bag of worms. International posters, man, I'm telling you. These are the forms of advertising that Aronofski uses to appeal to audiences abroad. Here in America, all he has to do is show Mila Kunis dancing with her tits out and he's got an audience. People in Europe are such queers [sunglasses].

Check out Caeser: Rise of the Apes. It's the reboot for the Planet of the Apes movies, and it looks pretty dece. The plot is going to be basically how the apes came to power and overthrew mankind. Badass, right? I don't know. I think it looks good. Then again, a lot of things I think look good really aren't (the way I dress, for instance). Anyway, last thing I'll say about this movie is it's going to be risky because this will be the first Apes movie that they're CG-ing the actors into looking like apes. Every other movie they've just used black people prosthetics.

'Jack and Jill Adam Sandler'. Google that. You'll see what I mean.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Uh oh, somebody has some good news

I'm literally less than ten feet away from my computer, but I won't tell where (hint- I'm in the bathroom), and I'm not really up to making the trip to my desk because A) I'm not finished and B) I actually prefer to post via the iPhone, because it's A) none of your business [wtflol].
Anyway, outside credit is due for this post, and I oblige that credit to a Mr. Garett Storm, a colleague and compatriot in the various fields of interest of which I occupy.
Alright, alright. I'll get to the point. The point, is near. The point. The pooooint...ahh yes. Batman.
Ok, fine, go ahead and flip out on me just like everybody else. 'Jesus, man, what is all this batman fluff? Where has your head gone, brother? You're not the same' [slams door].
Well ok, first off, this is my blog and I'll do whatever I want and say whatever I want to say. And to play devils advocate (meaning in support of myself), the next batman is going to be unbelievable, so any new developments are noteworthy, and I think this recent development is especially worthy of note. The point...the point...I ha't.
Tom Hardy is going to be in the third Christopher Nolan batman feature. Oh gawd, Lawd up above, have mercy. Tom Hardy was great in inception, just for that little piece he had, but if we're talking serious Tom Hardy, we're talking Bronson.
Bronson is, believe it or not, the movie you should be watching right now. Seriously- if you have netflix, go watch it. It's an instant watch. It's about this goes to prison and just tinkers with e'erbody. He wrecks house. Tom hardy is the guy. Lawd, see this movie. It's worth it. Hardy actually won an Oscar for this movie, but there was some kind of mix up, and the envelopes got switched. It was Sean Penn.
Anyway, the next batman. He's definitely confirmed for a lead role in the movie, and short of hardy showing up in a skimpy Robin uniform, I think it's safe to say he's going to play the villain. I thought I was excited when I thought Joseph Gordon-levitt was a shoe in for the villain, but this is just as, if not cooler than, that.
All that is moot, howe'er, because nothing as far as casting has officially been announced. We don't even know who the villain will be, but the fact that it starts principal photography in May and will be released July after next is assured. For all we know, Bale could be the new Alfred. Unlikely, however, as Michael Caine controls the rights to every movie ever made in perpetuity. And he doesn't like handing anything over. Trust me.
Yeah. This was a fun post, I'm glad it happened. Picture on the way, expect greatness.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Hahahahahaha, Michael Bay probably killed someone

Oh man, I hate Michael Bay. The shit he does for his movies...this is going to be a short post. I'm not on my iPhone, so you know, it's not going to be half as entertaining. Anyway, Bay o' Pigs is making another Transformers, duh. This one will be called 'Transformers 3- The Dark of the Moon'. I haven't read a plot synopsis nor do I plan to, but I think I can guess the plot.
A meteor is about to crash into Hawaii and Sean Connery and Shia Laboof have to break out of Alcatraz so they can tell the world that there is an organization of robots that clones human beings, at the same time trying to get an action shot and save the world from impending doom. In 3D.

Michael Bay is notorious for being a huge dick, and his movies are clear evidence of that.
*fun fact- two of his movies are in the Criterion Collection- The Rock and, brace yourself, Armageddon. The womans rationale for choosing Armageddon, part 1: '...the work of a cutting edge artist who is a master of  movement, light, color, and shape- and also of chaos, razzle-dazzle, and explosion.' Ok, I can buy that. The scene where Paris gets destroyed is, if you watch the special features, farking awesome. I get that. But she doesn't stop there. Part 2- 'The film makes these ordinary men noble, lifting their efforts up into an epic event.' Um...ok, I guess I see your point, but- Part 3- '...if that isn't screenwriting, I don't know what is.' Yikes. See, this is what you get for letting a woman make a mans decision. It's the Criterion collection, not an apple pie. That was rude. I apologize. I just get worked up about Criterion stuff. I mean, it's an honor for arthouse films, not big budget Hollywood garble. Screenwriting at it's finest? I think the shadow Bay casts over his movies leaves everything in the dark.
Anyhoo, back to whatever I was originally talking about. Oh yeah, Bay. He's responsible for remaking two classic horror films- Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street. I can buy 13th, even though it's technically a remake of the 2nd film, not the first, because the killer in the first is actually Jason Voorhees' mother, not Jason Voorhees, and Jason Voorhees is the killer in the Platinum Dunes remake of Friday the 13th (Jason Voorhees). I didn't hate the new 13th, A) because I don't really care for that series and he can do whatever the hell he wants to it and B) I'm a horror fan, and there was plenty of tits and blood to keep me happy. I got on edge when he went into Wes Craven territory. A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most elegant and legendary horror films ever made, and is also part of one of the best horror series ever made, and Michael Bay simply needed a slice of that pie. I'll give him this- the trailer was awesome. Jackie Earle Haley as Fred Krueger- I'll buy that. Hell, I'll buy it and sell it at half price, my good man, but when I saw it in theatres...yikes. See, the thing about the first Nightmare was that A) Krueger hardly talked, so it made him not only scarier but more mysterious, and B) It didn't take itself seriously, at all. It's a fun movie. Bay took it very seriously, and yet not seriously at all. Watch the movie, and you'll see- it was directed by a dick. I'm sorry no I'm not , I just get really upset wen it comes to movies that are dear to me. I guess I'll just have to earn Bays trust and then kill his whole family Manson-style find a way to get over it. Oh, I found it!
Watch this.
*I'd like to add that Megan Fox dropped out of the next Transformers movie for 'wanting to try other venues of film,' which is code for 'I don't want to get raped by Michael Bay.'
Funny stuff. Good gravy, funny stuff. There has been a serious incident on the set of every Transformers movie Bay has overseen, and it is very likely all his fault. How can it not be? Seriously, nobody thought it might be a good idea just to wait to take another take, at least until the ambulance goes by? What, was Bay by the camera, knowing it was going to happen, letting it happen, and then enjoying watching it happen? Probably. In fact, definitely. 'Sir, I think the ambulance might be an issue.' 'Let me do the thinking, son,' Bay might have responded. 'I don't have time for ambulances,' is another possibility. 'I'm Michael Bay, bitch, people die for me' is another likely route.
God, I hate Michael Bay. Everybody hates him. He makes two things, and one of them keeps him in Hollywood. See if you can guess which one-
1) He makes shitty movies
2) His shitty movies make shit loads of money

Monday, October 11, 2010

Review: The Social Network

I don't know where to start.
I literally just came from seeing the movie. I'm on my iPhone, if you couldn't tell, lolomg, all that stuff.
Everything about this movie is good, and that in and of itself is an understatement. I need to pick a place to start because it simply can't be done this way. Ok I'll start with cinematography.
Oh lawdy. I'm going to edit this when I get back to my place (I'm at my sisters, on my iPhone, blogging about a movie I just saw, being a horrible guest) and credit the DOP properly but I can't exit this page. The camera almost waits for you to catch up, because it knows the pace of the movie is breakneck. He plays a lot with focus and makes use of angles and perspective in many unconventional ways that make the film look strikingly inventive. The tone is dark, like a dorm room, but filled with an energy that we're not meant to understand, only to observe with a certain disconnect that shows us where the characters come from, what they're doing, where they're going, and why. On several occasions he (not to say a 'she' wouldn't be equally capable) uses the same shot twice with a different character, giving the scene it leads up to a certain expectancy, almost as if it's a documentary. Everything is tastefully shot. Everything you see on screen has an effortless finesse that makes you feel like you're not only part of the plan, but have a voice in the matter.
I don't know about the real zuckerburg, but I wouldn't call this film character defamation. I'd call it character fascination. Jesse eisenberg makes mark zuckerberg seem like the most interesting nerd there ever was. A common theme in the movie is that he doesn't care about the money, but then that leads to the question- what does he care about? I didn't care for Eisenberg before this movie. I thought he was a carbon copy of Michael Cera, which is what most people think, but seriously- if you think as I thought, see Social Network. Best Actor stuff, and I'm not just whistlin' Dixie. He's unbelievable.
The other cast- Andrew Garfield, for starters. Garfield, if ya'll didn't know, is going to be the new Spiderman. His character in Social Network is wonderfully full of life- he stars as the best friend and CFO of the social network that is cheated out of his share of the pot, and of the involvement in development. He is left out of the loop, and zuckerburg gets his comeuppances because of it.
I have to take a break and talk about the way it's set up. It goes back and forth between the developmental stages of the social network and the aftermath of the ensuing lawsuits Zuckerburg falls victim to after he becomes a major success. Here's where the editing comes into play- it's very, very fast paced, and yet it's so elegantly done that it only helps the viewers learning process. This movie is so smart that it teaches you as you watch it.
Anyway [shuffles various items], the rest of the cast. I may or my not go back to Garfield. I have to talk about JT. Timberlake plays the Napster dude. 'Wtflol?oneone' I asked myself. I had no idea he had any involvement whatsoever in the social network, and my sister, after the movie, was like 'well that was kind of a twist,' but it really isn't, because what the hell do we know about this story? Nothing (I slapped her around a few times after the movie, just to show her the error of her ways). Anyway, JT. I love him in this. He's absolutely stunning in every way. In all seriousness both him and Garfield could very likely get oscar nods out of this movie. His character is more or less the antagonist, but he plays him as honest to the bone as he can, which is also where the movie strays from conventional heroes and villains. JT is a nerd. They're all nerds. They may play they're respective roles and those roles may be what they are, be they evil at times or benevolent at times, but in the end, they're a bunch of nerds. JT has an epipen and an inhaler in this movie- during the scene where he gets busted for cocaine. He's so great, though. The climax is the best part of the movie- where Garfield finds out he was cheated out of his 30% of the social network and confronts Eisenberg about it, and JT plays the guy who doesn't want Garfield to be a part of it even though he devoted so much of his time to it, and Garfield goes over and slams Eisenbergs laptop into pieces and is all 'lawyer up, bitch' and Eisenberg doesn't know what to say because he's actually sorry about it but still we don't know what he wants as a character and JT comes over and is like 'well, too bad, get security, get the fuck out'.
None of that was coherent at all.
The way Timberlake plays the Napster guy makes him seem likethe evil mastermind, but the way the movie is done prevents his character from going towards something that conventional.
Every character is sympathetic. I haven't seen a movie in the past ten years that made me say that.
Ok. I have to go on.
Best Director.
This has surpassed Fight Club as my favorite Fincher movie and is well on it's way to becoming my favorite movie.
I never thought I'd say that.
Fincher is so good. Oh so good. He's made his masterpiece. I almost don't know what to say. I'm going to come back and edit this post probably a thousand times and each of those times I'll probably add something new about Fincher.
He plays with you the whole movie. The movie is filmed like a big party and Fincher is the owner of the house and he's showing you around. He makes you feel welcome. The tone of the movie may be bleak at times but it never stops being inviting. Hollywood has hope because of Fincher and a select few other directors.
Best Adapted Screenplay.
Aaron Sorki is the screenwriter. He wrote one of my favorite movies- A Few Good Men, and he's going to get an oscar for this movie. Quick, witty, sad, triumphant...the beginning scene of this movie is my favorite, because it's five minutes of a back and forth between eisenberg and his then girlfriend, leading up to their hilarious breakup. Very excellent writing coupled with perfect direction and exquisite performances make every scene of this movie leave a taste in your mouth. Sorry, I'm starting to gush blood profusely.
Another thing- you might have noticed how I haven't referred to 'the social network' as Facebook. The reason is actually very simple- this movie is not about Facebook. Ok, it's about Facebook, but that is not the driving action. That's not what makes this movie interesting. What makes it interesting is the internal conflict, which raises the question- why is it even called 'the social network'? I seriously forgot the title after seeing it. It's not about Facebook at in the way I thought it would be about, after first hearing of this movie. It's about the thing we think about from day to day- accomplishing your dream, but then, what next? What do you do with a dream, once you've got it? Do you keep going, keep pursuing, keep 'updating the page', as they do throughout the film? Or is it about going back and being thankful for the journey that led you here, that made you what you are today, for better or worse? I don't know what it's about. I don't know everything about this movie. The movie is satisfying in every way possible but it leaves you with something after the credits roll- something that not many excellent movies leave you with- a sense of lingering curiosity.
I'm going to repost this as soon as tonight. I'll get around to a picture soon. I want you to see it because I want you to see a good movie. It's worth it- in all honesty, it really is worth it.
This movie will run a train up the oscars. I just can't wait to see Fincher go up there and get his award, because I know what I'll see in his eye- he knew it was coming.

I give The Social Network a very enthusiastic four out of four squirts.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Cinemeration is Cinemeration

Figured I might as well use this post to post something of interest.
Check this out- right smeuh. This is the trailer for a movie entitled 'Blue Valentine', starring two people who are in movies. The reason I'm showing you this super-gay trailer is because it recently was rated NC-17 by the Motion Picture Assholes Association of America. The controversy is the same as whenever a movie is rated NC-17- does it deserve it? The trailer has got Sundance ivy all over it, for one, and for another, those who saw it say there is 'barely any nudity', and the NC-17 rating for this film was based on nudity. Now, all this stuff aside, I need to get something out of the way- this trailer features a few things that makes a trailer bad.
1) It only features 2 people. The only time a movie like this with a focus on two characters has ever worked is Last Tango in Paris, and Gosling is no Brando.
2) The thing tells you nothing of the plot, which leads to one conclusion- there is no conflict. Sure, it's about their relationship, but that is no replacement for good action and high stakes.
I keep telling myself- at least there's nudity. Honestly, that's the only reason I'd see this movie. Who cares about the ivy? I'm not going to see something simply because it played at Sundance. Bee Movie played at Sundance.
But here's the rub- the NC-17. I'm not going to go in deep about the MPAA, but if you want to see a really interesting movie that deals entirely with those Fascists, see 'This Film is Not Yet Rated'. It's really good, at least for the first 45 minutes, because it deals entirely with how the MPAA is owned by corporate Hollywood and monopolizes what ultimately gets put into theatres.
That's the other thing- getting an NC-17 is giving your movie a death sentence. No distributor deals with NC-17 because it prohibits an enormous demographic (age 13-16) from seeing the movie.
Here's another piles of bones- G-Damn nudity. If you look at any other film rating system in the world you'll see that they care less about sex and nudity than they do about violence. A movie like, say, Die Hard (don't get me wrong, I lurrrve Die Hard) would never have been released with anything less than the highest level of restriction abroad, but the MPAA eats stuff like that for breakfast. But put a little pubeage in the scene and RED LIGHT NC-17 GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT ANY GROSS FOR YOUR MOVIE.
The trailer is so harmless, too. So what if it's a little queerbug is playing the ukulele to some tap-dancing A- chick, so what if they do it, and they like doing it, and the camera doesn't fade away with pretty music playing in the background? Now, if Gosling had an AK-47, and was shooting at pedestrians, that would be a different story.
Now, on to more important business.

A mere $26.50 ninepence, and this over-garment can be yours!
Ladies and gentlemen, good friends, Cinemeration is booming. Since its inception, it has grown exponentially, reaching from my very own backyard to the snows of Si-beria, from the sands of Arizona to the peaks of Timbuktu. As such, I've concocted these coverings of a most respectable veneer to give praise to the very honourable and respectable web-internets that you goode patrons browse so nobly each day. Huzzah, friend, and hoo-ray!