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.

...is 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 EW.com, 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.'