Not Feeling Special

I like collecting movies. I love going out to the video store’s holiday sales and pick up several for cheap (since I worked at the big chain – I know that’s when they have the good sales). Lately, I’ve been big on preordering via Amazon – I get it the day it comes out and usually at the market price.

I’ve always been weary when a new film comes out that looks as though will have an “extended edition” that will come out later – or a film is released with just bare bones and no special features.

So, when I heard that Avatar is coming out with just a bare bones edition – I thought – “no dice I’ll wait”. To me it’s a good enough film to have around for when I need some popcorn entertainment – and a special edition is coming later in the year – which includes all the wonderful bonus features and 40 minutes of additional movie put back in. THEN after that there will be a 3D version coming in 2011.

Then I really started thinking about it.

How often do I partake in the special features? I’ve got some disc 2’s that have never left the case – but I insisted on having them.

Did I enjoy the film that much that I may want to watch the extended edition with the added 40-minutes? It’s a long enough movie as it is!

Home 3D? I only tried it once – and it gave me a headache. PLUS, my TV is NOT big enough to REALLY enjoy all that was offered in the theater – which was an awesome experience.

Maybe I should just go with the regular edition and be happy with that? Or is this how they get you to spend more money?

Brick & Mortar Stores Become Even More Useless

So, that was a big mission failure on my Saturday goal of finding the Troll/Troll 2 double feature DVD in order to enjoy the corniness of Troll 2. The alarming thing I’ve found though while I was searching was how so many of the usual suspects for finding DVD’s have slashed their DVD collections down to almost nothing.

Borders – was down to half of their previous stock. Best Buy – down to maybe a third of their previous stock (they didn’t even have genre sections). Even Blockbuster had just a couple rows of new movies for sale.

Wal-Mart – where I knew I saw this double feature in the cheap-bin - still had a ton of DVD’s – but their collection is more of the same new films. If I ever wanted to pick up a $5 copy of Old School – I know where to go.

The one place that I know always had it – was Circuit City – but they mismanaged themselves out of business. I remember seeing it there all the time – and I would laugh because I never thought I would actually want a copy. I can't believe I'm missing the day of the overpriced Sunset Video, Tower Records and other JUST CD/DVD stores.

I got the “we can order it” comment from anyone who’d ask if I was finding what I was looking for – but I can order it myself. It’s called Amazon – they are the bomb. Despite my love for Amazon – it doesn’t do me much good to order it – if I want to watch it now.

I won’t blame Blu-Ray – as it’s still growing in popularity – and the store’s collection of those still pale in comparison to the now meager collections of DVD. I will one day blame Blu-Ray for the crappy transfers on films that really don’t need the “treatment” – like Troll 2.

So, my fellow reader(s) – have you been noticing the “encouragement” from the actual brick-and-mortar stores to use the internets for all your movie purchasing needs?

Oscar Party

Well, I hate to be a grouch - but I've been so disenchanted with the Hollywood Awards ever since I realized how meaningless they all are to my movie watching. With all the hoopla about who's going to win - it seems that everyone's picking the same movies year after year. I would like to see more creativity rewarded and less "we owe this guy for his body of work" - more foreign films get serious considerations - and less Hollywooded up films made to win awards.

Mostly I want people to realize that no matter who wins - it shouldn't affect what you find entertaining in your movie watching experience. If Avatar wins - there's no quantifiable data that can point to and say it's factually a better film than An Education, The Hurt Locker, Up in the Air, Precious, Up, A Serious Man, Inglorious Basterds, The Blind Side or District 9. If you find that you didn't care for any of the films that won anything - and you preferred Transformers 2 - great - film is a subjective medium.

And if the film you love and rooting for loses - it doesn't mean you have to hate the winner. This world isn't as black and white as some people want you to believe - you should enjoy being yourself and thinking for yourself. You can truly like both Avatar and The Hurt Locker - though a trend on message boards and public review forums is to pick a camp and never budge.

Anyway, I'll probably not watch the awards - but I think The Hurt Locker will probably take home the bacon for picture and directing. It's a solid film - not as broad and mass appealing as Avatar or even my favorite of the year (for the record it was Up In The Air) - but a real interesting character study.

Cheers!

A thought on video game movies

This weekend - I completed a video game for the first time in a LONG time - Bioshock. After seeing the complete story unfold - and seeing how interesting the world of the underwater city of Rapture is - and seeing its inhabitants (pictured above the Frankenstein like - Big Daddy & a Little Sister) and how and why they've come to be - I think I would be interested in seeing what a movie on Bioshock might look like.

The game revolves around your character trapped in Rapture after your plane crashes in the middle of the ocean. A man you know only over a radio begs you to help him rescue his family from the mad creator of the city - who's God complex has turn Rapture's residents crazy and very very violent.

I agree in part with Roger Ebert who's recently said that video games will never be translated to movies successfully - because the moral choices that the gameplayer has cannot be quantified into a film.

Where beg to differ is - just as not all books translate well to film - it takes an adept hand who knows how to boil down the story to its base elements - and stick to that story. Which means concentrating on the film story - even if you anger gamers by not referencing their favorite subplot. Video games should be looked at like books - they are what they are - and "the original may always be better" - so make an intelligent movie to be proud of using the pieces you are given - but don't color too far outside the lines.

Also, if you consider the games that have been translated - such as House of the Dead, Mortal Kombat, Alien vs. Predator, Street Fighter, Doom, Super Mario Brothers & Tomb Raider - simply don't have the advantage of being made in an age where story really plays into the video game experience to the affect that it does these days. (Not to mention, studio's hoped the name would sell these films - so talent behind the camera was optional)

I'm sure that I wouldn't have to wait long - as it seems like if you sneeze - there's someone out there adapting it as Hollywood seems out of ideas - but a movie based on a video game doesn't have to be dumb. I'm just saying...

Really, Nero? That's the plan?

After checking out the Oscar nominations – I go and check out the inevitable snubs list on Yahoo! – and I see a few pretty good choices – but smack dab in the midst of it there’s a huge nod to Star Trek – which confounds me to no end.

Sure, it’s a fun film – but really?

The more I think back about the film – the more I get frustrated with one aspect of it – the bad guy – Nero. I’ll make no bones about my dislike for Eric Bana – who I think is a talentless hack – but it’s his character and the good guy’s reaction to his plan that gets me the most.

If you haven’t seen it – and want to see it – here’s where you should stop. If you catch yourself getting a little upset because you love the film so much that criticism about it gets you worked up – here’s where you stop – as I’m not going to pull any punches.

Nero’s plan is to destroy the planets of the Vulcan’s and the Human’s – for their lack of reaction to prevent the destruction of his home world. That’s fine. If that’s what he wants to do – more power to him. My problem revolves around his method – the giant hanging drill. The good guys eventually stop him by shooting the drill with torpedoes – but not before they fail at it and Nero succeeds at destroying the Vulcan planet. WHY didn’t they shoot torpedoes at it THE FIRST TIME?

Seems like the smartest thing to do – and the first thing that pops into my mind! No! They needed to have a pointless action scene that revolves around dressing up in special suits and shooting themselves at it in order to turn it off or explode it or something that’s far too complicated and dangerous – compared to SHOOTING THE FUCKING THING WITH TORPEDOES!

Lest we forget – that Nero is waiting for 20 years to fulfill this little plan by waiting at a wormhole for Spock to show up through the same wormhole. As far as he knows – Spock may have shot out of the thing 20 years BEFORE the time he ends up in when he goes through the wormhole – isn’t that how wormholes work? You never know where you’ll end up? He could’ve destroyed the planets – and THEN waited – just in case. BUT NO! He waits – and waits – and waits – and waits – like a fucking tool.

Nero is a dumbass – and a complete waste. And that’s why I think there’s no way in hell that Star Trek can be considered one of the top 10 films of the year – or nominated for anything other than special effects awards.

Seems like a good idea at the time?

I really liked the movie Avatar – I would even place it in my top 5 of 2009. It’s a stunning piece of film making. The story is a bit – been-there-done-that – but if told adeptly it makes a heck of a good movie – and Avatar is. It was the first movie I watched using new 3D technology – and even though I expected a headache – I was impressed that the whole film came through clear and beautifully layered and without headaches.

The interesting thing about Avatar is that it cost so much – that I personally feel that if they took and made the story more complex – they would’ve turned off a lot of people and they wouldn’t have been able to break even. So, the simplistic story makes sense –and it’s paying off – and will be the highest grossing film of all time shortly.

I just wonder if people are getting a little too wrapped up in the moment. There are people reporting a depression that stems from not being able to live on the Na'vi home world, Pandora. There’s a report that a province in China is cashing in – renaming a mountain after the film (which happens to have inspired the floating mountains in the film).

It can be fun to get wrapped up in a film – that’s what film viewers always crave – a great experience that sticks with you. I guess – Avatar is that to an extreme for some people now – but will it be in the future? I’ve been dumbfounded on how much technology has changed in films during my lifetime – will Avatar ever look dated?

Will it mark this time period in history like The Hurt Locker will end up defining it? Or will it help explain the malaise of the modern human condition like Up in the Air? Will it look silly that they gave the Best Picture award to this film as the momentum has suggested?

I guess what I wonder is – is it going to be winning for the visuals and not the story? It wouldn’t be the first time it’s happened – but is it right? (Not that the award means anything to me – just thinking about it)

That's so predictable...

News flash: Predictability in movies is NOT necessarily a bad thing - as previously reported.

Out of all the films ever made – and all the films you have ever seen where you have a good guy trying to stop a bad guy – how many have the bad guys won? That’s right very very few.

How many times have we seen the good guy be the super cop, the explorer, the special covert agent or the warrior? Many. How many times have the odds been stacked so high that it’s impossible to imagine him/her being able to win? Pretty much all of them.

This is something I’ve grown to appreciate about certain films and most recently Doomsday, Taken and Shoot ‘Em Up – they don’t kid around with you – they give you exactly what you walked in the door for. They are predictable as all get out – and you’ve seen it all before in some aspect or another. Do they care? No. They present it to you for your enjoyment – either you can gripe – or you can shut up and enjoy.

Never tell me to shut my mind off and enjoy a film though. That’s like telling me to ignore the guy yelling insults to my face. There are films that are predictable – and you can enjoy even if you’ve seen it all before. Why? Because they don’t invite you in for fudge and then tell you all they’ve got is fudge flavored doggie treats. Like Transformers – where they expect you came in to see a film about giant robots smashing each other up – but feed you a story about a kid instead.

“Hey! You get smashin’ robots in Transformers! Shut up and stop being a hater!” – Yes you do get that – but if you measure the amount of time spent on robots smashing each other up and compare it to the time dedicated to subplots involving the kid – you’d think the most important aspect of the film was the kid – because they dedicate the most time to it. And leave your schoolyard insults at school – and grow up and join the discussion on films.

Today, I watched a film called Outlander [2008] – it stars Jim Caviezel, John Hurt, Ron Perlman and Sophia Myles. Ever hear of it? It had an estimated budget of $50M – and it was a big action special effects film. Does that jog your memory? Probably not. The fact of the matter is – the plot is extremely predictable – and no studio would bother wanting to distribute or advertise for a film that everyone will call predictable, right?

The problem is - this was a very good film which the Weinstiens felt wasn’t good enough to distribute under their holy name – unlike several other flops in the past years. It truly deserved a lot better than what it got. The special effects were lacking texture and realism – but the animation of them was excellent – making me wonder if it wasn’t given up on – and cleaned up in a proper post production - what would we have here? In my estimation – you’d probably a surprise modest hit.

The film is about a spaceman (Jim Caviezel) who crashes into Norway during the Iron Age. The reason he crashes? His ship was carrying a monster. He teams up with the local tribe of Vikings in hopes of destroying the monster.

We all know what happens from there – there is no denying that – but the journey is told with some adept filmmaking skill – and some fantastic acting. The only reason why I’m giving it a 4 out of 5 instead of the full perfect score – was that I wasn’t really in the mood for the film at the moment so I only half-ass watched it – because my attention span wasn’t fully there. I sat through it all – but paused it several times – so I can’t tell you about pacing – but it seemed very good pacing wise. I also give it a ding because Ron Perlman half-assed his accent a few times – which gave me a chuckle – but I give him kudos for trying - unlike “better” actors such as Costner and Cruise.

I say – rent this film – and enjoy it for what it is. I myself will be eventually purchasing the Blu-Ray once it’s available in hopes of revisiting this topic and giving the film a full review (and confirming the 4 out of 5 – or possibly caving into that last point and making it a perfect 5).

Riding Coattails

The biopic is an interesting concept – you get the whole life story of an individual in the span of one movie and by the maker’s of such a film and the quality of the performances you walk away feeling more or less impressed with the real life figure.

There had been much talk about creating a biopic on the Charles Cross biography of Kurt Cobain – and if you’ve read the book it’s an all right read. There have been several parts of the book that have been disputed by many – and the fact that several important figures in Kurt’s life refused to participate – leaves the story incomplete. When you take into account Kurt’s widow Courtney Love has been scraping the bottom of his fortune – you almost have the question the validity of such a story. From all outwardly appearances Kurt’s story is being sold (as well as his journals and song catalog) to keep Courtney afloat financially – is this the best reason to tell Kurt’s story?

If we were to take his story at face value – and there seems like an awful lot of questions still remaining to be answered before I personally can do that – but if we take Courtney’s word as truth – then shouldn’t Kurt’s story be told as a cautionary tale? It should be told with an underlying theme of the sadness of success – as that’s what the public has been told for the reason for Kurt’s death. If it plays out as Charles Cross’ book tells us – his life is almost a prelude to his “suicide” – and that’s not how anyone should be remembered.

Even though I’m a big fan of Nirvana and would love to see a poignant film on Kurt’s life - the reasons for telling Kurt’s story are in the wrong place – therefore shouldn’t be told in my opinion.

I bring this all up because there’s been some movement on the biopic on Martin Luther King Jr. – and it would seem that one of his children who acts as the executor of his estate - is selling the story without the consent of his siblings. They say in the article that he has made profitable – yet questionable decisions regarding licensing their father’s memory. The story of Martin Luther King is an amazing one – that’s for sure – but it is also a very cautionary tale that everyone can gain something from – but it has to be done in movie form - for the right reasons.

What better reason would be than unity? Of equal rights? Of the historic moment our country experienced with the improbable election of Barak Obama? This is a great time to tell his story – and I would welcome it given a competent production. Most certainly the film will feature his speeches and protests – and what he’s been able to do to push human rights to the forefront from his life and also after his death. With that said – it’s extremely important that his story is told for the right reasons and from what it sounds like it’s not.

I bring up Cobain and Dr. King in the same posting as I’m more familiar with the Cobain story – and know that in the rush to tell his story shortcuts were made by people looking to profit from it. I’m drawing a parallel between the two and infer that in a rush to tell Dr. King’s story that executors don’t always look out for the memory as much as they do their own pocketbooks. Last thing we want is an incomplete or inaccurate take on Dr. King’s life in order to make a buck.

Yes, I am not naïve enough to believe movies are made for reasons other than money – and both biopic’s if they are made will make money – but it isn’t wrong to believe that even the movie industry should show some respect and not make films to line the pockets of executors who have a history of selling out loved ones.


MSN ARTICLE ON DR. KING’S BIOPIC - http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=410446

A theory in comedy – Hot Fuzz [2007]

Hollywood likes to believe that there are simple formulas for creating a good movie. If you splash something up on the screen featuring X, Y and Z – you’ll have a box office success. Sometimes it works – usually I find those movies are the kind that I tend to roll my eyes at. Like the current box office champion Paul Blart: Mall Cop – it doesn’t look like it’d be very good – but for whatever reason it is a big successes at the box office and Hollywood believes that we want more of that particular kind of film.

And I believe the formula for this kind of film to be: Funny character + Funny situation

The jokes should write themselves, right? What can’t you do with someone who takes his boring job too seriously – and uses little kitty band-aids to bandage the little nick on his arm?

The only problem is – this film will not gain any following after it has left the theaters. People will have heard of it by the big marketing campaigns – and make snap judgments on it from the initial trailers. The people who will want to see it – will have seen it – and the people who want to buy it will buy it – but no gains. And I argue the studio will be selling the DVD at a hefty discount by Christmas time.

The actual formula for making a lasting comedic film I believe is: Serious character + Serious situation

Hot Fuzz – another film where the main character takes his boring job too seriously – but this time – the boring job is a serious job. Nicholas Angel is trapped in a serious situation in the small town of Sanford where the murder rate is so low but the “accident” rate is so high. Of course the situation he’s stuck in becomes more absurd – but the premise never is.

Nicholas Angel is also the straight man in the film to the eccentric townsfolk who are the comedic foils. He nary cracks a joke that wouldn’t be found in a serious or respected action film – and that’s giving him too much credit. The funny thing about Hot Fuzz is the situation becomes more absurd as the characters around him become more serious – and that creates even more comedy.

Hot Fuzz is the kind of film that people will point out in the movie store proudly and say – “hey, have you seen that one?” – because it’s overlooked. There’s no big marketing campaign behind it – and it didn’t become a blockbuster (at least not in the States). And outside of Timothy Dalton - someone who doesn’t follow movies will wonder where they’ve seen certain actors from Hot Fuzz before. It’s sneaky that way.

Hot Fuzz is the kind of film that picks up more fans as it hits DVD – and potentially becomes the bigger moneymaker. Okay, now I’m probably in my own little dream world with that statement – but that’s how I think it should be.

Am I off my rocker about this one – or did I mess up my whole theory? If anyone is reading this – what do you think about the: serious character + serious situation = lasting comedy theory?