Quantcast
Channel: Film School Rejects
Viewing all 22121 articles
Browse latest View live

Movies to See Before the World Ends: Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey

$
0
0

The Mayans, the wise race of ancients who created hot cocoa, set December 21st, 2012 as the end date of their Calendar, which the intelligent and logical amongst us know signifies the day the world will end, presumably at 12:21:12am, Mountain Time. From now until zero date, we will explore the 50 films you need to watch before the entire world perishes. We don’t have much time, so be content, be prepared, be entertained.

The Film: Homeward Bound: The Incredibly Journey (1993)

The Plot: During a family move, a trio of pets are left at the home of a rancher friend to be cared for tempoarily, but animals, not fully capable of understanding the English language, assume they’ve been abandoned. Not ones to go easily into the night and exist happily on a farm, they take it upon themselves to embark upon an incredible journey to find their owners in a tale of inspiring loyalty and hilarious Michael J. Fox hijinks!

The Review: Homeward Bound is a remake of an adaptation of book that plays all the right heartstrings and strikes all the right chords. The first filmed version of the story is excellent as well, though it’s a lot quieter since there are no celebrity voices for the animals.

Our trio here are Sally the cat (Sally Field), Chance the American Bulldog (Michael J. Fox), and Shadow the Golden Retriever (Don Ameche). Their incredible journey spans across the rocky, mountainous wilderness and is filled with dangers ranging from a lack of food to raging rivers and a hungry mountain lion.

The movie, while primarily for children, appeals to all ages because these animals are hella cute, and it’s actually really well written. I still quote this movie nearly twenty years after its release. Who doesn’t remember Sally’s sassy taunt of “cats rule, dogs drool” or Chance’s flapping lips and ears as he does his best imitation of Batdog!

In addition to plenty of cute lines, the film always treats the animals as characters, so you can relate to them and sympathize with them. Sure, if you see a dog in a movie we all want him to be okay, but with these guys there is an extra level of care – you can hear what they’re thinking and you know what motivates them to take these risks. When Sally disappears over the waterfall, you put your head down and pretend your eyes aren’t a bit watery. When the team works together you chuckle as Chance “can’t believe he’s running away from a cat” and cheer when they launch that pussy off a cliff (no tears here though, the mountain lions okay too!).

If you don’t love this movie, you don’t have a heart. Just thinking about it makes me a little emotional. Chance finally learns the value of a home and an owner and Shadow, the old dog, fights every step of the way, no matter how tired or exhausted he gets. The ending toys with your feelings in just the right way, it drops you into a dark place of emotional investment before letting the light come back in.

Homeward Bound really is an incredible journey, as corny as it sounds, but what can I say, I love animals, Michael J. Fox, and this film. It’s solid family fun, teaches you the value of love and trust and the endless loyalty and companionship of animals. Watch this one with your pooch.

But why spend 84 minutes watching this film when you only have 463,338 minutes left to live?

It’s a film that ultimately puts a smile on your face and warms you heart. As the world erupts in flame, you might as well go out smiling with a single tear sneaking out of the corner of your eye. If you’re a family man, or just someone with pets, this is a film you can all enjoy together. Or maybe, and I could be fired for saying this, watching this film will make you appreciate your family, friends, and pets even more to the point you’ll turn off the movie (after it’s over, it’s good!) and go outside for a walk in the park and potentially fight a mountain lion and then come to an understanding with him and you’ll each go your separate ways.

Click here to continue your incredible journey to a fiery death via astronomical destruction.


Reel Sex: The Top 14 Most Romantic Movie Scenes: Part One

$
0
0

Reel Sex

As we approach Valentine’s Day (yes, it’s just a few weeks away) I think it’s only fitting that the topic of romance come into play in anticipation of the day meant to celebrate all things feelings. I’m not sure about you, but I have actually never celebrated Valentine’s Day with a loved one not related to me. Instead I spend the day (or week) loading up on conversational hearts, Reese’s Peanut Butter cups, and a collection of melodramas so depressing I become skeptical that love can actually end in anything but death. Regardless of my tendency to eat my feelings while crying over the tragic love found in Douglas Sirk films, I do enjoy happy love stories and tend to pair the sadder movies with some of my must-have romances. In honor of the big V-Day, I’d like to share my favorite 14 romantic scenes and also open it up the floor to hear your suggestions.

Today is my bottom seven romantic scenes, and next week we’ll post the remainder. I like to keep you all on tenterhooks.

14. Breakfast at Tiffany’s

I will be the first to admit that I am not the girliest of girls. I’ve never had a penchant for fluffy or flowy fabrics, I do not know how to fasten a ribbon to my hair, and it wasn’t until I went to a college that I grew to appreciate the color pink. But, like so many women I have an endearing love for Audrey Hepburn’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s character Holly Golightly. Holly is a glamorous yet lost woman, spending her days in New York daydreaming of a life beyond her means. She lives in a tiny, yet romantic walkup, which is just as charming as its owner. Her new neighbor, Paul (George Peppard), falls quickly for the intriguing young woman but her own neuroses seem to dip more into the troubling side of the pool over endearing.

Regardless, Paul loves her and wants nothing but to make the pretty young woman feel safe, comforted, and most importantly cherished. But Holly tests his strength and in the final moments of Breakfast at Tiffany’s Paul finally releases all the hurt and anger he’s felt by Holly’s flighty ways. He lets her know she isn’t capable of love, no matter how much she’s in love with the idea of love. Before he leaves the close quarters of their taxi, he throws an engagement ring at her, punctuating his disgust with the whole situation. But in this final, rainy scene Holly fingers the ring, flees the cab, and runs after Paul. She is ready to love someone other than herself and we fall in love right along with her.

13. Velvet Goldmine

Todd Haynes’ homage to Citizen Kane, Velvet Goldmine is not intrinsically a love story, however it has one of the sweetest love scenes between aging rocker Curt Wild (Ewan McGregor) and young glam fan Arthur (Christan Bale). Arthur spends the majority of the film recalling his own experiences with the glam kings Curt and Brian Slade (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), before revealing in the last few minutes his love affair with Curt. Paired with trippy shots of a space ship and grainy footage of the lovers cuddling in their own little world on a city roof, when we finally see that Curt and Arthur were truly and fantastically in love it makes it all the more tragic when they later cross paths many years later. The rest of the film may not have the happiest undertones, but these intimate shots of the couple at least leave the viewer feeling a little relief.

12. The Notebook

While many The Notebook fans might argue the reunion kiss between Noah (Ryan Gosling) and Allie (Rachel McAdams) is far more romantic than the death scene between older ailing Allie (Gena Rowlands) and her patient husband Noah (James Garner), I would have to disagree. The entire film is spent regaling us with their youthful love story, but by the time the ending occurs we have also fallen in love with the elder Noah. Noah’s eternal love for his wife allows him to day after day recount the same story in the hopes that she might, for even the smallest amount of time, remember their life together. Dying in each other’s arms is the ultimate romantic gesture (hey, worked for Romeo and Juliet), and in that moment the cursed couple can finally find peace.

11. WALL-E

The robot WALL-E in Pixar’s WALL-E was lost in a fantasy world inspired by movies—just like us. His self-sacrifice to save humanity (and art) from a terrible end left the sweet machine broken. His fancy lady friend, EVE, wouldn’t stand for that and quickly went to work fixing her robot love. Frantically she nudges him to remember his former self, but the repaired WALL-E is suffering from soap opera level amnesia. She tries everything to get him to remember, almost losing hope that he’ll come back to her. EVE reaches out for him, desperate for anything, and in this final tender attempt WALL-E grasps her hand, holding on to her while his eyes come into focus on all things EVE. If your heart doesn’t sigh after this scene then you’re clearly a zombie.

Short Film Of The Day: Disney’s ‘Flowers and Trees,’ The First Best Animated Short Oscar Winner

$
0
0

Why Watch? Short films weren’t honored at the first Academy Awards in 1929, but it didn’t take long for them to be added to the docket. After all, the film industry owes its origins to short work (which may be part of why Hugo is damned popular this year). In 1932, the award for Best Live-Action Short Film and Best Animated Short Film celebrated work from Laurel and Hardy and Disney respectively.

Disney’s contribution was Flowers and Trees – a movie that was supposed to be in black and white, but ended up being the first cartoon made with the three-strip Technicolor process. It bridged technologies, was loved by fans, and got the gold. Plus, it teaches the lesson that grumpy trees shouldn’t play with fire.

What will it cost? Only 7 minutes.

Skip Work. You’ve Got Time For More Short Films.

‘Atlas Shrugged’ Sequel Will Officially Hunt Down John Galt

$
0
0

Normally the blue birds that deliver the mail sing a song as they fly along, but today they seemed grim and despondent. Perhaps it’s because they had to drop the lump of coal that is the press release announcing a greenlit Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 into the old inbox. Or perhaps they’ve just been sick.

Either way, a follow-up to the completely inept filmmaking of the first film will be standing awkwardly in front of cameras soon. Not only that, it will ambitiously seek to have the movie ready for theaters by October of this year at the zero hour of, what the release calls, “a fever pitched presidential election season.”

It even comes with its own poster and a spooky teaser trailer where pundits can’t agree on how pronounce Ayn Rand‘s name:

 The production boasts the inclusion of Duncan Scott, who was producer and editor on the Ayn Rand adaptation We The Living, although it’s unclear exactly what role he’ll play. He has experience as an assistant director, which would put him already ahead of the first film’s director, Paul Johansson, although Johansson almost assuredly will be involved as he played John Galt in the first. Or they’ll replace him. It probably won’t matter too much either way.

Pessimism and politics aside, the first failed on purely cinematic levels. Why? Because it was the vanity project of a producer (John Aglialoro) who had never made a movie before who also wrote the script for it, the text was dense and difficult to adapt, and the director was wet behind the ears with a cast that wasn’t doing him many favors. With those ingredients, it wasn’t a surprising outcome to see a train wreck onscreen.

Maybe this second swing will be better.

SBIFF Review: Delightful ‘Jiro Dreams of Sushi’ Will Make Audiences Hungry For More

$
0
0

I love sushi. Not just the taste, but the overall experience. For me, sushi is an event – there is ceremony, pageantry, and tradition that I love and respect but know is beyond me historically. It is the only eating experience that, when I receive what will always be a rather expensive bill, I’m not even sort of guilty. To me, that would be the equivalent of feeling bad for paying to see fine art, or an amazing live show.

In many ways I consider myself a sushi purist; I avoid rolls with sauces and tempura-covered-whatever, and you can kindly spare me the cream cheese. Nigiri and sashimi are my presentations of choice, and I never stray. One of the vital things, to me, about the sushi experience is giving deference to the sushi chef. When I was in Japan many years ago in a hole-in-the-wall sushi restaurant with six seats, I was set straight by the not-so-jolly chef behind the immaculately clean counter. Everything was made clear via pantomime, but I gathered quickly what sushi etiquette was all about. He did not offer soy sauce, or wasabi, and I wasn’t allowed to point at anything  in request. He took my cash before seating me, and began serving whatever he so desired – and it was heavenly. Before I stood to leave he raised his eyebrows inquisitively – I enthusiastically nodded my thanks, at which point he produced a barely-friendly grunt and stepped away through the kitchen door.

A master sushi chef reads you, and deciphers your palate. He knows just how much salt, sweet, and hot to combine in that small, single-bite piece of art. To me, there is no greater experience in cuisine – and Jiro Ono is the pinnacle of what that experience can be. David Gelb‘s Jiro Dreams of Sushi is much more than a documentary about food – it is the story of a deeply cherished career that colors a generation of men in one family, with the uneasy prospect that our treatment of the finite resource that is fish may ensure that the tradition of creating shokunin (the master sushi chef) will die with the dwindling catches.

Jiro Ono is eighty-five, the oldest chef to have been awarded the coveted Michelin Guide’s three star rating, all from his simple, ten seat sushi restaurant in a Tokyo subway station. In a career where apprenticeships commonly last many decades and competition between restaurants is fierce, Jiro’s seventy-five year legacy of striving for perfection is impressive. In the long shadow of Jiro stands his eldest son, Yoshikazu. While his younger brother, Takashi, was able to depart Tokyo and start his own sushi restaurant, tradition dictates that Yoshikazu succeed his father and carry on his legacy – a legacy which Jiro feels he still has much to improve upon.

The care shown the food, from close relationships with expert vendors in the famous Japanese fish markets, to Jiro’s precise instructions and preparation once the ingredients have reached his kitchen, are interesting on their own. This very well could simply be a film about the delicacy and expertise with which Jiro, his son, and the young apprentices that work for them prepare what is considered the best sushi in the world. What elevates the film, however, is what his passion meant in the scheme of his relationships, and the source of his drive. Jiro departed home at nine, developing a fierce drive to succeed and a love for his craft. This love made him a stranger to the two boys that would eventually follow in their father’s footsteps.

Yoshikazu and Jiro have a very unique dynamic; one that plays out on the screen in subtle but powerful ways. A self-admitted absentee father, there are small cracks of what seem like regret dominated by a clear pride in what he built, and his expectations of what Yoshikazu will accomplish once he is gone. Yoshikazu clearly respects and reveres his father, but there is a looming cloud in what Jiro’s passing might mean for his future. Many Japanese restaurants live and die by the reputation and presence of their founders; it is established early on that not only will Yoshikazu be expected to hold to the exceptionally high standards of his father, but greatly surpass his skills to create a name for himself. It’s almost sad as a viewer knowing that the fifty-plus year old Yoshikazu would have to prove himself at all, being every bit the master sushi chef himself.

Touched on in a delicate but firm manner, is the subject of over-fishing. The family reflects on the worrisome changes in the commercialization of the fishing industry, and the diminishing returns they are seeing in their own as a result. While the Japanese are often painted as indifferent and often aggressive  with their relationship to the sea and its resources, Jiro, his sons, and the vendors they entrust with their reputation for greatness all communicate a sense of urgency in promoting moderation and sustainable fishing practices.

Jiro Dreams of Sushi sits atop my viewing list thus far here at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival. It’s beautiful, insightful, will absolutely make you hungry, and has a a depth and character that is undeniable. David Gelb has a winner.

The Upside: Visually pleasing, very personal, and well edited – Gelb lets Jiro and those around him tell the story with their craft as much as their words.

The Downside: It’s highly unlikely I’ll be in Ginza anytime soon. This is an incredible bummer.

On the Side: The greatest drunken (legal) crime you can commit, past perhaps taking your pants off and crying at a party, is eating convenience store sushi. Be kind to yourself.

Dustin Hucks writes for Film School Rejects, has written for Ain’t it Cool News, Hit Fix, and can additionally be found at the Metacafe Entertainment Network.

‘Brake’ Trailer: Stephen Dorff Stars in Apparent ‘Buried’ and ‘Saw’ Hybrid

$
0
0

If you made it through Buried without the assistance of prescription drugs and found yourself thinking afterwards, “damn, I’d love to see another thriller that involves a dude, a box, a mission, and a cell phone,” have we got a treat for you! Gabe TorresBrake includes all of those elements, plus bonus water torture!

Starring Stephen Dorff (between this, Somewhere, Immortals, and Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star, the former heartthrob is having a real renaissance – well, let’s not count Bucky Larson) as a Secret Service agent who wakes up in a plexiglass box in the trunk of a car, Brake comes across like the bastard child of Buried and Saw. See, Dorff’s Jeremy Reins has been trapped in the box by some nefarious types (duh), who won’t let him go until he gives up some government info. And they’re not content to just trap him in the box, they’ve rigged up some real torturous treats to unleash on him as time ticks down until it’s run out.

Take a deep breath and watch the trailer for Brake after, ahem, the break.

My main beef with this trailer is that it gives so much away – it reads more like a condensed version of the film. Why not save those tricky twists for the actual film? However, that plexiglass box does allow a lot more visual freedom, and it works to alleviate some of the strain of confinement.

Brake‘s official synopsis doesn’t tell us much more than the trailer does, but hey, at least we know what Roulette is:

Jeremy Reins (Dorff) is about to have a very bad day. He wakes up in total darkness, confused and disoriented. The only light comes from the blood-red digital numbers ticking away above his head. Jeremy quickly realizes he’s in trouble. It’s hard to breath. He can barely move. And no one will answer his cries for help. Then, he hears the sound of an engine and it all becomes clear…he’s trapped in the trunk of a moving car.

As his captors reveal themselves and their motives, Jeremy realizes he won’t be set free until he gives up the whereabouts of “Roulette,” a secret location where the U.S. President is taken in the event of a terrorist attack.

Brake will be available on NOW.com, Amazon.com, iTunes, XBox, or Playstation starting February 17, with a theatrical release following on March 23. [The Awesomer, via /Film]

Review: ‘The Woman in Black’ Is a Good, Old-Fashioned Ghost Story

$
0
0

People love a good scary story and some of the oldest tales on record are stories of ghosts, spirits, and specters cursed to walk the earth haunting the living and wreaking havoc as revenge for some terrible wrong they suffered while alive. Told well, these stories can make spine-tingling and terrifying films. The Woman in Black is a classic ghost story made with style and filled with tense atmosphere and chilling imagery.

Daniel Radcliffe stars as Arthur Kipps, a down-on-his-luck young barrister who has been devastated by the death of his wife during the birth of his son. His work has continued to suffer and his law firm gives him what is essentially his last shot, wrapping up the legal affairs of an elderly widow who has recently died in a small town out in the countryside. Kipps takes the job, having no other options, and travels to Crythin to settle the affairs of one Alice Drablow, who just so happened to live in a huge old mansion called Eel Marsh House, located on a small island accessible from only one road and only when the tide is low enough to cross it. Kipps is immediately struck by the severe xenophobia of the townspeople. They are clearly living in fear, but of what Arthur won’t know until he spends a night in Eel Marsh and first encounters the Woman in Black.

The first scene that features the titular ghost is perhaps the most unnerving of all. Three little girls sit in a finished attic having tea time with their dolls, while shots of invisible tea being poured into china cups in slow motion turn to close-ups of the porcelain dolls’ faces. The girls are laughing and playing, yet they and suddenly stop on a dime, as if a bell has rung and it’s dinner time. Only instead of heading downstairs, the girls drop their cups and step on their dolls as they walk trance-like towards the three windows set into the wall of the attic. We see them each unlock their individual window simultaneously as if choreographed. In the reverse shot we see the Woman in Black  in the corner of the room like a silent, motionless puppet master. Powerless to stop them, the audience can only watch as the girls step onto the ledge and jump to their inevitable deaths. It’s truly disturbing and sets the perfect tone for the rest of the film.

The Woman in Black is part of the recent resurgence of venerable British studio, Hammer Films. Hammer made their mark in the 60s and 70s by casting Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee in films about the classic Universal monsters: Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, and their ilk. While those were certainly some of the most recognizable of their productions, Hammer also did plenty of general horror films, lots of vampire and werewolf films that weren’t necessarily based on anything except the generally established mythology. The Woman in Black is a film that calls back to the heyday of Hammer Films as a period peace set in a small, sleepy British town besieged by an unspeakable evil. It’s a great way to continue the legacy of one of the finest horror movie studios to ever roll film.

Though the film is a solid work, there is potential carryover from its star’s most well-known franchise that sometimes proves distracting; Radcliffe just looks so young that it seemed odd to picture him as a father and husband. His short stature when compared to other actors in scenes and his baby face give him the youthful appearance of a kid playing dress-up. However, physical attributes aside, and whether or not you buy him as an adult are relatively minor issues in the grand scheme of the film, downplayed by Radcliffe’s performance in the lead role. He plays both curious and scared with equal aplomb and any thoughts of his previous character from his most famous role are banished in the first few scenes. He anchors the film, unraveling the events of the past while enduring most of the jump scares.

The Woman in Black plays like a Gothic fairytale, the type of urban legend you might hear around a fire at summer camp as a kid. The story is well-told, the characters are well-acted, and the chills are well-earned. Radcliffe is surprisingly good, and the film’s supporting cast is bolstered by Ciarin Hinds, who is fantastic as always. While there may be one too many jump scares for the film’s own good, they never feel cheap or like director James Watkins was screaming “boo!” at the audience. The film feels respectful to the Hammer legacy, while also breaking new ground for the classic British studio. Ultimately, The Woman in Black s an entertaining ghost story with a fair bit of old-fashioned flair.

The Upside: Creepy atmosphere and solid chills coupled with a well-told story make for an entertaining film.

The Downside: There seems to be a slight over-reliance on jump scares, even though they were mostly well-done. There are slight believability issues with Radcliffe in his role.

On the Side: The film is based on a 1983 novel by Susan Hill. It was turned into a stage play soon thereafter and saw a previous filmed incarnation as a TV movie in 1989.

Scarlett Johansson and Mark Ruffalo to Ask ‘Can a Song Save Your Life?’

$
0
0

Actors Scarlett Johansson and Mark Ruffalo are already set to tear apart city blocks together as members of The Avengers this summer, so why shouldn’t they be in a love story together as well? Sounds like the logical next step. To that end they’ve both joined Once writer/director John Carney’s next film, Can a Song Save Your Life?

Why the ridiculous title? Well, because, like Once, this movie is also about musicians falling in love. This time the story is set in New York City, where Johansson will be playing a plucky young singer trying to start a career in the music business after getting dumped by her stupid boyfriend. While there she meets a charming though mumble-mouthed record producer (Ruffalo) who’s been down on his lucky lately (you know, because he’s a record producer), and the two start up a fling that manages to turn both of their lives around.

Wow, that plot synopsis kind of gives everything away. I guess the answer is yes. Yes, a song can save your life. And explaining the end of your movie to Variety before the thing even gets made can save everybody else the ten dollars they would have spent on a ticket.

Aw, who am I kidding? I would be hard-pressed to pick which of these stars I have a bigger crush on. I’ll definitely be going and seeing it for them.


Kevin Carr’s Weekly Report Card: February 3, 2012

$
0
0

Kevin Carr's Weekly Report Card

This week, Fat Guy Kevin Carr heads out to the drab English countryside to settle a woman’s estate only to find the place haunted. Fortunately, Kevin had already crawled down a mysterious hole and gained super powers, so he’s able to fend off the evil spirits. For a fleeting moment, he considers using his new powers for good, like to save a family of gray whales trapped under the ice in Barrow, Alaska. However, his fear of the 30 Days of Night vampires keep him at home. He then decides to use his new powers to read the subtitles of The Hidden Face so he can enjoy the copious amounts of pretty Colombian breasts.

Want to hear what Kevin has to say on the Fat Guys at the Movies podcast? Click here to listen as Kevin is joined by Fozzie Bare to celebrate 250 episodes of what should be everyone’s favorite podcast (or at least somewhere in the top 10).

THE WOMAN IN BLACK
Studio: CBS Films

Rated: PG-13 for thematic material and violence/disturbing images

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds, Janet McTeer, David Burke and Shaun Dooley

Directed by: James Watkins

What it’s about: Daniel Radcliffe plays a lawyer in the late 1800s who takes a job settling the estate of a dead woman. However, once he visits the estate, he realizes that the woman is still lurking about as a vengeful ghost.

What makes the grade: Like last year’s Insidious, The Woman in Black relies heavily on atmosphere and creepiness to work. And it does to a large extent. The set design and cinematography captures the eerieness you’d expect from a Hammer movie, and the film takes its time to draw out the rather sparse story in order to build suspense and throw in plenty of jump-scares.

Radcliffe does a fine job being someone other than Harry Potter, and he carries the film well with a modicum of dialogue. It’s a slow burn of a film and quite a diversion from the recent yet tired popular trends in horror, like found footage and torture porn.

What fails: The biggest downfall of this movie is going to be the audience you see it with. With plenty of slower, quieter moments, you’re gonna find the standard bored American audience texting, tweeting and talking with little regard for those around them. This can make an otherwise decent (though not great) film a chore to sit through. And that might lead to this being a better rental than anything else.

Who is gonna like this movie: Anyone who can appreciate a basic but effectively creepy film.

Grade: B+

BIG MIRACLE
Studio: Universal Pictures

Rated: PG for language

Starring: Drew Barrymore, John Krasinski, Kristen Bell, Tim Blake Nelson and Mark Ivanir

Directed by: Ken Kwapis

What it’s about: Back in the late 80s, three gray whales became trapped under the ice in Barrow, Alaska. In an attempt to bring them safely to the sea, an unlikely partnership among a whaling village, media outlets, Greenpeace, an oil company, the Federal government and a Russian icebreaker develops. This is the (mostly) true story of these events.

What makes the grade: Like last year’s Dolphin Tale, Big Miracle is a very cheesy button-pusher about people trying to save the adorable animals. It works as a family film and offers something different than farting CGI rodents and overblown cartoons. It’s really hard to go wrong with the family crowd when making a movie about saving marine life. Big Miracle means well, and that helps it along quite a bit.

Oh, and Dermot Mulroney plays a helicopter pilot from Kenai in this movie, which gave me flashbacks to The Grey from last week. That guy’s starting a career as the go-to Alaska hero.

What fails: As cute as the story is, it lays things on pretty thick, so your cheese tolerance level needs to be high. Also, like anything Hollywood does, it glorifies its own efforts over those of others (and if you don’t believe me, read the Wikipedia page for “Operation Breakthrough” to see how the media may not have been the heroes portrayed in this film). The characters are nothing great though not too annoying or problematic that they will bore the audience.

Who is gonna like this movie: Children and families, especially on Super Bowl Sunday.

Grade: B-

CHRONICLE
Studio: 20th Century Fox

Rated: PG-13 for intense action and violence, thematic material, some language, sexual content and teen drinking

Starring: Michael B. Jordan, Dane DeHaan, Michael Kelly, Ashley Hinshaw and Anna Wood

Directed by: Josh Trank

What it’s about: Three high school assholes get super powers and become super assholes.

What makes the grade: I’d say the idea was sound for this film, but it’s nothing more than your basic superhero origin story in which someone gets super powers, learns how to use them and then fights a bad guy.

The last 15 minutes of this film might have passed for an okay super villain origin story if the kids didn’t channel the acting of Hayden Christians.

What fails: First, I’m done with found footage movies. They are no longer original, interesting or innovative. And putting crappy digital effects into them doesn’t save them either. Second, speaking of the effects, these have the quality of a poor television program on basic cable. I could see the harnesses when the kids flew, and there was a green screen moment that approached the quality of the roof sequence in The Room.

But all the technical warts aside, Chronicle fails because it doesn’t put a damn interesting thin on screen. The main characters are shallow, stupid, insipid people, which may be realistic to a sense in that many teenagers can be accused of this. However, I don’t get into movies with those kinds of characters.

At least five or six times throughout the film, the audience is reminded why they have to keep filming. Didn’t that technique fall out of favor with The Blair Witch Project? And many of these excuses – including a second and utterly pointless character who films everything she sees – make very little sense.

Full of logic flaws, bad effects and some of the most dreadful characters I’ve seen on screen in months, Chronicle is an exercise in teenage narcissism. Sigh… when Peter Parker gets bitten by a radioactive spider, he becomes Spider-Man. When these a-holes get super powers, they play pranks on people at a Toys R Us. That’s not a compelling film, there.

Who is gonna like this movie: Probably a lot of teenagers who think they are the center of the universe.

Grade: D-

LA CARA OCULTA (THE HIDDEN FACE)
Studio: Fox International

Rated: R for some strong sexual content, graphic nudity and language

Starring: Clara Lago, Martina Garcia and Quim Gutiérrez

Directed by: Andrés Baiz

What it’s about: A young woman begins a relationship with an attractive but brooding maestro. Soon, she learns that there’s a secret in his house, explaining the mystery of his last girlfriend who has gone missing.

What makes the grade: The Hidden Face is a relatively simple movie, but it manages to make a relatively simple story mighty complex. It deals with trust issues in relationships and the unpleasant emotions that emerge during these relationships. From the emotional angle, some scenes are more cutting than you would imagine if you were just told about them, and if you let yourself think about it, they can be pretty raw.

The secret behind the film is also pretty inventive, and it’s not something I’ve seen a million times before. Once revealed, it doesn’t necessarily keep you guessing, but it will add deeper meaning to many of the scenes you’ve already seen.

Oh, and the two female leads in the movie are simply adorable… and naked at least once. (And you thought I was getting respectable there for a moment.)

What fails: There are some points in the movie where its own pretentious subject matter gets the best of it, particularly when examining the romance of music. Also, the beginning of the film appears to be a more humdrum relationship drama, but if you stick with it, you’ll get something more.

Who is gonna like this movie: Fans of international cinema who enjoy a unique thriller.

Grade: A-

Bonus Weekly DVD Drinking Game: Texas Killing Fields

$
0
0

Drinking Games

With the weekend here and most DVD and Blu-rays hitting the shelves on Tuesday, you might have already checked out our weekly drinking game for The Thing. If you want another chance – or another excuse – to drink a little this weekend, try out this bonus drinking game based on the killer thriller Texas Killing Fields.

If you liked the teaming up of current “It” stars Jessica Chastain and Sam Worthington, both of whom have been in about six dozen movies in the last couple years, you could watch this film… r The Debt. But if you watch The Debt, this drinking game won’t work very well.

And now, to cover our butts… This game is only for people over the age of 21. Please drink responsibly, and don’t give Sam Worthington any more headlining roles.

TAKE A DRINK WHEN…

  • It rains
  • Someone is questioned by the police
  • One character yells at another character
  • People have a conversation on the phone or walkie-talkie

TAKE A DRINK WHEN YOU SEE…

  • A map
  • A dead body
  • A crime scene
  • A person’s picture

TAKE A DRINK WHEN SOMEONE SAYS…

  • “Texas”
  • “officer”
  • “detective”
  • A nickname or (fake or real) term of endearment

CHUG YOUR DRINK WHEN…

  • There is a shoot-out

Click here for more Drinking Games

Will Katherine Heigl Investigate ‘The Happytime Murders’?

$
0
0

Way back in 2008, the Jim Henson Co. picked up a spec script from Todd Berger that took a standard Muppet trope (a world where people and puppets co-exist and no one thinks it’s weird), turned it on its head (the puppets are treated like second-class citizens), then splashed blood all over that turned head (the puppet stars of a cancelled kids television show start to get killed off), and then threw in some classic crime noir (“a disgraced detective-turned-private eye puppet takes on the case”).

But since that first bit of news about The Happytime Murders, information has been relatively soft (as felt), until today’s brief that IM Global is taking the film (with attached director Brian Henson) to the Berlin International Film Festival next week in hopes of selling it.

While that’s certainly good news, it does come with a caveat – as Deadline Rotterdam claims that “Kathryn Heigl is in advanced negotiations to star,” but maybe there’s some other actress out there named Kathryn Heigl that is an up-and-comer who is super into puppets…or maybe that’s just another one of those little Deadline mistakes that will get corrected without a word later today. Fine, it’s Katherine Heigl who might star in The Happytime Murders, and even if she’s going to be portrayed as a puppet, that’s just unsuitable casting.

I think Sean O’Connell over at Cinema Blend sums it up best, as he writes “if I’m being honest, this sounds far too original for Heigl, whose comfort zone has proven to be relationship comedies with the likes of Josh Duhamel, James Marsden and Gerard Butler. Yes, she thought outside of the box when she played Seth Rogen’s love interest in Knocked Up, but she promptly shit-talked Judd Apatow and the material in subsequent press interviews.” That’s pretty much it in a nutshell – the film sounds way too original and special for someone like Heigl and, though she’s tried to stretch herself in the past, it’s been overshadowed by her often-abrasive personality.

While Heigl has proven bankable in the past, her latest film, last week’s opener One For the Money came in at just third place for the weekend, pulling in $11m against its $40m budget. That soft opening might prove that Heigl is finally on the outs, and that everyone who claimed that the fact that film is based on a very popular series of frisky crime novels would help it out at the box office was wrong. But if that’s so, does that mean that Heigl has wised up and decided to board Happytime to change her image? If that’s the case, fair enough, Heigl, it will do you good to do something different (I still love My Father the Hero).

But, seriously, was Jason Segel not available for this?

Texas, ‘Comin’ at Ya!’ Is Coming At You! Now Watch The Trailer In Preparation

$
0
0

Do you like insane spaghetti Westerns? Of course you do, your eyeballs work. But I can personally guarantee that you have not seen anything until you seen an insane spaghetti Western…in 3D! During last year’s Fantastic Fest, our ocular cavities were lovingly assaulted by the tidal wave of extra-dimensional madness of 1981′s Comin’ at Ya!

The film, which was made at the dawn of, and credited with contributing to, the resurgence of studio-released 3D films, is a nasty, gritty revenge story that works in a number of hilarious gimmicks designed to force-feed imagines from the screen into your consciousness. The film made such an impression that it was picked up for distribution by the young, but formidable, Drafthouse Films. Yes, as in The Alamo Drafthouse. Drafthouse Films has already helped spread the good news of Christopher Morris’ Four Lions and their recent acquisition Bullhead is nominated for an Oscar in the Best Foreign Language Film category. Now they’ve given this little indie absurdity a fancy digital restoration for its Texas theatrical launch.

Need more convincing to see Comin’ at Ya? What’s wrong with you? In any event, we’ve included the trailer to help prepare your brains for the visual roundhouse kick of pure cinema magic that is Ferdinando Baldi‘s Comin’ at Ya! And we’ve also listed the cities and theaters below that will be playing this amazing gem, one of my favorite entries from Fantastic Fest 2011, starting February 24th.

AUSTIN
Alamo Drafthouse South Lamar
Alamo Drafthouse Village
Alamo Drafthouse Lake Creek

BEDFORD
Bedford Movie Tavern

DALLAS/FT. WORTH
Hulen Movie Tavern
Rave Cinemas Hickory Creek
Rave Cinemas Ridgemar

DENTON
Denton Movie Tavern

HOUSTON
Alamo Drafthouse Mason Park
Willowbrook Movie Tavern
Rave Cinemas Yorktown 15

HURST
Rave Cinemas Northeast Mall 18

SAN ANTONIO
Alamo Drafthouse Park North

Channel Guide: 6 Reasons Why You Should Watch ‘Puppy Bowl VIII’ Instead of the Super Bowl

$
0
0

Channel Guide - Large

Man, of all the bowls, the Super Bowl is probably the most egotistical. Super Bowl? Pshaw. More like the Not-Super Bowl. Yeah, I said it. First played in 1967, the Super Bowl was the brainchild of some guys who loved football almost as much as they loved Roman numerals (Super Bowl XL was the year that it was at its t-shirt-sizey-ist). The “big game” marks the end of the NFL season and this is apparently a “big deal” – Super Bowl XLV was the most watched television broadcast in America last year.

But if you ask me – and maybe you aren’t asking me, but let’s just pretend you are  the only bowl worth watching this weekend is the Puppy Bowl VII – Animal Planet’s annual Yule Log-esque special, featuring roughly (or, ahem, ruffly) two hours of adorable puppies playing on a model football stadium replete with chew toys and water bowls. Yep, water bowls. So that’s two bowls you’re getting for the price of one. Already, I think you’re starting to see why the Puppy Bowl is better than whatever’s happening in Indianapolis this Sunday.

1. Puppies play for the love of the game, not for the money.

Do you know how much money New England Patriots wide receiver Wes Welker makes annually? I don’t. But I’m guessing it’s a lot. Do you know how much Baskin the 15-week-old Jack Russell/Pug mix will be paid this weekend for running up and down the Animal Planet Stadium gridiron? Nothing. And he wouldn’t have it any other way. There aren’t any signing bonuses or workout bonuses or contract negotiations in the National Puppy League. The Puppy Bowl is pure – it’s all about fun.

2. You don’t have to worry about missing the play of the game.

Inevitably, while watching the Super Bowl, you’ll have to step away from the TV for a second to go to the bathroom or grab a drink or work on your taxes and in doing this, you risk missing whichever moment eventually becomes synonymous with this year’s game. Yeah, they’ll replay it, but that just isn’t the same as watching it in real time. Leave during the commercial break, and you risk missing some great ad that everyone will be discussing for the rest of the evening. Check Hulu to watch the ad online, and once again, you risk missing that astounding play. With the Puppy Bowl, there’s a nice equilibrium – no one minute of the game is more or less important than the next because it’s just puppies running around, barking at each other, and gnawing on chew toys. This is stress-free viewing, people. There’s absolutely no reason for you to pull a Tycho Brahe (you can go pee whenever you want) or a Willie Nelson (you can do your taxes whenever you want).

3. There’s no kicking game.

Everyone hates the kicker, right? Well, there are no kickers in the Puppy Bowl, only lickers. Get it? ‘Cause they’re dogs…and they lick things…including their junk.

4. The half-time show.

This year Madonna will be performing during the Super Bowl half-time show. Do you know what’s more entertaining than Madonna? At this point, almost everything but kittens in particular. Puppy Bowl’s half-time show is a bunch of kittens standing on a play structure, looking sort of terrified but also very adorable.

5. The puppies are adoptable.

All Puppy Bowl participants are shelter dogs and can be adopted, while you aren’t usually allowed to adopt professional football players.

6. Puppies don’t wear helmets so you can actually see what they look like and what they look like is freakin’ cute.

Does anyone really know what Tom Brady looks like? Sure, we’re occasionally shown footage or photos of a blond man who is allegedly the Patriots’ quarterback, but with that helmet on during the game, who can be certain. Puppy Bowl participants don’t wear helmets because the whole affair is a lot less dangerous and tons fluffier than football (a full contact sport reported to cause brain injury) so there’s no questioning their identities. And, most importantly, the lack of face obstructing headgear allows us all to totally drink in the preciousness of these little dogs. We can see those big ol’ glassy eyes, those floppy ears, those teeny wet noses. Does Eli Manning have a wet nose? Probably. But it isn’t nearly as cute as the one on 10-week-old Rat Terrier Joni.

Extra Point: Sometimes the puppies pee on the AstroTurf.

And because you don’t have to clean it up, it’s funny.

Consider reading more Channel Guide as the game-winning field goal of your Internet consumption

Junkfood Cinema: Scream Blacula Scream

$
0
0

Junkfood Cinema - Large

Welcome back to Junkfood Cinema; the jiveness of our turkey is a byproduct of its being deep-vat chocolate-fried. Welcome friends, to the mean streets of Schlocksburgh. Every week, we pick on some fast-talking, upstart bad movie out to make a name for himself, roughing him up with sucka punches of merciless mockery. But then, just when we think we’ve won, that movie kicks in the doors of our gentlemen’s club, The Cynical Shit Heel, and proceeds to blow us away with two well-aimed barrels of undeniable amiability. Then, in acknowledgment that this brash movie from the block now unquestionably owns our territory (and our hearts), we humbly offer a tribute in the form of a funky, themed snack food item.

It’s finally February again…is a sentence few people are wont to utter. But here at Junkfood Cinema, February means one thing and one thing only: Blaxploitation History Month. That’s right, it’s a grand tradition that, to this day, has somehow failed to get us banned from the Internet forever. Some might charge that our adoration for this controversial subgenre reeks of poor taste. I for one resent the implication that we here at JFC have any taste whatsoever. I won’t go into the sociopolitical critiques of blaxploitation because, well frankly it’s boring. But I can tell you that I legitimately love these films and I am so grateful for the actors and characters to which they’ve introduced me. Given that this is our third annual celebration of blaxploitation, I’d say we’ve effectively established this feature as its own franchise. Therefore, for the rest of the month, we will be paying homage to blaxploitation sequels; to the cult titles who experienced a longevity as inexplicable as…the fact that this is our 3rd Annual Blaxploitation History Month.

This week’s fine foxy mess: Scream Blacula Scream.

What Makes It Bad?

As you may recall, Blacula was the blaxploitation version of the popular horror icon Scott Bakcula. Wait a minute, I think I may have that wrong. Quick, everyone leap back to just before I said that and I’ll try again. Quantum Leap jokes are to topical comedy as tapioca pudding is to toothpaste. Blacula is of course the creative recasting of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Because let’s face it, Stoker was a stuffy old honky. In the first film, an African prince was cursed by the original, cracker Drac with his own thirst for human blood. Unfortunately, where Dracula got to live in a castle and have many sexy gothic encounters (sort of a male Elvira, or Malevira, but without the comedy or boobs), Blacula was confined to his coffin until a pair of flamboyantly gay antique dealers released him; slightly less grandiose a story. Blah blah blah, blood rage through the streets of L.A., blah blah melted by sunlight.

But then, thanks to a combination of mystic rituals and box office witchcraft, the super smooth, bad muthasucka returns. The story goes that there’s a feud within an L.A. voodoo sect, because we all know you can’t throw a headless chicken in L.A. without hitting a feuding voodoo sect. So, the  queen of this sect dies and plumb forgets to name a successor. Her son therefore declares himself the rightful heir to her kingdom, but the voodoo counsel thinks him too ambitious and seeks to install more reasonable leadership. It’s like Game of Thrones except it’s blaxploitation and nothing like Game of Thrones. So the son, his juju underoos all in a bunch, does what any power-hungry vengeance-seeking man would do…purchase a bag of bones from a shack-dwelling magical hobo. In his palatial mansion, he performs one of the sillier black magic (which in this movie is just called magic) rituals I’ve ever seen. The ritual involves fire, chanting, and a common dove poorly painted blue to make it look tropical; the actual effect is that the dove looks like a rabid college football fan on his way to a CooCLA game. Overall, it’s so silly as to barely qualify as voodoo, it’s more like voo-don’t.

But wouldn’t you know it, the bones belonged to Blacula and he returns to life much to everyone’s surprise, including the man preforming the ritual. So now that he’s back, what is Blacula’s ultimate plan for world domination? How will he take his revenge on the cold new world that orchestrated his demise? Brace yourself for this because he’s gonna…relax in this mansion for the foreseeable future. All he does is hang around that house and build an army of vampire followers; an army he intends to use for the big nothing he has planned. I’m not saying Scream Blacula Scream is too self-contained, what I am saying is that it’s like watching The Real World Snoozeville. He ventures outdoors a couple of times, to be accosted by pimps and fundamentally fail to grasp the concept of prostitution, but other than that he’s a bit of a homebody. It’s truly unfortunate that he chose for his headquarters the one house in L.A. that happens to to have ready supply of perfectly-cut wooden stakes piled up outside just waiting to be discovered by the invading police force. It’s oddly reminiscent of the time Wolfman bought that charming English cottage…next to a silver mine. Nards! Somewhere around the hour mark, he finally reveals that his grand design is to use a voodoo priestess to remove all traces of vampirism from his body so he can return to his African nation where his people will then embrace him. I guess I’m just not seeing how his people are more likely to accept a century-old undead Prince than they would be to accept a century-old undead prince who could transform into a bat using terrible special effects.

Luckily, while cooking up this scheme, Blacula encounters plenty of genre conventions. At one point, a completely superfluous dance party, replete with awfully so-so soul music and supposedly hot booty, takes place in his honor. There is also a racist policeman that shows up at one point, though I have to admire the bold decision to cast a black actor as the obligatory white racist police officer. There are of course the jive-talking pimps to which I previously alluded, whose fashion is inspired by the excrement of Rerun from What’s Happening. And the mutton chops are back! Oh my Sam Jackson, if these aren’t the most epic mutton chops in cinema. The demarcation between Blacula’s calm public guise and his meaner blood-sucking side is that his mutton chops suddenly extend from his cheeks to his eye sockets; reclassifying them as murder chops. And one of my favorite era-inspired absurdities is that his first follower, the man who brought him back to life in the first place, more upset that he can no longer see his reflection in the mirror than he is about being a vampire. “A man’s GOT to see himself!” Yeah, clearly you’re the biggest problem, Carly Simon.

But where Scream Blacula Scream really shits the coffin is in its bookends. The first film had a wild, animated opening title sequence that, while costing them all of twelve dollars, discoed us into the right mindset for the film. The sequel however opts for a much blander approach. They zoom in to Blacula’s face and do that technicolor photo-sketch imagry that epitomized 70s television. Between that and the recorded-at-the-last-minute opening song, I either expected to hear a voice-over stating “This week, on Blacula…” or witness him introduced as a member of The Partridge Family. But at least the ending is good, right? Ha, I laugh at you. The ending involves a few murky alterations to both voodoo and vampire mythos and then it ends…just ends. Blacula does his titular scream as he looks to the ceiling, and the film, in keeping with its odd TV theme, actually concludes with a goddamn freeze frame. Looks like the A-Team wins again…if the “A” stands for “abrupt” and “astoundingly unsatisfying.”

Why I Love It!

In Scream Blacula Scream (at one point titled Blacula II: The Blackening…in my mind), the world’s foremost blood brutha is once again played by William Marshall. Marshall, who would go on to portray the King of Cartoons on Pee-Wee’s Playhouse, is even more badass in the sequel if that’s conceivable. His return is actually handled with creepy seriousness that strives to build upon the character’s mythology. We first see his profile in shadow, and we are immediately aware of his legacy; sort of the black vampire version of Alfred Hitchcock. His dedication to carrying himself with old-world esteem and distinguished charm not only makes the character impossibly likable, but also allows him to serve as a satirical juxtaposition to the 70s caricatures that canonized the genre. When the uppity pimp asks for all his bread or else he’ll kick his ass, Blacula calmly explains that he carries no bread with him and that the pimp should carefully consider the consequences of said kick to the posterior. Take that, rudeness!

In the sequel, Blacula tangles with the likes of the one and only Pam Grier. Grier plays the voodoo priestess tasked with crafting a ceremony to exorcise the vampirism from his body. She is sexy as ever, but she’s much softer and more vulnerable in this film than she is in Coffy or Foxy Brown. I don’t mean soft as in weak, I mean she is chiefly responsible for taking Blacula down, but she’s lovely and sweet and you fall in love with her for entirely different reasons. Plus, if you ever make the mistake of calling Pam Grier weak, she shows up in your home like Bloody Mary and puts two in your chest, and I am not about to invite that wrath upon me; fool me twice, shame on me. She’s really one of the selling points of the film. So, two of my favorite blaxploitation icons in one film? Do I really need to explain why this makes me love Scream Blacula Scream?

Where the original was a more traditional blaxploitation gimmick in which Dracula is merely thrown into an urban setting mostly for laughs, Scream Blacula Scream feels like a blaxploitation Hammer film. Blacula sets up his grand, pastoral domicile, even in the middle of the big city and seems to wait for his evil deeds to attract the attention of the villagers (i.e., the cops), which it eventually does. The police, stakes in hand, storm the castle mansion and Justin (the boyfriend of Pam Grier’s character) becomes the de facto Van Helsing. He busts in there like afroed Peter Cushing and dispatches the legion of the undead with a goddamn crossbow. Hammer time! And don’t forget about the army of busty female vampires…I know I won’t.

Junkfood Pairing: Cookies and Scream

This discontinued Halloween candy may be hard to get your hands on, but amounts to the best possible accompaniment for Scream Blacula Scream. Apart from the sharing of a pivotal word with the film’s title, Cookies and Scream combines candy and cookies for a eerily delicious symphony of sugary goodness. The combination of blaxploitation and horror, of William Marshall and Pam Grier, creates a similarly delicious symphony for our eyeballs.

Go suck the blood out of more Junkfood Cinema

Interview: Joe Carnahan Talks Mortality, Real Men, and ‘The Grey’

$
0
0

Joe Carnahan

The first reaction of anyone coming out of The Grey probably won’t be, “I bet the director of The A-TeamSmokin’ Aces, and that BMW short Ticker made this!” Joe Carnahan prefers it to be that way. The director’s fifth feature film isn’t a full-blown action romp, but is instead a thrilling meditation on life, death, and survival. (Check out our review here.)

Similar to Carnahan’s breakout feature, NarcThe Grey shows all the trappings of a true personal project — the kind of story that a filmmaker had to tell. And, after speaking with Carnahan for 25 minutes, that was clearly the case. From White Jazz to Killing Pablo, when the personable man finds a story that comes from his core, he’s got to get it made.

Here’s what Joe Carnahan had to say about the life and death themes of The Grey, writing and portraying real men, and why he never wants to become a “one for them, one for me” filmmaker:

So, how are you feeling on opening day?

I feel good, man. Listen, my kind of thing is to be a hard-on and monitor everything, and I got to stop. Literally when I hang up the phone with you, I’m going to take a five mile hike and put on my Dr. Dre headphones to block out the world. At some point, you just gotta forget about it. I’ve done everything I can do, it’s going to go out into the world, and I’m extremely happy with the reaction it’s gotten. I’m content now to let the course be taken, whatever course that may be.

The reaction has been really strong. Does that ever affect your view on a film? 

Does it help when Roger Ebert says he couldn’t “watch” the film he watched after The Grey, because it did such a number on him that he didn’t feel he was fair to the next film? Yeah, dude — that’s huge for me. When they slam it… like when Smokin’ Aces gets slammed, a part of me just thinks it’s not really a film for you. I’m not making that movie for you. The other thing is, if you start making films for everyone but you, then you’re in a lot of trouble. [Laughs] Admittedly, I have an odd sense of humor and there are certain things I find funny that other people don’t find funny. Certain things I find dramatic and meaningful, but other people don’t find dramatically meaningful. Some people really like the film, and that’s always lovely.

I saw this interview where you got asked about why you wanted to put yourself in a bind making The Grey, with the technical challenges. Was that the reason why, the challenge?

Oh, I think so, brother. Again, I don’t like being deemed as, “Oh, this guy can do one thing. He’s going to do the crazy action and the wild stunt stuff.” I don’t even know where that stuff takes root. I guess beyond, yeah, I did a movie with stunts and Smokin’ Aces has guns. I guess I much prefer the path of the contrarian: the guy who goes against the grain a bit. The careers of the people who I admire deeply — like the Coen brothers and Soderbergh – don’t repeat themselves, and they make radically different films at times, and I think that’s wonderful.

The Grey does feel like Narc, though, in that personal way.

Very much so, Jack; it’s very much a deeply personal thing. It was something that was reflective of my world view, without being heavy-handed or high-minded about it. I think it’s asking very basic and simple questions, and you’re going to take them with what you will.

Yeah, and they seem like questions maybe the 25-year-old you, as a director, wouldn’t be asking. 

The 40-year-old in me is definitely thinking these things. You know, I think you have to pay attention to where you’re at in life — not only as you’re living it, but creatively and artistically. Like, how do you feel about the world? Is it enough to express it in a film or with your art?

One of the big questions in the film is faith. There’s the scene where Ottway is screaming up to God, and you don’t usually see that in films, since God is treated as such a taboo subject and gets taken out of a lot of stories. Did you ever get a note about that?

No, it would’ve been false, man. I think it would’ve been an empty exercise without that rant to the heavens, because I think we all do that from time to time. I don’t think we’re being honest with ourselves if we don’t say, “What the hell, man? Is anybody out there? Is anybody looking after me? Does anyone care?” I think that’s a very human response in that moment. To me, it seems very appropriate. I think it would’ve felt like I was ducking it, for reasons that weren’t good enough to duck it. Do you know what I mean? Like, “Oh, man, I don’t want to say anything about God, in the fear that I might offend someone.” I think that’s a pretty chickenshit reason to back away from something.

It’s interesting, too, because I got the sense that Ottway’s probably not a religious guy. But it is something you think about.

Right. Well, I don’t know if I’m the most religious guy, but I think I’m a spiritual man and these are the things I think about a lot. In terms of the film, I think The Grey is very much a non-denominational kind of film. I don’t think it’s something that relies on a particular religious bent to tell the story. I’ve said this, but if an atheist sees this film, there’s no way there’s a God. If a Christian sees it, there’s absolutely a God. There’s little contradiction along the way. Like, you mentioned the scene of Liam yelling away at the heavens, but in the next scene he’s making a very Christian memorial with the wallets. When he wraps a wallet in his hand, it’s like a prayer. I think, like I said, there’s that duality in all of ourselves.

When it comes to Ottway, I was surprised to hear Bradley Cooper was initially cast. I’m sure it would’ve been good, but I think Ottway’s age and tiredness plays a big part thematically — how he’s probably seen a lot of bad things happen. Did you initially think of him as a younger character?

I absolutely did, Jack. He was written as a younger guy. What I find interesting is that younger actors had a greater difficulty wrapping their heads around a man in the point of his life where he had no use for that life. I think with an older actor and older character — who would’ve seen life’s great tragedies and life’s great triumphs, and everything in-between — that transformation becomes much easier.

Did you see that as a happy accident, getting Liam? In terms of how the older presence played a thematic role?

Oh, yeah. I thank the movie Gods for that one, because I think I would’ve made a potentially fatal error to have another actor. [Laughs] You’re right, the error wouldn’t have been casting Bradley Cooper, and I think the movie still would’ve been great, albeit completely different, tonally. To have Liam was to have the trump card, as it were.

You mentioned natural responses early, and you even do that in small things. Like, characters actually say “fuck” in this movie.

This is how those guys talk, and that’s how I talk! I got a filthy mouth, what do you want? Like, I’m not going to clean it up for anybody. I’ll clean it up for my mother when she’s around. For anybody beyond that? Fuck ‘em.

[Laughs] It does remind me, though, that your characters are usually very manly.

Right. I mean, not like I’m the most macho guy in the world, but the guys I hang out with and spend time with use that word. It’s an action verb and a noun. [Laughs] The word fuck is multifaceted, multipurpose, and, for my money, it doesn’t get used enough.

[Laughs] I agree. I’d imagine you use those types of guys as templates for your characters. Does that have an impact on the writing process, using traits that you see in your friends?

Oh, absolutely. One of my best friends, Ben Bray – who’s in the film — that’s very much him. When Ottway finds him after the crash and he says he has to call Vanessa, that’s Ben talking about his wife. Anytime you can interweave the personal stuff and make it a color or an added thing, I think you do the movie and your art a service.

When you do something as massive as The A-Team, do you still try to find a way to infuse the personal?

Oh, yeah, man. I mean, that’s much more set up to encourage improvisation, encourage interaction, and to encourage them to have fun in the moment. I think it’s a different kind of personal, because it’s very much immediate, whereas The Grey is much more formal in that we had long discussions. I wanted what was in the script to be made without a lot of additional stuff. Structurally, I thought it was important to keep it that way, since it is essentially a plotless movie and a survival film. I didn’t want a bunch of working parts to suddenly gum it up. I thought, with The A-Team, that was a part of the fun: being out there and experimenting in the moment.

The structure is fairly simple, in the way Narc was. Does that make the writing process easier, sticking to the basics?

Yeah, I guess in a way. Listen, that was a tough script to write, too, because you start to deal with the idea of mortality, the metaphysical, and God. You know, you owe it to yourself to explore that, to slow it down, and to let it have its moments to live and breathe. It wasn’t easy, but it was certainly aided in that. It was just a much longer process, I guess.

Do you enjoy writing?

I love it, man. I love it, Jack. It’s one of my favorite things, and I think it remains the thing I’m the most comfortable with because I’ve been doing it for so long. It’s like, I’ve had this great left-handed ovation guitar staring at me for months, waiting for me to pick it up, and I don’t do it. I have no cool hobbies, dude — I can barely swing a golf club, my jump shot’s crap, and as you get older you’re reduced down to very simple tasks. Writing, for me, is very comfortable, and I feel really at ease doing it.

Do you stick to the script pretty thoroughly, or are you looking for new discoveries in the editing?

I think in both spheres, brother. I think you do a tremendous amount of exploration while writing, and I think you do even more in the edit. I think the things that seemed very precious and irreplaceable to you become things… I’ve always found it interesting, corollary, that the stuff while you’re cutting that is the spine and the backbone of the film becomes irrelevant, and the stuff you didn’t think would ever matter becomes the spine. It’s always this interesting kind of trade-off, and it happens all the time. I still really enjoy writing, and I look at editing as an extension.

Was there one scene you cut in The Grey that you saw as killing one of your babies?

You know, the camp fire scene where Ottway talks about his father’s poem, which I find hysterical, this pocket of jagoff reviewers who have taken that poem to task, not understanding it’s not meant to be “high-art.” I mean, it’s written by a guy who had never written a poem. Anyway, there’s an extended scene, which is seven minutes but used to be fifteen minutes, and I love that scene. I’ll probably put it, in its entirety, on the deleted scenes in the Blu-ray. I loved it, and that was a tough one [to cut]. But I understood I couldn’t stop the movie, where it couldn’t come to a full stop. It had to keep moving forward. It was necessary, at that point, to cut that out. That was one where I was really sad to see it go.

What about for Smokin’ Aces? I remember hearing that original script was massive.

Oh, yeah, I can’t even remember the stuff I took out of that. I think a lot of that was written to be continuous. You know, a guy extends his hand in one scene and a guy shakes a hand in the next. It was meant to be a bit of a continuous kind of process. Yeah, there was stuff I took out of that, and you have to. I think the biggest thing was a much longer conversation between Chris Pine‘s character and Martin Henderson‘s character at the end. It was probably three or four minutes longer, and I loved it. I remember having to cut it, and it was a bummer. Pine was just on another planet; it was great, man.

That movie feels like a director really unhinged. When you write something that wild, do you just think “anything goes”?

Absolutely, man. I think like a fighter: you gotta let your hands go, you just gotta punch. I knew that was a movie, to me, that was a catharsis coming out of Mission: Impossible III and having a long time where I wasn’t doing anything. It was very much an explosion of, “I’m just going to let it go.” I knew there were going to be people who hate the movie and love the movie, but I didn’t think there were going to be many in-between, which I quite like. I like it if something polarizes you, and I think those are always great. Nobody wants the middling, “Eh, yeah…”

I read your White Jazz script years ago when you put it on your website and, if I recall right, it was a dialogue-heavy script.

Absolutely, dude. Lots of voice-over, lots of intricate and interwoven… yeah, I love that script. I would love to make that film.

Yeah, that’s a great script. Is being so dialogue-driven — and a period piece, as well — proven a challenge behind getting it made?

Yeah, man. You know, something like that is really tough to get made, because it doesn’t lend itself to an easy — well, it’ll be interesting with Gangster Squad coming out. I’m hoping that gives out a nostalgic… I don’t mind drafting on that movie, because if it creates the ability to make White Jazz, I think it’d be worth it. If there’s a little kind of renaissance with those period films, it’d be really nice.

White JazzKilling Pablo, and The Grey have clearly been personal projects. When you completed those scripts, what made you say, “I have to make this movie”?

On the ones you really pour your heart and soul into, you come away from it and say, “I have to make that film.” Like, I recently wrote and stepped away from this thing called Umbra. Although I love that script — and I thought I did everything I could to make that thing really sing — it never felt like it was from the core of my being. As much as that was a work-for-hire gig — and I busted my ass on that thing, and it was a page-one rewrite — it never held me enthralled the way Killing Pablo and White Jazz do.

What’s that writing process like, where you are brought in as a work-for-hire? Is it just a different challenge?

I think so. I hope I can become a good enough filmmaker where I can take a script that I’m not “heart and soul” into, but I could still make something really great out of it. I don’t know how to do that yet. It has to be an “in for a penny and out for a pound” process for me.

But never a “one for me, one for them” deal, right?

I feel like you just go down a very dark road when you do that. I used to think that was a great idea, but I’m not sure now. But you never know, man. Whatever way the wind is blowing on any given day; I wouldn’t say I’d do a certain thing today, but then I could feel differently about it tomorrow. You never know. I think that’s what’s great about life when you’re given the opportunity to make movies: you never know. Right now, if I can stay in L.A. and be close with my wife and the kids, that’s what I want to do. I don’t want to trudge off to the far corners of the earth, but if that means somebody beats me to the punch on a Pablo Escobar film, then I’m going to make that movie.

[Spoilers for The Grey]

To bring it back to The Grey, I have to ask about the final scene. Can you discuss how it came about in its finished form?

There was another ending that was tacked on; not tacked on, but there was another, initial ending in the script. There was a fight, a shot fight. I just thought, for my money, it became very plain in editing: is this a movie about a man living his life and confronting death, or is it a movie about a guy fighting a wolf? That didn’t seem to be a question for me, as we were near to completing the movie. I knew it was about a guy confronting death, so that made it quite easy to end the film where we ended it. If you come out pissed off it didn’t happen the way you wanted it to happen, then you missed the point of the film, and you didn’t engage with the film the way you should have. That’s how I feel about that.

To me, his arc is done where you cut. 

You’re absolutely right. You know, it’ll be interesting to see the reactions of people coming out of the theater. I think it’ll be a commentary on where we are as filmgoers, in some weird way. Like, if people can’t accept something that questions, as opposed to something that provides you with perfect punctuation.

There is that nice hint at the end of the credits, though. Early on in the film, you see Ottway listen to that wolf dying, and that final shot could be interpreted as him doing the same thing.

That’s exactly what it’s intended to be. It was intended to be a small harkening back to that moment with him and the wolf earlier.

I think you love that character too much by the end to kill him.

Yeah, I don’t know, dude. I don’t show him being alive or dead, you don’t really see him. You’re not meant to make that connection beyond that one little image. That’s all I wanted to leave it with.

Have you seen a lot of people arguing about it?

No, but if people come out of a film arguing, you’ve done your work. You’ve done exactly what you need to do. Most people — and I’m certainly one of them — come out of a movie [thinking], “Alright, where did I park?” I don’t care if you hate the film; the movie will definitely stay with you.

Did you test screen the film?

I did early on. It was interesting — people were bitching that it was not what they wanted by the end of the film. There’s a vast difference between marketing a movie and the movie itself. You try to cast as wide and broad a net as possible. Even the people who were reported to hate the film, when asked if they would talk about it the next day, they all raised their hands. When they were asked if they’d talk about it the following Monday at work, they all raised their hands.

[Spoilers Over]

Another sequence I want to touch on is the plane crash. If I recall right, you don’t cut to the outside of the plane. When you think of a scene such as that, do you try to approach it in a way that goes against how it would usually be shot?

I think so. I think you have to, dude. I just wanted to make the experience of the whole film very subjective, and the plane crash is certainly a part of that. I think every time you set out to do something, you should try to, first and foremost, not follow what others have done. I think the only cue I took was… I love Fearless and Peter Weir‘s rendition of a plane crash, and I thought that was a good starting point. Certainly the violence that would follow and being at the mercy of that plane and what was going to happen to you was a lot more exciting.

I’m glad you mentioned Fearless. Not enough people talk about that movie.

Oh, it’s a great film. It’s great.

I love it. To wrap, I have to ask about Nemesis. It’s a cool comic, but it’s not exactly the most mainstream or audience-friendly material. If you make that film, how would you go about adapting that?

You know, it’s an interesting question. I think you have to… obviously this is a conversation Mark Millar and I are going to have in the next couple of weeks. I just love the idea of the anti-Bruce Wayne — the guy who’s not kind, but a menace and a malevolent guy. I don’t how, brother. Obviously you read that [comic], and the stunts in there are completely over-the-top. There’s a guy back-flipping over a motorcycle and firing an RPG into a helicopter, [Laughs] and right there is a $12 million stunt. It’s going to take some work and some thought.

The Grey is now in theaters.


Super Bowl Ad for ‘The Avengers’ Suggests This May Just Be the Sleeper Hit of the Summer

$
0
0

I tease of course. The Avengers is almost guaranteed to be a gigantic hit this summer and probably one of the year’s highest grossers. The film has a built-in audience by virtue of its characters, history and the intentionally structured universe that Marvel has created with the earlier films.

It’s going to be huge thanks to the presence of Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo/CGI) and others. And it’s going to be fun thanks to Joss Whedon in the director’s chair.

But will it be any good? All signs point to yes, and that’s including the new TV spot below.

We have a Hulk indeed.

Most of this ad consists of footage we’ve already seen, but there are a couple new and notable highlights. The Hulk bitch slapping a flying vehicle out of the sky is cool, but for me the money shot is the verbal face-off that preceded it. Tony Stark vs Loki? Love it.

We expect the action and effects to entertain, but I’m hoping that Whedon and friends take this opportunity to also feature lots of character interactions. These are some fun personalities, and it’s good to let them breathe a bit before tossing them into battle.

The Avengers opens May 4th.

Super Bowl Ad for ‘Battleship’ Shows Rihanna Go Boom

$
0
0

Director Peter Berg is making his bid for A-level status (box office-wise) this summer with an adaptation of the Hasbro game Battleship. That, by the way, is a complete misuse of the term ‘adaptation’ seeing as the game has zero story elements to adapt. Maybe if the movie featured naval combatants going head to head and controlled by unseen forces? Or if the aliens were manipulating ships to fight each other? I don’t know, I’m just spit-balling here, but you can see how difficult it would be to make a good movie from the game.

So why do it?

Obviously Universal is hoping to find the same success with Hasbro that Paramount has with their Transformers movies, but it’s still so nonsensical. The Battleship name offers no recognizable pull for audiences. These aren’t fighting robots that viewers have seen in action previously on TV or via toys in their hands…this is a board game with no moving pieces. The film could exist exactly as is under a different name and would end up with the exact same box office results.

Check out the new ad below.

Berg has made some good films (The Rundown, Friday Night Lights) and one great one (The Kingdom), but my expectations are still pretty low for his latest. Part of it stems from the sheer stupidity of linking this (or any movie) to a game like Battleship.

But my biggest issue here is the film’s obvious attempt to emulate Bay’s Transformers movies. The giant, bladed balls of metallic mayhem? The modulated robotic sounds? The vapid-looking cast of people erroneously referred to as “actors”?

And if the “battle for Earth begins at sea” why does more than half of the ad’s action take place on land? Did they just spoil the fact that the aliens defeat the Navy and move their forces inland? Or is the marketing department just phoning it in…

Battleship opens May 18th.

Harrison Ford Might Be Back for ‘Blade Runner’

$
0
0

As if it were 1982 all over again, Harrison Ford is in talks to star in Blade Runner. According to Twitch Film, Ford is in the early stages of discussing the possibility – meaning that it could be a reunion for the movie star of the modern blockbuster with Ridley Scott, the director who’s revisiting his modern blockbusters.

That must mean that Ford and Scott have truly reconciled. Ford publicly stated he disliked the process of making Blade Runner, noting that he fought with Scott and absolutely hated having to go back and do the moronic voice over narration (and rightfully so). Scott on the other hand once responded to a question about the biggest asshat he’d ever worked with by calling up Ford’s name. Good to see them working together again. If the deal gets made.

It’s still a long way until that happens and until the movie gets made. Scott has Prometheus coming out this year, and there is a slate and a half of possible movies and television shows for Scott to dig into next.

With any hope, these two share some ink and take us into the near future in the near future.

Boiling Point: More Blu-ray Special Features Going “Full Special”

$
0
0

Boiling Point

I’ve got a bit of an obsessive compulsive issue when it comes to DVDs and Blu-rays. I’m one of those suckers who will get caught every so often in a double-dip if I’m not paying attention. If I am being observant, I’m the guy who waits four extra months to get a disc with some special features attached. I really dug Transformers 3 and wanted to watch it again, but I’ll be damned if I was going to buy a disc with no extras on it!

The issue that has my panties all aflame this week is all about special features and the lack thereof. Oh, most discs today come with some special features on them, but the “featurette” has become the bane of my existence. It used to just be what they called small extras on the disc, but now they’ve really emphasized the -ette, meaning mini, small, or useless.

I recently popped in The Thing (2011) for a viewing. I enjoyed the movie, mostly because of the grotesque creature designs and my undying love for Carpenter’s film. So, enjoying the movie, I was pretty excited to revisit and take a look at some of the special features. There were two “featurettes” included, The Thing Evolves and Fire & Ice. 

The latter feature came first for me, because I do what I want, and let me tell you it was an interesting four minutes (and by that I mean it was a short four minutes). The Thing Evolves was actually pretty decent, closer to fourteen or fifteen minutes, but why even have Fire & Ice as a separate feature? When it’s that short, just push them together and make a cool 20 minute little feature.

There is a lot of this going around, you get a disc and read the back of the packaging and think you’re in for a treat because there are like 10 featurettes listed! Cool! Wait, why are they only ninety seconds long? This is bullshit!

If you have ten 90 second little pieces of shit, that’s 900 seconds. Divide by 60, carry the one, type it into a calculator and that equals 15 minutes. Oh, hey, that’s the size of one cool feature – so again, why are we dividing this into a dozen small sections that I have to keep picking up my remote and hitting “Play” to move on to the next one for? Advertising I guess? For show? To make the back of the package look stacked? Fuck. Makes no sense!

At least those discs have some special features, I just have to use this short paragraph to give the middle finger to discs that are “rushed” to press because people “demand” to see the film again sooner rather than later (Fuck you, James Cameron, Avatar sucked). Put some features on the discs. There is a lot of space there. Use it. Releasing a bare bones disc has become common place, and I want to partly blame Netflix and Redbox and similar services, since those rental copies generally don’t include features. So, since the company is already pressing rental discs, why not try to trick a few consumers into buying a shitty release?

On the subject of special features, let me tell you which ones aren’t special at all: U-Control, BD Live, pocket BLU and anything like that. Pocket BLU is neat because you can unlock content, but that content is often stored on the disc anyways, or just some shitty trailers. Those ‘special features’ all assume for some reason I want to play with my iPhone during the movie or get live weather updates while staring at the menu. No thanks. D-BOX motion doesn’t really shake me up either, who has a fucking D-BOX chair in their house?

Trailers for other movies and photo galleries aren’t shit either. What’s so special about that? You already gave me the option to watch trailers when the disc was first inserted, I’m not going to go back and look at them from the special features menu, especially when I have an internet connection and can call up any trailer on demand at any time. Pretty much the same goes for photo galleries – I have the internet for that, plus I have the movie to watch so I probably just saw all those photos, but as moving pictures.

Don’t get me wrong, a photo gallery of behind the scenes stuff might be neat, as long as it’s part of a bigger collection of special features. When it’s listed on the box as a selling point, you know you’re about to get a shitty set of extras.

What is cool? Making-of featurettes, commentary, deleted and extended scenes, stunt featurettes, documentary stuff. All of that is cool. We like those. Especially if they have some meat to them and aren’t some 90 second internet released piece of shit that you sent out to all the websites two months in advance as advertising. We want original content with some thought behind it. Put the special in special features, not the “special.” (Confused? Read this)

In summation, most discs today are coming equipped with ‘full special’ (that is to say, retarded) special features. They’re either short and disjointed or absent all together and let me tell you, when I come across a movie I enjoy and I want to further experience, this lack of depth in the ‘special’ features pushes me past my boiling point.

Click here for 90 more seconds of extended Boiling Point content

Short Film Of The Day: A Symphony Visualized as a Roller Coaster

$
0
0

Why Watch? Brilliant concept, thrilling execution.

This stunning animation from virtual republic takes the sheet music for the 1st violin of the 2nd symphony, 4th movement by Ferdinand Ries and transforms it into a heart-pounding experience. It’s a cunning way to use the eye to prove how soaring and effective music can be.

What will it cost? Only 1 minute.

Skip Work. You’ve Got Time For More Short Films.

Viewing all 22121 articles
Browse latest View live