I kinda just saw this today. and finally realized what it was from. i think its amazing how much our current Tv refers to past great movies.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Golden Globe Nominations!
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/the-68th-golden-globe-awards-nominations-announced
I'm pretty surprised that Alice in Wonderland got multiple nominations.
& Burlesque being nominated at all, what?? If that is nominated for Comedy/Musical where the heck is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World?
Wacky stuff.
I'm pretty surprised that Alice in Wonderland got multiple nominations.
& Burlesque being nominated at all, what?? If that is nominated for Comedy/Musical where the heck is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World?
Wacky stuff.
Monday, December 6, 2010
NEWSPAPERS, NEWSPAPERS EVERYWHERE
This has nothing to do with anything, but I thought it was interesting. :)
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Cars 2 - Official Teaser Trailer [HD]
Aaaaanndddd...there goes Pixar's reputation. Guess what else is coming up?! Monsters Inc 2!
SEQUELS. SEQUELS EVERYWHERE.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Tons going on locally...let's discuss attending some of it
The Noyes Museum has partnered with the Stockton PAC to bring a variety of really cool and cinema-relevant artistic events to the So Jo (not normally known for its arts scene). Check them out here. I think the Monday monologues sound especially fun and cool. Sunday, November 7, 2010
Week's Reading: Preservation
Preservation: Why Are Films And Videos Disappearing?
Nitrate Films
Nitrate-base film stock, in theatrical use until 1951, is hazardous to store and decays even in controlled archival storage. No way has been found to prevent the self-destruction process to which every foot of nitrate eventually will succumb. And there is no mistaking the end result. The film surface becomes sticky, and the image shifts and fades beyond recall as the celluloid itself turns first into a coagulate and finally into brown powder. In the final stage of decomposition, the flashpoint is lower than that of newsprint and, because the gases given off by the decomposing nitrate can build up pressure, spontaneous combustion is possible.
The technology for archival preservation has existed for more than 30 years, but the work remaining to copy nitrate films onto modern acetate "safety" stock is enormous. American archives presently hold approximately 105 million feet of nitrate film (of the unique or best surviving material on a title) which will take 15 years to preserve at the present rate of copying. Nitrate holdings awaiting preservation in private and corporate hands, including newsreels, major studio collections, American films in foreign archives, and independent productions, are estimated to be equal to that currently awaiting copying in the archives.
Color Films
Virtually all current production for film and television today consists of color film in single strip emulsion. It has been learned from bitter experience that, unlike the earlier three-strip Technicolor process, today's color film can fade irretrievably in as little as five years. The gradual shifting of color values can advance quickly to a point at which the original release quality cannot be recovered without making compromises in contrast, definition, and overall image quality.
Unlike the problem of preserving nitrate films, where the method of preservation is well known, there is no practical solution for preserving the color in single strip emulsion safety film. There are a number of possibilities, including improved, longer-lasting film emulsions, laser holographic techniques, videodisc, and digital storage, but they require further research and development.
The only way to preserve color images is to generate three black-and-white records of each of the primary colors. But the cost for this easily can be $40,000 per feature-length film, plus subsequent charges for storage, maintenance, and the retrieval of a recombined, correctly registered color image from the separations.
At present, the only cost-effective means of dealing with color fading is to slow it down by storing color films in vaults designed to maintain below freezing temperatures and low humidity. This is a stop-gap measure, however, and while cold storage may prolong the life of color films, it cannot ensure their survival until the time when it may be possible to transfer the images onto an archivally stable medium.
The "Vinegar" Syndrome
As early as 1912 safety (non-flammable) film stock was developed for non-theatrical use. This "diacetate" safety film was used extensively in educational, religious, and amateur films, and often gives off an odor of camphor.
Modern safety film bases usually are composed either of acetyl cellulose (triacetate) or polyester (product names "Estar" or "Cronar"). When exposed to a flame, modern safety film will curl and extinguish itself. When properly stored over the course of its lifetime, safety film should not decompose over time and is estimated to have a shelf life as long as that for good quality paper, approximately 200 to 300 years. Proper storage will also minimize shrinkage and brittleness in the film.
It is important to note, however, that during the past several years, archivists and technical experts have learned that triacetate film is not always as stable as was once believed. In a number of collections, acetate degradation has been identified as a new and potentially serious problem for preservationists. Commonly referred to as the "vinegar syndrome" (because of the strong vinegar-like odor given off by deteriorating acetate), acetate degradation proceeds in a way not dissimilar to nitrate deterioration, although without the flammability factor. The problem has proven to be especially serious in films improperly stored in high temperature and humidity environments, where many aspects of deterioration--loss of plasticizer from the base causing curling, buckling, shrinkage, and brittleness--are clearly accelerated. It is also believed that the problem is contagious, and that degrading acetate films can infect other films stored in the same area.
The most common gauges on safety stock are 70mm, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm, Super-8mm, and a number of early gauges which utilized diacetate safety including 9.5mm, 22mm, 28mm, and some 17.5mm (positives only.)
Television & Video Tape
At the four major television networks, there are an estimated 100,000 television programs. Combined with the holdings of the major television archives and syndicators, as many as 200,000 hours of television are being safeguarded.
Much of the early 1940s and 1950s live television programming is lost for the simple reason that it was never recorded on any medium. Until the late 1950s and early 1960s, television shows were mastered onto films or were recorded onto kinescopes (photographed onto film directly from television screens during broadcast). Such programs can be preserved as films. Videotape came into use in the late 1950s as a means of recording television shows. The survival rate for programs recorded on tape -- and even today's broadcasting -- may be as low as that for the very early years of television, since attempts at preservation are hampered by a lack of knowledge concerning the useable life of videotape.
Estimates of the shelf life of videotape range from as low as 5 to 20 years, to as high as 100 or more years, An enormous amount of television programming survives only on videotape. However, since tapes are erasable for re-use, economic rather than archival considerations can often dictate the survival of any given program.
One more significant problem for television preservation concerns equipment. Because of the rapid development of videotape technology, equipment to record and play back tapes has often become obsolete. Formats -- such as the half-inch reel-to-reel portable machines of the late 1960s and early 1970s -- are no longer in use today. As a result, the work of many independent video artists, as well as anthropologists or sociologists, is endangered because the equipment needed to preserve their works is frighteningly scarce. This is equally true for a widely-used format such as two-inch broadcast tape. Thus, for television preservation, there is a need to preserve equipment as well as programming to ensure that the images may be retrieved and viewed in the future.
To address the area of videotape preservation, the Center has initiated a number of projects. These have included the two-year "National Moratorium on the Disposal of Television Programming," initiated in 1986, and the preparation of comprehensive national guidelines for "The Selection of Television Programs for Retention and Preservation." These selection guidelines were distributed to the nation's television networks, broadcast groups and production companies in 1988.
In 1987, the Center organized the first national conference for local television news archives, the largest and fastest growing constituency in the moving image archival field today. In 1990 it completed the negotiation of an agreement between Capital Cities/ABC Inc., the UCLA Film and Television Archive, and the Museum of Television and Radio that facilitated the donation of the history of ABC's entertainment programming -- over 20,000 programs from 1950 to 1980 -- to the national collection. Currently, the Center is overseeing a federally-funded grant project to write and publish a basic curatorial manual covering all aspects involved in the administration of television newsfilm and videotape collections.
Nitrate Films
Nitrate-base film stock, in theatrical use until 1951, is hazardous to store and decays even in controlled archival storage. No way has been found to prevent the self-destruction process to which every foot of nitrate eventually will succumb. And there is no mistaking the end result. The film surface becomes sticky, and the image shifts and fades beyond recall as the celluloid itself turns first into a coagulate and finally into brown powder. In the final stage of decomposition, the flashpoint is lower than that of newsprint and, because the gases given off by the decomposing nitrate can build up pressure, spontaneous combustion is possible.
The technology for archival preservation has existed for more than 30 years, but the work remaining to copy nitrate films onto modern acetate "safety" stock is enormous. American archives presently hold approximately 105 million feet of nitrate film (of the unique or best surviving material on a title) which will take 15 years to preserve at the present rate of copying. Nitrate holdings awaiting preservation in private and corporate hands, including newsreels, major studio collections, American films in foreign archives, and independent productions, are estimated to be equal to that currently awaiting copying in the archives.
Color Films
Virtually all current production for film and television today consists of color film in single strip emulsion. It has been learned from bitter experience that, unlike the earlier three-strip Technicolor process, today's color film can fade irretrievably in as little as five years. The gradual shifting of color values can advance quickly to a point at which the original release quality cannot be recovered without making compromises in contrast, definition, and overall image quality.
Unlike the problem of preserving nitrate films, where the method of preservation is well known, there is no practical solution for preserving the color in single strip emulsion safety film. There are a number of possibilities, including improved, longer-lasting film emulsions, laser holographic techniques, videodisc, and digital storage, but they require further research and development.
The only way to preserve color images is to generate three black-and-white records of each of the primary colors. But the cost for this easily can be $40,000 per feature-length film, plus subsequent charges for storage, maintenance, and the retrieval of a recombined, correctly registered color image from the separations.
At present, the only cost-effective means of dealing with color fading is to slow it down by storing color films in vaults designed to maintain below freezing temperatures and low humidity. This is a stop-gap measure, however, and while cold storage may prolong the life of color films, it cannot ensure their survival until the time when it may be possible to transfer the images onto an archivally stable medium.
The "Vinegar" Syndrome
As early as 1912 safety (non-flammable) film stock was developed for non-theatrical use. This "diacetate" safety film was used extensively in educational, religious, and amateur films, and often gives off an odor of camphor.
Modern safety film bases usually are composed either of acetyl cellulose (triacetate) or polyester (product names "Estar" or "Cronar"). When exposed to a flame, modern safety film will curl and extinguish itself. When properly stored over the course of its lifetime, safety film should not decompose over time and is estimated to have a shelf life as long as that for good quality paper, approximately 200 to 300 years. Proper storage will also minimize shrinkage and brittleness in the film.
It is important to note, however, that during the past several years, archivists and technical experts have learned that triacetate film is not always as stable as was once believed. In a number of collections, acetate degradation has been identified as a new and potentially serious problem for preservationists. Commonly referred to as the "vinegar syndrome" (because of the strong vinegar-like odor given off by deteriorating acetate), acetate degradation proceeds in a way not dissimilar to nitrate deterioration, although without the flammability factor. The problem has proven to be especially serious in films improperly stored in high temperature and humidity environments, where many aspects of deterioration--loss of plasticizer from the base causing curling, buckling, shrinkage, and brittleness--are clearly accelerated. It is also believed that the problem is contagious, and that degrading acetate films can infect other films stored in the same area.
The most common gauges on safety stock are 70mm, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm, Super-8mm, and a number of early gauges which utilized diacetate safety including 9.5mm, 22mm, 28mm, and some 17.5mm (positives only.)
Television & Video Tape
At the four major television networks, there are an estimated 100,000 television programs. Combined with the holdings of the major television archives and syndicators, as many as 200,000 hours of television are being safeguarded.
Much of the early 1940s and 1950s live television programming is lost for the simple reason that it was never recorded on any medium. Until the late 1950s and early 1960s, television shows were mastered onto films or were recorded onto kinescopes (photographed onto film directly from television screens during broadcast). Such programs can be preserved as films. Videotape came into use in the late 1950s as a means of recording television shows. The survival rate for programs recorded on tape -- and even today's broadcasting -- may be as low as that for the very early years of television, since attempts at preservation are hampered by a lack of knowledge concerning the useable life of videotape.
Estimates of the shelf life of videotape range from as low as 5 to 20 years, to as high as 100 or more years, An enormous amount of television programming survives only on videotape. However, since tapes are erasable for re-use, economic rather than archival considerations can often dictate the survival of any given program.
One more significant problem for television preservation concerns equipment. Because of the rapid development of videotape technology, equipment to record and play back tapes has often become obsolete. Formats -- such as the half-inch reel-to-reel portable machines of the late 1960s and early 1970s -- are no longer in use today. As a result, the work of many independent video artists, as well as anthropologists or sociologists, is endangered because the equipment needed to preserve their works is frighteningly scarce. This is equally true for a widely-used format such as two-inch broadcast tape. Thus, for television preservation, there is a need to preserve equipment as well as programming to ensure that the images may be retrieved and viewed in the future.
To address the area of videotape preservation, the Center has initiated a number of projects. These have included the two-year "National Moratorium on the Disposal of Television Programming," initiated in 1986, and the preparation of comprehensive national guidelines for "The Selection of Television Programs for Retention and Preservation." These selection guidelines were distributed to the nation's television networks, broadcast groups and production companies in 1988.
In 1987, the Center organized the first national conference for local television news archives, the largest and fastest growing constituency in the moving image archival field today. In 1990 it completed the negotiation of an agreement between Capital Cities/ABC Inc., the UCLA Film and Television Archive, and the Museum of Television and Radio that facilitated the donation of the history of ABC's entertainment programming -- over 20,000 programs from 1950 to 1980 -- to the national collection. Currently, the Center is overseeing a federally-funded grant project to write and publish a basic curatorial manual covering all aspects involved in the administration of television newsfilm and videotape collections.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
A Tyler Perry Movie without Madea
As I was watching television this afternoon, this trailer for Tyler Perry's latest film came on. At first, I didn't even recognize the film being Tyler Perry's as most of his work seemed to revolve around Madea, the elderly woman played by Perry himself that reflects the stereotype of the Mammy. This time though, I think Tyler Perry finally has something good in his hands in making a film that doesn't mock the black stereotypes but portrays the struggle of black women. Using a cast consisting of celebrities such as Janet Jackson, Whoopi Goldberg, and Anika Noni Rose, I think Perry devised the same plan that we read in the race article about the overall selling ability of a movie that's predominantly black.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Gentlemen, I wish to speak for the trees
Well, it's that time again.
Time for another movie based on your favorite children's author: Seuss.
http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/52488575.html
Oh, hey! What's this?! More 3D animation! Awesome! Not to mention the art styles in these movies can never look similar to Seuss' style in the books without making it 2D! (Which will never happen!) THE ANIMATION NERD INSIDE OF ME IS RAGING.
And I love Danny DeVito a whole bunch but just because he's short and chubby doesn't mean he has to be the Lorax. To me, it doesn't fit. Oh well.
Also! Who needs books anymore? THEY ARE ALL MOVIES.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Do the Right Thing Assignments
The following articles shall be used to complement our viewing of Do the Right Thing. Journals, both when collected and when checked for completion, will be graded for both English and history.
The first, reaction will be Journal #11, is about Tyler Perry and his audience. The second, coupled with your general "review" or reaction about the movie (remember: reviews are based on preference, not analysis, trust me, that will come later) to be labeled as Journal #12.
The film will be finished on Tuesday (you have triple media on Monday). Wednesday, journals will be checked. If they're done, we will watch The Messenger. If not (and let's face it...), we will begin a writing workshop (which will occur on the following Monday if you do succeed).
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Did we lose the greatest TV parents of all time this week?
This week, the entertainment world lost two of the most beloved TV parents of all time (Tom Bosley 1927 - 2010, Howard Cunningham on "Happy Days" & Barbara Billingsley, June Cleaver on "Leave It to Beaver").
Leads me to wonder (Journal #10), if you could choose a TV mom and dad to replace your own, whom would you choose and why?
Definitive lists of the greatest TV parents have been compiled by TV Guide and something called Mother's Day Central.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Philadelphia Film Festival
After reading through the Philadelphia Film Festival (which is taking place Thursday October 14th-Sunday October 24th) booklet, I thought I'd share some of the most highly praised and highly anticipated selections.
The first is 127 Hours, but Cass already took care of that. :)
- Black Swan (Directed by Darren Aronofsky. Official release December 1st, 2010)
"Black Swan is an amazing piece of cinematic film making, but it is not a film for everyone. At its foundation, Black Swan is a psychological horror film, with disturbing imagery and genuine "jump out of your seat" scares. Done with stunning visuals and masterful performances, however, Black Swan combines a rare mix of beauty and grotesquerie for an incredible ballet of cinema." -- Andrew Greenblatt
- Night Catches Us (Directed by Tanya Hamilton, limited release December 3rd, 2010)
"Striving to create the most realistic depiction possible, Hamilton seamlessly incorporates actual historical documents such as archival footage, old leaflets and political cartoons produced by th Black Panther Party. Along with a retro-soul score supplied by Philly-legends The Roots and a script of uncommon intelligence, Hamilton's Night Catches Us vividly captures the seething tensions of a city and its people attempting to reconcile a tumultuous past with a brighter future. In recreating such a world, director Tanya Hamilton firmly announces herself as a fresh, important voice in Independent American cinema." -- Andrew Greenblatt
- Blue Valentine (Directed by Derek Cianfrance, limited release December 31st, 2010)
"Selected not only by Sundance, but also Cannes, filmmaker Derek Cianfrance's poetic portrait is made up of a collection of specific memories, assembled non-chronologically, the way someone might recall, on their deathbed, the true love of their life. Shot in a beautiful yet starkly realistic pallet, and featuring a haunting score by the Brooklyn-based folk rock band Grizzly Bear, Blue Valentine is sentimental but far from sappy." -- Michael Lerman
*note* Grizzly Bear and The Roots? If praised for nothing else, Blue Valentine and Night Catches Us should be recognized for having awesome bands providing their scores.
On a more serious note, I must also point out that on October 22nd, the Festival will be featuring the cinematic genius that is The Room.
"Incredible directing, incomparable writing, and brilliant acting make The Room the most poignant and important movie to date. If I was given the opportunity to meet Tommy Wiseau, I would probably die from the sheer awesomeness of his presence. His hair is really nice too." -- Alix Leszczynski
Friday, October 8, 2010
Don't Give Up...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2XLoQ1xYB0
(If you do not know the story of Aaron Ralston/if you like surprises, do not watch this second video.)
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Hitchcock, the Kuleshov Effect, and Soviet Montage Theory
Just in case Lockwood hasn't taught it yet, this is the Kuleshov Effect. This comes from the Soviet Theory of montage. I heard you all are working on silent films so keep this is mind. You don't need dialog or much action to control what you want your audience to feel or think. These are the examples how shots and editing can be used reveal underlying plot lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_montage_theory
Ex. Kuleshov Effect
Ex. Soviet Montage Theory
The French being French
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_montage_theory
Ex. Kuleshov Effect
Ex. Soviet Montage Theory
The French being French
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
You thought 3D was cool check out 3D sound!
Only works with head phones on!
Both videos are pretty awesome
Both videos are pretty awesome
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Class Notes 09/15: 70s Cultural Television explosion
MONDAY: 
Seinfeld was the rated the #1 TV show of all time by TV Guide. We will watch I Love Lucy on Monday, at which time, your 2nd journal: reflections on 50s TV will be due for Tuesday.
TUESDAY & WEDNESDAY: We will watch some episodes of the Twilight Zone for the sake of pointing out the transitional nature of TV from the 50s into the 60s. Rising divorce rates and youth movements through the 60s pushes executives to illustrate "less traditional" families, think the difference between the shows we've watched when compared to the more "fantastic" shows that rules the 60s like Bewitched (we will watch in class) & Beverly Hillbillies. (watch on your own).
Journal #3: Reactions to 60s TV due Thursday.
On your own, consider the explosion of urban and ethnic themed TV in the 70s. Chico and the Man. Welcome Back Kotter. Good Times. Sanford & Son.
For help, consider the following excerpt from Christine Acham's book: Revolution Televised: Prime Time and the Struggle for Black Power.
Seinfeld was the rated the #1 TV show of all time by TV Guide. We will watch I Love Lucy on Monday, at which time, your 2nd journal: reflections on 50s TV will be due for Tuesday. TUESDAY & WEDNESDAY: We will watch some episodes of the Twilight Zone for the sake of pointing out the transitional nature of TV from the 50s into the 60s. Rising divorce rates and youth movements through the 60s pushes executives to illustrate "less traditional" families, think the difference between the shows we've watched when compared to the more "fantastic" shows that rules the 60s like Bewitched (we will watch in class) & Beverly Hillbillies. (watch on your own).
Journal #3: Reactions to 60s TV due Thursday.
On your own, consider the explosion of urban and ethnic themed TV in the 70s. Chico and the Man. Welcome Back Kotter. Good Times. Sanford & Son.
For help, consider the following excerpt from Christine Acham's book: Revolution Televised: Prime Time and the Struggle for Black Power.
Moreover, Acham is able to draw stylistic and textual linkages between this history and black television in the seventies. This lineage is more than theoretical, as some of the performers on black television in the sixties and seventies were shaped by their involvement in these black performance spaces. Redd Foxx, a comedian whose Los Angeles comedy club was a venue for comedians ranging from the more mainstream Bill Colby to the controversial Richard Pryor, was also no stranger to controversial and “blue” material. While he apparently did not have a large white following, NBC saw the lucrative potential in brining him on board to star in Sanford and Son, a comedy starring an African American family based on a British sitcom. Redd Foxx played a widowed patriarch and his son Lamant was played by Demond Wilson. The two lived on a meager income in Watts, Los Angeles, made famous by the black uprisings there in 1965. While many criticized the show for its “negative” stereotypes about blackness, Acham points out that Foxx was able to use the venue to offer a showcase to a number of lesser known black artists who would make appearances on the show. Additionally, she points out that the white character was far more caricatured than the black characters and therefore, his portrayal represented a form of social critique.
Acham argues that the types of humor seen on television in the 1970s have their origins in “communal black spaces,” which were produced by the color line and Jim Crow segregation. Acham sees the emergence of these performance traditions from these spaces to the publicity of television as an emergence into the public sphere. She argues that this transition from African Americans laughing amongst themselves to sharing humor with a multi-racial television audience challenged white racism, celebrated working class black aesthetics, and made middle class blacks very uncomfortable.
While the forms of Black humor originating on the black theater circuit signaled resistance to white norms and white oppression, these forms were not designed with a white audience in mind. Thus, Acham argues, when comedies with their roots in this theater tradition began to circulate on television, a middle class concern with racial uplift informed critics’ dismissal of African American comedies such as Sanford and Son.
While her historical interpretation is based in secondary sources, Acham’s original contributions are evident in her close reading of the programs. Her class-based argument allows for new readings of texts that have been maligned and dismissed. Despite the tremendous structural racism in the television industry, Acham sees a possibility for resistance, and is able to demonstrate it convincingly. Significantly, she also focuses mostly on comedies, and situates enjoyment by black viewers as, itself, a possible form of resistance. She sees this enjoyment as politicizing rather than palliative.
“I highlight the many ways in which black people used the media, specifically television, for community purposes, as a political voice for social change, for enjoyment and for self affirmation” (Acham 20).In the move from the near invisibility of African Americans on television in the forties, fifties and sixties to what Acham terms the “hyper blackness” of the late sixties and 1970s something important happened. Where some middle class critics see “jokesters,” Acham finds the possibility of resistance. Building on cultural history such as the work of Kevin Gaines, Acham ties the notion of uplift to middle class African Americans. She claims that middle class ideologies dominate the critical dialogue around black televisual representations in the seventies and lead towards dismissal. This is a mistake, as television was doing important political work during this revolutionary period in black history.
Extra Credit for answers to the following questions:
1. Who is Chico's famous son?
2. What role is "The Man" famous for?
3. Which sweathog graduated from Rowan?
4. What was John Travolta's famous catch-phrase before he stole the world's heart in Saturday Night Fever?
5. What is the man who played Jethro on the Beverly Hillibillies most famous for?
5. What is the man who played Jethro on the Beverly Hillibillies most famous for?
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
M.Night Shyamalan, you're a disgrace to all movie directors.
I had a feeling that he would mess it up
but i didnt think it would be THAT bad
terrible character set up
terrible acting
terrible cinematography
I give him credit for making the entire movie look as if a ten year old was playing around with his very first camera
final judgement: couldnt be anymore disappointed
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
How To Report The News
http://www.break.com/index/how-to-report-the-news.html
It's very much like the "Academy Award-Winning Movie" thing we watched, only this time with the news.
It's very much like the "Academy Award-Winning Movie" thing we watched, only this time with the news.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Felidae
As I was perusing YouTube, I started to stumble upon various animated features starring animals (you can thank looking for Watership Down and Plague Dogs for this discovery....) when I happened upon one titled Felidae. I started watching and was immediately hooked. I'm not sure if it was due to the animation or the detective show feel that seems to pervade the narration, but it has become one of my fast favorites.
Based on the novel by Akif Pirincci, Felidae follows the story of a tom cat named Francis who has moved to a new town thanks to his human, an aspiring writer. Upon entry to his new and run-down home, Francis meets Blue Beard, a scraggily, bitter, street worn old tom and through him is introduced to a strange under world, filled with violence, intrigue, and murder. Several murders in fact. Cats are disappearing or turning up dead and it's up to Francis to find out why.
One thing I find most shocking about Felidae however, is just how serious of a story it really is. There are many mature adult themes that are not usually shown in this kind of caricatured cartoon format, the only few others like this I could think of are mentioned above. Murder, sex, torture, even complex topics like genetic engineering and natural selection are all covered. Heck, one of the characters to appear is Mendel! (For those of you who don't know who Mendel is, READ A BOOK PEOPLE! DO A DARN GOOGLE SEARCH!) Overall though, Felidae is an excellent film which can be found on youTube for anyone interested.
Side note: Felidae is actually rather gory/bloody and the language is a little iffy. The trailer is above if anyone has slight interest. Also, Felidae is not a recent film since it came out in 1994 so it will most likely be hard to find off the internet.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Most Disturbing Movie? Or The Most Heroic?
I know this is sort of random…but i have to let you guys know about this horrible clip that i saw on youtube. I'm not going to post the video because it was WAY to graphic, so I'll just explain it.
It’s called Watership Down it’s an old 70’s movie about rabbits in the wild. It’s meant for 8 year olds but…i don’t even think its suitable for adults. I watched a clip of it on youtube and I wanted to cry…it was absolutely horrible.
I’ll just tell you about clip I saw first… when it first comes on it’s playing Marylin Manson’s Sweet Dreams and there is a shot of the rabbit’s eye then you see another rabbit watch another one be taken by a hawk. After that there are bunnies being gassed and their heads float around in the most disturbing way. You just sit and watch the bunnies eye clench and roll back in their heads just for one last gasp for air. I started crying at this part… After that there are more rabbits in a tunnel and two of them start fighting, the one has it throat ripped out while the other bunnies hide in fear. Shortly after bunnies are shown tearing apart another helpless rabbit. Then there are shots of birds taking the bunnies and a cat shredding up a bunny and a dog chasing the rabbits…catches one then throws it up in the air a chews it up. Finally there is this scene where a rabbit is struggling to hold on to its life…where it is greeted by a bunny ghost..and there it dies and you watch its soul leave it’s body…and the bunny ghost skip around in the air, on their way to the promised land…All of these shots where GRAPHIC!
and what makes it worse is the fact that it’s animated and it’s rated PG
http://www.impawards.com/1978/posters/watership_down.jpg
http://www.premiere.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/watership-down/594921-1-eng-US/watership-down.jpg
^
All of the above was written when i had only seen the clip on youtube...but the movie is so different from that. Yes that violence does occur but the movie is not about the killing of bunnies. That clip was extremely misleading. The youtube clip had me crying because it was so awful but the movie had me crying because it was such a heroic journey. All of the horrible shots in the youtube clip all happen, it's just that there is legitimate reasoning for the event( if that makes any sense) I don't want to ruin the movie, but I'll give you an example. The runt bunny has this vision (the gassing of the bunnies) that all of the rabbits in their warren is going to be killed, so he warns the chief but the chief ignores him. So the runt rabbit got a group of rabbits together and they left the warren, thus starting their adventure to Watership Down.I have to say I really liked Watership Down! And I really think all of you should watch it!( You can always fast forward the violent parts) If you don't have Netflicks(or something along those lines) Watership Down may be extremely hard to find. So if you really want to watch it, you can get Netficks(or something along those lines) or you can wait for the remake to come out in 2012 or 2013.
So basically what I'm trying to say is don't judge a movie based on gossip you hear or see. You never know how you'll feel about it until you see it yourself. Remember Paranormal Activity? Half the class said it was the scariest movie ever and the other half said it sucked. So who do you believe? You guessed it! No one, you go see it yourself.
P.S. As much as I like this movie, I still don't think it should be PG. It is NOT a kids movie.
It’s called Watership Down it’s an old 70’s movie about rabbits in the wild. It’s meant for 8 year olds but…i don’t even think its suitable for adults. I watched a clip of it on youtube and I wanted to cry…it was absolutely horrible.
I’ll just tell you about clip I saw first… when it first comes on it’s playing Marylin Manson’s Sweet Dreams and there is a shot of the rabbit’s eye then you see another rabbit watch another one be taken by a hawk. After that there are bunnies being gassed and their heads float around in the most disturbing way. You just sit and watch the bunnies eye clench and roll back in their heads just for one last gasp for air. I started crying at this part… After that there are more rabbits in a tunnel and two of them start fighting, the one has it throat ripped out while the other bunnies hide in fear. Shortly after bunnies are shown tearing apart another helpless rabbit. Then there are shots of birds taking the bunnies and a cat shredding up a bunny and a dog chasing the rabbits…catches one then throws it up in the air a chews it up. Finally there is this scene where a rabbit is struggling to hold on to its life…where it is greeted by a bunny ghost..and there it dies and you watch its soul leave it’s body…and the bunny ghost skip around in the air, on their way to the promised land…All of these shots where GRAPHIC!
and what makes it worse is the fact that it’s animated and it’s rated PG
http://www.impawards.com/1978/posters/watership_down.jpg
http://www.premiere.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/watership-down/594921-1-eng-US/watership-down.jpg
^
All of the above was written when i had only seen the clip on youtube...but the movie is so different from that. Yes that violence does occur but the movie is not about the killing of bunnies. That clip was extremely misleading. The youtube clip had me crying because it was so awful but the movie had me crying because it was such a heroic journey. All of the horrible shots in the youtube clip all happen, it's just that there is legitimate reasoning for the event( if that makes any sense) I don't want to ruin the movie, but I'll give you an example. The runt bunny has this vision (the gassing of the bunnies) that all of the rabbits in their warren is going to be killed, so he warns the chief but the chief ignores him. So the runt rabbit got a group of rabbits together and they left the warren, thus starting their adventure to Watership Down.I have to say I really liked Watership Down! And I really think all of you should watch it!( You can always fast forward the violent parts) If you don't have Netflicks(or something along those lines) Watership Down may be extremely hard to find. So if you really want to watch it, you can get Netficks(or something along those lines) or you can wait for the remake to come out in 2012 or 2013.
So basically what I'm trying to say is don't judge a movie based on gossip you hear or see. You never know how you'll feel about it until you see it yourself. Remember Paranormal Activity? Half the class said it was the scariest movie ever and the other half said it sucked. So who do you believe? You guessed it! No one, you go see it yourself.
P.S. As much as I like this movie, I still don't think it should be PG. It is NOT a kids movie.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
A Very Nice List, minus Edward Cullen.
http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/44868070.html
Stumbled upon this page, liked it very much. =)
With love, Los Lobos.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Jellyfish
I was watching the Sundance channel this weekend, something that I've been finding myself doing quite often as time passes by, and came across a rather interesting film titled Jellyfish. Jellyfish follows the lives of three women in Tel Aviv- Batya, a caterer whose boyfriend has just moved out, Keren, a newlywed stuck in a dismal hotel room with a busted ankle, and Joy, a home-care worker who misses her son and home in the Philippines. All three women live a life lost in confusion and in need of some way to reconnect with the world and rediscover what they deem important. Directed by Shira Geffen and Etgar Keret, this is a dramatic comedy that deserves to be watched.
Related links:
Saturday, May 1, 2010
New "Nightmare"
First things first:
Jackie Earle Haley is a fantastic Freddy Kruger and does succeed in making the character his own, not a Robert Englund spinoff. Also, Freddy's make-up looks pretty great here, I think (a lot of people have said he looks like an 'alien,' but it's a pretty accurate portrayal of a burn victim), and it's pretty disturbing as well. And it's nice to see Freddy portrayed as scary and malevolent again (though Wes Craven accomplished this in the amazing New Nightmare in the 90's), though he does crack a few (very disturbing) one-liners.
So, with that aside, how does A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 hold up?
Unfortunately, not too well. While not the disaster many will claim it to be, this redux ultimately doesn't work, and fails to reboot the Nightmare legacy effectively.
The main problem is that it's really just not interesting. With the exception of the dream sequences (none of which were really outstanding, but they were done well) and the stuff involving Freddy, it's all pretty flat. While there are plenty of asides to the original here, none of it really registers or works. It's all just 'there.' The deaths are gory, but not particularly creative (though the new take on the ceiling murder was kinda cool). There's a backstory for Freddy here, which is a bit different than the original (we're shown this time), but it's somewhat effective and helps the film move into its own territory, becoming a little unpredictable even.
One of the cooler ideas was the concept of sleep deprivation, and how the filmmakers run with it. The 'micronaps' tool was pretty neat and worked into the story well, showing the effects of a lack of sleep, which we didn't often see in the originals. Once the story moves into the final act, the pace picks up a bit, but the final confrontation with Freddy is not at all climactic, and not worthy of what had been set up.
One of the biggest problems here is the characters. Not only are they hardly developed and weakly written, the kids are practically indestinguishable from one another. None of the main teens are at all compelling. Most criminal of all is the treatment given to the heroine, Nancy. Originally played endearingly by Heather Langenkamp, here she's portrayed by Rooney Mara. Langenkamp's Nancy was a strong, vulnerable and relatable 'final girl,' and a worthy advisary to Mr. Kruger. Mara simply sulks around, looking morose. When she says "I don't exactly fit in," it's the first hint we're given of it, since her character receieves no development or dimensions. I didn't care if this Nancy lived or not, and considering the original was one of my favorite heroines, that's unforgivable. The rest of the teenagers are so-so; Kyle Gallner is likable as Quentin (the Johhny Depp-esque role). Katie Cassidy is very effective as Kris (aka 'Tina' from '84), and would've been a far better leading lady than Mara. Luckily, the strongest work here is done by Haley, as previously mentioned.
Really, though it's far from terrible, this Nightmare redux is really just 'blah.' It's just not effective or that interesting. None of it's particularly scary either (though it is loud). Some might like it, but I'm a pretty big Freddy fanatic, and this just didn't do it for me. Platinum Dunes' redo's all seem to turn out similarly (the exception being their fantastic remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre), especially last year's Friday the 13th, which also looked promising, but failed to deliver. I've taken a lot of flack for my praise of Rob Zombie's Halloween films, but, your opinion of the films aside, it has to be said that the concepts and stories in Zombie's films (particularly Halloween II) were radically different than the originals and extremely creative. Those movies had ideas and explored their characters and themes, and ultimately, were far more ambitious, whereas the new Nightmare, and all Platinum Dunes' remakes, fails to bring anything new to the table. It commits the ultimate sin by just being generic. As I said, while it's not a horrible flick, it ultimately can't justify its existance when the perfectly accesible original still holds up pretty well.
Jackie Earle Haley is a fantastic Freddy Kruger and does succeed in making the character his own, not a Robert Englund spinoff. Also, Freddy's make-up looks pretty great here, I think (a lot of people have said he looks like an 'alien,' but it's a pretty accurate portrayal of a burn victim), and it's pretty disturbing as well. And it's nice to see Freddy portrayed as scary and malevolent again (though Wes Craven accomplished this in the amazing New Nightmare in the 90's), though he does crack a few (very disturbing) one-liners.
So, with that aside, how does A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 hold up?
Unfortunately, not too well. While not the disaster many will claim it to be, this redux ultimately doesn't work, and fails to reboot the Nightmare legacy effectively.
The main problem is that it's really just not interesting. With the exception of the dream sequences (none of which were really outstanding, but they were done well) and the stuff involving Freddy, it's all pretty flat. While there are plenty of asides to the original here, none of it really registers or works. It's all just 'there.' The deaths are gory, but not particularly creative (though the new take on the ceiling murder was kinda cool). There's a backstory for Freddy here, which is a bit different than the original (we're shown this time), but it's somewhat effective and helps the film move into its own territory, becoming a little unpredictable even.
One of the cooler ideas was the concept of sleep deprivation, and how the filmmakers run with it. The 'micronaps' tool was pretty neat and worked into the story well, showing the effects of a lack of sleep, which we didn't often see in the originals. Once the story moves into the final act, the pace picks up a bit, but the final confrontation with Freddy is not at all climactic, and not worthy of what had been set up.
One of the biggest problems here is the characters. Not only are they hardly developed and weakly written, the kids are practically indestinguishable from one another. None of the main teens are at all compelling. Most criminal of all is the treatment given to the heroine, Nancy. Originally played endearingly by Heather Langenkamp, here she's portrayed by Rooney Mara. Langenkamp's Nancy was a strong, vulnerable and relatable 'final girl,' and a worthy advisary to Mr. Kruger. Mara simply sulks around, looking morose. When she says "I don't exactly fit in," it's the first hint we're given of it, since her character receieves no development or dimensions. I didn't care if this Nancy lived or not, and considering the original was one of my favorite heroines, that's unforgivable. The rest of the teenagers are so-so; Kyle Gallner is likable as Quentin (the Johhny Depp-esque role). Katie Cassidy is very effective as Kris (aka 'Tina' from '84), and would've been a far better leading lady than Mara. Luckily, the strongest work here is done by Haley, as previously mentioned.
Really, though it's far from terrible, this Nightmare redux is really just 'blah.' It's just not effective or that interesting. None of it's particularly scary either (though it is loud). Some might like it, but I'm a pretty big Freddy fanatic, and this just didn't do it for me. Platinum Dunes' redo's all seem to turn out similarly (the exception being their fantastic remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre), especially last year's Friday the 13th, which also looked promising, but failed to deliver. I've taken a lot of flack for my praise of Rob Zombie's Halloween films, but, your opinion of the films aside, it has to be said that the concepts and stories in Zombie's films (particularly Halloween II) were radically different than the originals and extremely creative. Those movies had ideas and explored their characters and themes, and ultimately, were far more ambitious, whereas the new Nightmare, and all Platinum Dunes' remakes, fails to bring anything new to the table. It commits the ultimate sin by just being generic. As I said, while it's not a horrible flick, it ultimately can't justify its existance when the perfectly accesible original still holds up pretty well.
Monday, April 26, 2010
New Music? OK!
search a band you like, and you can expand from that one band to bands of similar styles or relations.and so on...and so on....and so on. Music comparisons are pretty accurate. good way to find new music you may like. try it out, pretty cool.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Check out this weird camera
They were practically giving these away at some military surplus auction.
I wonder what kind of lens it uses?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Military Killing Innocent People Again!
Monday, April 5, 2010
Lucas..Lucas... Lucas... stop
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/ridley-scotts-robin-hood-open-cannes-fest-reuters
Thursday, April 1, 2010
A REALLY AWESOME SHORT BY SPIKE JONZE
http://www.imheremovie.com/
Watch it now! You have to lie about you're age since it is sponsored by Absolut
Watch it now! You have to lie about you're age since it is sponsored by Absolut
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
I know you can DO IT
But will you?
"Norman Mailer produced extraordinary works in many genres, including the category of this year’s award: creative nonfiction. Students may submit work in any of the many subgenres of creative nonfiction: memoir or autobiography, essay, literary journalism, profiles of people or places, and so on. Whatever its type, the best work will be true material presented with compelling literary merit. Entries accepted April 1–April 29, 2010, Noon CST. "
Friday, March 26, 2010
We Have Decided Not To Die
I saw this not too long ago. It was really late at night and I couldn't get to sleep. The television was on and I found myself participating in the common act of channel surfing. I can't remember what station I finally bother to stop on, but it had been showing various short films. I decided that I could watch worse things and decided to give the short movies a try. What I ended up watching blew me away.
I was utterly entranced by what I saw on my screen. People. All in white. And they were... I couldn't be sure of what I was seeing. It confused me greatly. Confused, yet at the same time I understood what was taking place. It made sense in a surreal way, I could see the logic in this thing that confounded me. But this made it all the more perplexing. What was this thing I was seeing?
I would later come to find that I was watching what can probably be considered one of the greatest short films of all time: Daniel Askill's We Have Decided Not To Die. A highly decorated Australian, Daniel Askill's film has aired in multiple film festivals world wide and has won several awards including (but not limited to) Flickerfest's Best Australian Film, Brooklyn Film Fest's Best Experimental Film, and the South by Southwest BAFTA Award. And it isn't hard to see how Askill could gain so much recognition.
We Have Decided Not To Die is a powerful picture despite its almost ten minute run time. The cool tones and colors create an almost distilling effect on his characters and locals, making the images on the screen come to life yet keeping them uncomfortable and dead. There's an air of unease, of pondering through out the film and one can't help but feel the surreal chill that appears to waft from the screen and into one's chest. And though strange, it feels a little too familiar.
Hopefully, you'll understand once you watch it for yourself.
Link to the short film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSO-PJXnj7o
Link to list of awards: http://www.wehavedecidednottodie.com/
Thursday, March 25, 2010
But Where are The Muppets?
Brilliant... Jim Henson circa 1965. Nominated for an Academy Award: Best Short Subject, Live Action Subjects
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
A MOVIE THAT OUGHT TO BE SEEN
The Oscars are finally over as is all the hubbub for the supposed "best films of the year." But I can't help but find it really amusing that despite all the glamour and show casing these elect films receive, it seems a little misplaced. Sometimes it is the smaller, forgotten films that should be sitting in the starlight.
Case and point: Carriers.
Carriers opened in 2009 to a limited showing and was only aired in two theaters for about a week. Everyone who's seen the movie believes that this was a mistake. I am among them.
Starring Chris Pine (now popular thanks to his role as the captain of the Star ship Enterprise,) Carries takes a realistic look at the possible results of the legendary 'viral outbreak' theory. Inspired by the recent pandemic scares brought about by the Avian Flu, Carriers follows a select group of four uninfected teens trying to survive in a desolated world ruled by death and disease where you can't rust anyone, not even friends and family.
And before you ask it, No- this is not some revamp zombie flick. There are no zombies. Period. This is a completely realistic approach to the popular viral craze that seems to have swept the horror and suspense genre. And as a result has won a valuable place in my heart.
Carriers is currently available on DVD for any one interested. I know someone ought to be...
Trailer at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOELwBxjkgY
for more information check out http://www.carriersmovie.com/
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Letterbox: AKA "Those black bars on the screen"
Despite being ridiculously tired, I'm currently sitting up and watching The Gunfight at O.K. Corral with my father because I haven't seen him all week. Plus, hey...it's a pretty good movie. Stars Burt Lancaster (as Wyatt Earp) and Kirk Douglas (as Doc Holiday), it's about what the title says...the gunfight at the O.K. Corral.
Anyway, that's not why I'm here. I just watched this little informative tidbit that TCM plays occasionally about the beauty of widescreen and letterbox movies (and why these movies shown in fullscreen is heresy!). I managed to find it on YouTube...it's only about 5 minutes long, and it's pretty nifty. So, here it is. If you've ever wondered about those black bars on your screen, here's a wonderful explanation about them.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
How to Run and Evil Empire...
I stumbled on this site a while ago, but I think it pertains to the film writing we're starting. Besides, it's hillarious. http://www.sff.net/paradise/overlord.html
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
A Serious Letdown - sorry Man
If you haven't seen A Serious Man, prepare yourself for a bleak dark comedy. Watching this film is like reading the Book of Job in the Old Testament while flogging yourself with a small barbed whip.Everything that possibly could go wrong to the protagonist Larry Gopnik does, everything except boils and leprosy. Poor Larry is a decent guy, but has the same luck I do - none. Hashem (God) to all you goys - should just strike him down with a lightning bolt. But after watching this film, you'll wish he struck you down and saved you some time.
This is a strange film. Right from the start you are transported to Poland and the possibility of a man being a 'dybbuk' - which is basically a Jewish zombie, or evil spirit. The man isn't a dybbuk and gets killed, but why the hell this was included in the film - I can't figure out. Oh, I get it - a future ancestor will be haunted. The Coen brothers usually put out some great films including one of my favorites The Big Lebowski. I also loved Fargo, and No Country For Old Men, films with great characters and unique plots, but unlike these films A Serious Man is a big let down.
Besides tracking a man's desperate and bleak existence we encounter hateful characters - his bitchy wife, selfish kids, a brother with a cyst which drains so much it could fill up the Dead Sea, and neighbors who should be living in Hammonton, or Berlin circa 1938. All the characters are horrid creatures, as I watched this movie I prayed for a twist in the plot and Javier Bardem would show up with his dutchboy haircut and kill them all, or they'd be put into a woodchipper, or a golem would get them, but no such luck. I told you I have bad luck - I wonder why? Maybe I had an ancestor that killed a leprechaun. The film is drawn out and you'll probably be checking your watch frequently, or hitting the fast forward button. Additionally, unless you are a Jewish male, or the Coen brothers reminiscing, or in a rabbinical school this film will try your patience with its referrences to Yiddish and Hebrew concepts and shibboleths. On the up side, there are some very funny scenes, but not enough to justify wasting over 100 minutes.
Why does God put Larry through so many troubles? Would God really care? Should we? Maybe God wasn't involved at all? People have been trying to make meaning out of our existence and the meaning of suffering for thousands of years, this film leaves those questions unanswered. Just like the Book of Job - there are no answers just more questions. Overall I would place this film way below the other films by the great Coen Brothers, maybe even in Gehenna. Mazel tov!
Televison Without Pity
For those of you who have never heard of this site need to check it out ASAP!
Televisionwithoutpity.com
Here is the Live Blog of the 2010 Oscars! (If you missed it =D)
8:30 - All the Best Actor and Best Actress nominees are on stage at once, as if we won't see them 6,000 times tonight.
8:32 - Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin look a lot like NPH when they're singing at the same time.
8:33 - A Busby Berkeley tribute? Who directed this? Adam Shankman? Oh, right.
8:37 - Confusing "dame" and "damn" is total dad humor. AND WE LOVE IT!
8:39 - Can't tell if Gabby Sidibe gets The Jerk reference, but she sure looks like she maybe does. And that's why she's nominated for an acting award and her co-star Mariah Carey is not.
8:41 - We know we just said we liked corny dad humor, but this is getting ridiculous. And remind us: why isn't Steve Martin hosting this solo?
8:46 - Supporting actors are great and all, but these are the longest clips we've ever seen in our entire lives. They're like those "entire movie in seven minutes" videos you see on YouTube, multiplied by five.
8:48 - Congratulations, Christoph Waltz! Uber-bingo, indeed. The first missed chance for an upset of probably many tonight!
8:53 - Really dreading nine more of these unnecessary Best Picture clips packages tonight. Anyone who doesn't know what these movies are already shouldn't be watching in the first place.
8:57 - Man, Secret of Kells -- we still don't know how you pulled off that nomination. Bravo.
8:58 - Didn't we just see all of these nominees? Is twice necessary? Especially since Up is obviously winning?
9:01 - Miley Cyrus looks afraid to move her shoulders, or else her dress will fall to the ground. Play it safe, Miley.
9:03 - Once again, we are stunned to see what T-Bone Burnett actually looks like. we keep expecting a ponytail, a five o'clock shadow and a crocodile-skin hat.
9:06 - Steve Martin's Last Station joke aside, this entire telecast should have been tagged with a "spoiler alert" at the beginning. These clips are blowing up endings left and right. Luckily, they're all still worth seeing, being Oscar-nominated films and all.
9:12 - RDJ and Tina Fey win for best presentation of the night. we don't need to see the rest of the telecast to call it. Someone get RDJ on 30 Rock.
9:15 - Hurt Locker takes Best Original Screenplay, and the screenwriter gives a great, quick speech. Yay, writers! Excuse us while we try to find a single page in the Inglourious Basterds screenplay that isn't better than the totality of The Hurt Locker.
9:18 - Seeing present-day Molly Ringwald and Matthew Broderick together on stage is creating a warp tunnel in our brains. R.I.P. John Hughes.
9:22 - GAAAHHHHH! Multiple warp tunnels! In our brains! But where's James Spader, Michael Schoeffling, Ilan Mitchell-Smith and Alan Ruck? Did Cameron get screwed yet again?
9:34 - People who win these Best Short awards always look so admirably unembarrassed to be boring millions upon millions of people. This and only this is why DVRs were invented.
9:37 - we want to use the bottom of Zoe Saldana's dress as the most dramatic ponytail holder ever.
9:38 - Say what you want about Ben Stiller -- the man commits to a bit. Full Na'vi makeup and made up language award presentation FTW.
9:40 - We want to plug our brains into your dragon too, Ben Stiller. Dirty talk (we think?) is always best when it makes no sense.
9:48 - Really important and RELEVANT question: Rachel McAdams: Better as a blonde or a brunette?
9:49 - Precious beats Up in the Air for Best Adapted screenplay. An upset for sure, but it should have been In the Loop. Now that would've been a freaking great speech.
9:51 - It's OK to act like you didn't know you'd win if you really didn't know. We feel for this guy.
9:52 - We don't know what's more embarrassing: Making Queen Latifah get all dressed up just to introduce this random Lauren Bacall dinner party clip package, or making her acknowledge that Bringing Down the House happened.
9:59 - Congratulations, Mo'Nique. Just because it was expected doesn't mean it wasn't deserved. And remember: she's also winning for being overlooked for her work in Beerfest.
10:00 - For some reason, Colin Firth always sounds like a Dickens character to me. Even his name sounds Dickensian. "What larks, Colin Firth! What larks!"
10:06 - "James Cameron, this Oscar sees you." The latest entry in the list of worst Art Designer acceptance speeches of all time.
10:09 - When a Costume Designer wins her third Oscar, is it still called a hat trick?
10:12 - "Hello, I'm Charlize Theron, and I was once in a movie as depressing as Precious."
10:18 - Decent Paranormal Activity parody by Steve and Alec. Also, that shambling Kristen Stewart homunculus is so realistic! (Cough.)
10:21 - That's two clips tonight that showcase a very young Alec Baldwin!
10:23 - Hollywood Rule #1: When you need a narrator, Morgan Freeman always has right of first refusal.
10:25 - Hurt Locker gets Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing? That's three for them. They're building momentum!
10:28 - And also, the nerd Oscars happened. Moving on!
10:36 - "Mishigas"? Who knew Sandy Bullock was down with the old country Yiddish. Probably learned it from George Lopez.
10:37 - Oh no, the death montage. As we all know, everyone died this year. Get ready to cry.
10:38 - They should've kept going with the instrumental "Unchained Melody" instead.
10:41 - That was like two seconds long. How is that possible? 194,838,474 show business legends died last year! Including Farrah Fawcett, who was missing from the montage. Why the Cannonball Run hate, Oscars?
10:42 - Will this year's Oscar telecast be included in next year's In Memoriam? 'Cause this thing's flatlined, and so has the audience at the Kodak.
10:43 - ABC has this scheduled to be over at 11:30. Very funny, guys.
10:47 - Slow down, dancers! We can't tell which ones of you were on So You Think You Can Dance when you're all flailing about like that!
10:51 - Ahh, good to see Kayla's being as needlessly fawned over on this show as she was on SYTYCD. Well, maybe good isn't the word. Freaking incomprehensible? Can we use those two words?
10:54 - Best Visual Effects was of course going to Avatar, but we would have watched a movie where a bunch of guys in silver spandex jumpsuits were evicted from their ghetto near Johannesburg.
10:57 - That Up in the Air clip package didn't have nearly enough Sam Elliott.
11:01 - Matt Damon may be the first Oscar-winning screenwriter to becomes an action star, but not the first nominated writer to do so. That honor goes to Sylvester Stallone, of course.
11:04 - Finally, the star of Short Circuit, Short Circuit 2 and Hackers has won an Oscar! Unfortunately it was for a documentary about killing dolphins. Still, it counts. Now the entire world knows who's Johnny.
11:06 - Snuggie!
11:07 - Best Editing for Hurt Locker. Just sayin'...
11:08 - "Hello, I'm Keanu Reeves, and I was also once in a movie about a bomb." (As well as Bigelow's Point Break, natch).
11:14 - If Quentin Tarantino isn't going to point out that that lampshade backdrop makes it look like they're being attacked by Space Invaders, we're going to.
11:16 - The Secret in Their Eyes takes Best Foreign Language Film! All those of you who picked it at random in your Oscar polls, congratulations.
11:21 - "Hi. I'm Kathy Bates, and I'm also a 3D character designed on a computer by James Cameron."
11:26 - Best Actor. They're doing that "five people present to five people" again, but this time with people who actually have a connection to those people. Good move. Still a time-waster, but at least they didn't do it for the supporting roles.
11:28 - Aww, Tim Robbins is making Morgan Freeman get all glisteny-eyed. Man, they're all getting glisteny-eyed. We guess it's pretty cool to be praised by a friend on national television.
11:32 - The Dude abides, man. He also wins Oscars. Let's see if he thanks his stand-in again!
11:40 - Damn, Forest Whitaker, getting FIT.
11:41 - Yes, Peter Sarsgaard, we know you're a fancy, distinguished STAGE actor.
11:43 - Did these actresses cure cancer or something? Why is this thing taking so long?
11:45 - Gabby Sidibe looking so overwhelmed at Oprah's tribute is making me overwhelmed.
11:48 - Yet another predictable win. At least Sandra Bullock is the most likable woman on the planet to make up for it.
11:50 - Is there any other actress who is more the antithesis of an asshole than Sandy? Good for her. Nice Beyonce infallible lip gloss too.
11:52 - Barbra Streisand just walked on stage and we immediately turned into Daffy Duck.
11:55 - And Kathryn Bigelow actually beat James Cameron. That's cool. The Hurt Locker is a good movie. We don't think we've ever had so few feelings and opinions during an Academy Awards show in our entire lives.
11:58 - Haha! The Hurt Locker mopped the floor with Avatar and we only went a half hour over. All in all a very inoffensive, albeit mostly dull, Oscars. Night, everybody!
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Costal's Oscar Picks Pre-Show Rant
On this, gilded Oscar Eve, I reflect on the past month of nominee-wathcing and think: Man, February is really the worst month of the year, I mean, is that even disputable?
Another Oscar season almost in the books, and we at the FI will stave off that dreaded day-after-Oscars disappointment with a class period full of reminisces, laughs, gossip, Clancey yammering on about Sandra Bullock and the telecast highs/lows (read: if you don't hand in your critiques I am gonna "blind side" your "blind side"). Before we bid this year's celebration of current American cinema a twangy sayonara...here are my final thoughts and special picks.
Best Adapted Screenplay/Best Actress: But Inglorious barely edged the most touching, refreshing and thought-provoking film of the year: An Education. Next to Carey Mulligan, Sandra Bullock is Keanu Reeves. She's community theatre.
Mulligan is an elegant, affecting heroine, who carryed a bitter sweet movie...as a rookie. She's Mark Sanchez with a bob.
The film peels back the layers of "growing up" better than any film since Good Will Hunting. And I didn't have to watch Ben Affleck in track pants.
An Education teaches us that what we want and when we want it are always two different things. Yet, for most of us, they are inseperable qualifiers. The movie is about the balance between romance and realism, and it sticks long after the final frame. I will follow the trend and call Mulligan our generation's Audrey Hepburn, once I see a follow-up performance.
An Education only falls short through some inexplicable moments. For instance, the end is rushed and too tidy.
Enjoy the Oscar Prediction Post, due out tomorrow. Then, enjoy the show itself. Enjoy the glitz and glam. Watch ABC scramble for young viewers. Get ready to talk about it all on Monday.
Another Oscar season almost in the books, and we at the FI will stave off that dreaded day-after-Oscars disappointment with a class period full of reminisces, laughs, gossip, Clancey yammering on about Sandra Bullock and the telecast highs/lows (read: if you don't hand in your critiques I am gonna "blind side" your "blind side"). Before we bid this year's celebration of current American cinema a twangy sayonara...here are my final thoughts and special picks.
Costal's Final Best Picture List:
1. Inglorious Basterds
2. An Education
3. The Hurt Locker
4. Up in the Air
5. District 9
6. Precious
7. Up
8. A Serious Man
8. A Serious Man
9. Avatar
10. The Blind Side
10. The Blind Side
NOW!!!!
I have said plenty about Jeremy Renner (Best Actor who won't win).
I have said plenty about how much I hated The Blind Side and Avatar. So much so that I think the Academy should edit the films together into The Blind Avatar during the inevitable Oscar night montage.
I have said plenty about how much I hated The Blind Side and Avatar. So much so that I think the Academy should edit the films together into The Blind Avatar during the inevitable Oscar night montage.
Best Picture/Director/Cinematogrpahy/Original Screenplay who won't win: I was a senior in high school in 1994 when Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction at every major award show. Back then, I agreed. Barely. I agreed, but looking back...I was so wrong.
Pulp has been so much more influential to cinema than Forrest. It resurrected more than Travolta...it resurrected cool. It gave us gangsta swagga with cultural importance. It innovated the screen strucutrally and spatially while daring an up-tight 90s audience to love violence again. It wagged its tongue at seediness. It paved a road for everything from smart alec, gross-out comedies that rake in millions today, to thought-provoking, plot-twisty capers a la Guy Ritchie.
Forrest was an amazing movie...visually innovative with stunning character development and poetic relevance...but it didn't change the game like Pulp did. Say "Life IS like a box of choc-ah-lates" today and people roll their eyes. Say "Le Big Mac" and a generation feels like it came home for spring break
Tarantino brings us forward by forcing us to look back, and Inglorious brings him back to form. It is a nearly perfect satire: witty, incomparable, insufferably self-important and over the top. It also has amazing performances and inspiring shot sequences. Most importantly, it provides a killer fx of that old Tarantino dialogue magic. At the Globes, a huge head called Cameron said, "the future of movies is Avatar."
I hope its Inglorious Basterds.
Pulp has been so much more influential to cinema than Forrest. It resurrected more than Travolta...it resurrected cool. It gave us gangsta swagga with cultural importance. It innovated the screen strucutrally and spatially while daring an up-tight 90s audience to love violence again. It wagged its tongue at seediness. It paved a road for everything from smart alec, gross-out comedies that rake in millions today, to thought-provoking, plot-twisty capers a la Guy Ritchie.
Forrest was an amazing movie...visually innovative with stunning character development and poetic relevance...but it didn't change the game like Pulp did. Say "Life IS like a box of choc-ah-lates" today and people roll their eyes. Say "Le Big Mac" and a generation feels like it came home for spring break I hope its Inglorious Basterds.
Hosed: Brad Pitt. The man doesn't make bad movies. Period. And don't come at me with The Mexican, one day I'll post a rant called "25 Reasons Why The Mexican isn't as bad as posers pretend it is." But, for now, trust me.
Pitt has proved a greater chameleon than most Hollywood leading men. I never stoppped seeing George Clooney in Up in the Air, but Brad still disappears. He followed up his hilarious, movie-stealing performance in Burn After Reading with an even sillier, more devastatingly funny character performance in Inglorious.
Pitt has proved a greater chameleon than most Hollywood leading men. I never stoppped seeing George Clooney in Up in the Air, but Brad still disappears. He followed up his hilarious, movie-stealing performance in Burn After Reading with an even sillier, more devastatingly funny character performance in Inglorious.
Best Adapted Screenplay/Best Actress: But Inglorious barely edged the most touching, refreshing and thought-provoking film of the year: An Education. Next to Carey Mulligan, Sandra Bullock is Keanu Reeves. She's community theatre. Mulligan is an elegant, affecting heroine, who carryed a bitter sweet movie...as a rookie. She's Mark Sanchez with a bob.
The film peels back the layers of "growing up" better than any film since Good Will Hunting. And I didn't have to watch Ben Affleck in track pants.
An Education teaches us that what we want and when we want it are always two different things. Yet, for most of us, they are inseperable qualifiers. The movie is about the balance between romance and realism, and it sticks long after the final frame. I will follow the trend and call Mulligan our generation's Audrey Hepburn, once I see a follow-up performance.
An Education only falls short through some inexplicable moments. For instance, the end is rushed and too tidy.
Otherwise, Nick Hornby is the man! I am such a fan of his writing, and it translated to the screen seemlessly. His philosophies, his criticisms of culture, his genius: all rolled into Mulligan's knowing smirk and innocent expressions. Hornby has such a distinct style. It poked through shyly in adaptations of his novels (well in About a Boy, less so in High Fidelity), but it shines gloriously in his first screen adaptation of another writer's book. He weaves allusions and awkward nuances into portraits of the human condition that are often so life-like, we look away.
Hosed: Peter Saarsgaard and Alfred Molina NOT being nominated is an injustice. The former's socio-path leaves the audience breathelessly conflicted until his final, self-destructive frame. The latter precisely captures the crux of the working middle class parents: awkward in their insecurity about raising children more priviledged and smarter than they. When he consoles his daughter during the film's denouement, your heart will melt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)