Other than a jaunt out of town and back, the one thing I've been doing more than anything else is unpacking. By my estimation, the Cap'n has two more boxes to open and then the Apartment that Dripped Blood will start looking like somebody lives there. Of course, once somebody lives there, the demons will make sure that somebody dies there, probably the former "living tenant", but I digress.
A curious byproduct of unpacking boxes is finding things I'd forgotten about or just haven't looked at in years. For example, I just found the Movie Quiz, an oft mentioned relic of my college geekery that never made it online. I'm reasonably certain that if you slog your way through the "From the Vault" entries, you'll find a general explanation that amounts to this: fandom is not a pissing contest so there's no point in putting the Movie Quiz online, not to mention that you could use that Google toolbar to the right to immediately answer the tougher questions.
I had considered sticking to that declaration and not putting any of the questions online, but re-reading it, I found that there were a few interesting entries into the quiz that merited sharing. I'm beginning to wonder if the quiz was difficult not because of the trivia you needed but because of how I worded some of them. At any rate, here's a sample of the quiz that plagued many a friend ten years ago:
2. What American director did Akira Kurosawa credit as a prime influence?
13. What is Mel Brooks' cameo in Young Frankenstein?
23. Other than Nosferatu, name a literary adaptation by F.W. Murnau
48. Radiohead's "Exit Music (For a Film)" is exactly that. Name the film.
63. Name one sequence planned but never completed for Fantasia.
64. What character does Trainspotting author Irvine Welsh play in the film version?
66. Don't fuck with him, but what is the Jesus man's last name?
86. What was the first film to utilize "Cinemascope"?
100. How many times did George C. Scott play Patton?
138. What was the sister production to King Kong, shot on the same sets and using many of the same cast members?
140. What is the only film directed by Igmar Bergman to star Ingrid Bergman?
148. Roald Dahl wrote which James Bond film?
153. Katherine Beaumont voiced two Disney heroines back to back in the 1950s. Name them.
158. Which have there been more of: John Ford films featuring John Wayne or Martin Scorsese films featuring Robert DeNiro?
166. Of the Twilight Zone movie's four main vignettes, which one was not based on an episode of the original series, and who directed it?
There are many more, and what appears to be an aborted "guess the aspect ratio" page, which is even more ridiculous. Looking back, there are a few questions even I don't think I could answer anymore, so if you struggled over getting all of the quiz correct, take comfort in knowing even the Cap'n can't do it now.
Oh, and if you really want to answer them, feel free. You won't win anything other than respect amongst your fellow nerds, but sometimes that's enough. Right?
Monday, August 17, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Much Ado About Martyrs...
With no less than four people telling me I needed to see Martyrs, it was inevitable that the Cap'n would get on top of that. I've had a reasonably good run with horror from the other side of the pond lately (Let the Right One In, Them, Frontier(s), even High Tension), and many of you were talking Martyrs up big time. I understand why, although I'm not positive I can really go whole hog with you.
In the interest of not spoiling a movie I think other people will really enjoy, I'm going to tread verrrrry carefully with Martyrs. What you've been told the film is about (or, at least, what I'd heard) is not exactly the case. It's not a "twist", per se, but rather a limited amount of information about the plot. Martyrs is technically a film about revenge, but that's only part of what's going on.
My problem with the movie, chiefly, is that the "torture" aspect of the movie, something which is regrettably a spoiler, was a little "been there, done that" for me. I've seen both Hostel movies. I've seen Saw. I've seen Funny Games, and therefore my problem with the movie was a case of desensetizing. A crucial section of the film which needs to be disturbing and needs to be shocking was, to me, boring. I wanted the movie to get on with wherever it was going.
What I will agree with those of you who championed Martyrs is that I would have never guessed where the ending was headed. Honestly. Two things happened that I did not expect at all, and combined they elevated Martyrs into lofty territory. The ending sticks with you, and in the three days since I watched it, the last fifteen minutes or so will periodically reappear in my mind and I have to play it out again.
That, in and of itself, is worth seeing the film for. Figuring out exactly what the title means, beyond the point where you think they've spelled it out, and the way its meaning unfolds in those final moments, or even in the last shot, make Martyrs worth seeing.
For me, it wasn't that the film was trying too hard to push boundaries or going for "shock", but more that by the time it actually gets where its going, I had mentally checked out. I thought I knew what kind of movie I was watching, and to be honest with you, I've been there and done that. The stories either go the Funny Games direction (the hero dies) or the Hostel direction (the hero exacts bloody retribution).
Martyrs doesn't play by those rules, but if you're really attuned to story archetypes, the third act is going to bore you a little bit. Or it did me. The end makes up for it, and balances out the first, more transparent act. So yes, I can see why so many folks are recommending Martyrs, and why director Pascal Laugier implores you to come into the film "knowing as little as possible". Alas, my enthusiam was a bit tempered, but I still say check Martyrs out.
In the interest of not spoiling a movie I think other people will really enjoy, I'm going to tread verrrrry carefully with Martyrs. What you've been told the film is about (or, at least, what I'd heard) is not exactly the case. It's not a "twist", per se, but rather a limited amount of information about the plot. Martyrs is technically a film about revenge, but that's only part of what's going on.
My problem with the movie, chiefly, is that the "torture" aspect of the movie, something which is regrettably a spoiler, was a little "been there, done that" for me. I've seen both Hostel movies. I've seen Saw. I've seen Funny Games, and therefore my problem with the movie was a case of desensetizing. A crucial section of the film which needs to be disturbing and needs to be shocking was, to me, boring. I wanted the movie to get on with wherever it was going.
What I will agree with those of you who championed Martyrs is that I would have never guessed where the ending was headed. Honestly. Two things happened that I did not expect at all, and combined they elevated Martyrs into lofty territory. The ending sticks with you, and in the three days since I watched it, the last fifteen minutes or so will periodically reappear in my mind and I have to play it out again.
That, in and of itself, is worth seeing the film for. Figuring out exactly what the title means, beyond the point where you think they've spelled it out, and the way its meaning unfolds in those final moments, or even in the last shot, make Martyrs worth seeing.
For me, it wasn't that the film was trying too hard to push boundaries or going for "shock", but more that by the time it actually gets where its going, I had mentally checked out. I thought I knew what kind of movie I was watching, and to be honest with you, I've been there and done that. The stories either go the Funny Games direction (the hero dies) or the Hostel direction (the hero exacts bloody retribution).
Martyrs doesn't play by those rules, but if you're really attuned to story archetypes, the third act is going to bore you a little bit. Or it did me. The end makes up for it, and balances out the first, more transparent act. So yes, I can see why so many folks are recommending Martyrs, and why director Pascal Laugier implores you to come into the film "knowing as little as possible". Alas, my enthusiam was a bit tempered, but I still say check Martyrs out.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
So You Won't Have To: Street Fighter - The Legend of Chun-Li
As I promised several weeks back, the Cap'n would bring SYWHT back with a bang, and believe me when I say Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li delivers. For once, even though I watched it so you wouldn't have to, you might want to consider queue-ing this stinker up. Just put on some nose plugs beforehand.
The Blu-Ray starts with the following trailers, to set the mood: X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Dragonball, and 12 Rounds (starring WWE Superstar John Cena and directed by Renny "Deep Blue Sea" Harlin). That should give you a pretty good idea of the quality you're in for. The top-billed "stars" are Kristen Kreuk, Chris Klein, Neil McDonough, Taboo (from the Black Eyed Peas) with an "And Michael Clarke Duncan" credit at the end. I'm not saying; I'm just saying is all...
(if it helps: Kristen Kreuk is on Smallville, Chris Klein was in.. uh, American Pie, Neil McDonough was the bad guy in Walking Tall, and Michael Clarke Duncan was in The Scorpion King.)
To answer the questions I asked (and many of you were probably wondering): yes, The Legend of Chun-Li is as bad as you'd think it was, and maybe worse. Plot points disappear and reappear for no apparent reason, characters die (or appear to die) only to show up again in the most lackluster ways, characters make decisions based on no logical criteria, and the film consistently feels like a B-Movie with an A-Movie budget. How they imagined this would kick off a Street Fighter franchise* is beyond me.
On the other hand, it is very entertaining for all of the same reasons. While not the worst movie I've seen this year, or even the most baffling-ly awful, Street Fighter manages to be dumb enough to keep you interested but not smart enough to disappoint. It's exactly the kind of arbitrary movie you'd put on with friends and kick back a few drinks to.
I'm not really sure how much we're supposed to cheer for heroes who kill the lead bad guy in front of his totally uninvolved-in-the-story daughter, or if I'm really supposed to understand why Charlie Nash (Chris Klein) is even in the movie, since he spends most of the running time kind of hanging around the plot. Actually, even when he is directly involved in the "Chun-Li getting even with M. Bison" story, it's only so he can shoot people and yell "Nash out!" into radios.
Truthfully, I'm not sure that I'm as onboard with the whole "give Charlie Nash his own movie" sentiment in most Street Fighter reviews. I do think that Chris Klein is pretty hilarious chewing scenery and delivering every line like he was preparing for the Golden Raspberry highlight reel, but much more of Charlie Nash would spoil a movie. It's almost better that he steals the film by having virtually nothing to do with the plot. If you stuck Klein's Charlie Nash into other movies he had no business being in, I might get behind that, but not his own movie.
For the most part, the actual plot doesn't make any kind of sense. Things happen either because a) they're convenient, or b) because a fight/shootout is necessary. Rather than walk you through the whole film, I'm going to bring up two specific point that demonstrate why this film is both a loser and a winner at the same time:
1) Chun-Li is a rich kid who may or may not be a concert pianist (the movie wants you to think so, but I'm 99% positive she's performing in front of a green screen with the worst "audience" painting ever). Her father is kidnapped/killed/something when she's young, leading to a ridiculous "Veangeance!!!!" stare and some kind of mysterious scroll when she's older. Her mother doesn't appear to age but instead dies of a mystery disease.
A wise woman tells Chun-Li she needs to "go to Bangkok." That's exactly what she says, but Chun-Li takes it to mean "give up everything you know and become homeless, wandering the streets until you get into a fight," which is exactly what happens. She then trains with a dude named Gen who teaches her how to throw fireballs. Until the fireballs, Street Fighter apparently was trying to be "realistic."
2) I mentioned Taboo earlier, because he plays Vega. At least he kind of looks like Vega, since he has a mask and claws, unlike Michael Clarke Duncan, who plays Balrog as Michael Clarke Duncan. Vega kills several people off-camera early in the movie and then disappears until he's summoned to kill Chun-Li.
The set-up for their "epic" battle is virtually nonexistent. Chun-Li is upset that Master Gen lost his necklace in an explosion (meaning that he must be dead), and is running around Bangkok. Then she decides to jump across rooftops, and bumps into Vega. At least, that's how the lousy editing makes it look. I guess maybe she sensed he was following, but there's nothing in the direction of this sequence to suggest A leads to B leads to C. It just happens.
Chun-Li and Vega fight (kind of), and she knocks his mask off. Instead of being disfigured or vain or something, he just looks like Taboo from the Black Eyed Peas, but Chun-Li says "No wonder you wear a mask. If I were as ugly as you I'd wear one too!", which is just odd. Then she jumps on him and knocks him out off-camera. We see her drop the knocked out Vega from a roof, where he's tied up by his feet but still has his claws!
Maybe we'll see Vega again? Nope. Not in this movie. At least Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li remembered to pay off the fireball, even if the CGI resembled Syfy Channel original quality.
I know it sounds like I'm bagging on this movie, but the truth is that you spend most of the time laughing at how inept this movie is. Whether it's the totally unexplained hookup between Chris Klein and Moon Bloodgood, the faux-lesbian club sequence that transitions into a strip club shootout, unwarranted c-sections, the really unnecessary reminders of the most obvious visual clue in the entire movie, or just Chris Klein staring past the camera and muttering one-liners that don't make sense, it's hard not to enjoy this kind of crap. It's bad, but far from unwatchable.
Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li may not be Death Race, but just because you Won't Have To doesn't mean you shouldn't give it a try, provided you're in like-minded company with lots of alcohol.
Cap'n out.
* the end of the film sets up a "tournament" where Master Gen will find "Ryu something-or-other" that Chun-Li decides to sit out of. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Fox will also sit out on this Street Fighter tournament too.
The Blu-Ray starts with the following trailers, to set the mood: X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Dragonball, and 12 Rounds (starring WWE Superstar John Cena and directed by Renny "Deep Blue Sea" Harlin). That should give you a pretty good idea of the quality you're in for. The top-billed "stars" are Kristen Kreuk, Chris Klein, Neil McDonough, Taboo (from the Black Eyed Peas) with an "And Michael Clarke Duncan" credit at the end. I'm not saying; I'm just saying is all...
(if it helps: Kristen Kreuk is on Smallville, Chris Klein was in.. uh, American Pie, Neil McDonough was the bad guy in Walking Tall, and Michael Clarke Duncan was in The Scorpion King.)
To answer the questions I asked (and many of you were probably wondering): yes, The Legend of Chun-Li is as bad as you'd think it was, and maybe worse. Plot points disappear and reappear for no apparent reason, characters die (or appear to die) only to show up again in the most lackluster ways, characters make decisions based on no logical criteria, and the film consistently feels like a B-Movie with an A-Movie budget. How they imagined this would kick off a Street Fighter franchise* is beyond me.
On the other hand, it is very entertaining for all of the same reasons. While not the worst movie I've seen this year, or even the most baffling-ly awful, Street Fighter manages to be dumb enough to keep you interested but not smart enough to disappoint. It's exactly the kind of arbitrary movie you'd put on with friends and kick back a few drinks to.
I'm not really sure how much we're supposed to cheer for heroes who kill the lead bad guy in front of his totally uninvolved-in-the-story daughter, or if I'm really supposed to understand why Charlie Nash (Chris Klein) is even in the movie, since he spends most of the running time kind of hanging around the plot. Actually, even when he is directly involved in the "Chun-Li getting even with M. Bison" story, it's only so he can shoot people and yell "Nash out!" into radios.
Truthfully, I'm not sure that I'm as onboard with the whole "give Charlie Nash his own movie" sentiment in most Street Fighter reviews. I do think that Chris Klein is pretty hilarious chewing scenery and delivering every line like he was preparing for the Golden Raspberry highlight reel, but much more of Charlie Nash would spoil a movie. It's almost better that he steals the film by having virtually nothing to do with the plot. If you stuck Klein's Charlie Nash into other movies he had no business being in, I might get behind that, but not his own movie.
For the most part, the actual plot doesn't make any kind of sense. Things happen either because a) they're convenient, or b) because a fight/shootout is necessary. Rather than walk you through the whole film, I'm going to bring up two specific point that demonstrate why this film is both a loser and a winner at the same time:
1) Chun-Li is a rich kid who may or may not be a concert pianist (the movie wants you to think so, but I'm 99% positive she's performing in front of a green screen with the worst "audience" painting ever). Her father is kidnapped/killed/something when she's young, leading to a ridiculous "Veangeance!!!!" stare and some kind of mysterious scroll when she's older. Her mother doesn't appear to age but instead dies of a mystery disease.
A wise woman tells Chun-Li she needs to "go to Bangkok." That's exactly what she says, but Chun-Li takes it to mean "give up everything you know and become homeless, wandering the streets until you get into a fight," which is exactly what happens. She then trains with a dude named Gen who teaches her how to throw fireballs. Until the fireballs, Street Fighter apparently was trying to be "realistic."
2) I mentioned Taboo earlier, because he plays Vega. At least he kind of looks like Vega, since he has a mask and claws, unlike Michael Clarke Duncan, who plays Balrog as Michael Clarke Duncan. Vega kills several people off-camera early in the movie and then disappears until he's summoned to kill Chun-Li.
The set-up for their "epic" battle is virtually nonexistent. Chun-Li is upset that Master Gen lost his necklace in an explosion (meaning that he must be dead), and is running around Bangkok. Then she decides to jump across rooftops, and bumps into Vega. At least, that's how the lousy editing makes it look. I guess maybe she sensed he was following, but there's nothing in the direction of this sequence to suggest A leads to B leads to C. It just happens.
Chun-Li and Vega fight (kind of), and she knocks his mask off. Instead of being disfigured or vain or something, he just looks like Taboo from the Black Eyed Peas, but Chun-Li says "No wonder you wear a mask. If I were as ugly as you I'd wear one too!", which is just odd. Then she jumps on him and knocks him out off-camera. We see her drop the knocked out Vega from a roof, where he's tied up by his feet but still has his claws!
Maybe we'll see Vega again? Nope. Not in this movie. At least Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li remembered to pay off the fireball, even if the CGI resembled Syfy Channel original quality.
I know it sounds like I'm bagging on this movie, but the truth is that you spend most of the time laughing at how inept this movie is. Whether it's the totally unexplained hookup between Chris Klein and Moon Bloodgood, the faux-lesbian club sequence that transitions into a strip club shootout, unwarranted c-sections, the really unnecessary reminders of the most obvious visual clue in the entire movie, or just Chris Klein staring past the camera and muttering one-liners that don't make sense, it's hard not to enjoy this kind of crap. It's bad, but far from unwatchable.
Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li may not be Death Race, but just because you Won't Have To doesn't mean you shouldn't give it a try, provided you're in like-minded company with lots of alcohol.
Cap'n out.
* the end of the film sets up a "tournament" where Master Gen will find "Ryu something-or-other" that Chun-Li decides to sit out of. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Fox will also sit out on this Street Fighter tournament too.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Blogorium Review: Coraline
I was looking forward to watching Coraline, having missed it in theatres (and in 3-D), so when the box I'd packed it in finally surfaced, that seemed like the best movie to break in the new apartment with. While it had been six years or so since I read Neil Gaiman's book, I still remembered the beats pretty well, and was looking forward to seeing Henry Selick (The Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach) adapt an atmospheric and at times creepy kids novella into his stop-motion magic. I was, with one or two reservations, not disappointed.
For those who haven't read the book, the story is pretty simple: Coraline Jones (voiced by Dakota Fanning) and her mother and father (Teri Hatcher and John Hodgman) move into a large apartment in and old house. The other apartments contain eccentric neighbors: two vaudeville actresses aging ungracefully, a man named Bobinski who trains mice for his circus, the nosy grandson of their landlord. Coraline is easily bored and her parents easily distracted, so she goes off exploring and finds a rather small door in the living room. At first the door appears to go nowhere, until one night she finds it leads to another house, just like hers, with "other" parents, just like hers. Everything seems perfect, except for the buttons people have instead of eyes...
What follows is a bit of Alice in Wonderland crossed with "The Monkey's Paw"-style "be careful what you wish for", in Gaiman-esque fashion. I was quite fond of the book and the film doesn't deviate much, if at all, which can be a plus and a minus.
The one drawback to the film I have is that it's never as creepy or unnerving as the book is. When things go bad in this seemingly perfect world (and they always do, so it's hardly a spoiler), I didn't feel concerned for Coraline, nor did her sense of mounting danger translate as it did in the book. Now it's possible that, knowing how the story ended, I simply knew things were going to work out and that softened much of the alienation she feels in the third act.
On the other hand, Coraline is not so different from other children's books with similar stories, and accordingly it's always clear that things are going to "work out" in the end. If reading the novel didn't sully my enjoyment of the wonder that Coraline meets when she first passes through the tunnel, then perhaps the film is simply missing - by PG rating or not - that essential component of "uh oh". I think of films like Labyrinth or The Dark Crystal, or even Alice in Wonderland, where things get very bad very quickly for the hero, and you're not entirely certain they can get out of it. If Coraline has a fault, it's that the film lacks that urgency when its needed most.
On the other hand, the voice work is excellent. In addition to Fanning, Hatcher, and Hodgman, you also have Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French, Ian McShane, and Keith David as the cat who walks between worlds. The design of the "other" mother is pretty disturbing, especially as it reaches the final stages, and I thought Wybie (Robert Bailey, Jr.) was a more interesting character in the film than in the book, particularly "other" Wybie.
sidenote: I did not watch the 3-D version, but rather the 2-D take, so as to get impressions of the movie and not necessarily be influenced by the "gimmick", so to speak. Even in 2-D, the promise of seeing Coraline Jones's world in 3 dimensions is worth revisiting the film.
The design work of Coraline is quite intricate, to the point that - if you so desired - you could stop following the story and pay attention to the marvelous sculpture, knitting, and animatronic work on display. There really isn't a set in the film where you couldn't hit the "pause" button and enjoy the craftsmanship. The expressiveness of the facial work is also impressive, and the level of individuality in the human characters was something I was glad to see. Rather than looking roughly the same with small variations, each puppet had its own distinct look, personality, and movement. As fantastic as the film gets, the animation is always naturalistic and quite distinct from the expressionistic Nightmare Before Christmas.
Speaking of which, one thing that springs to mind is how not like Tim Burton's Corpse Bride this film is. The comparison draws itself because Burton made Corpse Bride in the shadow of The Nightmare Before Christmas, and even though Selick directed Nightmare, Tim Burton is almost wholly associated with the film. My impression of Corpse Bride was that it tried so hard not to be Nightmare that the film doubled back onto itself and lacked any magic.
Coraline, on the other hand, is nothing like The Nightmare Before Christmas. It's not even like James and the Giant Peach. The film is, very loosely, reminiscent of Dave McKean's sketches in the book Coraline but in most respects is its own entity. While it doesn't hold together as well as it could story wise, I'd still say the Coraline is worth watching, and when I've seen the 3-D version I'll update you about that too.
For those who haven't read the book, the story is pretty simple: Coraline Jones (voiced by Dakota Fanning) and her mother and father (Teri Hatcher and John Hodgman) move into a large apartment in and old house. The other apartments contain eccentric neighbors: two vaudeville actresses aging ungracefully, a man named Bobinski who trains mice for his circus, the nosy grandson of their landlord. Coraline is easily bored and her parents easily distracted, so she goes off exploring and finds a rather small door in the living room. At first the door appears to go nowhere, until one night she finds it leads to another house, just like hers, with "other" parents, just like hers. Everything seems perfect, except for the buttons people have instead of eyes...
What follows is a bit of Alice in Wonderland crossed with "The Monkey's Paw"-style "be careful what you wish for", in Gaiman-esque fashion. I was quite fond of the book and the film doesn't deviate much, if at all, which can be a plus and a minus.
The one drawback to the film I have is that it's never as creepy or unnerving as the book is. When things go bad in this seemingly perfect world (and they always do, so it's hardly a spoiler), I didn't feel concerned for Coraline, nor did her sense of mounting danger translate as it did in the book. Now it's possible that, knowing how the story ended, I simply knew things were going to work out and that softened much of the alienation she feels in the third act.
On the other hand, Coraline is not so different from other children's books with similar stories, and accordingly it's always clear that things are going to "work out" in the end. If reading the novel didn't sully my enjoyment of the wonder that Coraline meets when she first passes through the tunnel, then perhaps the film is simply missing - by PG rating or not - that essential component of "uh oh". I think of films like Labyrinth or The Dark Crystal, or even Alice in Wonderland, where things get very bad very quickly for the hero, and you're not entirely certain they can get out of it. If Coraline has a fault, it's that the film lacks that urgency when its needed most.
On the other hand, the voice work is excellent. In addition to Fanning, Hatcher, and Hodgman, you also have Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French, Ian McShane, and Keith David as the cat who walks between worlds. The design of the "other" mother is pretty disturbing, especially as it reaches the final stages, and I thought Wybie (Robert Bailey, Jr.) was a more interesting character in the film than in the book, particularly "other" Wybie.
sidenote: I did not watch the 3-D version, but rather the 2-D take, so as to get impressions of the movie and not necessarily be influenced by the "gimmick", so to speak. Even in 2-D, the promise of seeing Coraline Jones's world in 3 dimensions is worth revisiting the film.
The design work of Coraline is quite intricate, to the point that - if you so desired - you could stop following the story and pay attention to the marvelous sculpture, knitting, and animatronic work on display. There really isn't a set in the film where you couldn't hit the "pause" button and enjoy the craftsmanship. The expressiveness of the facial work is also impressive, and the level of individuality in the human characters was something I was glad to see. Rather than looking roughly the same with small variations, each puppet had its own distinct look, personality, and movement. As fantastic as the film gets, the animation is always naturalistic and quite distinct from the expressionistic Nightmare Before Christmas.
Speaking of which, one thing that springs to mind is how not like Tim Burton's Corpse Bride this film is. The comparison draws itself because Burton made Corpse Bride in the shadow of The Nightmare Before Christmas, and even though Selick directed Nightmare, Tim Burton is almost wholly associated with the film. My impression of Corpse Bride was that it tried so hard not to be Nightmare that the film doubled back onto itself and lacked any magic.
Coraline, on the other hand, is nothing like The Nightmare Before Christmas. It's not even like James and the Giant Peach. The film is, very loosely, reminiscent of Dave McKean's sketches in the book Coraline but in most respects is its own entity. While it doesn't hold together as well as it could story wise, I'd still say the Coraline is worth watching, and when I've seen the 3-D version I'll update you about that too.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Final Films and Devil Worship!
You know, the Cap'n was worried there for a second. I was beginning to think that this movie didn't actually exist, and that Terry Gilliam had been showing us production art and setting up an elaborate ruse about the actual "final" Heath Ledger film. To be fair, I was basing this on the fact that - like Solomon Kane - in the year or so I'd been hearing about Parnassus online, there wasn't so much as a frame of actual footage featuring Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell, or Jude Law to be seen.
Actually, I quite like the look of Tom Waits as the Devil, even if my earlier concerns that only die-hard Gilliam fans will see this aren't rattled after the trailer. Yes, I'll see the movie, and most of you reading this will (or very likely will), but I contend that much of the moviegoing public is "over" Heath Ledger after the Oscars, and accordingly won't see this since they're "said goodbye."
Of course, most of the moviegoing public helped give GI Joe fifty four million of their recession-dollars this past weekend, so the Cap'n clearly speaks for an irrelevant market.
---
While it may not be one of his best movies, I certainly didn't hesitate to pick up a copy of Roman Polanski's The Ninth Gate on Blu-Ray for BD Cheap*. I've actually revisited the movie a few times on dvd and find that the problem is entirely in the ending, which essentially unravels the narrative and feels like it skipped over something important.
On the other hand, if you watch the movie knowing that the last "twist" about false pages is going to fall down, you can at least enjoy the detective story that Polanski sends Johnny Depp's Dean Corso down before things get silly. The ending tends to overshadow how good the rest of the movie is, and while of the two I'm more likely to revisit Repulsion in the near future, The Ninth Gate is welcome in the collection.
Cutthroat Island, on the other hand, can stay at Target forever as far as I'm concerned.
---
One box away from being dvd/BD unpacked. It's the horror box, of course, so that the demons can kill me during an appropriate shelving. These things just happen, you know...
* BD Cheap = DVD cheap last year, which is to say $15 or less for a new release.
Monday, August 10, 2009
A brief follow-up on Watchmen
Because the Cap'n hadn't actually seen the first five minutes (or so) of Watchmen, and because of a combination of Borders Bucks and coupon action, I supposed it might not hurt to at least watch the beginning of the movie - if not the whole thing - since I could bring the damn thing home for free.
I'm on the record as saying that it wasn't some horrible disaster like I assumed it would be. On the other hand, not only did the film not live up to the considerable hype that comic fans and the internet raised it to, but the movie had a lot of other problems. The changes in story were dumb and kind of arbitrary, the music cues were mixed in a little too loudly, and the speed ramp-ing was a taaaad overused.
There was something else that bothered me about the movie, something that I couldn't quite put my finger on until I saw the beginning and skimmed through the beginning of the film again. When I realized it, I understood immediately why I had such a hard time getting into the world of Watchmen: the makeup appliances look horrible.
It's not just Nixon, who does look like a bad impersonation of an impersonation of Nixon; it's everyone. I think I mentioned in the other review that Sally Jupiter and the original Nite Owl looked bad, but it's not limited to the "old age" makeup. Castro looks terrible, Pat Buchanan is all but unrecognizable until Jim Lehrer (or a guy who barely looks like him) says his name. Kennedy looks awful and fake. The only person with a rubber (or latex) appliance that is even remotely convincing is Moloch (Matt Frewer), and I'm convinced it's because you don't notice the ears right away.
I spent 90% of the well-crafted opening credits alternating between settling into the world of the comic and being instantly pulled out by really shoddy makeup. I don't know why it's so bad but I had a very hard time buying into the story when such simple effects work looked so fake. The "old age" Comedian looked like he had piles of appliances dolloped on his face just before shooting, and it can really kill the mood. More than anything, this may be the reason I'm reticent to finish watching the Watchmen, even for free. That's a shame, because I might give the movie a fighting chance if I could get over such a simple mistake.
I'm on the record as saying that it wasn't some horrible disaster like I assumed it would be. On the other hand, not only did the film not live up to the considerable hype that comic fans and the internet raised it to, but the movie had a lot of other problems. The changes in story were dumb and kind of arbitrary, the music cues were mixed in a little too loudly, and the speed ramp-ing was a taaaad overused.
There was something else that bothered me about the movie, something that I couldn't quite put my finger on until I saw the beginning and skimmed through the beginning of the film again. When I realized it, I understood immediately why I had such a hard time getting into the world of Watchmen: the makeup appliances look horrible.
It's not just Nixon, who does look like a bad impersonation of an impersonation of Nixon; it's everyone. I think I mentioned in the other review that Sally Jupiter and the original Nite Owl looked bad, but it's not limited to the "old age" makeup. Castro looks terrible, Pat Buchanan is all but unrecognizable until Jim Lehrer (or a guy who barely looks like him) says his name. Kennedy looks awful and fake. The only person with a rubber (or latex) appliance that is even remotely convincing is Moloch (Matt Frewer), and I'm convinced it's because you don't notice the ears right away.
I spent 90% of the well-crafted opening credits alternating between settling into the world of the comic and being instantly pulled out by really shoddy makeup. I don't know why it's so bad but I had a very hard time buying into the story when such simple effects work looked so fake. The "old age" Comedian looked like he had piles of appliances dolloped on his face just before shooting, and it can really kill the mood. More than anything, this may be the reason I'm reticent to finish watching the Watchmen, even for free. That's a shame, because I might give the movie a fighting chance if I could get over such a simple mistake.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Cult Movies, Continued.
editor's note: I woke up to discover this, for some reason, hadn't been posted on Saturday evening when it was written. Apologies.
I was looking through some of the vintage pieces from the Blogorium "vault", and I realized while reading one about what classifies a "cult" movie that I suddenly had a serious problem with my premise.
The issue isn't so much about what is or isn't a "cult" movie but more about the nature of the cult movie phenomenon itself:
Does it still exist?
When I was in high school, in the early days of the internet (when you couldn't actually find anything if you didn't know exactly where to look), I was kinda/sorta doing some student teaching during an "independent study" period, and one of the students came up to me and said "I want to know what 'the list' is."
I wasn't sure what she meant, but it turned out she was talking about "the list" of books you're "supposed" to read that aren't part of the high school curriculum. As recently as ten years ago, this was something that someone brought to you: usually the cool kid who seemed wiser than their years or the outsider or whoever. The list itself had no origin that anybody knew of, existed as a meme or as viral content. One day you didn't know it existed; the next day you did.
Suddenly you knew that you needed to read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. You needed to read Catch-22, Brave New World, Naked Lunch, beat poetry, and other subversive-for-its-time literature. You would seek the books out and be able to recognize those who were ready to take a similar journey, but it was never thought of or referred to as "the list". It just was.
(The music industry figured out a way to capitalize and exploit this during the nineties in an all-inclusive banner called "alternative", and many of us drank the Kool-Aid in one form or fashion.)
For movies it was a little trickier, because you really needed someone who worked in a video store to steer you away from renting everything (something I discussed not too long ago). The other helpful method was to have (or read) one of those movie guides cover to cover and be dedicated enough not just to skip over something you didn't recognize. You had to spend a LOT of time getting past the lurid cover art to really discover something worth passing along, and the "list" of cult films was pretty short, even when I was in high school.
It went something like this:
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
The Evil Dead trilogy
Eraserhead
Escape from New York
Shaft
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Halloween
A Clockwork Orange
Meet the Feebles
Dead Alive
The Big Lebowski
eventually, in college, it expanded considerably, thanks in part to more access to film fans, video stores, classes, better independent theatres. Notice how few foreign films are on the list of "cult" films as I understood them in high school. Shit, notice how few films there are period, how many classics I'm leaving out (Polyester, for chrissakes!).
As the internet started to grow, and as people became more easily connected, suddenly more and more movies that had been lost in the shuffle got out there, and something changed to the "cult" movie phenomenon: more people new about them. Not only did they know more about them, but they could point you to where they heard about them in a concrete manner. It wasn't Dave at Carbonated Video, it was the Entertainment Weekly list of "Best Cult Films" or Cult Movie Watch*, or Videohound's Guide to Cult Movies You Must See Before You Die.
So I must ask: if almost anyone can tell you they know that Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn exists, and that they or someone they know has seen it, is it a "cult" film anymore? Does the film reach a point where it is so well recognized because of its presence online that it ceases to be something unknown and "discovered"?
I suppose then the followup question is "would that be such a bad thing?" Do we need to have the sense of discovering something to really enjoy it? When I saw Donnie Darko for the first time, no one I knew had seen it or heard about it. I read a review in the News and Observer that mentioned a giant bunny named Frank and then it never came out. Showing it to everyone I knew was like sharing a secret, and then about six months later everyone knew about it. It was all over college campuses and for some reason, things were less fun. It's weird.
Discovering movies is really hard now, because most of the time I hear about it all over the place online before I think about renting it. The last "discovery" I can think of was Primer, and that was after months of reading about the film. Word of mouth still happens, but it's usually coupled with "yeah, I saw that online" or "I read about that" The conversations about "Holy Fuck have you heard of this movie about puppets throwing up and killing each other?!" don't seem to happen as much. It's kind of a bummer.
Rarer and rarer are the days of something like Blood Car, a movie that came from a friend of Neil's that I'd never heard of before and, had he not brought it to our attention, I may well have never seen. The same goes for Terrorvision, which came from the memories of Major Tom. Both of those are "must see" movies, and they're pretty tough to find if you don't know where to look, but that ilk of movie is getting more and more difficult to find these days. Mrm.
* I don't actually know if that exists but if googled, I wouldn't be surprised to find it.
I was looking through some of the vintage pieces from the Blogorium "vault", and I realized while reading one about what classifies a "cult" movie that I suddenly had a serious problem with my premise.
The issue isn't so much about what is or isn't a "cult" movie but more about the nature of the cult movie phenomenon itself:
Does it still exist?
When I was in high school, in the early days of the internet (when you couldn't actually find anything if you didn't know exactly where to look), I was kinda/sorta doing some student teaching during an "independent study" period, and one of the students came up to me and said "I want to know what 'the list' is."
I wasn't sure what she meant, but it turned out she was talking about "the list" of books you're "supposed" to read that aren't part of the high school curriculum. As recently as ten years ago, this was something that someone brought to you: usually the cool kid who seemed wiser than their years or the outsider or whoever. The list itself had no origin that anybody knew of, existed as a meme or as viral content. One day you didn't know it existed; the next day you did.
Suddenly you knew that you needed to read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. You needed to read Catch-22, Brave New World, Naked Lunch, beat poetry, and other subversive-for-its-time literature. You would seek the books out and be able to recognize those who were ready to take a similar journey, but it was never thought of or referred to as "the list". It just was.
(The music industry figured out a way to capitalize and exploit this during the nineties in an all-inclusive banner called "alternative", and many of us drank the Kool-Aid in one form or fashion.)
For movies it was a little trickier, because you really needed someone who worked in a video store to steer you away from renting everything (something I discussed not too long ago). The other helpful method was to have (or read) one of those movie guides cover to cover and be dedicated enough not just to skip over something you didn't recognize. You had to spend a LOT of time getting past the lurid cover art to really discover something worth passing along, and the "list" of cult films was pretty short, even when I was in high school.
It went something like this:
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
The Evil Dead trilogy
Eraserhead
Escape from New York
Shaft
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Halloween
A Clockwork Orange
Meet the Feebles
Dead Alive
The Big Lebowski
eventually, in college, it expanded considerably, thanks in part to more access to film fans, video stores, classes, better independent theatres. Notice how few foreign films are on the list of "cult" films as I understood them in high school. Shit, notice how few films there are period, how many classics I'm leaving out (Polyester, for chrissakes!).
As the internet started to grow, and as people became more easily connected, suddenly more and more movies that had been lost in the shuffle got out there, and something changed to the "cult" movie phenomenon: more people new about them. Not only did they know more about them, but they could point you to where they heard about them in a concrete manner. It wasn't Dave at Carbonated Video, it was the Entertainment Weekly list of "Best Cult Films" or Cult Movie Watch*, or Videohound's Guide to Cult Movies You Must See Before You Die.
So I must ask: if almost anyone can tell you they know that Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn exists, and that they or someone they know has seen it, is it a "cult" film anymore? Does the film reach a point where it is so well recognized because of its presence online that it ceases to be something unknown and "discovered"?
I suppose then the followup question is "would that be such a bad thing?" Do we need to have the sense of discovering something to really enjoy it? When I saw Donnie Darko for the first time, no one I knew had seen it or heard about it. I read a review in the News and Observer that mentioned a giant bunny named Frank and then it never came out. Showing it to everyone I knew was like sharing a secret, and then about six months later everyone knew about it. It was all over college campuses and for some reason, things were less fun. It's weird.
Discovering movies is really hard now, because most of the time I hear about it all over the place online before I think about renting it. The last "discovery" I can think of was Primer, and that was after months of reading about the film. Word of mouth still happens, but it's usually coupled with "yeah, I saw that online" or "I read about that" The conversations about "Holy Fuck have you heard of this movie about puppets throwing up and killing each other?!" don't seem to happen as much. It's kind of a bummer.
Rarer and rarer are the days of something like Blood Car, a movie that came from a friend of Neil's that I'd never heard of before and, had he not brought it to our attention, I may well have never seen. The same goes for Terrorvision, which came from the memories of Major Tom. Both of those are "must see" movies, and they're pretty tough to find if you don't know where to look, but that ilk of movie is getting more and more difficult to find these days. Mrm.
* I don't actually know if that exists but if googled, I wouldn't be surprised to find it.
Friday, August 7, 2009
What a misleading trailer!
As the Cap'n likes to drop knowledge as often and as accurately as possible, allow me to present the actual plot of Teenage Mother, from the Amazon dvd listing:
High schoolers learn a lot about the facts of life from the new Swedish sex-ed teacher. She is nearly raped by drug-dealing students and one ingenious, manipulative girl uses the new knowledge to feign pregnancy so she can con her boy friend into marrying her.
Sneaky, Mr. Unfortunately Voiced Narrator Guy (TEENAGE MUTHA!): you tricked us into thinking the movie was just about Arlene Sue and that afterward thatGerman Swedish sex-ed instructor would be visiting us in person. I had no idea this movie would be so *gasp* scandalous! We came to see Teenage Mother, not Class of 1984, after all*.
However, this does raise questions about what happens after the "whole gang got even" one night. Maybe it wasn't that she tricked the guy and turned "brother against brother", but her slutty ways with the truck driver just pushed him over the edge. Or something. Now I'm all messed up about Teenage Mother ("means nine months of trouble!"), because of the wildly inaccurate advertising campaign.
For shame, Voiceover Guy. For shame.
* admittedly, all of these revelations do make the film more interesting than I thought it would be...
TEENAGE MOTHER
High schoolers learn a lot about the facts of life from the new Swedish sex-ed teacher. She is nearly raped by drug-dealing students and one ingenious, manipulative girl uses the new knowledge to feign pregnancy so she can con her boy friend into marrying her.
Sneaky, Mr. Unfortunately Voiced Narrator Guy (TEENAGE MUTHA!): you tricked us into thinking the movie was just about Arlene Sue and that afterward that
However, this does raise questions about what happens after the "whole gang got even" one night. Maybe it wasn't that she tricked the guy and turned "brother against brother", but her slutty ways with the truck driver just pushed him over the edge. Or something. Now I'm all messed up about Teenage Mother ("means nine months of trouble!"), because of the wildly inaccurate advertising campaign.
For shame, Voiceover Guy. For shame.
* admittedly, all of these revelations do make the film more interesting than I thought it would be...
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The perils of late-night movie watching.
It's the weirdest thing... I know I've seen Big Trouble in Little China. In fact, I'm positive I've seen it several times, but for the life of me I couldn't tell you how the plot unfolds.
This is not an isolated occurrence, either; the Cap'n has similar problems with all kinds of movies. It's usually ones I know I really like, too. Apocalypse Now is one such example: I can tell you how it begins and how it ends, but the progression of story in the middle loses me every time. It feels like a dream watching the film, and while I know there's the surfing sequence, the gunning down of innocent boaters, the Playboy riot, Chef doing too much acid, the tiger scene, and the explosions/fireworks sequence between Willard's assignment and the time when Dennis Hopper shows up, I can't tell you the order in which they appear.
Blade Runner used to be a similar problem, although it's been alleviated by repeat viewings last year. Come to think of it, I don't think I could tell you exactly what happens in Blazing Saddles, although I might be able to work out Young Frankenstein at this point. The Princess Bride? I'm a little iffy.
It's the damnedest thing, because I really do like these movies. This is not a situation of "foggy memory", like Return to Oz, where I remember how the movie starts (Dorothy being sent to a hospital for shock treatment) and scattered scenes afterwards. I know I've seen these films, I know I enjoyed them, but for the life of me I can't tell you the story mechanics. Something like 8 1/2 or Dead Man I don't feel so bad about, but I ought to be able to remember what happens in Living in Oblivion. Or Trees Lounge. Or hell, even Dawn of the Dead. The broad strokes? Sure, but specific details are lacking.
Perhaps the common thread between all of these movies is that I watched them for the first time late at night (with the exception of Oz), usually half asleep, and my mind simply coded them as films which are reminiscent of dreams. Despite the fact that what is being projected onto the screen doesn't necessarily change, my memory obfuscates and combines with other hazy recollections, so while I enjoy the film, the ambiguity remains.
Ironically, I think this is what Richard Linklater had in mind with Slacker and Waking Life, two "free form" movies I did not see in a "half-awake" state and accordingly just can't get into. Admittedly, I can't necessarily give you the plot progression of those either, but it's more because I don't care enough. I'm getting better with Dazed and Confused, which I did (and do) like but for long periods of time couldn't recount, and not due to any drug related shenanigans.
To turn this over to you, dear readers, is this a unique phenomenon to the Cap'n, or do you also have similar experiences with movies? Is there something you gravitate towards or have affinity for that, if questioned, you couldn't properly explain? Or am I just crazy?
Wait, don't answer that second question. We know the answer is yes.
This is not an isolated occurrence, either; the Cap'n has similar problems with all kinds of movies. It's usually ones I know I really like, too. Apocalypse Now is one such example: I can tell you how it begins and how it ends, but the progression of story in the middle loses me every time. It feels like a dream watching the film, and while I know there's the surfing sequence, the gunning down of innocent boaters, the Playboy riot, Chef doing too much acid, the tiger scene, and the explosions/fireworks sequence between Willard's assignment and the time when Dennis Hopper shows up, I can't tell you the order in which they appear.
Blade Runner used to be a similar problem, although it's been alleviated by repeat viewings last year. Come to think of it, I don't think I could tell you exactly what happens in Blazing Saddles, although I might be able to work out Young Frankenstein at this point. The Princess Bride? I'm a little iffy.
It's the damnedest thing, because I really do like these movies. This is not a situation of "foggy memory", like Return to Oz, where I remember how the movie starts (Dorothy being sent to a hospital for shock treatment) and scattered scenes afterwards. I know I've seen these films, I know I enjoyed them, but for the life of me I can't tell you the story mechanics. Something like 8 1/2 or Dead Man I don't feel so bad about, but I ought to be able to remember what happens in Living in Oblivion. Or Trees Lounge. Or hell, even Dawn of the Dead. The broad strokes? Sure, but specific details are lacking.
Perhaps the common thread between all of these movies is that I watched them for the first time late at night (with the exception of Oz), usually half asleep, and my mind simply coded them as films which are reminiscent of dreams. Despite the fact that what is being projected onto the screen doesn't necessarily change, my memory obfuscates and combines with other hazy recollections, so while I enjoy the film, the ambiguity remains.
Ironically, I think this is what Richard Linklater had in mind with Slacker and Waking Life, two "free form" movies I did not see in a "half-awake" state and accordingly just can't get into. Admittedly, I can't necessarily give you the plot progression of those either, but it's more because I don't care enough. I'm getting better with Dazed and Confused, which I did (and do) like but for long periods of time couldn't recount, and not due to any drug related shenanigans.
To turn this over to you, dear readers, is this a unique phenomenon to the Cap'n, or do you also have similar experiences with movies? Is there something you gravitate towards or have affinity for that, if questioned, you couldn't properly explain? Or am I just crazy?
Wait, don't answer that second question. We know the answer is yes.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
"You gotta put out if you want to get back..."
Teenage Mother indeed, Major Tom. Teenage Mother indeed.
I guess that means I'm buying it, huh?
---
It's almost pointless to question why Guillermo Del Toro hired someone to remake The Orphanage in English. Like Let the Right One In, I get that there's a bias against horror films with subtitles. It's stupid, but that's the way it is and we (the consumers) are consistently unwilling to say "no thanks" and push this trend in the opposite direction.
The good news is that we live in a heavily saturated dvd and Blu-Ray market, so it's not like the days when your only option was the remake. In some ways, this really levels the "remake-obliterates-source-material" dynamic I'm so interested in, but the real test is when these new versions hit theaters.
I'm willing to bet that, lack of acclaim aside, The Uninvited made more money than any limited theatrical release of A Tale of Two Sisters, on which it was based. In all likelihood, people who heard about Let the Right One In will see Let Me In for curiosity's sake, and I'm going out on a limb and betting many LTROI fans will see it too, gripes aside.
In that regard, the "new" version does erase for most people the existence of "original" films, outside of circles of cinephiles. This is silly, but that's the reality.
---
Finally, the Cap'n is sorta jazzed about this whole District 9 thing. I'm inclined to see it when it opens. Any takers?
I guess that means I'm buying it, huh?
---
It's almost pointless to question why Guillermo Del Toro hired someone to remake The Orphanage in English. Like Let the Right One In, I get that there's a bias against horror films with subtitles. It's stupid, but that's the way it is and we (the consumers) are consistently unwilling to say "no thanks" and push this trend in the opposite direction.
The good news is that we live in a heavily saturated dvd and Blu-Ray market, so it's not like the days when your only option was the remake. In some ways, this really levels the "remake-obliterates-source-material" dynamic I'm so interested in, but the real test is when these new versions hit theaters.
I'm willing to bet that, lack of acclaim aside, The Uninvited made more money than any limited theatrical release of A Tale of Two Sisters, on which it was based. In all likelihood, people who heard about Let the Right One In will see Let Me In for curiosity's sake, and I'm going out on a limb and betting many LTROI fans will see it too, gripes aside.
In that regard, the "new" version does erase for most people the existence of "original" films, outside of circles of cinephiles. This is silly, but that's the reality.
---
Finally, the Cap'n is sorta jazzed about this whole District 9 thing. I'm inclined to see it when it opens. Any takers?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Planning Ahead
While I was training a new employee at work tonight, she mentioned that there's a Drive-In over in Albermarle that's up and running. More importantly, it's doing pretty well. This makes me happy for two reasons:
1) this hints at a possibility of the revival of independent theatres - specifically drive-ins - that people can experience separately of the multiplex. Not knowing what they play, I don't want to go too much further down that avenue, but this does at least mean the Drive-In and drive-in culture isn't dead.
2) there's a (relatively) nearby drive-in to make a trip to and see movies at. I'm pretty excited about that possibility, especially if the movie matches the venue. We should put something together in the not-too-distant future about checking this out.
---
The DVR is now working, and it should be recording David Cronenberg's Shivers, a movie I don't have on dvd and it'll be nice to have in some format. This aspect of digital media may have the edge on other "portable media" formats, since it looks pretty nice and is easy to access. The "remote" recording aspect is also a plus. I can plan waaay ahead to dvr a show and watch it on when I have a chance.
Now it's just a matter of perusing the absurd amount of movie channels available and narrow down additional films or series to check out. I also noticed that Syfy HD runs blocks of Tales from the Darkside, including later seasons, which I should also add to the "record" function. Horror fest will be coming sooner rather than later...
---
Speaking of Horror Fest, Trick R Treat comes out on October 6th and I brought home a highly spoken of indie horror film called Plague Town. The Cap'n also needs to check out Martyrs, once he unpacks the Netflix disc.
Also, a little picture I found called Strangler of the Swamp...
---
Behave out there, gangarinos. Remember, you still have two days to put in any dvd, book, game, vhs, or cd requests from Sweaty's.
1) this hints at a possibility of the revival of independent theatres - specifically drive-ins - that people can experience separately of the multiplex. Not knowing what they play, I don't want to go too much further down that avenue, but this does at least mean the Drive-In and drive-in culture isn't dead.
2) there's a (relatively) nearby drive-in to make a trip to and see movies at. I'm pretty excited about that possibility, especially if the movie matches the venue. We should put something together in the not-too-distant future about checking this out.
---
The DVR is now working, and it should be recording David Cronenberg's Shivers, a movie I don't have on dvd and it'll be nice to have in some format. This aspect of digital media may have the edge on other "portable media" formats, since it looks pretty nice and is easy to access. The "remote" recording aspect is also a plus. I can plan waaay ahead to dvr a show and watch it on when I have a chance.
Now it's just a matter of perusing the absurd amount of movie channels available and narrow down additional films or series to check out. I also noticed that Syfy HD runs blocks of Tales from the Darkside, including later seasons, which I should also add to the "record" function. Horror fest will be coming sooner rather than later...
---
Speaking of Horror Fest, Trick R Treat comes out on October 6th and I brought home a highly spoken of indie horror film called Plague Town. The Cap'n also needs to check out Martyrs, once he unpacks the Netflix disc.
Also, a little picture I found called Strangler of the Swamp...
---
Behave out there, gangarinos. Remember, you still have two days to put in any dvd, book, game, vhs, or cd requests from Sweaty's.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Little Boxes on the hardwood, little boxes made of...
well, cardboard, I guess. For all the Cap'n knows, they could be ticky-tacky. If one takes the definition of ticky tacky ("shoddy material, as for the construction of standardized housing"), I suppose you could actually say they are made of ticky tacky. And most of them look the same.
That, as many of you can guess, is the problem. I'd love to tell you about all the movies I've watched since class ended and I moved in, but I honestly can't remember which box has what movie. I only just found the box with the Torchwood and Doctor Who blu-rays, and I think I learned how to use the DVR (we'll find out if Weeds is on it tomorrow), but On Demand doesn't work for some reason and Chiller (the all horror channel) also doesn't want to load. Cheesus crust!
Other than that, things are good. I was surprised to come back from an internet blackout to see that Ridley Scott is directing this Alien prequel thingamabob and that Spielberg is remaking Harvey. Both of these struck me as very odd and unnecessary, but the Cap'n has been wrong before.
---
I think before dipping into the "Vault", I mentioned that my days of used books and more were winding down. This is true; in fact, my last day of enjoying "McKayflix" will be Thursday, so if you have requests, now is the time to get them in. Trade credit is light but I can buy them on your behalf for a later date. Just let me know.
The split is one more out of "that's how it has to be" than "what either would prefer": I can't work the schedule they need and they don't have positions for seasonal employees. It's okay though, I'll still find ways to keep the filmic updates coming your way, and hopefully I should have a ton of material to sort through in the three weeks between the end of work and the beginning of school.
---
If I get this DVR thing working correctly, I might even start reviewing stuff I'd never use trade credit on, or check out, and definitely not buy. Having spent very little time perusing the twenty or so movie channels to record from, I couldn't give you specifics, but those lesser-tier HBO and Showtime channels are airing just about anything.
---
Finally, I saw this on Saturday night and thought it was cute:
That, as many of you can guess, is the problem. I'd love to tell you about all the movies I've watched since class ended and I moved in, but I honestly can't remember which box has what movie. I only just found the box with the Torchwood and Doctor Who blu-rays, and I think I learned how to use the DVR (we'll find out if Weeds is on it tomorrow), but On Demand doesn't work for some reason and Chiller (the all horror channel) also doesn't want to load. Cheesus crust!
Other than that, things are good. I was surprised to come back from an internet blackout to see that Ridley Scott is directing this Alien prequel thingamabob and that Spielberg is remaking Harvey. Both of these struck me as very odd and unnecessary, but the Cap'n has been wrong before.
---
I think before dipping into the "Vault", I mentioned that my days of used books and more were winding down. This is true; in fact, my last day of enjoying "McKayflix" will be Thursday, so if you have requests, now is the time to get them in. Trade credit is light but I can buy them on your behalf for a later date. Just let me know.
The split is one more out of "that's how it has to be" than "what either would prefer": I can't work the schedule they need and they don't have positions for seasonal employees. It's okay though, I'll still find ways to keep the filmic updates coming your way, and hopefully I should have a ton of material to sort through in the three weeks between the end of work and the beginning of school.
---
If I get this DVR thing working correctly, I might even start reviewing stuff I'd never use trade credit on, or check out, and definitely not buy. Having spent very little time perusing the twenty or so movie channels to record from, I couldn't give you specifics, but those lesser-tier HBO and Showtime channels are airing just about anything.
---
Finally, I saw this on Saturday night and thought it was cute:
Saturday, August 1, 2009
From the Vault: Numbers can lie too.
editor's note: it's up to you to figure out whether this piece reflects the actual opinion of the Cap'n on box office numbers, or whether pieces from earlier this summer do. I can't tell you what to think...
It occurs to me that sometime tomorrow or Monday the box office figures will either tell the world what movies succeeded and failed in the open market. I used to really follow that kind of thing, because it seemed like some kind of pseudo-scientific system to give you an idea of how people responded to movies. But while watching A Decade Under the Influence and getting some idea of just how much box office changed the way movies are perceived, I decided not to pay attention to them anymore.
The "Blockbuster" had a lot to do with the change from letting a movie happen to turning filmmaking into calculated gambling. If a movie could open on as many screens as humanly possible, making a ton of money on the first weekend of its release, the studio could recoup their investment quickly. Somewhere along the way, every successive weekend became less and less relevant. The race was to get the big money up front and minimize the "in theatre" time. DVD's been compounding this, and if you've listened to many commentary tracks, you'll notice that more often or not they're being recorded BEFORE the film is in theatres. That's how quick turn around is now.
I worked as a projectionist in a movie theatre for a few summers, and it was explained to me that we could expect a movie to play AT MAX for four weeks, and only if it did really well the first two weeks. After that it got split billing or was packed up and sent back to the studio or the bargain theatre. It wasn't merely the influx of new releases, but the mentality that people weren't interested in seeing a movie two weeks into its run, as though we suffered from cinematic ADD.
There was a movie that proved this wrong, and not surprisingly, that's because it operated on the old system. In 2000, God's Army, the first film financed, written, directed, and starring Mormons got a "premium" slot in our theatre (one of the big screens) and no one was concerned about first weekend numbers.
What happened instead was that over the next two months, every day or so another bus would come from somewhere in the South East United States (we were the only theatre playing God's Army in the South) and the screen would sell out. It wasn't making $100 million dollar weekends, but God's Army did it the old fashioned way: word of mouth and a dedicated audience.
That's the same way films like Easy Rider and Halloween did it: week by week, person by person. In fact, that's also how something like Deep Throat became the cult legend it is. Most modern horror classics, including The Evil Dead, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and Night of the Living Dead also played the slow way, moving from drive in to drive in and building an audience by word of mouth. None of them were "failures" because they didn't recoup their budgets in three days.
Nowadays, if you hear any kind of word of mouth about a movie, you're usually going to be waiting for the dvd to come out. Odds are by the time it gets to you, there's no chance of seeing something on the big screen. Grindhouse was a "bomb", so before I could even get anyone to come see it at Mission Valley again (and you have to see that movie on the big screen to really get what Tarantino and Rodriguez are after) it had been pulled by the panicking Weinstein brothers.
Well before my time, a movie would play in theatres for at least a month, allowing people to see it over and over again before the next film came in. This, at least, is what professors and family tell me, because that's the exception and not the rule these days. Nowadays Speed Racer and The Golden Compass are judged by their opening numbers, and both, regardless of the actual movie, were failures based on opening weekend.
Of course, Donnie Darko was a "failure", and Freddy Vs. Jason was a "success", strictly by the numbers. The remake of The Grudge was a huge "success", while The Assassination of Jesse James was a "failure". Why I bring this up is because somehow the stigma of box office numbers now bleeds over into the perceived "quality" of a film. Since anyone can open up their newspaper and see the Box Office results, they can now say "oh, well movie X didn't do so well, so it must not be good". This leap doesn't always hold up, and if I did some more digging, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out some of my favorite movies were "bad" because of the arbitrary Box Office figures.
Remember that a movie like Trainspotting is never going to open on as many screens as The Phantom Menace, or get the kind of advertising blitz that we're seeing for Indiana Jones right now. I've seen probably fifty ads for Crystal Skull in the last five days, and only two for David Mamet's Redbelt. Does this make one movie better than the other? Will Crystal Skull be better than Iron Man if it does better numbers? Will it be worse if it doesn't?
All I'm saying is that maybe we should step back from the numbers game and not let it stand in for actual opinion on a movie. Good and Bad alike can do good numbers, and the same goes for low performers. Give a movie some more time than "right now" to see if it has legs, and remember that almost every film has drop off from one week to the next, so that doesn't mean that everyone was duped and it actually sucks. Audiences are a fickle lot, like pretty much everything else in the market.
It occurs to me that sometime tomorrow or Monday the box office figures will either tell the world what movies succeeded and failed in the open market. I used to really follow that kind of thing, because it seemed like some kind of pseudo-scientific system to give you an idea of how people responded to movies. But while watching A Decade Under the Influence and getting some idea of just how much box office changed the way movies are perceived, I decided not to pay attention to them anymore.
The "Blockbuster" had a lot to do with the change from letting a movie happen to turning filmmaking into calculated gambling. If a movie could open on as many screens as humanly possible, making a ton of money on the first weekend of its release, the studio could recoup their investment quickly. Somewhere along the way, every successive weekend became less and less relevant. The race was to get the big money up front and minimize the "in theatre" time. DVD's been compounding this, and if you've listened to many commentary tracks, you'll notice that more often or not they're being recorded BEFORE the film is in theatres. That's how quick turn around is now.
I worked as a projectionist in a movie theatre for a few summers, and it was explained to me that we could expect a movie to play AT MAX for four weeks, and only if it did really well the first two weeks. After that it got split billing or was packed up and sent back to the studio or the bargain theatre. It wasn't merely the influx of new releases, but the mentality that people weren't interested in seeing a movie two weeks into its run, as though we suffered from cinematic ADD.
There was a movie that proved this wrong, and not surprisingly, that's because it operated on the old system. In 2000, God's Army, the first film financed, written, directed, and starring Mormons got a "premium" slot in our theatre (one of the big screens) and no one was concerned about first weekend numbers.
What happened instead was that over the next two months, every day or so another bus would come from somewhere in the South East United States (we were the only theatre playing God's Army in the South) and the screen would sell out. It wasn't making $100 million dollar weekends, but God's Army did it the old fashioned way: word of mouth and a dedicated audience.
That's the same way films like Easy Rider and Halloween did it: week by week, person by person. In fact, that's also how something like Deep Throat became the cult legend it is. Most modern horror classics, including The Evil Dead, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and Night of the Living Dead also played the slow way, moving from drive in to drive in and building an audience by word of mouth. None of them were "failures" because they didn't recoup their budgets in three days.
Nowadays, if you hear any kind of word of mouth about a movie, you're usually going to be waiting for the dvd to come out. Odds are by the time it gets to you, there's no chance of seeing something on the big screen. Grindhouse was a "bomb", so before I could even get anyone to come see it at Mission Valley again (and you have to see that movie on the big screen to really get what Tarantino and Rodriguez are after) it had been pulled by the panicking Weinstein brothers.
Well before my time, a movie would play in theatres for at least a month, allowing people to see it over and over again before the next film came in. This, at least, is what professors and family tell me, because that's the exception and not the rule these days. Nowadays Speed Racer and The Golden Compass are judged by their opening numbers, and both, regardless of the actual movie, were failures based on opening weekend.
Of course, Donnie Darko was a "failure", and Freddy Vs. Jason was a "success", strictly by the numbers. The remake of The Grudge was a huge "success", while The Assassination of Jesse James was a "failure". Why I bring this up is because somehow the stigma of box office numbers now bleeds over into the perceived "quality" of a film. Since anyone can open up their newspaper and see the Box Office results, they can now say "oh, well movie X didn't do so well, so it must not be good". This leap doesn't always hold up, and if I did some more digging, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out some of my favorite movies were "bad" because of the arbitrary Box Office figures.
Remember that a movie like Trainspotting is never going to open on as many screens as The Phantom Menace, or get the kind of advertising blitz that we're seeing for Indiana Jones right now. I've seen probably fifty ads for Crystal Skull in the last five days, and only two for David Mamet's Redbelt. Does this make one movie better than the other? Will Crystal Skull be better than Iron Man if it does better numbers? Will it be worse if it doesn't?
All I'm saying is that maybe we should step back from the numbers game and not let it stand in for actual opinion on a movie. Good and Bad alike can do good numbers, and the same goes for low performers. Give a movie some more time than "right now" to see if it has legs, and remember that almost every film has drop off from one week to the next, so that doesn't mean that everyone was duped and it actually sucks. Audiences are a fickle lot, like pretty much everything else in the market.
intermission.
I kind of have nothing else for you today so here's the drawing of the Mermaid Revolution from some time last year.
good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)