tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28097516788703895082024-02-02T15:16:04.876-08:00The Following PreviewA blog about movies.the following previewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09447865684572555314noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-3078396252694879102016-06-26T16:54:00.002-07:002017-07-16T08:28:33.042-07:00Bill Murray and Ghostbusters (2016)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNQfdUVShL-5k6YQ2Tr0OH39KHjyjW-HvSxGIE0MxQ1hwYSBuRhRRC-_3Rb8V5X85LoZ5lZ6SdzjkpbpY221uGCQw7KGCE6rD0IfbWJyK4ilvMWYKdP-cNCYPJUGgX2gn97luP60XpDA4/s1600/Clu6ZsUXIAY2CO2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNQfdUVShL-5k6YQ2Tr0OH39KHjyjW-HvSxGIE0MxQ1hwYSBuRhRRC-_3Rb8V5X85LoZ5lZ6SdzjkpbpY221uGCQw7KGCE6rD0IfbWJyK4ilvMWYKdP-cNCYPJUGgX2gn97luP60XpDA4/s400/Clu6ZsUXIAY2CO2.jpg" width="375" /></a></div>
<br />
Alright, I've made this post numerous times in the comment threads on various facebook statuses all summer, and finally I thought, "I should probably just write a brief article that I can just link to instead of typing it out over and over again."<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In case you haven't heard, there's a new <i>Ghostbusters</i> movie opening in the US on July 15th, co-written by Katie Dippold and director Paul Feig, starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones. To promote it, several core cast members of the original <i>Ghostbusters</i> -- Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Annie Potts -- joined the new cast on "Jimmy Kimmel Live" to talk about the movie.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When asked about his long-standing reluctance to participate in a new <i>Ghostbusters</i> movie, Murray first praised the cast, then offered a pretty positive personal opinion about the finished film:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CZ0YexsRCPc/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CZ0YexsRCPc?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"When you see the film, and you'll delight in the film, it sort of rumbles along in the beginning, and you go, 'Oh God, are they going to pull this thing off?' And they are...no, believe me, no, I feel like a stepfather to the whole thing, you know? But there is just no quit in these girls. I've worked with Melissa before, and a little bit with Kris, and a little bit...but this is a tough movie to pull off, because it's a big concept, there's a lot on the plate, there's a lot of expectation, and Danny and I, and Annie, and Ernie were just screaming, cheering, like we were at a sporting event, at the end of it."<br />
<br />
Shortly before <i>Ghostbusters</i> (2016) went into production, Sony was, of course, hit by a disastrous hacking scandal that caused thousands of internal emails sent to and from various executives, producers, directors, and actors to be leaked to the internet. Among them was an email about the question of taking legal action against Bill Murray over a new <i>Ghostbusters</i> movie. Although I'm not super happy about linking to an email obtained illegally, it is part of the foundation that this article is based on, so <b><a href="https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704" target="_blank">here it is</a></b>.<br />
<br />
Although there are four emails in the chain, the important one is the first one, written by David Steinberg, head of Sony's legal department: "In order to more fully evaluate our position if Bill Murray again declines to engage on '<i>Ghostbusters</i>', AG requested that we identify 'aggressive' litigation counsel with whom we can consult to evaluate our alternatives and strategize."<br />
<br />
Those who have been against the <i>Ghostbusters</i> remake from the beginning are citing this email as evidence that Sony essentially sued Murray into not only appearing in <i>Ghostbusters</i> (2016), but also endorsing it.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE (6/27/2016): </b>A redditor asserted that I hadn't properly locaded all of the emails, so I went back to the database, and just to be sure, searched "Bill Murray" without Steinberg's name. It returned 12 pages of emails, most of which were news stories from RSS feeds (as well as several relating to Murray's participation in Cameron Crowe's <i>Aloha</i>). I found exactly two more emails that were mildly relevant: <a href="https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/105009" target="_blank"><b>one of the lawyers, saying "thanks for thinking of me,"</b></a> (which openly indicates there would be further correspondence if Sony decided to take any legal action), and a <b><a href="https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/46678" target="_blank">forwarding of a quote by Murray praising the "female <i>Ghostbusters</i>" concept</a></b> from Tom Rothman to Amy Pascal, with no further commentary provided by Rothman.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
First of all, the email in question doesn't even support this line of thinking -- it's an email discussing the <i>possibility</i> of hiring a lawyer, although nothing ever comes of it. A search of the Wikileaks database for any other emails Steinberg wrote about <i>Ghostbusters</i> or Murray turns up nothing. More importantly, though: Steinberg isn't talking about <i>Ghostbusters</i> (2016), he's talking about the aborted <i>Ghostbusters: Alive Again</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE </b><b>(7/5/2016): </b>In encountering people who continue to push this rumor, "Sony executives" come up frequently. In addition to David Steinberg, the other people in the email chain are Leonard Venger (President of Litigation for Sony Pictures Entertainment), and Leah Weil and Daniel Yankelevits, both general counsel for Sony. No general film production executives (namely, Amy Pascal) are involved in the single relevant email chain, nor the second brief email chain cited above (just Venger and Weil again, as well as the lawyer in question, Scott A. Edelman).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When Bill Murray agreed to do <i>Ghostbusters II</i> in 1988, he was more interested in working with his friends Reitman, Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis again than he was in making a sequel to <i>Ghostbusters</i>. He had just come off of <i>Scrooged</i>, an experience he reportedly hated, because the script by <b><a href="http://www.avclub.com/article/kelly-lynch-on-imagic-cityi-john-hughes-and-playin-86567" target="_blank">his friend Mitch Glazer</a></b> had been toned down from a pitch-black satire and turned into more of a special effects comedy (in the vein of <i>Ghostbusters</i>). Murray was willing to return, but the prospect of making a <i>Ghostbusters</i> sequel at all sounded like more of a commercial venture than an artistic one. To help preserve the sanctity of the series, the four men negotiated a crazy clause: <a href="http://www.vulture.com/2010/03/ghostbusters_3_ivan_reitman.html" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">no future <i>Ghostbusters</i> movies could be made without the approval of Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis, and Reitman had to be offered the first chance to direct</a>. (Should this Vulture article not convince you for some reason, Reitman himself explained the deal on the Kevin and Bean radio show on Wednesday, June 8th, which you can find <b><a href="http://kroq.cbslocal.com/kevin-bean-podcast-june-2016/" target="_blank">on this page</a></b>.)<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE (6/28/16):</b> One point that I ought to have clarified, in case it's not clear: Murray's need to sign off on the project did not mandate any participation in it. Even if Murray had zero interest in being involved, in front of or behind the camera, his approval was still necessary.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When Steinberg mentioned litigating Murray in 2013, all that was under discussion was how to obtain either Murray's approval of <i>Alive Again</i> or Murray waiving his need to sign off on the project. Furthermore (not that it matters as much, given many of the people who spread this rumor would've vastly preferred a <i>Ghostbusters 3</i>), it's not that Murray actually disliked the <i>Alive Again</i> pitch, it's that he was simply impossible to get ahold of in the first place. While I'm debunking rumors, there was also a rumor that Murray shredded a draft and sent the pieces back to Aykroyd, which Aykroyd and Murray <b><a href="http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/dan-aykroyd-ghostbusters-3-rumours/" target="_blank">denied</a></b>, the latter <b><a href="http://www.ew.com/article/2011/02/25/bill-murray-ghostbusters-3-howard-stern" target="_blank">on the Howard Stern show</a></b>, where he mentioned a draft on his desk he just never got around to reading...in other words, "declining to engage."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In February 2014, Harold Ramis passed away. One month later, and four months after the Steinberg email, <b><a href="http://deadline.com/2014/03/ghostbusters-movie-going-forward-without-ivan-reitman-sony-701057/" target="_blank">Ivan Reitman officially passed on the job directing the new <i>Ghostbusters</i> movie</a></b>, opting to produce it instead. In April, Reitman <b><a href="http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/116264-phil-lord-and-chris-miller-eyed-for-ghostbusters-reboot" target="_blank">courted <i>21 Jump Street</i> directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller</a></b> for the job, but <b><a href="http://screencrush.com/phil-lord-chris-miller-ghostbusters-3-interview/" target="_blank">they eventually declined</a></b>. In October 2014, nearly an entire year after the Steinberg email, <a href="http://variety.com/2014/film/news/paul-feig-heat-ghostbusters-reboot-1201325054/" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Feig was announced as co-writer of <i>Ghostbusters</i></a>, and the project officially became a reboot instead of a sequel.<br />
<br />
In case that isn't clear: the email people claim relates to <i>Ghostbusters</i> (2016) was sent <i>at least six months</i> before the project was even <i>concieved</i> (probably more, given <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/movies/whos-afraid-of-female-ghostbusters.html?_r=0" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Feig met with Reitman to discuss a sequel, declined it, <i>then</i> met with then-Sony chief Amy Pascal to explain why he turned it down, and <i>then</i> hit upon the idea of a reboot</a>).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Despite this wealth of evidence indicating otherwise, I'm sure the notion that Murray was somehow badgered into making the movie will persist, even though such a scenario plainly makes no sense. Bill Murray successfully spent 25 years avoiding making a third <i>Ghostbusters</i> movie, and as a rights holder, he had all the leverage. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Any situation in which Sony somehow managed to twist an entirely non-existent hold over Murray to their advantage and subsequently pressured him into appearing in the new movie not only requires some wild imagination (for what <i>legal</i> reason, on a purely theoretical level, would a court determine he was <i>required</i> to make <i>any</i> movie he hadn't already signed onto or agreed to be involved in?), but also lacks any evidence to support it (despite widespread misinterpretation of what Steinberg's email means, at least it <i>exists</i> -- not one email, interview, or scrap of evidence exists for the coercion theory). Conversely, if one argues that Sony always had that power, that begs the obvious question as to why they wouldn't have just forced Murray to make <i>Ghostbusters: Alive Again</i> when Harold Ramis was still around. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ironically, Murray said <b><a href="http://www.vulture.com/2015/08/bill-murray-on-why-he-did-ghostbusters-cameo.html" target="_blank">in an interview with Vulture</a></b> that he agreed to appear in <i>Ghostbusters</i> (2016) because he was concerned about <i>this exact scenario</i>: "I started to feel like if I didn’t do this movie, maybe somebody would write a bad review or something, thinking there was some sort of disapproval [on my part]." (Yeah, any legal coercion would cover this too, but that's the kind of convenient catch-all that conspiracy theories like this rely on.)<br />
<br />
Conspiracy theories also fly in the face of Murray's iconic pop culture persona: a man who shuns Hollywood blockbusters <b><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/09/05/casting-bill-murray-st-vincent-toronto-film-festival/15148287/" target="_blank">to make smaller films on his own terms</a></b>, a man <b><a href="http://www.gq.com/story/bill-murray-dan-fierman-gq-interview" target="_blank">without an agent or manager</a></b>, someone who many filmmakers <b><a href="http://www.7x7.com/big-fish-get-low-producer-reels-in-robert-duvall-and-the-elusive-bill--1779474705.html" target="_blank">aren't even sure will actually appear on set for their first day of shooting</a></b>.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE </b><b>(7/15/2017):</b> Just to add to this post a little more, some of the focus has spread to tension between Ivan Reitman and Paul Feig in the emails, which is an angle that definitely has a bit more substance to it. Feig wanted the 2016 film to be set in its own universe. Reitman initially agreed, but as Sony worked toward a deal for Feig and Reitman, Reitman had second thoughts. However, the last emails about this debate in the leaks can be found here: <b><a href="https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/87796" target="_blank">Feig and Reitman have a positive meeting</a></b>. <b><a href="https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/30236" target="_blank">Feig</a><span id="goog_1537107331"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_1537107332"></span></b> and <a href="https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/84942" target="_blank"><b>Reitman</b></a> both walk away happy, and <b><a href="https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/147566" target="_blank">Pascal is overjoyed by the enthusiasm Reitman shows for the film as a result</a></b>. It's possible that Reitman ended up being less satisfied with the working relationship between himself and Feig later on, but the leaks end before that happens, so there is no proof of it. In the end, Sony established Ghost Corps on their lot, which was clearly out of deference to Reitman and his plans for the franchise, both with and without Feig. (It should also be noted that art rarely benefits from a backseat driver. Fans can debate whether or not Feig should've been in the driver's seat to begin with, but to say Reitman should've had more power than Feig on Feig's film -- which Reitman agreed to make -- is a classic recipe for disaster.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's possible that <i>Ghostbusters</i> (2016) will be a disappointing movie, one which people will say they knew would stink from the start. However, even if that turns out to be the case, the chances that Bill Murray felt or feels the same way and was secretly forced to say otherwise are...definitely very slim.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE </b><b>(7/14/2016):</b> Just in case Reitman's viewpoint on the whole situation wasn't completely clear, he gave <b><a href="http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/ivan-reitman-ghostbusters-bill-murray-qa.html" target="_blank">a fantastic interview to Vulture</a></b> in which he not only reiterated the information about their contract, but specifically elaborated on the idea that Murray might've just been disingenuous. Again, not something anyone who truly believes the catch-all of them playing coy or bound by contracts is going to be swayed by, but worth a read.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01596289872855128642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-46547569453595374642014-02-27T10:42:00.002-08:002014-02-27T10:51:45.923-08:00Rima Naim's Milena<i>Rima Naim is a Lebanese filmmaker. She moved from Saudi Arabia to Los Angeles to get a master's degree in filmmaking, and is currently working on producing short films and documentaries.</i><br />
<br />
"Milena" is skillfully constructed, combining elegant imagery and soft, soulful music into a package that almost certainly represents director Rima Naim's precise vision. Each of her compositions is gorgeously lit and arranged. Unfortunately, Naim's pursuit of these images -- a photo overdeveloping in a pan, a woman in a nice dress alone in a barren field -- causes a disconnect between the viewer and characters. The string music and sad faces do their best to generate an emotional connection, but without a better sense of the characters as people, rather than objects for Naim to place and manipulate, the resulting film is more visually evocative than dramatically compelling.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-86875508684882555322013-01-27T00:08:00.001-08:002013-04-05T09:08:42.314-07:00The aggravating, asinine, anarchic release of “Adventure Time” on DVD (continued)<img alt="image" src="http://media.tumblr.com/e0c65180e0150b42a5556cc9cf18a88b/tumblr_inline_mh9y01nH3Z1qz4rgp.jpg" width="400" /><br />
<br />
Another year, another "Adventure Time" DVD release with a random selection of episodes. This time, the title episode is "Fionna and Cake," designed to tie in with the air date for the second Fionna and Cake episode, "Bad Little Boy" (the episode premieres on February 18th, and the DVD set hits stores February 19th). My review copy came in <a href="http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/72985_10151676368049478_1297443262_n.jpg"><strong>totally unexpected, super-cool packaging</strong></a> (complete with a <a href="http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/46816_10151676368504478_1915897054_n.jpg"><strong>screener copy of "Bad Little Boy"</strong></a> and <a href="http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/64204_10151676367554478_1990682873_n.jpg"><strong>a Jake flash drive</strong></a>!). <br />
<br />
I'm updating this post for reference more than outrage this year. In case you missed it, <strong><a href="http://tylergfoster.tumblr.com/post/40531391203" title="Tumblr">"Adventure Time" should be hitting Netflix Instant at the end of March</a></strong>, which really takes the sting off.<br />
<br />
<b>EDIT (3/30/2013)</b>: Turns out only Season One showed up on Instant. D'oh.<br />
<br />
(1): episodes on <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Two-Favorite-People/dp/B005775M22" title="Amazon.com">My Two Favorite People</a></strong><br />
(2): episodes on <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Came-From-Nightosphere/dp/B006CPFRVE" title="It Came From the Nightosphere">It Came From the Nightosphere</a></strong><br />
(3): episodes on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Jake-Vs-Me-Mow/dp/B008OTTU2S" title="Amazon.com"><strong>Jake vs. Me-Mow</strong></a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Jake-Vs-Me-Mow/dp/B008OTTU2S" title="Amazon.com"><br /></a>(4): episodes on <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Fionna-Cake-4/dp/B009Z5BPWS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359271600&sr=8-1&keywords=fionna+and+cake" title="Amazon">Fionna and Cake</a></strong><br />
<br />
<strong>Season One*</strong><br />
(2) Slumber Party Panic / (1) Trouble in Lumpy Space <br />
(2) Prisoners of Love / (1) Tree Trunks<br />
(2) The Enchiridion! / (3) The Jiggler<br />
(1) Ricardio the Heart Guy / (2) Business Time<br />
(1) My Two Favorite People / Memories of Boom Boom Mountain<br />
(2) Wizard / (1) Evicted!<br />
City of Thieves / The Witch’s Garden<br />
(3) What is Life? / (3) Ocean of Fear<br />
When the Wedding Bells Thaw / Freak City<br />
The Duke / Donny<br />
Henchman / (1) Dungeon<br />
What Have You Done? / (2) Rainy Day Daydream<br />
Gut Grinder / (3) His Hero<br />
<br />
<strong>Season Two</strong><br />
(2) It Came From the Nightosphere / (1) The Eyes<br />
Loyalty to the King / Blood Under the Skin<br />
(4) Storytelling / Slow Love<br />
(2) Power Animal / (2) Crystals Have Power<br />
(4) The Other Tarts / (1) To Cut a Woman’s Hair<br />
(1) The Chamber of Frozen Blades / Her Parents<br />
(1) The Pods / (4) The Silent King<br />
(2) The Real You / (2) Guardians of Sunshine<br />
(4) Death in Bloom / (3) Susan Strong<br />
(2) Mystery Train / (1) Go With Me<br />
(3) Belly of the Beast / (1) The Limit<br />
(3) Mortal Folly / (3) Mortal Recoil<br />
(3) Video Makers / Heat Signature<br />
<br />
<strong>Season Three</strong><br />
Conquest of Cuteness / Morituri te Salutamus<br />
(2) Memory of a Memory / (2) Hitman<br />
(3) Too Young / (2) The Monster<br />
(4) Still / (4) Wizard Battle<br />
(4) Fionna and Cake / (4) What Was Missing<br />
(2) The Creeps / (4) From Bad to Worse<br />
Apple Thief / Beautopia<br />
No One Can Hear You / (3) Jake vs. Me-Mow<br />
(3) Thank You / The New Frontier<br />
Holly Jolly Secrets Part I / Holly Jolly Secrets Part II<br />
(4) Marceline’s Closet / Paper Pete<br />
<br />
<strong>Season Four</strong><br />
(3) Another Way / (4) Ghost Princess<br />
(3) Dad’s Dungeon / (4) Incendium<br />
Hot to the Touch / (3) Five Short Graybles<br />
Web Weirdos / Dream of Love<br />
Return to the Nightosphere / Daddy’s Little Monster<br />
In Your Footsteps / Hug Wolf<br />
Princess Monster Wife / (3) Goliad<br />
Beyond This Earthly Realm / Gotcha<br />
(4) Princess Cookie / (4) Card Wars<br />
Son of Mars / Burning Low<br />
BMO Noire / King Worm<br />
(4) Lady & Peebles / (4) You Made Me<br />
Who Would Win / Ignition Point<br />
The Hard Easy / Reign of Gunters<br />
I Remember You / The Lich (Part 1)<br />
<br />
<strong>Season Five</strong><br />
Finn the Human (Part 2) / Jake the Dog (Part 3)<br />
Five More Short Graybles / Up a Tree<br />
All the Little People / Jake the Dad<br />
Davey / Mystery Dungeon<br />
All Your Fault / Little Dude<br />
Bad Little Boy / Vault of Bones<br />
The Great Bird Man / Simon and Marcy<br />
Puhoy / A Glitch is a Glitch<br />
One Last Job / Princess Potluck<br />
BMO Lost / James Baxter the Horse<br />
Shhh / The Suitor<br />
The Party's Over, Isla de Senora / Another Five Short Graybles<br />
LSP Gets Robbed / Only Wizards Allowed<br />
<br />
*obviously, all episodes of Season One are available in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Complete-First-Season/dp/B007Q0JJHC" style="font-weight: bold;" title="Amazon">The Complete Season One DVD</a>. A <b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Complete-Season-Blu-ray/dp/B00BDD0NBE/" target="_blank">Blu-Ray of The Complete Season One</a></b> and the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Complete-Second-Blu-ray/dp/B00BDD3BGS/" target="_blank"><b>Blu-Ray</b></a> and <b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Complete-Second-Season/dp/B00BDD1UYI/" target="_blank">DVD</a></b> debut of The Complete Season 2 are all scheduled for June 4th, 2013.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-65047311428630236732012-10-04T14:24:00.001-07:002013-01-27T00:11:16.533-08:00The aggravating, asinine, anarchic release of “Adventure Time” on DVD<img src="http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mawg1gFiDA1qf7qej.jpg" width="400" /><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">So, DVDTalk has put a third collection of "Adventure Time" episodes in the mail to me, <strong>Jake vs. Me-Mow</strong>, and so I figured I'd update and post my checklist of "Adventure Time" episodes and their corresponding DVD releases, because Cartoon Network still apparently thinks episode collections are better than season releases. It's particularly annoying that they included Season One episodes in this third collection after Season One has been released, although maybe Cartoon Network has this insidious idea that fans will collect the whole series via collections.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">(1): episodes on <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Two-Favorite-People/dp/B005775M22" title="Amazon.com">My Two Favorite People</a></strong><br />(2): episodes on <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Came-From-Nightosphere/dp/B006CPFRVE" title="It Came From the Nightosphere">It Came From the Nightosphere</a></strong><br />(3): episodes on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Jake-Vs-Me-Mow/dp/B008OTTU2S" title="Amazon.com"><strong>Jake vs. Me-Mow</strong> </a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><strong>Season One*</strong><br />(2) Slumber Party Panic / (1) Trouble in Lumpy Space <br />(2) Prisoners of Love / (1) Tree Trunks<br />(2) The Enchiridion! / (3) The Jiggler<br />(1) Ricardio the Heart Guy / (2) Business Time<br />(1) My Two Favorite People / Memories of Boom Boom Mountain<br />(2) Wizard / (1) Evicted!<br />City of Thieves / The Witch's Garden<br />(3) What is Life? / (3) Ocean of Fear<br />When the Wedding Bells Thaw / Freak City<br />The Duke / Donny<br />Henchman / (1) Dungeon<br />What Have You Done? / (2) Rainy Day Daydream<br />Gut Grinder / (3) His Hero</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><strong>Season Two</strong><br />(2) It Came From the Nightosphere / (1) The Eyes<br />Loyalty to the King / Blood Under the Skin<br />Storytelling / Slow Love<br />(2) Power Animal / (2) Crystals Have Power<br />The Other Tarts / (1) To Cut a Woman's Hair<br />(1) The Chamber of Frozen Blades / Her Parents<br />(1) The Pods / The Silent King<br />(2) The Real You / (2) Guardians of Sunshine<br />Death in Bloom / (3) Susan Strong<br />(2) Mystery Train / (1) Go With Me<br />(3) Belly of the Beast / (1) The Limit<br />(3) Mortal Folly / (3) Mortal Recoil<br />(3) Video Makers / Heat Signature</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><strong>Season Three</strong><br />Conquest of Cuteness / Morituri te Salutamus<br />(2) Memory of a Memory / (2) Hitman<br />(3) Too Young / (2) The Monster<br />Still / Wizard Battle<br />Fionna and Cake / What Was Missing<br />(2) The Creeps / From Bad to Worse<br />Apple Thief / Beautopia<br />No One Can Hear You / (3) Jake vs. Me-Mow<br />(3) Thank You / The New Frontier<br />Holly Jolly Secrets Part I / Holly Jolly Secrets Part II<br />Marceline's Closet / Paper Pete</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><strong>Season Four</strong><br />(3) Another Way / Ghost Princess<br />(3) Dad's Dungeon / Incendium<br />Hot to the Touch / (3) Five Short Graybles<br />Web Weirdos / Dream of Love<br />Return to the Nightosphere / Daddy's Little Monster<br />In Your Footsteps / Hug Wolf<br />Princess Monster Wife / (3) Goliad<br />Beyond This Earthly Realm / Gotcha<br />Princess Cookies / Card Wars<br />Son of Mars / Burning Low<br />BMO Noire / King Worm<br />Lady & Peebles / You Made Me<br />Who Would Win / Ignition Point</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">*obviously, all episodes of Season One are available in <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Complete-First-Season/dp/B007Q0JJHC" title="Amazon">The Complete Season One</a></strong> DVD, although here's where I complain that there was no Blu-Ray release, despite the fact that the show airs in HD and can be purchased in HD from Amazon and iTunes (although I guess the addition of being able to buy it from Amazon since the last time I checked counts as a plus).</span>Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-3115233519739372282010-08-29T13:30:00.000-07:002010-08-29T14:33:16.246-07:00Critical Thinking: Caddyshack (1980)<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/caddyshackposter.png" vspace="10" align="center" hspace="10" /><br /><br /><i><b>Critical Thinking</b> is a column where I review something I've just watched (usually something I like). No other reason. It doesn't really need a name but I gave it one anyway, since it's different from <a href="http://the-following-preview.blogspot.com/search/label/cheap%20thrills" target="_new"><b>Cheap Thrills</b></a>, and I hear things on blogs should have names.</i><br /><br />In 2008, Harold Ramis directed <i>Year One</i>, an agonizingly unfunny road picture awkwardly set in a mixture of the Stone Age and also the Roman Empire, which features an all-star cast of comedians in small bits but instead gets constantly sidetracked on horribly unfunny detours, like Oliver Platt's disgustingly over-the-top character (I forget who or what the character was, but I don't want to look it up, either). It's a terrible movie with the occasional, brief bit of brightness from one of many great people that are in it, but as a whole it never has any momentum or focus.<br /><br />In that way, it's just like <b><I>Caddyshack</i></b>.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. <I>Year One</i> is way, <I>way</i> worse (and nobody eats a piece of shit in <b><I>Caddyshack</i></b>, like Jack Black does in <i>Year One</i>). Still, having just watched the brand new Blu-Ray of <b><I>Caddyshack</i></b> (my second time seeing the film), I still have a hard time understanding why the film is considered a comedy classic.<br /><br />The primary problem with <b><I>Caddyshack</i></b> is that it gathers four actors who all bring very specific personalities to the table. Chevy Chase is his usual sarcastic self, quietly mocking everyone to their face. Ted Knight goes incredibly over the top, utilizing every muscle in his face to transition between extreme expressions of emotion. Rodney Dangerfield does classic gag schtick with his entire body, like a Looney Tunes cartoon got in a car accident with a nightclub stand-up act.<br /><br />Then there's Bill Murray, who, as much as I love him -- and I really do -- gives a painfully broad performance as Carl Spackler, a demented, hobo-like groundskeeper with a weird speech impediment. I can't imagine any other comedian in the world could give the performance that Murray gives in this movie and have people think it wasn't awful, but as far as I can tell, Spackler is one of Murray's most enduring and famous roles. <br /><br />Maybe one of these people could've carried a movie. I might've even liked Carl if Carl was the only person the film was concerned with. Squashing the four of them into a single movie with even more characters is a different story. Ramis, who was directing for the first time on <b><I>Caddyshack</i></b>, seems entirely unconcerned that his stars are all dropping in from different planets, and whenever more than one of them is in a room together, the movie loses its comedic footing, which is made all the more disappointing because, man, I <i>want</i> to see a really funny scene with Bill Murray and Chevy Chase acting opposite each other. The moment they're in the same room, my heart took a leap. The men who gave the world Peter Venkman and Irwin Fletcher, on screen at the same time! It's like the comedy version of <I>Heat</i>! (The pair's off-screen rivalry only adds to the tension.) Sadly, the scene is a misfire in my book. I was more enthralled by the big reunion in <I>The Expendables</I> just recently, and I hated that movie.<br /><br />Adding insult to injury, none of these characters strike me as particularly well-written. Chase has a dearth of great lines, and when Chase does his usual bit and doesn't have good lines, he basically comes off like a smarmy asshole. Every once in awhile, he has a good joke (the "no steering wheel" pantomime is great), but he seems adrift and unengaged, like he's wandering through the movie as opposed to starring in it. Dangerfield is hit and miss, as not all of his routines translate as well as they could to the big screen, and Knight gets one note to play over and over. Murray's lines are probably better than the others, but the lisp or whatever he's doing just ruins them for me. Bill's brother Brian Doyle-Murray gets better lines as caddy management ("Pick up that blood!").<br /><br /><b><I>Caddyshack</i></b> does have two saving graces. Well, maybe two and a half. The first two are Michael O'Keefe and Cindy Morgan, who are both charming and engaging as supposed hero Danny Noonan and the sexy Lacey Underall. Morgan doesn't have to do much but stand around and look beautiful, which she does with ease, but Morgan deepens the impression with a playful, bemused attitude that makes her almost impossibly endearing. O'Keefe makes for an appealing main character, but the movie sidelines him too often to invest much in his story, which is a shame; I think <b><I>Caddyshack</i></b> might be more deserving of its acclaim if there were more of O'Keefe and his conflict in the film (co-screenwriters Ramis, Doug Kenney and Doyle-Murray don't introduce any tangible stakes until the last 20 minutes). As for "half", Ramis' direction works wonders in the scenes where the actors aren't the primary focus: the impromptu swimming ballet and subsequent "doody" scene are worth a chuckle, and the golf course exploding at the end of the movie would have been the perfect end to a better movie. Alas, <b><I>Caddyshack</i></b> is not that movie: pretty much any other comedy from the 1980's starring any one of these guys is funnier and better constructed than this "shot-in-the-dark" mush.<br /><br />The Blu-Ray comes with a lengthy episode of "Bio" on <b><I>Caddyshack</i></b>, but it's also a disappointment. Since it was produced for television, it has the aggravating habit of recapping for every intro and outro before unspoken commercial breaks, and if you pared this ep down to the real meat and potatoes, it'd easily lose 30 minutes of painfully repetitive narration. What's left is somewhat intriguing but not particularly fresh or in-depth, especially given that Dangerfield and Knight have both passed on, and neither Chase or Murray deemed it worthy to appear for new on-camera interviews. Even Brian Doyle-Murray had better things to do, although yet another Murray brother, John Murray, pops up frequently. The Blu-Ray's only other extra (no commentary?) is the shorter doc produced for the DVD, called "The 19th Hole". The PQ and AQ are both solid, although not quite as impressive as some other '80s films I've seen.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-33734967137254742342010-08-06T13:06:00.000-07:002010-08-06T13:15:27.177-07:00Why 3D Is the Future of Cinema<object width="405" height="252"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j6oNw6xHSo0&hl=en_US&fs=1?rel=0&hd=1&showinfo=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j6oNw6xHSo0&hl=en_US&fs=1?rel=0&hd=1&showinfo=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="405" height="252"></embed></object><br /><br />Watch it large.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-66701442247568536182010-07-29T20:34:00.000-07:002010-07-29T20:56:02.947-07:00Drew McWeeny's List of DuhLast night, I discovered that Drew McWeeny (<a href="http://twitter.com/DrewAtHitFix" target="_new"><b>@DrewAtHitFix</b></a>) and William Goss (<a href="http://twitter.com/williambgoss" target="_new"><b>@williambgoss</b></a>) have apparently been at this thing called The Basics for a few months now (explained in detail by Drew <a href="http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/the-basics-a-re-introduction-to-a-new-column" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>, in which Goss goes through McWeeny's List of Duh (reprinted below, in chronological > alphabetical order) and watches the ones he hasn't seen.<br /><br />Most of my paranoia about my work as a film critic being terrible comes from the usual lack of spread past films made during the years I've been alive, made in the country that I live in. Even if I've seen more films than most of the people I know, I'm still at the tip top of the iceberg when it comes to watching these things. <br /><br />When I read the article yesterday, I thought it was new, which is why I'm starting now (shows how much attention I've been paying to things around me). There are 140 entries on the list. I haven't ever seen 52 of them, and there's probably only around that many films on the list I know well enough I could write about them without watching them again. In any case I figure I might as well review all of them. Who knows how long it will take. I don't think I'm planning to go in any specific order. <br /><br />The General (1926)<br />Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928)<br />Dracula (1931)<br />Frankenstein (1931)<br />Freaks (1932)<br />The Mummy (1932)<br />Duck Soup (1933)<br />The Invisible Man (1933)<br />King Kong (1933)<br />Triumph of the Will (1935)<br />The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)<br />The Wizard of Oz (1939)<br />Dumbo (1941)<br />The Wolf Man (1941)<br />Bambi (1942)<br />Casablanca (1942)<br />The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)<br />Cinderella (1950)<br />Alice in Wonderland (1951)<br />A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)<br />Singin' in the Rain (1952)<br />Peter Pan (1953)<br />Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)<br />Seven Samurai (1954)<br />Lady and the Tramp (1955)<br />Rebel Without a Cause (1955)<br />Forbidden Planet (1956)<br />The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)<br />Touch of Evil (1958)<br />Sleeping Beauty (1959)<br />The Magnificent Seven (1960)<br />Lawrence of Arabia (1962)<br />Lolita (1962)<br />To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)<br />The Great Escape (1963)<br />The Nutty Professor (1963)<br />The Pink Panther (1963) films<br />Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)<br />A Hard Day's Night (1964)<br />Mary Poppins (1964)<br />The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966)<br />Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)<br />Cool Hand Luke (1967)<br />The Dirty Dozen (1967)<br />The Graduate (1967)<br />Point Blank (1967)<br />2001: a Space Odyssey (1968)<br />Easy Rider (1969)<br />The Planet of the Apes (1968) films<br />The Wild Bunch (1969)<br />A Clockwork Orange (1971)<br />Pink Flamingos (1972)<br />American Graffiti (1973)<br />The Exorcist (1973)<br />Mean Streets (1973)<br />Blazing Saddles (1974)<br />Chinatown (1974)<br />The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)<br />Young Frankenstein (1974)<br />Dog Day Afternoon (1975)<br />Jaws (1975)<br />One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)<br />All the President's Men (1976)<br />Carrie (1976)<br />Network (1976)<br />Taxi Driver (1976)<br />Annie Hall (1977)<br />The Star Wars (1977) films<br />Suspiria (1977)<br />National Lampoon's Animal House (1978)<br />George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead (1978)<br />The Deer Hunter (1978)<br />Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke (1978)<br />Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986)<br />Apocalypse Now (1979)<br />Manhattan (1979)<br />Airplane! (1980)<br />The Blues Brothers (1980)<br />The Friday the 13th (1980) series<br />Raging Bull (1980)<br />The Shining (1980)<br />An American Werewolf in London (1981)<br />The Evil Dead (1981)<br />Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and the Indy films<br />E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)<br />Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)<br />First Blood (1982)<br />Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan (1982)<br />John Carpenter's The Thing (1982)<br />Tron (1982)<br />Scarface (1983)<br />Ghostbusters (1984)<br />A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)<br />Sixteen Candles (1984)<br />This is Spinal Tap (1984)<br />Brazil (1985)<br />The Breakfast Club (1985)<br />Pee Wee's Big Adventure (1985)<br />Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)<br />Blue Velvet (1986)<br />Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)<br />The Fly (1986)<br />Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn (1987)<br />Full Metal Jacket (1987)<br />Hellraiser (1987)<br />The Lost Boys (1987)<br />Predator (1987)<br />Hairspray (1988)<br />The Little Mermaid (1989)<br />GoodFellas (1990)<br />Beauty and the Beast (1991)<br />Aladdin (1992)<br />Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)<br />Reservoir Dogs (1992)<br />Unforgiven (1992)<br />Dazed and Confused (1993)<br />Jurassic Park (1993)<br />Clerks. (1994)<br />Ed Wood (1994)<br />Leon: The Professional (1994)<br />The Lion King (1994)<br />Pulp Fiction (1994)<br />The Shawshank Redemption (1994)<br />Friday (1995)<br />Heat (1995)<br />Se7en (1995)<br />Toy Story (1995) and Toy Story 2 (1999)<br />Fargo (1996)<br />Trainspotting (1996)<br />Boogie Nights (1997)<br />The Big Lebowski (1998)<br />Rushmore (1998)<br />Saving Private Ryan (1998)<br />There's Something about Mary (1998)<br />Fight Club (1999)<br />The Lord of the Rings (2001) series<br />Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003) and 2 (2004)<br />Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)<br />Shaun of the Dead (2004)<br />Grizzly Man (2005)<br /><br />Ready, set...Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-64881720207582155432010-06-28T19:15:00.000-07:002011-08-16T04:34:46.593-07:00Critical Thinking: In Bruges (2008)<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/inbrugesposter.jpg" vspace="10" align="center" hspace="10" />
<br />
<br /><i><b>Critical Thinking</b> is a column where I review something I've just watched (usually something I like). No other reason. It doesn't really need a name but I gave it one anyway, since it's different from <a href="http://the-following-preview.blogspot.com/search/label/cheap%20thrills" target="_new"><b>Cheap Thrills</b></a>, and I hear things on blogs should have names.</i>
<br />
<br />David Mamet once said that a film's developments should be both "surprising and inevitable". This strikes me as the perfect summation of good entertainment, and few movies embody this advice as clearly as Martin McDonagh's <i>In Bruges</i>, which I am revisiting thanks to its long-overdue debut on Blu-Ray here in the United States.
<br />
<br />The setup: a pair of hitmen named Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and Ray (Colin Farrell) have just arrived in the Belgian city of Bruges (roughly pronounced "brooj"), on orders from their employer, Harry (Ralph Fiennes), following a botched job. Ken is perfectly pleased to look at all of the medieval architecture; Ray would rather kill himself. "Do you think this is good? Goin' around in a boat, looking at stuff?" he demands of his partner. Ken does. "Ray, you're about the worst tourist in the whole world."
<br />
<br />Innocuously hidden within the first ten or fifteen minutes is a prime example of Mamet's theory. In case the reader hasn't already seen <i>In Bruges</i>, I won't go into too much detail, but Ken goes to the city's biggest tourist attraction: a giant tower in the center of the city. Unable to get rid of his coins (ten cents short), he pays in cash and heads to the top, where he spots Ray down below, only minutes away from getting into a fight with a group of overweight Americans. The relevant information is not only organically buried in scenes that are interesting and funny in and of themselves, but even the most forward-thinking viewer will find that when the scene's major callback occurs, McDonagh has already devised a way to subvert the audience's expectations.
<br />
<br />Ray is depressed over the events that sent he and Ken to Bruges in the first place, and Farrell's performance is surprisingly emotional, and not just sadness. Ray is a man who is all surface and no center, without any room on the inside for feelings. He wears them all with childlike earnestness on his rubbery face, veering from delighted to grumpy at the drop of a hat. In particular, he is delighted by the luminous Chloë (a sweet and sexy Clémence Poésy), a drug dealer offering her services to crew on the film shooting in Bruges, and Jimmy (Jordan Prentice), a little person playing an ever-changing role in the film's elaborate, pretentious dream sequence. Ken, meanwhile, is placed in a position of action, and has a quiet internal debate about what decision would be best for everyone. Ken is both noble and a realist, two qualities that work against each other.
<br />
<br />Many of the people I've shown the film to have labeled it a downer, but I feel that's failing to see the forest for the trees. It is more about the attitude with which the characters deal with the events of the film than it is the events themselves, and Ray particularly sets the tone. The last lines of dialogue can be interpreted as sad and distant, especially taken in with the music and idea of what's happened, but viewers who listen carefully should see the humor in it, particularly if they're an optimist. The film's comedy is also quite goofy. Ken snapping at Ray's refusal to go see an exhibit ("It's only Jesus Christ's blood! Of course you don't fuckin' <i>hafta</i>!"), Jimmy and his ludicrous prophecy about a "war between the blacks and the whites", and Ray's almost existential hatred of everything about Bruges and what it stands for are all a wonderful counterpoint to the film's artful cinematography and picturesque setting. And that's all before Fiennes' character actually appears on screen. His Harry is a misanthropic, bomb-like force of nature whom Ken accurately sums up as an eternal cunt. "I mean no disrespect, but you're a cunt. You're a cunt now, and you've always been a cunt. And the only thing that's going to change is that you're going to be an even bigger cunt," he says, straight to the man's face. Harry does not disagree.
<br />
<br />I missed the movie in theaters thanks to Focus Features' misguided ad campaign that tried to cram McDonagh's darkly witty farce into the same crowd-pleasing package as Guy Ritchie's rollicking <i>Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels</i> or <i>Snatch.</i> McDonagh's style is generally much more naturalistic, with his only real "movie-esque" flourishes coming at the end, including an absolutely perfect sequence set to Luke Kelly's "On Raglan Road", and a climax so logical it practically seems like reflex rather than writing, yet so nutty you can't believe you're actually seeing it; in other words, a vivid illustration of Mamet's advice in action.
<br />
<br />The Blu-Ray is a disappointment. The A/V quality is fine and a visible step up from the DVD in all regards, but there are actually extras missing from the SD-DVD. Since I don't believe I've gone back in time to the birth of the format, there's really no excuse for this, particularly when I was hoping Universal might see fit to track down McDonagh for a commentary in light of the film's Oscar nod for Best Original Screenplay, and perhaps throw in "Six Shooter", his Academy Award-winning short film that also stars Gleeson. Clearly, my sights were set too high.
<br />
<br />[<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780536/" target="_new"><b><i>In Bruges</i> on IMDb</b></a>]Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-91876644346647651752010-06-27T20:57:00.000-07:002011-08-16T04:41:16.223-07:00Critical Thinking: Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/grossepointeblankposter.png" vspace="10" align="center" hspace="10" />
<br />
<br /><i><b>Critical Thinking</b> is a column where I review something I've just watched (usually something I like). No other reason. It doesn't really need a name but I gave it one anyway, since it's different from <a href="http://the-following-preview.blogspot.com/search/label/cheap%20thrills" target="_new"><b>Cheap Thrills</b></a>, and I hear things on blogs should have names.</i>
<br />
<br />On June 4th, the Katherine Heigl/Ashton Kutcher film <i>Killers</I> was inflicted upon us. Heigl plays the anti-woman's woman, i.e. a chipper, moronic, blonde beauty who can't do anything remotely masculine and needs men to rescue her from her own incompetence. Her mundane, career-focused, flighty existence is interrupted by the appearance of Ashton Kutcher. I <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/36664/marley-and-me/" target="_new"><b>reviewed <i>Marley & Me</i></b></a> for DVDTalk, and the first sight of Eric Dane, who <a href="http://www.drfunkenberry.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/EricDane-714159.jpg" target="_new"><b>looks like this</b></a>, playing the role of an underpaid newspaper columnist, made me laugh out loud. Kutcher is supposedly a badass spy in <i>Killers</i>, which basically inspires the same reaction except with full-body nausea instead of laughter. Three weeks later, June finished up with the opening of <i>Knight and Day</I>, in which Tom Cruise plays the spy and Cameron Diaz plays the blonde (25% as ditzy, 75% as shrieky). I had high hopes, but it was a misfire in my book (you can read my whole review <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/44355/knight-and-day/" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>).
<br />
<br />Most people would point to <i>Mr. & Mrs. Smith</I> and <i>True Lies</i> as obvious recommendations for an alternative to these films, and these two examples are undoubtedly more inspired by those movies than the one I'm reviewing, but <i>Mr. & Mrs. Smith</i> isn't all that good, and <i>True Lies</i> -- easily the best of the four -- still gets terribly sidetracked by Bill Paxton's character, and is only barely more progressive when it comes to Jamie Lee Curtis' character than <i>Killers</i> (at least Curtis' performance appears to be intentional slapstick comedy, like a "Saturday Night Live" caricature).
<br />
<br />No, my pick is the popular but still underrated <i>Grosse Pointe Blank</i>. John Cusack plays Martin Blank, a casual hitman who ends up in his hometown to do a job on the same weekend of his 10-year high school reunion. For most of those ten years, he's had a recurring nightmare about his choice to abandon his girlfriend Debi (Minnie Driver), and the weekend offers Martin a once-in-a-lifetime chance to track her down and make amends.
<br />
<br />Re-watching the film with friends this weekend, I think the key to <i>Grosse Pointe Blank</i>'s success is that, unlike the other films in question, there's more going on here than the central conceit of putting romance and bullets in the same movie. In the relatively simple paragraph above, I've outlined not one, not two, but all three of the movie's storylines: Martin returns home after a decade away for the reunion, Martin reunites with Debi for the first time after his vanishing act, and Martin the hitman starts looking for a way out. Like a well-oiled machine, all three of these stories work in tandem with each other while remaining loose enough to switch in and out of center stage as the movie needs them. I was bored during the first twenty or thirty minutes of <i>Knight and Day</i> because the trailers completely sum up the Cruise character and concept in thirty seconds. There are side notes about Diaz's character fixing her father's GTO and the wedding her sister is having, but the movie doesn't try to flesh these out into parallels or even brief tangents to the story. Comparatively, there's more than enough room in <i>Blank</i> for Martin to go on a drive with his old friend Paul Spericki (Jeremy Piven) or visit his childhood home without these scenes feeling like a distraction from more important things.
<br />
<br />Director George Armitage has an odd career. After directing four films in the '70s, he vanished for a decade, reappearing in 1990 as the writer/director of one project and the writer of another. Passion projects, maybe. Then, he took another 6-year hiatus before making <i>Blank</i>. Afterwards, he didn't work until 2004's <i>The Big Bounce</I>, and has since been laying low, other than a "special thanks" on a 2010 movie called <i>Joy Division</i>. Having seen a couple of his '70s efforts recently, he doesn't appear to have much of a personal vision, but he still seems like he's more than an assembly-line guy. Even if he didn't respond to the material in a personal way, one gets the impression he was invested creatively, keeping things basic but not boring, engaging with his fellow cast and crew. There are a couple clever little shots, like a quick pull back to reveal a banner that Paul is leaping for, but Armitage's main contribution is probably the one of the whole film. This is a story about a violent hitman, but it never seems that gruesome, despite going all-out with an R-rating and at least one reasonably bloody death. If <I>Grosse Pointe Blank</i> were made today, it's hard to imagine the romantic and comedic lead of a film being allowed to do anything as intimately violent as stabbing a man with a pen for fear of losing the audience's sympathy, yet there's no sense that Armitage has to work to keep our relationship with Martin alive through the entire incident.
<br />
<br />Another aspect of that light tone is the sexy chemistry between Cusack and Driver. Cusack is basically his usual self, but Driver brings plenty of little touches to the equation that make their relationship believable. In many movies like this, Debi would practically be a side character in comparison to Martin, but Driver fleshes her out with enough pathos and neuroses that she feels like his equal, having her own decade of uncertainty after he disappeared without a trace. Martin brings out the playful side of Debi, but this time around she's got her guard up.
<br />
<br />The film is filled with a host of side characters, and it's nice how the picture manages to fit all of them in without going all over the map. Aside from Piven's Paul, Joan Cusack is Martin's assistant, who deals with the customers and answers the phones, Hank Azaria and K. Todd Freeman play two government agents looking to blot out Blank if they see him doing any misdeeds, Alan Arkin has several scenes as Martin's stressed-out psychologist, Benny Urquidez is a hitman looking to get revenge on Blank for the death of a prized dog, and Dan Aykroyd plays the movie's villain, a fellow assassin named Grocer who wants Blank to join his union of hired killers. There's also a whole host of characters at the eventual reunion, including Jenna Elfman as a woman who saw the other side, and Michael Cudlitz -- a scene-stealer if there ever was one -- as coke-snorting BMW salesman Bob Destepello. All of these people feel like they're cut from the same comedic cloth as the main characters, which is almost miraculous given how broad some of them are allowed to be. As a lifetime <i>Ghostbusters</i> fan, it hurts me to say that if any of them are a weak link, it might actually be Aykroyd, whose insistently cheery schtick toes the waters of "cartoonish", but I don't <i>quite</i> have a problem with it.
<br />
<br />The third act leans on a tiny bit of script convenience, Azaria and Freeman are kind of written off, and the movie stops a touch abruptly, but these are minor nitpicks. The movie has more than enough goodwill to coast by then, and the ending is no cop-out, giving us one of the few "armchair psychology" epiphanies that actually feels organic and believable, allowing for a resolution that is satisfying instead of just relieving. Being a shootout, it lacks the intimacy of the film's high points, but the characters are intact, and it packs a nice punch. <i>Grosse Pointe Blank</i> is a great romance and a solid action movie featuring an entire cast's worth of well-written, well-performed characters, in a setting (the reunion) with some universal comedic appeal, and it accomplishes all it sets out to with enough ease to make you wonder: why exactly is this kind of movie so hard to make?
<br />
<br />I was sure that 2007 was the year for <i>Blank</I>. The movie takes place at a 10-year high school reunion, so a 10th Anniversary DVD with an anamorphic transfer is a given, right? The year came and went, and even through to today, the only thing that's changed is that fans can now pick up the same old letterboxed transfer with a useless Digital Copy disc. Until Buena Vista opts to issue the film on Blu-Ray, I suggest people track down the <b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000QUU4MI?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000QUU4MI">2-Movie Collection</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thefollprev-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B000QUU4MI" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" /></b>with <b><i>High Fidelity</b></i>, another great Cusack picture. There's also the film <i>War, Inc.</i>, which reunites John, Joan and Dan in a worlds-apart scenario with a very similar tone. A few interviews hint that <i>War, Inc.</i> may have been written as a <i>Grosse Pointe Blank</I> sequel, but Disney wouldn't license the rights. On the other hand, I haven't seen it, so I can't vouch for it.
<br />
<br />[<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119229/" target="_New"><b><i>Grosse Pointe Blank</i> at IMDb</b></a>]Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-91595645324168413902010-05-16T11:04:00.000-07:002010-06-27T21:00:22.356-07:00Cheap Thrills: Suburban Commando (1991)<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/suburbancommandodvd.jpg" vspace="10" align="center" hspace="10" /><br /><br /><i><b>Cheap Thrills</b> is a column on The Following Preview featuring movies that can be had new at certain stores for $5 or less. Today's movie is the action-thriller <b></i>Suburban Commando</b><i> (1991), which I found at a Big Lots! store for $3.00.</i><br /><br />There were three movie series I grew up on: <i>Ghostbusters</i>, <i>Back to the Future</i>, and <i>Home Alone</i> and that was pretty much it. I was only allowed to see movies that were rated G or PG, and instead of bothering to look for other things to capture my imagination, the seven films that comprised those three franchises at the time were basically my comfort zone.<br /><br />Eventually, my parents started to resist my desires to just watch the same thing over and over, and I was forced to branch out. I chose to take baby steps, and just followed the actors. This led me to movies like <i>Groundhog Day</i>, <i>Richie Rich</i>, <i>Life With Mikey</i>, and <i><b>Suburban Commando</b></i>.<br /><br />I vividly remember getting the VHS tape from behind the counter at Safeway, and discovering that while the box said the film was rated PG, the tape itself had the PG-13 logo on it. I was excited. Time to see some intense stuff, I thought. When the movie started and the human-looking villain has his hand chopped off, the image burned itself into my brain.<br /><br />Today, <b><i>Suburban Commando</b></i> is fascinatingly disjointed. For about 10 minutes, the movie moves at a normal pace and even appears to have a plot, but then it suddenly and decisively devolves into a Greatest Hits compilation of Hulk Hogan doing impressive feats. He's lifting the kids! He's throwing a skateboard into space! He's bench-pressing workshop machinery! After 20 minutes of this, the movie gets bored and devolves further into random wacky antics. Hulk squishes a melon in an old lady's face! Hulk tries to skateboard! Hulk punches a mime! Whoooooa!<br /><br />Miraculously, <b><i>Suburban Commando</b></i> stays pretty fast-paced and earnest about all of this nonsense (as opposed to insistent and belabored), which actually creates some goodwill towards the movie and Hogan's character. Sure, he's not a very good actor (his range seems to consist of how wide he has his eyes opened), but he seems relatively cheerful regardless of what's going on, even when he's supposed to be annoyed.<br /><br />I wrote the above paragraphs about two months ago, and I don't want to delete them. However, other than mentioning what appeared to be an attempted rape sequence (which Christopher Lloyd heroically foils), I've already forgotten everything about <i>Suburban Commando</i>, which probably sums up the viewing experience in a nutshell. The movie is so forgettable, it's actually managed to partially delete the hand-capitation that I claimed had "burned itself into my brain". (If anyone finds me and I've become a complete and total amnesiac, blame <i>Suburban Commando</i>.) The DVD comes with widescreen and full-screen presentations, and a set-top game of some sort. Sadly, I can't recommend it. Save your three dollars for something more critical, like a third of a city parking fee, and rent the movie on Netflix instead, if you have to see it again. I guarantee it will be 90 minutes of surprisingly-pleasant-but-also-moronic childhood memories.<br /><br /><object width="410" height="330"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IbHw4VPU4xU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IbHw4VPU4xU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="410" height="330"></embed></object>Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-3404219363569653432010-05-15T00:36:00.000-07:002010-05-18T22:23:31.199-07:00The Importance of FilmXTRATOM<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/filmxtratom.png" vspace="10" align="left" hspace="10" /><br /><br />Right up front, I want to admit that there isn't much more that can currently be said about <a href="http://the-following-preview.blogspot.com/2010/05/tragic-saga-of-filmxtratom.html" target="_new"><b>the story of FilmXTRATOM's plagiarism</b></a>, at least not until YouTube responds to Matthew Turner's copyright claim against him. However, in the wake of Tom posting his newest review (which I won't link, since it gives him paid traffic as a YouTube Partner) I've seen a dispiriting amount of comments saying that Tom's actions don't matter or the posters of said comments don't care about what he did, and I think there <i>is</i> something to be said about that. Yeah, okay, those people probably aren't going to come to this blog. They probably aren't going to see this. But I feel like writing it, because, like the list of Tom's infringements itself, I think it's somewhat important.<br /><br />There are a few primary reasons why Tom's actions mean something:<br /><br /><b>Plagiarism is a crime.</b><br />The easiest and most obvious statement to make here is that plagiarism is illegal. <br /><br />From <a href="http://plagiarism.org/plag_article_plagiarism_faq.html" target="_new"><b>plagiarism.org</b></a>:<br /><br /><i>Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail.<br /><br />Plagiarism can also be considered a felony under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail.</i><br /><br />Most of the people trying to let Tom off the hook don't think plagiarism matters, because a) they just don't care, b) they don't care when it's on the internet, or c) they don't care because the plagiarized work in question is a bunch of movie reviews. Well...<br /><br /><b>Writers care.</b><br />This is pretty obvious too, but there's more to it than "it was <i>my</i> writing, and therefore <i>I</i> am mad about it!"<br /><br />I have become acquainted with Matthew Turner in the last week, both via Twitter and e-mail, and he's clearly angry about what happened to him. I understand why people who are generally not "creative" about their opinion (i.e., opinions are stated in basic terms and not elaborately written out -- not an assessment of the quality of the opinions themselves, just the amount of effort put into them) have trouble understanding what the big deal is that Tom took the words out of someone's .doc file, especially when it's an opinion. "Two people can have the same opinion, right?"<br /><br />But good writers try and create a "voice". It's not always perceptible, or, not always as perceptible as the writer in question (like me) would like to think it is, but regardless, that's part of the goal. Personally, I hope that if someone read my movie reviews, they would feel like they're having a conversation with me about the movie (albeit a one-sided one, although I think Matthew Lingo would attest that's what conversing with me is like).<br /><br />At the very least, this should be easy to convey when it comes to the most extreme, stylized examples. Since this is a film blog, and the plagiarism concerns film, take Quentin Tarantino or Kevin Smith. Just by listening to the way the characters in one of their movies speak, I'd expect any viewer familiar with either of those filmmakers' work would know instantly they were watching a film by that person. That's a big part of what's at stake, and I guarantee that no writer wants their "voice" stolen.<br /><br />Of all the reviews I found on Tom's page (and I may have missed some), only the first three reviews (of <i>Hellboy II</i>, <i>Babylon A.D.</i>, and <i>The Duchess</i>) did not appear to be plagiarized. The fans that still support Tom don't seem to grasp that, if you watched purely for the reviews and opinions (as opposed to Tom reading the news, which he <i>did</i> link to), there wasn't anything to learn about Tom himself in those videos. He doesn't have "a way of looking at the films" or "a certain style", because almost the entirety of every review (excepting sentence or two at most, and <i>not</i> on the majority or even a significant portion of the videos) was taken <i>word for word</i> from those other reviews. Tom has no "voice". If the viewers thought there was something about Tom they liked when watching his reviews, I'm afraid the most he could be given credit for personally was his hyper-caffeinated enthusiasm.<br /><br /><b>Plagiarism is stealing from the writer.</b><br />Even having said all of that, it's still hard to get across why it matters that someone would steal your "voice", but to a writer, it's probably no different than having your house broken into. The actual mechanics and significance of the crime is different, sure -- it unquestionably takes more balls to break into a stranger's home and go through their belongings than it does to copy, paste, and memorize -- but the emotions are the same. It's invasive (they're coming into your headspace). They're taking something away from you that you worked hard for (either as an achievement or as a material item). They're passing it off as their own when they did nothing to earn it (the same for money, material goods, or the review) and in a way, they've invalidated you and everything that you did in the process. <br /><br /><b>The amount and mindset of plagiarism matters.</b><br />Another common sentiment is that I and other online voices are blowing things out of proportion. Tom's just some anonymous kid in Yorkshire, England. What business do a bunch of older professional film critics have beating up on this guy?<br /><br />And, if Tom had swiped a one or two lines from a random review, and upon being found out, apologized swiftly, profusely, and genuinely, it probably wouldn't have been a blip on the Twittersphere. But not only was it nearly <i>every single one</i> of his reviews, it totaled nearly 100 counts of plagiarism. <br /><br />I debated with a reasonably friendly person on Twitter about Tom, and the other person compared it to shoplifting a bottle of Coke from a local corner store. There are lots of reasons to dispute this comparison, but the biggest one is the amount of plagiarism. Okay, so for one review -- and even then, I'm being generous, since a given Tom video was 99% stolen and 1% Tom, if that -- let's say for the sake of argument I agree with this equation. And one Coke is certainly not deserving of the electric chair. But once Tom's stolen 75 Cokes, begun selling them to other people with his own label on them, and even started receiving the kind of Coke-seller cred that it takes legitimate salesmen years to earn, then it becomes a legitimate problem.<br /><br />On top of that, it wasn't idle theft. Tom clearly put some level of effort into stealing from people, because a number of his reviews weren't copped from a single source. He would take the paragraphs he liked from multiple sources and re-arrange them until they sounded like they could all have come from the same review. I also didn't get the impression that Tom was reading off of cue cards, which hints that he may have memorized these reviews in order to make them sound like his own train of thought. If putting work into a crime doesn't wave a big red flag, then your code of ethics is probably in need of some revisions.<br /><br /><b>Tom was profiting off his plagiarism.</b><br />Okay, so we've got malicious mass plagiarism. Rage-inducing, sure, and worthy of punishment, but not seriously actionable...until you realize that Tom was pocketing cash for his operation. Not only was Tom a YouTube Partner, meaning the traffic his videos received earned him cash, but he also runs a Cafe Press-like T-shirt shop, has Google ads activated on his videos (no idea if that's set apart from being a YouTube Partner), and was being invited to red-carpet premieres in his country, as well as advance screenings. Right now I'm affiliated with three websites, and I don't make even a fifth of enough money doing that to earn any sort of living off of it, nor have I ever been to a red carpet premiere (I only see movies in advance). I don't know if Tom has a real job (he doesn't <i>seem</i> to), but he's the 85th most subscribed UK journalist of all time on YouTube, so I imagine his vids got a fair amount of traffic (although, like the Google Ads, I have no idea how much money this translates into).<br /><br />This changes the entire scope of Tom's crimes. Another analogy: would you appreciate it if you went into your job, every day, toiling away at work that's hard but rewarding, and when payday came, you went up to collect your check, and found that another guy was getting paid for the work you were doing? Sure, he's not <i>taking</i> any money out of <i>your</i> paycheck, but this other guy gets to sit at home relaxing, and cashes in on the effort you put in. Does that seem fair to you?<br /><br /><b>Tom is <i>still</i> profiting off his plagiarism, even if he deleted it.</b><br />As a second part to this bullet point, Tom is, as of the time I write this, still a YouTube Partner. It takes a certain amount of views and traffic to become a YouTube Partner, and although Tom finally deleted the videos (rather than simply making them "private"), he still has a heightened level of awareness and membership to a club he wouldn't be part of without his plagiarism. Any money he makes off of his continuing status as a YouTube Partner is directly attributable to his crimes. If Tom really wants to soldier on (by which I mean ignore the fallout from this last week), which it seems he does, then the best thing to do is to dump the FilmXTRA name (which, although he didn't steal it, is the same name as a new UK film TV show), and launch a whole new channel without the existing one's benefits (i.e., not only the YouTube Partner status, but also the legions of followers he's retained).<br /><br /><b>It's just lazy, and if you're going to be lazy, why bother?</b><br />Even if none of that means a damn thing to you, it's outright lazy. I mean, how hard is it to formulate an opinion on something and express it to another person? I'm pretty sure that everyone in the world does it on a daily basis, so it can't be that tough.<br /><br />Beyond that, what I said in my original blog post bears repeating: I just can't understand why you'd want to have a film review show on YouTube if you don't want to do the work when it comes to the primary, central function of the whole enterprise, which is reviewing movies. I've heard complaints from people that we're picking on this guy over his passion, but if Tom really loves film, then Tom would want to express <i>his own</i> views on movies. If he's not good at it, he should just talk about movies with his friends, who probably won't be judgmental of whatever it is that holds him back. If he wants to tell people other than his friends, then he should learn to get better, or not worry about the quality of his output, because the act of expressing himself is all that matters. If he wants to reach a wide audience without improving, then he should be happy with whatever he can create.<br /><br />The only reason I can think of that Tom would want a film review show on the internet where he wants to express opinions, without self-improving, but still not being satisfied with what he personally creates, with the goal of reaching a wide audience, is that there must be some other benefit to the show, something he believes he won't get without stronger reviews, and the only thing I can think of is money. You must apply or accept an offer to become a YouTube partner, and if Tom was really testing the corruptibility of the website, then he should have declined.<br /><br />Plus, if Tom's new review is "no different than the old ones" in terms of style (another claim I've heard in Tom's defense), then it means he <i>is</i> capable of expressing his own opinions, without stealing, and therefore his crime actually becomes <i>more</i> indefensible. If you don't <i>have</i> to steal, you shouldn't be doing it. What possible purpose could it serve ("corruptibility" aside) to steal something for no reason?<br /><br /><b>It's insulting.</b><br />Last, but not least, he's insulting you. You, his loyal viewer. Of anything he did, I think I was most personally shocked by the plagiarism in his blogtv video, which he prefaced by saying the movie in question (<i>Collateral</i>) was something he watched because <i>one of his own fans</I> suggested it. He's lying to your face! He's assuming nobody will care enough to figure it out, least of all the people watching. The only reason people care enough to repeat visit any critic's blog, vlog, channel, Twitter, etc., is because they feel like that person has something unique to offer, something that the seeker can't get anywhere else, and Tom is throwing this basic agreement back in your face by faking the things that should make his tiny corner of the internet unique. <br /><br />Look at his demeanor in his most recent video (or don't). He hasn't learned. He hasn't changed. Not only does he think what he's done is something that can be brushed off with a half-assed apology letter, but he thinks he can ignore the repercussions, and more importantly the people he's walked over in the process, and feed you, the viewer, a whole new slate of enthusiastic BS. Come on. Be honest. Doesn't that make you feel used? And if it doesn't, why not?<br /><br /><b>UPDATE:</b> I do just want to add, once again, that <a href="http://www.izone.sg/" target="_new"><b>iZone.sg</b></a> is also stealing from Matthew Turner, and it's no more or less important that they are than it is that Tom was. Please, if you mention Tom in any blogs or Tweets, mention iZone and <a href="http://twitter.com/izone" target="_new"><b>Izaruddin</b></a> as well.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-55786844309691159202010-05-09T17:05:00.000-07:002010-05-18T22:27:42.541-07:00The Tragic Saga of FilmXTRATOM<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/filmxtra.png" vspace="10" align="left" hspace="10" /><br /><br />A few days ago, JoBlo's Twitter account (<a href="http://twitter.com/joblo" target="_new"><b>@joblo</b></a>) called out an online blogger known as Tom S Perkins (<a href="http://twitter.com/filmxtratom" target="_new"><b>@FilmXTRATOM</b></a>) for straight-up stealing 85% of his video review of <i>Iron Man 2</i> from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=31884" target="_new"><b>their write-up by JimmyO</b></a> (the corresponding FilmXTRA video has been removed).<br /><br />Using cutting-edge technology known as Google, I identified the rest of his review (which sounded equally professional) as having come from <a href="http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/472955/iron_man_2_review.html" target="_new"><b>Den of Geek</b></a>, and others noted that snippets of his <i>Alice in Wonderland</i> review also came from JoBlo.<br /><br />After a few hours of collective internet hatred heading his way, Perkins finally signed onto his account in order to thoroughly deny that he'd done any wrong (<a href="http://twitter.com/FilmXTRATOM/status/13580496359" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/FilmXTRATOM/status/13580529935" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>, and <a href="http://twitter.com/FilmXTRATOM/status/13581023983" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>), before finally caving early the next day (<a href="http://twitter.com/FilmXTRATOM/status/13614483736" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>).<br /><br /><i>It is worth noting at this point that <a href="http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/" target="_new"><b>Hey U Guys</b></a>, which sponsored/ran Tom's videos for some period of time, almost immediately disassociated themselves from him via their Twitter (<a href="http://twitter.com/heyuguysblog" target="_new"><b>@heyuguysblog</b></a>). Since this is something that is essentially developing and spreading, I've seen a lot of people just finding out about this demanding to know their position, but they've already made it clear. You can read their announcement <a href="http://twitter.com/heyuguysblog/status/13567091729" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/heyuguysblog/status/13567126680" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/heyuguysblog/status/13567153970" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>, and <a href="http://twitter.com/heyuguysblog/status/13567159824" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>.</i><br /><br />This is when, suspiciously, the video reviews from 2010 vanished from his YouTube channel (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/TomSPerkins" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>), along with any comments identifying the plagiarism on his page or on any videos. Perkins' previously-promised apology letter failed to materialize, and people I follow were suspicious that Tom wasn't ready to fess up to all of his crimes after all. In the interest of public service, I thusly have gone through every one of Tom's videos to find the plagiarism in question.<br /><br /><i>Pineapple Express</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNTYDF8Cbts" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #9</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=135226" target="_new"><b>Empire</b></a> (unidentified writer)<br /><br /><i>Righteous Kill</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jqKqDRQPCM" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #11</b></a> taken from <a href="http://newsblaze.com/story/20080911075025mill.nb/topstory.html" target="_new"><b>NewsBlaze</b></a> (Prairie Miller)<br /><br /><i>Tropic Thunder</i><br />Phrase "more explosions than Krakatoa" in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqJZvDOPyAQ" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #12</b></a> taken from <a href="http://moviereviewzoo.blogspot.com/2008/11/tropic-thunder-2008.html" target="_new"><b>Mansized</b></a> (Chris Laverty). Can't access the full review to see if more was taken, Mansized is password protected...?<br /><br /><i>Death Race</i> (2008)<br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLc6BVj0ZS0" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #13</b></a> taken from <a href="http://themovieblog.com/2008/08/death-race-review" target="_new"><b>The Movie Blog</b></a> (John Campea)<br /><br /><i>How to Lose Friends & Alienate People</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Hzs1K2GJg" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #15</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/how-to-lose-friends-and-alienate-people-film-review-25338.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Mirrors</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iui-0JXod8Y" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #18</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/mirrors-film-review-24836.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Burn After Reading</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKorDszXxJI" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #19</b></a> taken from <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_8006/is_20081017/ai_n41143415/" target="_new"><b>Daily Mirror</b></a> (David Edwards) and <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/burn-after-reading-film-review-25450.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Ghost Town</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiF08fQ4SfY" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #22</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/ghost-town-film-review-25761.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Eagle Eye</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiF08fQ4SfY" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #22</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/eagle-eye-film-review-25621.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Quantum of Solace</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw0zgl_SJbc&feature=channel" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #23</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/quantum-of-solace-film-review-24376.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Pride and Glory</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buciKFGUhmI" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #26</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/pride-and-glory-film-review-26088.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner). Plot summary seems to be taken from official press release.<br /><br /><i>Max Payne</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfkYfCQJ4wQ" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #27</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewoxford.co.uk/films/max-payne-film-review-26089.html" target="_new"><b>View Oxford</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Note: In FilmXTRA #29 he starts passing off the classic "Invisibles" screen caps as a segment he created. Clever!</i><br /><br /><i>Body of Lies</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQdpWd_8wvg" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #30</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewhamilton.co.nz/films/body-of-lies-film-review-26090.html?utm_source=VenueSiteStats&utm_medium=internal&utm_campaign=VenueSiteStats" target="_new"><b>View Hamilton</b></a> (Matthew Turner, he's stalking you!)<br /><br /><i>Changeling</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdQjthvz9zs" target="_new"><b>Film XTRA #31</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/changeling-film-review-26306.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Lakeview Terrace</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIB_6jRJB8" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #33</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/lakeview-terrace-film-review-25162.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>The Day the Earth Stood Still</i> (2008)<br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCVJmR_aHHA" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #34</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/the-day-the-earth-stood-still-film-review-26552.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner) and <a href="http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/1661/review" target="_new"><b>Bloody-Disgusting</b></a> (Brad Miska)<br /><br /><i>Transporter 3</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r5MMa6oOag" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #35</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/transporter-3-film-review-26370.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner) and <a href="http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=135716" target="_new"><b>Empire Online</b></a> (Chris Hewitt)<br /><br /><i>The Spirit</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5aGBhJFSIY" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #38</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/the-spirit-film-review-26636.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Twilight</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvQ78Al7KdY" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #39</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewauckland.co.nz/films/twilight-film-review-26362.html" target="_new"><b>View Auckland</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Role Models</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaWE8nsjENQ" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #40</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/role-models-film-review-26667.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Seven Pounds</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isGJpWaoHRk" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #41</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv-entertainment/film/film-reviews/mark-adams/2009/01/11/review-seven-pounds-115875-21033657/" target="_new"><b>Mirror.co.uk</b></a> (Mark Adams)<br /><br /><i>Frost/Nixon</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isGJpWaoHRk" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #41</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/frostnixon-film-review-25618.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Defiance</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx0tomwM3aI" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #42</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/defiance-film-review-26652.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Underworld: Rise of the Lycans</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lwd7Lian4o" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #43</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/underworld-rise-of-the-lycans-film-review-26882.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br />In addition, there is also <a href="http://www.bloggernews.net/119629" target="_new"><b>this review over at Blogger News Network</b></a>, which has a passage quite similar to the one I Googled. <br /><br /><i>The Curious Case of Benjamin Button</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEtoioGSC6w" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #44</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewauckland.co.nz/films/the-curious-case-of-benjamin-button-film-review-26917.html" target="_new"><b>View Auckland</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Watchmen</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLozALUunOo" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #45</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/watchmen-film-review-27128.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Duplicity</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpnsnns0Ytk" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #47</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewauckland.co.nz/films/duplicity-film-review-27375.html" target="_new"><b>View Auckland</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_k0Bm7xJzE" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #49</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewhamilton.co.nz/films/x-men-origins-wolverine-film-review-27282.html" target="_new"><b>View Hamilton</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Star Trek</i> (2009)<br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh3nYCbDRNw" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #50 (Part 2)</b></a> taken from <a href="http://movies.ign.com/articles/973/973956p1.html" target="_new"><b>IGN UK</b></a> (Orlando Parfitt) and <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/star-trek-film-review-28153.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Fast & Furious</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJxVmdpfVsI" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #51</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/fast-and-furious-film-review-27659.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Terminator: Salvation</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K13Kznjy-iE" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #54</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewauckland.co.nz/films/terminator-salvation-film-review-24523.html" target="_new"><b>View Auckland</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>The Hangover</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NG7NzkG6rY" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/the-hangover-film-review-28607.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Night at the Museum 2: Battle For the Smithsonian</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEGfcc8l1ws" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #56</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/night-at-the-museum-2-film-review-28346.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen</i><br />Review in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHLOBnHR7AM" target="_new"><b>FilmXTRA #57</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.collider.com/2009/06/23/transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-review/" target="_new"><b>Collider</b></a> (Matt Goldberg) and undoubtedly one other source, which, despite repeated Googling, I could not find.<br /><br /><i>Brüno</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOan3ag-Al0" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/bruno-film-review-28991.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Moon</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPjB2IgNKts" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/moon-film-review-28823.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Public Enemies</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8s8Ywvf98Q" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/public-enemies-film-review-28920.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner) and <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1197156/Public-Enemies-15--Smooth-criminal-rough-old-script.html" target="_new"><b>Daily Mail</b></a> (Chris Tookey)<br /><br /><i>The Hurt Locker</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZzPd-kpg2I" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewauckland.co.nz/films/the-hurt-locker-film-review-28826.html" target="_new"><b>View Auckland</b></a> (Matthew Turner) and <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entertainment/reviews.nsf/movie/story/0825924E2D1C644D862575FB006B8A9B?OpenDocument" target="_new"><b>STL Today</b></a> (Calvin Wilson)<br /><br /><i>Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5sJDINnyCo" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince-film-review-24593.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner) and <a href="http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince" target="_new"><b>Total Film</b></a> (Jonathan Crocker)<br /><br /><i>I Love You, Man</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOxF79X06jg" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/i-love-you-man-film-review-27679.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmV1bRmQlGM" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/gi-joe-the-rise-of-cobra-film-review-29216.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner), <a href="http://www.sfx.co.uk/2009/08/11/film_review_gi_joe_the_rise_of_cobra/" target="_new"><b>SFX</b></a> (Andrew Osmond), and probably at least one more I couldn't identify.<br /><br /><i>Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF-K_Idc8Ok" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/ice-age-3-dawn-of-the-dinosaurs-film-review-28868.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>The International</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMS8E6gQ-oc" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/the-international-film-review-27085.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Inglourious Basterds</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FDyZ7sErus" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=27770" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Chris Bumbray) and (yes, really, as far as I can tell) <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361748/usercomments?filter=love" target="_new"><b>IMDb user laurylou-1</b></a>, plus potentially others I couldn't identify<br /><br /><i>The Time Traveler's Wife</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgvbXT9a01w" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=27995" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Chris Bumbray)<br /><br /><i>Funny People</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riM_oEfQiEI" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/funny-people-film-review-29366.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>District 9</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTwXDm0ZXM4" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/district-9-film-review-29446.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner) and <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=27946" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Chris Bumbray)<br /><br /><i>Dorian Gray</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUV6jQ-C7Ts" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.shadowsonthewall.co.uk/09/dorigray.htm" target="_new"><b>Shadows on the Wall</b></a> (Rich Cline) and <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/dorian-gray-film-review-29475.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner)<br /><br /><i>Gamer</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubRRe7qV3VM" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/gamer-film-review-29581.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner), <a href="http://www.sfx.co.uk/2009/09/14/film_review_gamer/" target="_new"><b>SFX</b></a> (James White), and <a href="http://www.markreviewsmovies.com/reviews/G/gamer.htm" target="_new"><b>Mark Reviews Movies</b></a> (Mark Dujsik)<br /><br /><i>Surrogates</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFd_J-ZNwmg" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/surrogates-film-review-29571.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner) and <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=28749" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Jenna Busch)<br /><br /><i>The Invention of Lying</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWvuTRShRPo" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=28510" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Chris Bumbray) and possibly somewhere else<br /><br /><i>Up</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTDx6TpOXhI" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=26747" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Chris Bumbray) and possibly somewhere else<br /><br /><i>The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzouFWaqz4w" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=28661" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Chris Bumbray) and possibly somewhere else<br /><br /><i>Zombieland</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CynxaK5wa5o" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=28790" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Brian Kelley) and possibly somewhere else<br /><br /><i>The Fantastic Mr. Fox</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x6J8rRy_gM" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/fantastic-mr-fox-film-review-29276.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner) and <a href="http://movies.ign.com/articles/103/1035804p1.html" target="_new"><b>IGN UK</b></a> (Chris Tilly)<br /><br /><i>9</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjiUQNCYXN4" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/review-9" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (JimmyO) and possibly somewhere else<br /><br /><i>The Men Who Stare at Goats</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ND9E3nZzFI" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/films/the-men-who-stare-at-goats-film-review-30004.html" target="_new"><b>View London</b></a> (Matthew Turner) and possibly somewhere else<br /><br /><i>Harry Brown</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBBj7zyt3Wk" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/theatrical-reviews/harry-brown/" target="_new"><b>Little White Lies</b></a> (Josh Winning)<br /><br /><i>The Twilight Saga: New Moon</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS36FltnUQg" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>, oddly enough, doesn't appear to be taken from anywhere, or at least, the internet is too flooded with <i>Twilight</i> crap for Google to find it.<br /><br /><i>Paranormal Activity</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTWrJHZsKOY" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.viewauckland.co.nz/films/paranormal-activity-film-review-29541.html" target="_new"><b>View Auckland</b></a> (Matthew Turner) and <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=28778" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (JimmyO)<br /><br /><i>Law Abiding Citizen</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NyP4zoyYDQ" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=29053" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Chris Bumbray) and possibly somewhere else<br /><br /><i>The Box</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SeL_kBCrOU" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=29463" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Chris Bumbray) and possibly somewhere else<br /><br /><i>Avatar</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19plFs0_xMs" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/2nd-review-avatar" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Jenna Busch) and possibly somewhere else<br /><br /><i>Sherlock Holmes</i><br />Review <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6oyCY5Y8fY" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> taken from <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=29968" target="_new"><b>JoBlo</b></a> (Chris Bumbray)<br /><br />This has already taken more time than I could have possibly imagined, so I'm not going to scrutinize his channel, but previously, I did determine that he was doing the same on his live podcasts, with <a href="http://www.blogtv.com/people/MrFilmXTRA" target="_new"><b>the most recent podcast</b></a> making for <a href="http://www.joblo.com/dvdclinic/dvd_review.php?id=2680" target="_new"><b>a perfect example.</b></a><br /><br /><b>EDIT (05/09/10 6:00PM):</b> I got a little heat from the charming Scott Weinberg of Cinematical (<a href="http://twitter.com/scottEweinberg" target="_new"><b>@scottEweinberg</b></a>) for running the list, and I see his point (it is kind of like ganging up on him, and I have to completely admit to having already made two days worth of jokes at his expense on Twitter), but the true purpose of the list is to a) alert people whose work might have been stolen (which some fellow Twitterers indicate that it has), and b) make sure Tom confesses to <i>everything</i> he's done. There have been indications (based on the leisurely pace Tom is dealing with this, and the rate at which he deletes accusations of plagiarism from his YouTube channel and videos) that he had some thoughts about trying to fess up to some but not all of the theft. It also seems pretty clear that the guy had found ways to make money off of his hackism, via a merchandise shop and Google advertising, and he was being invited to premieres in the UK.<br /><br />The silly thing, I think, is the whole idea of plagiarism itself. I write about movies because I love writing about movies. The point is to express my thoughts on them, which is something I'd do whether I had a blog or not. To skip over that part of the process is unfathomable to me, because what appeal could running a channel about movies possibly have if you don't actually want to put out your own, original thoughts about them? If that part of it is a chore to you, then clearly you should focus your energy elsewhere.<br /><br /><b>EDIT 2 (05/09/10 7:30PM):</b> Somewhat ironically, it seems I've inadvertently discovered further plagiarism in the form of <a href="http://twitter.com/izone" target="_new"><b>@iZone</b></a>, which has ALSO been targeting Matthew Turner's reviews. Matthew had 42 of his reviews stolen by FilmXTRATOM and an unidentified number of reviews stolen by iZone. Make him feel a little better by following him <a href="http://twitter.com/FilmFan1971" target="_new"><b>on Twitter</b></a>, and hopefully assure that all of his content will be heard from him first in the future.<br /><br /><b>EDIT 3 (05/10/10 4:00 AM):</b> Unsurprisingly, most of the links to the videos have stopped functioning since I posted this about 12 hours ago. However (equally unsurprisingly), the videos have only gone private as opposed to being deleted from YouTube entirely.<br /><br />According to Turner, Tom has also issued his personal apology. I have only seen the one comment Turner Tweeted, but Tom claims he was "trying to test the corruptibility of YouTube". Gee, sorry, Tom, what a noble thing to do!<br /><br />When I first started at DVDTalk, there was a forum post about a plagiarist who had just been deleted. His excuse was supposedly that he "liked the passages" he'd ripped from reviews so much, he'd put them into the same document as his reviews in an attempt to write something equally good, and they just <i>happened</i> to stay in. <br /><br />Readers may also appreciate the story of "comedian" Nick Madson <a href="http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=67077201&blogId=533643624" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> and <a href="http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=67077201&blogId=533681759" target="_new"><b>here</b></a> over at Patton Oswalt's MySpace blog, which broke a little over a week ago. The second blog, in particular, is essential.<br /><br /><b>EDIT 4 (05/10/10 5:20 AM):</b> Thanks to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMKXi5RarcM" target="_new"><b>YouTube video</b></a> by a user named FuryoftheFilmFan (how fitting), I realize I would be remiss if I did not mention <a href="http://www.moviefancentral.com/fredlozano" target="_new"><b>FredLozano</b></a>, the JoBlo poster who first alerted anyone about any of FilmXTRATOM's crimes. He deserves as much credit as anyone, if not more, for without Fred, Tom would still be getting away with everything.<br /><br />In addition to FuryoftheFilmFan, a user named OrionSyndicate910 has created a very nice video about the situation <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTc1kyPjOdM" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>.<br /><br /><b>EDIT 5 (05/10/10 2:24 PM):</b> In case you wanted to read FilmXTRATOM's apology letter, you can do that <a href="http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=32081" target="_new"><b>here at JoBlo</b></a>. As a Twitter user pointed out, if he was "testing the corruptibility of YouTube", what purpose did it serve plagiarizing for his weekly live videos?<br /><br />Luckily, Tom is resilient. As per his <a href="http://twitter.com/FilmXTRATOM/status/13748194629" target="_new"><b>most recent Tweet</b></a>, he will continue to do his video reviews. Well, thank goodness.<br /><br /><b>EDIT 6 (05/10/10 9:51 PM):</b> Well, even though Tom seems to be prepared to put up new videos this week, it's still good to see that he has finally pulled the trigger and <i>deleted</i> the videos from his account (previously, he had only made them private).<br /><br />I have two videos on YouTube, which are clip montages from films. They were both flagged at one point by movie studios, but I noticed even while the videos were not available, my view counts remained.<br /><br />My theory about Tom's attempt to leave the videos "private" is that he could continue being a YouTube Partner -- and thusly, keep profiting from his plagiarism -- if the videos still existed, along with the view counts.<br /><br />That said, I am not certain as to whether Tom is currently a YouTube Partner. I am going on the implied word of OrionSyndicate910, who suggests that Tom is (or was) a Partner, so make of it what you will.<br /><br /><b>EDIT 6 (05/11/10 11:42 AM):</b> OrionSyndicate910 has posted <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1ZOIU0wDQ" target="_new"><b>a new video</b></a> which explicitly states that Tom has been a YouTube Partner for 2 months.<br /><br />By way of this story, I also got mentioned on <a href="http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/05/seacrest-wannabe-caught-plagiarizing-reviews" target="_new"><b>FilmDrunk</b></a>, my favorite movie blog on the internet. Day: made.<br /><br /><b>EDIT 7 (05/11/10 3:07 PM):</b> Initial whistleblower Fred Lozano <a href="http://bubblegumway.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/joblo-movie-podcast-fred-lozano-edition/" target="_new"><b>has put up his own two cents</b></a> on the issue. Fred also Tweets as <a href="http://twitter.com/bubblegumway" target="_new"><b>@BubblegumWay</b></a>.<br /><br /><b>EDIT 8 (05/14/10 11:42 PM):</b> Matthew Turner has <a href="http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/blog/the-power-of-online-communities-post-626.html" target="_new"><b>a blog up about it</b></a>, and the newest <a href="http://www.empireonline.com/features/cannes2010/" target="_new"><b>Empire video blog</b></a> references the whole mess.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-86307867988690981812010-04-08T02:35:00.001-07:002010-04-08T02:43:22.646-07:00Jay Baruchel's Next MoveHere's a piece I wrote for Boxoffice.com that didn't get used. <br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/baruchel.png" vspace="10" align="left" hspace="10" />The alumni of Judd Apatow and Paul Feig's now cult-classic TV show "Freaks and Geeks" (including Seth Rogen, James Franco and Jason Segel) have risen to the top of Hollywood's A-list in the past few years. Shortly after the cancellation of "Geeks", however, Apatow created a second show, called "Undeclared", which again featured Rogen and Segel, but also gave actor Jay Baruchel his "big" break as the show's lead. Like its predecessor, the show only lasted a single season, but 9 years later, Baruchel is ready to take his swing at Rogen-level fame with a trio of 2010 films. The actor co-stars in Disney's big-budget, live-action <em>Sorcerer's Apprentice</em> alongside Nicolas Cage, took on a starring role in the recent R-rated success <em>She's Out of My League</em>, and voices a CG hero in DreamWorks Animation's <em>How to Train Your Dragon</em>.<br /><br />Baruchel has seemingly shied away from Apatow's success thus far: his only appearance in one of the director's films (as producer or director) is an intermittent role as one of Rogen's roommates in <i>Knocked Up</i>. In the meantime, he's appeared in one or two indie projects, such as the aptly named real-time dramedy <i>Real Time</i>, and continued to be a supporting actor in big movies like <i>Tropic Thunder</i> and the <i>Night at the Museum</i> sequel. None of these films have trumpeted the actor as a leading man, but perhaps that's part of the actor's plan. A good parallel might be actor DJ Qualls, who made a splash in the 2000 comedy <i>Road Trip</i> and quickly graduated to a starring role in 2002's <i>The New Guy</i>, only to see his movie career immediately stall. Qualls even appeared in <i>I'm Reed Fish</i>, a 2006 movie that happened to star Baruchel.<br /><br />Regardless of what Baruchel's plans were, 2010 is already looking like it's going to be his breakout year. The producers of <em>League</em> were clearly looking to be in the Apatow business, starting with a romance and raunch formula and ending with a movie poster basically consisting of Baruchel's scrunched-up face, just like the campaigns for <em>The 40-Year-Old Virgin</em> and <em>Knocked Up</em>. Banner ads peppered the internet, trumpeting the film's R-rating, looking to catch the attention of the same demographic that made <em>The Hangover</em> a $300 million hit, the studio, after sitting on the film for around a year (thanks to the Paramount/DreamWorks split), carefully positioned it a safe two weeks away from John Cusack and Steve Pink's <i>Hot Tub Time Machine</i>. The strategy worked: <i>League</i> isn't a box-office smash or even a low-key hit, but the film's solid numbers proved that Baruchel's non-existent star status didn't seem to bother audiences.<br /><br />Now, Baruchel is looking at what may turn out to be two of the biggest films of his career, regardless of whether he'll be personally responsible for their box-office success. <i>Apprentice</i>, which won't be arriving until August, has plenty of cache behind it, including producer Jerry Bruckheimer, director Jon Turtletaub, and star Nicolas Cage -- three men who turned two <i>National Treasure</i> films into nearly $400 million in domestic box office reciepts (a third is in the cards) -- as well as the basic name value of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (the film is an expansion of the original <i>Fantasia</i> short with the buckets and brooms, minus Mickey; you can see Baruchel recreating the scene briefly, near the end of the film's <a href="http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/disney/thesorcerersapprentice/" target="_new"><b>teaser trailer</b></a>), even though it's not really a remake. Right now, though, <i>How to Train Your Dragon</i> is getting big buzz as DreamWorks' best animated project yet, with additional kudos for the 3D. Even if Baruchel won't get stopped on the street for participation in <i>Dragon</i> if it turns out to be a smash, he'll likely find himself doing more and more voicework (just like his "Geeks" alum Seth Rogen, who laid down tracks for <I>Shrek the Third</i>, <i>Kung Fu Panda</i> and <i>Monsters vs. Aliens</i>).<br /><br />On one hand, most voice actors aren't exactly celebrities, and, while the practice is increasing, most actors would prefer to do their work in front of the camera rather than behind the microphone. Then again, for Baruchel, maybe that level of celebrity makes perfect sense. By doing a film where he doesn't physically appear, and another where he plays the co-lead, he's probably locked up plenty of steady work, retains his cred as a supporting actor, allowing any profit and credibility <em>League</em> creates to be icing on the cake. Even if "Jay Baruchel" never becomes a household name, it looks as if he's got his future in perfect order.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-25440766905020829322010-04-07T17:35:00.000-07:002010-04-07T19:11:09.251-07:00Remake Watch 2010: Week 15<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/heavymetalmovieposter.png" vspace="10" align="right" hspace="10" />A catch-up post, in which Hollywood vomits old movies and television shows into your face with alarming strength and velocity.<br /><br /><b><i>Godzilla</b></i><br />Legendary Pictures has the rights and are trying as hard as they can to avoid making anything like Roland Emmerich's 1998 <i><b>Godzilla</b></i>. Good plan. [Source: <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118017027.html?categoryid=13&cs=1" target="_new"><b>Variety</b></a>]<br /><br /><b><i>House Party</b></i><br />This movie isn't going to make <i><b>House Party 2</b></i> look like <b><i>House Party 3</b></i>! It's just going to look like <i><b>House Party</i></b>! Because, you know, it's a remake. I guess that <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002GSXKOM?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002GSXKOM" target="_new"><b><i>House Party</i> 4 Film Favorites DVD</b></a> is selling like gangbusters. [Source: <a href="http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/exclusive-hollywood-developing-real-genius-and-house-party-remakes.php" target="_new"><b>Pajiba's The Hollywood Cog</b></a>]<br /><br />"<b>Laverne & Shirley</b>"<br />Jamie Foxx is writing a "<b>Laverne & Shirley</b>" movie with Jessicas Biel and Garner in mind to star and Garry Marshall to direct? I told you I wanted an out-of-left-field story, damn it! [Source: <a href="http://tvguidemagazine.com/kecks-exclusives/a-foxx-y-remake-of-laverne-shirley-4448.html" target="_new"><b>TV Guide</b></a>]<br /><br /><b><i>Look Who's Talking</b></i><br />Clearly, someone wants to capitalize on those E*TRADE ads starring babies. Oh, wait, they're making <a href="http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/exclusive-20th-century-fox-developing-an-etrade-talking-baby-movie-no-im-not-making-this-up-.php" target="_new"><b>a movie based on those, too</b></a>. [Source: <a href="http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/exclusive-look-whos-talking-remake-in-development-look-in-the-distance-i-think-i-see-the-fourth-horseman.php" target="_new"><b>Pajiba</b></a>]<br /><br /><b><i>Overboard</b></i><br />Sometimes I think Hollywood execs with no ideas on what to greenlight just go to Blockbuster and look at old DVDs. You know, because Hollywood Video is out of business. Maybe <i>this</I> is the one that will get Jennifer Lopez <a href="http://latina.com/entertainment/celebrity/jennifer-lopez-exclusive-i-cant-regret-things-i-did-past" target="_new"><b>that "dope" Oscar she deserves</b></a>. [Source: <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i21cea1586dd4edf560acdd829bbad4f1" target="_new"><b>The Hollywood Reporter</b></a>]<br /><br /><b><i>Night of the Living Dead: Origins</b></i><br />Never mind that there is already a <b><i>Night of the Living Dead 3D</b></i>, they're making another one, and it's animated, and a prequel. Hmm. [Source: <a href="http://moviemikes.com/2010/03/interview-with-bill-moseley/" target="_new"><b>Movie Mikes</b></a>, via Moviehole]<br /><br /><b><i>Private Benjamin</b></i><br />Anna Faris is headlining a <i><b>Private Benjamin</b></i> remake. Unlike my joke above, it may really turn out to be an Oscar bid for Faris (the original scored Goldie Hawn an Oscar nomination), which Jennifer Lopez can watch from her couch while lamenting that her comic ability to <a href="http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2009/12/sweet-mother-of-god-j-lo-is-clenching" target="_new"><b>hold semen inside her vagina</b></a> in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGGm0r0spqQ" target="_new"><b><i>The Back-Up Plan</b></i></a> was overlooked. [Source: <a href="http://riskybusiness.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/03/30/anna-faris-star-private-benjamin-remake-new-line/" target="_new"><b>THR's Risky Business Blog</b></a>]<br /><br /><b><i>Police Academy</b></i><br />Steve Guttenberg's dreams of a <i><b>Police Academy</b></i> reunion sequel are crushed by the news of this remake. Steve Guttenberg's dreams are always crushed. [Source: <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ie79635783d458127926f8f701bbff990" target="_new"><b>The Hollywood Reporter</b></a>]<br /><br />"<b>Popeye</b>"<br />A remake of the cartoon, not the Robin Williams movie. IN 3D!!! [Source: <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118016768.html?categoryId=10&cs=1&nid=2248" target="_new"><b>Variety</b></a>]<br /><br /><b><i>Real Genius</b></i><br />I like the idea that someone is remaking a movie titled <b><i>Real Genius</b></i>, in the sense that that same person would probably remake a movie called <b><i>Truly Original</b></i>. [Source: the first article from <a href="http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/exclusive-hollywood-developing-real-genius-and-house-party-remakes.php" target="_new"><b>Pajiba</b></a> again]<br /><br /><b><i>The Toxic Avenger</b></i><br />Everyone's favorite hand-frying, arm-tearing, boob-loving, grossly mutilated dweeb is bringing his classic mix of blood and breasts to Hollywood in an all-new PG-13 family movie in the vein of <i>The Mask</i>! Wait, what? [Source: <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/the-toxic-avenger-mops-up-in-redo-deal/" target="_new"><b>Deadline Hollywood Daily</b></a>]<br /><br />Not added to the "Remake Watch" count but still oh-so-very-in-development:<br /><br />"<b>Baywatch</b>"<br />Years ago, Eli Roth was attached to "<b>Baywatch</b>", presumably for no other reason than he could be. Unfortunately, as it turns out, that might have been a good idea, and it was quickly scrapped. [Source: <a href="http://riskybusiness.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/03/30/paramount-baywatch-brian-gatewood-alessandro-tanaka-exclusive/" target="_new"><b>THR's Risky Business Blog</b></a>]<br /><br /><b><i>Fantastic Voyage</b></i><br />Alright, alright. There are four movies on this list with genuine potential, and this is one of them. Like <i>Clash of the Titans</i>, there's definite room for improvement here, and it's been long enough since the original film was released to justify revisiting. As long as potential director Paul Greengrass leaves his shaky-cam behind (sometimes it works, but I don't think <b><I>Fantastic Voyage</i></b> needs to be gritty) and producer James Cameron lets someone else write it, I'll go see it. [Source: <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118017137.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1" target="_new"><b>Variety</b></a>]<br /><br /><b><i>Fright Night</b></i><br />Here's another one that I have mild faith in, entirely based on Anton Yelchin. [Source: <a href="http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/04/anton-yelchin-fright-night-exclusive.html" target="_new"><b>THR's Heat Vision Blog</b></a>]<br /><br /><b><i>Heavy Metal</b></i><br />The third project worth caring about and the one with the second-most potential: <b><i>Heavy Metal</b></i>, via David Fincher. He tried before and failed, but this time, he's brought his buddies Zack Snyder and James Cameron with him. Loud and nasty indeed. [Source: <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/fincher-brings-mettle-to-passion-project/#more-28177" target="_new"><b>Deadline Hollywood Daily</b></a>]<br /><br /><b><i>Caesar</b></i> (<b><i>Planet of the Apes</b></i>)<br />Finally, 20th Century Fox is moving forward with a <b><i>Planet of the Apes</b></i> prequel called <b><i>Caesar</b></i>, which will ignore Tim Burton's much-maligned remake. [Source: Production Weekly, but the best link I have is from <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/wyatt-monkeying-with-fox-prequel/" target="_new"><b>Deadline Hollywood Daily</b></a>]<br /><br /><b><i>Red Sonja</b></i><br />Rose McGowan: out. Megan Fox: potentially in. My attention: as far away from Megan Fox as possible. [Source: <a href="http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/exclusive-red-sonja-update-rose-mcgowan-out-megan-fox-in.php" target="_new"><b>Pajiba</b></a>]<br /><br />"<b>Robotech</b>"<br />The director of <i>Stomp the Yard</i> is considering directing. There will be no robots, only interpretive dance. [Source: <a href="http://iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8913:sylvain-white-approached-to-direct-robotech-movie&catid=52:conventions&Itemid=171" target="_new"><b>IESB</b></a>]<br /><br />"<b>Voltron</b>"<br />When a movie is a hit (like, say, <I>Transformers</i>), quickly find and buy a property that you can make nearly indistinguishable, and pour money into it. [Source: <a href="http://www.coronacomingattractions.com/news/exclusive-latest-about-voltron-movie-and-new-animated-tv-series" target="_new"><b>Corona Coming Attractions</b></a><br /><br />Remake Watch 2010:<br />15 film remakes in development<br />4 film remakes released in theaters<br />0 film remakes released direct-to-DVD<br />3 film reboots in development<br />0 film reboots released in theaters<br />0 TV remakes announced<br />0 tv remakes released<br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, <span style="font-style: italic;">X-Men Origins: Wolverine</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Race to Witch Mountain</span> are excluded). Sequels to remakes (<span style="font-style: italic;">The Pink Panther 2</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Halloween II</span>) are ignored. </span>Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-66471963500222015522010-03-22T00:34:00.000-07:002010-03-22T02:09:19.375-07:00Thoughts on an Random Movie: Leprechaun (1993)<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/leprechaun.jpg" vspace="10" align="left" hspace="10" /><br /><br />I got a job recently, and I haven't been around to update this site very often. I mean, I never do, but I need to do at least one Remake Watch post (<i>Police Academy</i> and <i>Overboard</i>!), so even at that, I'm behind on my work.<br /><br />Since I spent most of the last 24 hours being unusually productive (I got Boxoffice.com and DVDTalk.com work done today too), I figure I might as well post here just to complete the hat trick, and what better to fill your internets with than a random assortment of thoughts about <b><i>Leprechaun</b></i>, which I am watching for the first time. I may or may not be watching all six <b><i>Leprechaun</b></i> films in the next week or two (yes, they made six <b><i>Leprechaun</b></i> films), so you might also be treated to entries on the sequels as well.<br /><br />I decided to start blogging a little late in the game, so I'm afraid my thoughts on the first 30 minutes are mostly missing. The rest are time-coded, in case you too are one of the poor souls who owns <b><I>Leprechaun</b></i> and you'd like to retroactively read along.<br /><br /><b>(unspecified):</b> Can this movie not afford the expensive visual effect of <i>a door closing</i>?<br /><br /><b>25 minutes:</b> As a director, if you're unable to visualize the impossible, such as the end of a rainbow, just hide it behind an old truck.<br /><br /><b>27 minutes:</b> I hope this annoying kid dies first.<br /><br /><b>28 minutes:</b> The fat guy just ate a gold coin by accident. This incident was followed by this amazing exchange:<br /><br />"Can you die from eating gold?"<br />"You can if I kill you!"<br /><br />You would think that the second line comes from the Leprechaun, but no, it comes from the annoying kid.<br /><br /><b>28 minutes:</b> I'm afraid there aren't actually expensive surgeries to make morons into geniuses. Sorry, Poor Man's Louis Anderson.<br /><br /><b>29 minutes:</b> Nathan the Painter is <i>really</i> impressed that Jennifer Aniston has picked up the challenging "paint-in-a-straight-line" technique in 30 seconds. I guess he's into intellectual women.<br /><br /><b>31:20:</b> Why on earth would she think Nathan the Painter was hiding under the truck? Is that something country painters do?<br /><br /><b>32:30:</b> The characters in this movie are very easily convinced that the Leprechaun is a random, benign animal.<br /><br /><b>34:10:</b> Of course, the town just happens to have a collectible coin store. I mean, what town doesn't?<br /><br /><b>35:50:</b> Damn it, did I leave my bike bell on upstairs again?<br /><br /><b>36:18:</b> Better whisper exposition to myself while I lock this safe.<br /><br /><b>36:37:</b> So it isn't bizarre to this coin shop owner that a kid-size tricycle is rolling through his coin shop?<br /><br /><b>37:42:</b> DEATH BY POGO STICK<br /><br /><b>37:50:</b> I guess this guy <i>does</i> have a lot of toys, for some reason. Maybe they're collectibles or something.<br /><br /><b>41:25:</b> Wait, so, instead of kicking the Leprechaun as hard as possible and running to his car, this cop chose to flee into the woods?<br /><br /><b>42:45:</b> It's a real shame that Mark Jones' elaborate artistic vision is being steamrolled by this cropped, full-screen DVD.<br /><br /><b>44:20:</b> This cop is experiencing all the stages of grief, at the base of this tree, in order, inside a minute.<br /><br /><b>44:58:</b> Nathan the Painter has ordered blob, in mud sauce, with a side of slop.<br /><br /><b>45:43:</b> Aniston pronounces "mature" like "couture". That's how you know she's serious.<br /><br /><b>46:10:</b> Off-brand Lucky Charms in the pantry. Nice.<br /><br /><b>47:33:</b> Wait, is the idea that he sanded the boot until he'd whittled it down into a high heel? Why does that change the boot's color?<br /><br /><b>48:21:</b> Yes, Nathan. A bear arranged a bunch of shoes on the table.<br /><br /><b>49:20:</b> She's mastered a broom too? On the same day she mastered painting? Look out, world!<br /><br /><b>49:22:</b> "Sounds like a bell." THIS IS A GENIUS OBSERVATION<br /><br /><b>50:56:</b> I really do like the flute-heavy score. It's funny. Good funny.<br /><br /><b>51:56:</b> LOOK OUT A BEAR TRAP<br /><br /><b>52:17:</b> This battle is seriously epic.<br /><br /><b>52:39:</b> LUNGE<br /><br /><b>52:46:</b> Don't just stand there, Jennifer Aniston, do something!<br /><br /><b>52:53:</b> Of two adults, you send the nine-year-old to go get the shotgun?<br /><br /><b>54:15:</b> What is Nathan shooting at?<br /><br /><b>55:39:</b> Six rounds my ass. You only put one round into him, you liar.<br /><br /><b>56:57:</b> kill the kid kill the kid kill the kid kill the kid kill the kid<br /><br /><b>57:25:</b> No power windows.<br /> <br /><b>58:33:</b> It doesn't even look like the Leprechaun's car is tall enough to touch the truck, much less flip it over.<br /><br /><b>59:24:</b> We're in some serious <i>Evil Dead</i> territory here.<br /><br /><b>59:33:</b> <i>Serious</i> <i>Evil Dead</i> territory.<br /><br /><b>59:36:</b> Wait, so, he opens the door and just runs away?<br /><br /><b>1:01:41:</b> "Where the hell are the police? They should be here by now!" Police in this town have a minute-or-less guarantee.<br /><br /><b>1:02:47:</b> The flip-frame transitions in this movie are amazing.<br /><br /><b>1:03:13:</b> YEAH BADASS SHOTGUN WIELDING JENNIFER ANISTON APPARENTLY<br /><br /><b>1:06:19:</b> "No one takes a leprechaun's gold!" No one except all of the characters in this movie!<br /><br /><b>1:07:28:</b> Don't see a lot of dick-grabbing as assault in real life, much less in movies.<br /><br /><b>1:08:21:</b> "We got the sucker!" Yeah, well, you got him before, too.<br /><br /><b>1:08:49:</b> Just shoot him again, damn it!<br /><br /><b>1:09:33:</b> Normally, I'd expect producers to hold off on having the villain in a horror movie skateboard until the sixth or seventh chapter, but <i><b>Leprechaun</b></i> goes for the gusto.<br /><br /><b>1:11:07:</b> It rang before, and it was the Leprechaun! You ripped it out of the wall and threw it on the floor, and you're going to answer it again?<br /><br /><b>1:11:13:</b> Apparently, the answer is yes. Therefore, this <i>Nightmare on Elm Street</i> rip-off moment is only brought to you by your own stupidity!<br /><br /><b>1:11:44:</b> "That thing is a leprechaun, and we've gotta find a way to stop it!" Aniston's hatred for that line is audible.<br /><br /><b>1:12:38:</b> Is there a reason they're not all escaping?<br /><br /><b>1:14:09:</b> The Leprechaun has mastered the skateboard, but not roller skates.<br /><br /><b>1:14:35:</b> HEY JENNIFER ANISTON THAT IS A HANDICAPPED ZONE YOUNG LADY<br /><br /><b>1:15:21:</b> Really, I love it in <i>every</i> movie when characters whisper exposition to themselves. I'm not trying to single <i>Leprechaun</i> out.<br /><br /><b>1:17:17:</b> The Leprechaun is a master of disguise! Awesome.<br /><br /><b>1:17:19:</b> WHEELCHAIR CHASE<br /><br /><b>1:18:38:</b> Exposition is not often delivered by a bloody, dying man, hanging from the roof of an elevator. And by "not often", I mean "not often enough".<br /><br /><b>1:20:18:</b> The Leprechaun's low-to-the-ground point-of-view turns out to be unexpectedly appealing when it comes to foot chases after 1993-era Jennifer Aniston. <br /><br /><b>1:23:16:</b> Damn it, movie, don't pretend you're going to kill the kid when you really aren't.<br /><br /><b>1:23:50:</b> <i><b>Leprechaun</b></i> becomes a religious movie.<br /><br /><b>1:24:10:</b> Largest four-leaf clover ever.<br /><br /><b>1:25:33:</b> This is not a great movie, but that is an amazing one-liner.<br /><br /><b>1:26:25:</b> This is the opposite of touching. Stop talking, Ozzie.<br /><br /><b>1:28:03:</b> One hastily-added voice-over line is an ending, right?Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-59390990871937594492010-02-11T09:54:00.000-08:002010-02-11T10:00:01.241-08:00Remake Watch 2010: Week 7<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/bestlittlewhorehouseintexasposter.png" vspace="10" align="right" hspace="10" />Universal is mounting a remake of <i><b>The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas</b></i>. I don't really know anything about <i><b>The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas</b></i>. I bet it gets named to <b><i>Best in Texas</b></i> or something dumb, though, thus completely defeating the fact that it's a remake of <b><i>The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas</b></i> (from a marketing standpoint, anyway). (Source: <a href="http://www.cinematical.com/2010/02/11/the-best-little-whorehouse-in-texas-hits-the-remake-pile/" target="_new"><b>Cinematical</b></a>, really, since the original <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118015028.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2562" target="_new"><b>Variety</b></a> story is behind a paid wall)<br /><br />There has also been movement on the remakes of the live-action <i>Akira</i> (The Hughes Brothers have been tapped to direct), <i>The Black Hole</i> (director Kosinski suggests it will have more hard science), <i>A Star is Born</i> (Russell Crowe will play the lead), <i>Vacation</i> ("Freaks and Geeks" star John Francis Daley is co-writing with Jonathan Goldstein -- although it may actually be more of a sequel than a reboot), and probably some others I've forgotten about, but they don't add to the 2010 total because they were all announced previously. (Sources: <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/02/akira_remake_hughes_bros.html" target="_new"><b>Vulture</b></a>; <a href="http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/02/09/exclusive-joseph-kosinskis-black-hole-to-begin-script-work-soon-will-preserve-maximilian-cygnus-and-more/" target="_new"><B>MTV</b></a>; <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/02/russell-crowe-a-star-is-born.html" target="_new"><B>The LA Times</b></a>; and <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118015026.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&ref=vertfilm" target="_new"><b>Variety</b></a> via <a href="http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=63234" target="_new"><b>ComingSoon</b></a>)<br /><br />There was also movement on the <i>Escape From New York</i> remake, but the news was awesome: before they could glean the rights, New Line had to sign a contract with John Carpenter, stipulating that "Plissken must always be called 'Snake'", that the character "must wear an eyepatch", and, best of all, "must always be a bad-ass". John Carpenter is the best person ever. (Source: <A href="http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/02/vulture_exclusive_the_escape_f.html" target="_new"><b>Vulture</b></a>)<br /><br />Remake Watch 2010:<br />4 film remakes in development<br />0 film remakes released in theaters<br />0 film remakes released direct-to-DVD<br />1 film reboot in development<br />0 film reboots released in theaters<br />0 TV remakes announced<br />0 tv remakes released<br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, <span style="font-style: italic;">X-Men Origins: Wolverine</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Race to Witch Mountain</span> are excluded). Sequels to remakes (<span style="font-style: italic;">The Pink Panther 2</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Halloween II</span>) are ignored. </span>Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-84727569526604750602010-01-26T02:59:00.000-08:002010-01-26T03:46:24.494-08:00Would You Like to Play a Game?<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/katiefeatherston.png" vspace="10" align="left" hspace="10" />(No, Katie Featherston has nothing to do with this news. Just keep reading.)<br /><br />So, about a week ago, <a href="http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=62483" target="_new"><b>Paramount hired <i>Saw VI</i> director Kevin Greutert</b></a> to direct a sequel to <b><i>Paranormal Activity</b></i>, perhaps the biggest success story of 2009 (or at least, <i>Avatar</i> aside, the biggest low-budget success story, anyway). This was funny because <i><b>Paranormal Activity</b></i> was the movie that finally knocked the <b><i>Saw</b></i> franchise -- Greutert's entry, actually -- from its four-year throne atop the Halloween box office. I guess the old saying, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" still applies. <br /><br />Greutert's <b><i>Paranormal</b></i> sequel was positioned against Lionsgate's <b><i>Saw VII</b></i> 3D, which may or may not, depending on its financial performance, be the last theatrical <b><i>Saw</b></i> movie (that is, until they remake or reboot the first one, which, going by <i>Spider-Man</i>, may be as soon as, say, Thursday).<br /><br />Or at least that was how things were <a href="http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/saw-vs-paranormal-activity-war-gets-bloody-for-halloween-2010-box-office/" target="_new"><b>until yesterday</b></a>, when Lionsgate decided to exercise an option they held on Greutert, forcing him to direct <b><i>Saw VII</b></i> instead of <I><b>Paranormal 2</b></I>. <b><i>Saw V</b></i> director David Hackl, who was previously slated to direct <b><i>VII</b></i>, is relegated off to some other, as-of-yet undecided project.<br /><br />While it makes for great, hilarious, public Hollywood shenanigans, this is a terrible, terrible move. First of all, how does Lionsgate expect to get a good performance out of Greutert when he's got the taste of sour grapes in his mouth the whole time? Greutert edited all five <b><i>Saw</b></i> films prior to his directorial debut on the sixth, so there's no doubt he's got the franchise in his blood. But is he going to be able to creatively and emotionally invest in a project he doesn't want to make? As low-rent as it may be, I am still a die-hard <i><b>Saw</b></i> fan, and if this is the last hurrah, I want it to be good.<br /><br />Then there's Hackl. The general consensus is that <b><i>Saw V</i></b> is the worst of the series (I agree). Producers being producers, they'd never tell you straight up that a movie they worked on sucked unless they were fired or something, but I'm sure Hackl thought it was a good display of solidarity when he was asked back to direct the seventh, and in 3D as well. Of course, the moment it became "the last", I'm sure the stakes went way up, and all of a sudden, going with the fans' least favorite director starts looking like a bad idea, especially when your last director is running off to the competition. Greutert expressed his frustration <a href="http://www.kevingreutert.com/" target="_new"><b>via his website</b></a>, although he chose to delete what he specifically said and left it at "pissed". I imagine Hackl doesn't feel much better (although for him, "used" be more accurate).<br /><br />Of course, Hackl's involvement raises another question: the movie supposedly starts rolling on February 1st, so the film can make its traditional last-week-of-October date. Since it's January 26th, I imagine the movie's ready to go before cameras, but didn't Hackl do all the pre-production work? Not only does Lionsgate have an unwilling, angry director, but he's also gonna have to adapt using months of another director's pre-production work, on something as complicated as 3D.<br /><br />In any case, I'm excited to see how this story develops. Personally, I'm hoping Hackl signs on to direct <i><b>Paranormal Activity 2</b></i>. I hear they're looking for a director.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-33829999242952452842010-01-26T01:48:00.000-08:002010-01-26T02:18:17.216-08:00Remake Watch 2010: Week 5<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/weekendatberniesIIdvd.png" vspace="10" align="right" hspace="10" />It's hard not to think about <i>Mannequin</i> and not also think about <i><b>Weekend at Bernie's</b></i>, because they're both such stupid premises from the 1980's starring Andrew McCarthy (Also, the <i>Mannequin</i> logo is pink, usually with a blue background behind it, and Bernie's shirt is pink and his jacket is blue. Shut up). I guess the people who own the rights to <i>Mannequin</i> and <i><b>Weekend at Bernie's</b></i> agree, because now the epic McCarthy-Jonathan Silverman comedy milestone -- a film so good and so ingrained into the cultural landscape that they <a href="http://ir.papajohns.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=405369" target="_new"><b>gave it away with pizzas</b></a> -- is also headed back to theaters in an all-new, still-stupid incarnation.<br /><br />It's funny -- I watched both <i><b>Weekend at Bernie's</b></i> films back to back a year or two ago, and I can't really remember a thing about them, other than the fact that Terry Kiser plays a damn good dead man, and that I would rather be watching Catherine Mary Stewart in a better movie, like <i><b>Night of the Comet</b></i>. <i><b>Night of the Comet</b></i> is a classic, and believe me, Hollywood, by the time you try to remake that (because it's inevitable), I'll do more than make pizza jokes. Unless, of course, we get a good special edition DVD of the original. Then I'll just grumble about it a lot, and probably see it when nobody is looking. Anyway, the point I'm making is, Terry Kiser is still alive, so he should play Bernie again. That'd really be better than all the Andrew McCarthy cameos in the world.<br /><br />Also, <a href="http://boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2010/01/the-future-of-spidey.php" target="_new"><b>apparently they're rebooting some superhero movie</b></a>. But I <a href="http://boxoffice.com/thenews/2010/01/11/spider-man-4-becomes-spider-ma.php" target="_new"><b>can't find any information about it</b></a>.<br /><br />In case you're wondering, I used the <b><i>Weekend at Bernie's II</i></b> poster because the tagline is phenomenal. It's so lazy. It's one of those things that really is so bad, it's funny. And then it's bad again.<br /><br />[<i>via <a href="http://www.moviehole.net/201023126-exclusive-gladden-sticks-the-panels-on-bernie" target="_new"><b>Moviehole</b></a></i>]<br /><br />Remake Watch 2010:<br />3 film remakes in development<br />0 film remakes released in theaters<br />0 film remakes released direct-to-DVD<br />1 film reboot in development<br />0 film reboots released in theaters<br />0 TV remakes announced<br />0 tv remakes released<br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, <span style="font-style: italic;">X-Men Origins: Wolverine</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Race to Witch Mountain</span> are excluded). Sequels to remakes (<span style="font-style: italic;">The Pink Panther 2</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Halloween II</span>) are ignored. </span>Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-1848045880459666962010-01-17T10:47:00.000-08:002010-01-17T12:59:39.119-08:00Top 10 of 2009 (subject to change*)*<i>not really</i><br /><br />So, I was just telling TFP non-contributor Matt Lingo, following a belated viewing of <b><i>Up in the Air</i></b><i></i>, how much I hated making top 10 lists, and that I'd probably never even create a top 10 of 2009.<br /><br />Lucky for you, I'm a big fat liar, because right after that I proceeded to look at the notepad file I had with most of the movies I saw in 2009 written down in it, and I found that arranging them in an order I liked was actually easier than I thought.<br /><br />Still, I hasten to add that I am notoriously nitpicky (I probably have OCD), and my rankings over the course of the year often change at the drop of a hat. What's important is what I write about the movie, because even if my ranking of the movie changes, the things I like and dislike about the movie itself don't -- I just, as I mentioned, hate making lists. I mean, there are several movies I saw this year that I fleetingly considered number ones at the time I saw them that aren't even on the list anymore. I also don't care about star ratings, which are equally susceptible to my mood, so there's also the possibility that you look at the linked reviews and they don't quite mesh with the placement on the list. But the point of publishing the list in the first place is to try to combat my incessant need to rearrange the movies on it, so rest assured, this is the list that's going in the books; if any movies I missed turn out to be the missing link in the best of 2009 food chain, it'll be too little, too late.<br /><br /><i><b>Note:</b> My personal system is that anything that has some sort of wide availability in America in the year in question qualifies for the year-end-list. Sometimes, that means a limited theatrical run, but often, "wide availability" means a DVD release. In any case, this is why there are films from 2008 and 2007 on the list -- it was my first real chance to see them.</i><br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/thefantasticmrfoxpostersmall.png" vspace="10" align="left" border="0" hspace="10" />10. <b><i>The Fantastic Mr. Fox</b></i> (2009)<br />[Pre-order it on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001QOGYBS?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001QOGYBS"><b>Blu-Ray</a></b> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001QOGYBI?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001QOGYBI"><b>DVD</a></b>]<br />Pathos and darkness have their place, but fantasy and joy are almost a relief these days, with everything going "dark" in an attempt to be more realistic. Thus, while the year was filled with wonderful animated films like Henry Selick's masterfully creepy <b><i>Coraline</b></i> and the underrated and underseen seriocomic wonder <b><i>Mary and Max</b></i>, I have to rank them under <b><i>The Fantastic Mr. Fox</b></i>, director Wes Anderson's breezy, hilarious adaptation of Roald Dahl's popular book. Anderson's style and company of actors all fit right into the meticulous stop-motion world of the film, and there are well-written characters despite the lack of doom and gloom. Hotbox!<br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/hurtlockerpostersmall.png" vspace="10" align="right" border="0" hspace="10" />9. <b><i>The Hurt Locker</i></b> (2008)<br />[Buy it on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00275EGX8?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00275EGX8"><b>Blu-Ray</b></a> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00275EGWY?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00275EGWY"><b>DVD</a></b>]<br />I've seen <b><i>The Hurt Locker</i></b><i></i> twice, and I don't feel like I've taken it all in. I probably owe it (and several other movies on this list) one more viewing before I publish, but it's already the middle of January, so I should also just suck it up and post it, because I doubt anyone will live and die by the movies I choose. In any case, while I wasn't quite as taken by it as my fellow OFCSers, who awarded it Best Picture and Best Editing in addition to Best Actor and Best Director in our year-end awards voting, I agree that Jeremy Renner paints a perfect picture of all-consuming, desperate dedication to living on the edge, and director Kathryn Bigelow effortlessly summons up stomach-churning, sweaty, cold-palm tension.<br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/moonpostersmall.png" vspace="10" align="left" border="0" hspace="10" />8. <b><i>Moon</i></b> (2009)<br />[Buy it on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002T9H2ME?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002T9H2ME"><b>Blu-Ray</a></b> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002T9H2MO?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002T9H2MO"><b>DVD</a></b>]<br />I love a good slow, atmospheric film, and I love it even more when it contains weird, slightly creepy science fiction. At the front and center of <b><i>Moon</i></b><i></i> is a multi-faceted performance by Sam Rockwell, but the picture is really completed by Duncan Jones' gorgeous, desperately lonely lunar visuals, and the sad, slightly haunted score by Clint Mansell. These three elements combine into an experience that alternates between dreamlike head trip and hallucinatory paranoia. The presence of Kevin Spacey as the voice of an awesome computer-slash-robot that uses emoticons to communicate is just icing on the cake.<br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/awaywegopostersmall.png" vspace="10" align="right" border="0" hspace="10" />7. <b><i>Away We Go</i></b> (2009)<br />[Buy it on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0021L8UP8?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0021L8UP8"><b>Blu-Ray</b></a> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0021L8UOY?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0021L8UOY"><b>DVD</b></a>]<br />When I first saw the trailer for <b><i>Away We Go</i></b>, I thought it essentially looked like a sequel to <b><i>Garden State</b></i>: a similar blend of comedy and romance, a plot that might have picked up where that film left off, and even including "The Office" star John Krasinski as a parallel to "Scrubs" star Zach Braff. I also wasn't particularly grabbed by the choice of Sam Mendes as director; I liked <b><i>Jarhead</b></i> plenty, but his other films have left me cold. In execution, however, <b><i>Away We Go</i></b>, is a vibrant adventure that feels like it's about real people in real places, deftly avoiding boring relationship roadblocks and too much "quirky" humor. The film's greatest strength, however, is the palpable chemistry between Krasinski and Maya Rudolph; it's intimate, devoted, funny and sweet, and it easily turns <b><i>Away We Go</b></i> into everything I've ever wanted from a modern movie romance, only better.<br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/derbaadermeinhofkomplexpostersmall.png" vspace="10" align="left" border="0" hspace="10" />6. <b><i>Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex</b></i> (2008)<br />[Pre-order it on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0030Y11Q0?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0030Y11Q0"><b>Blu-Ray</a></b> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0030Y1282?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0030Y1282"><b>DVD</a></b>]<br />On one hand, it's hard for me to rank a movie as cold as <i><b>Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex</b></i> above a movie as warm and wonderful as <b><i>Away We Go</b></i>, but Uli Edel's direction is so visceral it's impossible not to. The movie couldn't have been going for ten minutes before a group of protesters are sprayed down by police using fire hoses, and it feels so real you want to run for your life. Since the RAF were corrupt, evil people, the movie is hard to relate to, in a way, but the stark violence of their actions is compelling. Every bit the equal of <b><i>Inglorious Basterds</b></i> when it comes to depicting the atrocities of war. <br />(<a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/39665/baader-meinhof-complex-the/" target="_new"><b>read my DVDTalk theatrical review here</b></a>)<br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/district9postersmall.png" vspace="10" align="right" border="0" hspace="10" />5. <b><i>District 9</i></b> (2009)<br />[Buy it on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002SJIO5E?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002SJIO5E"><b>Blu-Ray</b></a> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002SJIO54?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002SJIO54"><b>DVD</b></a>]<br />I saw <i><b>District 9</b></i> the day it opened and didn't quite know what to make of it. I watched it again on DVD and was seriously blown away. The sad truth of the matter is, when I saw it in theaters, I don't think I knew how to process such a startlingly original movie; <b><i>District 9</b></i> is made out of familiar pieces but feels unlike any movie I've ever seen. The potent combination of thrilling, psuedo-documentary action, body horror, romance, and political drama packs more pure cinematic energy than most of the other movies I saw this year put together, and Sharlto Copley's performance as Wikus van de Merwe is genuinely Oscar-worthy. This is definitely one of the films on the list that I'm in danger of ranking higher, as it's a perfect blend of big ideas and popcorn escapism.<br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/wherethewildthingsarepostersmall.png" vspace="10" align="left" border="0" hspace="10" />4. <b><i>Where the Wild Things Are</i></b> (2009)<br />Movies like the awful <i>(500) Days of Summer</I> (review <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/41232/-500-days-of-summer/" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>) have ruined the word "quirky" for the modern moviegoer, but <i><b>Where the Wild Things Are</b></i> is better described with words like "wit" and "whimsy", deftly illustrating the tale of Max (played knowingly by young Max Records) and his desire to escape to a world where he can do what he wants. Director Spike Jonze effortlessly juggles the movie's many tones while roving around a stunning landscape painstakingly crafted by production designer K.K. Barrett and beautifully photographed by Lance Acord. There's also the vocal performance by James Gandolfini, which in a fair and perfect world, would have a legitimate shot at a Best Actor nod. <br />(<a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/40202/where-the-wild-things-are/" target="_new"><b>read my DVDTalk theatrical review here</b></a>)<br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/up.png" vspace="10" align="right" border="0" hspace="10" />3. <b><i>Up</i></b> (2009)<br />[Buy it in a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001KVZ6G6?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001KVZ6G6"><b>Blu-Ray/DVD Combo Pack</a></b> (same price as the DVD by itself)]<br />There is better direction and heart-wrenching emotion in the first ten minutes of <i><b>Up</i></b> than there is in the majority of movies released in a given year, and yet this intro is just a tiny piece of a soaring, colorful adventure that works just as well in carefully crafted Disney Digital 3D as it does in a more standard set of two dimensions. The movie's villain seems slight, but the wise minds at Pixar, never ones to hinge a film on its plot mechanisms, bring it back around to emotion in the end, with just the faintest touch of bittersweetness. As a comedic bonus, <i><b>Up</i></b> also contains some of Pixar's best side characters ever in Dug the Dog and Kevin the Bird, which are both masterful observations of real-life animals.<br />(<a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/37387/up/" target="_new"><b>read my DVDTalk theatrical review here</b></a>)<br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/12postersmall.png" vspace="10" align="left" border="0" hspace="10" />2. <b><i>12</b></i> (2007)<br />[Buy it on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00280QNK6?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00280QNK6"><b>DVD</b></a>]<br />Most viewers probably missed <i><b>12</b></i> in 2009, but this 160 minute, Russian-language remake of Sidney Lumet's classic <b><i>12 Angry Men</i></b> is every bit the equal of its inspiration, using the same story -- 12 jurors determine if a young man is either innocent or guilty of murder -- as the backbone for an original, entirely different story. The only other thing the two movies have in common is a whole table's worth of phenomenal performances, who make those 160 minutes feel like 20.<br />(<a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/38040/12/" target="_new"><b>read my DVDTalk DVD review here</b></a>)<br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/inglouriousbasterdspostersmall.png" vspace="10" align="right" border="0" hspace="10" />1. <b><i>Inglourious Basterds</i></b> (2009) <br />[Buy it on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002T9H2L0?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002T9H2L0"><b>Blu-ray</a></b> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002T9H2LK?ie=UTF8&tag=thefollprev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002T9H2LK"><b>DVD</b></a>)<br />It's hard to summarize all of the things that are great about <i><b>Inglourious Basterds</b></i>, but Quentin Tarantino's latest is bursting with pent-up energy, expertly biding its time before rattling the screen with jaw-dropping, bloody intensity. They ought to teach the bar scene in film schools as an entire course on how to create and increase dramatic tension in films. On top of this, Tarantino has several of his best performances to fall back on, from Mélanie Laurent (a delicate, thoughtful wave of righteous fire and brimstone), Brad Pitt (brick-to-the-face comedy) and Christoph Waltz (an embodiment of the word "sinister"). It's ridiculously good, the kind of movie you can't believe someone made while reveling in every detail. In one scene, a terrified Nazi yells at Pitt's Lt. Aldo Raine: "You'll be shot for this!" I think of Tarantino, the rules he's breaking, and the executives he's working for. "Nah, I don't think so," responds Raine. "More like chewed out. I been chewed out before." Sounds about right. <br />(<a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/38294/inglourious-basterds/" target="_new"><b>read my DVDTalk theatrical review here</b></a>)<br /><br /><b>Note:</b> Since, <i>once again</i>, I hate making lists, I didn't wait to add it, but I'm pretty sure, having recently seen most of <b><i>In the Loop</b></i>, that it would have made this list. Do with this information what you will.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-76985128514354955192010-01-14T02:02:00.000-08:002010-01-14T02:19:33.500-08:00Jurassic Park IV<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/jurassicparkposter.png" vspace="10" align="left" hspace="10" />Courtesy of <a href="http://boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2010/01/exclusive-captain-america-jp4.php" target="_new"><b>Boxoffice.com</b></a>, currently paying my bills, comes the information that <b><i>Jurassic Park IV</b></i> -- last rumored to be dead as a doornail -- is very much alive and kicking, and, in typical 21st century fashion, it brought two sequels along for the ride.<br /><br />Since I just endured <a href="http://the-following-preview.blogspot.com/2010/01/franchise-legacy-american-pie-part-1.html" target="_new"><b>all six</b></a> <a href="http://the-following-preview.blogspot.com/2010/01/franchise-legacy-american-pie-part-2.html" target="_new"><b><i>American Pie</i> movies</b></a>, I immediately applied Universal's auto-sequel "system" to the new <b><i>Jurassic Park</I></b> movies and became instantly amused. Imagine: DTV-quality CG dinosaurs tormenting a bunch of well-meaning but utterly interchangeable actors, running around spouting the same "don't play God" plotline in each one, all joined by a doom-and-gloom cousin of Sam Neill's character, each individually suckered back in for "one last look" at the park and all the scientific secrets held within. And no direct-to-video <b><i>Park</b></i> sequel would be complete without a requisite cameo from Wayne Knight -- even though his character is dead -- in a retconning flashback sequence where he mentions he's stealing embryos for Dodgson and ends up privy to some dark secret about the park's past.<br /><br />Back in the real world, I'm not sure how I feel about <b><i>Jurassic Park 4</b></i>, since there's no doubt it <i>won't</i> be the super-ultra amazingly awesome treatment by John Sayles that was previewed on Ain't It Cool News at least half a decade ago. If I remember correctly, it brought back Sam Neill but he vanished about halfway through, replaced by an all new mysterious character as dinosaurs spread across the planet. There was some other stuff going on, but eventually the movie incorporated Knight's shaving cream can with embryos, and a Transylvanian castle where a madman was training dinosaurs to become military weapons underwater. I mean, I'd pay to see that in a second, and who wouldn't? Unless you hate fun, that is. I would find the page on AICN and link to it, but AICN's search function is still the worst thing ever invented in the history of the internet, and using Google doesn't work much better.<br /><br />In the meantime, expect a Franchise Legacy post about <b><i>Jurassic Park</b></i> either sooner or later, depending on how awful and lazy I am. <br /><br />(don't hold your breath or anything)Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-49236600196013713222010-01-12T00:09:00.000-08:002010-01-12T09:26:56.945-08:00Franchise Legacy: American Pie (Part 2)<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/americanpiebandcamp.png" vspace="10" align="right" hspace="10" /><br /><br /><b><i>Franchise Legacy</b> is a series where I review all the entries in a given franchise, and try to determine what (if any) impact the series has had on the public at large. I started work on this first entry, for <b>American Pie</b>, sometime during fall 2009, intending to get it done before the first film's 10th anniversary had past, but it fell by the wayside and I wasn't sure I was ever going to run it. Recently, the series' seventh entry, <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/40545/american-pie-presents-the-book-of-love/" target="_new"></i><b>American Pie Presents: The Book of Love<i></b></a>, has arrived on DVD, and I thought it would be a good time to resurrect my article.</i><br /><br />For Part 1 of this article, click <a href="http://the-following-preview.blogspot.com/2010/01/franchise-legacy-american-pie-part-1.html" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>.<br /><br /><b><i>American Pie Presents: Band Camp</b></i> (2005)<br />I guess band camp is a reasonably logical place for an <b><i>American Pie</b></i> spin-off to go, but the setup in the movie is bizarre: after pulling a pepper spray prank that sends several students away in ambulances, Matt Stifler (Tad Hilgenbrinck) is, uh, <i>sentenced</i> to band camp for the summer (by the Sherminator, now an East Great Falls High guidance counselor in a mildly depressing Chris Owen cameo). Matt's plan to survive such a dreadful torture? Buying what looks like $25,000 worth of video equipment (all with the click of a mouse and the script's disinterest in creating a logical financial situation for the character) to record whatever hijinks occur (especially anything sexual).<br /><br />Five seconds of Hilgenbrink's Stifler impersonation and you get it -- this is why they made the movie. The guy has Scott's mannerisms and tone down pat, and he's less annoying than Scott's performance in <b><i>American Wedding</b></i> to boot. And, even more importantly, just like Eric Christian Olsen's truly remarkable Jim Carrey impersonation in <i>Dumb & Dumberer</i>, it makes not one bit of difference when it comes to the film's comedic aptitude. You can have several Oscar-caliber performances in a movie -- which this absolutely isn't, in any way, shape or form (just spot-on mimicry) -- and it doesn't mean anything unless the script is up to par, which, in <I><b>Band Camp</b></i>'s case, it is not.<br /><br />When describing the comic scenarios in <i><b>Band Camp</b></i>, the word "labored" springs to mind, over and over again, as Stifler ends up in some sort of embarrassing or disgusting situation, and then either someone walks in on it or something even more disgusting and embarrassing happens. I suppose this might work for a shock laugh or two, but the situations are always painfully telegraphed, with obvious punchlines. On top of all of these problems, the scenarios are just plain...unlikely, to say the least. An example of all of these problems: the events that lead Matt to sexually pleasure by sticking his manhood in the end of an oboe are haphazardly thrown about in two scenes where other things will likely be taking up the audience's attention, and there's no further payoff than the sight gag, both of the character doing it and the aftermath in which the instrument won't come off, neither of which is that funny to begin with. There's also the problem with gross-out for the sake of gross-out, and while a shot of a filled-up toilet is unnecessarily distasteful, there is a scene in <i><b>Band Camp</i></b> that goes farther than I could stomach. Maybe it's just me; I've never been nauseated by a movie before, but a scene involving a soda can really turned my stomach, and still does even now (I'm literally retching as I think about it).<br /><br />This being a direct-to-video Unrated DVD, the nudity and sexual content is really ramped up for this entry, which means a lot of gross-looking post-surgery boobs for little to no reason. In fact, there's more nudity in <i><b>Band Camp</b></i> than there is the first three <b><i>American Pie</b></i> films put together, a theme that will continue throughout the <b><i>American Pie Presents</b></i> series in the most exploitational and useless way. Matt sticks a camera in the girls' shower area, and the results are almost so over-the-top as to be funny; I may be going out on a limb here, but I doubt impromptu dance scenes regularly break out in girls' showers. Of course, the writers of <b><i>American Pie Presents: Band Camp</b></i> don't know anything about going over the top, much less poking fun at themselves, so the girls perform "I Like Big Butts" on Stifler's webcam without irony.<br /><br />Then, of course, there's Eugene Levy. As will become a running motif with these direct-to-video sequels, I'm not sure why Eugene Levy is willing to appear in them; the movies look like they cost under a million dollars, so how much money could they possibly be offering him? Regardless, he's here, dutifully making faces, referencing the originals as frequently as possible, and basically delivering exposition, which leads me to my next question: why pay Eugene Levy a bunch of money to be in your movie and saddle him with all the boring dialogue? The guy is a talented improvisor, if someone gave him the chance, he might come up with some comedy gold. Alas, it is not to be. Aside from Levy, and to a lesser extent, Owen (only in two scenes), the other way the movie tries to feel similar to the originals is by using the same songs (although they had to swap Jimmy Eat World for a cover version).<br /><br />That said, there <i>is</i> actually one scene in the movie that's really nice; a brief character moment between Matt and Elyse (Arielle Kebbell), the movie's female lead, where they lie and watch the clouds. For approximately three minutes, the movie does fairly low-key dialogue jokes, Hilgenbrink turns off the Stifler impression, and the characters just chat with each other. In fact, having just finished reviewing <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/40545/american-pie-presents-the-book-of-love/" target="_new"><b><i>The Book of Love</i></b></a>, I can definitively say this is the one and only genuinely successful "nice"/"sweet" scene in all four spin-offs. Of course, the moment can't last: it's followed by a ridiculous scene where <i>literally</i> everything that could go wrong for the Stifler character does so, and does so consecutively, like a checklist, which is, like the dancing, sort of funny, but again, not in any evidently intentional way. I guess the "nice" scene at the end of the film is fine, but, like the rest of the film, it's predictable and contrived, which robs it of the things that make the other moment work.<br /><br /><b><i>American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile</b></i> (2006)<br />Just like <b><i>American Wedding</b></i> is a step down from <b><i>American Pie 2</b></i> and <i><b>Band Camp</b></I> is a step down from <i><b>American Wedding</b></i> (annoying Scott performance and all), <i><b>The Naked Mile</b></i> is a step down from <i><b>Band Camp</b></i>. Although this second sequel has a less irritating lead actor, the connections to the rest of the series are mighty tenuous, and the ability to harp on that nostalgia for the series is really all the gas these spin-offs have in the tank.<br /><br />There are germs of ideas in the plot of <i><b>The Naked Mile</b></i>, none of which go anywhere. Erik Stifler (John White) is the only virgin in the Stifler clan, behind cousins Matt, Steve and Dwight (Steve Talley). His girlfriend Tracy (Jessy Schram) isn't ready, and Erik is getting antsy, worried that his persistent dry spell will reflect poorly on his family or give him an inescapable reputation as a loser virgin (or something). Tracy's awful friends (more on them later) persuade Tracy to give Erik a shot at fourth base, but after a disasterous first attempt, Tracy goes back in her shell, waving a white flag of surrender. Her idea: a guilt-free pass for one weekend, to be used while Erik heads up to college and attends the Naked Mile, a yearly clothes-free run through campus.<br /><br />I know it's just the beginning of a story, one that would need an actual plot following it to work, but I'm convinced that the "guilt-free pass" idea could have been a <i>Hangover</i>-style hit in the right hands. Instead, the idea is buried in <i><b>The Naked Mile</b></i>, which has Tracy regretting the agreement almost immediately, followed by various painful plot devices (like a shot of Erik making out with another girl on the evening news) that create dumb miscommunication and other predictable romantic comedy crap for the couple to fight through and triumph over. I'm almost obsessed with the concept: just the basic idea of a "guilt-free pass" that starts out fun but ultimately results in a weekend to regret sounds like an excellent concept to hang a good R-rated comedy on, and it's mildly infuriating that the idea is basically wasted in a crappy direct-to-video <b><i>American Pie</b></i> sequel. There's also the premise of the Naked Mile itself, which as depicted is a believable, sexy event to use as the backbone for a movie, but the event ultimately has no bearing on any part of the plot, other than the miscommunication I already described.<br /><br />Instead of capitalizing on these <i>good</i> ideas, the movie places two things center stage: the entirely uninteresting noble turn that Erik predictably takes in the final reel, and the character of Dwight Stifler, who is not a suitable replacement for either Scott or even Hilgenbrinck. Talley is not quite annoying, but he does reek of failed comedy at all times; the script has not a single good line, funny mannerism or amusing moment for him to play, and the actor brings nothing to the table to improve upon the writing. At least it's not a rehash of Hilgenbrinck's Stifler impression, which would be both redundant (did Hilgenbrinck's price get too high?) and probably irritating. Both Erik and Dwight also mark the <b><i>Presents</b></i> series' pointless, oddball need to introduce new Stiflers. By the time the seventh has drawn to a close, there are a total of nine family members on screen in one of these, plus a bonus tenth in Chris Penn (who played Stifler's Dad in <b><i>American Pie 2</b></i> but wisely wound up on the cutting room floor).<br /><br />The Dwight part of the story introduces the movie's villain, an entire fraternity of little people that are out to bring Stifler and Beta House down. The problem here is not really that this development is not very funny (which it isn't), but that it's so gimmicky. None of the original <b><i>American Pie</b></i> movies relied on such jokey, bizarre setups to be funny (even if there was an extensive misunderstanding or two), and there's no reason <i><b>The Naked Mile</b></i> should have to do it either. Any and all scenes of the two houses' rivalry is lazily thrown at the movie like a spitball, in the hopes that it will stick even though it's just timekiller material, filled with scenes that don't contribute anything even to the almost non-existent arcs of the characters. In fact, the most dispiriting thing about <i><b>The Naked Mile</b></i> is how disinterested the whole enterprise is in even going through the motions of being part of the franchise. It isn't set in a familiar place, it doesn't bring back any characters (other than stealing the name Stifler and attaching it to an entirely different nuclear family), and (unlike the previous entry) it doesn't even half-heartedly try to cheat by using the same music.<br /><br />Oh wait, I lied. Eugene Levy makes his customary appearance, which is about as shoddily written in as is humanly possible. Unlike <i><b>Band Camp</b></i>, which made Jim's Dad a counselor, there's <i>literally</i> no legitimate reason for the character to be in the same place as any of the characters, and the script doesn't even try to hide it. The second time wee see Jim's Dad in <I><b>The Naked Mile</b></i>, it's when Erik sits down on what is literally a random park bench somewhere on the college campus, and the person sitting on the same bench puts down the newspaper and -- surprise -- it's Levy. I'm almost surprised that Levy doesn't stop one of the long-winded explanations about his experiences with Jim and simply ask Erik if he saw the first <b><i>American Pie</b></i>, because it'd probably be more subtle than the existing execution. The only interesting tidbits about Levy's glorified cameo is that the movie credits his character with the creation of the Naked Mile (I found that amusing), and that you find out what his first name is. TFP non-contributor Matthew Lingo claims you find out in another movie (it may be written somewhere in <b><i>American Wedding</b></i>), but for the record, it's not as good as series creator Adam Herz's suggestion that his name is Bullwinkle.<br /><br />Finally, I do have to call out writer Erik Lindsay on a couple of points. First of all, really? Your name is Erik and you named your main character Erik? Isn't that a little narcissistic? And, more importantly, why are Tracy's friends (specifically the one played by Jordan Madley) so unrelentingly awful? I'm not exactly <i>offended</i>, per se, but dialogue like "Men are like dogs. They hump everything they see. Now go and get your dog back on its leash," and "We're girls. Boys should know better than to trust us to be rational. It's not in our nature," not only sounds like a male writer trying and failing to write dialogue for women, but it's also shockingly ignorant. I know you're writing the fifth <b><i>American Pie</b></i> movie here, but, come on, man, don't be an asshole. Lastly (and this criticism is directed at director Joe Nussbaum as well), please do not even suggest an homage to <i>Ferris Bueller's Day Off</i> ("suggested", in this case, because Universal probably had no interest in securing the rights to the actual song from <I>Bueller</i>; a vague sound-alike takes its place).<br /><br /><b><i>American Pie Presents: Beta House</i></b> (2007)<br />Not shockingly, <b><i>American Pie Presents: Beta House</b></i> is the worst entry in the series. The first (and, perhaps, best) indication of how little <i><b>Beta House</i></b> cares about anything arrives at exactly one minute and six seconds into the film, when the following line of dialogue appears: "Son, you spent the entire summer depressed because your girlfriend ran off with that pretty boy, Trent."<br /><br />That's right, in case you're actually following along, that line of dialogue basically negates the entirety of <b><i>American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile</b></i>, which had the main character, Erik rushing back to East Great Falls to save said girlfriend from sleeping with that very character. Now, I hate to spoil the emotional core of <i><b>The Naked Mile</i></b> for you, but in an overwhelmingly unsurprising twist, the power of love wins out, with Erik and Tracy ready to live a full and wonderful life together on the strength of their undying passion for one another. Yet <i><b>Beta House</b></i>, the only direct sequel among the <i><b>Presents</b></i> films -- even written by the same person, Erik Lindsay -- can't even be bothered to give the slightest s--- about its predecessor.<br /><br />Knowing this, I watched with startling disinterest as the film mounts a plot that could best be described as <i>Revenge of the Nerds</i> in reverse, with the nerds as the villains. There is an even vaguer inkling of an idea here than in the previous two films (I liked that the nerds got all the women because the women knew the nerds would eventually be rich), but...ugh, it's so much <i>effort</i> to try and make a <i>good</i> movie.<br /><br />All of the same problems with <i><b>The Naked Mile</b></i> are essentially present here, because the movie focuses on the same characters. The only notable difference, and indeed, the only bright spot in the entire movie is actress Meghan Heffern as Ashley, Erik's new love interest. The character of Tracy had things to do, and was presented as a separate plotline running through the movie, but Heffern is not so lucky, only showing up sporadically throughout, when the plot has nothing better to do than focus on Erik and his love life rather than Dwight and his boring antics. Heffern makes the best of the situation by being effortlessly, consistently charismatic, even in the face of terrible body fluid jokes. Admittedly, one of these moments provides the movie's only funny moment (only funny shot, actually, of Erik desperately trying to grab a strand of CG semen in slow motion -- so sue me, I laughed), but the entire movie I desperately wished I was watching Heffern in something better (even <i><b>American Pie Presents: The Book of Love</b></i>).<br /><br />The plot clunks around, eventually turning into more of a half-assed <i>Animal House</i> riff that melts uncomfortably into the movie's equally bad <i>Nerds</i> thievery. It's around this time that Eugene Levy makes his scheduled appearance, saying his lines and being...present...with the utmost professionalism. I have already forgotten any developments that happen to Erik or Dwight by the end of the film, and I only watched it three days ago. If you had asked me after <b><i>Beta House</i></b>, before <i><b>The Book of Love</b></i> was announced, whether I'd like to see another, I'd probably have said no. But <b><i>Book of Love</i></b> proves that the series' (and its obviously esteemable legacy) isn't permanently tarnished.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ol-KrTTta4g&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ol-KrTTta4g&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Then again, at this point, what does <b><i>American Pie</b></i> even mean? Not only has the series been ransacked for a quick buck, but in an age where comedies about sex are everywhere, we probably don't need another one, especially since the subjects -- teenagers -- have their bases pretty well covered themselves. There have been rumors recently that an eighth <b><i>American Pie</b></i>> would go back to theaters, and maybe even reunite some of the original cast. I'm not holding my breath, but it might be nice to see: one last round with characters we may have grown up with, just a little, to send the series out on a reasonably respectable note.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-42376264973891603762010-01-09T12:30:00.000-08:002010-05-16T11:29:59.727-07:00Franchise Legacy: American Pie (Part 1)<img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/americanpie.png" vspace="10" align="right" hspace="10" /><br /><br /><b><i>Franchise Legacy</b> is a series where I review all the entries in a given franchise, and try to determine what (if any) impact the series has had on the public at large. I started work on this first entry, for <b>American Pie</b>, sometime during fall 2009, intending to get it done before the first film's 10th anniversary had past, but it fell by the wayside and I wasn't sure I was ever going to run it. Recently, the series' seventh entry, <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/40545/american-pie-presents-the-book-of-love/" target="_new"></i><b>American Pie Presents: The Book of Love<i></b></a>, has arrived on DVD, and I thought it would be a good time to resurrect my article.</i><br /><br />It's been (more than) ten years since the release of <i><b>American Pie</b></i>, and with the release of the seventh <i>American Pie</i> film direct-to-DVD (with talks of the eighth going to theaters), I started to wonder how much the modern R-rated sex comedy has been affected by the series' existence. <br /><br />For me, the '90s felt like a decade swamped with parental boundaries and implied "good taste", but I was growing up in the '90s, so my opinion is probably biased. It may be shocking given my love of film, but I spent those years sheltered from the "racy" content of R and even PG-13 movies (there's a reason I haven't seen so many classics -- I didn't get into movies until I was 16, when my parents finally gave up). The moviegoing public had their tolerance for violence raised by slasher films of the 1980's and by mainstream R-rated action films like <i>Terminator 2</i> (not an <i>extreme</i> example of violence, just a fairly bloody movie that was widely accepted as "okay" for younger audiences -- at least, going by how many people my age I know who saw the film in theaters). The barrier for foul language was similarly lowered by "South Park", which started airing on Comedy Central a few years before <i><b>American Pie</b></i>, which stirred up a big fuss among parent groups at first (do those even exist anymore?), but was eventually forgotten in the face of its exponentially expanding popularity. <br /><br />Sex, though, was still taboo. These days, thanks to the internet taking over, the worry that films and television are going to be the source of extreme content has all but vanished; if someone made <i>Showgirls</i> today, I doubt anyone would care, but what vague memories I have of the 1995 release of <i>Showgirls</i> was a fair amount of controversy over the basic inability to mask or cover up Verhoeven's subject matter thanks to the movie's NC-17 rating, and not the film's million-dollar screenplay.<br /><br />Whether or not a combination of timing and execution is unique to <i>American Pie</i> itself (i.e., if not <i><b>Pie</b></i>, would something else would have come along?), the first movie's success still seems to have finally opened that door, tackling even more brazen topics than those covered by <i>There's Something About Mary</i>, a door which Hollywood has subsequently taken advantage of. In the 1980's, teen sex films like <i>Porky's</i>, were not only commonplace, but massively profitable, and there's nothing the industry likes more than a reliable source of cash flow, and <i>American Pie</i>'s revival of the formula has had, I think, a noticeable impact on society. I'm not necessarily saying that <i><b>American Pie</b></i> is the reason you can print "va-jay-jay" on a magazine cover sold in supermarkets or that they'd be censoring the title of The Vagina Monologues if the film cans had burned on the way to the printing lab, but I do think the first film played a part in helping along the public consensus that sex had become a commonplace topic. Today, it's almost bizarre to think that a film like <i><b>American Pie</b></i> was ever controversial, but I don't think a television censor would have allowed a video like "I'm F---ing Matt Damon" to air in 1993, or that <i>The 40-Year-Old Virgin</i> would have been a blockbuster in 1996 (at least not with the same title), and I'm willing to venture that it's because of these movies, if only in some small way. Even the MPAA doesn't seem to care: I always find it interesting that they allow films like <i>Forgetting Sarah Marshall</i> and <i>Date Night</i> to put what are essentially blowjob and masturbation jokes into <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyVEHIO6jZ0" target="_new"><b>greenband</b></a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aspBKFz2dBI" target="_new"><b>trailers</b></a>, especially since they tried to give <b><i>Clerks.</b></i> an NC-17 just for language in 1994.<br /><br />Again, there are (currently) seven <i><b>American Pie</b></i> movies. Four of them are direct-to-video releases, and I certainly hope Eugene Levy is enjoying the fruits of the deal he made with the devil to shamelessly embody the half-hearted stab at series legitimacy each "<i><b>American Pie</i> Presents</b>" offers up (although I guess it could be worse: Chris Owen also returns for the fourth film, and it's extra-embarrassing). Thanks to "The Franchise Collection" and "The Threesome Pack", the first six unrated DVDs can be conveniently nabbed in two nice-looking box sets, which I have procured and proceeded to watch in order and reviewed, because apparently I don't have anything better to work on. As an added bonus, I've also got <b>"<i>American Pie</i> Revealed"</b>, a massive 3 hour and 18 minute documentary about the making of the original theatrical trilogy, which I'll (EDIT: maybe) throw in a review of as well. <br /><br />Here goes nothing...<br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/apfamilyphoto.png" vspace="10" align="right" hspace="10" /><i><b>American Pie</b></i> (1999)<br />Despite everything I wrote about <i><b>American Pie</b></i> above, it wasn't until I watched it for this article that I finally saw what was special about it. Maybe it's enduring years of perceived fallout from the series, perhaps it's just getting older and identifying more with where the filmmakers' heads were at when they were making it, or maybe it's just that my attention span developed enough to focus on something other than dick jokes (or at least multitask and focus on more than just dick jokes), but this time through, I really enjoyed it.<br /><br />Horrified by the sight of reknowned uber-nerd Sherman (Chris Owen) walking a hot girl out the front door the morning after a party thrown by their friend Steve Stifler (Seann William Scott), high school seniors Jim (Jason Biggs), Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas), and Oz (Chris Klein) make a pact to lose their virginity before prom. Character motivation like this falls somewhere between contrived and ridiculous, although to the film's credit, nobody inside the film's story or out seems to take the "challenge" aspect of it very seriously. It's more of an agreement than a pact, and there's never any literal or perpetual clock ticking down in the background because there are no real consequences suggested for failure (other than loserdom).<br /><br />A point sorely missed by the MPAA amidst their insistence on tagging <i><b>American Pie</b></i> with the NC-17 rating four times is the picture's consistently light-hearted tone. The scene where Nadia (Shannon Elizabeth) takes off her top is easily the most famous scene in the movie, but viewed within the intended context, the focus is always on the characters. Lest one also forget, it's also a well-written, well-acted, well-edited, well-directed setpiece that holds up ten years later as very funny, thanks to primarily to Jason Biggs, who throws himself around, covered in flop sweat, with and without clothes on, without a hint of shame. Biggs gets a bad rap these days (a <i>really</i> bad rap), and admittedly, in a movie like <i><b>American Pie</b></i>, it's hard to quantify how much of the film -- if any -- requires actual acting (i.e. inhabiting another character, emoting, etc.). Regardless, I have always thought of him as a reasonably talented physical comedian, and his performances in the <i><b>American Pie</b></i> movies are good examples. Most people remember the webcam sequence for Shannon Elizabeth, but as memorable as she is, I always think of the somersault Biggs manages to land while diving over his hedge after running frantically back to his house at the prodding of his friends, and his ridiculous, hilarious dancing.<br /><br />I also feel sorry for Mena Suvari. For one, they chose to use the world's worst photograph of her <a href="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/ap3mpp.png" target="_new"><b>on the front of The Franchise Collection</b></a>, which is a shame (here's <a href="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/menasuvari.png" target="_new"><b>four much better ones</b></a>), and two, aside from <i>American Beauty</i>, other hits have eluded her. Like Biggs, she doesn't have to plumb any emotional depths to play the role of Heather, but I find her almost endlessly charming. Heather gets paired with Chris Klein's Oz, and Klein walks a fine line between good and bad (future roles have revealed <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/37629/street-fighter-the-legend-of-chun-li-unleashed-and-unrated/" target="_new"><b>a great deal of bad</b></a>). During Oz's first attempts to connect with Heather, he fakes his sensitive side, and it's enough strain on Klein to be called upon to act, much less <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/41359/play-dead-2009/" target="_new"><b>called upon to "act" while acting</b></a>. How any girl would fail to see through his over-the-top, soft-spoken routine in a second is an unresolved mystery. But Suvari almost effortlessly guides this plotline along, making it one of the more endearing stories in the movie.<br /><br />Within the film itself, though, it's Thomas Ian Nicholas who gets the short end of the stick. His character is forced to contemplate all the "bigger" issues, and the lame relationship stuff he goes through with Tara Reid's character Vicki (do couples really have a huge, yet cutesy problem with saying that they love one another? If someone I knew said "She said the 'L' word to me today!", I think I might be speechless) doesn't ring true to me. I do think the character provides a touch of realism that the other characters often don't; with Kevin around, the movie's broad comedy contracts a litle (in a good way), but the effectively-created friendship between Kevin, Finch, Oz and Jim is the only effective part of Nicholas' otherwise bland character. Casey Affleck, on the other hand, is pretty awesome, so it's nice to see him pop up briefly as Kevin's wiser older brother.<br /><br />For a film closing in on its eleventh anniversary, it's aged pretty well; I watched the movie <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/38182/spring-break/" target="_new"><b><i>Spring Break</i></b></a> for DVDTalk, and despite its charms it felt phenomenally antiquated. <b><i>American Pie</b></i>'s webcam stuff is going to become a bit old-fashioned thanks to the march of technology alone, but that bond, the friendship between the four lead characters, is really at the heart of the movie, and the mechanics of friendship haven't changed much in the 24 years I've been alive. Even the other teen comedies I've liked in recent years (such as <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/40147/10-things-i-hate-about-you/" target="_new"><b><i>10 Things I Hate About You</i></b></a> or <i>Orange County</i>) have rarely been focused on friendship as opposed to romance, and it's sort of clever how Chris and Paul Weitz and screenwriter Adam Herz have buried a movie about best friends inside a typical teen romantic comedy shell.<br /><br /><i><b>American Pie 2</b></i> (2001)<br />In the sequel, the gang returns comes back to East Great Falls in the summer after their first year in college, and they find that the comforts of home are a little dull. Inspired once again by Kevin's brother, the five guys opt for a change of scenery, driving down to the coast and shacking up in a spacious beach house where they can party to their heart's content. While Jim was probably the most prominent role in the original, the sequel specifically and obviously focuses on him as a main character, and with Nadia's return looming, Jim enlists the help of Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), his band-geek prom date from the first movie, to improve his technique in bed.<br /><br />Call me a big sucker for caring about the characters from <i><b>American Pie</b></i>, but I do, and the development of Jim and Michelle's romance is really what puts the sequel up against its predecessor for me. I admit, this is a dopey R-rated comedy sequel with Superglue and ass-trumpet gags and whatnot, but Jim's actions at the climax of the film actually warm my heart a little (even, against all odds, despite the 3 Doors Down song that chimes in). My investment in the moment can be easily chalked up to Biggs and Hannigan, who have enormous chemistry together. I like this sequel, so I'd probably rank most of the characters as faring the same, but I'd have to say that Hannigan's material as Michelle actually gets a little better, no doubt because her character was sort of a throwaway joke in the first movie.<br /><br />I also like <i><b>American Pie 2</b></i> as a pure comedy. The original might be a slightly better movie with all the relationship material in it, but <i><b>American Pie 2</b></i> doesn't bend over backwards to match it, focusing on solid, B+ teen comedy instead. There are still a few missteps when it comes to the script (the movie forcefully involves all of the players from the original, and when it comes to story beats, there are several strong whiffs of sequelitis), but director J.B. Rogers just lays the movie on the shoulders of his able cast, and the comedy plays just fine. The movie's famous CB radio scene and Jim's adventures as "Petey" at band camp, for instance, are not forced through writing but scenarios in which the characters' reactions are the joke, and it works. <br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ErsXkAzPuwo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ErsXkAzPuwo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Just beneath the surface of these gags, that distinct bond between the characters is still intact, and it's enjoyable just watching this group of guys and gals hang out with each other again. I could pass on the movie's rehashing of Kevin's wistful sadness (even less effective than in the original, although the original pass at this beat, as seen in the deleted scenes, is even worse), I think the Rule of 3 is a pretty dumb theory, and the return of Matt Stifler (Eli Marienthal) has little bearing on anything, but then a sequence like the aforementioned Superglue scene starts (which Biggs, again, performs with no shame, even sticking a doorknob in his mouth, which looks and sounds bad for the teeth), and I'm willing to forgive these flaws. <b><i>American Pie 2</b></i> isn't a home run, but it's a solid double, and to that end, it fares far better than any of the sequels to follow.<br /><br /><b><i>American Wedding</b></i> (2003)<br />Disappointingly, the third film in the franchise can't live up to the modest bar set by the first two movies for one reason and one reason only: the exhausting return of Steve Stifler. Even in <i><b>American Pie 2</b></i>, Stifler functioned like a supporting character, but this time, the infamous nature of the character apparently proved irresistable to everyone involved, and he unfortunately takes center stage. <br /><br />First off, Seann William Scott's performance is remarkably bad. Stifler's schtick in <i><b>American Wedding</b></i> reeks of sad, lonely desperation in a way that might've been uncomfortably funny and even fitting for the character if anyone within the film ever acknowledged it. Nobody does, of course, and Scott prances around, letting out a forced cackle every time someone (mainly himself) mentions sex or says something awful. The experience is worsened by the strain it puts on the viewer to see something so resoundingly unfunny being treated as if it were comedy gold. Even well-concieved, less-grating scenes like Stifler getting into a dance-off at a big-city gay bar aren't enough to justify enduring the rest of the character's flop-sweat-covered moments. He's like a robot that got damaged in the middle of a bad Jim Carrey impression, with his moronic toothless grin contorting itself on and off of his face at random (watch him react when Biggs tells him to leave at the beginning of the third act: what the hell could be going through Scott's head?).<br /><br />The element that almost saves the Stifler character is the "reasonably-clever-if-only-in-a-comedy-movie" plot where Stifler tries to act like a wholesome young man in front of Michelle's sister Cadence (January Jones), while Finch conversely takes on the persona of a foul-mouthed jackass. If Scott was bringing his <i><b>American Pie 2</b></i> game to the table, this thread alone might have made the movie funnier than its predecessors. As it is, it's just an amusing idea that the movie manages to lose before the 90 minutes are up without escalating or building to some sort of grand finale the way it should. The scene where Stifler is forced to eat dog shit is also a big, big miss (although, I've since seen a <i>less</i> funny, <i>more</i> disgusting shit-eating scene in the mega-bomb <i>Year One</i>, so take that as you will).<br /><br />The short end of the stick I said Thomas Ian Nicholas was holding before manages to get even shorter. The actor looks unsure of what he's meant to be doing the entire movie, which is a completely justified reaction, since Kevin is barely there, like a loose wheel the verge of being edited out of the frame. Nicholas mostly appears to be waiting; maybe he's expecting the other shoe to drop, convinced that at any moment someone will walk up and tell him to go home. I hate to say it, but watching <i><b>American Wedding</b></i>, I miss the element that Chris Klein brought to these movies. I can see how cutting Mena Suvari, as much as I love her, might have made sense; she's not really Michelle or Jim's close friend, she's only acquainted with them because she's with Oz. It's a shame, though, that the producers decided Oz was equally useless, because he's no more or less useless than Kevin, without Kevin's insistent need to go introspective near the end of each movie. Not that the script needs to dump Kevin in favor of Oz, either: the more characters there are, the less time there is for Scott's agonizing performance.<br /><br />Another curious mistake is the fact that <i><b>American Wedding</b></i> <i>looks</i> like something. Nothing wrong with comedy directors bringing visual flair to an otherwise drab experience, and I'm certainly not saying that the movie should look ugly, but the 2.35:1 widescreen presentation and refined cinematography are both too unlike the previous movies. It's distracting to see implied dog sex antics and the frantic covering-up of a strip bachelor party in richly-lit scope. <i><b>American Wedding</i></b> basically feels classier than anything occuring within it, and the viewer spends more time looking at the shot than catching the sight gags.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ol-KrTTta4g&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ol-KrTTta4g&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />For Part 2 of this article -- the dreaded direct-to-video sequels -- click <a href="http://the-following-preview.blogspot.com/2010/01/franchise-legacy-american-pie-part-2.html" target="_new"><b>here</b></a>.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-69495894560950269712010-01-08T03:41:00.000-08:002010-01-08T05:52:03.373-08:00Remake Watch 2010: Week 2Alright, so last year, I started trying to do Remake Watch and ultimately failed, because I wrote Boxoffice.com news updates for a few months and really lost the time that I would have been spending on the blog. Now, I'm back, and not only do I have more free time to do it in, I have a better system: weekly updates.<br /><br /><img src="http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt324/thefollowingpreview/mannequinmovieposter.png" vspace="10" align="right" hspace="10" />In the second week of 2010, Moviehole ran <a href="http://www.moviehole.net/201022708-exclusive-mannequin-redressed" target="_new"><b>two</b></a> <a href="http://www.moviehole.net/201022677-exclusive-fx-redo" target="_new"><b>exclusives</b></a>, concerning new versions of <i><b>Mannequin</b></i> and <b><i>F/X</i></b>. As usual, I wonder why the studios even bother. First of all, I don't know how anyone can live with the shame of having greenlit <b><i>Mannequin</i></b><i></i> once, but doing it again is even dumber, since we have concrete evidence -- the films themselves -- that neither <b><i>Mannequin</i></b><i></i> or its sequel were a good idea. Secondly, the name-brand recognition factor of the movies, which I thought was the reason studios churned out remakes in the first place, keeps getting lower and lower as Hollywood literally runs out of 1980's movies to rehash. I mean, how many people have even heard of <i><b>F/X</b></i>, much less seen it? It's true, some guys have all the luck.<br /><br />Moviehole also <a href="http://www.moviehole.net/201022681-robocop-frozen" target="_new"><b>mentions</b></a> that MGM and Darren Aronofsky are having a conflict over whether the <b><i>RoboCop</i></b><i></i> remake should be in 3D. I like 3D, but it seems totally unnecessary for <b><i>RoboCop</i></b><i></i>, and MGM really needs to shut up and listen. Hey, guys, there's a reason you're <i>going out of business</i>. Stop arguing with the guy who could make the next <b><i>Batman Begins</i></b><i></i>-slash-<b><i>Casino Royale</i></b><i></i>-style reboot.<br /><br />Remake Watch 2010:<br />2 film remakes in development<br />0 film remakes released in theaters<br />0 film remakes released direct-to-DVD<br />0 reboots announced<br />0 reboots released in theaters<br />0 TV remakes announced<br />0 tv remakes released<br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">A "reboot" is defined by Remake Watch as a new attempt at a film series with new actors playing old characters (thus, <span style="font-style: italic;">X-Men Origins: Wolverine</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Race to Witch Mountain</span> are excluded). Sequels to remakes (<span style="font-style: italic;">The Pink Panther 2</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Halloween II</span>) are ignored. </span>Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-87154418429503828532009-12-22T23:38:00.000-08:002009-12-22T23:58:31.039-08:00As Wichita Falls, So Falls Tom Cruise's StardomYeah, another trailer post. Whatever, I write about what's available to me.<br /><br /><object width="410" height="330"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2OLCSeVuQtA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2OLCSeVuQtA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="410" height="330"></embed></object><br /><br />Anyway, above is the trailer for <i><b>Knight & Day</b></i>, which stars Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz as a secret agent and a civilian, respectively, who meet boarding a flight and end up in several action-y hijinks involving CG and Peter Sarsgaard. The film used to be called <i><b>Wichita</b></i>, but 20th Century Fox loves puns like "Squeakquel" and "All About Steve", so now it's got the current title, which, if I were guessing (since there are no knights in the trailer) probably refers respectively to the last names of Cruise and Diaz's characters.<br /><br />It's weird to consider that Tom Cruise's status as a movie star is probably permanently unrecoverable. It feels like he was the last generation of movie star, when we really had movie stars and not celebrities. Yet, take Mel Gibson, who's making a similar comeback to movie theaters in January with <I>Edge of Darkness</i> without the sense that his ship has sailed.<br /><br />Which is not to say that <i><b>Knight & Day</b></i> looks too terrible. Some of the jokes are a bit lame, but even if Cruise isn't going to be the Tom Cruise he once was, at least it looks like he's having a blast. All in all, I'd say it has the potential to be better than <i>Mr & Mrs. Smith</i> but short of <i>True Lies</i>. Still, I can't help but watch the trailer and wonder, would Tom Cruise have ever done this movie had he not had a meltdown? Then again, that's pretty much what's interesting about it; perhaps he can stop being a celebrity and start being kind of cool (although it's <i>really</i> hard to tell if he's aware that <i><b>Knight & Day</b></i> is playing on his glibness).<br /><br />As for Cameron Diaz, I wish it was still 1994. I don't think she'll ever top <i>The Mask</i>.Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809751678870389508.post-47729397551676976972009-12-19T20:50:00.001-08:002009-12-19T21:24:18.558-08:00The Sorcerer's Apprentice<object width="410" height="330"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9VZllR44gdA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9VZllR44gdA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="410" height="330"></embed></object><br /><br />Above is the trailer for <b><i>The Sorcerer's Apprentice</b></i>, the new live-action Disney production starring Nicolas Cage and Jay Baruchel, directed by <i><b>National Treasure</b></i>'s Jon Turtletaub.<br /><br />The only reason I posted it is because I find it very interesting and different from Disney's other live-action productions in that the trailer doesn't really have any big comedy moments in it. I think I'd like it if the final product was simply a straight-up Disney action movie without an undercurrent of (potentially awful) comic relief for the movie to lean on. Of course, I'm not sure I trust that the final product will be the same as the trailer (especially given Baruchel's inclusion, since he is traditionally a comic actor).<br /><br />The other part worth mentioning is the scene where Baruchel is clearly in the middle of the events of the classic <i>Fantasia</i> short of the same name. It's a little weird. Hmmm...<br /><br />I'd also like to make a plea for the internet, collectively, to learn how to spell Nicolas Cage's name properly. There is no H in it. It's not that hard to remember. Please take note. (Further courses on mistakes like "Seth Rogan" and "Tom Hank's" will be conducted at my irritation/discretion.)Tyler Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01794588484548780048noreply@blogger.com0