Opinion-State of Play

McAdams trying to keep her performance alive...

Ok, let's talk film. As I always say, when a genre is done to perfection, then there is no reason to continue making movies in tha genre. That doesn't stop Hollywood at all in sucking the well dry with once perfected genres as Mob films, police corruption films, or lone cop stories. The Godfather, LA Confidential, and Die Hard make up the highlights of well done film of these genres, yet I am sure you will see many more failed attempts at rehashing. Well I have never seen a journalistic thriller done to perfection. Sure, you have Absence Of Malice and Ron Howard's The Paper to contend with, but neither of those are masterpieces. So it is safe to conclude that the Journalistic Thriller is a genre yet to be made perfect.
First off, State of Play, Directed by Kevin Mcdonald who did a mesmerizing job directing, "The Last King of Scotland", does a great job with his actors, even Ben Affleck. Actually this is the best I have ever seen Affleck since "Good Will Hunting". He has managed to remember that he has acting skills instead of his usual mumble and scoff performances that have made him unpopular. Russell Crowe is always good and likeable here, yet the problem with his performance is not him, but his character. His character of Cal, calls for more of a "slimeball reporter" performance and Crowe injects his usual heroic, likability into it. You really want to hate the guy and should except that Crowe's personality prevents us from fully realizing the way the character was truly written. I would have chose another actor to play the role. I would have chosen more of an actor who could give a Jack Black in "King Kong" sleazy role, but why would you when you can have Russel Crowe.
This is actually a perfect example of "Hollywoodizing" a real person. Sure, this is a fictional story. Still, the character on the screenplay page I guarantee you was written as a sleaze and not as Russell Crowe.
Rachel McAdams and her doe eyes force her to bring a strong performance to the screen, yet she does not rise to the challenge as another experienced actor would. I don't think she is the proper choice for the role here. Her ability is not strong enough to carry the emotionally thick role. Her slight performance stands out when compared to the ferocity of Crowe and Helen Mirren. McAdams is out of place in that heavy company.
The film moves slow at times. It is based on a British TV show and at times it feels that way. Yet it is a welcome to go to the movies and see a film that is intelligent and thought out. I actually am very grateful that Universal is making pictures that an adult can go to see an intelligent, thriller without sex and violence. In that in itself is a reason to jump around for this film.
I found myself happy that this choice was there to see. Most of the films out there are made for fan boys these days it seems. Adults that go to the theater really don't want to see "Wolverine" or" Watchmen" with a young audience.
Although this film does not perfect the journalistic thriller, its nice to see a major studio make such an effort.

Reinventing the Masters

"Looking to the past...

Ok, let's talk film. Well I am reading in THR.com, the following:

Stone has just closed a deal with Fox to direct the follow-up to "Wall Street," now tentatively called "Wall Street 2," with Douglas starring. This would provide an unusual amount of continuity since Stone directed and co-wrote, with Stanley Weiser, the original 1987 exploration of the inner workings of the finance sector and its complicated relationship with greed.

The plot line for the new "Wall Street" iteration has not been divulged, but it will pick up with corporate raider Gordon Gekko, the character for which Douglas won a best actor Oscar more than 20 years ago. Gekko's larger-than-life presence will once again loom over a younger upstart looking to navigate the shark-tank world of today's Wall Street.

Shia LaBeouf is in talks with the studio to take on the younger role. Stone and Co. hope to begin production over the summer.

The question I ask (and will aptly answer) is what happened to Oliver Stone anyway? Why does he feel the need to look into the rear view mirror of his past film and recreate a film that wasn't a franchise to begin with? The answer is obvious. He hasn't had a hit in a while. I am a huge fan of Oliver Stone and I will defend him to my dying day. His guerrilla approach to filmmaking is nothing less than inspiring. He takes risks and chances that Tarantino only dreams of. He started out as a screen writer, penning the scripts for Midnight Express and Scarface. Ha! Bet you didn't know that. Well, that's why I am here, to remind you of the lost talents of directors who are performing less than par today.

Stone's first film, "Platoon" won best picture of the year and rightly so. It was a incredibly realistic piece that showed war as a horrible place. You have to remember that Clint Eastwood and the string of Dirty Dozen like films back the 70's and even 1950's with "From Here To Eternity" and such were glorifying war. WW II made everyone a hero and films until the 70's were made to make war seem majestic and heroic. When the Vietnam war hit, the world knew that was was something different than the hero stories that our grandfather's told us...It was real, gritty and not triumphant as we we seeing on the screen.


Gritty, all too real...Fantastic...

Platoon was the first of it's kind in the realistic war scenario. Even Spielberg had to go back and set the WW II record straight with "Saving Private Ryan". Spielberg was not the first filmmaker to show was as the monster it is. So, here comes Oliver Stone fresh off writing really straight forward, political stuff with Midnight Express and Salvador. His newest script is a gritty look at the Vietnam war and it works. It changes the way all future war movies will be made.


A performance that gives me chills...

After that he does "Wall Street" which is a break from his political stories and it is so well made it is nominated for Best Pic and gets Douglas an Oscar, in a role so well played and written. Then Stone does his polical fare with "Born on the Forth of July", "JFK" and "Heaven and Earth". They all do very well and earn Oscars for every one.

" "
Enter Shia Labeouf...

Yet, he steps into what I will now call the Tarantino trap, retro here. As we all know Tarantino will lose his mojo with his new film. Stone does not reinvent his vision. He keeps hacking away at material that is too violent and unnecessary. In fact he teams with Tarantino for "Natural Born Killers" and for many an audience is it way over the top with violence. The mayhem that was once OK in war movies and "Scarface" is unnecessary for this new film. You see Stone toning down a bit and refocusing with "Nixon" and "Any Given Sunday", yet he now lacks the ability to cover new ground no matter what ground he tries to expose. As an audience, we have grown tired of his maverick liberal style thrown in our face. What worked in "JFK" is no longer a hot item.

Even with his recent stuff, "Alexander" was a mess, yet if you watch the "Final Cut", it is actually quite good. Though that version clocks in at four hours. The three hour version is not very good. His latest, "W." is good, but gets ignored by critics and the audience.

Well to make a long story short. Stone is realizing that he needs to reinvent himself or he will sink. He knows he needs to stop making liberal political pics and start making film that will appeal to a broad audience. It is the "17 Again" factor. The Zac Efron film was a shallow as a puddle of water, yet it was basic and appealed to a broad audience. And that's what it is all about. "Platoon" and "Wall Street" appealed to a broad audience and they worked. A film about George Bush does not appeal to a large audience, especially when no one liked him in office to begin with.

Does this mean that he should do an "Obama" film? Well I am sure one with Denzel Washington is in the works as we speak. But, in the mean time Stone is doing what Tarantino will have to do soon. They will have will have to reinvent themselves. Spielberg did it. He stopped doing the "Wonderment" kids films of the 80's after "Hook" bombed. Now he does real gritty film and he is the master. Stone will go back to the basics of attracting a wide audience. Shia's casting is not a bad idea actually. I hope Stone's best work is yet to come.

Will other directors like Tarantino reinvent themselves to stay fresh and successful or will they fail over and over. I am sure we will see a Pulp Fiction 2 in order to save Tarantio's career in five years. Bank on that! Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

Rehash Again...Go Ahead...Was it Cute?

Ok, let's talk film. I may not blog tomorrow due to work, so let me say on this Sunday, that if you paid ten dollars to see Zac Efron, aside from being dragged by your tween daughter, you must have gotten "17 Again" confused with "State of Play". State of play was the good movie that played this weekend. It's hard to get them straight, I know. So in light of "17 Again".. and Agains Disney makeup, here are other rips offs of the same idea. And again...this films whole propose was to be CUTE. It was written CUTE, had a CUTE star. CUTE directing. CUTE funny lines. And a CUTE ending. If you thought this film was CUTE, well then, that's what it was. It's supposed to be CUTE. That's it's whole reason for it existing. Here are your predecessors..You want your money back yet?

WOW that's not a rip off






Oh yeah what's that storyline?

Dad is unhappy
Wants to be younger
Witty crazy friend played by Seth Rogen or Paul Rudd or that cop from Garden State
Gets younger
Hijinks
Funny lines about his sons or daughters
Teaches kids some lessons
Does too well in school (this is fictional, I don't think anyone of us could back to HS with confidence)
Someone's son goes there who is still a jerk when he went there
Helps kids
Sees wife differently
Has to get older again
Helps someone who is a geek
Gets older scene, everyone surprized
Someone storms out, he goes to chase her
The "But I finally realized" scene
THE END

A four year old could write it

Why Tarantino is NOT a Great Director

Metaphorically, one day Quentin, you may have to do this to your violent side...

Ok, let's talk film. I don't think I have said this on this blog before, but I am going to put it out there and probably catch a lot of flack from it from my one reader. Here it is...Quentin Tarantino is not a great director. He is at best an ok storyteller. But he is NOT this great icon that most people think he is. Upon his release of Inglorious Basterd in August, I am here to tell you his luck is growing slim. Even as such, he is not great as some people swear by. The reasons why are very clear to me and I will share them with you.

Number one: He uses too many words in his script. Most writers will write a lot of dialogue and yet narrow it down to a few choice lines to tell the story. Not Tarantino. He will leave in every last line that he writes to tell a story that can have been told in three lines. He may think it's real and interesting. I think it's annoying. Kill Bill series and especially the film Death Proof are testament to heavy, unnecessary dialogue that wastes the audience's time.
I have read in some blogs that Tarantino is recognizable by his heavy dialogue and I have to say that is true. How ever it is too much. In Death Proof, half the film is heavy dialogue among two groups of women. They talk a great deal about everything and nothing. That would not be so bad had the film not be showcased with a "grindhouse" horror umbrella title. The "grindhouse" title promised gore and violence. Planet Terror did well on its promise. Death Proof did not.

Number two: Tarantino glorifies violence and passes it off as art. Xavier Morales said it very eloquently in his review of Kill Bill Vol. 1

Morales argues that "...Tarantino manages to do precisely what Alex de Large was trying to do in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange: he presents violence as a form of expressive art...[in which the]...violence is so physically graceful, visually dazzling and meticulously executed that our instinctual, emotional responses undermine any rational objections we may have. Tarantino is able to transform an object of moral outrage into one of aesthetic beauty...[, in which,]...like all art forms, the violence serves a communicative purpose apart from its aesthetic value." When the female sword-wielding protagonist "...skillfully slices and dices her way through...[the opposing fighters]...we get a sense that she is using them as a kind of canvas for her expression of revenge...[,]...like an artist who expresses herself through brush and paint,...[she]...expresses herself through sword and blood."[5]

Looking at all of Tarantino's films you will see that every single one of his films glorify violence or treat violence as a commonplace entity in everyday life. No where is this more apparent than in "Pulp Fiction" where the characters Jules and Vincent talk in relaxed conversation about an Amsterdam vacation and a violent act regarding their boss. While they discuss this in an everyday manner then commit three acts of Murder. This scene proved highly interesting at first and something we haven't seen before in film, leading to cult status. Yet Tarantino continued his love for heavy violence mixed in with everyday situations in Jackie Brown and Kill Bill. As an audience, we hoped to relive the "Pulp Fiction" experience and many of us just shrugged. As of then, we have seen this before.
As Morales says above, violence is his "canvas". Therefore we can easily say, that violence and heavy dialogue while groundbreaking in "Pulp Fiction" lacks novelty in his latter work.

Tarantino shows us that this is another day at the office...

Number three: He is a direct ripoff of Martin Scorsese. You have to admit that he is a ripoff of Scorsese. He keeps the camera moving as Scorsese does and tells a broad story in non-linear time. This is Martin Scorsese' signature. In "Goodfellas" he starts us off in the middle of the film, then tells the story from the beginning. Scorsese also uses violence as art, though not as stylized. The brutal mob violence in "Goodfellas" is shown as a warning to mob involvement, rather than Tarantino's use as a showpiece.

Violence used brilliantly as graphic storytelling...

So in these three ideas as why Tarantino is not as great as most people think, I am here to predict that his luck will run out. I am pretty sure and convinced that his new film, "Inglorious Basterds" will fail critically. I would think that he will need to reinvent himself in order to be good again, to be real. Academy Award winner of last year, Danny Boyle has not made the same film twice. From "Trainspotting" to "The Beach" to "Slumdog Millionaire" his work is diverse. As that as an example, I foresee Tarantio losing his novelty and interest with the audience with his next film. He will need to re evaluate his direction to make a great film again. Otherwise he will be alone in his violence and gore. As for us the audience, we need a more meaningful, less violent time, for entertainment. Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

The Potential Magic of Release Dates

In 99, "The Matrix" made a gazillion dollars in March, since then, the summer season kickoff month has fluctuated from March to May.

Ok, let's talk film. The Hannah Montana movie drew in some pretty good crowds this weekend. 34 million for Miley Cyrus. However, that's not what I want to blog about. Hooray for the fans of Hannah Montana. I am glad they packed in the theaters. The thing to look at here is how hot April has been for the box office.
Look for studios vying up for this April time slot next year. You had Fast and Furious take in the biggest April opening ever with 71 mil. A week later you have Hannah Montana taking in 34 million. Execs are finding a new landing pad for Summer Tentpoles.
April is the new May. Last year, Iron man took in 103 million first week of May. Execs ran wild to fill that spot this year. The new Star Trek film changed it's release date from Christmas 09 to spring 09 in order to take that May time slot this year. So, Hollywood is continuing its mindset that specific dates are auspicious, lucky days and maybe not the films themselves. Sounds like Hollywood, of course it does.
This is one of the foremost reason why "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" was postponed from Christmas 08 to Spring 09 this year. up setting fans from here to Britain. Yet, execs want to give HP the The Dark Knight's release date, end of July. They think it will perform better in the supposed "charmed" release date.
So with the performance of Fast and Furious and the lukewarm showing of Hannah Montana, combined with the box office results of Iron Man last year, first week of May, you'll start to see the summer season starting earlier and earlier. Usually, the summer season doesn't start until Memorial Day weekend.
However, these sleeper tentpoles of the last two years, have begun to change that. Sleeper tentpoles are surprise money makers that produce more revenue than expected, acting as a projected major tentpole, yet made with a smaller budget.
So, as such, the summer season start will earlier next year than it did this year. It will most likely start the first week of April.
Studios still look at the first week of March as a lucky release date even today. "The Matrix" in 99 made a gazillion dollars and since then we have seen "300", "V for Vendetta", "Passion of the Christ" all making excellent money during March. So that date has proved hot and because of which, "Watchmen" was released this year and "10,000 BC" last year in hopes of making big numbers. While March does not start the beginning of summer, it is proof that execs think the dates are charmed and not the quality of the films themselves.
You have to remember that Hollywood execs expect certain films to do Gazillions of dollars and other films to make just millions. Last year, they expected "Incredible Hulk" and "Prince Caspian" to make gazillions cause they cost gazillions to make. Both films underperformed. While Iron Man and The Dark Knight did much better than expected. So Hollywood can project all they want, yet they will NEVER get it exactly right. Yet, everyone in Hollywood wants to stay working in Hollywood, so projections and a "musical chairs" of release dates are the future. So look for summer to begin earlier than usual next year. Maybe the groundhog of summer films is not seeing its shadow earlier and earlier each year.
Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

Theft and the Blogosphere

Wolverine's box office intake WILL be affected negatively

Ok, let's talk film. I am actually at this moment disappointed in my fellow bloggers out there. A great number of Movie Blog sites exist. I am not one in a "few" movie blogs. I am one in a thousand, maybe more. I do read other blogs to see how I measure up next to them. I see a lot of sites that are like mine. I see sites that display the current news and offer an opinion as I do. Though for the record, my thing here, my Schick, is that I offer a "reading between the lines" of articles. I cut through Hollywood Executive hogwash. Like when Warner announced it's reasons for moving Harry Potter to summer, I was here to give you the correct reasons and show you where he went wrong.
Who am I? You may never know. I may be someone who works in Hollywood and keeps his identity secret. Or I may be an unemployed, ex drunk who has seen one too many movies. With the insight I have, anything is possible.
One thing I am not is a thief. Sure in my younger, party days I was known to shoplift a candy bar or nail clippers on one stupid occasion, on a one time basis. However, I have not entered a life of burglary or larceny. I don't plan to.
This is why I am upset at my fellow bloggers. I have read on many, many sites that bloggers have seen the Wolverine leaked film and have blogged about it. Now, my fellow bloggers, this is theft. This is stealing. If you have downloaded the Wolverine film, you have committed an act of thievery. Look at the writer for FOX...

From Variety.com

But on Sunday afternoon Friedman told Daily Variety that he had not been let go.

Fox News released its own missive when asked on Sunday afternoon if Friedman had been ousted. "This is an internal matter that we're not prepared to discuss at this time," a Fox News spokesperson said.
For its part, the studio weighed in Friday with its own statement, calling Friedman's actions "reprehensible."
Friedman came under fire for posting a review of a pirated version of 20th Century Fox's "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." Both Fox News and 20th Century Fox are divisions of parent company News Corp.
Friedman posted a review of the film Thursday, one day after an incomplete version of the tent pole was leaked on the Internet, a breach that occurred a month before the film's release and that could potentially cost the studio millions in box office receipts.
After Friedman's positive "Wolverine" review hit the Web, the fan boy blogging community, which had largely called for a boycott of any reviews of the film, immediately lobbied for Friedman's dismissal.

The article says that the "fanboy blogging community" called for a boycott. When I read the many reviews out there yesterday, I found that to be untrue. Now this is a big deal. Make no mistake about that. This wasn't a necromantic, pirated copy that you got a hold of and no one else saw. This was a straight up massive leak. And it seems that NO ONE was against it. Especially not the "fanboy blogging community" Someone, who I believe is a "higher up", gave the copy to someone else and it leaked all over the Internet.

From Slashfilm.com

This is perhaps the biggest leak for a major tentpole release in recent memory. Leaving aside the well-known phenomenon of Oscar screener leaks, workprint leaks have certainly happened in the past. For example, Eli Roth’s Hostel 2 leaked onto the internet several weeks before its release (in that situation, Roth was furious and blamed the leak for the film’s weak box office performance). Other films such as Rob Zombie’s Halloween and Michael Moore’s Sicko also experienced similar issue.

Now Hostel probably would not have preformed as well as Roth thinks it would. No one wants to see torture porn. But, ticket sales most likely declined due to his leak. It's the exponential factor here. Ten people see it with two or three other people. That's about 30 people. Those ten send it to a hundred other people. Those hundred other people have parties to watch it and now, it's really out there.
And watching any film once may be enough! As you know, when you see a movie, you may not want to watch it again because you have already seen it. Its a simple explanation. A good deal of the movie watching public won't watch a movie twice. Its not a bad thing. It's just how some people are and how some movies are. I can see The Empire Strikes Back 100 times and still want to see it again.
Wait a minute, you may think this is a fan boy site. This is a movie goer site, not just a fan boy site. Ok I did see Titanic three times in the theater. That was because I love James Cameron and I did this in the first couple weeks before it crossed over and was inherited solely by the female demographic. But I did see it three times so you can feel assured this is a site for all movie watchers.
Anyway, most movies, I believe, are one time viewings unless it's lightning in a bottle or a film you relate to and you have to see it twice or more, unless your significant other drags you. No that wasn't my attempt at feeble comedy, that is truth. I have been dragged to a few things myself.
Point here is, now that Wolverine is out there, it will be seen by about 3 million people by the time this is said and done. I would say that it would have taken in a good 55 million. Now, because of the leak, you can cut that number in half. It will do 30 if it's lucky.
Judging from that number, it won't get a sequel. So here you have loss of jobs, loss of future revenue. I think it is sad that this leak did happen due to arrogance at the top exec level.
I believe that everyone thinks this is all a joke. It's not. I don't think that stealing is a joke. I don't think that my fellow bloggers need to market their ignorance by posting reviews. It's sad. It's infantile. You're stealing away future jobs.
The next time this should happen, don't download it. Refuse it! Delete it! Let's all take a stand to protect filmmakers privacy in the process and our right and privilege to see the film and enjoy the fun of movie watching ONLY in it's completed form, in a movie theater with our fellow fans on opening day!

The Twisted Side of Twitter

Is this it?

Ok, let's talk film. Fast and Furious did 72 million. I know I predicted 67 million. I was 5 million off. I was close. I did say it would do a gazillion dollars and it did just about. It was the biggest opening ever in April. I think I smell sequel here. Like I said, it would be a sequel to the fourth film in a franchise. So we will see what happens with that news.
Jon Favreau is Twittering his heart out as he is filming Iron Man 2. I was actually curious if he had his own personal twitterer on hand to do the updates for him and as it turns out, he himself is the twitterer in question. I laughed to myself pictureing someone following around Jon giving colorful and witty Twitter updates. However, Jon's actual updates are infrequent and not that exciting, "I slept like a rock...Heading to the set". This leaves me to believe that Jon is actually writing them. They are the updates of a busy, tired working man, not the updates of someone following a busy tired, working man. He writes nothing juicy plot-wise or relative to story, not even gossip.
So why bother? Well, I look at this in a couple ways. The whole twitter idea and "constant update" idea is exciting. As a fan, tt is exciting to stay in constant touch with someone whom you adore. It makes you feel a part of it all. Even if the updates are not juicy. Jon is posting pictures here, which is exciting to see things as he sees them, such as his directors chair and the set direction sign.
Yet there is another side of Twitter. Does it make the non obsessed, obsessed?
In my teens I was obsessed with Debbie Gibson, I wanted her to be my GF. I was and am a rational person. I knew she never would reall be my GF. Yet, the fantasy is fun to make believe.
Sadly I had to stay up to date with her career on the covers of Teen Beat and Teen People. If the computer age encased my life in 1990 as it is now, it may have satiated my curiosity with Debbie instead of being in the dark about her, whom I enjoyed looking at and fantasizing about in a non obsessed way.
I ask myself, would I have been more interested? Would I have looked at constant updates of Debbie Gibson and not the monthly visit to the magazine rack? I dunno. Or would the constant update made me tired of hearing of her and shortened my teen crush?
Let's just look at Rob Pattinson. Some teen girls are obsessed with him. So, the twitter thing can work out in two ways, it can quench the obsession and they can realize how silly star craziness can be, or it can lead to further unhealthy obsession. Should Rob elevate some craziness by Twittering and facebooking, it may make his life and the non obsessed fan happy. It may help elevate unnatural obsessions such as stalking, which in some cases lead to potential harm to the young actors.

Interesting, though not too juicy...

Using that as an example, let's move away from star obsession and look at plot and spoiler obsession the same way. With the recent leak of the Wolverine film across the Internet, studios are looking for ways to quench a fan's thirst without giving away too much and at the same time quench it enough to hopefully prevent major leaks in the form of important plot information and/or the whole film itself. This will not save internal leaks of course as may as well been the case with Wolverine, yet it can prevent external leaks in the way of theft as Michael Bay's laptop was stolen a couple years ago during the filming of Transformers.

Twitter can also make us feel as if we are part of the process. We are on set with Jon Favreau from day one and in the form of small updates can follow him conducively. We may even feel satisfied with Jon's updates and small, safe plot leaks, someone may not feel the need to steal. It's taking away the vault secrecy and giving it to the fans. I do think that fans have a problem with vault secrecy and we need to be included in the process since communication is instantaneous. It's a theory. I could be full of hot air. Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

4 Fast and 4 Furious = Gazillions At The Box Office and More Bay Bashing!

Waiting for big weekend results...

Ok, let's talk film. Despite bad reviews of "Fast and Furious", this film will make a Gazillion dollars. Well, I predict 67 Million for this outing of the franchise. Can you call it a franchise? I dunno. I mean the middle films three and four were just fingernail holds on the cliff of a franchise after Vin Diesel left. The second grossed a decent box office take. It was enough to garnish a sequel. The "Tokyo Drift" one was the biggest piece of fluff I have ever seen. Metro sexual dressed Japanese driving rather safely did not rake in the totals expected for a third film. The F and F audience does not want to see safe driving. They want to see dangerous driving with Vin Diesel. They want a stick it to the man movie. The other films were too scared that the audience will drive like the movie. Well we won't. But we want to see it. I think F and F producers figured that out.
You have to remember also how this franchise grew. It was a B picture. The budget for the first one was 38 million. That's nothing for a blockbuster film. Hence it was not a blockbuster. It became one because it was a pretty good film. I know. I know. A good film. Hollywood still doesn't know what that is yet. They make a good film and they spend four to ten more attempts to repeat the first high. Isn't the definition of addiction? I dunno. There is just too much excitement in Hollywood. It stifles creativity. Creativity is not born in Hollywood parties and paychecks in excess of millions. It is up to the individual artist (i.e. actor, director, screenwriter) to forget the glitz and glamor and get into the story. Pixar does it! They lock themselves in a room and forget that everyone has five cars at home. It can be done.
Well the whole cast returning and Justin Lin the director here will make this film very decent and I am excited to see it. I will see it this weekend as will a gazillion other people. Bank on it and look for a sequel to the 4th one. Which these days in Hollywood makes perfect sense.

And now let the Bay bashing begin!

No Mike, it's not a gun, it's a camera!

Bay was at ShoWest this week. It is a convention for threater owners to see what's new and such. It's in San Diego. He had some of this to say in front of an audience.

From Collider.com

·Calls 3-D ‘a gimmick’

·Says when Paramount announced a 2011 release date for Transformers 3 they were playing ‘studio games’ and maybe using Transformers as a way of holding that date
·When I asked if he’s definitely doing Transformers 3, he said let’s wait and see how 2 does
·Talks about what’s better in Transformers Revenge of the Fallen
·Says the budget for second Transformers was 200 million and that he came in 4 million under budget. Said they are using extra money on more effects
·Talks about the IMAX footage – says it’s much easier to shoot than stereoscopic

·Explains what’s the most challenging of the special effects
Talks about why ShoWest is important and explains why you need to see his films in a movie theater

I have so many problems with Michael Bay I don't know where to begin. Well first he is an uninteresting director. None of his films are interesting. They are all loud car crashes that don't make any sense regarding plot. He's good with the military, I will give him that. Yet, because of which all of his films look like recruiting films for the 4 branches of military.
First off, 3D is not a gimmick, Mike. It's a new way to enhance the movie going experience. We have amazing technology and we are using it wisely. You have three of the the most influential directors betting the farm on 3D. (Peter Jackson, James Cameron and Steven Spielberg) And here is Bay, not even caught up with the idea yet. This is testament to how far behind Bay is in cutting edge cinema thought. He is a caveman of creativity. His ideas and camera angles are all wrong. This is who he is. He will never be a cutting edge, interesting director because his ego is way too large.
He goes onto saying why it is important to see HIS films in a theater. I am glad you caught that too. He doesn't talk of all blockbuster film. Just HIS films. Ok, Mike. your ego is huge, your talent is small. Everyone knows it. Until later, let's talk film!

Instantaneous Remakes and "Lackadaisical (Fox) Security" (1)

Fox's Leaky leak

Ok, let's talk film. From Rotten Tomatoes Weekly Ketchup:

2010s relaunch to the "modern horror classic" The Strangers, which starred Liv Tyler as a woman who is terrorized by a group of stalkers in her remote house. To give the remake a younger edge, Kristen Stewart is being eyed for the lead role, although the screenwriters are expected to fill the remake with knowing references to the 2008 original for fans to pick up on.

Now this is obviously trying to ride the coattails of Kristen Stewart's raven success. AND this is down the line of something I predicted a while ago about Hollywood changing scripts like plays on Broadway do. We all know there is a serious lack of creativity in Hollywood and this is another testament to that tragic fact. I did with "The Strangers" though. I thought that the couple caught in the cabin was too passive towards the Strangers. Liv and Luke's character kinda just "took it" and didn't put up much of a fight at all. Well I always thought that if I could do it again, I would put a section in the film where there is a fight back scene. Sort of a Home Alone horror movie type thing. That would make the film a lot more interesting and not have us hanging with the passive aggressiveness of the couple.
So if Rouge Pics does a remake, they should include that and not just rehash for the sake of Stewart. Heck, you could put Stewart in anything right now and the film will make it's money back.
And how far will this remake thing go? I mean if remakes are being done two years after the film is released, who's to say that remakes won't happen instantaneously. The remakes will one day come out before the original is released. You will ask each other one day "Have you seen the remake" and the answer will be "The original isn't even out yet!"
From CHUD.com

Today an unwatermarked, time code free workprint of X-Men Origins: Wolverine leaked on the Internet. Within hours thousands of people had a version of the upcoming Fox release, and once a file like this is in the wild it can never be fully brought back in.

How the hell did this happen?

I think this is hilarious, not to laugh at other's misery. But if you look at it closely, you will see that the only ones who will suffer from this are the Fox Execs and the studio itself. Everyone else involved with the production have been compensated. Producers and Execs make the money afterward with ticket sales. So the fact that only the Execs are suffering is hilarious to me. It was the Execs mishandling of the DVD's that are sent to them are the ones to blame. I guarantee you that this leak came from the top. Execs were freely passing out Wolverine DVD's to friends and family and thus the leak happened. I will use the word hubris. Yes I will use that word to describe the way execs handle these DVD's. The leak didn't come from the bottom. The lower level players want to stay working and in my theory would not jeopardize their careers like this. The early version had to come from the top. Yet, I am sure a lower level leak will get blamed for this. You can bet that Havoc is loose in Fox today and someone will pay dearly. Though, the suspect will certainly not be an exec.

CHUD continues to say

I have a feeling that the Wolverine leak is the tip of the iceberg. My source tells me that he suspects the person who leaked it may have been motivated by a grudge against the house where they work - perhaps someone who has been laid off or had his hours reduced

As I just said, no way. The leak is high up. This is ego. This is execs flexing their security clearance. I believe that.

From BBC News

"Even if you see the workprint you're still going to have to go see it in the theatre to fully experience the full movie with CGI effects fully intact."

Fox confirmed the film "was without many effects and had missing scenes and temporary sound and music."

This is even funnier. This is nothing less than a sandbox cry from execs to taunt up to still go to the theater. I mean this thing was downloaded over 100,000 times. I am sure each download had two or three or ten viewers each! Plus if the film stinks, that's bad word of mouth to not see it. So in essence, that's 500,000 times 10 dollars a ticket price. That's a lot of money to lose on opening weekend. Well at least Execs now have a scapegoat if the film under performs. They have an excuse. They have something to blame it on. And in Hollywood's continual blame, hot potato game, that is golden news. Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

(1) http://chud.com/articles/articles/18792/1/HOW-DID-X-MEN-ORIGINS-WOLVERINE-GET-LEAKED-ON-THE-INTERNET/Page1.html

100th BLOG!!!! YAY

Yes men!

Ok, let's talk film. This is my 100th blog but that really doesn't matter because this blog doesn't have a huge following. Actually only one person reads this blog. So, for you! Thank you for reading 100 times! Let's dive in cause there is a lot to talk about.

First off from ShoWest.com

Before presenting the trailer for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Warner Bros head Alan Horn joked that he hopes fans can forgive him for moving the film to July, and that “we got a few emails about that one.” The footage was incredible, as is to be expected. A lot of really cool visuals which I won’t even attempt to disservice by describing.

I wrote about this a while ago. Summer I think it was. Now Alan Horn knows he should not have moved Harry Potter to Summer. He needed the competition with Twilight. Twilight made a killing and is off to make its sequels. If Harry Potter has taken away from Twilight even a little,(Shadowed Twilight in it's numbers) New Moon would not have the budget and the insane hype it has now. Yes it's my sole theory, but I do believe that if Harry Potter had been released as it should have, it would have taken millions away from Twilight. Sadly there was no Harry Potter. So the Harry Potter audience, seeing nothing to watch at Christmas, went to Twilight. I am well aware free society can see more than one film at Christmas. Yet the multiple viewings of Twilight would have gone to Harry Potter, thus taking steam away from it. It's my bold theory and I think I am right about this. As usual.
So look at this...Basically, and Alan Horn knows this, they set up a tee ball for Twilight to hit it out of the park. They sat back and let Twilight make a ton of money and let the sequel, New Moon, become greenlit with a gazillion dollars, and Dakota Fanning (an expensive buy), behind it. They let that happen and I am sure that Warner would have preferred to have taken some steam off that saga.
Here's the other part of the article.

As the keynote began, Horn made another funny joke. He noted that the large auditorium was very full, and that if every person in the room had paid $10 to see Watchmen, the film might have performed better. I’m paraphrasing, of course, but it was pretty funny. But I’m surprised that he would make that joke.

I predicted Watchmen to make a sub par box office. I talked about this last summer when Warner was battling out with Fox for the rights. This whole project was a "urination contest" if you will, from the beginning among Fox and Warner. It was a project built on ego. Now don't get me wrong, it was a good fanboy film. If you loved the novels, you probably really liked the movie. But it was not a project for a broad audience in mind. It was another superhero ego project. It was a ego project from Warner to begin with...And thus, ego projects just about always fail. Read my blog from last summer, I talk about this and I predicted this. And NOW Alan Horn has Watchmen, Twilight running amok, and a bad choice for a Harry Potter release date to wear on his shoulders. Good Job Alan, you'll be cleaning 7-11 restrooms soon.

From Variety

As Paramount Pictures readies the May 8 release of its "Star Trek" franchise relaunch, the studio is moving forward with a sequel, and has hired Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof to pen the screenplay.
J.J. Abrams, who directed and produced the latest chapter, is onboard to produce the follow-up alongside his Bad Robot partner Bryan Burk. No decision has been made yet on whether Abrams will return behind the camera for the sequel.

Story is still in the embryonic stage,

"There's obviously a lot of hubris involved in signing on to write a sequel of a movie that hasn't even come out yet," said Lindelof, co-creator with Abrams of ABC's "Lost" who produced the upcoming "Trek" but did not contribute to Orci and Kurtzman's screenplay. "But we're so excited about the first one that we wanted to proceed."

Well, as I have talked about before Orci and Kurtzman are secretaries that just take down what execs want written. They don't really have a lot of creativity in themselves. That's what Paramount wants, they don't want Maverick screenwriters taking liberties with a story. They want secretaries, yes men. And that's what these men are. It's funny that Lindelof says that "Hubris" is involved. Of course it is. You're a million dollar screenwriter! It's what Joe Estarhaus used to call a "bank heist". Estarhaus is the once ego inflated writer of Basic Instinct who went on to sell his "Showgirls" script for three million. It's robbery! So to speak. You can write a mediocre script and get paid millions. However, this is not how creativity florishes. Three overpaid guys in a fancy room is a recipe for a crappy script. Bet on it! Talk to Nicholas Meyer if you want advice on a Star Trek sequel. I will talk about that later. Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

Dreamworks' Pixar Envy

Why does the Dreamworks' monster look like a Pixar monster?

Ok, let's talk film. Monsters vs Aliens- 58 Million, no surprize here. 58 Million is a very decent take for a Dreamworks or Pixar debut. Pixar has more staying power. Most Pixar films go onto survive in the top five for a couple more weeks. This is not a very lucrative release date to begin with. You have to wonder why Dreamworks didn't save the release date until summer. This summer is not a crowded summer at all. The only Tentpole that is a guaranteed juggernaught is Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. Star Trek and Terminator are going to be released in MAY. So, why didn't Dreamworks hold this until June? It boggles the mind.
They could have made 68 Million I would guess. Well actually I am sure the projection or expectation was 63 million. Wall E and Madagascar 2 both did 63 million. Wall E was released in summer. Madagascar 2 was released beginning of Nov. So you can see the Sequel factor propelled Mad. 2. Wall E made 62 because of summer and because they are Pixar. The audience knows that Pixar makes remarkable film. So why doesn't the Audience know that Dreamworks animation makes remarkable film. Well because Dreamworks animation doesn't make amazing animation. The sad thing is that they have had enough time to do so.
Dreamworks animation makes funny, throwaway animation. Shrek is their bread and butter. Yet they let the Audience down with Shrek the Third. Shark Tale, and Bee Movie. Dreamworks Animation does not have the track record that Pixar does and we all know it.
The funny thing to think about this is that Dreamworks themselves think that have the magic touch like Pixar because of these numbers. 58 Million is respectable, but its not Pixar numbers or the Pixar effect which is in fact just a really satisfying movie experience. But, strange enough, Dreamworks will go on believing that they are comparable to Pixar when they are not. Yet, as long as they are making close to the money, why should they care. Well, they will fumble again. In this quest for greed, it's a safe bet to believe that Dreamworks will give us another Bee Movie or Shark Tale. Unless they figure out what really makes Pixar tick. Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

Seth Rogen: Ordinary Guy or Super Hero?

Ok, let's talk film. Seth Rogen talks about playing the Green Hornet, going before the cameras in June.

From Collider.com

While Seth Rogen’s “Green Hornet” has been talked about for over a year now and people have wondered if it would ever get made, it seems that it’s finally getting ready to go before the cameras this June. At least that’s what Seth said just an hour ago during a round table interview while promoting his new comedy “Observe and Report”.


“Right now we’re scheduled sometime at the end of June,” he said.

Couple things come to my mind here. Number one, on "Observe and Report". The film looks like the R Rated answer to "Paul Blart Mall Cop". Hollywood does things in two's anyway. This is another testament to that theory. Since the new Seth Rogen film seems like a copy of "Paul Blart". It will do fairly well at the box office. The only thing that will prevent "Observe and Report" from doing "Paul Blart" numbers at the box office is the R rating. Whenever a film is R rated, the box office receipts will always suffer. An R rating excludes the teenage crowd from seeing the film at the theater. The 12 - 17 crowd is a significant demo. At the same time, Seth and his sometime producer, Judd Apatow (40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up) are the only ones who are keeping the R rated comedy alive. A large population of movie goers flock to R rated comedies. They don't want the "Let's kick someone in the balls" PG comedy. They want smart comedy with edge. I actually am thankful that Seth and Apatow are keeping the "Animal House" "American Pie" genre alive. Still with a huge following of the R rated comedy out there, movies of the sort don't rake in PG-13 numbers.

Going back to the "Green Hornet" film. I am not sure Seth Rogen needs a comic book movie to help his career. Great comic book films are very hard to pull off. Not to mention they are a tired genre. I don't think this world needs more comic book films and especially not from someone like Seth who makes original film without hacking ideas from the Super Hero genre. I am not sure it's a good idea for Seth Rogen. I hope the Green Hornet idea falls through for his sake. He needs to continue with what he does best and that is to make us laugh with "Regular Guy" roles. That is what sells him tickets.

More in that Seth article

The other thing he was asked was is the film still the hero/sidekick story. Seth said, “Yeah and I’d say if anything it’s taken on…at first we were kind of resisting the notion of an origin story but then we realized if we kind of embraced it and played with that idea it could be a lot better so that’s something we’ve added.

Yeah Seth! You can't get away from the origin story. Even if you ditch the story now, if the Green Hornet film is successful, you will eventually have to do the origin story. You know as well as I do Seth that everything is Hollywood is "Begins" "Someone or something Begins" So you might as well get it out of the way! Another case in point as to why he should stay away from the Super Hero genre. Keep up the good work Seth. Until later, let's talk film.

New Moon Insight for My Tweens Young and Old

Ok, let's talk film. All right. I will do a Twilight: New Moon update for those of you who are dying to hear insight from me. Ok, the one person out there. A couple things to look at regarding the inside track here. The replacement of director Catherine Hardwick was no surprise to me. Once Twilight made money, they handed over the direction to a director with some experience working with special effects. New Moon has werewolf transformations apparently. They hired Chris Weitz who incidentally was hired for the Golden Compass as a cheap hire. Now he's the professional hire for New Moon. Go figure, it's Hollywood. Golden Compass was a very bad film. Weitz did direct "About a Boy" with Hugh Grant, a film which I liked. So he does have talent. So hopefully this will be a good fit for the Twilight Saga. Well here's the thing anyway.
It doesn't matter if he's the perfect fit for the series or not. He will be replaced after New Moon anyway. Why you ask? Well because once filming is done on New Moon, the actors must go right into filming the third book in the series, Eclipse. They don't have time to wait for the director to finish post production. They will hire another director and do principal photography back to back. While one director is in post production, the other is lensing.
That's the way Harry Potter does it. The HP series has only on two occasions had the same director twice. Chris Columbus on the first two and now David Yates for the final three. During HP's middle years they hired a new director each time. The reason for this kind of constantly replacing with movie sagas is to prevent the actors' to age too much in front of your eyes.
So there is a huge downside to this. Inconsistency in the quality of the product is number one here. If you know a little of the Harry Potters, you will know that the 3rd in the series, directed by Alfonso Cuaron is the best one. The others lack creativity. This is what will happen with the Twilight films. You will have one that is better than the others. That will be due not to the quality of the book, but to the choice of director. The best director will make the best Twilight film. Period. We will just have to see what happens. But one film will be really good and the others will just be ok, like Twilight is. It's just ok.

This is an actual concern I found online by a Twilight fan.

In the book, Bella hears his voice, right? She hallucinates. When she’s in danger, his voice comes out of nowhere, in her mind, very realistic (and usually “velvety”). So, there are a few things to consider:

1) Edward is gone for the duration of at least half of the story. It’s painful, but it’s kind of important. You can’t just change the story to get more Edward time.

2) Even though he’s gone, he must remain present for the moviegoer… because he’s always present for Bella.

3) We can’t just not see Edward for half the movie.

4) A voice in Bella’s head, we think, runs the risk of being very, very goofy when translated to film.

We have a simple solution: Don’t make him just a voice. Make him a visual hallucination, too. How does this answer?

1) It retains the integrity of the story, which is important!

2) As moviegoers, we’ll experience him as present, but understand that he’s really not (poor Bella!).

3) We’ll get a lot more Edward/Pattinson screen time… good for us, good for Summit Entertainment.

4) Goof factor almost entirely eliminated. Unless Weitz screws it up.

I read New Moon and I have to say that it does have a huge problem of not having Edward and Bella together at all really. Now I can hear studio execs gasping at the top of their lungs at this fact. "What?! No romance in our romance saga?!" Yes. That is what New Moon is about. Edward's absence. But that's not what execs signed on for. That is not what they want the Saga to be about. Kinda like Grease 2 without Travolta and Newton-John. What's the porpose? Well the fans know. It's in essence a love triangle between the werewolf and the vampire. SO since execs don't want it that way. They may not get it that way. They want the Robert Pattinson/Kristen Stewart duo. Their chemistry sold tickets before. The Bella/Jacob romance is untested. Execs don't want that. It scares them. Especially with the main heart throb absent from 3/4 of the novel. Don't underestimate Hollywood Execs, Twilight fans. This is a serious problem.



Will the execs keep the Bella/Jacob relationship in or scrap it? Cut to the chase, as they say. I honestly don't know. They MAY downplay it. They may not. I know the ins and out, but this one stumps me. I have concerns about Chris Weitz directing this, but if Hollywood can make Michael Bay tolerable, maybe New Moon will be ok. Until Later, let's talk film!

Knowing Number One Despite Bad Reviews

Know your critics!

Ok, let's talk film. Those of you who went to go see Knowing this weekend didn't pay attention to your tomatoemeter did you? Well, that's what you get when you ignore the tomatometer and take it on your own to see a film while ignoring the reviews. Now, I know what you all say. You all say "I don't care what the critics think!" But you have to. Don't you listen to stock market analysts before investing in the stock market? Wouldn't you listen to a house appraiser before buying a house? Granted the movies are a fraction of the cost of these things. Just take in this folling fact: movie critics are journalists who are paid to watch movies. They get paid to write down their professional opinion.
I have a critic that I jive with. Kevin Thomas of the LA Times thinks just like I do. I rely on him. Even though the tomatometer may say one thing, I look at Kevin Thomas and read what he thinks. I read just about every review he writes and he proves consistantly to think like I do. Still I look at the tomatometer. If it is low, I don't pay to see it. If it is high, I will gladly pay, no matter who is the star.
So if you don't have a reviewer that you jell with as I do, you should read and heed the tomatometer. Otherwise, you'll be stuck watching Knowing with Nicholas Cage and thinking to yourself that the money on that film should have been money spent towards the dollar menu at Mcdonalds. That's what I would have spent it on. Maybe a coffee at It's a Grind. I like that place.

From LA Times:

Amanda Seyfried's attempt to tackle some edgy theatrical material has been thwarted by scheduling issues. EW has learned that the actress, best known for her singing-and-dancing role in Mamma Mia, won't be starring in Zack Snyder's 1960s-set, R-rated action fantasy Sucker Punch for Warner Bros. Seyfried was offered the lead role of Baby Doll, a young woman who has been committed to an insane asylum and fantasizes about escaping with the help of her fellow inmates. But with shooting scheduled for the fall, HBO won't release her from her Big Love commitment, which will be in the middle of filming its fourth season. No word yet on who Snyder will find as her replacement.

I think this goes into the great contract withholding stories of all time. Well maybe not, but you can look at it that way. Tom Selleck could not be Indiana Jones because of Magnum PI. Pierce Brosnan could not be James Bond at first because of Remington Steele. This could fall into that category cause Zack Snyder is now an A list director. Not that Watchmen was a monument of great storytelling, but it made money. 300 was pretty good. No it wasn't a great great film. It was ok to pretty good. That made money. And that is all you need to wear the A list Belt.

Now I have mentioned this before but I don't think anyone believed me. Here is an article in Time magazine which has Spielberg and James Cameron telling us that the future as in this year will be 3D laden. Sure you had a few films that tried to catch our 3D attention. Journey to the Center of the Earth did not do well. Bolt 3D made a small splash. As you know the 3D craze is dependent on movie theaters being equipped to handle the digital projection. Most theaters are not digital equipped. Movie studios have lent money to AMC and Edwards, but they have yet to conform. This is because the public, you yes you, is/are in denial of allowing 3D to become the fad it desperately wants to be.
We as a audience don't have favorable memories of 3D in theaters. In the 50's, it was campy and not well done. It gave people a headache. There were a few movies here and there like Jaws 3D in the 80's, but nothing took.
What we need to trust is that this technology is different than before. The best directors in Hollywood are 100% behind this new technology. I think we need to trust them and get excited about it. I am. Until later, let's talk film.