Friday, November 19, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Simply Mac Photo Scavenger Hunt to Give Away iPad
Wish me luck...
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
DVD Review: Lovely Bones buries the story
Friday, July 23, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Inception: Originality is Still Possible
On top of being a grade-A brain-bender, Inception is a thrilling ride. Whatever slow parts there are in the setup give way to a breathless second half that is nearly impossible for me to describe here. You can't imagine it until you see it- and that is a rare thing to be said about movies nowadays.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Flashback Review: Original Karate Kid Still Has Some Kick to It
I was amazed at what a credible leading man he was. He has the looks of a 16 year-old, but he moves fluidly between humor, anger, frustration, and finally triumph. Amidst a cast of unbelievably evil bad guys, he holds your attention, never giving you reason to doubt that this is a real kid going through real struggles. Even beside Pat Morita, Macchio carries the movie.
It’s no secret that Mister Miyagi stole his share of scenes. His zen-master sayings were ubiquitous on the playground in 1984. What surprised me this time as an adult was the depth he conveys through his sparse lines and physicality. Somehow injected into the middle of an average eighties feel-good film, the scene where Daniel finds him drinking to the memory of his dead wife was funny and heartbreaking while delivering a subtle rebuke about the treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Even today, this would have been a brave move, much less in 1980’s America when we were still too afraid to bring up racially tinged issues.
The film transforms in the last 15 minutes as Daniel moves up through the tournament until he comes face to face with Johnny, his key antagonist. It is here that the dramatic weight of the moment really seems to catch up with the potential of its two protagonists. Cheesy sneers are hurled from the bad guy bench. Johnny sweeps Daniel’s leg as directed by his super-evil, king-of-all-bullies sensei. Mister Miyagi does his hand-rub thing to Daniel’s knee- even this comes across as cheesy.
By the time the credits finally roll, The Karate Kid still has plenty of kick, the kind of kick that never gets old. The cheesiness of the times often creeps into movies in any decade. But a talented pair of actors and some great moments can make those things fade into the background.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Actors Don’t Matter… Directors Do
These are exceptions to the rule. Most actors come on board a film long after the script has been written, the storyboards drafted, and the sets built. They did not come up with the story or the lines that come from their mouths. They had little to do with the special effects that made those aliens/zombies/dinosaurs look so real.
Why Directors Do Matter
No one is more involved in the filmmaking process than the director. In fact, they are usually involved in every step of the film's creation, from sketches on a napkin to the final minutes in the editing suite. A director has final say on every creative decision (Uma Thurman's great yellow jumpsuit, keep that line, hate that line, hate that actor, that robot looks better in lime green, etc.). So when you are seeing a movie, you are seeing the sum of a director's creative decisions, whether by commission or omission. Actors flit very briefly through this process. If directors are like the mothers that carry their films to full-term (and they are), actors are like the sort-of friend who stops by every couple weeks for tea.
Observe the Tomatometer. Let's take one of the most iconic directors of our time, Steven Spielberg:
Like his movies or not, Spielberg does consistently quality movies. He never dips below a 50 percent (which is bad for any Rotten Tomatoes newbies out there). He is as regular a guy as you will find in the movie business. Luckily, his high quality movies also make gobs of cash. That is why he rose to the top and why he continues to sit there today.
Of course, not every director that does a great movie is a Spielberg. Some are wildly inconsistent, soaring from a 90 percent on one film to a 20 percent their next one. Take Gladiator director Ridley Scott:
Scott's career is a case study in how certain directors can be so inconsistent. Of course, this means that when you go into a Ridley Scott film, you never know what you're going to get. But at least the man is consistently inconsistent. You understand that you are taking a risk when you walk into Robin Hood.
The last group of directors is consistently bad. They're so bad, in fact, that I won't bother creating a bar graph for them. For example, check out much maligned director Uwe Boll. Here is his recent filmography:
- In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale - 5%
- Postal - 8%
- Bloodrayne - 4%
- Alone in the Dark - 1%
- House of the Dead - 4%
- Blackwoods - 11%
Without a doubt, Uwe Boll's movies are crap, all of them. No inconsistency here. So even if Uwe Boll makes a movie with freaking Academy Award-winner Anthony Hopkins, you know it's going to be crap.
Conclusion
Trust not in actors to bring you good movies. They have nothing to do with the quality of a movie. Cover the pretty faces and names you see on movie poster and let your eyes go directly (no pun intended) to the bottom of the credits, to the name next to 'directed by'.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
My DVD Review: How to Train Your Dragon Takes Flight
The Fourth of July weekend was a good excuse to hit the dollar theater with my kids. With Clash of the Titans being a little too intense, we coughed up 75 cents per person (I know, eat your heart out, movie-lovers of Los Angeles and New York!) and sat down to How to Train Your Dragon, the Dreamworks animated feature that had a successful run in the spring and will probably be headed to DVD soon. After a chatty, overly busy opening, this movie comes to life in a way that few family (non-Pixar) films do nowadays.
The first act of the film is your normal kiddie movie fodder: a misfit who no one likes who also has brilliant ideas, a parental figure with whom the protagonist struggles to connect, and a magical happening that spring boards the protagonist into acts of hiding, pretending, and finally heroism and sacrifice. Honestly, I found the opening sequence in which the village is attacked by dragons to be more of the same overly self-aware dribble we typically get from Dreamworks. The protagonist/narrator scarcely has time to take a breath between delivery of hip critiques on the village's resident Vikings. Most Dreamworks films (even the great Kung Fu Panda and semi-great Monsters vs. Aliens) suffer from this mallady- they feel like a teenager who walks into their first dance and acts as loudly and stupidly as possible to get everyone's attention. Thankfully, most of these films get past this desperate-to-be-liked stage (not Shrek) and really soar. Dragon does this in spades.
Thanks to the attentive, sensitive guidance of director Chris Sanders (Lilo and Stitch), the relationship between Hiccup, the lead character, and Toothless, a downed dragon who is as powerful as he is lovable, is launched early on. This is where the film gets its lift. Hiccup's interactions in the village are mired by forced self-awareness. Every time he goes to the forest to meet Toothless, the scenes are packed with humor, drama, and finally exhilaration, as the duo takes to the skies. The flying scenes in both 3D and 2D are breathtaking, invoking the same power as the banshee scenes in Avatar. This movie makes you want to fly.
All of this hurtles to an appropriately large climax in which Hiccup and Toothless duel with a mountain-sized uber-dragon in the clouds. The dramatic tension between father and son, son and dragon, and son and friends is held until this satisfying conclusion.
My conclusion from Dragon is this: the company that produced this movie is not the same one that made Shrek or Shark Tale. Despite the tinges of Dreamwork exec meddling, this company shows the same restraint and ingenuity we saw in Kung Fu Panda. I'm guessing they are one and the same. Whatever this company is, they have every right to make their own name for they are clearly on par with Pixar.
Dragon is one of the few movies this year that truly deserves a recommendation. Once it takes off, it soars, taking the audience to feelings and places mostly forgotten in youth.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
My DVD Review: The Fantastic Mr. Fox is (Close to) Fantastic
What I can tell you is that, most of all, Fox is an indie movie. Tongue-in-cheek cheekiness pervades the entirety of the film. Not that that's a bad thing. It's just a tad too subtle for youngsters and probably for most adults. In fact, the first laugh of the film came some fifteen minutes in. And it came only from me, mostly because I had just barely adjusted to Anderson's trademark deadpan humor. As the film progressed, I realized this humor defined whole film. The old-school stop-motion animation. The close-ups. The folksy soundtrack. The muted dialogue and movement. All of it seemed calculated to put all of this drab, cool casualness squarely in the audience's face.
Not that that is a bad thing.
The humor really does grow on you. The relationships between the members of the Fox family feel real and accessible. And even the heist/prison break plot generates some real thrills. What the crew accomplishes with the crude, strictly CG-free stop-motion is incredible in its own right. The no-frills approach does, however, hamper the action just as it seems ready to crescendo. Which brings me back to my original summation of the movie. It is determinedly indie. In the case of animation, an art engineered to heighten reality, the filmmakers' conscious decision to subdue this action seems forced and unnatural.
There are plenty of fantastic things about Fox. I would not have paid to see this movie in the theater, but it is worth the change blown at the Redbox or on Netflix. Watch it ready to let go of your popcorn sensibilities and just enjoy its uber-casualness for what it is.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Why 3D Will Bring Down Movies
The Return of 3D
At the end of the summer of 2009, 3D was but a gag, a jokey throwback to 1950s campiness, never to be taken seriously again. The Polar Express, Spy Kids 3D, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Monsters vs. Aliens, and a host of other films used the technology as an added bonus for moviegoers with modest success but always as an accessory to the films.
Then Avatar happened.
James Cameron's tour de force destroyed all previously held stigma regarding 3D with the general public. Avatar's runaway success became 3D's success. Keep in mind, 3D accounted for less of the movie's gross revenues than most people think- IMAX revenues, all in 3D, accounted for roughly 8 percent of the total. But the co-branding of Avatar with next gen 3D tech was enough to blend the public perception of the two into one. Avatar came to herald a new day for 3D.
In actuality, the film succeeded because of undeniable craftsmanship and universal appeal. A whopping 73 percent ($1.98 B) of the film's sales came from foreign markets where 3D and IMAX were in shorter supply. International audiences latched onto it because of its gorgeous images and anti-imperialist, anti-corporate messaging.
Regardless, Hollywood failed to equate a timeless story and meticulous craftsmanship with the $2-billion success. "It must have been because of the digital 3D," they agreed sagely and promptly started slapping 3D onto every major title possible.
3D Overkill
Since the success of Avatar, 3D is ubiquitous. It is a marketing tagline in and of itself.
Disney released Alice in Wonderland, which broke records of its own, thanks to higher ticket sales from those blasted glasses (they encourage you to give them back after the movie so they can "recycle" them- it's actually so they can resell them to another sucker for $4).
Dreamworks released How To Train Your Dragon, probably the only worthy 3D successor to Avatar so far.
Interestingly enough, Warner Bros.' Clash of Titans remake, which added 3D in post-production to capitalize on the 3D craze, actually suffered because of the "improvement." Audiences complained that watching the 3D was like watching the movie through a Viewmaster.
Now, in case you've missed pretty much every movie promotion in the last month, here are some of the cases of 3D infatuation:
Toy Story 3 – first teaser trailer featured characters stepping out of the screen, gawking at the 3D effect
The Last Airbender – after the latest trailer unreels, all alone on the screen is a big 3D.
Despicable Me – on every poster, just under the title, is the phrase "in eye-popping Real3D."
Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore – on every poster, just under the title, is the phrase "unleashed in 3D."
Step Up 3D – basically what they're saying is now you can see Channing Tatum get his groove on in three dimensions.
Pirahna 3-D – tagline: "This summer 3D shows its teeth."
Resident Evil: Afterlife – tagline: "Experience a new dimension of evil."
Legend of the Guardians – tagline: "Take flight in 3D"
Jackass 3D – 'nuff said
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – "The Worldwide Phenomenon… the Motion Picture Event of a Generation… Presented in Two Parts… in 3D"
Voyage of the Dawn Treader – just under the title on the posters: "in digital 3D"
Tron: Legacy – just below the title on the posters: "in 3D Dec 2010"
Gulliver's Travels – just below the title on the poster: "in digital 3D Christmas"
In some of these cases, 3D stands in for any detail about the movie itself. It's almost as if the studio marketing departments would have us believe that story, character, and actual quality are secondary to some nifty 3D effects. They are going to find out the hard way that movies will always sell on quality.
Sensory Over Substance
I can see some moviegoers responding to these points with a big "so what?" After all, what harm does it do to make every major release 3D? Isn't it just another bonus for the moviegoer? And the movie studios need to make their money, right?
I'll tell you what the problem is. 3D is a gimmick, nothing more or less. In more positive terms, it is merely a tool of the filmmaker- just like sound, color, Smell-o-vision, CGI, music, and any other component of film. I understand that studios need a way to recoup the large investments they put into films.
The problem here is the cart-before-the-horse mentality this all entails. Follow the logic, if you will: "A 3D movie (Avatar) made a ton of cash. It must have been because of the 3D. Therefore, if we just add 3D to every film, they will make a ton of cash, too." This kind of thinking can only hurt the components that actually affect a film's success and audience satisfaction.
Rather than considering how they can deliver a solid story and a satisfying character arc, studios will be preoccupied with amping up the sensory experience. "Who needs storytelling when you can blow audiences out of their seats with three-dimensional explosions and charge a premium for it?"
3D is just the beginning of this movement. Millions are being pumped into other ways to amp up the sensory experience- and charge more for it. A friend of mine recently participated in a field test of a new theater chair that rumbles, shakes, and swivels along with the action on screen. Theaters plan to charge $16 and up for these seats. Add 3D glasses to that and pushing into the twenties. And somewhere, studio execs are slobbering all over their martinis anticipating this.
I can just see the movie posters in a year: "One man will face the world… in digital 3D… in a shaking chair… and did we mention it's in 3D?"
The gimmicks that come and go are distractions from what really matters about movies- the things that really leave you satisfied when you leave the theater. True, some filmmakers will still deliver great stories. Others will have to fight the studios to get them to look beyond their newest toys. Needless to say, good movies will get harder to find.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Warning: Amelia may induce drowsiness
The kids all in bed, the house quiet, my wife and I snuggled up on the couch to watch Amelia, which had been sitting untouched in its Netflix envelope for over a month. The movie started. Pretty pictures of planes began to slide across the screen.Some woman, whom I wouldn't care about if I didn't already know it was the famous Amelia Earhart, wants to to fly. No one expects much from her. She flies with two lazy-bum pilots across the Atlantic. There is turbulence and I wake up long enough to see one of the pilots and Hilary Swank almost fall out an open door during flight (you would think they would bolt those things shut)- I'm thinking this probably didn't really happen but was added in to keep test audiences awake. Well, they make it to Wales. Amelia becomes an overnight celebrity. Richard Gere sees her chatting with Ewan McGregor so naturally he proposes to her while heavily intoxicated. My eyes droop once. They droop twice. And, BAM, I am out.
I wake up two hours later to a darkened living room, my wife snoozing upstairs.
There is something to be said for trying to watch a movie- much less a biopic drama- after a long day in the sun. But I would also submit that the test of a great movie is its ability to hold your attention even after a long day in the sun.
When I think about, Amelia is a film of gorgeous images with little life, little pulse underneath the dressing. the principal actors literal walk through their parts, hit their marks, and move onto the next scene. But it's probably not their fault. What's on screen suggests that director and writers gave little thought on how to give these historical characters real life and depth. the movie plays like someone opened the Amelia Earhart section in the encyclopedia and crafted scenes to illustrate each notable event.
Sadly, although the title itself promises a certain degree of intimacy with the legendary woman aviator- something we've never seen before- , it never really delivers on that promise. I could have watched a History Channel documentary and gotten the same experience in half the time. Except the sleep. I probably could've stayed awake through a History Channel documentary.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
DVD Review: Surrogates Gets Better As It Goes
The androids of the title, operated remotely by humans, have a distancing effect on the first third of the film. Surrogates are played with a distinct sense of alienation, all perfect skin, stiff stances, blank faces, and glazed over eyes. Granted, this decision works in the world of the movie- it is necessary. But it does make it hard to connect with any of the onscreen players.
Luckily, the film becomes progressively more interesting as the film delves into the juxtaposition between the surrogates and their operators. A tall black man, for example, turns out to actually be a nerdy, white lab tech. Bruce Willis’ character, Tom Greer, is a baby-faced pretty boy with a headful of Ken-doll hair as a surrogate. The real Tom is bald, unshaven, and scarred. This is where the fun starts, as well as the intriguing connections between the online social world we find in World of Warcraft, Facebook, or Twitter and the surrogates of the film. Ultimately, this film is a scathing commentary on the avatar-based culture we have built.
Once Tom destroys his surrogate and is forced to push ahead in his physical body, the audience can connect with him and his awakening to the ills of the surrogate movement. The film finds a solid rhythm in a chase between Tom and a female surrogate s she leaps and crashes through Boston traffic. When Tom plows over a sidewalk full of surrogates with his car like orange caution cones, you don’t know whether to chuckle or cringe. Regardless, you know you’ve entered a real film fun house.
Surrogates gets more entertaining and clever as it careens along. If at all, it suffers from pacing that feels a little off-beat and a script that discovers its legs a little too late. Production values are good enough but could have been slightly more convincing with a bigger budget.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Other Things That Would Be Cool to Bend
In anticipation of the big release, I got thinking what other stuff would be cool to bend. Bending fire or air or rocks is cool, of course, but they just strike me as sort of old-world. Here's my list of five things that would be awesome to bend:
5. People – It would be like having a voodoo doll for every single person on the planet. Imagine the possibilities, especially against people like bullies, bosses, politicians, and criminals.
4. Stocks – Change the stock market from unreliable to your personal ATM machine. Why trust Goldman Sachs (and who does?) when you can order your favorite S&P 500 companies to perform? Retirement in the Caymans is closer than ever.
3. Radiation – One word: microwave. Bad guys knocking at your door? Fry them from the inside like last night's leftovers. Alien invasion imminent? Send E.T. home with a nuclear blast. Feeling humanitarian? Destroy malignant tumors with carefully controlled microwaves.
2. Light – With control over light comes all kinds of cool powers. First, you could turn yourself invisible by bending light waves around your body. Second, you turn any light waves into a focused laser beam. Third, you would have the ability to alter your appearance at any time.
1. Gravity – Why would this be the best bending power of all? Only because gravity can manipulate the very fabric of space-time. Open wormholes. Destroy your enemies with mini-blackholes. Travel across the expanse of space in seconds. Tear apart the solar system or create a planet. Gravity-bending is where it's at.
Narnia Lives: Voyage of the Dawn Treader Trailer is Out!
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Old Movie Review: Eragon Bites
Frankly, I take any story written by a sixteen-year-old with a huge grain of salt. It always has an air of "I-live-in-Connecticut-and-my-next-door-neighbor-is-a-literary-agent-and-owes-my-mom-a-favor-so-he-agreed-to-give-my-story-a-chance" to me. Anyway, the book really comes off that way. There is the nice but boring farm boy (no way,a farm boy who is propelled into the center of an epic war by no desire of his own? Never heard that one before!). There is the menacing magician guy (given a different title to distinguish him from all the other menacing magic guys out there). And can anyone explain why good guys always suck at magic compared to the bad guys?
And then there's Eragon's name. For one thing, it sounds like a straight ripoff of Aragorn from LOTR. Second, it is clear the kid was having trouble making up fantasy names so he took the word 'dragon' and replaced the first letter with the next letter in the alphabet. Very clever, Mister Paolini. You should name your next character Fragon. I mean, why ruin a good thing, right?
More than anything, this movie suffers from a terrible lead actor and poor production values. There's no brains to it. Just a lot of valor and good people getting killed so the hero has a motivation. I would have laughed harder the second time around if my wife hadn't been scolding me the whole way through for laughing at such a great movie.
Anyway, if you want to laugh for me, check out this video about the cuddly relationship between Eragon and his dragon:
The World's Most Popular Superpowers
Source: Online Schools
Zombie Epidemic Map Infographic
Source: Online Classes
Monday, June 21, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
5 Questions Lost Better Answer Before It Wraps
This season, we've already been privy to quite a few doozies: where did Richard Alpert come from (cool), where did the Blackrock come from (underwhelming), what's inside the temple (disappointing), and other whoppers. But other larger issues remained unaddressed. These are the five questions this blogger needs to have answered or else he will haunt Carlton Cuse's footsteps forever:
- What is the Smoke Monster? We know he has mommy issues and, according to Jacob, if he gets out he will turn the world into a living hell. Yada yada yada. But what is he really? He has a habit of taking the form of dead people. And he has the incessant, almost mechanical, clicking sound. So, if he's not a nano-cloud and he isn't a security system created by some extraterrestrial race, then what the heck is he? What exactly is his relationship to Jacob or to John Locke, for that matter?
- Where did all the old stuff on the Island come from? Seriously, all we've been shown are a bunch of ancient Egyptian-esque structures with a bunch of pirate-looking Others hanging around them. From the Temple to the Lighthouse to Jacob's statue to the Frozen Donkey Wheel itself, where did these things come from? Who built them? What, if anything, do they have to do with the paranormal properties of the Island? Specifically, how does the Island have the ability to warp around through space-time? If they just leave it at "electromagnetic energy" I am going to put a brick through the Bad Robot's front window. Seriously.
- What is the Sideways world? I suspect it is an artificial construct of some kind, what with every person who ever inhabited the Island suddenly conveniently placed in the Los Angeles area. I trust they are headed toward reconciling the two, but if they don't, so help me...
- What is up with Walt and Aaron? So Walt is probably like 25 years old by now, but I need some closure here. The kid had spooky powers. The Others just had to have him. It was one of the key conflicts of the first season, as was Claire's baby Aaron. And now both of these mutant kids are just off the hook. I don't think so. They better get back on the Island, stat. We need some answers.
- What is the Island? The Island has been a character with a will of its own independent of Smokey or Jacob apparently. So what is the Island? What is the intelligence that drives this insanity, this need for candidates? And what is it that gives the Island to reach out across the ocean and guide Fate itself anytime and anywhere. I will feel very slighted if they just toss us some ambiguous line and leave us to wonder for the rest of our lives.
Even thinking about these questions has got my blood pressure up. So I will leave you with these, dear reader, and the hope the Misters Cuse and Lindelof deliver on all of the promise they have built up. For some last minute tidbits from the Dynamic Duo before we plunge into the last 5 episodes ever, check out Jeff Jensen's fabulous podcast.