With my "Fight Club" blog as my last entry, I decided to keep the Fincher-theme going and make what very well could be my last blog an entry on "SE7EN," a film that, without exaggerating, is one of the greatest films you will ever see, whether or not you're a horror fan.
This 1995 thriller sees a serial killer who cryptically calls himself John Doe take inspiration from the Seven Deadly Sins: Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Lust, Pride, Envy, and Wrath. In thinking about what piece of cinema I could possibly call my favorite, I had a hell of a time, but finally came upon one scene (minor spoilers contained herein.)
I was also conflicted when it comes to revealing who plays Doe himself. While it's not exactly a secret, and if you really wanted to, you could find out yourself, I think the impact of the revelation would be tremendous if you didn't already know who the actor was. It is this actor's unparalelled skills that truly make this scene.
Following John Doe's fifth murder (that of pride, in which he slices off a model's nose..."to spite her face," as the old saying goes), he enters the police station and reveals himself to Detectives Mills & Somerset (Brad Pitt & Morgan Freeman, respectively.) Through his attorney, he then reveals that there are two extra bodies buried in the desert, and should Mills & Somerset accompany him to find those bodies, he will plead guilty to every murder he has committed.
What follows is most definitely one of the most compelling scenes in cinema, and it all takes place in a simple police car. From behind the mesh divider, Doe explains the reasoning behind his actions at length, defining it as a sort of "cleansing" process, when what he's done is written off as just "killing innocent people." "Innocent? Is that supposed to be funny?", snaps Doe at a smug Detective Mills.
I wouldn't want to risk diminishing the impact of the speech, so I won't transcribe it here word for word. I recommend buying "SE7EN," if you don't own it already, or at least renting it from your local video store, and witnessing great writing, directing, and acting coming together in a disturbing, yet unimaginably impressive picture.
Well, Inscapers...it's been fun. Not much more to say.
Stay classy, Riverside.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Perfect piece of cinema
As I stated last week, “Jurassic Park” is one of my favorite films of all time. It is only fitting that my favorite scene in a movie is from the film.
Back at the start of summer when we created a list of topics for us to blog about, I thought about how much I loved this particular part in “Jurassic Park” and suggested this topic.
The scene I am talking about is when the main characters arrive at Jurassic Park and are driving in the Jeeps. The scene really focuses on three characters; Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Nei1l), Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum.)
Sattler is looking at some plant life, which she says has been extinct for millions of years and all of a sudden Grant’s hand turns her head to look at the dinosaur (I believe it is a Brontosaurus).
The great thing about this movie is that the main characters see the dinosaurs the same time as the audience does, so there is a shared feeling of “WOW!”
Everything is perfect and dead-on with this scene. The directing hits all the right marks, the writing makes you feel like you are right there and the acting is as good as it gets. Neill’s performance in this scene was overlooked by many people. Here was a man who had studied fossils all his life and now he was looking at a living breathing dinosaur in front of him, he does what most people might do (well, other than run screaming…), have to sit down. The look on Grant’s face when he sees the dozens of other dinosaurs in the distance is also great and so full of emotion, especially when he comes to the realization that he was right in his work “They're moving in herds. They do move in herds.”
I challenge anyone to say that they hated this scene (must have a good arguement!).
On a sad note, this is my last blog for this site. Stay tuned for a new set of writers to take over. I promise they will at least try to be entertaining.
Thank you and goodnight.
Back at the start of summer when we created a list of topics for us to blog about, I thought about how much I loved this particular part in “Jurassic Park” and suggested this topic.
The scene I am talking about is when the main characters arrive at Jurassic Park and are driving in the Jeeps. The scene really focuses on three characters; Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Nei1l), Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum.)
Sattler is looking at some plant life, which she says has been extinct for millions of years and all of a sudden Grant’s hand turns her head to look at the dinosaur (I believe it is a Brontosaurus).
The great thing about this movie is that the main characters see the dinosaurs the same time as the audience does, so there is a shared feeling of “WOW!”
Everything is perfect and dead-on with this scene. The directing hits all the right marks, the writing makes you feel like you are right there and the acting is as good as it gets. Neill’s performance in this scene was overlooked by many people. Here was a man who had studied fossils all his life and now he was looking at a living breathing dinosaur in front of him, he does what most people might do (well, other than run screaming…), have to sit down. The look on Grant’s face when he sees the dozens of other dinosaurs in the distance is also great and so full of emotion, especially when he comes to the realization that he was right in his work “They're moving in herds. They do move in herds.”
I challenge anyone to say that they hated this scene (must have a good arguement!).
On a sad note, this is my last blog for this site. Stay tuned for a new set of writers to take over. I promise they will at least try to be entertaining.
Thank you and goodnight.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The first rule is...
As much as I'd love to say that I hate "Fight Club," I simply can't. As much of a cult hit as it has become, it'd be easy for me to sit here and say, "I don't see why everyone loves it so much," but I can't say that. Simply put, "Fight Club" is my favorite movie, bar none.
Between David Fincher's ("SE7EN, Panic Room") darker-than-dark directing, Jim Uhls' fantastic screenplay based on Chuck Palahniuk's book of the same name, and the jaw-droppingly skillful acting trio of Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, and Helena Bonham Carter, "Fight Club" is not a movie you can easily ignore.
Brad Pitt steals the show in this film, no questions asked. His portrayal of Tyler Durden has created a character that has become legendary in cinema, a smugly anarchistic man's man that is the embodiment of what the contemporary male longs to be.
Being a projectionist named Tyler D. myself, I feel a certain connection with the character. Pitt's delivery, his manner of speaking, makes the role, and one of the most unforgettable moments in the movie, albeit not a single line (although the first two rules are the most famous), is his recitation of "the rules," the fight club ethos. These are as follows:
"Gentlemen, welcome to fight club. The first rule of fight club is you do not talk about fight club. The second rule of fight club is...you do not talk about fight club. Third rule of fight club...someone yells "stop," goes limp, taps out, the fight is over. Fourth rule...only two guys to a fight. Fifth rule...one fight at a time, fellas. Sixth rule...no shirts, no shoes. Seventh rule...fights will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth, and final, rule...if this is your first night at fight club...you have to fight."
Of course, this is just a sample of the incredible dialogue that comes out of Tyler Durden's mouth, or anyone in the film's, for that matter. See more of it here.
Or, better yet, go out and buy the book by Chuck Palahniuk, definitely my favorite author and one of the best ones around today.
Between David Fincher's ("SE7EN, Panic Room") darker-than-dark directing, Jim Uhls' fantastic screenplay based on Chuck Palahniuk's book of the same name, and the jaw-droppingly skillful acting trio of Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, and Helena Bonham Carter, "Fight Club" is not a movie you can easily ignore.
Brad Pitt steals the show in this film, no questions asked. His portrayal of Tyler Durden has created a character that has become legendary in cinema, a smugly anarchistic man's man that is the embodiment of what the contemporary male longs to be.
Being a projectionist named Tyler D. myself, I feel a certain connection with the character. Pitt's delivery, his manner of speaking, makes the role, and one of the most unforgettable moments in the movie, albeit not a single line (although the first two rules are the most famous), is his recitation of "the rules," the fight club ethos. These are as follows:
"Gentlemen, welcome to fight club. The first rule of fight club is you do not talk about fight club. The second rule of fight club is...you do not talk about fight club. Third rule of fight club...someone yells "stop," goes limp, taps out, the fight is over. Fourth rule...only two guys to a fight. Fifth rule...one fight at a time, fellas. Sixth rule...no shirts, no shoes. Seventh rule...fights will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth, and final, rule...if this is your first night at fight club...you have to fight."
Of course, this is just a sample of the incredible dialogue that comes out of Tyler Durden's mouth, or anyone in the film's, for that matter. See more of it here.
Or, better yet, go out and buy the book by Chuck Palahniuk, definitely my favorite author and one of the best ones around today.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Jeff Goldblum gets all the good lines!
Over the next two weeks and two blogs you will notice something... that
“Jurassic Park” is one of my favorite films of all time.
One of my favorite things about the film is the dialogue, especially of the character Dr. Ian Malcolm, played by Jeff Goldblum. I think the fact that Michael Crichton, with David Koepp, had a hand in the screenplay, based on his book, was a determining factor in the dialogue being so well-written.
When it came to picking one quote from the film that I liked the best, it was a no-brainer.
John Hammond: All major theme parks have had delays. When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked, nothing.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: But, John. If the Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists.
Malcolm also has some other great lines that I enjoyed.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it!
Dr. Ian Malcolm: But again, how do you know they're all female? Does someone go into the park and, uh... lift up the dinosaurs' skirts?
Dr. Ian Malcolm: [Ian Malcolm leans to face camera in electric tour car when the T-Rex doesn't appear] Now eventually you might have dinosaurs on your, on your dinosaur tour, right? Hello? yes? [he taps the camera lens and breathes on it]
Check out some other great lines from “Jurassic Park” here
“Jurassic Park” is one of my favorite films of all time.
One of my favorite things about the film is the dialogue, especially of the character Dr. Ian Malcolm, played by Jeff Goldblum. I think the fact that Michael Crichton, with David Koepp, had a hand in the screenplay, based on his book, was a determining factor in the dialogue being so well-written.
When it came to picking one quote from the film that I liked the best, it was a no-brainer.
John Hammond: All major theme parks have had delays. When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked, nothing.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: But, John. If the Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists.
Malcolm also has some other great lines that I enjoyed.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it!
Dr. Ian Malcolm: But again, how do you know they're all female? Does someone go into the park and, uh... lift up the dinosaurs' skirts?
Dr. Ian Malcolm: [Ian Malcolm leans to face camera in electric tour car when the T-Rex doesn't appear] Now eventually you might have dinosaurs on your, on your dinosaur tour, right? Hello? yes? [he taps the camera lens and breathes on it]
Check out some other great lines from “Jurassic Park” here
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The Best Kept Secret in Hollywood...
With the topic being "the actor that needs to be in more movies," my original pick was Chris Kattan. Between the comic relief he provides in 1999's "House on Haunted Hill" to his dimwitted but lovable portrayal of danceaholic Doug Butabi in 1998's "A Night At the Roxbury" (alongside a then fairly unknown Will Ferrell), Kattan is a much funnier personality than people give him credit for.
But, when thinking about the different Kattan movies that I enjoy, my focus quickly turned to one of his older brothers in 2001's "Corky Romano," Peter Berg (the other being another underrated talent, the late Chris Penn.)
Lately, Berg has been making a name for himself in the field of directing, helming such titles as 2003's "The Rundown," starring The Rock in one of his first starring roles, 2004's "Friday Night Lights," and the upcoming Jamie Foxx vehicle, "The Kingdom."
While his directing skills are quickly becoming some of the most sought-after in Hollywood, Berg's acting skills (and specifically, his comedic chops) are oft-overlooked.
One of his most hilarious performances is Berg's straight-laced portrayal of boxer-turned-rocker-turned-boxer-again, "Irish" Terry Conklin, in 1996's "The Great White Hype." Berg never cracks a smile while delivering some of the funniest lines in the movie opposite Damon Wayans' just-as-deadpan James "The Grim Reaper" Roper, not the least of which is an acoustic song entitled "Mr. Roper, Mr. Roper," in which Conklin enthusiastically promises to "open up a case of butt-whippin'" on Roper.
Also worth checking out is Berg's performance in the afore-mentioned "Corky Romano," playing the tough but illiterate older brother of the title character, as well as his brief role as "Pistol" Pete Deeks in this year's "Smokin' Aces."
Tyler's bottom line: as good of a director as he is, Peter Berg deserves to be on-screen just as much as behind the camera in the future.
But, when thinking about the different Kattan movies that I enjoy, my focus quickly turned to one of his older brothers in 2001's "Corky Romano," Peter Berg (the other being another underrated talent, the late Chris Penn.)
Lately, Berg has been making a name for himself in the field of directing, helming such titles as 2003's "The Rundown," starring The Rock in one of his first starring roles, 2004's "Friday Night Lights," and the upcoming Jamie Foxx vehicle, "The Kingdom."
While his directing skills are quickly becoming some of the most sought-after in Hollywood, Berg's acting skills (and specifically, his comedic chops) are oft-overlooked.
One of his most hilarious performances is Berg's straight-laced portrayal of boxer-turned-rocker-turned-boxer-again, "Irish" Terry Conklin, in 1996's "The Great White Hype." Berg never cracks a smile while delivering some of the funniest lines in the movie opposite Damon Wayans' just-as-deadpan James "The Grim Reaper" Roper, not the least of which is an acoustic song entitled "Mr. Roper, Mr. Roper," in which Conklin enthusiastically promises to "open up a case of butt-whippin'" on Roper.
Also worth checking out is Berg's performance in the afore-mentioned "Corky Romano," playing the tough but illiterate older brother of the title character, as well as his brief role as "Pistol" Pete Deeks in this year's "Smokin' Aces."
Tyler's bottom line: as good of a director as he is, Peter Berg deserves to be on-screen just as much as behind the camera in the future.
Monday, August 6, 2007
This actor needs to be working more!
Meet Alan Tudyk.
OK, the name might not be familiar, but chances are you have seen him in a few movies. In fact he was just in the movie “Knocked Up” as the E! boss of Katherine Heigl’s character. But, I think he needs to be in more movies… and not just in a minor role. He is a great character actor that deserves to be in a leading role.
Tudyk might be most well known for his role of Wash on the television show “Firefly” and its film version “Serenity.” He was the pilot of Serenity and was usually the comic relief, providing one of my favorite parts of the film:
Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: This landing is gonna get pretty interesting.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Define "interesting".
Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: [deadpan] Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die?
Another comedic role he is known for is of Steve the pirate in “Dodgeball.”
One role he might not be well-known for is the robot Sonny in the film “I, Robot.” Sure he supplied the voice for the CGI robot, but many people might not know is the filmmakers took a page out of the “Lord of the Rings” playbook and had Tudyk provide the body movements of the character as well. That can’t be an easy job. His performance in the film is one of the reasons I love that film so much... yeah I love a Will Smith movie, sue me.
He took two different routes in playing a serious, dramatic role of a child molester on the television show “CSI.” Watching the episode and his performance makes you forget all about Steve the pirate.
Tudyk has two movies coming out soon. First the comedy “Death at a funeral” which, from the previews, looks to be a good sized role. He is also going to be sharing the screen with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe coming up in the western “3:10 to Yuma,” which is a dramatic turn.
Tudyk is extremely underrated in Hollywood and I really want to see him in more movies. He should be working more than people like Jack Black and Will Ferrell.
A list of his acting work to check out!
OK, the name might not be familiar, but chances are you have seen him in a few movies. In fact he was just in the movie “Knocked Up” as the E! boss of Katherine Heigl’s character. But, I think he needs to be in more movies… and not just in a minor role. He is a great character actor that deserves to be in a leading role.
Tudyk might be most well known for his role of Wash on the television show “Firefly” and its film version “Serenity.” He was the pilot of Serenity and was usually the comic relief, providing one of my favorite parts of the film:
Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: This landing is gonna get pretty interesting.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Define "interesting".
Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: [deadpan] Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die?
Another comedic role he is known for is of Steve the pirate in “Dodgeball.”
One role he might not be well-known for is the robot Sonny in the film “I, Robot.” Sure he supplied the voice for the CGI robot, but many people might not know is the filmmakers took a page out of the “Lord of the Rings” playbook and had Tudyk provide the body movements of the character as well. That can’t be an easy job. His performance in the film is one of the reasons I love that film so much... yeah I love a Will Smith movie, sue me.
He took two different routes in playing a serious, dramatic role of a child molester on the television show “CSI.” Watching the episode and his performance makes you forget all about Steve the pirate.
Tudyk has two movies coming out soon. First the comedy “Death at a funeral” which, from the previews, looks to be a good sized role. He is also going to be sharing the screen with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe coming up in the western “3:10 to Yuma,” which is a dramatic turn.
Tudyk is extremely underrated in Hollywood and I really want to see him in more movies. He should be working more than people like Jack Black and Will Ferrell.
A list of his acting work to check out!
Friday, August 3, 2007
The Soundtrack With A Little Dead Humor
A great movie soundtrack not only stics with you after you watch the movie, it reinforces how great the movie was. "Shaun of the Dead" has this and more; listening to the soundtrack reminds you of every hillarious scene. The movie itself, being a lampoon of cheesy zombie movies, has the same style when it comes to the soundtrack.
The first two tracks lace together to give you a nice idea of where this movie takes you. After some opening dialouge taken from the movie, "The Blue Wrath" by I Monster kicks in, with synthesizers and trumpets creating a completely, rediculously undramatic zombie atmosphere. Those who have seen the movie will immediately remember the opening scene where zombies do a choreographed dance (or... well, march) to the song.
Cheesy music aside, there's also some great songs by The Smiths and Queen, most notably "Don't Stop Me Now" by the latter band. It's a nice upbeat song that brings back the image of the cast members beating a local bar owner/zombie with pool sticks before Shaun (Simon Pegg) gets a dart in the side of his head.
Another memorable track is "White Lines (Don't Do It)", made famous in the preview for the movie where Shaun and Ed (Pegg, Nick Frost) sing unwittingly with a zombie (thought to be a drunkard by the two men) in the streets.
The "Shaun of the Dead" soundtrack is laced with wildly absurd-yet-catchy songs and hillarious dialouge.
The first two tracks lace together to give you a nice idea of where this movie takes you. After some opening dialouge taken from the movie, "The Blue Wrath" by I Monster kicks in, with synthesizers and trumpets creating a completely, rediculously undramatic zombie atmosphere. Those who have seen the movie will immediately remember the opening scene where zombies do a choreographed dance (or... well, march) to the song.
Cheesy music aside, there's also some great songs by The Smiths and Queen, most notably "Don't Stop Me Now" by the latter band. It's a nice upbeat song that brings back the image of the cast members beating a local bar owner/zombie with pool sticks before Shaun (Simon Pegg) gets a dart in the side of his head.
Another memorable track is "White Lines (Don't Do It)", made famous in the preview for the movie where Shaun and Ed (Pegg, Nick Frost) sing unwittingly with a zombie (thought to be a drunkard by the two men) in the streets.
The "Shaun of the Dead" soundtrack is laced with wildly absurd-yet-catchy songs and hillarious dialouge.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
The ROCKIN' Sounds of Cinema...
In terms of movie soundtracks, I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Guy's post below this one and say that I prefer a good compilation over a score 9 times out of 10. My particular favorite, however, is a fairly sharp departure from "That Thing You Do!" (as much as I do love that movie and its music)
As a huge rock/metal fan (converted from country), I'm going to have to name "Saw 2" as my favorite soundtrack. With 2004's "The Punisher" a close 2nd, the next year's "Saw 2" is an essential album for any rocker.
The "Saw" films are some of my favorite movies in general (and yes, Tim, I recall your disdain for "torture porn"), and a large part of the reason why is the music behind the films. As soon as the movie faded to black, and Mudvayne's "Forget to Remember" began playing over the end credits of the film, I knew I had to run out and get the soundtrack.
The soundtrack to "Saw 2" is the exact opposite of that of the first movie. That is to say, the "Saw" soundtrack was largely a score album (with amazing work done by Charlie Clouser), with only a couple actual songs thrown in (including Fear Factory's haunting "Bite the Hand That Bleeds), whereas "Saw 2" saw almost all tracks done by existing bands, with only one Clouser composition, a mix of the signature "Saw" theme entitled "Don't Forget the Rules."
"Saw 2" brings together a veritable all-star roster of rockers, including Marilyn Manson, Ministry's Al Jourgensen, Queens of the Stone Age, Sevendust, and Skinny Puppy, along with lesser known (but still unbelievably talented) acts like A Band Called Pain and Bloodsimple to create a compilation disc just as chilling and intense as its namesake.
Tyler's bottom line: See the movie. Buy the CD. The end.
As a huge rock/metal fan (converted from country), I'm going to have to name "Saw 2" as my favorite soundtrack. With 2004's "The Punisher" a close 2nd, the next year's "Saw 2" is an essential album for any rocker.
The "Saw" films are some of my favorite movies in general (and yes, Tim, I recall your disdain for "torture porn"), and a large part of the reason why is the music behind the films. As soon as the movie faded to black, and Mudvayne's "Forget to Remember" began playing over the end credits of the film, I knew I had to run out and get the soundtrack.
The soundtrack to "Saw 2" is the exact opposite of that of the first movie. That is to say, the "Saw" soundtrack was largely a score album (with amazing work done by Charlie Clouser), with only a couple actual songs thrown in (including Fear Factory's haunting "Bite the Hand That Bleeds), whereas "Saw 2" saw almost all tracks done by existing bands, with only one Clouser composition, a mix of the signature "Saw" theme entitled "Don't Forget the Rules."
"Saw 2" brings together a veritable all-star roster of rockers, including Marilyn Manson, Ministry's Al Jourgensen, Queens of the Stone Age, Sevendust, and Skinny Puppy, along with lesser known (but still unbelievably talented) acts like A Band Called Pain and Bloodsimple to create a compilation disc just as chilling and intense as its namesake.
Tyler's bottom line: See the movie. Buy the CD. The end.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
The music that makes a movie
Ah, the movie soundtrack; such a staple of American pop culture. Nowadays the soundtrack of a film is just as important as the film itself. A lot of thinking goes into which tracks are to be included and which artists are going to contribute.
There are basically two types of movie soundtracks; the score (which is just composed music like the “Star Wars” theme) and compilations (many different songs thrown together).
While I adore certain movie scores (is there anything better than John William’s theme for “Superman”?), my favorite movie soundtrack is a compilation. The movie is Tom Hanks’ creation “That thing you do!”
Yeah, I am not joking.
The thing that makes this soundtrack interesting is that all of the songs on the soundtrack are from fictional bands and artists that appeared in the movie, led of course by (the fake band from the film) the Wonders’ hit song “That thing you do!”
The Wonders also “contribute” four other songs on the soundtrack including my favorite “All my only dreams.” But there is also a good amount of different 60s music thrown in as well including surf music (Cap'n Geech And The Shrimp Shack Shooters), jazz (Del Paxton) and female trio (The Chantrellines).
OK, I know the idea of oldies music turns some people off, but the music is good. And if you are one of those people who love oldies, then you will love this soundtrack. I remember buying a copy for my father when it came out and I double-checked and it is still in his car’s stereo. Hanks not only directed the film and put together the soundtrack, but he also co-wrote four of the songs on the soundtrack. The main person behind the music was Fountains of Wayne's Adam Schlesinger, who also got nominated for an Academy Award for “Best Original Song” in 1996 for the track “That thing you do!” but lost to Andrew Lloyd Webber for the film “Evita.” I guess if you are going to lose, it’s great to lose to someone like Webber.
You can listen to samples of each song on the soundtrack here:
http://www.amazon.com/That-Thing-You-Do-Soundtrack/dp/B000002BQD/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0139782-9743102?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1185752820&sr=1-1
There are basically two types of movie soundtracks; the score (which is just composed music like the “Star Wars” theme) and compilations (many different songs thrown together).
While I adore certain movie scores (is there anything better than John William’s theme for “Superman”?), my favorite movie soundtrack is a compilation. The movie is Tom Hanks’ creation “That thing you do!”
Yeah, I am not joking.
The thing that makes this soundtrack interesting is that all of the songs on the soundtrack are from fictional bands and artists that appeared in the movie, led of course by (the fake band from the film) the Wonders’ hit song “That thing you do!”
The Wonders also “contribute” four other songs on the soundtrack including my favorite “All my only dreams.” But there is also a good amount of different 60s music thrown in as well including surf music (Cap'n Geech And The Shrimp Shack Shooters), jazz (Del Paxton) and female trio (The Chantrellines).
OK, I know the idea of oldies music turns some people off, but the music is good. And if you are one of those people who love oldies, then you will love this soundtrack. I remember buying a copy for my father when it came out and I double-checked and it is still in his car’s stereo. Hanks not only directed the film and put together the soundtrack, but he also co-wrote four of the songs on the soundtrack. The main person behind the music was Fountains of Wayne's Adam Schlesinger, who also got nominated for an Academy Award for “Best Original Song” in 1996 for the track “That thing you do!” but lost to Andrew Lloyd Webber for the film “Evita.” I guess if you are going to lose, it’s great to lose to someone like Webber.
You can listen to samples of each song on the soundtrack here:
http://www.amazon.com/That-Thing-You-Do-Soundtrack/dp/B000002BQD/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0139782-9743102?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1185752820&sr=1-1
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Overrated? Oh yeah!
Finding underrated films is easy. Everyone can tell you a bunch of movies that they love that really didn’t get noticed by the general public.
The same can be said for movies that everyone loved that you believe shouldn’t have tons of attention. For me there are so many, most recently with “Sin City” which I walked out of and demanded my money back (I have a little problem with men smacking around women… and when it happened for like the fourth time that was it.)
But for the purpose of this blog I decided to focus in on two movies that are seriously overrated. I used a simple way of choosing these films; both of these films won an Academy Award for Best Picture and shouldn’t have.
<>It not only beat those films for Best Picture, but won 10 other awards (basically sweeping the night.) I still feel the same way about “Titanic” now as I did almost 10 years ago… “Uh… people liked this movie?” We know it wasn’t the best acted film of the four, “As Good As It Gets” had three acting nominations and two wins. “L.A. Confidential” nabbed Kim Basinger a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. And say what you will about Robin Williams, but no one can argue that he was an acting tour-de-force in “Good Will Hunting,” and won the Best Supporting Actor award.
No, I do not know why “Titanic” made billions of dollars… nor do I care. It was not the best movie of 1997 by any means and therefore is vastly overrated.
<>http://www.bsnews.org/pictures/images/1153466988_movie_mistake_gladiator.jpg
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The Greek was on fire... literally.
The best 21st birthday present could be alcohol and the zoo. But in this case, it was Canadians and... well, alcohol. The Greek Theatre was the place to be May 29 of this year. The Arcade Fire was due to give one of their signature performances, including megaphones, mandolins, french horns and more surprises.
The best part of the concert was getting there. No, it wasn't just the enormous Transformers ad in downtown Los Angeles. It was no traffic, good food (Baja Fresh is good stuff) and a memorable-yet-brief exchange with a bird that flew overhead... think about it.
The opening band nearly ruined the experience. A chick band called Electrelane bashed through several horrifying "songs." It seems that Arcade Fire took pity on some high school dropouts and gave them 45 minutes to make the Canadian group look that much better. If it wasn't for an ice cold drink and a new wallet, I would've cried. The wallet was just cool enough.
Finally, Arcade Fire saves us from the hell we were in. The lights go out in the canopy-covered arena, and a symphony swells in the darkness. The crowd goes wild as close to ten men and women break into a beautifully synchronized rythym. By the end of the show, frontman Win Butler was throwing light pillars into the audience, his brother was beating on anything he could find and screaming choruses through a megaphone into the night sky. Regine Chassagne stumbled drunk around the stage, playing every instrument she came across for two minutes before getting bored and going to the next.
Amidst the chaos, not a beat was missed. One could say the same of Butler's sense of absurdity. While commenting on how "people down here have to wait for Entertainment Weekly to hear current events," he also mentioned the band's sole promise to the Greek's management.
After explaining how the Greek Theatre nearly burned to the ground, Butler proclaimed that he would not "say anything bad like... BURN THIS MOTHER DOWN!"
All in all, The Arcade Fire took a good day and made it the best concert I've attended. If you ever want a guaranteed good time, grab a copy of Funeral and Neon Bible, and go see the Arcade Fire prepared to sing along to some of the most underrated music of our time.
The best part of the concert was getting there. No, it wasn't just the enormous Transformers ad in downtown Los Angeles. It was no traffic, good food (Baja Fresh is good stuff) and a memorable-yet-brief exchange with a bird that flew overhead... think about it.
The opening band nearly ruined the experience. A chick band called Electrelane bashed through several horrifying "songs." It seems that Arcade Fire took pity on some high school dropouts and gave them 45 minutes to make the Canadian group look that much better. If it wasn't for an ice cold drink and a new wallet, I would've cried. The wallet was just cool enough.
Finally, Arcade Fire saves us from the hell we were in. The lights go out in the canopy-covered arena, and a symphony swells in the darkness. The crowd goes wild as close to ten men and women break into a beautifully synchronized rythym. By the end of the show, frontman Win Butler was throwing light pillars into the audience, his brother was beating on anything he could find and screaming choruses through a megaphone into the night sky. Regine Chassagne stumbled drunk around the stage, playing every instrument she came across for two minutes before getting bored and going to the next.
Amidst the chaos, not a beat was missed. One could say the same of Butler's sense of absurdity. While commenting on how "people down here have to wait for Entertainment Weekly to hear current events," he also mentioned the band's sole promise to the Greek's management.
After explaining how the Greek Theatre nearly burned to the ground, Butler proclaimed that he would not "say anything bad like... BURN THIS MOTHER DOWN!"
All in all, The Arcade Fire took a good day and made it the best concert I've attended. If you ever want a guaranteed good time, grab a copy of Funeral and Neon Bible, and go see the Arcade Fire prepared to sing along to some of the most underrated music of our time.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Best concert ever?
A fake New York City, two pianos and a bunch of drunken people.
What sounds like a really horrible date, ended up being one of my favorite concerts of all time. Sure I have been to a few real concerts. I saw the Gin Blossoms and R.E.M. (great show) in Devore and Weezer and Dashboard Confessional in Irvine (Weezer was beyond great). But this experience was just... different.
Back in April I took a long needed vacation to Las Vegas and I was looking for something to do (I don’t gamble and can’t afford to see a show there... $100 for Blue Man Group? I think not.). I had heard about this place at the New York New York Hotel that was supposed to be pretty cool and free. They call it the “Dueling Pianos.”
Yeah, I didn’t out too much faith into it either. As I was walking in the direction of the bar the concert was located I heard the opening bars of Def Leppard’s “Pour Some Sugar on me” and it sounded just off the CD quality. As I get closer I realize that the music is not coming from a CD player, rather just two pianos.
That’s right. Two guys playing two pianos were playing (and singing) “Pour Some Sugar on me” almost perfectly. The bar was packed with tons of people singing along. The great thing about the bar was that it was an open air one, so even standing outside of it you can hear and see everything just as you could inside.
I sat town at a table right outside and there I stayed for almost two hours. These two piano players would take ANY request, no matter how odd. They even played the Norte Dame Football fight song.
My personal favorite was the almost dead on version of Bon Jovi’s “Living on a Prayer,” which had every person within a 50 foot radius singing along.
Most great concerts are a one time thing. This one can be seen all the time in Vegas.
What sounds like a really horrible date, ended up being one of my favorite concerts of all time. Sure I have been to a few real concerts. I saw the Gin Blossoms and R.E.M. (great show) in Devore and Weezer and Dashboard Confessional in Irvine (Weezer was beyond great). But this experience was just... different.
Back in April I took a long needed vacation to Las Vegas and I was looking for something to do (I don’t gamble and can’t afford to see a show there... $100 for Blue Man Group? I think not.). I had heard about this place at the New York New York Hotel that was supposed to be pretty cool and free. They call it the “Dueling Pianos.”
Yeah, I didn’t out too much faith into it either. As I was walking in the direction of the bar the concert was located I heard the opening bars of Def Leppard’s “Pour Some Sugar on me” and it sounded just off the CD quality. As I get closer I realize that the music is not coming from a CD player, rather just two pianos.
That’s right. Two guys playing two pianos were playing (and singing) “Pour Some Sugar on me” almost perfectly. The bar was packed with tons of people singing along. The great thing about the bar was that it was an open air one, so even standing outside of it you can hear and see everything just as you could inside.
I sat town at a table right outside and there I stayed for almost two hours. These two piano players would take ANY request, no matter how odd. They even played the Norte Dame Football fight song.
My personal favorite was the almost dead on version of Bon Jovi’s “Living on a Prayer,” which had every person within a 50 foot radius singing along.
Most great concerts are a one time thing. This one can be seen all the time in Vegas.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
There's Something About Uwe...
As evidenced by Tim’s segue, when you’re talking about the most horrendous directors in contemporary cinema, it is impossible not to mention Uwe Boll. The German filmmaker has made a career out of making god-awful video game adaptations (a term that nowadays seems redundant anyway), and isn’t showing any signs of slowing down.
My first unfortunate experience with Mr. Boll was 2003’s "House of the Dead." As I’ve said before, I’ve seen some crappy movies, and even liked some of them, but I’ve never been so irritated, never felt so bombarded with silliness as I did when watching this film. From the nauseating fight scenes that scream "Hey look! We can do those cool ‘Matrix’ tricks, too!" to the barely stitched-together plot, it’s the only movie I can think of that actually angers me just with its existence.
He’s continued this trend with other video-game adaptations like 2005’s "Alone in the Dark" and 2006’s "Bloodrayne," a tragic film in that it featured actors like Sir Ben Kingsley ("Gandhi"), Michael Madsen ("Reservoir Dogs"), Billy Zane ("Titanic"), and, of course, Meat Loaf. It’s no surprise that this triad of gut-wrenchingly bad cinema has dug itself a permanent niche on the IMDb Bottom 100 Movies list.
But, see, it’s not only his films that make Boll a horrible director. He’s also made it painfully obvious (no pun intended) that he’s not quite the best at taking criticism, as in 2006, he challenged his most vocal of internet critics to fight him. Literally.
In addition to calling several of his critics "retards," the former boxer staged an event that saw him compete in actual boxing matches with five of his harshest critics, an event affectionately known as "Raging Boll." The bigger, more experienced Boll won all of his matches, setting his little German heart at ease, knowing he can beat the crap out of his internet critics. But fight or no fight, there’s no question that you’d be hard-pressed to find a worse director in the industry today than Uwe Boll.
My first unfortunate experience with Mr. Boll was 2003’s "House of the Dead." As I’ve said before, I’ve seen some crappy movies, and even liked some of them, but I’ve never been so irritated, never felt so bombarded with silliness as I did when watching this film. From the nauseating fight scenes that scream "Hey look! We can do those cool ‘Matrix’ tricks, too!" to the barely stitched-together plot, it’s the only movie I can think of that actually angers me just with its existence.
He’s continued this trend with other video-game adaptations like 2005’s "Alone in the Dark" and 2006’s "Bloodrayne," a tragic film in that it featured actors like Sir Ben Kingsley ("Gandhi"), Michael Madsen ("Reservoir Dogs"), Billy Zane ("Titanic"), and, of course, Meat Loaf. It’s no surprise that this triad of gut-wrenchingly bad cinema has dug itself a permanent niche on the IMDb Bottom 100 Movies list.
But, see, it’s not only his films that make Boll a horrible director. He’s also made it painfully obvious (no pun intended) that he’s not quite the best at taking criticism, as in 2006, he challenged his most vocal of internet critics to fight him. Literally.
In addition to calling several of his critics "retards," the former boxer staged an event that saw him compete in actual boxing matches with five of his harshest critics, an event affectionately known as "Raging Boll." The bigger, more experienced Boll won all of his matches, setting his little German heart at ease, knowing he can beat the crap out of his internet critics. But fight or no fight, there’s no question that you’d be hard-pressed to find a worse director in the industry today than Uwe Boll.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Worst director ever or unlucky?
“Batman and Robin” may be one of the worst movies ever made.
That is a bold statement, but I know I am not alone in thinking that.
And who should take the blame for it being a horrible movie? The director of course and his name is Joel Schumacher. From the over the top cartoony look of the film, the “makes my brain bleed” one-liners and the “what where they thinking?” costumes including the now infamous nipples on the bat-suit.
The entire film was a giant disaster and it bombed at the box office, effectively stopping any further Batman films for another ten years. I may have even cried leaving the theater...
I remember reading an issue of Entertainment Weekly when the Brad Pitt movie “The Mexican” was coming out and they interviewed the cast, including Julia Roberts and James Gandolfini. The reporter asked each actor which was the film they did that they disliked the most. Both Roberts and Gandolfini picked Schumacher films, “Dying Young” and “8MM.”
Schumacher has also directed such “memorable” films as “D.C. Cab,” “Bad Company” and “The Incredible Shrinking Woman.”
Note: None of those films won Academy Awards...
So just by looking at the films already mentioned you would think “This guy is the worst director ever?” But, his other films tell a different story.
I think that “Batman and Robin” is one of the worst movies ever made, but to the shock of everyone one of my favorite movies of all time, “A Time to Kill” is also a Schumacher film.
And that is not his only good film. I also liked “Phone Booth,” “The Lost Boys,” “Flatliners” and “Falling Down.”
Hell, he even directed “St. Elmo’s Fire!”
So what does that say? We know he CAN make good films, but the evidence is also there that when he fails to hit the mark, he really misses. It is the inconsistency that gets me. At least Uwe Boll is consistent enough to make all of his films horrible... I even think that is his gimmick now.
http://imdb.com/name/nm0001708/
That is a bold statement, but I know I am not alone in thinking that.
And who should take the blame for it being a horrible movie? The director of course and his name is Joel Schumacher. From the over the top cartoony look of the film, the “makes my brain bleed” one-liners and the “what where they thinking?” costumes including the now infamous nipples on the bat-suit.
The entire film was a giant disaster and it bombed at the box office, effectively stopping any further Batman films for another ten years. I may have even cried leaving the theater...
I remember reading an issue of Entertainment Weekly when the Brad Pitt movie “The Mexican” was coming out and they interviewed the cast, including Julia Roberts and James Gandolfini. The reporter asked each actor which was the film they did that they disliked the most. Both Roberts and Gandolfini picked Schumacher films, “Dying Young” and “8MM.”
Schumacher has also directed such “memorable” films as “D.C. Cab,” “Bad Company” and “The Incredible Shrinking Woman.”
Note: None of those films won Academy Awards...
So just by looking at the films already mentioned you would think “This guy is the worst director ever?” But, his other films tell a different story.
I think that “Batman and Robin” is one of the worst movies ever made, but to the shock of everyone one of my favorite movies of all time, “A Time to Kill” is also a Schumacher film.
And that is not his only good film. I also liked “Phone Booth,” “The Lost Boys,” “Flatliners” and “Falling Down.”
Hell, he even directed “St. Elmo’s Fire!”
So what does that say? We know he CAN make good films, but the evidence is also there that when he fails to hit the mark, he really misses. It is the inconsistency that gets me. At least Uwe Boll is consistent enough to make all of his films horrible... I even think that is his gimmick now.
http://imdb.com/name/nm0001708/
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The wasteland of summer television
This series of posts was originally intended to be "The best thing on TV", but with it being summer and not a lot on it changed into the worst thing on TV.
And boy is there ever a flood of worthy candidates.
One could argue that "Pirate Master" with it's horrible, misleading editing is the worst show on right now.
Or "American Inventor" where they show people talking about their hopes and dreams, spending thousands of dollars on an invention... only to have the "judges" laugh them out of the room.
But there is one show that is so pretentious that it makes my brain hurt and that's why it has earned the title of "Worst thing on television" for me.
That show is "Throwdown with Bobby Flay" on the Food Network. Yes, that Flay, who is a "celebrity" chef with a few different TV shows, books etc.
The idea behind the show is that Flay is given a mission to compete against some of the countries top chefs (in their area of expertise). Sometimes he has no idea how to cook a wedding cake or make a wonderful doughnut, so he gets help creating recipes and a plan before he goes to "throwdown" with the other chef.
Speaking of the other chef, they have no idea they are about to "throwdown" with Flay. The Food Network lies to these people saying they are getting a show/segment on the network to showcase themselves or their food. Flay then "interrupts" the filming to challenge them.
Now, granted I do not like Flay. I haven't liked him because the network had him challenge Iron Chef Morimoto years ago and he whined like a child and was disrespectful.
This show is only on to boost the already huge ego that Flay has. I don't like when reality shows lie to people and push people to think they are better than others.
This show is the poster child for what is wrong with reality shows today.
And boy is there ever a flood of worthy candidates.
One could argue that "Pirate Master" with it's horrible, misleading editing is the worst show on right now.
Or "American Inventor" where they show people talking about their hopes and dreams, spending thousands of dollars on an invention... only to have the "judges" laugh them out of the room.
But there is one show that is so pretentious that it makes my brain hurt and that's why it has earned the title of "Worst thing on television" for me.
That show is "Throwdown with Bobby Flay" on the Food Network. Yes, that Flay, who is a "celebrity" chef with a few different TV shows, books etc.
The idea behind the show is that Flay is given a mission to compete against some of the countries top chefs (in their area of expertise). Sometimes he has no idea how to cook a wedding cake or make a wonderful doughnut, so he gets help creating recipes and a plan before he goes to "throwdown" with the other chef.
Speaking of the other chef, they have no idea they are about to "throwdown" with Flay. The Food Network lies to these people saying they are getting a show/segment on the network to showcase themselves or their food. Flay then "interrupts" the filming to challenge them.
Now, granted I do not like Flay. I haven't liked him because the network had him challenge Iron Chef Morimoto years ago and he whined like a child and was disrespectful.
This show is only on to boost the already huge ego that Flay has. I don't like when reality shows lie to people and push people to think they are better than others.
This show is the poster child for what is wrong with reality shows today.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Doctor Johnson, Stale Jokes Calling!
If you ever needed inspiration to read more, just turn on the television. It will kill your love for our culture. You can't watch TV for more then an hour without seeing a show or commercial that insults your intellegence. But the mindless banter of overacting MTV excrement called shows is only one side of horrible TV.
There's also a show called "Scrubs", the acclaimed show about doctors trying to find there place. One of my friends is addicted to the show, so i had to see a few episodes. And that's when i realized that even horrible shows can past for the best on TV these days.
Watch one episode of Scrubs and this is what you'll see: dialouge written by people who have no idea how realistic conversations go, characters that haven't been developed in years, and a mediphorical dream sequence every 30 seconds.
Wasn't "Family Guy" deemed a bad show by most critics for their random mediphorical scenes? Why is it Zach Braff (J.D.) gets to play dress up every episode depending on how the writing twist and turns in the form of a plot, yet "Family Guy" has been dodging critics?
The worst part is that, if you watch a second episode of "Scrubs", you'll see the same devices, used the same was,by the same characters who think and act the same way. Some people only watch the show for Zach Braff. "Garden State" fans will practically devour any crap he's in, and trust me, he's only in crap. He's a male Cameron Diaz.
I'm sorry, but anyone who goes on Saturday Night live and writes SEVERAL sketches based around his one popular movie... well, he needs to disappear. Maybe go back to Jersey, take some acting/screenwriting lessons, find som dignity and try to contribute a decent show to us.
"Scrubs" is stale, boring, and a putrid wasteland of mindless PG-13 jokes that a 13-year-old would call stupid.
There's also a show called "Scrubs", the acclaimed show about doctors trying to find there place. One of my friends is addicted to the show, so i had to see a few episodes. And that's when i realized that even horrible shows can past for the best on TV these days.
Watch one episode of Scrubs and this is what you'll see: dialouge written by people who have no idea how realistic conversations go, characters that haven't been developed in years, and a mediphorical dream sequence every 30 seconds.
Wasn't "Family Guy" deemed a bad show by most critics for their random mediphorical scenes? Why is it Zach Braff (J.D.) gets to play dress up every episode depending on how the writing twist and turns in the form of a plot, yet "Family Guy" has been dodging critics?
The worst part is that, if you watch a second episode of "Scrubs", you'll see the same devices, used the same was,by the same characters who think and act the same way. Some people only watch the show for Zach Braff. "Garden State" fans will practically devour any crap he's in, and trust me, he's only in crap. He's a male Cameron Diaz.
I'm sorry, but anyone who goes on Saturday Night live and writes SEVERAL sketches based around his one popular movie... well, he needs to disappear. Maybe go back to Jersey, take some acting/screenwriting lessons, find som dignity and try to contribute a decent show to us.
"Scrubs" is stale, boring, and a putrid wasteland of mindless PG-13 jokes that a 13-year-old would call stupid.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
MTV, VH1: Now With Even Less Music Than Before!
TV these days is in a sad, sordid state of affairs. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot worth watching out there, but for every "Entourage," there's an "I Love New York." For every "Office," there's a "Yo Momma." The funny thing is, all of the worst shows being put on right now air on the major music channels, and wouldn't ya know it? They all have absolutely nothing to do with music! (Hint to MTV and VH1: KNOCK IT OFF!)
This brings me to what I think is the worst TV show on television right now, a program on MTV called "Parental Control." Believe me, I had to rack my brain to think of what was the worst on the network right now, because between mind-numbing shows like "Next" and "Room Raiders," it was a tough, tough choice.
"Parental Control" takes the cake, if for nothing else, just because of how fake it is. Nevermind the lame concept; parents who despise their son/daughter's "boyfriend/girlfriend" send their offspring off on two other dates while they sit and watch with the object of their hostility. As the dates progress, the parents and the "boyfriend/girlfriend" trade oh-so-hilarious quips with all the acting chops of Heather Graham on Quaaludes.
Whether it's real or not, it's a terrible idea for a show. If it's real, it's unnecessarily cruel, forcing obvious wedges into what otherwise might be healthy relationships just because mommy and daddy don't approve. However, watching more than 30 seconds of the show will likely run off any suspicions of legitimacy, as the writing combined with the delivery makes "Pimp My Ride's" Xzibit look like Jack Nicholson.
In the end, both MTV and VH1 need to stick to the music and stop giving the spotlight to people whose 15 minutes passed a LONG time ago. (Andy Milonakis, I'm lookin' at you!) Oh well...at least Fuse has "The Whitest Kids U Know."
This brings me to what I think is the worst TV show on television right now, a program on MTV called "Parental Control." Believe me, I had to rack my brain to think of what was the worst on the network right now, because between mind-numbing shows like "Next" and "Room Raiders," it was a tough, tough choice.
"Parental Control" takes the cake, if for nothing else, just because of how fake it is. Nevermind the lame concept; parents who despise their son/daughter's "boyfriend/girlfriend" send their offspring off on two other dates while they sit and watch with the object of their hostility. As the dates progress, the parents and the "boyfriend/girlfriend" trade oh-so-hilarious quips with all the acting chops of Heather Graham on Quaaludes.
Whether it's real or not, it's a terrible idea for a show. If it's real, it's unnecessarily cruel, forcing obvious wedges into what otherwise might be healthy relationships just because mommy and daddy don't approve. However, watching more than 30 seconds of the show will likely run off any suspicions of legitimacy, as the writing combined with the delivery makes "Pimp My Ride's" Xzibit look like Jack Nicholson.
In the end, both MTV and VH1 need to stick to the music and stop giving the spotlight to people whose 15 minutes passed a LONG time ago. (Andy Milonakis, I'm lookin' at you!) Oh well...at least Fuse has "The Whitest Kids U Know."
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Tim hates going to movie theaters... sometimes
Like everyone else in the world I have had my share of horrible movie experiences, although nothing as bad as Tyler's "300" mob scare (see next post below).
I sat down in front of the computer attempting to think of some horrible experiences and one thing stood out. Most of them were at the Riverside Cinemastar theater... even odder, in the same screening room. Like most theaters, they had a huge screening room with a ton of seats for the big movies that were released and that theater is known for selling out tickets all the time.
The first time was watching "Scary Movie." We got there early (group of 6) and sat in the back row. Then four thug-ish teenagers come in and secure the entire row ahead of us (At least 20-25 seats). Something right then told me it was a bad sign. So two by two they would leave the theater and come back with two more people. They kept repeating the same thing. That's when it donned on me, they were taking the extra two ticket stubs and going outside to hand them off to friends who would then stroll into the theater with a ticket. They must of done that 10 times or so. Of course people that don't pay for movies could care less about watching the film. They were screaming, yelling, fighting, making out etc. the entire film. Since they were of the thug-ish variety, ratting them out could mean them waiting for you outside of the theater... no thanks.
The next time was "X2" when every seat was filled and the projection bulb shattered in the machine (apparently it releases some sort of toxic material)... it took a half an hour to fix. Crazy geeks waiting a half hour? Worse than going to Comic Con.
One of the last times I attempted to see a movie there was the first "Pirates..." It was a Tuesday afternoon so we figured it would be empty... and it was.
Until 15 minutes into the film.
Now we were sitting smack dab in the middle of the theater, in the middle of the row. Perfect seats. So these two teenage girls come strolling in (talking loud of course) and sit directly behind us, like the other 300 seats were filled or something.
They screamed and yelled every time Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom came on the screen... which is a lot. So I gave them the glare, then shushed them, then told them to be quiet. They kept doing it. So I turned around and told them to shut it. They kept doing it. I jumped out of my chair, turned to them and shouted "SHUT THE F-UP!"
They ran out of the theater and left us to try to enjoy the last 5 minutes of the movie.
I sat down in front of the computer attempting to think of some horrible experiences and one thing stood out. Most of them were at the Riverside Cinemastar theater... even odder, in the same screening room. Like most theaters, they had a huge screening room with a ton of seats for the big movies that were released and that theater is known for selling out tickets all the time.
The first time was watching "Scary Movie." We got there early (group of 6) and sat in the back row. Then four thug-ish teenagers come in and secure the entire row ahead of us (At least 20-25 seats). Something right then told me it was a bad sign. So two by two they would leave the theater and come back with two more people. They kept repeating the same thing. That's when it donned on me, they were taking the extra two ticket stubs and going outside to hand them off to friends who would then stroll into the theater with a ticket. They must of done that 10 times or so. Of course people that don't pay for movies could care less about watching the film. They were screaming, yelling, fighting, making out etc. the entire film. Since they were of the thug-ish variety, ratting them out could mean them waiting for you outside of the theater... no thanks.
The next time was "X2" when every seat was filled and the projection bulb shattered in the machine (apparently it releases some sort of toxic material)... it took a half an hour to fix. Crazy geeks waiting a half hour? Worse than going to Comic Con.
One of the last times I attempted to see a movie there was the first "Pirates..." It was a Tuesday afternoon so we figured it would be empty... and it was.
Until 15 minutes into the film.
Now we were sitting smack dab in the middle of the theater, in the middle of the row. Perfect seats. So these two teenage girls come strolling in (talking loud of course) and sit directly behind us, like the other 300 seats were filled or something.
They screamed and yelled every time Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom came on the screen... which is a lot. So I gave them the glare, then shushed them, then told them to be quiet. They kept doing it. So I turned around and told them to shut it. They kept doing it. I jumped out of my chair, turned to them and shouted "SHUT THE F-UP!"
They ran out of the theater and left us to try to enjoy the last 5 minutes of the movie.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
My Worst Movie-Going Experience OR...The Tale of "The '300' Riot"
For all of the good things about a trip to the local cinema, there are just as many headaches and annoyances to put up with. From outrageous prices to crying babies to the guy who finds it absolutely necessary to take his call smack in the middle of an important plot point, there seems to be no end to the inconveniences one faces at the movies. I should know, I work there.
My job as a projectionist affords me countless memorable movie-going experiences, for better or worse. That being said, if I had to think about my worst movie-going experience, I’d have a lengthy list of candidates to choose from, but at the top of that list is an event that has since come to be known to myself and my co-workers as "The ‘300’ Riot."
When major releases come out, like summer blockbusters, theatres usually receive them two nights before the intended release date (Wednesday night, in most cases.) While not exactly a blockbuster, "300" fell into this category, so for quality assurance purposes, it was screened for employees that night. There was also to be a midnight screening open to the public the following night.
The employee screening went flawlessly, except for the fact that an alarm was tripped at the end of the film (this meant that the film was missing a "cue," or a strip of tape placed directly on the film to designate when the auditorium lights as well as the projector motor should go on and off.) So, to remedy this, a co-worker of mine, Brent, went through the film, found the right spot, and added a cue. Problem solved, right? Not exactly.
So, Thursday night rolls around, and it’s time for the midnight screening. My theatre (the University Village Cinemas) isn’t exactly the biggest around, but on this night, we had managed to pack in about 400-500 people into our two biggest auditoriums.
Everything runs smoothly until near the very end of the film; in fact, during the climax of the movie. (For those of you that have seen "300," the "spear-throwing" scene) From what we’ve gathered since then, right around that scene, the lights came up and the film stopped completely, but because the film hadn’t tripped its fail-safe, no alarm sounded. Apparently, one too many cues had been placed on the film, making the projector think the movie was over. Thus, Brent and myself are patiently waiting for the movie to end, not knowing it had stopped altogether.
That is, until we see guests coming directly up to the projection booth and imploring us to rewind the film (for any of you that have asked that at a theatre, it’s not possible.) Now, theatre employees aren’t even allowed into the projection booth without authorization, so it’s definitely not for guests. Wanting to get them out as soon as possible, Brent and I run and restart the film where it left off...not knowing that everyone who had been watching is already out in the lobby complaining, unaware that the movie had restarted.
So, basically, 90% of the crowd (if not more) misses the end of the film, and like I said, it can’t exactly be "rewound." Combine this with the fact that the manager on duty didn’t have the combination to the safe at the time in order to give refunds, and you have the makings of a pretty volatile situation.
What ensues is the closest thing to a riot that I’ve ever been a part of, an event that saw hundreds of grown adults climbing all over arcade games, yanking banners directly off of the walls, and shouting at the top of their lungs. A few hours of Spartan bloodshed had riled up the crowd, as one ponytailed guest took on the role of a pale, oafish Leonidas, commanding the crowd from the balcony he wasn’t even supposed to be on. When he learned that myself and Brent were the projectionists on duty, rather than taking his frustration out on us (the obvious cause of the problem), he shouted "Hey, these are just the guys that run the movies!" Either he didn’t deduce that it was essentially our fault, or simply was too focused on getting his money back at that point.
Guests repeatedly attempt to come up to the projection booth, where there’s quite a bit of expensive equipment, so Brent and I close the door and lock ourselves in. Another projectionist, Joe, who had been off the clock watching the film, nearly got into several fights reclaiming banners and theatre property from angry moviegoers trying to walk away with at least a memento of the night’s events.
It then takes about 30 minutes for the police to arrive and clear out the building. By this time, it was about 3 A.M., and all of us were just glad everyone was gone. This was definitely my worst movie-going experience, a testament to just how childish adults can be when they don’t get their way. So the next time you have to put up with a sobbing child in your theatre, or pay a few bucks extra for your popcorn, just keep in mind...it could be worse. It could be much, much worse.
My job as a projectionist affords me countless memorable movie-going experiences, for better or worse. That being said, if I had to think about my worst movie-going experience, I’d have a lengthy list of candidates to choose from, but at the top of that list is an event that has since come to be known to myself and my co-workers as "The ‘300’ Riot."
When major releases come out, like summer blockbusters, theatres usually receive them two nights before the intended release date (Wednesday night, in most cases.) While not exactly a blockbuster, "300" fell into this category, so for quality assurance purposes, it was screened for employees that night. There was also to be a midnight screening open to the public the following night.
The employee screening went flawlessly, except for the fact that an alarm was tripped at the end of the film (this meant that the film was missing a "cue," or a strip of tape placed directly on the film to designate when the auditorium lights as well as the projector motor should go on and off.) So, to remedy this, a co-worker of mine, Brent, went through the film, found the right spot, and added a cue. Problem solved, right? Not exactly.
So, Thursday night rolls around, and it’s time for the midnight screening. My theatre (the University Village Cinemas) isn’t exactly the biggest around, but on this night, we had managed to pack in about 400-500 people into our two biggest auditoriums.
Everything runs smoothly until near the very end of the film; in fact, during the climax of the movie. (For those of you that have seen "300," the "spear-throwing" scene) From what we’ve gathered since then, right around that scene, the lights came up and the film stopped completely, but because the film hadn’t tripped its fail-safe, no alarm sounded. Apparently, one too many cues had been placed on the film, making the projector think the movie was over. Thus, Brent and myself are patiently waiting for the movie to end, not knowing it had stopped altogether.
That is, until we see guests coming directly up to the projection booth and imploring us to rewind the film (for any of you that have asked that at a theatre, it’s not possible.) Now, theatre employees aren’t even allowed into the projection booth without authorization, so it’s definitely not for guests. Wanting to get them out as soon as possible, Brent and I run and restart the film where it left off...not knowing that everyone who had been watching is already out in the lobby complaining, unaware that the movie had restarted.
So, basically, 90% of the crowd (if not more) misses the end of the film, and like I said, it can’t exactly be "rewound." Combine this with the fact that the manager on duty didn’t have the combination to the safe at the time in order to give refunds, and you have the makings of a pretty volatile situation.
What ensues is the closest thing to a riot that I’ve ever been a part of, an event that saw hundreds of grown adults climbing all over arcade games, yanking banners directly off of the walls, and shouting at the top of their lungs. A few hours of Spartan bloodshed had riled up the crowd, as one ponytailed guest took on the role of a pale, oafish Leonidas, commanding the crowd from the balcony he wasn’t even supposed to be on. When he learned that myself and Brent were the projectionists on duty, rather than taking his frustration out on us (the obvious cause of the problem), he shouted "Hey, these are just the guys that run the movies!" Either he didn’t deduce that it was essentially our fault, or simply was too focused on getting his money back at that point.
Guests repeatedly attempt to come up to the projection booth, where there’s quite a bit of expensive equipment, so Brent and I close the door and lock ourselves in. Another projectionist, Joe, who had been off the clock watching the film, nearly got into several fights reclaiming banners and theatre property from angry moviegoers trying to walk away with at least a memento of the night’s events.
It then takes about 30 minutes for the police to arrive and clear out the building. By this time, it was about 3 A.M., and all of us were just glad everyone was gone. This was definitely my worst movie-going experience, a testament to just how childish adults can be when they don’t get their way. So the next time you have to put up with a sobbing child in your theatre, or pay a few bucks extra for your popcorn, just keep in mind...it could be worse. It could be much, much worse.
Friday, June 8, 2007
These are good movies, really!
I have a confession to make. I like crappy movies.
Well, sometimes.
OK, let me explain...when I see a movie for the first time, I rarely think of it in terms of cinematic quality. You know, "good" good movies, like "The Shawshank Redemption" or "The Godfather." More often than not, I think of movies in terms of what they’re trying to be.
Thus, I end up liking movies like "House of 1000 Corpses" and "Ghost Rider," because they’re not trying to be anything more than good, old-fashioned cheese. And if there’s anything I like, it’s cheese.
That being said, I had to rack my brain in a pretty thorough way before I could come up with some genuinely good underrated movies that were out there.
My first pick is the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes," released just last year. From director Alexandre Aja (whose previous effort, "High Tension"...well, nevermind, that’s a whole other blog altogether), "The Hills Have Eyes" puts a new spin on Wes Craven’s 1977 horror flick that told of "mutants in them thar hills!" This time around, the "eyes" in question are mutated by radioactive fallout.
"The Hills Have Eyes" works on a much more personal level than the majority of horror films do these days. Without spoiling too much, the movie’s scariest moments see family members seeing other family members put through unspeakable horrors by these mutated cannibals. That adds a whole new element to the fear and the terror that works on a much more demented, traumatizing level. This element is what truly sets "The Hills Have Eyes" apart from the barrage of disappointment that has been the horror genre lately.
My second pick is another 2006 film, "A Scanner Darkly." An adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s classic science fiction novel of the same name, "A Scanner Darkly" is shown entirely in rotoscoped animation, giving it the surreal feel of "animated reality."
The film is highlighted by superb performances, the most entertaining of which being displayed by supporting actors Robert Downey, Jr. and Woody Harrelson. Downey, Jr. and Harrelson are the film’s comic relief, playing the parts of Bob Arctor’s (Keanu Reeves) paranoid, drug-addicted friends perfectly.
Following an intriguing, yet cleverly crafted storyline, "A Scanner Darkly" is definitely one of the best (and one of the most underrated) science fiction films to be made in a long, long time.
Well, sometimes.
OK, let me explain...when I see a movie for the first time, I rarely think of it in terms of cinematic quality. You know, "good" good movies, like "The Shawshank Redemption" or "The Godfather." More often than not, I think of movies in terms of what they’re trying to be.
Thus, I end up liking movies like "House of 1000 Corpses" and "Ghost Rider," because they’re not trying to be anything more than good, old-fashioned cheese. And if there’s anything I like, it’s cheese.
That being said, I had to rack my brain in a pretty thorough way before I could come up with some genuinely good underrated movies that were out there.
My first pick is the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes," released just last year. From director Alexandre Aja (whose previous effort, "High Tension"...well, nevermind, that’s a whole other blog altogether), "The Hills Have Eyes" puts a new spin on Wes Craven’s 1977 horror flick that told of "mutants in them thar hills!" This time around, the "eyes" in question are mutated by radioactive fallout.
"The Hills Have Eyes" works on a much more personal level than the majority of horror films do these days. Without spoiling too much, the movie’s scariest moments see family members seeing other family members put through unspeakable horrors by these mutated cannibals. That adds a whole new element to the fear and the terror that works on a much more demented, traumatizing level. This element is what truly sets "The Hills Have Eyes" apart from the barrage of disappointment that has been the horror genre lately.
My second pick is another 2006 film, "A Scanner Darkly." An adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s classic science fiction novel of the same name, "A Scanner Darkly" is shown entirely in rotoscoped animation, giving it the surreal feel of "animated reality."
The film is highlighted by superb performances, the most entertaining of which being displayed by supporting actors Robert Downey, Jr. and Woody Harrelson. Downey, Jr. and Harrelson are the film’s comic relief, playing the parts of Bob Arctor’s (Keanu Reeves) paranoid, drug-addicted friends perfectly.
Following an intriguing, yet cleverly crafted storyline, "A Scanner Darkly" is definitely one of the best (and one of the most underrated) science fiction films to be made in a long, long time.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Dan's two films worth your four bucks that you probably didn't know/think you'd like
So, I had to give this a lot of thought: what are two movies that I find underrated? What are two movies that I think everyone should see that they probably haven't heard of?
One came to mind immediately: "Undercover Brother", a hillarious movie made in 2002 starring Eddie Griffin, Chris Kattan and Dave Chapelle. I'm not a big fan of Kattan, but luckily, you've got Chapelle.
So, right now you're probably thinking "What?! Why?!"
I know. It looks like another bad "black comedy" where it's just a bunch of evil white guys trying to do evil things. And it pretty much is. But black stereotypes are not comletely vacant, as is immediately clear early in the film when Undercover Brother spins out his ride, doing about seven 360s.... without spilling a single drop of his orange soda. If you get past prejudice against this type of movie (and Chris Kattan), then Undercover Brother is a great comedy that is worth watching, just to hear about how Will Smith "raps happy."
My second choice for underrated movies won some acclaim, even an Oscar, but is overlooked but most people. "The Motorcycle Diaries" with Gael Garcia Bernal (pre-"Science of Sleep") portraying the young future-revolutionary leader Che Guevara as he travels with his friend Alberto Granado (played perfectly by Rodrigo De la Serna. Along the way they face heart-shattering obstacles, and end up at a leper colony.
"The Motorcyle Diaries" will be scoffed at by most guys, and even by some females who don't have the attention span to watch a movie that is almost non-fiction, but trust me... it's worth it. I had my doubts when I sat down to watch it, I even stacked Ritz crackers (32, is that a record?) for the first fifteen minutes. But watch this movie, it just might change the way you think about the world.
One came to mind immediately: "Undercover Brother", a hillarious movie made in 2002 starring Eddie Griffin, Chris Kattan and Dave Chapelle. I'm not a big fan of Kattan, but luckily, you've got Chapelle.
So, right now you're probably thinking "What?! Why?!"
I know. It looks like another bad "black comedy" where it's just a bunch of evil white guys trying to do evil things. And it pretty much is. But black stereotypes are not comletely vacant, as is immediately clear early in the film when Undercover Brother spins out his ride, doing about seven 360s.... without spilling a single drop of his orange soda. If you get past prejudice against this type of movie (and Chris Kattan), then Undercover Brother is a great comedy that is worth watching, just to hear about how Will Smith "raps happy."
My second choice for underrated movies won some acclaim, even an Oscar, but is overlooked but most people. "The Motorcycle Diaries" with Gael Garcia Bernal (pre-"Science of Sleep") portraying the young future-revolutionary leader Che Guevara as he travels with his friend Alberto Granado (played perfectly by Rodrigo De la Serna. Along the way they face heart-shattering obstacles, and end up at a leper colony.
"The Motorcyle Diaries" will be scoffed at by most guys, and even by some females who don't have the attention span to watch a movie that is almost non-fiction, but trust me... it's worth it. I had my doubts when I sat down to watch it, I even stacked Ritz crackers (32, is that a record?) for the first fifteen minutes. But watch this movie, it just might change the way you think about the world.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Tim's two best underrated films
It is a known fact like every person is different and they like different things. But when it comes to movies there are some that are universally loved and some that are forgotten or looked over. I am going to write about two of my favorite movies that have been looked over and that maybe you should check out.
My first pick for the most underrated film is the 1998 action flick, “The Negotiator”, starring Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey as hostage negotiators facing off as one is accused of a crime. One of the best things about this movie is the cast, an all-star cast of character actors, which makes this film one huge display of great acting. In addition to Jackson and Spacey other great actors like Ron Rifkin, David Morse, Paul Giamatti, John Spencer and Paul Guilfoyle appear.
The film is directed by F. Gary Gray (“The Italian Job”) and the action is superb. There is a whodunit element to the film, but the audience is given enough clues to slowly figure it out. The film has a rating of 7.2 on IMDB.com and grossed only about $45 million at the box office, not a failure by any means but it deserved better.
The next film is VERY funny.
It is Mike Myers best movie… period.
But, no one saw it.
I do think the title “So I Married an Axe Murderer” sort of turned people off, thinking it was a horror film or something other than a comedy. In the 1993 film, Myers plays Charlie, a beat poet, who is seriously afraid of commitment… even going as far as to break up with a woman for “smelling like soup.” That all changes when he meets a butcher, Harriet, played by Nancy Travis. They get along great and everything seems to be going perfect. Until he starts to think she is an axe murderer.
The film also has Myers playing the role of Charlie’s father, a Scottish butcher, who steals the show. If anyone quotes this movie, they are quoting lines from Charlie’s father. There are a lot of hilarious cameos in the film including Phil Hartman as an Alcatraz guard, Michael Richards as a reporter, Alan Arkin as the police captain and Steven Wright as a pilot.
Also worth noting it the film’s soundtrack, which is amazing. It is very 90s with such bands as the Boo Radleys, Spin Doctors, Toad the Wet Sprocket and even Myers himself performing a beat poem.
Don’t let the name fool you, yes there is an axe murderer in the film, but at it’s core the film is about Charlie’s hilarious relationship paranoia.
"The Negotiator" - http://imdb.com/title/tt0120768/
"So I Married an Axe Murderer" - http://imdb.com/title/tt0108174/
My first pick for the most underrated film is the 1998 action flick, “The Negotiator”, starring Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey as hostage negotiators facing off as one is accused of a crime. One of the best things about this movie is the cast, an all-star cast of character actors, which makes this film one huge display of great acting. In addition to Jackson and Spacey other great actors like Ron Rifkin, David Morse, Paul Giamatti, John Spencer and Paul Guilfoyle appear.
The film is directed by F. Gary Gray (“The Italian Job”) and the action is superb. There is a whodunit element to the film, but the audience is given enough clues to slowly figure it out. The film has a rating of 7.2 on IMDB.com and grossed only about $45 million at the box office, not a failure by any means but it deserved better.
The next film is VERY funny.
It is Mike Myers best movie… period.
But, no one saw it.
I do think the title “So I Married an Axe Murderer” sort of turned people off, thinking it was a horror film or something other than a comedy. In the 1993 film, Myers plays Charlie, a beat poet, who is seriously afraid of commitment… even going as far as to break up with a woman for “smelling like soup.” That all changes when he meets a butcher, Harriet, played by Nancy Travis. They get along great and everything seems to be going perfect. Until he starts to think she is an axe murderer.
The film also has Myers playing the role of Charlie’s father, a Scottish butcher, who steals the show. If anyone quotes this movie, they are quoting lines from Charlie’s father. There are a lot of hilarious cameos in the film including Phil Hartman as an Alcatraz guard, Michael Richards as a reporter, Alan Arkin as the police captain and Steven Wright as a pilot.
Also worth noting it the film’s soundtrack, which is amazing. It is very 90s with such bands as the Boo Radleys, Spin Doctors, Toad the Wet Sprocket and even Myers himself performing a beat poem.
Don’t let the name fool you, yes there is an axe murderer in the film, but at it’s core the film is about Charlie’s hilarious relationship paranoia.
"The Negotiator" - http://imdb.com/title/tt0120768/
"So I Married an Axe Murderer" - http://imdb.com/title/tt0108174/
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
‘On the Lot…’ more like ‘Off my DVR’
I’ll admit it; I do like to watch reality shows. Recently Fox started a new show about directing movies, created by Mark Burnett (“Survivor”) and Steven Spielberg.
With that combo it had hit written all over it.
And it was great… for the first week. The first few episodes we got to meet a few of the directing hopefuls brought to Hollywood to undergo some challenges in order to cut down the number of contestants from 50 to 18.
The first challenge was to pitch a movie with a generic story idea. It was great to see how these people stayed up all night to come up with ideas and how they pitched them. Of course some were horrible, but it still made for great television.
So after a few were cut the next challenge started right away, no rest for the wicked. The directors were spilt into teams of three and told to make a short film in 24 hours. Of course styles and personalities clashed. Some people failed and were cut.
As with the last challenge, the next one started right away. This time they were put in charge of a professional film crew and expected to film a one page of dialogue film in another short amount of time. The episode ended with the directors getting to the sets, so the logical conclusion was that we would see what would happen during the next episode.
My digital cable guide said there was a two hour episode airing Monday at 8 p.m. I tuned in.
I was horrified.
There was a studio audience and it really looked like a poor man’s version of American Idol. Then this lady started talking, who didn’t look anything like the host of the show for the previous episodes.
I had to check the guide again to make sure I was watching the right show.
Then they introduced the prestigious panel of celebrity judges. Gary Marshall who is a great director and legend and Carrie Fisher who was in the “Star Wars” films and has written a bunch of movies. OK, those two are legends. The third judge? Some dude that directed “Disturbia.” Huh wha?
My eyes rolled so fast I thought I was going blind.
So at least I was going to see the 24 directors and how they did on their third challenges. Nope, they went straight to the final 18, only taking a few seconds to overview the challenge. I don’t even know who the six were that were cut. I thought to myself “OK my DVR screwed up again and didn’t record an episode.” I double checked and realized that there was not a “missing episode” there just was no explanation at all.
Then they do straight into another challenge with the audience judging the films and picking a winner, I then took the chance to turn the television off.
With that combo it had hit written all over it.
And it was great… for the first week. The first few episodes we got to meet a few of the directing hopefuls brought to Hollywood to undergo some challenges in order to cut down the number of contestants from 50 to 18.
The first challenge was to pitch a movie with a generic story idea. It was great to see how these people stayed up all night to come up with ideas and how they pitched them. Of course some were horrible, but it still made for great television.
So after a few were cut the next challenge started right away, no rest for the wicked. The directors were spilt into teams of three and told to make a short film in 24 hours. Of course styles and personalities clashed. Some people failed and were cut.
As with the last challenge, the next one started right away. This time they were put in charge of a professional film crew and expected to film a one page of dialogue film in another short amount of time. The episode ended with the directors getting to the sets, so the logical conclusion was that we would see what would happen during the next episode.
My digital cable guide said there was a two hour episode airing Monday at 8 p.m. I tuned in.
I was horrified.
There was a studio audience and it really looked like a poor man’s version of American Idol. Then this lady started talking, who didn’t look anything like the host of the show for the previous episodes.
I had to check the guide again to make sure I was watching the right show.
Then they introduced the prestigious panel of celebrity judges. Gary Marshall who is a great director and legend and Carrie Fisher who was in the “Star Wars” films and has written a bunch of movies. OK, those two are legends. The third judge? Some dude that directed “Disturbia.” Huh wha?
My eyes rolled so fast I thought I was going blind.
So at least I was going to see the 24 directors and how they did on their third challenges. Nope, they went straight to the final 18, only taking a few seconds to overview the challenge. I don’t even know who the six were that were cut. I thought to myself “OK my DVR screwed up again and didn’t record an episode.” I double checked and realized that there was not a “missing episode” there just was no explanation at all.
Then they do straight into another challenge with the audience judging the films and picking a winner, I then took the chance to turn the television off.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Shut it!
I was sitting down in a dark theater enjoying the performances... that is until people started talking, cell phones going off and children being children.
No, this wasn’t an evening showing of “Spiderman 3,” it was the Flute and Bassoon studio recital at Riverside City College on May 10. If people can’t even have the common courtesy of behaving during some free student performances, can we really expect people to do the same during a movie that they pay for?
Granted people talking during a movie and generally misbehaving has been a problem in movie theaters for a very long time, but the cell phone has made it almost unbearable. People not only talk on their phones, but check their email and text message as well. So right when the film is getting to an important part you get this bright light that catches your eyes like a lighthouse shining bright in the fog. Of course it’s just someone looking at a message they just got, probably something to do with how Susie just dumped Jason or something just as life threatening.
I used to see movies on the night they opened after work, but that is like asking to get punched in the face. You know it’s going to hurt, so why do it?
I started to go during the week and try to catch an early show while teenagers are at school and most people are at work. But even my plan b has proven to be a sucker punch of reality.
Avoiding these people is almost unavoidable. I went and saw a 9:15 a.m. showing of “Spiderman 3” thinking “Ah ha! Children will be in school and it will be nice and quiet.”
Wrong. Apparently “Spiderman 3” trumps any kind of learning the children might need. Although, I’m sure they learned how to make a horrible movie. ZING!
Dealing with these people requires a simple four step process; first, is the glare. Just turn around and glare at them. The second step might require another glare with a “ssshh.” If that doesn’t work move on to step three which is a stern “Shut up!” If the annoyances continue then step four is required, but remember that if the person is bigger than you then skip this step, which is saying “Shut the...” and your favorite expletive.
Most times that works, or you get a soda on your head.
The real question is what can be done by the theaters to stop the madness and provide a relaxing environment. There are some theaters that have installed cell phone signal blockers, which is a great idea. Some people complain that would prevent people from hearing about emergencies, but people survived without cell phones in theaters 20 years ago.
There also needs to be a zero tolerance rule. You talk on your phone, you’re out. Your children are running around the theater and screaming during a rated-R movie, see ya.
Asking people to behave during a movie is a waste of time, punishing them sends a message to anyone thinking of replying to that text message again.
No, this wasn’t an evening showing of “Spiderman 3,” it was the Flute and Bassoon studio recital at Riverside City College on May 10. If people can’t even have the common courtesy of behaving during some free student performances, can we really expect people to do the same during a movie that they pay for?
Granted people talking during a movie and generally misbehaving has been a problem in movie theaters for a very long time, but the cell phone has made it almost unbearable. People not only talk on their phones, but check their email and text message as well. So right when the film is getting to an important part you get this bright light that catches your eyes like a lighthouse shining bright in the fog. Of course it’s just someone looking at a message they just got, probably something to do with how Susie just dumped Jason or something just as life threatening.
I used to see movies on the night they opened after work, but that is like asking to get punched in the face. You know it’s going to hurt, so why do it?
I started to go during the week and try to catch an early show while teenagers are at school and most people are at work. But even my plan b has proven to be a sucker punch of reality.
Avoiding these people is almost unavoidable. I went and saw a 9:15 a.m. showing of “Spiderman 3” thinking “Ah ha! Children will be in school and it will be nice and quiet.”
Wrong. Apparently “Spiderman 3” trumps any kind of learning the children might need. Although, I’m sure they learned how to make a horrible movie. ZING!
Dealing with these people requires a simple four step process; first, is the glare. Just turn around and glare at them. The second step might require another glare with a “ssshh.” If that doesn’t work move on to step three which is a stern “Shut up!” If the annoyances continue then step four is required, but remember that if the person is bigger than you then skip this step, which is saying “Shut the...” and your favorite expletive.
Most times that works, or you get a soda on your head.
The real question is what can be done by the theaters to stop the madness and provide a relaxing environment. There are some theaters that have installed cell phone signal blockers, which is a great idea. Some people complain that would prevent people from hearing about emergencies, but people survived without cell phones in theaters 20 years ago.
There also needs to be a zero tolerance rule. You talk on your phone, you’re out. Your children are running around the theater and screaming during a rated-R movie, see ya.
Asking people to behave during a movie is a waste of time, punishing them sends a message to anyone thinking of replying to that text message again.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
All Karnage and Mayhem at Merrit College
A six year old girl broke into tears when EWF pro wrestler Kid Karnage (A.K.A. Viewpoints Inscape editor Tyler Davidson) pushed her out of the way and senselessly beat a cowboy in front of her. That same girl would later cheer his name as he fought for the title.
Kid Karnage delivers a superkick to Ryan Taylor. Photo by Christopher Ullyott.
As Karnage made his way to the ring, he made it clear that he was not there to win fans. Telling cheerers to “shut up” and scaring a six-year-old into tears made this very clear.
It became the mission of the EWF “bad guy” to sway the audience, despite his lack of manners, sportsmanship, and stature.
Karnage, merely 5’7”, showed a great deal of frustration early in his first match as he attempted to take down “Tough” Tony Raze, a gigantic southern man who refused to hit the mat after several impressive kicks by Karnage.
As the crowd backed Raze, feverishly booing Karnage, Raze finally landed a solid pin on Karnage, ending the bout.
This would not, however, be the end of the day for the maniacal underdog. Later in the program, Karnage returned to the ring amidst a slightly warmer crowd as he took on the ultra-Australian Jay Law, whose bark was much stronger than his bite. As Law berated the crowd, Karnage began an impressive display of attacks, using his size to his advantage.
Following a mafia kick (a basic straight kick to the face) and an ensiguri (jumping off of a person’s knee and kicking them in the head), Karnage finally sent Law back to the outback with a quick pin.
By this point, the crowd had turned... everyone except a six-year-old girl. Viewpoints staff members (and Karnage fans) Corrine and Josh changed her tune with an orange sucker and a quarter. In no time at all, the same little girl that was crying as Karnage beat a cowboy turned into one of the biggest fans present at the event.
Kid Karnage celebrates his win by smacking me. Photo by Christopher Ullyott.
Despite the crowd uproariously cheering for Karnage, he lost the last match of the day to Cruiser Weight Champion Ryan Taylor.
But Karnage will live again....
Friday, April 27, 2007
The summer of 'Haven't we seen this before?'
Sequels are a summer norm as much as the big budget blockbuster. So are movies based on material previously seen, like comic books and television shows.
This summer, though, there seems to be an overabundance of sequels storming into theaters. The summer season usually starts with the first big movie to be released, in this case "Spiderman 3," and ends on Labor Day.
Between that time there are 14 sequels being released and six other big films that are based on previously known material.
Now when we think of sequels we usually think of “the second film” and with five direct sequels (“28 Weeks Later,” “Hostel part II,” “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer,” “Evan Almighty,” and “Daddy Day Camp.”) that might seem like a lot, but the motto for this summer season might as well be “Third times the charm” with six films (“Spiderman 3,” “Shrek 3,” “Pirates… 3,” “Ocean’s 13,” “The Bourne Ultimatum,” and “Rush Hour 3.”).
There are even two other films opening that go above two and three; “Live Free or Die Hard” which is the fourth film in the franchise and “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” which is the fifth film.
Just when you think people have run out of original material, there are six films coming out whose original source material has been seen before. “Transformers” was a wildly popular cartoon and movie, “Hairspray” is adapted from the film and musical, “The Simpson’s Movie” is self explanatory, “Underdog” is a live action version of the old cartoon, Rob Zombie's remake of "Halloween" and the Nicole Kidman film “Invasion”? It sounds a lot like the many versions of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” but this time as a political thriller.
Has creativity been forgotten? Since when does taking someone else’s ideas and tweaking them a bit make them original?
The only three films getting a lot of publicity that are completely original this summer are two comedies and an animated film; “Knocked Up,” “I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry” and the Disney/Pixar "Ratatouille."
We know for sure that summer 2008 holds, yet another, Harry Potter film, as well as the Marvel comic film “Iron Man.” Is there a chance for “Rush Hour 4”?
Is it too late to start coming up with some original ideas?
This summer, though, there seems to be an overabundance of sequels storming into theaters. The summer season usually starts with the first big movie to be released, in this case "Spiderman 3," and ends on Labor Day.
Between that time there are 14 sequels being released and six other big films that are based on previously known material.
Now when we think of sequels we usually think of “the second film” and with five direct sequels (“28 Weeks Later,” “Hostel part II,” “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer,” “Evan Almighty,” and “Daddy Day Camp.”) that might seem like a lot, but the motto for this summer season might as well be “Third times the charm” with six films (“Spiderman 3,” “Shrek 3,” “Pirates… 3,” “Ocean’s 13,” “The Bourne Ultimatum,” and “Rush Hour 3.”).
There are even two other films opening that go above two and three; “Live Free or Die Hard” which is the fourth film in the franchise and “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” which is the fifth film.
Just when you think people have run out of original material, there are six films coming out whose original source material has been seen before. “Transformers” was a wildly popular cartoon and movie, “Hairspray” is adapted from the film and musical, “The Simpson’s Movie” is self explanatory, “Underdog” is a live action version of the old cartoon, Rob Zombie's remake of "Halloween" and the Nicole Kidman film “Invasion”? It sounds a lot like the many versions of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” but this time as a political thriller.
Has creativity been forgotten? Since when does taking someone else’s ideas and tweaking them a bit make them original?
The only three films getting a lot of publicity that are completely original this summer are two comedies and an animated film; “Knocked Up,” “I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry” and the Disney/Pixar "Ratatouille."
We know for sure that summer 2008 holds, yet another, Harry Potter film, as well as the Marvel comic film “Iron Man.” Is there a chance for “Rush Hour 4”?
Is it too late to start coming up with some original ideas?
Friday, March 30, 2007
The good, the bad and the “Lost”
In a season where less people are watching and those that are watching complain, “Lost” hit a season (dare I say series) high with the Locke flashback episode only to fall flat on its face one week later with the Nikki and Paulo flashback.
Every week I sit down in front of the television Wednesdays at 10 p.m. and say to myself “If they don’t start answering questions, I am going to stop watching.”
And each time more questions are asked instead and I am proven to be a liar.
The Locke flashback provided the answer to the question of “Why was he in a wheelchair?” even though I could care less about that question. Just like with the revelation of Jack’s tattoos, I don’t really care. Although I must say when we did find out why, it was for sure an “Oh crap!” moment, I almost spilled my chocolate milk. I won’t spoil it, but let’s just say that many people on this show have daddy issues. Which brings us to the only downside to this episode… “The magic box.” Ben told Locke that on the island there is a magic box that could make anything you want appear in it. To “prove” it Ben showed Locke that he made Locke’s father appear.
Either Ben is lying (which is HIGHLY likely) or this is some B.S. If he really had a magic box, why did he have to kidnap Jack to help with his surgery? If I had a magic box that could make anything appear, I would make a world class neurosurgeon appear. Not go to all the trouble that he did to get Jack.
The best part of the episode was the acting lesson provided by Terry Quinn (Locke) and Michael Emmerson (Ben). The words “tour de force” are often overused, but are very appropriate for this episode. If these performances don’t garner some awards, then something is wrong.
Two characters that won’t be garnering any awards or goodwill for that matter are Nikki and Paulo. At the start of the season, these two characters were introduced (but had been on the island the entire time with everyone else.) and there was some backlash. People didn’t like that they were taking up camera time that could have went to someone else. They were not on screen much so I didn’t care.
Well, on different occasions the creators and producers of “Lost” kept insisting that the two would play a big part in the show and that they would “be iconic characters.”
Seems like I am not the only liar now.
This week we were treated to Nikki and Paulo’s flashback. Let’s just say they were not nice people, they killed someone, stole diamonds and played a game of cat and mouse with each other on the island for the diamonds. The show then flashbacked to important times on the show and inserted the characters into them. Think Locke and Boone found the drug plane first? Nope.
In the end, they were both killed and a few people were happy. I was more puzzled as to why they even introduced these characters to begin with.
Following such a strong episode with garbage like this was a bad move, but I’ll still find myself with nothing else to do at 10 p.m.
Every week I sit down in front of the television Wednesdays at 10 p.m. and say to myself “If they don’t start answering questions, I am going to stop watching.”
And each time more questions are asked instead and I am proven to be a liar.
The Locke flashback provided the answer to the question of “Why was he in a wheelchair?” even though I could care less about that question. Just like with the revelation of Jack’s tattoos, I don’t really care. Although I must say when we did find out why, it was for sure an “Oh crap!” moment, I almost spilled my chocolate milk. I won’t spoil it, but let’s just say that many people on this show have daddy issues. Which brings us to the only downside to this episode… “The magic box.” Ben told Locke that on the island there is a magic box that could make anything you want appear in it. To “prove” it Ben showed Locke that he made Locke’s father appear.
Either Ben is lying (which is HIGHLY likely) or this is some B.S. If he really had a magic box, why did he have to kidnap Jack to help with his surgery? If I had a magic box that could make anything appear, I would make a world class neurosurgeon appear. Not go to all the trouble that he did to get Jack.
The best part of the episode was the acting lesson provided by Terry Quinn (Locke) and Michael Emmerson (Ben). The words “tour de force” are often overused, but are very appropriate for this episode. If these performances don’t garner some awards, then something is wrong.
Two characters that won’t be garnering any awards or goodwill for that matter are Nikki and Paulo. At the start of the season, these two characters were introduced (but had been on the island the entire time with everyone else.) and there was some backlash. People didn’t like that they were taking up camera time that could have went to someone else. They were not on screen much so I didn’t care.
Well, on different occasions the creators and producers of “Lost” kept insisting that the two would play a big part in the show and that they would “be iconic characters.”
Seems like I am not the only liar now.
This week we were treated to Nikki and Paulo’s flashback. Let’s just say they were not nice people, they killed someone, stole diamonds and played a game of cat and mouse with each other on the island for the diamonds. The show then flashbacked to important times on the show and inserted the characters into them. Think Locke and Boone found the drug plane first? Nope.
In the end, they were both killed and a few people were happy. I was more puzzled as to why they even introduced these characters to begin with.
Following such a strong episode with garbage like this was a bad move, but I’ll still find myself with nothing else to do at 10 p.m.
Friday, March 9, 2007
RCC's scary "Zodiac" connection
About halfway into the film "Zodiac" the 1966 murder of Cheri Jo Bates at Riverside City College is brought into the story.
It's not everyday that the city you live in is talked about along with one of the most high profile serial killers of all time, let alone the college that you attend. Many people don't know about the connection... or even the murder for that matter.
Seeing "Zodiac" on the day it opened in theaters that fact was made clear by the giggling and outbursts whenever Riverside was mentioned on screen (The Riverside murder makes up roughly 10-15 minutes of this almost three hour long film.)
In the film Paul Avery, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle and played by Robert Downey Jr., drives down to Riverside to meet with a source about another possible Zodiac murder. In Riverside he also meets with the San Francisco police who have come down to find out about the case after Avery leaks the info to the press.
Avery is convinced that the murder of Bates was infact a Zodiac killing, but the police think otherwise and move on.
I knew about the case and RCC's connection because we did a story last semester about the 40th anniversary of Bates' death and watching the film I did smile a bit.
Grusome?
No, I just got a kick about the city I live in and the college that I attend being apart of something like this.
Plus, I was sort of proud of Anthony Whitacre (who wrote the story last semester) and that our newspaper is a part of history, even if it is a bloody history.
It's not everyday that the city you live in is talked about along with one of the most high profile serial killers of all time, let alone the college that you attend. Many people don't know about the connection... or even the murder for that matter.
Seeing "Zodiac" on the day it opened in theaters that fact was made clear by the giggling and outbursts whenever Riverside was mentioned on screen (The Riverside murder makes up roughly 10-15 minutes of this almost three hour long film.)
In the film Paul Avery, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle and played by Robert Downey Jr., drives down to Riverside to meet with a source about another possible Zodiac murder. In Riverside he also meets with the San Francisco police who have come down to find out about the case after Avery leaks the info to the press.
Avery is convinced that the murder of Bates was infact a Zodiac killing, but the police think otherwise and move on.
I knew about the case and RCC's connection because we did a story last semester about the 40th anniversary of Bates' death and watching the film I did smile a bit.
Grusome?
No, I just got a kick about the city I live in and the college that I attend being apart of something like this.
Plus, I was sort of proud of Anthony Whitacre (who wrote the story last semester) and that our newspaper is a part of history, even if it is a bloody history.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Feeling "Lost" when it comes to answering questions
So after years of waiting “Lost” promised to answer some of the biggest questions on the show...
And, despite ABC’s promises, they failed miserably.
The network ran promos promising to answer one of the biggest questions people have been wondering “What is the story with Jack’s tattoos?”
What?
Forget polar bears in a jungle, a guy who can tell the future and a giant smoke monster, we really want to know about some Jack’s tats?
Oh, it gets better.
So it turns out the true meaning of the tattoos are that Jack is a leader.
Yes, the man who has been leading everyone since day one and been in charge is finally revealed as a leader!
Stop the presses!
That is like me going around telling everyone that I have a secret about cookies for 2 and a half years and then revealing that the secret is “Cookies are delicious!”
It is so anti-climatic that I am left stunned as to why this was considered a big deal. I guess promoting the show takes precedent over making sense.
And, despite ABC’s promises, they failed miserably.
The network ran promos promising to answer one of the biggest questions people have been wondering “What is the story with Jack’s tattoos?”
What?
Forget polar bears in a jungle, a guy who can tell the future and a giant smoke monster, we really want to know about some Jack’s tats?
Oh, it gets better.
So it turns out the true meaning of the tattoos are that Jack is a leader.
Yes, the man who has been leading everyone since day one and been in charge is finally revealed as a leader!
Stop the presses!
That is like me going around telling everyone that I have a secret about cookies for 2 and a half years and then revealing that the secret is “Cookies are delicious!”
It is so anti-climatic that I am left stunned as to why this was considered a big deal. I guess promoting the show takes precedent over making sense.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Heroes (OR Why I Am Amazing)
I’m usually not the kind to gloat, but after the untimely demise of Simone this episode, I must say...
I am the infallible genius of Heroes. I’ve been calling the death of Simone for a few weeks now and, much to the dismay of my girlfriend when the love interest of Peter and Isaac took two to the gut, I declared myself ultimate overlord of the future.
When she started talking to me again, I explained that this is what will make the show one thousand better. We needed a good death to bring the show down to the nitty-gritty of comic book storylines. After last episode (the “Claire’s dad” scandal and the absence of Peter), it was necessary to kill off someone that was lending to love-triangle drama. Therefore, Simone had to leave... in a bad, bloody way.
So, hoorah! She’s dead. At least I hope so. There’s always the possibility that she saves herself at the last minute like Peter and Hiro now have. (Prediction 1) Not only did I win five bucks off of Tim Guy, but I’m still the man at predicting this show. I have several bold predictions, but I’ll leave those for the end...
Peter’s back and he's better than ever. If you missed it, allow me to clue you in on the coolest thing to happen in at least five episodes:
Claude has been training Peter to control his powers, and it’s finally paying off. After throwing him off a roof two episodes ago, Peter is slowly throwing out some new powers that he’s picked up, most unusually Sylar’s ability to break stuff and toss people around.
But the crazy part is that, as Peter’s powers grow, he is becoming more and more dark. This led to a crazy-cool revelation by online bloggers concerning Peter's intense 30-story fall two episodes ago, where he lands on a cab car with a picture of a samurai on the ad display and is impaled on a piece of metal.
It’s pretty clear that images like this on Heroes always allude to some future event. In this case, I’m saying that Hiro will eventually become the “samurai”, and Peter will become a sort super-villain. Here’s why:
1. Future-Hiro said that Peter had a scar on his face in the future, and never said that they were on the same side. It’s possible that Hiro gives Peter this scar in the future.
2. The piece of metal that Peter is impaled on looks a lot like the sword Hiro is searching for. If the first prediction is right, then Peter may eventually be taken out by Hiro. (Much to my dismay; if Peter turns evil, I’m rooting for the destruction of the world.)(Predictions 2 and 3)
And one more: Ando will be saying farewell for good very soon. Some members of the show have alluded to a major character death on March 5. How will Hiro learn to be a part of the future team? Well, Ando will have to die as a result of Hiro’s shot at independence. (Prediction 4)
All in all, this episode not only delivered after the crappy one last week, but it’s set us up for all kinds of cool storylines in future episodes.
I am the infallible genius of Heroes. I’ve been calling the death of Simone for a few weeks now and, much to the dismay of my girlfriend when the love interest of Peter and Isaac took two to the gut, I declared myself ultimate overlord of the future.
When she started talking to me again, I explained that this is what will make the show one thousand better. We needed a good death to bring the show down to the nitty-gritty of comic book storylines. After last episode (the “Claire’s dad” scandal and the absence of Peter), it was necessary to kill off someone that was lending to love-triangle drama. Therefore, Simone had to leave... in a bad, bloody way.
So, hoorah! She’s dead. At least I hope so. There’s always the possibility that she saves herself at the last minute like Peter and Hiro now have. (Prediction 1) Not only did I win five bucks off of Tim Guy, but I’m still the man at predicting this show. I have several bold predictions, but I’ll leave those for the end...
Peter’s back and he's better than ever. If you missed it, allow me to clue you in on the coolest thing to happen in at least five episodes:
Claude has been training Peter to control his powers, and it’s finally paying off. After throwing him off a roof two episodes ago, Peter is slowly throwing out some new powers that he’s picked up, most unusually Sylar’s ability to break stuff and toss people around.
But the crazy part is that, as Peter’s powers grow, he is becoming more and more dark. This led to a crazy-cool revelation by online bloggers concerning Peter's intense 30-story fall two episodes ago, where he lands on a cab car with a picture of a samurai on the ad display and is impaled on a piece of metal.
It’s pretty clear that images like this on Heroes always allude to some future event. In this case, I’m saying that Hiro will eventually become the “samurai”, and Peter will become a sort super-villain. Here’s why:
1. Future-Hiro said that Peter had a scar on his face in the future, and never said that they were on the same side. It’s possible that Hiro gives Peter this scar in the future.
2. The piece of metal that Peter is impaled on looks a lot like the sword Hiro is searching for. If the first prediction is right, then Peter may eventually be taken out by Hiro. (Much to my dismay; if Peter turns evil, I’m rooting for the destruction of the world.)(Predictions 2 and 3)
And one more: Ando will be saying farewell for good very soon. Some members of the show have alluded to a major character death on March 5. How will Hiro learn to be a part of the future team? Well, Ando will have to die as a result of Hiro’s shot at independence. (Prediction 4)
All in all, this episode not only delivered after the crappy one last week, but it’s set us up for all kinds of cool storylines in future episodes.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Heroes!
For those of you who don’t know the wonderful world of Heroes, here’s a quick idea: First, imagine The X-Files meets X-Men. Then, throw in a slew of twists and amazing production and you’ve got one of the biggest hit shows on television.
The overall plot is quite simple. People all over the world are starting to realize they have superhuman abilities. One of which is Peter Petrelli, a professional nurse and New York native who feels a like a bit of an outcast as his brother, Nathan, is weeks away from possibly becoming a U.S. Senator.
Episode 15, “Run!”, was kind of a let-down. Don’t get me wrong; there was an awesome shoot-out between two superheroes: Matt Parker, an L.A.-cop-turned-bodyguard who can read minds and Jessica Sanders, the super-strong split personality of Nikki Sanders, an ex-stripper trying to raise her son.
This whole ordeal was the main focus of the episode. Matt tried to save a crooked lawyer from Jessica, who was hired by the mysterious Mr. Linderman to off the same guy. While the plot sounds very strained, this hit me like a great action movie.
Some other sub-plots were equally exciting: the murderous lunatic Sylar accidentally found Mohinder Suresh, the man who has devoted himself to discovering the source of the alleged “evolutionary” anomaly that created the heroes. It was two ends of the hero/villain spectrum meeting up for the first time, and Suresh had no clue who he was speaking too!
But, as I said, there were some big disappointments.
First of all, I’m really worried about the soap opera-like story developing for Claire (the indestructible cheerleader... it’s really fun to describe it that way). So... her mom is some random woman who starts fires... but her dad... is Nathan?! As in, Peter’s brother? Do we have to have a political scandal involved in this? This is not Days of Our Lives! It’s really hard to try to get my friends to watch if I have to say the following:
“Dude, it’s awesome... so Peter is this loner who is learning to use his really powerful gifts from a bitter asshole that’s invisible... and his brother just found out that he had a daughter out of wedlock fourteen years ago, and it could really hurt his chances come Election Day.”
Yeah, doesn’t really come off as exciting, does it?
Speaking of Peter... where the hell was he?! I realize that he’s disappeared, literally, thanks to Claude the invisible man, played by Christopher Eccleston, but we need Peter’s story... I need Peter’s story.
Peter is definitely my favorite character simply because, in a bit of witty irony, Peter discovers that he can mimic other super powers, such as his brother’s ability to fly, and bohemian painter (and heroin addict) Isaac Mendez’s (played surprisingly well by Santiago Cabrera) ability to paint the future. It’s probably the most powerful ability anyone could ever want, and also extremely volatile.
And that’s where Claude comes in to teach Peter to control his power to the point where he can use ANY power just by remembering the people he meets. Oh, and by the way, if Peter doesn’t learn, he goes nuclear and destroys New York... which would suck.
But Peter wasn’t even in this episode! Last we saw, in Episode 14, he fell thirty stories and was impaled on a piece of metal. Then he got up, ripped himself free, and healed himself, renewing my love for the show.
And now he’s gone, and I’m sad.
Episode 16, “Unexpected” is expected to give us the long-awaited death of one of the main heroes. I’m calling it right now... it’s Simone. So let’s all hope that next time, they remember that Hiro may be powerful, but Peter has the best story. And if I don’t see Peter and Claude next episode, I will officially challenge Tim Kring to a cage match.
The overall plot is quite simple. People all over the world are starting to realize they have superhuman abilities. One of which is Peter Petrelli, a professional nurse and New York native who feels a like a bit of an outcast as his brother, Nathan, is weeks away from possibly becoming a U.S. Senator.
Episode 15, “Run!”, was kind of a let-down. Don’t get me wrong; there was an awesome shoot-out between two superheroes: Matt Parker, an L.A.-cop-turned-bodyguard who can read minds and Jessica Sanders, the super-strong split personality of Nikki Sanders, an ex-stripper trying to raise her son.
This whole ordeal was the main focus of the episode. Matt tried to save a crooked lawyer from Jessica, who was hired by the mysterious Mr. Linderman to off the same guy. While the plot sounds very strained, this hit me like a great action movie.
Some other sub-plots were equally exciting: the murderous lunatic Sylar accidentally found Mohinder Suresh, the man who has devoted himself to discovering the source of the alleged “evolutionary” anomaly that created the heroes. It was two ends of the hero/villain spectrum meeting up for the first time, and Suresh had no clue who he was speaking too!
But, as I said, there were some big disappointments.
First of all, I’m really worried about the soap opera-like story developing for Claire (the indestructible cheerleader... it’s really fun to describe it that way). So... her mom is some random woman who starts fires... but her dad... is Nathan?! As in, Peter’s brother? Do we have to have a political scandal involved in this? This is not Days of Our Lives! It’s really hard to try to get my friends to watch if I have to say the following:
“Dude, it’s awesome... so Peter is this loner who is learning to use his really powerful gifts from a bitter asshole that’s invisible... and his brother just found out that he had a daughter out of wedlock fourteen years ago, and it could really hurt his chances come Election Day.”
Yeah, doesn’t really come off as exciting, does it?
Speaking of Peter... where the hell was he?! I realize that he’s disappeared, literally, thanks to Claude the invisible man, played by Christopher Eccleston, but we need Peter’s story... I need Peter’s story.
Peter is definitely my favorite character simply because, in a bit of witty irony, Peter discovers that he can mimic other super powers, such as his brother’s ability to fly, and bohemian painter (and heroin addict) Isaac Mendez’s (played surprisingly well by Santiago Cabrera) ability to paint the future. It’s probably the most powerful ability anyone could ever want, and also extremely volatile.
And that’s where Claude comes in to teach Peter to control his power to the point where he can use ANY power just by remembering the people he meets. Oh, and by the way, if Peter doesn’t learn, he goes nuclear and destroys New York... which would suck.
But Peter wasn’t even in this episode! Last we saw, in Episode 14, he fell thirty stories and was impaled on a piece of metal. Then he got up, ripped himself free, and healed himself, renewing my love for the show.
And now he’s gone, and I’m sad.
Episode 16, “Unexpected” is expected to give us the long-awaited death of one of the main heroes. I’m calling it right now... it’s Simone. So let’s all hope that next time, they remember that Hiro may be powerful, but Peter has the best story. And if I don’t see Peter and Claude next episode, I will officially challenge Tim Kring to a cage match.
Friday, February 9, 2007
A review of 'The Queen' review
I have a confession to make.
I really didn’t want to see “The Queen” and write a review of it for our Oscar special. I did everything I could to try to avoid doing it. I even tried to subtly manipulate others into doing it.
It’s not that I have anything against the movie or the people involved, the movie was great and I did enjoy it. It’s just that I equate the death of Princess Diana with something horrible that happened in my life and reminders of that subject bring up bad memories.
Crazy, eh?
In the days leading up to Diana’s car accident my mother was in the hospital after having a heart attack. The doctors told us that she had congestive heart failure. At the time it didn’t look good and I was very depressed. The day of Diana’s accident, my friends decided to take me out for the night as a well needed distraction. I felt horrible and a little guilty for having fun while my mother was in a hospital bed, but I was going stir crazy sitting at home.
I remember it was late when I got home. My sister’s room was right next to the front door and as I walked in I heard the scariest words I have ever heard to this day.
“She died,” my sister said.
I had completely forgotten about Diana that night and thought she was talking about my mother. I really can’t explain with the proper words how I felt that exact second those words were uttered. When I used to hear people talking about having a broken heart I would roll my eyes, but that is the best way to explain how I felt that moment. It really felt like my heart broke and I couldn’t move at all. I wouldn’t say I was stunned, but I just didn’t know what to do.
I don’t remember how I figured out it was Diana and not my mother. I do remember not watching any news coverage about the death, funeral etc. So seeing “The Queen” was like seeing the news coverage for the first time.
I did enjoy the film, but I am also reminded how I felt for those few seconds almost 10 years ago.
http://media.www.viewpointsonline.org/media/storage/paper753/news/2007/02/12/Inscape/Oscar.Preview.the.Queen-2710162.shtml
I really didn’t want to see “The Queen” and write a review of it for our Oscar special. I did everything I could to try to avoid doing it. I even tried to subtly manipulate others into doing it.
It’s not that I have anything against the movie or the people involved, the movie was great and I did enjoy it. It’s just that I equate the death of Princess Diana with something horrible that happened in my life and reminders of that subject bring up bad memories.
Crazy, eh?
In the days leading up to Diana’s car accident my mother was in the hospital after having a heart attack. The doctors told us that she had congestive heart failure. At the time it didn’t look good and I was very depressed. The day of Diana’s accident, my friends decided to take me out for the night as a well needed distraction. I felt horrible and a little guilty for having fun while my mother was in a hospital bed, but I was going stir crazy sitting at home.
I remember it was late when I got home. My sister’s room was right next to the front door and as I walked in I heard the scariest words I have ever heard to this day.
“She died,” my sister said.
I had completely forgotten about Diana that night and thought she was talking about my mother. I really can’t explain with the proper words how I felt that exact second those words were uttered. When I used to hear people talking about having a broken heart I would roll my eyes, but that is the best way to explain how I felt that moment. It really felt like my heart broke and I couldn’t move at all. I wouldn’t say I was stunned, but I just didn’t know what to do.
I don’t remember how I figured out it was Diana and not my mother. I do remember not watching any news coverage about the death, funeral etc. So seeing “The Queen” was like seeing the news coverage for the first time.
I did enjoy the film, but I am also reminded how I felt for those few seconds almost 10 years ago.
http://media.www.viewpointsonline.org/media/storage/paper753/news/2007/02/12/Inscape/Oscar.Preview.the.Queen-2710162.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)