8 Year Old Explains "The Expendables"

Via College Humor:

 

Review: Exit Through the Gift Shop

Exit Through the Gift Shop is a film by Banksy, who is arguably the best known visual artist of our time. It presents the story of Thierry Guetta a French born Los Angeleno business owner who became obsessed with documenting every aspect of his life with a camcorder. Through a twist of fate he became the unofficial documentarian of the street art movement, and eventually Banksy. The documentary he produced with his material was unwatchable, prompting Banksy himself to take over and make the film we are now talking about with it, in the process changing the focus to Thierry himself. The film is in a way it's own making of documentary. It does this, and much bolder things without being anything but an immensely watchable film, with a well told story.

I feel that many of the reviews of Exit Through the Gift Shop Have focused on the question of whether it was a documentary, or a mocumentary or something else entirely. I have my own feelings about the validity of the film, but I won't go into that here except to say that it doesn't really matter. The story is so well told, and the finer points of what it is trying to say are just as powerful if it is entirely true, entirely fabricated, or somewhere in between. I left the theatre feeling that I needed to know if the story was true right away, but I think I would be happy if I never knew for sure.

This is the first film by Banksy, and who knows if he will ever make another, but he certainly arrived to the world of filmmaking with a voice as unique and indelible as the one he established in the visual arts. He takes on the issues plaguing the art world (namely commercialism, commodification, and stupid people) in an incredibly funny honest way, which is made all the better if it turns out he is telling lies the whole time. I feel like this film would go well with F for Fake by Orson Welles, which is high praise I don't think I'll regret giving (also everyone should go rent F for Fake, it's amazing).

Bottom Line: Like all of Banksy's art this film is incredibly original and layered, while being populist in that it is easily digested and understood. It gives you a lot to think about without trying to be smarter than you, a film that is intelligent and opens it's doors to the world and says 'come on in, we've got some things to laugh about'. I can't wait to see what Banksy comes up with for his Oscar acceptance speech.

Making of the Exorcist

Got the heads up for this from Ryan Connolly (Triune Films) and thought I'd share. Great info on some of the techniques they used while making a little piece of film history.

Review - The Expendables

So here it is, in a summer of Hollywood drought, we what seems to be a shimmering oasis of goodness. Since the first word slipped through of who was rumored to be in this movie, I have been waiting impatiently to see if this shit fest would really be worth of my $11.

Good news: It is. Go see it right now.

I can't spoil the plot, it's the same tired mess that Stallone has been in love with forever. Have you seen Rambo (the 4th movie)? If you have you essentially know what's happening in this movie. Mercenaries need to go into some 3rd world country where an evil dictator is trying to rule the people with a iron fist, and overthrow their tyrannical rule. Even though their are seemingly thousands of armed military personnel standing between them and their goal, these ragtag soldiers make their way through the shit-storm that awaits.

As you might expect, where this movie really shines is the action. People are torn in half, necks are broken through some very creative means, and explosions - they happen. I seriously can't overstate this enough: The Expendables is the only action movie this summer, and if anyone tries to disagree with me on this, they haven't seen this movie.

No bullshit, no 3D, no fucking love story soiling the whole thing. Old veteran action stars shooting the fuck out of bad guys, and doing it with style. You can say Stallone isn't really doing anything new here and you'd be right, but it doesn't matter; he's showing us that you don't need fancy gadgets, deep plot, or pretty faces to sell an action film... all you need is action.

When it comes to The Expendables, I paid for my whole seat, but I only used the edge.

Morgan and Destiny’s Eleventeeth Date

Has everyone already seen Joseph Gordon Levitt's series of shorts? I had not, so if you have not, go HERE and check them out.

The link I posted will bring you directly to one of the videos, to see more just go to the bottom of the page.

Boardwalk Empire

Everyone knows its not TV its HBO, especially because most of us only get it on DVD. Continuing the remarkable string of shows that should be too big for television this fall HBO will launch the new series Boardwalk Empire. Even though the premise of Atlantic City during prohibition is very enticing, the reason I am so excited for this one has to do with the talent involved. The cast includes Steve Buscemi, Michael Pitt, and Michael Shannon. However, the two main creative forces behind it are; Terence Winter of The Sopranos fame, and the legendary Martin Scorsese. I can barely wait the two years until the DVD is released and I finally get to see this.

.

Review: Winter's Bone

Quentin Tarantino has been talking lately of his plans to make a western of sorts set in the south; a 'southern' if you will. The idea being simple enough, take the most American of genres, and change the corner of America in which it is set in order to update it. He may have been beat to the punch this year with Debra Granik's Winter's Bone, which takes a western framework, and transposes it to the Ozark mountains. We are given the story of a seventeen year old girl, Ree (Jennifer Lawrence), who is raising her younger siblings, and taking care of her mentally ill mother in extreme poverty. She is forced to do this because her crystal meth producing father is missing. When she finds out that he skipped out on bail after putting the family home and property up for collateral she is forced to scour the seediest parts of the Ozark mountains, and butt heads with some of it's outlaws in order to find him and save the family from a more uncertain future than already awaits them.

To be clear this film is not an exercise in genre manipulation, but is a taut character based thriller. However there is something to be said about it as a successful modern western in a few areas. Perhaps the most intriguing being the use of landscape and the back country setting as a remaining American frontier. The mountains provide an epic backdrop for the actions of the character to unfold in the foreground, and there is always the feeling that American 'civilization' has either never quite penetrated, or has only ever brushed passed. One of the first images of the film is of children playing outdoors with a skateboard, trying to use it as best they can on their dirt yard. There is also the separation of people in a country this big that creates tension, a scene of a neighbor who's intentions are unclear yelling at the children, and threatening them becomes more than a disturbance when there are no other people nearby to have their attention drawn. In a situation like that there are only the characters present, and whatever conclusion the situation comes to it has to come from them alone. This creates incredible real world intensity, seemingly without even trying.

The film depicts the culture of the Ozarks in a very specific way. Having no knowledge of these communities I can not say if it is depicted well or not, but I can say that it feels real, and from my experience makes sense to the way people in small communities deal with one another. There is an almost unspoken code in how they deal with one another, and the politics of this code inform the interactions to a large degree. I say almost unspoken because there are scenes of Ree explaining some of these life principles to the younger siblings; "never ask for what ought to be offered" she says sternly, and later as if on cue things are offered to them. Much of this culture has to do with family loyalty, and peoples place in the pecking order. As a teenage girl Ree is asking for trouble by attempting to fight against her circumstance and being impertinent in order to ensure the protection of dearer values.

Because of the value placed on family and the strength of these connections, the scariest character in the film ends up being on Ree's side against his better judgement. This is her uncle Teardrop, played with remarkable skill by John Hawkes. His first line of the film is spoken coolly, and quietly but struck like a hammer, setting the tone of his character from there on. Having seen him play only demure awkward characters this was a change of pace, and a welcome one. I think this performance is easily one of the best of the year, and I hope it means we will be seeing more of Hawkes. However nearly all the performances are very good, especially Jennifer Lawrence who anchors the film with her noble, but steely performance.

This is the first film of Debra Granik that I have seen, but I feel like I should take a look at her previous film now, and can't wait to see what she has to offer next. The story moved at a pace that was at once tense, but slow reflecting the type of life the film attempts to show. There was an element of mystery, and a ticking clock device in the film, but it never for a second felt like a Hollywood thriller. These devices were used to show character in a decisive way, not used as ends in themselves. The tone was bleak and never offers any real sense that one can escape the desperate circumstances. However it is an effective thriller, and we don't go to thrillers to feel good about ourselves, that is just stupid.

Bottom line: A tense, bleak thriller that can cross over into horror movie territory, and looks unblinkingly at extreme poverty and degrees of child abuse. Having said that There aren't many films released this year that can stand in the same league as Winter's Bone, and it was a sincere treat to walk into the theatre in the middle of the worst crop of summer movies I can think of and see a great film, the type that doesn't reach the cineplexes until award season. If you can deal with a film that takes a long harsh look at a difficult world you could hardly do better this year. Go buy tickets because I want more movies like this to be made.

Film Dicks Podcast #1 - Salt

For anyone who's too lazy to read our words, now you can get some of our reviewing prowess in audio form by clicking here.

This is only until we can find a more suitable way of integrating this kind of thing into the website.

World War Z with Brad Pitt?

From Slash Film:

The film adaptation of World War Z has had a drawn out development history, but even still, it always looked like it would eventually happen.

Now, breaking news from San Diego Comic-Con further supports the idea that we’ll soon see this movie in theaters. MTV has just reported from the show floor of Comic-Con that World War Z is officially moving forward with Brad Pitt attached to star. The news comes from World War Z author Max Brooks, who says that the film is currently slated for a summer 2012 release. Marc Forster is still supposed to direct.

This is mostly interesting to me because this movie is so damn late to the show. We've already seen the zombie craze fly and die last year, and everybody and their dog is making a vampire movie (Still trying to keep up with Twilight's success). I'm not sure how well it's going to it with major audiences after the market has been so flooded, so recently with zombie flicks.

On the other hand, Brad Pitt is in it, which means I'll still see it in the theater.

Serbian Film Trailer

To be honest, the Human Centipede was a huge disappointment for me. I was expecting to walk away from the movie more disgusted and appalled, not saddened that the creators didn't have the gusto to follow through with a great premise. As far as shocking films go, however, this one looks like it may take the cake:

INCREDIBLY NSFW





Trailer via Trailer Addict

3D Movies: Won't you all Die Already?

It's always been fun for me sitting down and enjoying the trailer roll before a feature film. In many cases it's my first glimpse into a lot of B-list (usually closer to A-list, just not AAA graded) movies that will be coming out in the next few months to a year. Lately though, there have been an increasing number of ads for 3D movies running before even non-3D movies. This is difficult for me to understand, as I'm not interested in seeing a 3D movie in the first place and that's why I'm not seeing one now, so why are you pelting me with 3D ads? As an example: while I'm excited to see the Avengers, if it was hitting the reels in 3D only I would sit it out. I sometimes wonder if we're ever going to get over the long string of 3D movies that are on their way and then I read quotes like this one, from an MTV interview with Wally Pfister, Chris Nolan's Cinematographer:

I must say I’m a huge IMAX fan. I like IMAX more than I like 3-D…Chris’ films are so densely layered and have so much going on visually in every way that IMAX helps enhance that because of the scope and the scale of it — it becomes a much larger canvas to paint on. That’s what we found on ‘Dark Knight’…I’m not a big fan of 3-D…I liken it to my View-Master I had 40 years ago. Are you really getting more out of the story with 3-D? When you separate those different planes and you’re creating artificial depth, it looks phony to me.

Is there a time when Back to the Future ISN'T relevant?

So the man behind The Dark Knight and Inception, two of the highest grossing and critically acclaimed films (not to mention from a mainstream director with some serious chops) is saying that 3-D is a childish gimmick? Shit yes.

Listen, 3D movies have their place. We don't need to have every summer blockbuster coming out in 3D for the next 10 years. What happens when you give uncreative people a crutch like 3D to sell their movie on, is you get a bad movie that hundreds of thousands of people pay for because it says “3D” in the title. Jump to 2 years later, and this uncreative director is shooting a bigger budget movie with even more useless special effects and even less story. Not a pretty sight.

Danny Elfman's Batman Begins

ONE SHALL FALL

Ever wonder what one of our more modern Batman franchise moves would sound like with Hans Zimmer replaced by Danny Elfman? While it doesn't totally chance the tone of the following scene, it certainly gives you the sense of the lighter mood from Burton's Batman compared to Nolan's Batman Begins.

Unfortunately due to Warner's hold over Youtube rights, you'll need to click the link below to watch this video.

On the Horizon

Tree Of Life

I have been keeping abreast of new information on this film for a few years now, and I still have no real idea what it is going to be. It is the latest effort from director Terrence Malick, (Days of Heaven, Thin Red Line, The New World), and is set to star Brad Pitt, and Sean Penn. It is said to be a family drama set in the 50’s, which sounds right on target from a man who had brought us such beautiful tone poems in the past. However the reason I am so confused about what the film really is centres on the rumours that there are sequences that deal with the formation of the earth, and dinosaurs. Also that is will be getting two separate releases, one in regular cinemas, and one in Imax. An interesting article I recently read also tells us he is working with one of the main special effects wizards that worked on 2001. So save some time around November this year for a quiet family drama from the man who brought you The New World, featuring epic practical effect dinosaur scenes on an Imax screen. Huh?

Whatever the outcome, Terrence Malick is an amazing director so it will be interesting at the very least. The idea of someone using Imax for artistic purposes is also pretty intriguing; I can’t imagine what it would be like seeing a meditative art film is such a space. Sounds nice though.

Review: Inception

Christopher Nolan seems to write screenplays as personal challenges, like the way some musicians attempt pieces of music they know they can’t play in order to stretch their abilities. Every screenplay of his has surpassed the previous in logistic complexity, and Inception finds him at his current peak. The film is about a group of corporate spies who infiltrate the dreams of their victims to catch them unaware, and extract information. They are given an impossible task, to reverse their usual procedure and introduce an insidious idea into someone’s mind without their knowledge; to perform an inception. This leads us through multiple layers of reality and dream state, as well as incredibly inventive ideas.

It is amazing how quickly we accept the main concession of the film, that people can enter into each other’s dreams. From the first scene we are willing to accept this as a natural state of affairs, because the pacing of the film is nearly perfect. Nolan is good enough to convey complex ideas in such a way that not only are they understood immediately, but they are allowed to be fully complex. Despite the large amount of screen time dedicated to exposition, we never feel like we are being babied through the complexities.

Dream logic is central to the functioning of the plot. It lays down a set of rules that are easy to understand because we have all experienced them first hand (dream time being longer than real-time, elements of reality entering dreams, etc). The Curious thing about Nolan, especially pronounced in this film, is his relentless attention to logic. This makes for the dream sequences in which most of the film takes place, to seem more like the created worlds of something like the Matirx, than the feeling of actually being in a dream. These are just rules for the fantastic worlds Nolan wants to create for us, and not akin to the experience of dreaming itself. Never has there been such an attempt to show the logical inner workings of the illogical.

At its core Inception is a masterful blending of three genres; the action film, the heist film, and the science fiction film. The great success of this blending is that at no point does it feel like we are watching something we have seen before. The constant feeling of being shown something new is pervasive, especially in the action sequences. There is a fight scene in which the gravity is slowly changing, so the combatants are forced upon the walls, and the ceiling as they fight for their lives. This type of extreme stylization rarely works for me, but here it is riveting.

The major complaint about the film is that there is never any actual feeling of connection with the characters beyond the tension of wanting them to complete their heist. This does not sound like a problem for a sci-fi, action heist film, except that the film asks you to feel more for it’s characters than the average film of it’s ilk. This is me stretching here, because I liked this film so much it seems like nitpicking, but for a film that tackles themes of the subconscious and deep character issues head on it never delivers any meaningful catharsis. The subconscious of the characters act as literal battlegrounds for the action of the film to play out in, and never go beyond that in a satisfying way.

However if we accept these interior worlds to act simply as a means to create adult, distopian wonderlands then they function marvellously on that level. We see exotic locales, lush interiors, and crumbling personal kingdoms. All working as fully realized worlds on their own as successfully as any A-budget fantasy picture.

Bottom Line: The film is a masterpiece of construction, and it’s greatest strength is in the dizzying ability to run under the weight of it’s own complexity. This is a great example of an artist challenging himself to do something of great difficulty, and accomplishing it. However, as Pauline Kael said of Citizen Kane its’ a masterpiece, but a shallow one. Oh well I’ll take my masterpieces where I can get ‘em.*

*Not intending to compare this film to citizen Kane, or myself to Pauline Kael. That would be stupid.

Predators Review

"A group of elite warriors are hunted by members of a merciless alien race known as Predators." That's the IMDB synopsis for the latest entry in the Predator series, and while you may think "didn't this series go down the toilet right after they fought those Alien aliens?" You're only half right. Predators takes the LOST route to feed it's story (or as a quick excuse to not have one) where they take a handful of lone wolf type folks, each specializing in a specific combat tactic, ranging from a prison-grade shank to a mini-gun on the weapon spectrum. What you get when you mix all this together is a true sequel to the first Predator, with all it's 'B' goodness: practical effect death and destruction. What you won't find here, is a story that makes any sense, plot/character development, or writers who really know how to make people say things that aren't pointless and empty.

On the Horizon

Slated for a Christmas release this year, the upcoming film form the Coen brothers is a new take on the classic John Wayne vehicle True Grit. This is not to be a re-make, but harks directly back to the source material, Charles Portis' 1969 book of the same name. They intend to be more faithful to the book than the original movie, stating that the original film was "much more of a standard western and the book is just and oddity". It sounds like something they would be well suited for, and I`m sure will be very original, but one has to expect comparison to the '69 version. The film will see the Coens re-team with Josh Brolin, and Jeff Bridges who will be taking on the roll of Marshal Cogburn originally played by Wayne, and it will be the first time they have worked with Matt Damon. The Coens have made nothing but great films since No Country For Old Men; this will most likely be no exception. Maybe by Christmas I will finally be over A Serious Man.

Here is an on set picture of Jeff Bridges as Cogburn to hold you over until the trailer is released, .

Quote via Rotten Tomatoes.

Photo Via Joe M. O'Connell blog.

Shutter Island: An Analysis

Martin Scorsese has been trying to find his footing commercially ever since the end of the seventies. His unbelievably positive critical response over the years has made it so he can always find the money to make his next film, and even more he can usually make the film he wants. There are a few examples of him doing “one for them” so he can do one for himself, notably taking Steven Spielberg’s place on Cape Fear in an attempt to make a popcorn picture for Universal after they funded his ill-fated Last Temptation of Christ. However the cult of Scorsese has grown over the past decade with Gangs of New York, The Aviator and The Departed all bringing home $100-million plus, and he now finds himself in a position of critical and financial esteem no director has occupied since Alfred Hitchcock. Which is where an analysis of Shutter Island should begin.

I can't Believe I found this.

So many times I searched for this online, and so many empty handed disappointments. This is the lost link between my childhood and now, the holy grail…the Degrassi Junior High reunion on Jonovision! This is bringing back so many memories of growing up Canadian in the late nineties; I think my grade eight wardrobe was copied from Jono. This reunion took place about eight years after School’s Out the Degrassi movie, and features many (by no means all) of the original cast members. I actually forgot/don’t care how bad the interviews are, I just want to look at these people and think about where their characters would end up. Not very good television, especially eleven years on (sorry Jono), but I am positive anyone who grew up with the series will not be able to look away.

Makes me wonder where Wheels ended up.

God only knows.

On the Horizon

Richard Linklater is known for experimenting with his films. From the very beginning with Slacker he shirked any pretense of aping traditional formulas and even structures in film-making. His adventures have taken him through real-time fictions, rotoscope-style animations, and any manner of shapeless (though usually great) observational film. His current project is however his most ambitious to date, and perhaps one of the most ambitious ever. The working title Boyhood has been given to the film, which follows a young boy growing up from age 6 to 18. In order to avoid the standard trick of changing actors to represent the various ages of the boy Linklater opted to simply spend twelve years filming. The film has been in production since 2001, and will be ready by mid 2013. It stars Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette as the parents, and Ellar Salmon as the boy. Linklater has been quoted as saying that he will “adapt the story to whatever [Ellar] is going through”, which will certainly improve the performance and the honesty of the picture. Whatever the result, this will be an amazing viewing experience, watching someone grow up literally before our eyes.

Spider-Man 4? Spider-Man? Spider-Man reboot...?

First of all, why does Sony think it's a good idea to try to destroy their current grasp on the Spider-man franchise with a FUCKING REBOOT only a few years after the last movie? Sure sure, the Punisher was rebooted very quickly, but you can almost see the Punisher movies like a serialized action series, like James Bond, so you don't need to have the same people playing the same characters.

Spider-Man on the other hand has dragged itself through 3 films that, by the end, wore the actors and director so thin that they all refused to sign on for a 4th film. Because Sony knew that replacing a director like Sam Raimi would be a difficult thing to do while maintaining a similar directorial style, they decided that calling this film Spider-Man 4 would be a bad move, so they did what everyone else does in Hollywood these days...

REBOOT!


YEAH! That's a good idea, make a movie reboot for a film trilogy that's less than 10 years old. Wait, Spider-Man 3 came out in 2007? THE FUCKING REBOOT IS LESS THAN 5 YEARS PAST THE LAST FILM IN THE SERIES?

Okay, okay, so maybe the movie won't be too bad, as long as the director they pick is well suited for the job, has a passion for the characters, and gets some creative control over the process. Oh right, Raimi left the series because the studio was being too controlling, forcing Venom into the 3rd movie and strong-arming him into making a lot of choices he was vigilantly against.


Oh, and you say that the director, Marc Webb has directed only one feature (500 Days of Summer, which was a fine film)? Sounds a lot like a big studio giving a newer director a huge project to undertake. They must be putting a lot of faith into his skills to give him this much to tackle.

OR

They know that as a new director, Webb will be easier than Raimi was to control when it comes to creative choices. Raimi broke a lot of the old "rules" of film making in his day, and that's what made him such a great director. 500 Days of Summer is a good flick, but it's not the most ambitious from a direction standpoint. Webb seems like he's more willing to take suggestion and nudges from big wigs who want to see THEIR version of Spider-Man on the screen.

Now, who is going to play Spider-Man?

Almost a cross between Tobey Maguire and Topher Grace

Andrew Garfield, best known for his roll in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Will be your new Peter Parker. The movie is rumored to be set during Peter's high school years, as opposed to the first movie's university setting. Should be a nice little watch, considering we'll be seeing a 28 year old actor playing a 17 year old, I know it's not that unusual, but they could put a little effort into finding a younger actor if they really want to hit that age.


Anyway, I know I'll be in the theater when this movie comes out in 2012, but I really hope once this movie fails to live up to it's predecessors they'll can their license on Spider-Man and give it up to Marvel Studios, so we can see it properly used again.

Get Him to the Greek - into the ROOTS

Since seeing Get Him to the Greek a week or so ago, I had been riding the fence on wither I liked the movie or didn't like it. Mostly what I liked about the film was Russel Brand and his particular style of delivering lines and his overall demeanor. The problems I had with the movie were that it seemed to be another ball out of the Apatow park, all the same troupes and trivial scenes you expect from an Apatow production (Yes, I am acutely aware that he didn't direct this one, but he is a clear influence and the producer.) I believe it's safe to say that overall Tim and I had the same sort of feeling coming out of the screenings, maybe a little disagreement here and there, but) so be it.

Now this isn't meant to be a proper review of any sorts of the flick, it's more about the turn-around I have done since last week. A scant few days ago I began reading a book titled My Booky Wook (apologies made within the book for the title) And I got a very different opinion of the movie afterwords.

Review - Grown Ups

Note that Tim's words are white and Josh's words are blue:

"Alright broad comedies, I thought we had an unspoken agreement. I would forgive any weaknesses you may have in premise, plot, and character as long as you promise to show me something funny. Once again you have broken my heart." Is what I would say to this weeks new release Grown-ups if it were a sentient being, and able to understand how bad it was. The movie begins with a group of men who are drawn together again after years of separation by the death of their elementary school basket-ball coach (seriously, not a joke in the movie, just the premise). After the funeral all of their families must spend the fourth of July weekend together for several poorly strung together reasons, and hilarity(?) ensues.

I agree with Tim here, for the most part, but I would argue that the film wasn't bad, it was FUCKING TERRIBLE. Bad enough that if it didn't provide us the hate fuel we needed to write this review, I would have demanded my money back.I think it's safe to assume that many of us are willing to sacrifice poignant plot for a handful of hilarious jokes. It's also worth noting that as far as Tim and I remember, we don't recall them telling us that it was a basketball coach dying until at least halfway through the flick, and we had assumed it was football. No, hilarity does not ensue.

Trailer Hunt

A chance to get prematurely excited for, or angry with films.


This week:
 
The American



Looks like a sleek existentialist James Bond from music photographer turned director ( Control) Anton Corbijn. If it bears any resemblance to Control it should be meditative in pace, and look bloody beautiful. Some of the shots look a little car commercial-y (0:19 - 0:23), but others look simply fantastic (1:22). Due to be released September 1st.



Cyrus





I have yet to see anything from the Duplass brothers, but they have a reputation for making quirky Sundance style films. This one looks like it might have the right blend of dramedy to bring out the best of John C. Reily, who to this point has not quite hit his stride as a leading man. A great cast otherwise, I'm curious to see what Johna Hill has to bring to the table in something that is not straight comedy


The Expendables





I still can't believe this movie is real. Remember everything you wished movies were when you were nine years old? This is it (for me at least). Just look at the cast. Sylvester Stallone (also wrote and directs), Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Eric Roberts, Randy Couture, Steve Austin, Mickey Rourke with Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger! Or said easier; every living movie tough guy supplemented by the WWE and the UFC. Do you know what testosterone smells like? You will when you leave a theatre showing The Expendables.


The Last Airbender






Notice how they dropped the "Avatar" from the title? Probably a good call. Second question; did you notice how listening to his kids is destroying M. Night Shyamalan's career? He should probably stop being such a good father all the time, and indulging his children's fantasies, because the rest of us don't care. But as all of his films to this point have said (including this trailer) "there are reasons each of us are born, we have to find those reasons", and Shyamalan's reason was to be a super-dad. So aside from being bored at having that message shoved down my throat at every Shyamalan movie, I'm probably being to hard on this one. I'm sure it will be a blast for the target audience: Shyamalan's kids.

Review: Toy Story 3

There are a million reasons to go to the movies. The most common reason thrown about is the need for entertainment, which most of the time amounts to little more than a diversion, something that fills two hours and is forgotten. What Pixar movies usually have to offer is something more human than entertainment, they attempt to offer pure enjoyment. Obviously entertainment is a factor, but they somehow manage to incorporate perfectly played sentimental notes at the exact right moments, fresh and challenging ideas that are broad enough for children but interesting for all. There are also always elements of danger, not Disney danger, but an honest subtle danger. Toy Story 3 is, of course, no exception. It begins with the remains of Andy's toys from the first two films speaking about how their numbers have been thinned out over the years (taking a minute of remembrance for the loss of Bo Peep), and devising elaborate schemes to get Andy to play with them again. Andy has grown up (his character has aged in real time), and has to make a decision about what to do with these last remnants of his childhood before he goes off to university. Through a series of misunderstandings the toys are donated to a local daycare where nothing is as it seems, and only Woody holds out enough faith in Andy to attempt to get the gang back to him before he leaves.




This outline opens the movie up for countless moments of tugging on our heart strings, and of course it uses every one of them. Somehow though, they all seem to work in a genuine unforced manner. There is a scene of Andy and his mother alone in his room after his things have been packed, and his mother begins to cry because her boy has grown and is leaving home. Andy doesn't seem to realize what it means to her because he is still a child in many ways. The toys are going through the same set of emotions, they feel as thought they are being abandoned and they have to learn to understand that it is just time to move on. Having just written those words, I can't believe that the scene comes of as effortlessly as it does because it sounds so hackneyed. By all rights this movie has no place being as effective as it actually is. Therein lays the ever present trap for Pixar movies to fall into; losing your audience through incredulity. It happened with Cars, and it will certainly happen again, as it has to when you walk the thin line between an instantly relatable flight of fancy, and well, Cars. I am actually kind of excited for Cars II, so they can get their bad movie cycle over with.

The look of the movie presents a beautiful updating of the character and environment models from the first film (I haven't seen the second), maintaining the look and feel, while streamlining it to suit our eyes now accustomed to computer generated worlds. Also the design of the characters, and especially the daycare was very fun, incorporating toy designs that anyone of my generation would be able to place instantly. Many effective sight gags surround a Masters of the Universe style action figure, a Ken doll, and an old timer subversive in the form of a haggard, and world weary Fisher Price telephone.




Bottom Line: See this movie. It really does have something to please everyone, and not in a Heartland Truly Moving Picture Award* kind of way, in a "you should like this if you have human feelings" kind of way. This is a film that finds universally relatable material in surprising places, even though (and maybe because) it is in constant danger of being horribly cliched. It is amazingly fresh for the third film in a series, and shows us new things about these characters and their world. As always, another great thing about Pixar films in general, is that they are children's films that treat their audiences (of any age) with respect.

*Toy Story 3 has actually won a Heartland Truly Moving Picture award, but my point still stands (I guess).

Because Someone has to.

You know when people take potato chips and put them on their dinner plate in lieu of a more reasonable side dish? Always seemed weird to me, just taking junk food and treating it as if it were real food. Whenever this happens, the person serving it always acts like it's the most reasonable thing in the world to do. That is kind of how I feel about the Friday the 13th series. They should be a guilty pleasure, consumed in secret and shame, but somehow I have found myself in a position in which I am more likely to have a serious conversation about these films than Citizen Kane, for instance*. Eating them like real food if you will (please say you will, because I'm pretty far out on this limb right now). Each film is pure formula, and one that is shared with all slasher films which I`m sure does not need explaining. However there is one part of the formula which is uniquely Friday the 13th; the unmasking. The best movies in the series are basically build up to this point, with only a few exceptions.

Friday the 13th: Does not have an unmasking because... well I'm not going to ruin the secret.

Friday the 13th Part II: My personal favourite of the series. Less zombie-boss, and more mutant mountain man. Cool.Friday the 13th Part 3(D): The funniest reveal of the series, in which the female lead hangs Jason, thinks he's dead (he's never dead) and then he removes his mask to camera for no real reason. Still pretty cool.Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter: Tom Savini did this one, looks a little rubber mask-y, but makes up in machete-to-the-skull what it lacks in skin texture. Jason starts to look a little zombie like in this one.Brutal.
Friday the 13th Part V - A New Beginning: Basically the same deal as Part I, just way less interesting. Funnier though.

Friday the 13th Part VI - Jason Lives: The campiest in the series (really saying something!). Throws a wrench in the whole Jason-face-reveal-scheme by having it at the begining of the movie (daring). This is also the first movie in which Jason goes full zombie.

Before his corpse is struck by lightning.After his corpse is struck by lightning.

Friday the 13th Part VII - The New Blood - Jason going beyond zombie into cartoon zombie territory.
Friday the 13th Part VIII - Jason Takes Manhattan: In this de-masking jason has `toxic waste` thrown in his face and is in so much pain (because he feels pain at the end of every movie) he has to take his mask off to reveal his melting face. I feel like the melting face may have been a last minute write-in to explain how bad this looks.

Then things stop making sense. Jason is thwarted by rushing sewer water (because they are in Manhattan) and starts vomiting profusely just before it reaches him.


Then things really stop making sense. The rushing sewer water somehow prompts Jason to have a flashback to his childhood drowning in Crystal Lake, and when the water subsides he has turned back into a small child (because they are in Manhattan one assumes). Seriously. Best part: the two lead teenagers who narrowly escaped his grasp just look mildly relieved and walk away.



*I swear I didn`t just compare Citizen Kane to the Friday the 13th series.

Wait, What?

Via: thedailywh

Movie Case Copy-Cats - Taken VS The Keeper

If you shop for movies regularly in old school brick and mortar stores (you may notice this online as well, but it's not as easy to see) you start to notice a trend: many movies have strikingly similar movie cases despite the movies having nothing to do with each other. It's obvious why this happens, people see a movie making money, and they want to ride that train of success.

Steven Seagal is no stranger to low blows (literally and figuratively). He is famous because he makes moderately low budget action movies where he runs around snapping necks left and right until the entire world has died at his hands – all over the course of an hour and a half of run-time. I haven't seen The Keeper, but I figure it's safe to assume that it's more of the same. Meanwhile, we have a respectable actor like Liam Neeson making an attempt at a balls-out action flick like Taken, with a DVD cover that sums up nicely what's going on: Liam Neeson has a gun, and he wants to kill someone.

Shockingly enough (Ha ha! *sigh*), Seagal's producers decided that this was their turf and they can do whatever they want, so they copied and pasted Taken's cover and replaced Neeson with Seagal, resulting in this:

10 Spielberg Shots: Raiders Edition

This is one of my favorite shots of all time, not only because it expresses to the viewer Indy's larger-than-life persona visually, but because it depicts the hero as a shadow, something typically reserved for a stalking villain.

This is a shot that works better when you see it in context of the picture, but essentially it starts as a wide shot of Indy and an unnamed assailant engaging in fisticuffs before Indy runs toward the camera, creating a very dynamic reaction scene.

This entire scene displays Indiana in a dark place both figuratively and literally through the use of the shadowed profile view.

Beautiful red sun showcases a group of silhouetted people against the horizon. Does a fantastic job of illustrating the desert's heat and gives you a sense of exhaustion.

Indy coming face to face with his greatest fear. Nuff said.

These scene actually extends about 20 seconds, all the while we can see Indy and his team digging away to get the Ark, but it is at this moment that his rivals notice them.

Indy at a low point looking up, this angle shows a lot of hopefulness in it and you still feel connected to what's going on, as opposed to...

This one, which makes you feel totally detached from what's going on at the surface, and gives you a feeling of hopelessness. I love how he's just poking over the edge, barely in view.

This seems like just another standard truck cab shot, until you see it in context. Off camera Indy has just knocked a motorcycle off the road, we see none of the bump he gives the rider, but we see his reaction.True example of' "less is more"

Like the previous pick, showing less resulted in more of an impact. Seconds ago, hanging off the front of the truck (driven by Indy, naturally) now getting smashed beneath it's wheels. How do you show a man get run over by a truck without his guts exploding everywhere? Easy, says Spielberg, just make his arms and legs flail up in the air like a cartoon character.