Sunday, August 12, 2007
Also, for your youtube viewing pleasure-
The unedited trailer for the Dazed and Confused of our time.
Friday, August 10, 2007
AICN sucks again.
Well this whole "Watchmen Casting" hoo-hah has been exciting, straight from the star-studded initial speculation (Gerard Butler?*gasp*Jason Patric?*Gasp*Jude Law?*gasp*Keanu Reeves?*oh fuck no you must be kidding*Shia Lebouf?*Was Frankie Muniz busy?*)...
To the less exciting but nonetheless good second-run speculation (Jason Patric?*Gasp*Paddy Considine?*That red-headed kid in my soc class digs him, but i have no idea who he is...*Nathan Fillion?*i know who he is because i'm a nerd and ONLY because i'm a nerd*)...
To the "oh jesus did no one seriously want to do this movie this seriously can't be good" last call-for-casting final "official run" of "stars" (Jason Patric?*gasp* and....yeah....) that Ain't It Cool News (aka "'fA.cts' I. C.reate N.ow") ran a couple of weeks ago on their site here.
In all honesty (i am typing in hyperlink and have no idea how to make it stop) the cast isn't THAT bad...it's just the serious let down that AICN has led us up to. It also makes me worry that the studios are going to try and sell the film on it's incredibly convoluted and confusing storyline.
Only time can tell.
To the less exciting but nonetheless good second-run speculation (Jason Patric?*Gasp*Paddy Considine?*That red-headed kid in my soc class digs him, but i have no idea who he is...*Nathan Fillion?*i know who he is because i'm a nerd and ONLY because i'm a nerd*)...
To the "oh jesus did no one seriously want to do this movie this seriously can't be good" last call-for-casting final "official run" of "stars" (Jason Patric?*gasp* and....yeah....) that Ain't It Cool News (aka "'fA.cts' I. C.reate N.ow") ran a couple of weeks ago on their site here.
In all honesty (i am typing in hyperlink and have no idea how to make it stop) the cast isn't THAT bad...it's just the serious let down that AICN has led us up to. It also makes me worry that the studios are going to try and sell the film on it's incredibly convoluted and confusing storyline.
Only time can tell.
Bringing the blogging back into being.
Well, it's been a busy summer, and as you can tell (despite all the happenin' movie news) i have been nowhere to be found.
I apologize for this. So as i was perusing one of my favorite movie-based website haunts (www.boxofficemojo.com) i found their resident reviewer's January 17th, 2007 wrap-up of the best movies of last year.
The review starts off GREAT (feel free to read it, the url is- http://www.boxofficemojo.com/features/?id=2237&p=.htm), with Scott Holleran praising great films such as The Illusionist, a great film starring Edward Norton, that, despite almost NO proper advertising (internet banner ads, wide-release trailer, commercials, e.g.), and a below average 16-million dollar production budget went on to gross over $47 million in the US alone. It had the best hold of any movie on record (average weekend-to-weekend drops ranged in the 6-8% range, an average wide-release film would have anticipated drops of 45-48%, some go on either side of this number, for instance, Ratatouille held on the better side of this number, with a 40% drop, while the Simpson's movie fared far worse, experiencing a near-60% drop.) and it's spread occured due to word-of-mouth advertising.
The article goes on, however, to say possibly the silliest things a man "inside" the movie industry could ever vomit forth from a keyboard. For instance-
"As usual, the stinkers were out in force, and the most egregious were the morally agnostic, anti-American Flags of Our Fathers (followed by a version of World War 2 from Nazi-allied Japan, Letters From Iwo Jima), which was an incomprehensible affront to history, and the typical runs of low humor, from Adam Sandler's rotten Click to the caustic sneer of Thank You for Smoking."
-This is written by a man who holds one of the most powerful positions inside the movie rating industry (boxofficemojo.com is almost the billboard.com of movies), yet this article sounds like it was written by my 52-year-old hyper conservative father.
Now, while i won't belabor the point that yes, indeed, Click was awful, the other three movies in that quote are possibly some of the greatest released in our time. And it is true, that while Flags worked a little too hard to evoke emotion from it's audiences, there is nothing in that movie that is an "incomprehensible affront to history." In fact, descendants of those pictured in the film have come forward to PRAISE Clint Eastwood, saying it portrayed their fathers in a much truer light than films that serve to give war a romantic celebrity stauts (aka Saving Private Ryan).
Even in his brief snippet of discussion on Letters, Scott Holleran states "followed by a version of World War 2 from Nazi-allied Japan, Letters From Iwo Jima."
Why does Holleran feel that it is necessary to mention that the Japanese were part of the Nazi-Alliance? Because he wants you to understand that this movie is COMPLETELY Un-American, and that there is no way the Japanese soldiers felt any emotion similar to that of the Americans they were fighting against. "Remember, America," Scott Holleran is saying, "these were suicidal jew-hating soulless bastards. And this is why i won't eat Asian food or get my dry-cleaning done to THIS DAY. Who knows when one of these boogers is gonna go Kamikaze on my ass."
That is just a silly thing to say. And don't get me started on the comment about the "caustic" Thank you for Smoking, which may have been the single-most refreshing comedies in years. A movie which led directly to the excellent Little Miss Sunshine, which the idiotic atricle also praises.
Just when you thought the gods had stopped raining forth words of punishment to scald your eyes, the article takes a complete turn into (probable) coked-out incoherence.
"Along similar lines were two of the most overrated movies of the year. The contrived nonsense known as Babel is so unrealistic and implausible it should have been called "Babble" and billed as a globalized cousin to Crash. Placing a helpless child in a computer-generated hell on (and underneath) earth, Spain and Mexico's religious horror fantasy Pan's Labyrinth is unbearable; an assault on one's vision with a truly depraved sense of life. Both pictures attempt to dramatize the idea that the universe is bad. Both succeed in being ugly."
...WHAT? Babel, yes, may have been just a wee tad overrated. But nonetheless, this writer enjoyed it, and this writer's word is complete garbage...i mean gospel. But nevertheless, what kind of ignoramus crackpot can call Pan's Labyrinth "unbearable," "an assault on one's vision" or "ugly"?
Pan's for perspective, is the number-4 highest rated film of all-time according to metacritic.com (Don't believe me? Well screw you, but here's the link anyway- http://www.metacritic.com/film/highscores.shtml). Metacritic, coincedentally, is a site that compiles scores given films on a 1-100 scale by film critics, apparently, however, Metacritic only accepts scores from Holleran's non-mentally retarded colleagues.
In summary, this...this is the kind of ignorance that breeds a national majority that first created doubts in my mind by voting for Clinton twice...and then gave cause for extreme concern by voting for Bush twice.
I apologize for this. So as i was perusing one of my favorite movie-based website haunts (www.boxofficemojo.com) i found their resident reviewer's January 17th, 2007 wrap-up of the best movies of last year.
The review starts off GREAT (feel free to read it, the url is- http://www.boxofficemojo.com/features/?id=2237&p=.htm), with Scott Holleran praising great films such as The Illusionist, a great film starring Edward Norton, that, despite almost NO proper advertising (internet banner ads, wide-release trailer, commercials, e.g.), and a below average 16-million dollar production budget went on to gross over $47 million in the US alone. It had the best hold of any movie on record (average weekend-to-weekend drops ranged in the 6-8% range, an average wide-release film would have anticipated drops of 45-48%, some go on either side of this number, for instance, Ratatouille held on the better side of this number, with a 40% drop, while the Simpson's movie fared far worse, experiencing a near-60% drop.) and it's spread occured due to word-of-mouth advertising.
The article goes on, however, to say possibly the silliest things a man "inside" the movie industry could ever vomit forth from a keyboard. For instance-
"As usual, the stinkers were out in force, and the most egregious were the morally agnostic, anti-American Flags of Our Fathers (followed by a version of World War 2 from Nazi-allied Japan, Letters From Iwo Jima), which was an incomprehensible affront to history, and the typical runs of low humor, from Adam Sandler's rotten Click to the caustic sneer of Thank You for Smoking."
-This is written by a man who holds one of the most powerful positions inside the movie rating industry (boxofficemojo.com is almost the billboard.com of movies), yet this article sounds like it was written by my 52-year-old hyper conservative father.
Now, while i won't belabor the point that yes, indeed, Click was awful, the other three movies in that quote are possibly some of the greatest released in our time. And it is true, that while Flags worked a little too hard to evoke emotion from it's audiences, there is nothing in that movie that is an "incomprehensible affront to history." In fact, descendants of those pictured in the film have come forward to PRAISE Clint Eastwood, saying it portrayed their fathers in a much truer light than films that serve to give war a romantic celebrity stauts (aka Saving Private Ryan).
Even in his brief snippet of discussion on Letters, Scott Holleran states "followed by a version of World War 2 from Nazi-allied Japan, Letters From Iwo Jima."
Why does Holleran feel that it is necessary to mention that the Japanese were part of the Nazi-Alliance? Because he wants you to understand that this movie is COMPLETELY Un-American, and that there is no way the Japanese soldiers felt any emotion similar to that of the Americans they were fighting against. "Remember, America," Scott Holleran is saying, "these were suicidal jew-hating soulless bastards. And this is why i won't eat Asian food or get my dry-cleaning done to THIS DAY. Who knows when one of these boogers is gonna go Kamikaze on my ass."
That is just a silly thing to say. And don't get me started on the comment about the "caustic" Thank you for Smoking, which may have been the single-most refreshing comedies in years. A movie which led directly to the excellent Little Miss Sunshine, which the idiotic atricle also praises.
Just when you thought the gods had stopped raining forth words of punishment to scald your eyes, the article takes a complete turn into (probable) coked-out incoherence.
"Along similar lines were two of the most overrated movies of the year. The contrived nonsense known as Babel is so unrealistic and implausible it should have been called "Babble" and billed as a globalized cousin to Crash. Placing a helpless child in a computer-generated hell on (and underneath) earth, Spain and Mexico's religious horror fantasy Pan's Labyrinth is unbearable; an assault on one's vision with a truly depraved sense of life. Both pictures attempt to dramatize the idea that the universe is bad. Both succeed in being ugly."
...WHAT? Babel, yes, may have been just a wee tad overrated. But nonetheless, this writer enjoyed it, and this writer's word is complete garbage...i mean gospel. But nevertheless, what kind of ignoramus crackpot can call Pan's Labyrinth "unbearable," "an assault on one's vision" or "ugly"?
Pan's for perspective, is the number-4 highest rated film of all-time according to metacritic.com (Don't believe me? Well screw you, but here's the link anyway- http://www.metacritic.com/film/highscores.shtml). Metacritic, coincedentally, is a site that compiles scores given films on a 1-100 scale by film critics, apparently, however, Metacritic only accepts scores from Holleran's non-mentally retarded colleagues.
In summary, this...this is the kind of ignorance that breeds a national majority that first created doubts in my mind by voting for Clinton twice...and then gave cause for extreme concern by voting for Bush twice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
