Is there any reason for this? No. It's amusing enough to share, though. Frankly, I'd rather watch this on a loop for two hours than sit through "The Clone Wars."
(And I promise, Thursday will bring a real post. And by real post, I mean my review of "Tropic Thunder.")
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Zack and Miri teaser trailer
Kevin Smith always seems to be on the ball, and his latest film Zack and Miri Make a Porno seems nothing less than fantastic. The premise: two friend who are short on cash decide to directa porno together. Hilarity ensues. The film is definitely able to make up for Jersey Girl, and reduce any sour taste Smith has left since then. Check out the teaser trailer, I promise you'll be cracking up by the end:
My 2 cents
The movie Tropic Thunder has already garnered some controversy. (And not from the re-emergence of Black face as an art form either.)
Apparently, advocates for the disabled have said they will picket the movies premiere in Los Angeles. They are also encouraging others not buy tickets to see this film.
In TROPIC THUNDER, Ben Stiller plays a character called "Simple Jack" and as part of a subplot of the film is constantly being referred to as "RETARDED". This has some worried that people with learning disabilities will be offended by this picture.
{Representatives of the Special Olympics, the Arc of the United States, the National Down Syndrome Congress, the American Association of People with Disabilities and other groups met with studio executives last week to discuss the film, but DreamWorks did not make any changes.----YAHOO}
Ben Stiller, who also directed the picture, in my opinion is just trying to be entertaining. This is the guy who made Jim Carey scary in THE CABLE GUY. AND did bad impressions of celebrities on his canceled sketch comedy show. (Which I thought was funny at the time).
We (yeah me too) are all guilty of satirizing the limitations of others. Is this possibly the most offense film ever made? No. I have seen and heard of worse. But I have not seen the movie TROPIC THUNDER, yet. Do I want to? Well, yeah.
I can remember in the not so distance past a certain film in which Johnny Knoxville played a guy pretending to be (dare I used the word) DISABLED so he could win at the Special Olympics. I think it was called THE RINGER. Where were the committees and naysayers then, huh?
Look see the movie or don't see the movie. Put your money to better use or go have a look see at this film and hopefully (or not) enjoy.
This is not going to win any Oscars. This is not another BIRTH OF A NATION. This is not a call to arms or for alarm.
For the record, I am African American (who has been called retarded once or twice in childhood) and I approved this blog entry.
Apparently, advocates for the disabled have said they will picket the movies premiere in Los Angeles. They are also encouraging others not buy tickets to see this film.
In TROPIC THUNDER, Ben Stiller plays a character called "Simple Jack" and as part of a subplot of the film is constantly being referred to as "RETARDED". This has some worried that people with learning disabilities will be offended by this picture.
{Representatives of the Special Olympics, the Arc of the United States, the National Down Syndrome Congress, the American Association of People with Disabilities and other groups met with studio executives last week to discuss the film, but DreamWorks did not make any changes.----YAHOO}
Ben Stiller, who also directed the picture, in my opinion is just trying to be entertaining. This is the guy who made Jim Carey scary in THE CABLE GUY. AND did bad impressions of celebrities on his canceled sketch comedy show. (Which I thought was funny at the time).
We (yeah me too) are all guilty of satirizing the limitations of others. Is this possibly the most offense film ever made? No. I have seen and heard of worse. But I have not seen the movie TROPIC THUNDER, yet. Do I want to? Well, yeah.
I can remember in the not so distance past a certain film in which Johnny Knoxville played a guy pretending to be (dare I used the word) DISABLED so he could win at the Special Olympics. I think it was called THE RINGER. Where were the committees and naysayers then, huh?
Look see the movie or don't see the movie. Put your money to better use or go have a look see at this film and hopefully (or not) enjoy.
This is not going to win any Oscars. This is not another BIRTH OF A NATION. This is not a call to arms or for alarm.
For the record, I am African American (who has been called retarded once or twice in childhood) and I approved this blog entry.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Joining the Trend of Armchair Box Office Prognostication
So here we are. Week 4 of the summer belonging to "The Dark Knight," and it still has its hold on the number one weekend box office spot. We all knew it was going to make money, but this much money? To provide perspective, it currently has grossed about $441.5 million. Another twenty million, and it surpasses the original "Star Wars" as the second highest-grossing film of all time. However, in reality, it already has. See, the first "Star Wars" (or, Episode IV if you want to play THAT game) has been re-released twice since 1977, and its spot as the second highest-grossing film of all time is reflective of all three of its runs in theaters.
Also, everybody seems to be pissing and moaning about how if you account for inflation (!!!), "The Dark Knight" is nowhere near the highest grossing movie of all time. I say, shut up about that. Why? If we accounted for inflation, "Gone With The Wind" would be the highest-grossing film of all time, and there are few people who really want that, I would like to think. Seriously, that movie sucked. Call me callous, but I laughed my ass off when the little girl got her shit pushed by the horse.
So, where does that leave us in terms of modern-day money? Once TDK claims second place, all that's left is "Titanic," with $600 million even, domestically. The big question now is, can the most overrated movie of all time actually be defeated by a superhero movie? As sad as it makes me to say, I don't think so.
To wit: When released in late 1997, "Titanic" was number one for something like thirteen or fourteen weekends in a row. That's unheard of in this day and age, where tentpole movies come out nearly every week. Also consider that "Titanic" came out in December, and at the end of the month. That meant that during January, February and March, typically months of the year where nothing of value is newly released, there was no direct competition to stop it from making $30 million each weekend, week after week. "The Dark Knight" has done well, but there's been stiff competition, and odds are when "Tropic Thunder" comes out Wednesday, it won't hold yet another week.
Another factor is that there are still people who don't want to see "The Dark Knight." I was little when "Titanic" came out, but I distinctly remember that everyone and their brother had seen it. Personally, even at the time I didn't get it, I thought that "Twister," which came out earlier that year, was cooler, and to this day I stand by that opinion proudly. Regardless, "Titanic" had one distinct advantage that TDK lacks: the female demographic. Now, this is one of my favorite Hollywood misconceptions. Every executive seems to think that women don't see movies, and when a female-skewing movie makes bank, it shocks the shit out of everybody. I don't get that. Look at this summer alone: "Sex and the City" has made $150 million to date (and I've still been able to avoid it, knock on wood), and "Mamma Mia!" just broke the hundred-million mark this weekend. For further proof, look at "The Devil Wears Prada" and "The Notebook" in past summers. TDK hasn't cornered this demographic, and that might be the one Achilles heel that stops it from taking the record.
However, there is one glimmer of hope that few people have talked about as of yet. Traditionally, Oscar nominees, especially those up for Best Picture, are re-released if they've been out of theaters for some time. Now, in addition to the need for a Supporting Actor nod for Heath Ledger, and probably one for Best Original Screenplay as well, the clamor for a Best Picture nomination is getting louder. If this happens, "The Dark Knight" would return to theaters a few months after leaving them, which would probably lead to increased interest in an additional viewing for a lot of moviegoers. That would be the one trump card that might just push it over the edge. However, with $160 million to go, it's still a long shot.
(Final note: I realized I said before that I was done talking about TDK, but who the fuck am I kidding? I'm a fanboy, deep down. Just wait until March 6th, 2009. I'll never shut up at that point.)
Also, everybody seems to be pissing and moaning about how if you account for inflation (!!!), "The Dark Knight" is nowhere near the highest grossing movie of all time. I say, shut up about that. Why? If we accounted for inflation, "Gone With The Wind" would be the highest-grossing film of all time, and there are few people who really want that, I would like to think. Seriously, that movie sucked. Call me callous, but I laughed my ass off when the little girl got her shit pushed by the horse.
So, where does that leave us in terms of modern-day money? Once TDK claims second place, all that's left is "Titanic," with $600 million even, domestically. The big question now is, can the most overrated movie of all time actually be defeated by a superhero movie? As sad as it makes me to say, I don't think so.
To wit: When released in late 1997, "Titanic" was number one for something like thirteen or fourteen weekends in a row. That's unheard of in this day and age, where tentpole movies come out nearly every week. Also consider that "Titanic" came out in December, and at the end of the month. That meant that during January, February and March, typically months of the year where nothing of value is newly released, there was no direct competition to stop it from making $30 million each weekend, week after week. "The Dark Knight" has done well, but there's been stiff competition, and odds are when "Tropic Thunder" comes out Wednesday, it won't hold yet another week.
Another factor is that there are still people who don't want to see "The Dark Knight." I was little when "Titanic" came out, but I distinctly remember that everyone and their brother had seen it. Personally, even at the time I didn't get it, I thought that "Twister," which came out earlier that year, was cooler, and to this day I stand by that opinion proudly. Regardless, "Titanic" had one distinct advantage that TDK lacks: the female demographic. Now, this is one of my favorite Hollywood misconceptions. Every executive seems to think that women don't see movies, and when a female-skewing movie makes bank, it shocks the shit out of everybody. I don't get that. Look at this summer alone: "Sex and the City" has made $150 million to date (and I've still been able to avoid it, knock on wood), and "Mamma Mia!" just broke the hundred-million mark this weekend. For further proof, look at "The Devil Wears Prada" and "The Notebook" in past summers. TDK hasn't cornered this demographic, and that might be the one Achilles heel that stops it from taking the record.
However, there is one glimmer of hope that few people have talked about as of yet. Traditionally, Oscar nominees, especially those up for Best Picture, are re-released if they've been out of theaters for some time. Now, in addition to the need for a Supporting Actor nod for Heath Ledger, and probably one for Best Original Screenplay as well, the clamor for a Best Picture nomination is getting louder. If this happens, "The Dark Knight" would return to theaters a few months after leaving them, which would probably lead to increased interest in an additional viewing for a lot of moviegoers. That would be the one trump card that might just push it over the edge. However, with $160 million to go, it's still a long shot.
(Final note: I realized I said before that I was done talking about TDK, but who the fuck am I kidding? I'm a fanboy, deep down. Just wait until March 6th, 2009. I'll never shut up at that point.)
Friday, August 8, 2008
Review: Pineapple Express
Could this movie have been made even three years ago? Every time I saw the trailer, that's all I could think about. Well, that and the fact that "Paper Planes" is one of the best songs I've heard in years, but I digress. Break this down purely as a premise: A dedicated stoner and his drug dealer run afoul of the two warring local mobs, and go on the run, while continually smoking a lot of weed and engaging in action movie-level fights. I mean, this sounds like the premise for the third Harold and Kumar movie, but even so, I can't imagine this being pitched to a studio and selling.
But then, a funny thing happened: Judd Apatow became Hollywood's golden boy over the past year or so, churning out hit after hit (and "Walk Hard," which still wasn't that bad), and now, we have a major summer tentpole action movie starring Seth Rogen and James Franco, the latter of whom is best known as the second Green Goblin in the "Spider-Man" movies. Even stranger is the fact that this works, perfectly.
In its own way, "Pineapple Express" is at once a subversion of the traditional action movie formula, and a celebration of it. The final sequence is not only shockingly violent for a comedy (more on that in a minute), but wouldn't feel out of place in a Will Smith movie, circa 1998. Even before this, the madness includes a three-way brawl in an apartment, a car chase and a few other sequences that feel like they belong in a "Rush Hour" sequel, not a stoner movie.
That's the trick, though, and the reason this movie works: Most "stoner movies" are content to mine 12-year-old-skewing idiocy and the hilarity of watching stoners be stoned, and call it a film. The problem is, stoners being stoned are, as a standalone, not all that funny. The humor is purely situational, and that is why films like the "Harold and Kumar" movies and "The Big Lebowski" work so well; much like your average stoner, a little intelligence makes the whole thing a lot more interesting and entertaining.
The other major reason that this film works so well is James Franco. As Saul Silver, he is absolutely phenomenal. In a summer where marquee movies have yielded Oscar-caliber performances, Franco should at the very least be in the conversation for a Supporting Actor nod. He absolutely steals the film every time he appears onscreen, and might be the most dead-on movie stoner ever. The best example is a scene in which Saul is talking to Dale (Rogen), and when Dale tells him about his job as a process server, Saul just struggles to keep up, sporting a half-lidded gaze and picking random words like "moustache" and "disguise" out of the conversation, and eventually reaching the conclusion that Dale is a butler. Later, when Dale flips out at Saul for getting them into the mess they find themselves in, Franco's heartbreak is genuinely distressing. This is the kind of pathos usually reserved for heavier material, but like many of the other Apatow leads, Rogen and Franco don't limit themselves to a certain level of performance, just because this is "only" a comedy.
But then, is it, really? After watching the film, I couldn't figure out whether it was a really violent comedy or a really funny action movie. Most comedies, even action comedies, don't have a prominent supporting character taking a coffee pot to the face, or a main character suffering an injury that will remind some of the nastiest scene in "Resevoir Dogs." However, where some critics have cried foul regarding this abrupt jumping of tone, I think they're just having trouble accepting that the Apatow gang is branching out; if Quentin Tarantino had directed this movie (which, at a couple points, it seems like he could have), heavy-handed reviews would have examined the subtext drawn from juxtaposing violence with laughs. Thankfully, we'll be spared.
One final note: I'm sure that before long, people are going to raise a fuss about how this movie glorifies drug use. I disagree; it's about two people caught up in a mess they don't know how to deal with, and the fact that they smoke a lot of weed is just a part of their characters. Plus, let's face it: Between the anti-heroism of "Iron Man," the bleak, hopeless struggles of "The Dark Knight," this movie and next week's "Tropic Thunder" bringing back blackface, a lot of childhoods are already being ruined this summer. If anything, this might scare a few kids away from weed.
But then, a funny thing happened: Judd Apatow became Hollywood's golden boy over the past year or so, churning out hit after hit (and "Walk Hard," which still wasn't that bad), and now, we have a major summer tentpole action movie starring Seth Rogen and James Franco, the latter of whom is best known as the second Green Goblin in the "Spider-Man" movies. Even stranger is the fact that this works, perfectly.
In its own way, "Pineapple Express" is at once a subversion of the traditional action movie formula, and a celebration of it. The final sequence is not only shockingly violent for a comedy (more on that in a minute), but wouldn't feel out of place in a Will Smith movie, circa 1998. Even before this, the madness includes a three-way brawl in an apartment, a car chase and a few other sequences that feel like they belong in a "Rush Hour" sequel, not a stoner movie.
That's the trick, though, and the reason this movie works: Most "stoner movies" are content to mine 12-year-old-skewing idiocy and the hilarity of watching stoners be stoned, and call it a film. The problem is, stoners being stoned are, as a standalone, not all that funny. The humor is purely situational, and that is why films like the "Harold and Kumar" movies and "The Big Lebowski" work so well; much like your average stoner, a little intelligence makes the whole thing a lot more interesting and entertaining.
The other major reason that this film works so well is James Franco. As Saul Silver, he is absolutely phenomenal. In a summer where marquee movies have yielded Oscar-caliber performances, Franco should at the very least be in the conversation for a Supporting Actor nod. He absolutely steals the film every time he appears onscreen, and might be the most dead-on movie stoner ever. The best example is a scene in which Saul is talking to Dale (Rogen), and when Dale tells him about his job as a process server, Saul just struggles to keep up, sporting a half-lidded gaze and picking random words like "moustache" and "disguise" out of the conversation, and eventually reaching the conclusion that Dale is a butler. Later, when Dale flips out at Saul for getting them into the mess they find themselves in, Franco's heartbreak is genuinely distressing. This is the kind of pathos usually reserved for heavier material, but like many of the other Apatow leads, Rogen and Franco don't limit themselves to a certain level of performance, just because this is "only" a comedy.
But then, is it, really? After watching the film, I couldn't figure out whether it was a really violent comedy or a really funny action movie. Most comedies, even action comedies, don't have a prominent supporting character taking a coffee pot to the face, or a main character suffering an injury that will remind some of the nastiest scene in "Resevoir Dogs." However, where some critics have cried foul regarding this abrupt jumping of tone, I think they're just having trouble accepting that the Apatow gang is branching out; if Quentin Tarantino had directed this movie (which, at a couple points, it seems like he could have), heavy-handed reviews would have examined the subtext drawn from juxtaposing violence with laughs. Thankfully, we'll be spared.
One final note: I'm sure that before long, people are going to raise a fuss about how this movie glorifies drug use. I disagree; it's about two people caught up in a mess they don't know how to deal with, and the fact that they smoke a lot of weed is just a part of their characters. Plus, let's face it: Between the anti-heroism of "Iron Man," the bleak, hopeless struggles of "The Dark Knight," this movie and next week's "Tropic Thunder" bringing back blackface, a lot of childhoods are already being ruined this summer. If anything, this might scare a few kids away from weed.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Inside The Mind of a Movie Blogger Buying Cheap Shit at Blockbuster
All right, I have money. I also haven't bought a movie in about six months, which is just unacceptable. I need to up my collection.
OOH! Three movies for twenty bucks? Win. All right, what do we have here...."The Hottie and the Nottie." Now, wait, is this....YES. This is the one that Paris Hilton was in, that literally set box office records for futility. I swear to God, I don't know why anybody casts her in anything. She has a bitch face. If she was a nanny, and she wanted to be the nanny of my theoretical children, I would not allow her, because my children would adopt bitch faces by proxy.
Now, we have "I'm Not There," which is amazing, even if I don't quite understand the whole part with Richard Gere, as Billy the Kid. That shit was weird. Getting that, though...
What's "Red Line"? I know I've heard of this. This is the one Eddie Griffin movie that had literally nothing but still shots of cars and sideboob in the trailer. Speaking of sideboob, here's "Meet the Spartans." I remember asking a couple twelve-year-old boys why they watch movies like this, and they said for the chicks. I told them to watch some real porn. It's not like it's particularly hard to find. My roommate once showed me this chick, who took a gun and....
FOCUS. I need to pick a couple more movies. "Into the Wild"....I mean, it was an amazing movie, but it also kinda made me cry like a pussy, so maybe I shouldn't. Ah, well. I'm getting it. While I'm at it, "Cloverfield" as well.
Also, I have just noticed that "How She Move" is available. I don't know what the fuck this is about, other than breakdancing. All I remember was riding the El home drunk one night, and seeing the billboards for it, and having a lot of fun with that. In light of such tender memories, I would be remiss to not buy it. Except, you know, for the part where my film collection automatically loses all credibility.
Now, I've just found a reason to leave this terrible place. There is literally half a table filled with copies of "Beowulf." Fuck Blockbuster. That movie was bad enough when it was in 3D, so I'm pretty sure that without it, there's no reason at all to watch it. I can verify this theory, considering that I sort of watched "Journey to the Center of the Earth" at a drive-in, and it was not good, at all. I'm leaving.
(Brief final note: This is post #100. Congrats, y'all.)
OOH! Three movies for twenty bucks? Win. All right, what do we have here...."The Hottie and the Nottie." Now, wait, is this....YES. This is the one that Paris Hilton was in, that literally set box office records for futility. I swear to God, I don't know why anybody casts her in anything. She has a bitch face. If she was a nanny, and she wanted to be the nanny of my theoretical children, I would not allow her, because my children would adopt bitch faces by proxy.
Now, we have "I'm Not There," which is amazing, even if I don't quite understand the whole part with Richard Gere, as Billy the Kid. That shit was weird. Getting that, though...
What's "Red Line"? I know I've heard of this. This is the one Eddie Griffin movie that had literally nothing but still shots of cars and sideboob in the trailer. Speaking of sideboob, here's "Meet the Spartans." I remember asking a couple twelve-year-old boys why they watch movies like this, and they said for the chicks. I told them to watch some real porn. It's not like it's particularly hard to find. My roommate once showed me this chick, who took a gun and....
FOCUS. I need to pick a couple more movies. "Into the Wild"....I mean, it was an amazing movie, but it also kinda made me cry like a pussy, so maybe I shouldn't. Ah, well. I'm getting it. While I'm at it, "Cloverfield" as well.
Also, I have just noticed that "How She Move" is available. I don't know what the fuck this is about, other than breakdancing. All I remember was riding the El home drunk one night, and seeing the billboards for it, and having a lot of fun with that. In light of such tender memories, I would be remiss to not buy it. Except, you know, for the part where my film collection automatically loses all credibility.
Now, I've just found a reason to leave this terrible place. There is literally half a table filled with copies of "Beowulf." Fuck Blockbuster. That movie was bad enough when it was in 3D, so I'm pretty sure that without it, there's no reason at all to watch it. I can verify this theory, considering that I sort of watched "Journey to the Center of the Earth" at a drive-in, and it was not good, at all. I'm leaving.
(Brief final note: This is post #100. Congrats, y'all.)
Friday, August 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Livewire