Archive for the 'Movies' Category
May 7th, 2012 by Wil
This I have to see. They’ve taken Stuart Gordon’s great film version of the H.P. Lovecraft Re-Animator serial and turned it into a comedy musical!
Stuart Gordon turned his 1985 cult classic film “Re-Animator” into a musical horror comedy with the help of producer Dean Schramm and witty composer/lyricist Mark Nutter. Based on an H.P Lovecraft tale, the film and play both involve a gifted but mad student who has found a way to bring the dead back to life. Only problem is that when they re-animate, they are pretty pissed off and braindead.
Just recently the play took home an armload of awards (six L.A. Weekly Theater Awards, an Ovation Award and L.A. Drama Critics Circle Awards for everything from Best Musical to Best Blood Effects) and deservedly so. The play does everything bloody right.
May 5th, 2012 by Wil
Just one of those crazy articles that caught my eye: Bollywood actress killed, beheaded in extortion plot by two fellow actors, report says
Bollywood actress Meenakshi Thapar was kidnapped by two fellow actors, who then beheaded her after extorting money from her family, the Daily Telegraph reports.
Thapar, 26, appeared in an Indian horror film in 2011, where she met her alleged killers, actors Amit Jaiswal and Preeti Surin, the report says.
The two lured her on a trip, abducted her, and then demanded almost $50,000 from her family while threatening to make Thapar star in pornography, the report says.
Okey-dokey…
I’d actually really like to see an Indian horror film.
April 11th, 2012 by Wil
A couple nights ago I watched one of those classic Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers movies. My take? Great dancing, pretty pointless plot. I mean, sure, you don’t expect a great story from these flicks but I’d at least like something to keep my interest in between the dance numbers.
These movies remind me of that kind of porn that actually sets up the sex scene with a story so you end up watching 10 minutes of something boring to get to the 5 minutes of interest. With the Astair/Rogers movies you’re thinking, “When are they going figure out that she really didn’t marry the Italian guy and celebrate with a big dance under the fake waterfall?” With porn you’re thinking, “When’s the floppy breasted Asian chick going to take her clothes off and get tag teamed by the body builder and the midget?”
Really… they’re a lot alike.
April 2nd, 2012 by Wil
So I saw the new film, “The Hunger Games,” this weekend. If you’re not familiar with the general premise: in a dystopian future selected teenagers must fight to the death in an arena battle that is broadcast like a futuristic “Survivor.” Not particularly original — people have argued that the story is derivative of the Japanese teen warfare movie, “Battle Royale” — but workable.
However, for the most part the film fell flat with me. No real surprises, and it largely avoided putting any of the sympathetic characters in any really morally compromising situations (which I think might occur if you were, you know, fighting to death.)
The film was educational in one way. It’s obviously aimed at teenage girls and thus reflects their mindset. The main romance occurs between the lead female protagonist and a rather emasculated and often befuddled male character whom she needs to nursemaid half the time. I spent my teenage years presuming the girls around me wanted a real man. It turns out what they desire is sort of like a cabbage patch doll — a sexually nonthreatening “friend” they can take care of. This is further proof that women are evil.
March 13th, 2012 by Wil
I saw the just released “John Carter” film this weekend. My take: nothing you wouldn’t expect but not without a certain charm (and a shockingly high, though somewhat bloodless, body count for a Disney film.)
Of course, after this weekend, the news came in that “John Carter” had bombed at the box office. It cost around 250 million to make and made about 36 million in its opening weekend. The odds of it turning a profit are slim.
So why did it fail? I’ve personally been perplexed at the decision to call the film “John Carter” as opposed to “John Carter of Mars” or even “A Princess From Mars” as the first book in the original Edgar Rice Burroughs series was called. So why was Mars dropped? This site has a few reasons.
The original title of Edgar Rice Burroughs’s first John Carter book was A Princess From Mars. Rumor has it that Disney didn’t want to use that title because they were afraid it would cause confusion with their very profitable Disney Princess franchise. That was part of the reason they decided to call the film John Carter of Mars in the first place. Besides, John Carter was already set to be the main character in Andrew Stanton’s adaptation.
This was followed by the insane decision last year to remove “Mars” from the title after Mars Needs Moms bombed badly at the box office. People understood that Disney was gun-shy, but you can’t just cut it down to John Carter. A name so plain and nondescript that no one even knew what to think of it. Heck, the Untitled Andrew Stanton Project would have been better than that. At least there would have been curiosity factor.
I read an interview with the director (I think) and he mentioned the concern that women would be turned off by the “of Mars” appendage because Mars is supposedly boy territory. So, in the name of appealing to everyone, they watered the title down to be meaningless. What does “John Carter” tell me? Is this another “Jerry McGuire?”
If I’d been directing the film I would have called it “John Carter from Mars (That’s right girls: Mars! Now go and see the film with your boyfriend like a good little whore)*.”
* Sorry ladies. I’m contractually obligated to run any jokes Rush Limbaugh sends me.
In closing, here’s a link to a website about the 1970’s John Carter Marvel Comics series. Some nice artwork.
February 12th, 2012 by Wil
I saw the new Roman Polanski directed film “Carnage” this afternoon. I’m not quite sure how he directed the film since parts of it appear to have been shot in New York and everyone knows he is banned from the United Sates because he’s a perverted sicko who likes to fondle our young women.
Anyway, it’s an imperfect but interesting film and definitely generates some chuckles, though ones derived more from discomforting situations than jokes. (It’s the kind of humor director Todd Solondz specializes in.) It’s based on a play and has that “play feel” – the dialogue is a little too crafted for the mouths of real people. And everyone takes turns talking; there’s four characters and over the course of the film you see this character interact with that character, then this one with that one etc. There’s a flow to the conversation that you seldom find in real life which tends to be messier.
I found myself musing on this narrative devise – this idea of giving each of the characters a chance to converse with each of the others. It struck me that this could be an interesting structure for a musical piece. You get four instruments (characters) and have them perform melodies that weave in and out with the others. At times the instruments would be offering more of a supporting role; at other times they would be front and center (e.g. vocalizing like a actor would.)
You’re doubtless saying, “Wil, what you are describing is a four part fugue. (Here’s a nice example.) A single voice introduces a subject (melody), then a second voice appears and repeats the subject while the first voice offers a countersubject. A third voice then appears playing the subject, the second plays the countersubject and the first voice plays supportive free material. Repeat the pattern so all four voices are involved, and then the piece goes forward offering the different voices opportunities to converse musically with each other.”
Yeah, I guess it is a fugue. It actually makes sense that early musical forms would be based on conversation structure. Anyway, I think the idea of approaching music from this vantage point – that of theater, is interesting. If I mastered this technique I would be more powerful than a thousand gods.
February 4th, 2012 by Wil
I’m struck with a tinge of sadness upon hearing that actor Ben Gazzara, terrific in the underrated and largely ignored film “Happiness,” has died. And surprised by this bio nugget:
In 1965, he moved on to TV stardom in “Run for Your Life,” a drama about a workaholic lawyer who, diagnosed with a terminal illness, quits his job and embarks on a globe-trotting attempt to squeeze a lifetime of adventures into the one or two years he has left. He was twice nominated for Emmys during the show’s three-year run.
What a great idea for a show and I’m amazed someone got such a discomforting concept on television in 1965.
January 27th, 2012 by Wil
One thing that has always interested me is the fact that movie directors, when pontificating on their work, will often discuss lesser characters, like the main villian’s third henchman, as if a lot of thought went into these characters. A director might say something like, “It was important to understand the motivation for Lightning Soldier Number 3. What was his motivation? I came up with a back story that he had been raised in a southern ghetto without a father figure and his life of crime had come naturally. I think [actor] Thomas Dobswell did and excellent job of bringing this to life in his 4.3 seconds of screen time.”
For a long time I was baffled by this. And, as a fiction writer, I was intimidated. Did I need to be developing a deep sense of character for my accessory players, many of whom come across as rather one dimensional anyway? Lately, I think the answer is no. Movie directors (and writers) are just being pretentious fuckwads on this subject.
December 5th, 2011 by Wil
I’ve mentioned in the past my belief that the advent of digital piracy and its ability to suck profits from almost any creative endeavor — music, film, books — will result in an artless (and subsequently heartless) society which will descend into cannibalistic savagery. At this point in history, I see this argument as irrefutable.
Perhaps we’re beginning to see the dark at the end of the tunnel. The LA Times reports…
Film director Penelope Spheeris’ new comedy, “Balls to the Wall,” had barely premiered in Europe when bootleg copies started popping up on the Internet, throwing its U.S. release into jeopardy. A Spheeris assistant sent out as many as 30 cease-and-desist notices a day in a desperate, but failed, attempt to halt the piracy.
…
That helps explain why Spheeris and other filmmakers are backing tough new legislation making its way through Congress that would give the Justice Department broad powers to shut down websites that host pirated material and would open the door for movie studios, music companies and other copyright holders to seek court injunctions against Internet companies they believe are aiding in copyright theft, which amounts to $58 billion a year.
…
The fight is curiously nonpartisan, with conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats teamed on both sides of the issue. Some of the split is based on which industry is more dominant in a lawmaker’s region. Many Southern California representatives back Hollywood’s position, and most Northern California members side with the Internet companies. But political philosophy also plays a role, leading anti-big-government conservatives to join with liberal civil libertarians in opposition to giving Washington what they fear would be broad censorship power over websites.
The following quote, illustrates what I’ve always viewed to be the issue.
“It’s the No. 1 issue for us,” said Scott Harbinson, international representative for the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, which has 113,000 members in the U.S. and Canada. “If people aren’t investing in motion picture production because of piracy, our guys don’t work.”
And why invest in making movies if they’re just going to end up on the Internet for free? And thus you see the clear path towards cannibalistic savagery.
That said, this bill looks troubling to me. Particularly this part…
The pending bills in the House and Senate would give the Justice Department power to seek court orders requiring U.S. search engines and Internet sites to block access to foreign websites hawking pirated material. Private companies such as Paramount Pictures and Sony Music Entertainment would also be able to seek court orders preventing such sites from receiving ads and payments services from the U.S.
That grates against my libertarian tendencies by putting the onus of the crime not on the person who clicks a link to a pirate site, but on the person or company hosting the website or search engine which links to the pirate site.
By the way, Penelope Spheeris was profiled at acid logic here.
November 17th, 2011 by Wil
The New York Daily News reports that one of the last surviving actors to play a munchkin in “The Wizard Of Oz” has died.
The 4-foot-5 Slover died of cardiopulmonary arrest Tuesday afternoon in a central Georgia hospital, said Laurens County Deputy Coroner Nathan Stanley. According to friends, as recently as last weekend, Slover appeared at events in the suburban Chicago area.
Slover was best known for playing the lead trumpeter in the Munchkins’ band but also had roles as a townsman and soldier in the film, said John Fricke, author of “100 Years of Oz” and five other books on the movie and its star, Judy Garland. Slover was one of the tiniest male Munchkins in the movie.
There’s a recent picture of him at the link. He had a remarkable hairline.
When I lived in Los Angeles, I would often hang out at the Culver City Hotel which had a restaurant where the munchkins frequently dined during the making of “The Wizard Of Oz.” John Wayne kept a suite there in his later years.