Alpha to Omega The film franchise is an inescapable part of the modern movie landscape. In this series I will address a series of films from the first to the last, looking at each film as a standalone and how it fits into the series.

Rocky

Surprising statistic, there have been more movies made about boxing than about any other sport. I don’t have real statistics to back this up, but it’s one of those “facts” that you hear every once in a while and, true or not, for some reason it sounds good.

Boxing, and fighting sports in general, tap into an incredibly visceral place for a lot of people. In the past few years MMA, in particular the UFC have come to dominate pay per view markets so completely that it has actually graduated to network television.

When you think of this type of movie, what is the first name that comes to mind? For some of you it might be “Raging Bull,” but for a majority, a VAST majority, the first, last, and only name that comes to mind when the term “boxing movie” comes to mind is “Rocky.” And for good reason. The first movie won the Oscar for Best Picture, Best Director, and almost took the Best Screenplay award, but was beaten by Paddy Chayefsky’s masterful “Network,” and spawned 5 sequels that range from the sublime to the ridiculous. “Rocky” is one of those rare movies that has transcended the screen and become a part of the American cultural lexicon.

And it all started with one little movie.

In 1975, struggling actor/writer Sylvester Stallone watched a fight between Muhammed Ali and Chuck Wepner. Wepner was a moderately talented boxer who was expected to last 3 rounds. To everyone’s surprise round 3 came and went, and Wepner was still on his feet. He took everything Ali could throw and dished out as much as he could. With 19 seconds left in the 15th and final round, Wepner lost by TKO.

He sat down and wrote a script in 3 days. Granted the final version came after 9 sizeable rewrites, and the original was VERY different (Mickey was a bitter old racist, and Rocky took a dive after becoming disillusioned by the world of professional boxing), but the idea was there. Stallone was offered an unheard of $350,000 ($1.38 MILLION in today’s money) for a boxing script he had written. The writer had $106 in the bank (about $418 today) and was on the verge of selling his dog because he could no longer afford to feed him. The studio was going to produce it for $2 million dollars (about $8 million today) and were looking to put Robert Redford, Burt Reynolds, Ryan O’Neil, or James Caan in the lead.

Stallone turned them down.

The project was still picked up, but Stallone had to continue writing without a fee and act for scale. They also slashed the budget to $1 million ($3.9 million) and the producer and director mortgaged their houses to get an additional $100,000 ($380,000) and the movie was a go. The budget was so low that Carl Weathers and Burgess Meredith had to share a dressing room.

The film was shot in 28 days and nobody really expected much from it.

And somehow, this little movie became “Rocky.”

This is an interesting film to talk a because people have fairly ingrained preconceptions about what it is.

The thing about the original is, it isn’t the movie you think it is. Really it isn’t.

Watch it again and ask yourself one question, “What genre does this film fit in?”

Sports… sure.

Drama… of course.

But really, when you honestly look at it, Rocky is a love story.

Yeah, the boxing is a huge part of it, but in the end the fight is secondary to his relationship with Adrian, and her characters growth is almost more important than Rocky’s.

Who changes more through the movie, Rocky or Adrian?

Adrian, by a mile.

The most important scene in the movie takes place as far away from the ring as possible. What scene am I talking about? Rocky and Adrian laying in bed, Rocky opening up completely to her…

Rocky: I can't do it. Adrian: What? Rocky: I can't beat him. Adrian: Apollo? Rocky: Yeah. I been out there walkin' around, thinkin'. I mean, who am I kiddin'? I ain't even in the guy's league. Adrian: What are we gonna do? Rocky: I don't know. Adrian: You worked so hard. Rocky: Yeah, that don't matter. 'Cause I was nobody before. Adrian: Don't say that. Rocky: Ah come on, Adrian, it's true. I was nobody. But that don't matter either, you know? 'Cause I was thinkin', it really don't matter if I lose this fight. It really don't matter if this guy opens my head, either. 'Cause all I wanna do is go the distance. Nobody's ever gone the distance with Creed, and if I can go that distance, you see, and that bell rings and I'm still standin', I'm gonna know for the first time in my life, see, that I weren't just another bum from the neighborhood.

Funny thing, the budget and shooting schedule was so tight that they almost didn’t film this scene. Let me repeat that… they ALMOST DIDN’T FILM IT!

Stallone insisted and was given one take. I cannot conceive of this film without this moment. This scene is what the movie is about. The theme is distilled, the relationship is solidified, and the palooka shows his vulnerability and becomes human.

This scene gets lost in the bigness of the movie. Yeah, it was a small film, but it was a small film with huge scenes, and huge characters.

Stallone is actually the most reserved character in it. Rocky is quiet, shy, insecure, and a genuinely sweet man who is making a living the only way he can.

Adrian is a shadow of a woman who comes into her own because someone else actually sees who she is under the shyness and doesn’t hold her back or put her down. Rocky doesn’t change her, they change each other and become something more than they are on their own.

Mickey is the embodiment of a coach. His voice, his demeanor, his ferocity… everything about him just screams it.

Paulie is… man, is it possible to like Paulie? I mean, honestly like the guy. He is such an unrepentant asshole that it just… it’s almost impossible to not find him repellant. But for some reason you don’t hate him, even though you really should.

Apollo Creed… damn. What can I say about Apollo creed that does him justice? He is the antithesis of Rocky. Creed is smooth, sharp, savvy as hell, sophisticated, charismatic as hell, eloquent, funny, outgoing… Creed is one of the greatest characters in the American film canon. In any other film, this man is the hero.

The beauty of each of these characters is how real they are. You know people like this. You had a gym coach like Mickey, sat in front of a girl like Adrian, had a friend who wasn’t that bright, but would do anything for you, and a guy who seemed to have it all. Why else would we follow them through 5 more movies?

Not only did Stallone and Alvidson capture the truth of the characters, they also captured the spirit of a city. Philly is as much a part of Rocky as Rocky has become a part of Philly. It showed you the beating heart of working class America; the part of the city where nobody carries a briefcase or worries about a 401k. Then there’s the music. Bill Conte’s score to “Rocky” might not be the most iconic score ever, but it is damned well in the conversation. Listen to the opening bars of the main theme and tell me the hairs don’t stand up on your arms. Tell me that “Gonna Fly Now” doesn’t make you want to go out running and push yourself harder than you ever have before. Tell me that the “The Final Bell” doesn’t make you want to stand up and cheer.

Tell me any of these things and I will call you a liar to your face.

As great as the music is, it works so well because it is paired with such amazing visuals; and not just visuals but developed visuals. Yes, Rocky reaching the top of the stairs in front of the museum and jumping in triumph is amazing, but would it be so rousing had we not seen him fail at it before? Does “Going the Distance” work as well without seeing Rocky pushing himself to take more punishment than any man can endure so that people will see that he “weren't just another bum from the neighborhood?” Is “The Final Bell,” as stirring without the image of Rocky and Adrian embracing and proclaiming their love? Maybe, maybe not. But good lord, I can’t think of any way to make them more stirring.

Then there is that million-dollar script. Such a simple, straightforward story, with so much underneath, like an iceberg. Like all great stories it tells you as much about yourself as it does about the characters on screen. Everyone has been underestimated at one point or another. Because it so identifiable you can connect to Rocky and through him you can feel the exhilaration of showing everyone who doubted you exactly what you are made of.

I recently showed this film to a creative writing class with a handful of students who had never seen it. The number of kids who were tearing up at the end was remarkable, and completely unexpected. It was one of the best viewing experiences I’ve ever had.

“Rocky” has become such a massive, inescapable force in film that it is very easy to forget that at one point it was just this low budget move that got made almost in spite of itself. It has been imitated so many times but none have ever come close. If you haven’t seen it, or if you haven’t seen it in a few years, then you really should do yourself a favor.

Up next … Rocky II

Hey, if The Professional Bowlers Association can have a hall of fame, why can't we?

This week we discuss the inaugural inductees to The Film Thugs Hall of Fame.

Find out what writers, actors, directors, and musicians made the cut.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:29:42m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (135)

Atlas Shrugged: Part 1

How do I even approach reviewing this movie? Honestly, how? Ayn Rand is such a staunchly polarizing figure that any discussion of her work must, for some utterly baffling reason, go into personal opinion on her. She is the woman behind objectivism who cannot be objectively discussed. The irony of this is not lost on me.

For starters let me explain how my mind works when it comes to politics. I find most political discussion to be a waste of time. A majority of the people who engage in it have no real interest in sharing ideas, rather they are looking for affirmation. Regardless of whether that affirmation comes from the rabid agreement of someone who is “on their side” or the shouting down and marginalization of someone who is “on the other side.”

I only see one side with people who vary differently on how to move forward.

A few years back I read a comment by David Mamet that sums things up for me pretty well. He said something to the affect of their being a Jewish law or idea that one should never debate an issue unless they could first sit down with the other person and describe that persons side of the issue to them in a way that that person would agree with. No straw man, no slippery slope, no spin, just an honest recitation of their side.

Our current state of political discourse is sickening because people don’t do this. Instead they have allowed cable news shows to let them think that shouting down and embarrassing the other person is acceptable and somehow makes them win. Oh, and before you go off on a “Yeah, Fox News, blah, blah, blah” jag, realize that both sides do it. And before you respond, “Yeah, but Fox News is so much worse, blah, blah, blah,” realize that you are saying this sort of behavior is ok but only if you agree with the person doing it. This is a touch hypocritical, no? And before you slam me for being a brainwashed Fox News whatever, know that I don't watch TV news. It's all biased bullshit. I read my news and check multiple sources on each story I read so that I can at least attempt to put together what actually happened. I despise any news agency that attempts to tell me how to think about an issue when reporting the news.

So, let’s discuss the film and the author, then just the film, shall we?

Ayn Rand… to some she is a visionary who developed a brilliant philosophy that allows people to develop their own potential. To others she is a heartless, godless crone who made the world a worse place with her selfishness and long winded writings.

To me she is a woman who saw firsthand the horrors of Stalin and embraced the ideals of America to an absurd degree. I think that some of her ideas are fantastic and, if applied properly, can be very beneficial. I also think that she goes too far with them in a way that borders on parody.

Let’s take a quick look at her background. She was born in Russia in 1905. Her father was a pharmacist who owned his own business as well as the building that housed it. When the Russian Revolution struck the Bolsheviks seized the business, and her family was forced to flee to Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg). Growing up her family was destitute and often on the verge of starvation.

She was able to attend college, but just before graduation she, along with other “bourgeois” students were purged from the university. She was among a group of students who were only able to graduate after complaints from foreign students led to them being readmitted.

Later she came to America on a student visa and cried, what she called, “tears of splendor” at how amazing it all was.

Now, lets step back and analyze this. Her family lost everything to collectivism, she had her educational opportunities taken from her not because of a lack of ability, but due to the politics of the Soviet Union, and saw, in America, what she viewed as a better way.

What other form of philosophy could she develop? I completely understand where her ideology comes from. Hell, in this context it makes perfect sense. This was a woman who saw a large government legislating equality as a terrifying thing that would ultimately strip people of their individuality, rob people of their ambition, and ultimately lead to an oppressive state where nobody can raise themselves up. She feared it because she saw it firsthand. All she did was take the history she lived and grafted it onto America. Survive what she survived and then talk shit about her…

However, having a hard life doesn’t mean you’re right.

While I understand what she means by “The Virtue of Selfishness” I cannot agree completely. I do think that we need to have each others backs, so to speak, and that cooperation and compromise are the foundation of any civilization. But I do agree with her in that I don’t trust anyone who uses the word “fair” because as basic a concept “fairness” seems, it is really quite complicated. You see, “fairness” is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Does fair mean equal? Does fair mean earned?

I do love some of the characters she creates because of their unflinching individualism and self-reliance, but even I get a bit tired of them at times.

So, what about this movie?

As someone who labels himself a classically libertarian borderline anarchist (I enjoy labeling myself with as many fancy words as possible) who views the major political party system as akin to choosing a professional sports team (as Mr. Campbell puts it, the engine just burned out and we are debating what color to paint the car) which essentially means that I want to be left the hell alone., I find this films ideas as fascinating as I find the film itself bad.

This is not a good movie. It just isn’t.

Let’s start with the plot. Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 is set in a future where the world is falling apart. Oil shortages have made cars and planes too expensive so we turn to the railroad. As trains have become the dominant form of transportation, of course all the track has fallen into disrepair (because, you know, that happens when something becomes really popular, we just stop taking care of it). Henry Reardon has developed a new metal that is stronger and cheaper and would allow all the railways to be repaired at a low cost.

But he doesn’t want to share and nobody likes him for it. He will sell it at a fair price, and will work with anyone who wants to work with him, but he isn’t willing to let other people make his signature steel, so he is bad.

As this is Ayn Rand’s world, a world which is populated exclusively by people who can do things and make the world work, and people who can’t do things and conspire to bring down those who can, the machinations of government begin to work to bring down Reardon.

This is a cartoonish world where government basically takes over and dictates who can own what, who they can sell things to, and how much they can charge. It is full of rich people who believe in equality… as long as they still get to have pretty things and live in comfort. The movie addresses this in a very ham fisted way. You have a character, in the course of a few minutes, chastise his sister/business partner with the statement, “You can’t just take everything away from people who need our help,” before ordering an underling to “MOVE” as he crosses his path out the door. That’s right, we need to help people as long as they don’t interfere with what we want to do right now!

While this is going on a mysterious man named John Galt lurks in the shadows, offering exceptional people a chance to be exceptional away from all the useless ones that sit and conspire against them.

Essentially, this is worst-case scenario, slippery slope stuff. Keep making it harder for those who do the work to do the work and they will take their ball and leave, then were would we be?

At least I think that’s what it’s about. Really, I am not sure because the dialogue is a bunch of babbly exposition that is hard to follow for the simple reason that it is boring.

So we get a lot of the yap yap and a lot of broadly drawn caricatures in place of people and somehow I am supposed to give a crap what happens. Well, I don’t.

SPOILER ALERT: Oh, and the best part is that near the end the two main characters find an engine that runs on atmospheric energy, left completely intact in a barely hidden room in a long abandoned factory. That’s right, atmospheric energy. Might as well run on pixie farts and unicorn tears. END SPOILER ALERT

It’s not all bad. I mean the acting is fine (not great, not particularly good, just fine) and it looks very good at times (while at other times it looks like a SyFy production), but by and large it is just… flat.

It’s flat because Rand is a philosopher. Yeah, she wrote some stories that have had quite an impact, but she isn’t really a storyteller at heart. That is fine on the page, but on the screen it just doesn’t work. Movies are visual and feed on story, Rand is cerebral and feeds on words and ideas. The two don’t work together. Not that movies can’t be smart, but they have to be smart in a different way. I loved the book “The Fountainhead,” but found the movie laughable about 90% of the time. Philosophy is not cinematic unless your name is Terrance Malik.

The question I have is simple, why even bother trying to make a film out of this. It is expansive, it is cerebral, and it will draw predetermined responses from people. Those on the right will forgive more than they should and people on the left will hate it no matter what. It’s not so much a movie as an attempt to create some sort of rallying cry.

It doesn’t.

Here at The Film Thugs have a bit of a conundrum. It's one that's fairly common for film lovers these days.

In short, we love the movies, but we hate going to the movies.

I use to love everything about the experience, but lately something has changed. What might that be, you ask? Well, people. People have made the film going experience unbearable.

You mean to say I have a choice between watching one of a few thousand movies (Thank you Netflix and Uverse Video on Demand) on my HD TV in the comfort of my own home...

OR

I can shell out a huge sum to watch it in a room full of inconsiderate assholes who live in a world where nobody matters but them?

This week we decided to tackle a subject that was recently thrust into the national spotlight by The Alamo Drafthouse

This is the same theater that began every film in it's first 5 years of operation with this... and has had actors... and politicians join in.

So, here you go... our thoughts on theater etiquette.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:23:03m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (129)

Psycho Remake

Comedian Craig Ferguson one said that you should ask yourself three questions before you say anything.

1) Does this need to be said?

2) Does this need to be said, right now?

3) Does this need to be said, right now, by me?

Good advice, and advice that I tend to heed more often than not.

I feel that variations of these questions need to be asked before undertaking a remake, especially of a classic. Instead they should read:

1) Does this film need to be remade? (was there something lacking from the original, or has it fallen from public consciousness enough to make a remake necessary, has the world changed enough that a new look at this subject matter would benefit it)

2) Does this film need to be remade, right now? (Is there some pressing social or political issue that can be addressed by remaking this film, is there a new audience that would appreciate a new look at it)

3) Does this film need to be remade by me? (is there something special that I bring to the table either visually or thematically that makes me the person to bring such a vision to the world)

Sadly, in the case of Gus Van Sant’s “Psycho” remake, the answer to all three is “no.”

Before I go on, I want to address a criticism that some will level at me on this. Yes, I am a Hitchcock fan, but I am not a “hater,” yes I hate this movie, but I am not a “hater.” You see, the term “hater” is what you call someone when your over inflated sense of unearned self worth that was instilled in you when nobody told you that a “Participant Trophy” is no the same thing as an “MVP Trophy” cannot handle someone disliking what you dislike. So, instead of facing that someone has a different opinion than you, and that gasp mayhaps you aren’t right all the time, you marginalize the critic so you can disregard their criticism. Sorry, “Whitney” is a bad show, the Star Wars Prequels suck, and dubstep is horrible. Someone disliking things you like isn’t an indictment of you, it just means that someone has a different opinion and dismissing that might make you feel better, but it also makes you look weak. So… there.

For starters, “Psycho” is one of the most iconic films ever made by one of the most iconic filmmakers ever to make them. From the music to the performances to the visuals… people who don’t know this movie somehow still know this movie. Granted, that knowledge is generally misguided (Norman Bates doesn’t hit the screen until almost an hour into it, and there are only two killings), but they still know it.

So, the question is “Why?”

I kept asking myself this question over and over again during my viewing. Why? Why would Gus Van Sant, a very original and somewhat daring filmmaker, cash in his Oscar nomination chip to do a shot for shot remake of one of the most recognizable films ever? What could he possibly stand to gain?

From the beginning, when the project was first announced, I didn’t know what to make of it. My sister and I held the same opinion, this is what a film school student does for a director study assignment, this isn’t what an established filmmaker does.

I went further and stated that all he would do is draw unflattering comparisons and show the deficiencies in his own work.

Granted, I am an unapologetic Hitchcockian. I love his work unconditionally (even the ones I don't like) and have the man's trademark silhouette tatooed on my arm. So, know upfront that this movie had the deck stacked well against it from the get go.

So, now that I’ve seen it, what is my opinion?

Well… it was an interesting student film that, despite having some good performances and interesting moments, highlighted the difference between a filmmaker and a master filmmaker.

The problem is that this is a completely unnecessary film. Were it a straight remake it would make sense, but doing it shot for shot is utterly baffling. If you aren’t going to make it your own what is the point of doing it. It’s creatively bankrupt.

Let me show you what I mean by comparing the two.

Cinematography

Original- Crisp black and white. It’s moody and creates a lot of really great tension. The shot selection in this film is legendary and set the standard for this type of filmmaking.

Remake- Well… it’s in color, which takes a lot of the moodiness out of it. The sky behind the Bates house looks amazing, but other than that it looks just like the original. There is nothing expressive about this. It doesn’t feel organic, every shot is there because it has to be, not for the story, but because it’s a shot for shot remake. The addition of color actually weakens some of the scenes, in particular the shower scene. Instead of an incredibly effecting montage it feels like an editing project. Oh, and the shower scene was severly harmed by the inclusion of a needless shot of Anne Heche’s butthole. Watch it again, there is all kind of butthole in this piece.

Advantage- Orginal

Music

Original- Bernard Hermann’s score for this film is one of the most recognizable and powerful ever recorded. It is innovative, emotive, and legendary for a reason.

Remake- They used the exact same music, so…

Performances

Original- I am a big Hitchcock fan and were I asked what the best performance in a Hitchcock film was I would reply, without delay, hesitation, or doubt that Anthony Perkins performance as Norman Bates takes that title HANDS DOWN! He is understated, charming, disarming, but has that slight… off centeredness that makes the character so amazing.

Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, and Martin Balsam give solid performances. Nothing revolutionary or career defining in terms of actual acting (Leigh is defined by this film though), but solid acting.

The rest of the performances are good, but feel dated today. It was the 60’s and acting was a bit more formulaic at the time, so watching it with our current method acting lense it comes off stiff.

Remake- Vince Vaughn does a very good job, but the performance feels off. He doesn’t have the disarming charm of Perkins. Instead he comes off much more intense and close to the edge. It’s hard to really judge this performance fairly because it is standing in a MASSIVE shadow. Every time he was on screen I kept thinking of how much more restrained and powerful Perkins was. This is the heart of the problem with a remake like this, it’s almost impossible not to draw this type of comparison because you could play them side by side. So, when I say that during the scene where he disposes of the car Vaughn’s face is too menacing and calculated, I have a direct point of comparison.

Heche, butthole not withstanding, does a good job, but nothing remarkable.

The rest of the cast is outstanding and is, in many ways an improvement on the original.

Advantage- Original (Lead), Remake (supporting)

Themes

Original- This was fairly revolutionary for the time. The idea of serial killers and psychotics was still novel and hadn’t been done to death. Also, the sexuality was fairly bold and revolutionary for the time.

Remake- Felt recycled. Not just because… well, it was, but because it didn’t add anything new. The original was shocking because it was original subject matter, by the time of the remake the themes and subject had been explored countless times, some good, some terrible. But to make the exact same film again… what was original now feels derivative, what was fresh is now stale, what was revolutionary is now repetitive.

Advantage- Original

Style

Original- This was the work of a master filmmaker during the strongest period of his career. During a six year period he made “Rear Window,” “Vertigo,” “North By Northwest,” plus a few minor films. The man was on fire, so to speak, and was creating masterpieces like that was the only kind of film you could make. This was subtle and handled with a deftness of touch that most storytellers can only dream of.

Remake- There were a few differences I was aware of, and they made a pretty big difference. First is the performance of Vaughn. His performance was too big. Norman was quiet and seemed harmless, even when he is angry with Marion it’s a simmering anger. Vaughn comes off threatening, and that doesn’t work. His awkwardness is showy and his emotions are too obvious. You need to feel his vulnerability for his character to work. One could blame the actor, but I feel this falls more at the feet of the director, if you can’t get a better performance then don’t tackle the project.

Then you have two other slight changes that I think harm the film greatly. First is the scene where he watches Marion through the wall. In the remake he masturbates while he does it. This slight change turns it from unsettling and creepy to perverted and gross. It adds nothing to the scene and makes Norman off putting. Hitchcock was able to achieve a similar effect without using the obvious sex act and it made Norman creepy, but still somewhat accessible.

The second is the shower scene. If Van Sant says that he has had a more daunting task than this in his career, he’s lying. Recreating the shower scene from Psycho is like trying to recreate the Mona Lisa, even attempting it is an act of incredible hubris that I can’t wrap my head around, and it is destined for failure.

Everything about it felt off. The music didn’t feel on cue, the montage of stabbing felt like some bad student art film from East Germany, and it holds too long on Marion falling, giving us a whole lot of butthole (sorry I keep mentioning it, but it’s pretty distracting). The horror of the scene is enough already, you don’t need to hold on that shot, get to the blood and the drain and the eye.

Also, by going shot for shot Van Sant chained himself to filmmaking methods that feel dated. The voice over and much of the dialogue, though very effective in the original feel completely out of place in modern filmmaking.

Advantage- Original

So, Hitch throws a shutout, which is no surprise.

The Van Sant remake of “Psycho” is an exercise in frustration. Here you have a very good filmmaker fresh off his biggest success, cashing in his “make whatever film you want in the wake of your Oscar nomination” chip on a completely unnecessary remake. Before seeing it I was afraid it would feel like an experiment that would play like an unnatural student film and would only highlight Van Sant’s shortcomings. While I wouldn’t say it made him look bad it certainly didn’t do him any favors. But more than anything this made me appreciate the original that much more.

Call Tarantino a thief all you want, but at least when he steals things he does so in an original and interesting manner. The remake of Psycho is all of the theft, and none of the artistry. In the end, it is worse than a bad film, it is a wholly unnecessary one.

It's hard to come up with an original story. Think about it. You have to come up with characters, you have to make something happen, you have to get people interested in it... It's a nightmare.

So why not skip as much of the hard part as possible and just create a story about something that already exists. No, not a book or a play, that would involve reading. No, we are talking about TV shows, video games, board games, toys... you name it.

This week we tackle the world of non literary adaptations. It's... well, it's interesting.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:49:47m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (127)

The only thing harder than adapting a long book into a good film is adapting a long life into a good film. How do you do it and maintain some level of factual accuracy.

Good for us some movies don't have even the slightest concern for "facts" and "accuracy."

Join us as we take a look at some of the best and worst movie biopics out there.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:49:04m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (148)

The Hunger Games

"The movie was good... but the book was so much better."

You. Don't. Say?

I use to say this. I did. It's not something I proud of, but it's the truth. There isn't anything harmful or wrong about this statement, it's just, if we're being honest, a non statement. Non statements are things you normally hear during political campaigns. Things like, "every American should have the opportunity to make their lives better." Wow, bold stance. Do you also think all babies should eat? They are safe statements because nobody can, or for that matter does, disagree with them.

There are statements like this about movies too. "Daniel Day-Lewis was really good in that!" You know, as opposed to all the times he sucked. "Michael Bay has a really strong visual style, but his stories are weak." Thank you for clearing that up. "Sean Connery uses the same accent in every role!" Yeah, and when you are Sean Connery, you can do the same.

But to me the most annoying is "The book was so much better." Why do I consider this to be a non statement? Well, let's look at "L.A. Confidential," a very good book and a very good movie that are very different from one another.

The book is 496 pages, spans several years, and has around 100 characters in it.

The movie runs 138 minutes (for those who don't know that means the screenplay was around 138 pages long), spanned around a year, and had significantly fewer characters in it.

So, for an exceptional adaptation you had to lose 358 pages, 9 years, and 60-70 characters. The page count alone should invalidate comparison. How can you hope to compare a story to a version of itself that is 72% shorter? Is it even possible? Add to that the necessity of losing 70% of the characters, and 80% of the time that passed and you begin to see the impossibility of adaptation. Then take into account the loss of narration due to the visual nature of film storytelling and the whole affair begins to look hopeless.

Yes some are good, some are even better than the book (it does happen), but it is a rare thing.

So, I propose looking at the films as films, not as extensions of the books. I will go more into this at another time, the only reason I mention it is because I am reviewing "Hunger Games and I've hear a lot of people say this about the movie and book, so I felt the need to address it.

The only thing I've hear more of than "The book was better..." is, "I liked it better when it was called 'Battle Royale,'" First off, good for you! I am impressed by your worldliness. Tell me more of your adventures in international cinema!!!

Yes, there is a basic similarity between the two, but it's just that... basic. Saying that "Hunger Games" is the same as "Battle Royale," is like saying that "The Godfather" and "Goodfellas" are the same movie because they both involve the mafia, or that "A Beautiful Mind" and "Good Will Hunting," are the same because they both involve math. Hell, it's more accurate to call "Die Hard" and "Home Alone" the same movie because they both involve wise cracking loners separated from their families on Christmas eve who have to go against a group of thieves who disguise themselves using only his intelligence in gorilla style warfare. Both include humorous airport scenes, broken glass, jumping out of windows, unlikely sidekicks with personal problems who save the day at the last minute, useless cops, and eventual familial reconcilliation.

If you criticize "Hunger Games" as a "Battle Royale" rip off, then you have to criticize "Battle Royale" for ripping off "The Running Man," "The Long Walk," "The Most Dangerous Game," "The Condemned," "The Man With The Golden Gun," or "Series 7: The Contenders." The only thing that makes these two more similar is the use of kids and the laziness and lack of research on behalf of the person making the comment.

"Battle Royale" is good. But let's not make it more than it is.

"The Hunger Games" is a different animal. It's set in a dystopian future. America was destroyed by an unmentioned apocalyptic event and a country called Panem rose from the ashes. Panem consists of The Capital, where the very wealthy live in absolute luxury, and the 12 districts, where people live near starvation and work to provide the capital with all the material trappings that give them that luxury. As "penance" for a past revolution each year the districts are required to offer one male and one female between the ages if 12 and 18 as tribute to participate in "The Hunger Games," a fight to the death tournament with only one survivor. Win, and your family is given a new life of wealth and comfort and your district is showered with gifts and food for the next year. Each district is required to watch. For the districts it is a cruel exercise in domination, being forced to watch their children murder each other. In the Capital it is a giddily anticipated entertainment, like the olympics.

We follow Katniss Everdeen, a young woman from District 12 (the mining district) who enters the game as a volunteer to take the place of her 12 year old sister who was drawn at random. Her life is a struggle to support her family in a world that seems bent on consuming them. We follow her to the capital and through the pageantry that surrounds this blood sport, and ultimately into the game itself.

The book itself is pretty streamlined story telling. There are parts that were excised for the sake of pacing and length, but they were parts that could be excised without damaging the narrative as a whole. The character of Katniss is strengthen somewhat in the movie. In the book she seemed less sure of herself at first and more vulnerable, whereas in the movie she seemed much more in control and confident. It's a subtle change, but I think it benefits the character immensely.

Normally, when I see a movie after reading the book I am a bit let down. I go in knowing that it won't be as good, but usually I end up pissed off because they leave out things that I think are important or put in things that don't make sense or rush things too much trying to put in as much as possible. That didn't happen here. Yes it is streamlined, but it's not hatched together. The things that are left out are minor and the film moves at a good enough clip and includes enough of the important that what is left out goes largely unnoticed. It's not the book and wasn't meant to be, what it is, though, is a well crafted story that works in the world of the source material while not attempting to alter it.

This is a very good movie. It's brutal and touching in equal parts, visceral and heartbreaking, and makes some fairly strong social commentary without beating you over the head with it. (Yeah, watching lonely people fighting for attention and affection on national television may not be as savage as kids killing each other, but we still take voyeuristic pleasure in the pain of another human being.)

The casting is absolutely perfect and the performances were a bit surprising.

Jennifer Lawrence kills it as Katniss. She is compelling as a young woman doing what needs to be done to protect and provide for her family in a desolate mining town (hmmm... Jennifer Lawrence as the oldest child forced to act as parent to a poor family in a mining town? This sounds familiar for some reason.). This is a difficult role and she nails it.

The other performances I was concerned about were Hamich, Cinna, and Rue.

Hamich- One of the best characters in the story. He is a former Hunger Games champion from District 12 who is charged with training and mentoring Katniss and Peeta (the male tribute). Whatever he experienced in the games has broken him and he spends most of his time drunk. This character could have been played as a caricature of the shell-shocked alcoholic war vet and played for laughs, but he wasn't. Harrelson showed an incredible amount of restraint and subtlety in creating a man who is doing what he needs to in order to get through the day.

Cinna- As Katniss's stylist he is the human face of The Capital. Where as everyone else there is a grotesque caricature of privileged excess and vanity Cinna is an actual human who seems to really care about Katniss as a person, not just as a source of entertainment. Lenny Kravits seemed like an odd choice, but he was absolutely perfect.

Rue- They could not have found a more adorable, less threatening actress to play Rue if they had tried. Amandla Stenberg is heartbreaking as a completely innocent child who you instinctively want to protect in the most brutal environment possible. She is heartbreaking and wonderful.

While the acting is superb there is a fair amount of praise for the direction. The visuals are evocative and add to the story. The editing style and visual effects are... well affective. There is some solid visual story telling here and it offsets and aids the narrative.

There is one thing I find maddening about this movie though. Earlier this year a documentary called "Bully" was released. It was made with the intention of shedding light on the problem of bullying in America and around the world. It was made to let kids who bully know that it's not acceptable and to let the victims know that they are not alone and that it does get better. I don't know if I would call it an important film, but I do think that it is an important issue and anything that can be done to shed light and help end it is a good thing (I say this as someone who was bullied at one point in my life). That film received an R rating because the word "fuck" was used a few times. "The Hunger Games," where brutal child on child murder is shown was given a PG-13 rating without even needing an appeal.

But I digress...

The Hunger Games is a solid adaptation that works for both fans of the books and the uninitiated. It's a visually striking, well acted production of a solid script. Forget the comparisons and check it you. You'll most likely enjoy it.

Until next time, may the odds be ever in your favor.

King Kelly

“Gimmick” movies are nothing new. Split screen (Timecode), real time (Nick Of Time), found footage (The Blair Witch Project), different endings (Clue), and the quandary that is 3D (We pull this out every 10 years or so… but you’re right, this time it will last… oh, and that girl who cheated on you all those times? She totally won’t do it again.). Sometimes the gimmick is just that a gimmick. It’s there because the film needs something to set it apart. It adds nothing and is accepted for what it is, a throw away attempt to get people interested in something that is not that interesting. Other times it’s more than a gimmick and actually adds something to the themes and the narrative.

“King Kelly,” by Andrew Neel is shot entirely on cell phones held by the actors. It’s an interesting idea that takes the found footage movie into a new and interesting direction. In this case the gimmick is more than just a gimmick; it’s necessary from both a thematic and narrative viewpoint.

Today’s youth are oversexed, spoiled, hedonistic, entitled monsters filled with unearned confidence and who live in a consequence free world of instant gratification. Welcome to the YouTube generation! Fame whores to the left, star fuckers to the right, and boundless self esteem for all… or something like that.

It’s a growing caricature that is no more true today than any of the other sweeping generational characterizations.

The 60’s were a time of hippies, but it was also the time of young people who hated hippies.

The 70’s were a time of drugs and disco as well as The Ramones and death to disco.

The 80’s saw greed, materialism, selfishness, and charity in equal measures.

Hell, my generation produced as many well adjusted and productive members of society as we did angst filled, overeducated poets in shitty bands.

Sadly, generations are defined by whatever slogan ready group the media can prop up, so welcome to it kids. You are now known by the worst of you.

“King Kelly” is a movie about the worst of the worst. It is the story of Kelly, a young woman (I would have guessed mid teens by her behavior, but according to the director she is in her early 20’s) named Kelly, who is known as King Kelly on her live sex webcam show.

Right off the bat I cannot think of a more loathsome, selfish, annoying, and completely awful human being than Kelly.

The only think worse than her complete narcissism and self absorbed view of the world is her aggressive and restless immaturity.

She is a child who has grown accustomed to getting her way because she is pretty. She lives in a world of selfish hedonism inhabited by living props there for her amusement. Her every thought and action can be recorded an posted for the world to see and therefore it’s important.

The story follows her through one very dark night as she tries to get back a package that she was transporting for some dangerous people. Things go from bad to worse to unimaginable as she manipulates, betrays, and uses every person she can in a quest to cover her own ass.

I have a problem with protagonists like this. She is completely unlikable and seems completely OK with that. She always gets her way so she is oblivious to the fact that her actions have consequences, both for herself and for those around her.

That is my only problem with the film, but it’s a big one. It is an inventive film that looks good and has strong performances from a young cast and the story move at a good pace and it’s an interesting descent to some pretty dark places.

But God DAMN, I cannot stress how much I hated Kelly. At every step I was waiting for someone to punch her in the face. She was such an overwhelmingly annoying, dismissive, self absorbed imbecile that it was impossible for me to wish for anything but her to get knocked down.

In the end “King Kelly” is a well made, interesting, and inventive look at a generation that is being defined by its worst elements that would have been fantastic had the protagonist shown any sign of humanity, humility, respect, or redemption. She doesn’t.

Film criticism is a complicated thing.

Who is this person?

Why does their opinion matter?

Does there opinion matter?

How do you approach a film as a viewer?

How much context is necessary to truly understand a film?

There are a lot of questions. But in the end, we are talking about one person giving an opinion on a film they have seen once, maybe twice. Yet for some reason we give this opinion weight.

What happens when a critic gets it wrong? Not just from a difference of opinion standpoint, but from a not understanding the film/being on the wrong side of history standpoint?

This week we have a look at some reviews that, we feel, got it wrong. Plus, we introduce a new game... so that's fun.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:13:47m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (137)

Eden

Human trafficking is such an antiseptic term. It intellectualizes and softens something that is absolutely horrific. It’s the type of term that lives in the world of academia and statistics. There’s no emotional impact, no default outrage, no real teeth to it. I prefer to call it what it is, slavery. At this moment it is estimated that up to 4 million people internationally and up to 50,000 people domestically are held by human trafficking rings.

To put a finer point on it… there are, at this moment, 50,000 people owned as slaves in the United States. Not historically, not descendants of freed slaves, but actual living breathing human beings living as slaves right now. This is not just a forced labor situation either; we are talking about forced prostitution.

Some are sold by their parents, some are recruited into domestic service jobs only to find out when they are in another country with no ability to leave what the job really is, and other are taken right off the streets in the US and forced into it.

A majority are women and almost all are under 18.

These numbers are jarring, alarming, and disgusting and nowhere near enough people are aware of them.

Eden is the true story of Chong Kim, a Korean American woman who, at the age of 19, went to a bar with a fake ID, had a drink with a very nice fireman who offered her a ride home. He pulled over to make a phone call and by the time she realized that something was wrong… it was too late. She oke up in the trunk of a car and began a harrowing two year long nightmare of isolation, forced prostitution, and every type of abuse and degradation you can imagine.

This is not an easy or comfortable film to watch, but it is about something so very important that I believe it needs to be seen. Much like Damian Harris’s “Gardens of the Night,” which follows the younger spectrum of this abhorrent practice, it sheds light on a world so blackly dark and hidden from view that most people don’t know that it exists.

Unlike “Gardens,” which shows a world so vile and reprehensible that it exists entirely behind the curtains and closed doors, “Eden,” shows a normalized and, in some ways, accepted trade. It’s in the shadows, yes, but it is still in the light. The people who trade in it are somewhat open about it. There are parties with men in suits, fraternity parties, and underground S&M clubs where this type of traffic is a normal part of business. It’s an entirely corrupt world where even the law cannot be trusted.

Director Megan Griffiths does an outstanding job of finding the small pieces of humanity in a dehumanized world and contrasts them with the inherent brutality of the situation. Her direction is unflinching but not exploitative, honest but never preachy, and powerful without being manipulative.

The performances are phenomenal across the board but the film is moored by two standouts. Jamie Chung creates a heartbreakingly real woman whose sweetness and innocence are stripped away. Matt O’Leary gives an amazingly nuanced performance as Eden’s crack smoking handler. He is hateful and repellent, but is also very real.

This is a rare film in that it has changed the way I look at certain things. You hear terms like “human trafficking,” and “forced prostitution,” and are justifiably horrified, but they are just abstract concepts. Seeing the reality of women forced to live in dark storage lockers, four to a room on bunk beds, and knowing that it is happening now, in my country both horrified and sickened me. Suddenly, these concepts were no longer concepts, but living breathing facts.

In a world where millionaire athletes and musicians throw the world slave around it is fairly sobering to have the reality of it shown so plainly.

I rarely use the term “important,” to describe films as even the most “important” films rarely are. Usually it really means “self important.” This film however deals with an issue most of us would rather pretend doesn’t exist, but that is far more important than can be expressed.

“Eden” shows evil in its truest form. The evil that allows people to profit from suffering, the evil that exists when good people don’t stand up for what is decent, the evil that exists in a world where girls (and let’s be clear they are GIRLS) can be treated as disposable property.

Related Films:

Very Young Girls- Documentary about teenage girls forced into prostitution.

Gardens of the Nigh- Fiction film about a girl kidnapped into the world of child sex trade.

Paul Williams Still Alive

Celebrity is a bizarre thing. It’s fleeting, unpredictable, and fickle. To use an example from William Goldman’s “Adventures in the Screen Trade,” let’s look at the top 10 box office stars from the beginning and the end of the past few decades.(as voted by movie exhibitors).

1970

1- Paul Newman

2- Clint Eastwood

3- Steve McQueen

4- John Wayne

5- Elliot Gould

6- Dustin Hoffman

7- Lee Marvin

8- Jack Lemmon

9- Barbra Streisand

10- Walter Matthau

1979

1- Burt Reynolds

2- Clint Eastwood

3- Jane Fonda

4- Woody Allen

5- Barbra Streisand

6- Sylvester Stallone

7- John Travolta

8- Jill Clayburgh

9- Roger Moore

10- Mel Brooks

Only 2 people lasted the decade.

How about the 80’s?

1980

1- Burt Reynolds

2- Robert Redford

3- Clint Eastwood

4- Jane Fonda

5- Dustin Hoffman

6- John Travolta

7- Sally Field

8- Sissy Spacek

9- Barbra Streisand

10- Steve Martin

Ok, one year later and half the list has changed. How did the decade end?

1989

1- Jack Nicholson

2- Tom Cruise

3- Robin Williams

4- Michael Douglas

5- Tom Hanks

6- Michael J. Fox

7- Eddie Murphy

8- Mel Gibson

9- Sean Connery

10- Kathleen Turner

Wait… that is a totally different list. What’s going on?

1990

1- Arnold Schwarzenegger

2- Julia Roberts

3- Bruce Willis

4- Tom Cruise

5- Mel Gibson

6- Kevin Costner

7- Patrick Swayze

8-Sean Connery

9- Harrison Ford

10- Richard Gere

In one year… 7 people dropped off the list completely?

Well, these have to have staying power, don’t they?

1999

1- Julia Roberts

2- Tom Hanks

3- Adam Sandler

4- Bruce Willis

5- Mike Myers

6- Tom Cruise

7- Will Smith

8- Mel Gibson

9- Meg Ryan

10- Sandra Bullock

In one year half the list changed.

Last one, I promise.

2000

1- Tom Cruise

2- Julia Roberts

3- George Clooney

4- Eddie Murphy

5- Russell Crowe

6- Mel Gibson

7- Martin Lawrence

8- Tom Hanks

9- Jim Carrey

10- Harrison Ford

Four… not bad.

Finally…

2009

1- Sandra Bullock

2- Johnny Depp

3- Matt Damon

4- George Clooney

5- Robert Downey Jr.

6- Tom Hanks

7- Meryl Streep

8- Brad Pitt

9- Shia LaBeouf

10- Denzel Washington

Only 2.

So, what is the point of this long drawn out example?

Unknowns rise quickly, and established names fall even faster. You could be the biggest box office star in the world one day and within five years you’re struggling to self finance a direct to DVD piece of crap.

Fame is like the stock market, some people make tons of money and never lose a dime, some get rich and lose it all in a moment.

Some people vainly rage against the dying of the light, whereas others are more graceful and distinguished about it. Paul Williams falls into the later category.

Don’t get me wrong; Paul Williams is still a known quantity. You know the words to at least one of his songs and have seen him in at least one movie, you might just not know it. Hell, his own daughter was a fan of the Monkees song “Someday Man,” and had no idea her father wrote it. I’ve always known him as Little Enos from “Smokey and the Bandit,” but he’s been in many, many more.

Pail Williams was everywhere. This diminutive, deep voiced, incredibly charismatic guy was part of our cultural landscape. He was a favorite of Johnny Carson at a time when America loved who Johnny loved.

Paul was on game shows, talk shows, specials, movies; he was nominated for six Oscars and won one. He should have won two, but “It Goes Like It Goes” from “Norma Rae” beat out “Rainbow Connection.” You know, the classic “It Goes Like It Goes.”

Then one day, he was gone.

Not “gone,” but his omnipresence faded some, and when such massive exposure fades even a little it is tantamount to disappearance.

“Paul Williams: Still Alive,” is a very intimate look at a man who transitioned from personality to person.

Also, a close personal friend of mine for about a minute.

In the past I have been very critical of documentarians who inject themselves into the subject too much. That there are too many (Moore, Spurlock) who are so present that the film becomes the story of the filmmaker rather than the subject. This film comes dangerously close to that, but manages to avoid falling into that trap. It strikes a balance, the filmmaker is present and vital, but he never overtakes the subject.

Yes, the filmmaker is a big part of this film, but it is because his relationship with Williams. It becomes a part, but never overshadows the whole. Honestly, what better way to examine the relationship between performer and audience than to form a relationship between the performer and a member of the audience?

We see all sides of Williams from small personal moments at home to speaking engagements (Paul is a recovering addict, a licensed substance abuse counselor, and regularly speaks to groups about recovery.), to small concerts in the US to massive, sold out arena concerts around the world. It is also a film that doesn’t shy away from the very personal, going so far as to show Paul reacting in disgust at some of his past TV behavior. You get the picture of a real person who can learn and grow. This is a man who never really went away, he just shifted his priorities.

This is a very warm and personal film about a very warm and personal man. It’s about fame, celebrity, addiction, recovery, loss, and ultimately what you find through that loss. “Paul Williams: Still Alive,” succeeds where many other documentaries fail. It creates a moving and entertaining picture of a man who has gained and lost more than many of us ever will.

My South By Southwest Year

Back in 1993 I was a incoming high school senior and, like most self important 18 year olds, I knew music. I had subscriptions to “Rolling Stone,” “Spin,” “Guitar Player,” “Guitar World,” and “Guitar for the Practicing Musician,” (yes, all three were necessary). Every Tuesday I was at CD Warehouse buying damned near everything that came out that week. I had even been allowed to come to Austin by myself to see a show at the much-lamented Liberty Lunch with my older sister.

Yes, my focus was narrow, but my knowledge was vast within that narrow focus.

Around this time my sister told me about this decent sized music festival that showcased bands from all over the US. It was called South By Southwest and it was gaining some ground nationally. It sounded amazing. The best unknown bands from all over converge on a town that lived and breathed live music. For a pretentious young man who fancied himself a poet… it sounded like heaven.

South By Southwest (or as people in Austin call it “South By”) has grown in staggering leaps and bounds over the past 20 years. What was once a local music festival that occupied much of downtown for one week every year slowly became an all consuming behemoth. It all actually started about the time I moved to Austin. It became incredibly crowded, expensive, and difficult to get into shows.

It’s no longer just a music fest. It’s now three festivals: music, film, and interactive technology. All in, if it’s not the largest festival in the world… it is damned close. The film portion alone is second only to Sundance, and the music and interactive are two of the largest of their kind.

I always complain about South By buy I’ve never been before so my comments are ignorant to the core. All I know is that my town is overrun every spring break. The estimate for this year was 250,000 people, and from being there I think that might be an underestimate. Hell, last year the interactive festival alone crashed AT&T’s network.

Even though it’s not my scene I do appreciate how important it is for local businesses. There are clubs in town that are able to stay open for the year thanks to the money SX brings in.

But for all the good I’ve always seen it as a week when hipsters and industry douche bags make everything in my city suck for a week. It always hits during St. Patrick’s Day, which is one of the few days that I always go out on and I have had bad experiences several times due to South by people, so that has colored my view of it to a great extent.

I’ve always been curious about it, but I’ve never gone because

1) It’s crowded

2) There are lines (This is a real killer when the festival is held in your hometown. A visitor might not mind standing in line for an hour to get into The Red Eyed Fly, but when you know the place that makes it a bit harder to swallow).

3) It’s expensive and hard to get into shows unless you have a badge (and badges are expensive as hell).

But this year, however, fortune smiled on me and I was able to swing a film badge.

Up to this point my experience with festivals has been limited to The Austin Film Festival, which is one of the most amazing events I have ever attended. It is a week of writer centric panels and screenings that is user friendly, welcoming, and incredible informative. I honestly cannot speak highly enough of AFF. I expected South By to be a slightly larger version of this…

Dear God was I wrong.

Turns out that South By is indeed awash with hipsters and industry douchebags. It is a crassly commercial, bloated corporate promotional event that is miles away from the indie music scene that birthed it.. It’s also a great place to get free food and booze, check out some amazing films and bands you wouldn’t have gotten a chance to see otherwise, and meet some really cool and like minded film fans.

My first impression of SX came at registration. I showed up late in the evening of the second day and was greeted by this…

This was a “short” line.

I was also greeted by

And

I was worried.

It was raining and there wasn’t much I wanted to see, and it had been a long day so I decided to wander the convention center for a while and take it all in. It was insanely overwhelming. To give you an idea, there was a temporary Barnes and Noble set up. This was next level.

So, what did I learn at SXSW?

1) Hipsterism is alive and well… and it LOVES Austin.

I don’t care what the posters say, SXSW is sponsored by fedoras, cutoff skinny jeans, DEEP V-neck shirts, and mustache wax.

The number of people who don’t adhere to “mainstream fashion conventions” and who don’t care what you think about them and are DESPERATE to prove it by dressing the same and showing you how little they care what you think is staggering. South By is like a bare light bulb in the middle of a dark country field to these people. They flock to it and are welcomed by the warm arms of their artificially enlightened brethren.

2) Doug Loves Restraining Orders

I ran into Doug Benson no fewer than 4 times: twice in the streets, twice at screenings. At first I didn’t think anything more than,” Oh, cool! I keep running into a very funny comedian.”

But then I got scared because I know he “does the pot” and I was afraid he might be a dangerous stalker biding his time to rob me, or steal my identity so that he could buy more of the pot.

3) No second chances.

At my screening of “Paul Williams: Still Alive,” I passed comedian and America’s Sweetheart Todd Barry on the way to my seat. I expressed my appreciation of his work and took my seat. Then I noticed Doug Benson sitting behind him. This was pretty exciting because he hadn’t begun stalking me yet, so I gave him a card and told him I was a fellow podcaster and returned to my seat.

I then noticed Scott Aukerman sitting in front of him. This is the man behind Comedy Death Ray, Comedy Bang Bang, and co-founder of The Earwolf Podcasting Network (home of my current favorite podcast “How Did This Get Made?”). I didn’t want to be a nuisance so I decided to do a “bump into” on the way out. He left just as the movie ended so I didn’t have a chance to “casually” bump into him. So, now I am damned to a life of obscurity. But on the plus side, I did meet Paul Williams.

4) Branding is a science.

There is branding, putting your name or logo on a sticker or a pair of cheap sunglasses…

There is Branding, putting your name on something as part of a promotion…

Then there is BRANDING, altering the structure of a building to incorperate your logo.

CNNset the bar, but there were some other fairly massive ones, like The Spotify House. Spotify rented, repainted, and renovated a house for the week and gave away booze and empanadas to get people to sign up for their service. There are more examples, but I have no idea where to start, so I’ll get to the good side of heavy branding.

5) Free is better.

You know what is more satisfying than top of the line food and booze? Mid level food and booze that you don’t have to pay for. It might not taste as good, but it is infinitely more satisfying,

I learned this at no fewer than five heavily branded outlets courtesy of Spotify, Nokia, IFC Crossroads House, Red Cameras, and a countless number of vendors on the convention floor.

I was pleasantly buzzed most of the time and it was wonderful.

6) Austin trains are very nice, but the schedule sucks.

This is of little interest to anyone not from Austin, but what the hell? Austin has a train!!!

Granted, it only services Northwest Austin to downtown, but that’s what I needed so it specifically worked for me quite well.

Here’s the problem, you have a commuter train that lets off directly in front of the convention center and two blocks away from the biggest entertainment district in the city… and it stops running before 7 pm. So, my ride home every day left at 6:45, which killed the possibility of any and all night time activities. I know I could have gotten a ride, but getting cars to and around downtown during South By is a dicey proposition at best. Basically, the Capital Metro train service is a wonderful lesson on what the half assed version of a poorly thought out plan looks like.

7) Film fans are a pretty accepting group.

This was pretty cool to find out. No matter if you were waiting in line, waiting for a movie to start, or at one of the many events there were always lots of really interesting people to talk with and learn from. At their hearts festivals like this are social events and people at South By were by and large friendly and eager to engage other film fans/makers. Meeting new people and networking is always fun.

8) Festivals this size aren’t really my thing.

I had a good time at South By, I really did, but in the end it was just too much. Massive crowds, insane lines, badge scanners and no reentry at panels… it was all just a bit too much and it made me appreciate AFF so much more.

Keep an eye out in the coming days for my SXSW film reviews.

2011 was an interesting year, cinematic-ally speaking.So much so that it has taken us nearly four months to talk about it, but we finally did.

So, here it is, the year in review.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:21:53m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (127)

Very few people have actually grasped the brass ring in this world. There are a lot of us who try, but most of us just don't reach it. But every once in a while there is that one person who, through work, luck, and timing, actually makes it.

After being inspired by "Slacker" a young New Jersey man decided to have a go at telling a story he hadn't seen on film before. It was a huge gamble, one that he thought would lead to an interesting story and years of financial perils.

The story was simple, a day in his life as a convenience store clerk... but something happened. This film was in the right place at the right time and became something so much more.

We speak, of course, of Kevin Smith.

Almost overnight Smith went from clerk to star and his career has been as unpredictable as that ever since.

This week we take a look at a man who went from artist, to filmmaker, to director for hire, to comedian, to podcaster, to businessman and finally back to artist.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:26:36m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (148)

Based on the recent Uruguayan film La Casa Muda, filmmakers Chris Kentis and Laura Lau bring us Silent House. The story revolves around a young woman, her father and uncle cleaning out her childhood country home in preparation to sell. Employ the device of “damned squatters” into the script and you now have reasons for boarded up windows, electricity on the fritz, and “Lock all the doors behind you, missy! Those dammed squatters could be dangerous!” Uh huh, I didn’t buy it either.

Much like the pair’s previous work Open Water, this film is one big conceptual gimmick. No water or sharks this time just 88 minutes of what is constructed to appear as one continuous shot. Master filmmaker and Film Thugs patron saint Alfred Hitchcock used this same technique in Rope.  I served with Rope, I knew Rope, Rope was a friend of mine. Silent House, you're no Rope.

This flick doesn’t waste much time getting started or getting dark either. The uncle goes into town, a bump is heard upstairs, Dad gets a bump in the head and we’re off to the races. Our girl, portrayed quite well here by Elisabeth Olsen (yes, sister to the same Olsen’s), is then stalked about the darkening house by who the hell knows to partially good effect until we all hit our collective heads on the door frame of explanations - big dumb explanations.

My major complaint lies not with the acting in Silent House but rather with its execution. The other performances are serviceable and Olsen is really quite compelling in her role. My bitch is with the lack of scares. This is essentially a “haunted” house walkthrough. Give the audience some gags! If you want to enigmatically weave a horrifying story of childhood trauma, there is always Lifetime Movie Network. You’ve got 88 minutes of device to spook the hell out the ticket holders to the point that they run out to tell their friends what a great and scary time they all had. Hopefully, those folks will then fill the next showing’s seats. This picture does not get the job done.  

The movie does have a few moments but nothing that will keep anyone talking or any more money coming in. Silent House believes itself to be smart and scary but ultimately it is neither.  

- Clarkson Campbell    

HomeVideodrome #21- The Adventures of Tin Tin

Musical selections: Melvins - "Revolve" Melvins - "Black Book"

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:09:33m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (151)

Occasionally a director gets a little bit of what they call "clout" and are able to do whatever they want with a movie. This is not always a good thing.

This week we take a look at a few. Some good, some bad, some baffling.

Enjoy.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:27:18m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (154)

“Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip,” Free Speech, The First Amendment, and the importance of television comedy.

A controversial person says something controversial on television. Uproar ensues. One side screams that the statement is reprehensible, indefensible, and completely unacceptable and threatens to boycott network sponsors until the offending individual is fired.

Who am I talking about?

"We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly."

- Bill Maher, September 2001

"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

- Rush Limbaugh, September 2003

Each was equally attacked and defended.

He was making a statement about the over use of military force and how easy it is for us to attack the smaller guy.

He was making a statement about how the media handles race in America.

He called the members of our military who put their lives on the line every day for a shamefully low salary cowards.

He’s a hateful racist, this proves it.

What amuses me is that both of these statements drew extreme reactions from the same people in totally opposite ways. The people who attacked Maher, for the most part, defended Limbaugh and those who defended Maher, attacked Limbaugh.

Each side had its point.

“He said something politically incorrect on a show called ‘Politically Incorrect.’ What did you expect?”

“Hey, you hired Limbaugh because he is controversial, and now he said something controversial. What did you expect?”

“What he said was irresponsible, insulting, and absolutely unacceptable. This sort of statement is damaging to America and our military.”

“This type of racist attitude has plagued our country for far too long. There is no place for it on national television and any network that allows it is complicit in fostering racism.”

In both cases The First Amendment was invoked, and there were fevered denunciations of how it did not apply in this case.

Both men lost their jobs.

Here’s the thing…

The First Amendment has nothing to do with either of them.

Period. End of statement.

But how can that be?

Well, most people don’t have any idea what The First Amendment is, does, or means.

Before I go on let me stress something. I am a strict Constitutionalist. To paraphrase Penn Jillette, it’s a little document that I happen to believe every single effing word of. I am a firm believer in and defender of The First Amendment.

However, neither one of these cases has anything to do with it.

Let’s start by taking a look at it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty cut and dried. However, as the ABC television network fired both Maher and Limbaugh, so The First Amendment did not enter into it.

Let’s look at it again.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The thing people don’t realize is that The First Amendment does not say, “You have the right to say whatever you want in whatever way you want to say it, in whatever place you want, and at whatever time you want.”

What it does say is, “The US Government DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to prevent you from expressing yourself in whatever way you see fit as long as you are not breaking any laws while you do it.” So if your chosen form of expression is murdering schoolchildren, you are out of luck, but if your chosen form of expression is joking about the murder of schoolchildren, much as I would not be OK with it, you are free to do so.

So, if the government didn’t step in then what did happen? Well, in both cases, was a group of citizens got together and voiced displeasure at the comments and threatened to boycott the advertisers of the shows if they continued to provide financial support for the views presented.

Let’s look one more time.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Neither man lost his job because of governmental censorship. Both lost their jobs because they displayed shockingly poor judgment and said something that put their employer in a position to make a tough call. It’s like the ESPN online editor who was fired for the “Chink in the Armor” caption on a photo of Jeremy Lin. Intentional or not, he put his boss in a bad position and got nailed for it.

Did Congress intercede, make a law, or otherwise pressure the network to fire either of the people? No, it did not.

The same Constitutional Amendment that protected and empowered Maher and Limbaugh protected and empowered those who disagreed with them.

That’s the thing about freedom of speech; it goes both ways.

Do I think each of these men had the right to express his opinion? Yes, yes I do.

Do I think “The Dixie Chicks” had the right to express their disdain with George W. Bush? Yes, yes I do.

Do I think Tony Bennett has the right to go on Howard Stern and say things like, “They flew the plane in, but we caused it. Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop,” about 9/11? Yes, yes I do.

Do I think that the people who were upset with Limbaugh, Maher, The Dixie Chicks, and Tony Bennett have the right to publicly denounce and boycott them because of it?

Yes, yes I do.

You have the right to say what you want, but I also have the right to disagree with or ignore what you are saying. I am also not required to support you when say what you want.

So if someone pulls your comment off a message board they are not violating your first amendment right, they are simply refusing to provide you a platform to espouse your views. It’s like if your neighbor puts a sign in your front yard supporting a candidate you disagree with, you aren’t violating his or her First Amendment rights by taking it down. But you are if you try to get the government to remove one from your neighbor’s yard.

People tend to go with Voltaire on the subject of free speech, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”

I love that quote. It is probably my favorite, but I also like to thrown in a little Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate,” on top of it.

Today we have become a nation of cowards who hide behind The First Amendment and use it to cover those who say things that speak to our own beliefs and actively attempt to quiet any opposing viewpoints.

Do we celebrate the endless choice we have in media, or do we obsess on the outlets with differing views and attempt to silence them?

Hell, it was barely a year ago when there was a tragic shooting in Arizona and before the motives of the shooter could be looked into there were people attempting to place blame on cable news and talk radio and people pushing for a “Fairness in Media Doctrine” that would place government mandated restrictions on editorial content.

Then it turned out that the shooter was a deeply disturbed, completely apolitical schizophrenic and the furor died down, but that doesn’t change the fact that it happened. That’s right, we live in a world where compassion for people whose lives were torn apart by a lunatic has been replaced with blatant opportunism and an attempt to silence those you do not agree with.

In the end it just boils down to some long buried evolutionary tick that dates back to when we were living in caves. As humans we have this odd tick where ideas and ideologies we agree with make us feel very happy and secure, and ideas we don’t agree with make us angry. No matter how evolved you are this does apply to you to some degree. You may not fly into a rage because someone is out of step with your ideology, but it does provoke some small level of anger.

And it’s happening again. People are again screaming for Limbaugh’s head because he called some girl a slut. I don’t fall on either side of this particular issue because I find it an immensely trivial waste of media attention. It’s not an issue to me because I don’t really care what Limbaugh thinks, so why should I care what he says?

But, people are jumping all over it as some sort of excuse to get Limbaugh off the air. Yet those screaming out were oddly silent when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat,” described other conservative women as “bimbos,” “cunts,” and “sluts,” on his show and has joked about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. I’m not saying that either person is correct in using these terms, but if one is sexist then the other is sexist. I am wondering where the outrage is at Maher and when women’s groups will begin boycotting HBO. The answer is they won’t because as one woman I discussed this with the other night so eloquently stated, “Palin is a twat.” So I guess misogyny is totally acceptable if you happen to disagree with the woman being degraded. My, how far we have come.

In no way am I defending the content of Rush’s comment, I was actually quite reluctant to mention it here because people will perceive a political statement I was not trying to make. I think he was out of line for saying it, but I also think that the people who are so indignant about it need to admit that their problem is with the person who said it, not what was said.

Now the real question…

What does this have to do with “Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip?”

Well, this is a show that deals quite extensively with the issues of free speech, network censorship, and religious freedom. It also, inadvertently, deals directly with the very hypocrisy that I mention above.

I love living in this day and age because not that long ago shows like this were forgotten or relegated to AFRTS (Armed Forces Radio and Television Service, a place where production companies dump the shows they can’t make money off of. That’s right, military, you are risking your lives for little money and moving your family around the world constantly, but at least you get a few episodes of “Hawaiian Heat,” “Condo,” and two month old daytime soap operas to keep you and yours entertained). But today a largely forgotten, single season show can somehow provoke a 5000+ word 10 page article from some hack with a podcast.

Were I forced to describe “Studio 60,” in simple terms… well, it’s kind of like “Network,” meets “The West Wing,” by way of 70’s era “Saturday Night Live.”

This thing should have been a slam-dunk. This was Aaron Sorkin coming off the massive success of “The West Wing,” writing a show about an SNL analogue with Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford, there was virtually no way this thing could fail.

But somehow it did.

How?

Was it because it came out at the same time as “30 Rock?”

Was it too revolutionary?

Was it just bad?

The “30 Rock” thing is foolish to me. Is there more than one successful cop show on TV? Is there more than one successful medical show? Ok, then your argument is invalid. To say that it failed because it came out at the same time as “30 Rock” is like saying that “Scrubs” was destined to fail because “ER” was on the air. Yes, they were both set in an ER and were both about doctors but they were completely different takes on that world.

I don’t know if it could be called revolutionary because it was essentially the same format as “The West Wing.” Yeah, it was taking on a different topic, but that isn’t revolutionary in and of itself.

Bad isn’t a word I would use. Granted, it wasn’t great, but it wasn’t bad. Worst I could say is it was good. That’s all, just good.

So, what was the problem?

It’s a good show, but it is also a very self-important and preachy show.

When it comes to preaching in entertainment viewers tend to fall into two categories, they either completely agree and the preaching is invigorating and just hammers home how right everything they believe is, or they don’t agree and they find it annoying, off putting, and condescending. I tend to watch with a bit more scientific detachment. I studied media extensively. I know how people interact with it and how it impacts society. I know the tricks and the traps so I tend to watch with less in WHAT is being said than in HOW it’s being said.

The politics of this show are pretty firmly worn on the sleeve, which is to be expected from the creators of “The West Wing,” but the show failed to reach that level of popularity. I think the problem comes from the setting. Politics is a world that people understand the hardships of. I mean… if a president or a senator screws up the ramifications are pretty significant. But a TV show, especially a SNL style show… there isn’t as much sympathy. Everyone takes his or her job seriously, but for some reason people in the entertainment industry take that to the next level. Just watch an awards show like The Oscars or The Emmys and you will see how INCREDIBLY important these people take their work, as they should. Hell everyone should, but when you present that egotism as a vehicle for entertainment, you run into trouble.

Essentially, the problem is that it’s a drama about comedy and like any drama about comedy the show goes to great pains to make sure you know how important comedy is to the world. In fact, it takes comedy so seriously that it ceases to be funny anymore. Watching this show you get the feeling that our world as we know it would be thrown into a second dark age where intellectuals are burned at the stake, science is replaced by superstition, and religion is the law were it not for shows like Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show.

The series kicks off moments before the titular show within a show is set to go live. Show producer Wes Mendell is informed by the network’s standards and practices attorney that a sketch has to be pulled for fear of protests from the easily offended Christian right. Aside from the logistical nightmare of having a big gap blown into the middle of a life show about to go to air, Mendell feels that this is just another sign of how his once important show has been watered down.

As the show begins with yet another lazy “look how dumb George W. Bush is” sketch, Mendell breaks. He walks on set and stops the sketch, telling the audience that it isn’t funny and then launches into the following rant.

“We’re all being lobotomized by this country’s most influential industry, that’s just thrown in the towel on any endeavor to do anything that doesn’t include the courting of 12-year-old boys. Not even the smart 12-year-olds — the stupid ones, the idiots. Of which there are plenty, thanks in no small measure to this network. So why don’t you just change the channel? Turn off your TVs. Do it right now. Go ahead.

They say there’s a struggle between art and commerce. Well, there’s always been a struggle between art and commerce, and now I’m telling you, art is getting its ass kicked, and it’s making us mean, and it’s making us bitchy, it’s making us cheap punks. That’s not who we are. People are having contests to see how much they can be like Donald Trump? We’re eating worms for money. “Who Wants To Screw My Sister?” Guys are getting killed in a war that’s got theme music and a logo.

That remote in your hand is a crack pipe. Oh yeah, every once in a while we pretend to be appalled. It’s pornography, and it’s not even good pornography. They’re just this side of snuff films, and friends, that’s what’s next, ’cause that’s all that’s left.”

– Wes Mendell (Judd Hirsch), Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

Wow! First off, it’s a good speech, because that’s what Aaron Sorkin does, he writes good speeches.

But let’s look closer at it because herein lies the problem with this show.

We’re all being lobotomized by this country’s most influential industry, that’s just thrown in the towel on any endeavor to do anything that doesn’t include the courting of 12-year-old boys. Not even the smart 12-year-olds — the stupid ones, the idiots. Of which there are plenty, thanks in no small measure to this network. So why don’t you just change the channel? Turn off your TVs. Do it right now. Go ahead.

That is a powerful opening, but one that I have a bit of a problem with. So, television is to blame? Not the parents who allow kids to do whatever they want without consequences. Not the lack of parents in some instances where kids have no guidance. Not the culture that places more value on coolness than on education. NO! TELEVISION is the problem.

There is also a lot of arrogance in this statement. So, television is all powerful and everything that is put out is either high art meant to better society, or garbage for stupid 12 years olds. Wow!

So, a show like “The West Wing,” wouldn’t stand a chance at surviving 7 seasons, 156 episodes, or landing 94 Emmy nominations with 26 wins, or average 13 million viewers per episode. Oh, wait… I guess a lot of dumb 12 year olds are really into politics.

Also, what about people who work hard, very hard, and want to come home and relax for a while. Look down your nose all you want, but if you do you have lost any claim you might have towards populism. Most people have jobs that are a slight bit harder than working on a TV show, and by dismissing them you are essentially saying that you are better than they are and that what you do is more important.

I go off on the really bad mainstream TV and movies, but I don’t attack the audience. People work hard and want something to help them stop thinking about work every now and then. Life sucks. Yeah, it could be worse, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t pretty terrible a lot of the time. So I see value in anything that makes it suck a little bit less for a while. Watch Preston Sturgis’s “Sullivan’s Travels” for a much more poetic take on the issue.

They say there’s a struggle between art and commerce. Well, there’s always been a struggle between art and commerce, and now I’m telling you, art is getting its ass kicked, and it’s making us mean, and it’s making us bitchy, it’s making us cheap punks. That’s not who we are. People are having contests to see how much they can be like Donald Trump? We’re eating worms for money. “Who Wants To Screw My Sister?” Guys are getting killed in a war that’s got theme music and a logo.

Who is this “we?” Does he mean all of the viewing public or does he mean people who work in TV?

I think he meant the former but is correct about the latter.

TV doesn’t make people mean, life makes people mean. Having a shitty job, a boring marriage, and ungrateful kids makes you mean. That’s nothing new.

TV however, yeah that has gotten meaner, bitchier, and cheaper.

Yeah, we watch “The Apprentice” and “Fear Factor,” but you made it. YOU did, not us. You put it on the air and we were fascinated by it. But this is nothing new. It’s just the digital version of the traveling sideshow.

I don’t watch most reality TV but there are a few that I do get into. There is an inescapable drama to them. If you don’t believe me, try it out. Check your high mindedness and just watch a few episodes. It might do nothing for you, but odds are you will find yourself getting sucked further into the drama than you would care to admit.

Guess what, that is where the money is. I have a hard time hearing someone complain about art and commerce when their commerce is art and they make more money in a day than most people make in a year doing it. If they care more about the art than the commerce then why do they renegotiate contracts? Why do they hold out for more money? If the art is all that matters than you should be willing to do it for whatever you are lucky enough to get. But don’t ask for more money and then act surprised when the person paying you has to do something that will bring in more money. Everybody is looking to wet their beaks, so don’t go thinking you are superior.

That remote in your hand is a crack pipe. Oh yeah, every once in a while we pretend to be appalled. It’s pornography, and it’s not even good pornography. They’re just this side of snuff films, and friends, that’s what’s next, ’cause that’s all that’s left.”

You are correct, once a network figures out how to make money off snuff films they will hire writers, producers, and actors and start making money that way. And you will show up to work and write, produce, and act in them. You will cash your checks, buy your houses, hire your domestic staff, and complain about the hand that is shoveling the money to you.

Right off the bat this show wants you to know how important it is. Without us, you are left in the all consuming abyss of reality TV and pornography.

At this point it really does sound as though I dislike the show. That’s not entirely true. I think it’s interesting and has some really good ideas, but it’s more an exercise in hubris and pretension than anything else.

This show is exactly what you would expect from Sorkin at this stage in his career. It is sharply written, tightly paced, and brilliantly acted. He creates a world and then fills it with interesting, compelling characters. It also wears its politics on its sleeve, takes itself a bit too seriously, and can be a bit preachy.

Granted, there is a fair amount of self-deprecation, like when the based on Sorkin character Matt Albie states plainly, “Look, I hate Los Angeles just like everybody else, but I have to work here because in any other part of the country I'm unemployable.” He realizes that what he does, and does well (there is no shortage of reference to his genius), is so specialized that he is helpless anywhere else in the world. But at the same time the importance of the show is greatly overblown. It’s a funny TV show, not the cure for cancer. Yeah, it’s important in some regards, but if we are being completely honest… it’s a TV show. To me it’s only really important because it employs people, (a lot of people, not just the actors) and provides the audience with an escape.

What gets me is the handling of religion. I am not a religious person at all, so this isn’t some bible beater bemoaning yet another assault on his faith. The problem I have is that the general mocking of faith as a catch all for “edgy” comedy. It’s about as shocking as that feminist (be said feminist male or female) denouncing sports as homoerotic, or men using big sticks to make up for their deficiencies. Yes, penis imagery, how shocking! It’s lazy and hacky, pure and simple. But the network not letting you say “Jesus Christ” as an expletive is not the same as the government not allowing it. It’s also not the same as having your hours cut at an already underpaying job. Yeah, it’s annoying and you will complain about it, but you will complain in your Range Rover as you drive to your home in Beverly Hills.

The heart of my problem with the show is that it is a show that begs to be called brave, but does so by taking on easy targets… conservative Christians.

Yes, there is an attempt to present a conservative Christian character in Harriet Hayes star of the show within the show, and they make damned sure you know that she is a conservative Christian by mentioning her religion damned near every time she is on screen. Do people really do this, and if so… really? What kind of prick are you? You have a friend or coworker with different beliefs and values… so you handle it by mentioning it in almost every interaction. Talk about straw man tactics. You want to be brave, don’t make her religion such a bit topic of discussion. They even give her character a romantic past with Matthew Perry’s character to add some drama.

The thing is, in my opinion, this relationship presents a blatant hypocrisy that is the root of the problem I have with many free speech defenders. Matt Albie (Perry) was in a relationship with this conservative Christian woman, but ended the relationship because she appeared on “The 700 Club” to promote her album of spiritual songs. He objects to the content of the show and completely disagrees with the worldview of the host. So, she appeared on a show that he found offensive and should therefore not be validated. The man who wrote “Crazy Christians,” and pushed for it to be shown regardless of who would be offended by it could not be with someone who appeared on a show that presented views he found offensive. If this is not the dictionary definition of hypocrisy, then I evidently have no idea what that word means.

But my problem with the relationship goes way beyond the hypocrisy. Matt is a vocal atheist, she is a devout Christian and in one montage they show a continuing argument that ran the length of their relationship. Basically, Matt had to voice his disapproval with her religion at every juncture by calling her a “Bible beater,” saying things like “you believe in fairy tales,” and throwing statistics of abstinence pledges in her face to mock her appearance at a Catholic groups fundraiser. Now, one would that that as an atheist myself I wouldn’t have a problem with this, but I found it more insulting and offensive than I can say. For me it’s a question of respect. I may not agree with your beliefs, but I know that they are important to you and if I have any respect for you as a person I will not go around insulting those beliefs just for the hell of it. I couldn’t believe the love story because I saw Matt as fundamental disrespectful of Harriet’s beliefs.

Granted, they try to redeem Albie by having him admit to his hypocrisy. He created a sketch that called attention to Dick Cheney coming to Hollywood to pitch studios on patriotic films and how terrible and dangerous he thought it was, but admitted that he wouldn’t have minded at all had it been a democratic administration doing it. Here’s the thing calling out your hypocrisy doesn’t magically wash your hypocrisy away; it just shows that you don’t mind being a hypocrite. That is not what a brave or intellectually honest person does.

You want to talk brave? Look at “South Park.” This show is not only smartly written and relevant, but it is completely fearless in how it approaches even the most delicate subject matter. In its 15 year, 233 episode run it has been censored two times, and for the same reason. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are clear, if making fun of one thing is ok, then making fun of everything is ok. It’s difficult to pin down the politics of it. Every side is attacked with equal fervor. They mock conservatives and liberals alike. The show exists to take on taboos on all sides.

Oh, and the two instances of censorship? They attempted to show and image of the Prophet Mohammed. That’s it. Not an image of Mohammed doing anything untoward, just Mohammed entering a room. They went so far as to “hide” him by drawing a large mascot costume, but were still told that it was “offensive to Muslims.” Let me be clear, they didn’t draw a picture of Mohammed and then put a big mascot costume over it, they just drew the costume.

To give perspective on “brave,” this was around the time that Theo Van Gough was killed for making a film that basically just said, “You know, perhaps Muslim countries could treat women better.” That’s it.

And it cost him his life.

This was also a time when newspapers showing depictions of Mohammed received credible bomb threats.

How did Trey and Matt respond? They planned to show Mohammed in an episode. To embrace the controversy and show that their show did not recognize sacred cows.

They were threatened repeatedly on the internet and were ultimately censored by Comedy Central who “didn’t want to offend people of the Muslim faith.”

How did Trey and Matt respond? They did another Mohammed show, this time featuring the central figures of every religion they could. Mohammed was the only figure not depicted doing something completely offensive and blasphemous, but he was the only one censored, again.

According to the network, Buddah doing cocaine is fine, Mohammed standing in a room unacceptably offensive.

What does “Studio 60” hold up as their “too shocking to be aired” bit? A sketch cleverly entitled “Crazy Christians.” Cute, but it plays more like something a high school kid tries to throw out to be offensive in lieu of developing a personality.

I am an atheist, but even I am ready to protest Christian sketches. Not because they are offensive, but because they are overplayed and weak. I’ve heard it before and it doesn’t interest me.

They did better with a sketch called “Science Schmience” where different devout religious people competed to give the least scientific, most faith based answers to common scientific questions. I found that funnier because it that, for all the fighting between denominations, most religions agree on some pretty fundamental levels.

But, let’s not kid ourselves. The sketch was not intended to open eyes; it was intended to get nods of approval from people who already agreed with the sentiment.

Therein lies my main problem with the show. It’s a long sermon to the choir. All the politics espoused are done for the benefit of the enlightened who are already on message. The battles with the network are for the benefit of those who work in TV and see themselves as the thin blue line between freedom and religious totalitarianism.

I agree that there is a need for the free and unrestricted exchange of ideas. Without it there is no society. But having the freedom to express does not mean that you should be guaranteed an outlet. In the end if you are on a network TV show you are singing for your supper. You are asking someone else to pay for production and distribution. When you do that, you are giving up your unrestrained freedom. It’s like being a teenager. My house, my rules and if you don’t like it, move out.

It’s sad to say, but the truth of it is that when you work for a big production company the only time you have any creative freedom is when you write your first draft.

Right now, I am in a better position creatively than anyone with a TV show. Why? The show I do completely self-produced, self-promoted, self-distributed, and, most importantly, self-financed. If you don’t like it, you are invited not to listen and given a full and complete refund of the $0 you have paid for each episode. Yes we have no budget, but we also have no limits.

It’s what Adam Carolla and Kevin Smith have done, just on a much smaller scale. If you don’t like the rules, take your ball and go build a field where you can play the game you want to play, but don’t expect someone to keep writing checks to you without eventually writing the rules for you.

We at The Film Thugs understand that there are times when fancy, high fa-looting,  artsy movies just aren't gonna do it for you.

There is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes you want something big and dumb, and if there is anything we do know it's big and dumb.

So sit back and take it all in as Jim and Clarkson discuss the world of the "just because" movie.

Also, you can now help support the show by going using the following link

This will take you to our Amazon.com affiliate page. Using this link will not add a cent to your order, but it will get us a small amount of cash to help keep the show running.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:47:02m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (179)

HomeVideodrome #20: Hugo This week on the HomeVideodrome podcast, Hunter and Jim rap about the results of the Oscars, as well as run-down this week's releases.

Musical selections: Ghost - "Con Clavi Con Dio" Warren Zevon - "Play it all Night Long" (live)

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [00:49:53m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (160)

At long last The AFI is finally growing smaller in our rear view mirror and we are moving on with our lives.

We decided to do something a little different this time out. At Clarkson's birthday I asked a question. Is Anthony Hopkins good?

I asked because I couldn't remember the last move he made that I actually had any interest at all in seeing.

I asked because the last few movies I'd seen him in were... well bad and looked like he was phoning it in on a borrowed phone.

I asked because I had honestly forgotten.

So, we took a look at his body of work to try find an answer.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:29:27m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (150)

At long last we finish it!

So, after 2 years of tireless effort we finally finish the long trek into uncharted territory.

The only thing nicer than being done with 100 is being done with AFI. Thank you so much for bearing with us through our seemingly endless odyssey to get to the bottom of this nonsense.

But we did bring more guests, more drops, and definitely more attitude. So enjoy.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [02:53:20m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (181)

I remember the conversation quite clearly. It was a Sunday in late January 2009 when I called Clarkson and said, "I've been listening to some film podcasts lately and you know, I think we can do that."  A week or so later I got a Blue Snowball mic int he mail from Amazon and a week or so later we were sitting at the corner of the cheap, tacky black lacquered table he got of Craigslist. The chairs were crazy uncomfortable and falling apart, but what the hell. That night we recorded 3 episodes, "Oscar Predictions," "Movies We Love," and "Movies We Hate," and had so much fun that we recorded an extra episode on the fly "The John Carpenter Lost Episode." Right from the beginning we knew that we had found something that we not only loved, but that we were pretty decent at. Basically, it was the same conversation we'd been having every time we hung out for the past 20 years, we just had a topic.

For the next two years we kept that same rabid level of production, for better or worse. Now we only do one show at a time  (we no longer live 80 miles apart), and have better equipment but we still try to have the same energy that we did on that first night.

During that time we have met and shared airtime with some really awesome people, most of whom are part of the shows festivities.

People like...

Phil from Bakersfield

Vijay Sitaram (Granted, I've known him for a few years before, but you guys didn't.)

Ben Walser

Jason Macomb

As well as some fellow podcasters like...

Hunter Duesing and Stuart Baulk from the Midnight Movie Cowboys

Adam Wayne and Adam Linfield from The A.M.P.

Jedi Cole Houston, Rick Gutierrez, and Andrew Farmer from The United States of Geekdom

Andy Seims from The Hollywood Saloon

We became part of a very supportive community. How supportive? All of these people took time out of their lives to record segments just to be part of this show. It's pretty amazing what can happen in a year, isn't it?

This week we come to the end of our journey with The AFI by tackling their original list of 100 Greatest American Films. It's another richly bizarre list, but more importantly it will finally allow us to be rid of the albatross that has been The AFI once and for all.

So, for the 100th time, sit back, crack open a beer, and enjoy The Film Thugs 100th Episode Spectacular.

-Jim

The Film Thugs

thefilmthugs.com

the_film_thugs (skype)

512-666-RANT (7268)

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [02:20:19m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (215)

Drive

Have you ever gone to the video store with no real idea of what you want to watch and just wandered until something caught your eye? Not a new release, but a catalogue movie hidden deep within the stacks of forgotten film. Maybe it’s one of those movies from your childhood that you’ve meant to watch but just never got around to and you decide to give it a go. Then you get home and put it on and are greeted by a wave of nostalgia. Remember when movies looked like that? Remember when action scenes were shot that way, or opening credits looked like that, or the music that sounded like it did, or any number of other things that transport you back to years ago?

That is what I felt like watching “Drive.” Right off the bat I felt like I was watching a movie Michael Mann directed in the mid 80’s and just forgot about until this year. This film is quiet, moody, exquisitely shot, and captures the visual and emotional aesthetic of my childhood.

The story is simple; Ryan Gosling is a stunt driver who sidelines as a getaway driver. He has a code (You don't need to know the route. You give me a time and a place, I give you a five minute window. Anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours. No matter what. Anything happens a minute either side of that and you're on your own.), he has a small circle of trusted allies, and he does not venture one step outside of either one.

Until he does… and then things get complicated.

I could go on, but I won’t. Needless to say, there is nothing more dangerous than a man with a code who gets pushed too far.

What I find most beautiful is that this is a movie that someone filed a lawsuit over. A woman tried to sue because:

– Drive was promoted as very similar to Fast and Furious, when in actuality, it wasn’t.

– “Drive bore very little similarity to a chase, or race action film, for reasons including but not limited to Drive having very little driving in the motion picture.” (emphasis mine)

That’s right, for some reason a person tried to sue because a movie wasn’t ENOUGH like Fast and Furious. I have always thought the opposite would be more appropriate. However…

“Drive” is an outstanding movie, but I can completely understand someone not loving it, unless it is for the reason above. It’s has a very measured pace, there is a lot of silence, and it doesn’t follow a traditional hero’s journey. It’s about an uncomplicated man with uncomplicated goals who has to deal with complications.

To simplify, this movie is the child of Michael Mann’s “Thief” (the visual style and some character elements), Walter Hill’s “The Driver” (narrative and character elements), and Jean-Pierre Mellville’s “Le Samourai,” (overall style and feel). If you know of and like any of these films, then you will probably enjoy “Drive,” and vice versa.

The best way to sum it up is to say that this film isn’t what you expect. Even if you think you know, you really don’t. It’s measured and brutal, but quiet and tender at the same time. It is technically brilliant (the lighting and shot composition are jaw dropping), the acing is… I don’t even know where to begin. I could not name the best performance in this. Gosling is unbreakably solid as “Driver,” Bryan Cranston shows why he is an Emmy factory as Gosling’s mentor/agent, Albert Brooks upends every expectation you have for him as the brutally efficient crime boss, Ron Pearlman takes his creepy asshole character to another level, and Carey Mulligan provides enough innocent kindness to offset the brutality of Gosling’s world.

Nicolas Winding Refn is a master of atmosphere. His earlier works (“Valhalla Rising,” and “Bronson”) are clinics in measured pacing and immersive mood. With “Drive” he takes his work in a different direction and does so with incredible mastery. His movies are not for everyone; he makes measured, moody films that breathe and give you time to think. If this sounds good, then check it out. If not, be forewarned and don’t try to sue anyone.

HomeVideodrome #19: A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas

Jim finally sees Drive and weighs in, Hunter reviews A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas, and Jim reveals his love affair with A Fish Called Wanda.  Also, we discuss Ryan O'Neal's finest moment on film in Norman Mailer's Tough Guys Don't Dance.

Ryan O'Neal gives it his all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KyBdPeKHg

Song selections:

Faith No More - "I Started a Joke" The Misfits - "London Dungeon"

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [00:56:46m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (164)

Quick, what are the best Sports movies of all time? How about the best Gangster movies? What about Science Fiction?

The American Film Institute attempted to answer these questions and and we were there to scratch our heads in bewilderment at the scope of their oddness.

See what we have to say.

Also, you can e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, Skype us at the_film_thugs, or if you are in the US you can call (512) 666-RANT and leave us a message.

Be sure to check out www.thefilmthugs.com for reviews and articles.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:47:32m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (344)

Are women funny?

This question is so laughably stupid that I don’t even know how to begin dismissing it. But for some reason this is an actual question people ask. I honestly don’t know why, but it is.

From a public discourse standpoint it kind of traces back to an article Christopher Hitchens wrote for Vanity Fair in 2007 cleverly entitled “Why Women Aren’t Funny.” For some reason this became a public rallying point. There were response articles, responses to the response, and in the end… well, really nothing happened.

Well, not nothing, but nothing helpful.

No disrespect to the dead, but Hitchens was known as a Polemic, which is a fancy word for “bit of a prick.” He was looking for attention when he wrote it and he got what he wanted.

That being said, I don’t think his article was harmful. I think the reaction was. Some guy writes an article about women not being funny and instead of being met with an eye rolling chorus dismissal people reacted as if his position was serious enough to need formal refutation. The response was so earnest that it almost validated the original point. Why are you so up in arms? If you are funny why do you care if some guy who makes his living throwing public tantrums says that you are not?

If I wrote an article called, “Why white people are not good athletes,” would Peyton and Eli Manning get together with Dirk Nowitzki and the NHL to prove me wrong? No, they would dismiss what I was saying as the idiotic ramblings of an attention seeking hack and just dismiss it.

Why? Aren’t there real stereotypes about the relative athletic abilities of the races? Are white people not a minority of players in most major sports?

Yes, but there are also a lot of VERY talented white athletes, so my point would be so outlandishly stupid that it would be dismissed out of hand.

Well, there are stereotypes about women not being funny and there are more men working in comedy… but there are also a lot of brilliant female comedians out there. So why is this idea given any time at all?

I am not coming out in defense of women because women don’t need to be defended in this. I am coming out in blatant attack of the question. I am not responding to it because to respond to it would be to treat it as a legitimate question.

You could turn the question on the person asking, but that’s just feeding the trolls. It not only doesn’t help, it gives them the attention they want, because that is all they are after and they don’t care if it’s good or bad, as long as you are looking at them.

I know that I have publicly said “women aren’t as funny as men,” but I also name Gilda Radner as the funniest person to ever be on Saturday Night Live, consider Tina Fay to be the consistently funny writer on TV, and find Madelyn Kahn to be one of the most brilliant comic performers in the history of film. What I am doing when I make that statement is called “satire.” I am trying to cast a preposterous idea in an even more preposterous light.

I also tend to cast my satirical net pretty far and wide because my personal philosophy on this type of joking is as follows:

“If it is true, it isnt’ funny. If it is untrue, it is.”

What do I mean? Well, making fun of a stupid person for being stupid is mean spirited and unfunny. Making jokes about a genuinely intelligent person being stupid is funny.

Can women be as funny as men?

Yes. Yes they can. In fact, some are quite a bit funnier. But they can also be less funny. Some, in fact, are not funny at all.

No, I do not care for Lisa Lampanelli, but I love Ellen DeGeneres’s stand up.

I find Whitney Cumming’s shows and stand up to be cloying and embarrassingly awful, but Amy Schumer is stone hilarious.

Yeah, I am mystified by the success of Chelsea Handler, but you say one bad thing about Paula Poundstone and I’ll take an eye out of your head.

But guess what? Same thing goes for men.

I laugh myself stupid at Luis C.K., but would rather lose a leg than listen to Gabriel Iglesias.

I would rather sit and listen to Ron White all day than do just about anything, but ask me to sit for 20 minutes of Larry the Cable guy and we will fight.

Don Rickles is a God, but I honestly do not get Jeff Dunham’s appeal.

Even more simply… the comic “Cathy” is painfully unfunny… but so is “Family Circus.”

If you have satellite radio try spending one week listening to nothing by the standup channels (on Sirius it’s 95-99), or if your town has one of the new all stand up stations (Austin has one, don’t know offhand the frequency) and you will hear some absolutely brilliant, inventive, fresh, and genuinely hilarious comedy coming from both men and women.

You will also hear a baffling amount of hacky, recycled, formulaic, boring, and just embarrassingly bad stuff.

Check out any online sketch comedy group and you will see the same thing. Men and women united in their genius, their mediocrity, and their awfulness.

Neither sex has dominion over comedy.

I don’t think anyone can reasonably disagree with that.

Yes, there are more men who do comedy, but that has to do more with the fact that men tend to be more aggressive in the way they seek attention. It’s the same reason boys pull little girls hair, eat bugs, or start playing sports that could lead to lifelong injuries. Men will find the easiest way to get people to pay attention to them. We are so bad that “Jackass” isn’t only a global phenomenon, but you have kids doing life threatening stunts FOR FREE just in the hopes that someone online will see them do it. Let me clarify, this means that they are not only receiving NO MONEY but they don’t even have an immediate audience response. They are satisfied that some stranger in Iowa might watch them staple something to their face.

For that matter I do a free Podcast without sponsors. I am paying for you to read this and listen to my show. There is nothing more male than that.

The thing is, I think this question is fuelled more by marking and lazy media than anything else. How so?

Well, with “Bridesmaids,” 2011 seemed to become something of a “year of the funny woman” in comedy. I say somewhat because it was more of a “see, we can be crude, and vulgar, and that means we are funny too,” year.

(Side Note:I have not seen “Bridesmaids,” so I am not commenting on the film, more on how the movie was sold and treated by the media.)

If you follow movies you couldn’t avoid seeing things like, “now it’s the ladies turn to show how crude they can be,” or “men aren’t the only ones that can be vulgar,” as if that is something to be proud of. Funny and vulgar are not synonyms. Look it up. But the way this film was talked about, you would think they were.

Why is it suddenly some sort of badge of honor to act like a prick? Is it in the name of equality? See women get drunk, and act rowdy, and shit themselves in public… just like men do?

So, what is the point of the comparison? Why draw it in the first place?

Let me clarify my point. Putting forth this “women are just as funny as men” idea with such vigor is to give validity to the idea that women aren’t as funny. Why did “Bridesmaids” need to be pushed as “’The Hangover’ for women?” Were women unable to find humor in “The Hangover?” Are men going to be completely lost while watching “Bridesmaids?” Shouldn’t the point be that it is a funny movie?

By pushing the sex of the cast and writer as being important, aren’t you saying that there is something unusual about it?

Here’s the thing, yes that stuff is funny… for a little bit, then it kind of gets old. I found “The Hangover” hilarious. It was refreshing because it wasn’t watered down or sanitized for a family market, it was aimed squarely at adults. Here’s the thing, would you describe it as raunchy or gross? Yeah there are a few moments that were on the edge of taste and some that went beyond, but are those moments the ones that stand out? Not for me.

What I remember are lines like “Is this place pager friendly? Do you have, like a, like a pay phone bank?” or “Is this the real Caesars Palace? Did Caesar actually live here?” or the “Wolf Pack” speech. It wasn’t the gross out stuff that made that movie great it was the character moments.

With “Bridesmaids” we didn’t get, “hilarious situations,” or “genuine, well developed characters,” or even “the use of dialogue was amazing.” What we got was “the ladies can be just as crude as the guys,” and “raunchy humor isn’t just for men any more.”

Do you think Kristin Wiig set out to write a crude, raunchy movie, or do you think she set out to write a funny movie full of genuine interactions between real people with great dialogue and interesting situations that actually has something to say about how women relate to each other?

So, basically what I am asking isn’t “Why do people ask this question?” That’s an easy one. People ask it because being shocking is easier than developing a personality. I’m asking, “Why do people answer it?” Like I said before, answering it makes it seem like a legitimate question. If you treat it like a legitimate question then you legitimize the question, and it is a completely illegitimate question.

HomeVideodrome #18: Drive

This week, Hunter reviews Liam Neeson's death-obsessed wolf-fighting-fest The Grey, Jim discovers Blubberella and extols the greatness of Adaptation, and the week's releases get the usual treatment

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:16:26m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (171)

In the world of screenwriting there are a lot of rules and guides. A lot of them are just basic narrative theory re-branded and given a catchy name so that they can be turned into one of countless books on the subject. There are a metric ton of these books even though they all say basically the same thing.

Basically, a standard, narrative script breaks down like this

Exposition- Introduce the who and the where

Inciting Incident- Something happens that starts our hero on his quest

Rising action- All the stuff that happens as our hero becomes a hero

Climax- The problem introduced in the Inciting Incident is solved

Falling action- How is everything immediately after

Dénouement- How does it all turn out

Now, this is not the only way to tell a story, but it is a very solid guide. You don’t have to follow page counts or anything like that, but if you look at most good movies or novels or stories in general, they follow this basic structure. Not to say that the writers are hacks or unoriginal or formulaic or anything like that, but stories do have a structure that makes them work.

There are some other rules like…

Don’t have voiceover that tells us what we just saw or are about to see.

Don’t use voiceover in place of actual plot or character development. Let us see things develop, don’t just have people talk about it.

Enter every scene as late as possible and leave as early as possible. Basically, don’t waste time.

Each scene and character needs to have meaning to the story.

Don’t have people talk about things that you could show instead.

There are a lot more, but these are just a few of the myriad guidelines for writing a good story. And, the are just a sampling of the guidelines completely ignored by the writers of “Green Lantern.”

I put off seeing this thing for a while because it looked God-awful. Really, did you see the ads for this thing? They reminded me of the Cherry Dr. Pepper ads they did with Fergie from The Black Eyed Peas. I didn’t know if their goal was to entice me to purchase a product, or to completely recoil in horror. But I decided that I couldn’t pass judgment without having seen it.

That being said… it was nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be. Some of the performances were pretty good, some of the visuals were pretty cool, and as a first draft of a script it was passable. I could honestly see this script reworked and honed into a really solid and entertaining movie. Sadly, they didn’t choose to do that. They chose to film a rough first draft. And therein lies the problem.

Were I to teach a class on how not to write a script, I would use “Green Lantern” as my guide.

The story telling is amateurish, poorly developed, and dull. The movie clocks in at 114 minutes, which is not a bad run time, except that there is maybe 80 minutes worth of actual movie in it. I don’t mind longer movies, but there had damned well better be reason for the time. Take “Captain America: The First Avenger,” for example. It was 10 minutes longer, and while it wasn’t great, it used all 124 minutes. Yeah, it had problems, but it didn’t waste your time.

What do I mean? Well, at 114 minutes there is enough time to develop your back story, set up your protagonist, flesh out your antagonist, and get your story rolling. In this film they relegate the entire back story to voiceover, then throw you into the middle of an unclear. And so that I am clear, the scene is unclear BECAUSE of the voice over. How much time has passed since the events of the voice over and the start of the movie? Wouldn’t the story be better served if we saw Parallax become this bad guy? Then we could see him lose to Abin Sur, be imprisoned. Then we could have some real development of the bad guy and he could be something more than “big ball of evil pollution in space.”

Speaking of, why were the Lanterns at his prison in the first place? There was no reason given at all. They showed up and facilitated his escape because the story needed him to escape. Other than that… no reason.

Speaking of no reason, what was the purpose of Hector Hammond? He is set up as being a quasi-antagonist, but he doesn’t serve any real purpose. At the beginning he is completely benign and somewhat of a loser. Then he is infected by the big bad guy and becomes… well kind of grosser and… I am still unsure why he was there. He does some sporadic mind reading, uses his powers for… well, general mayhem, but ultimately he doesn’t serve any real purpose. Were you to remove him from the plot entirely it would have little impact on the plot, except that there would be a few action set pieces missing.

Then there is Hal Jordan. In the world of Green Lantern, this guy is the homecoming king. But in this version there almost no time spent developing him. He is a bit of an asshole who takes unnecessary risks (One of the first things he does is use his wingman as bait in a training exercise, then does nothing to capitalize on the situation. To be clear, he lets his partner get shot out of the sky for no reason at all. Yeah hero!? Then we see him freeze up under pressure and are given to believe it has something to do with his father. Oh, and the father flashback… was it supposed to be funny? Because it was. Not in some, “oh look at me, I’m so cool laughing at an emotional moment” but in a “this is so very earnest and over the top in its attempted emotional manipulation that it is now the most genuinely funny thing I have ever witnessed” way.

For some reason this is followed up with a Jordan family scene that doesn’t really serve any purpose and isn’t referenced in any way at all again.

All this leads to Hal being chosen as a member of The Green Lantern Corps, a sort of intergalactic police force powered by a the force of will. It’s a really cool idea, but it’s handled kind of shoddily.

Incidentally, the first thing Hal does with the ring is to beat up three guys who he got fired earlier in the day by being a bit of a showboating prick. So, he costs these guys their jobs, and then uses the almighty power of “will” to throw a beating on them. I’m oddly ok with this. Oh, and he costs this company a military contract that they later are celebrating getting…. So, there’s that.

Hal is taken to the home planet of the Lanterns where he is told that he isn’t really good enough. They train him for about two hours, then he quits but keeps the ring. This is followed by some more scenes that are unnecessary….

You know what, it’s just bad. Ok. I mean, I could sit here and go on and on about how poorly constructed, unnecessary, convoluted, and full of plot holes it is, but what’s the point. I don’t want to write that, and you don’t want to read it. Actually, read this. He did a much better job than I could. This is an “and then” movie. Scenes start and stop for no reason, events don’t build, motivations aren’t made clear, and there is no attempt made at dramatic tension or personal growth (because you have to have development for there to be growth).

Here’s how it should look. This happens, therefore this has to happen, but then something else happens, therefore this has to happen.

Things build, situations change, people react. This makes for a tight story that moves.

“Green Lantern” looks different. This happens, and then this happens, and then this happens, and then this happens… then it’s over.

Nothing builds, scenes are unnecessary, people act because they have to for the story to move forward. This makes for turgid, boring, and dull filmmaking.

Here’s how it breaks down. If you are interested in the cinematic equivalent of an unemotional fireworks show, you could do worse. Just be warned, there are a lot of really dull talking scenes between the pretty pictures.

This movie is like Ike Turner. Ike was married between 5 and 13 times (depending on your sources) and was known to be an abusive prick. Yet, after Tina, there were still 12 women willing to marry him. Basically, that is Green Lantern. No matter how many bad reviews it gets, there are people who are going to want to see it.

So, embrace the mediocrity and enjoy. Just don’t kid yourself that it’s anything more than a few flashy computer effects, because it isn’t.

It could be argued that music is a more integral part of movies than dialogue. I mean, it's been part of them for longer. It can add to or completely change the meaning of a scene. So it's only natural that The AFI would put out a list of the best music.

But they went one... well, two further.

They released three.

That's right. This week we look at the best songs, scores, and musicals and we come across some very interesting placements and omissions. Enjoy.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:45:11m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (167)

HomeVideodrome #17: Godzilla

This week on HomeVideodrome, Hunter reviews Haywire, Jim had cedar fever, and we plow through a cornucopia of new releases.

Musical selections:

Clutch - "You Can't Stop Progress" Blue Oyster Cult - "Godzilla" (live)

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:09:22m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (167)

Oscar nominations and early, completely knee jerk predictions.

It’s finally here! The ultimate in dog and pony technology for your viewing pleasure.

This is one of those odd Oscar years where I am kind of at a coin flip over who will win, so that’s exciting, but other than that… not much. I mean, when Eddie Murphy was hosting I, at the very least, had a little bit of hope for something interesting or entertaining to come out of the show. But now we are back with Billy Crystal, which is fine. But like I’ve said many times before, him hosting is like “Two and A Half Men,” everyone’s mom finds it charming, but nobody my age really has an opinion.

So, here are my thoughts on nominations and my personal choices along with my predictions. Let me say up front, this is a TOUGH year to predict.

Best Motion Picture of the Year

Nominees:

The Artist (2011): Thomas Langmann

The Descendants (2011): Jim Burke, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011): Scott Rudin

The Help (2011): Brunson Green, Chris Columbus, Michael Barnathan

Hugo (2011/II): Graham King, Martin Scorsese

Midnight in Paris (2011): Letty Aronson, Stephen Tenenbaum

Moneyball (2011): Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz, Brad Pitt

The Tree of Life (2011): Nominees to be determined

War Horse (2011): Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy

This one is interesting. I am pleased at “Moneyball,” and “Tree of Life” being on the list, even though they won’t win. “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” … really? Really? What, was that Drew Barrymore movie with the whales not out in time?

In honesty this is a complete coin flip for me between “The Artist,” and “The Descendants.” I think that the Producers Guild Award is the real predictor, which pleases me, as it reinforces my choice.

Personal and Probable- “The Artist.”

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role

Nominees:

Demián Bichir for A Better Life (2011)

George Clooney for The Descendants (2011)

Jean Dujardin for The Artist (2011)

Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Brad Pitt for Moneyball (2011)

No real surprises here. Another coin toss, but a harder one to call. Dujardin is my choice, but it is hard to discount Clooney because he is Clooney. I would be happy either way.

Officially too close to call.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role

Nominees:

Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs (2011)

Viola Davis for The Help (2011)

Rooney Mara for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady (2011)

Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn (2011)

You know, Meryl Streep hasn’t won an Oscar since 1983. I mean, yeah, she’s been nominated 12 times since then, but really, the poor lady just can’t catch a break. I can’t really make a personal pick here, as I have only seen “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo,” which won’t win this. Maybe Viola Davis has a chance because “The Help” was such a big deal, but I don’t think she’ll take it.

Meryl Streep will finally be recognized for her acting.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role

Nominees:

Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Jonah Hill for Moneyball (2011)

Nick Nolte for Warrior (2011)

Christopher Plummer for Beginners (2010)

Max von Sydow for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011)

I would kick you in the stomach for a week straight for Nolte to win this. I honestly would. But he probably won’t. Also, Academy Award Nominee Jonah Hill… I did not see that coming. Branagh probably won’t take it, and I don’t see “Extremely Loud…” winning anything. So this is probably they year for Plummer.

Personal- Nolte

Probable- Plummer

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role

Nominees:

Bérénice Bejo for The Artist (2011)

Jessica Chastain for The Help (2011)

Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids (2011)

Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs (2011)

Octavia Spencer for The Help (2011)

I would love to see Chastain take this if for no other reason than her work for the year has been so exceptional. I would also love to see Bejo take it, because she was incredible in “The Artist.” But I have a feeling this will be McCarthy or Spencer. Most likely Spencer because “The Help” is a little more of a prestige film. But it could go either way. Regardless, I’ve only seen one, so I can’t really say.

Best Achievement in Directing

Nominees:

Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris (2011)

Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist (2011)

Terrence Malick for The Tree of Life (2011)

Alexander Payne for The Descendants (2011)

Martin Scorsese for Hugo (2011/II)

This one is tough because… well, just look at it. Woody Allen is probably the weakest of the lot. Yes, Midnight in Paris is well received, but I just don’t see it taking this. Hazanavicius is a good bet, and my choice because of how well he pulled off the immensely difficult task of making a silent movie that plays to today’s audiences. Tree of Life is a contender, but it was so… I guess experimental is the word. But it is Malick, so there is that. Payne is a stone bad ass and will win a few of these before his career is done. And then there is Scosese who is, in case you did not know, Martin Scorsese and should have a shed made out of these things already. I honestly cannot say.

Officially too close to call.

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

Nominees:

The Artist (2011): Michel Hazanavicius

Bridesmaids (2011): Kristen Wiig, Annie Mumolo

Margin Call (2011): J.C. Chandor

Midnight in Paris (2011): Woody Allen

A Separation (2011): Asghar Farhadi

I have not seen enough of these to really say, but I would put it between “Bridesmaids” and “Midnight in Paris.” My choice is, of course, “The Artist.” But here you have an un-PC movie as the PC choice, and a script by Woody Allen. I honestly can’t say.

No idea.

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published

Nominees:

The Descendants (2011): Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash

Hugo (2011/II): John Logan

The Ides of March (2011): George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon

Moneyball (2011): Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011): Bridget O'Connor, Peter Straughan

I see this as being between “The Descendants” and “Moneyball,” but since Sorkin won last year for a far more popular film, I see this going to The Descendants.”

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year

Nominees:

A Cat in Paris (2010)

Chico & Rita (2010)

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

Puss in Boots (2011)

Rango (2011)

WOW! So, “Kung Fu Panda 2,” but no “Tin Tin?” I don’t know what to say. I’ve seen none of these and cannot hazard a guess.

No comment.

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year

Nominees:

Bullhead (2011): Michael R. Roskam(Belgium)

Footnote (2011): Joseph Cedar(Israel)

In Darkness (2011): Agnieszka Holland(Poland)

Monsieur Lazhar (2011): Philippe Falardeau(Canada)

A Separation (2011): Asghar Farhadi(Iran)

The only one of these I’ve heard of is “A Separation,” and people seem to love it. So I think that will win.

Best Achievement in Cinematography

Nominees:

The Artist (2011): Guillaume Schiffman

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Jeff Cronenweth

Hugo (2011/II): Robert Richardson

The Tree of Life (2011): Emmanuel Lubezki

War Horse (2011): Janusz Kaminski

Say what you will about “Tree of Life,” everything else looks like it was filmed through dirty water by comparison. It is the most strikingly beautiful thing I’ve seen in years.

Personal and Probable- “Tree of Life”

Best Achievement in Editing

Nominees:

The Artist (2011): Anne-Sophie Bion, Michel Hazanavicius

The Descendants (2011): Kevin Tent

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Angus Wall, Kirk Baxter

Hugo (2011/II): Thelma Schoonmaker

Moneyball (2011): Christopher Tellefsen

The only one of these that I think really stands out is “Moneyball.” The editing is so exact and such an integral part of how this movie plays out that I think it has a lock.

Personal and Probable- “Moneyball”

Best Achievement in Art Direction

Nominees:

The Artist (2011): Laurence Bennett, Gregory S. Hooper

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011): Stuart Craig, Stephenie McMillan

Hugo (2011/II): Dante Ferretti, Francesca Lo Schiavo

Midnight in Paris (2011): Anne Seibel, Hélène Dubreuil

War Horse (2011): Rick Carter, Lee Sandales

No “Tree of Life?” Ok then. “Hugo” is the only one of these that really stands out in this category, so I’m going with that.

Best Achievement in Costume Design

Nominees:

Anonymous (2011/I): Lisy Christl

The Artist (2011): Mark Bridges

Hugo (2011/II): Sandy Powell

Jane Eyre (2011): Michael O'Connor

W.E. (2011): Arianne Phillips

I really don’t know or particularly care.

Best Achievement in Makeup

Nominees:

Albert Nobbs (2011)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

The Iron Lady (2011)

Again… don’t really care.

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score

Nominees:

The Adventures of Tintin (2011): John Williams

The Artist (2011): Ludovic Bource

Hugo (2011/II): Howard Shore

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011): Alberto Iglesias

War Horse (2011): John Williams

So, “Tin Tin” finally gets one! Well done! But, this will go to “The Artist.” The music is an actual character in it.

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song

Nominees:

The Muppets (2011): Bret McKenzie("Man or Muppet")

Rio (2011): Sergio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown, Siedah Garrett("Real in Rio")

What? Really? Two songs? Two? There are 10 movies up for best picture, but only 2 songs? TWO? This is kind of funny. But more importantly, I think “Flight of the Conchords,” needs an Oscar winner, so I’m going with “The Muppets.”

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing

Nominees:

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce, Bo Persson

Hugo (2011/II): Tom Fleischman, John Midgley

Moneyball (2011): Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, David Giammarco, Ed Novick

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush, Peter J. Devlin

War Horse (2011): Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Johnson, Stuart Wilson

Moneyball. It’s the only one of these where the do anything new or original with sound.

Best Achievement in Sound Editing

Nominees:

Drive (2011): Lon Bender, Victor Ray Ennis

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Ren Klyce

Hugo (2011/II): Philip Stockton, Eugene Gearty

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): Ethan Van der Ryn, Erik Aadahl

War Horse (2011): Richard Hymns, Gary Rydstrom

Drive. You try editing all those car sounds.

Best Achievement in Visual Effects

Nominees:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011): Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler, John Richardson

Hugo (2011/II): Robert Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossmann, Alex Henning

Real Steel (2011): Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Danny Gordon Taylor, Swen Gillberg

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011): Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White, Daniel Barrett

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Matthew E. Butler, John Frazier

I see Rise of the Planet of the Apes taking this. The visuals are so striking and so vital to the story. It’s too well done not to win.

Best Documentary, Features

Nominees:

Hell and Back Again (2011): Danfung Dennis, Mike Lerner

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front (2011): Marshall Curry, Sam Cullman

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory (2011): Joe Berlinger, Bruce Sinofsky

Pina (2011): Wim Wenders, Gian-Piero Ringel

Undefeated (2011): Daniel Lindsay, T.J. Martin, Rich Middlemas

Paradise Lost will finally win one. This is well deserved.

Best Documentary, Short Subjects

Nominees:

The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement (2011): Robin Fryday, Gail Dolgin

God Is the Bigger Elvis: Rebecca Cammisa, Julie Anderson

Incident in New Baghdad (2011): James Spione

Saving Face (2011/II): Daniel Junge, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy

The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom (2011): Lucy Walker, Kira Carstensen

No clue at this point.

Best Short Film, Animated

Nominees:

Dimanche (2011): Patrick Doyon

The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore (2011): William Joyce, Brandon Oldenburg

La Luna (2011): Enrico Casarosa

A Morning Stroll (2011): Grant Orchard, Sue Goffe

Wild Life (2011): Amanda Forbis, Wendy Tilby

No clue at this point.

Best Short Film, Live Action

Nominees:

Pentecost (2011): Peter McDonald

Raju (2011): Max Zähle, Stefan Gieren

The Shore: Terry George

Time Freak (2011): Andrew Bowler, Gigi Causey

Tuba Atlantic (2010): Hallvar Witzø

No clue at this point.

So….

This is kind of a bizarre year. A few fairly major surprises this time around. I am honestly at a loss.

Well, now it’s time for your feedback. Have at it.

Cowboys and Aliens

High concept is a hard term to pin down. At one point it was basically just one movie mixed with another movie, or a concept from one film placed in a different location. The beginning of Robert Altman’s “The Player” is full of high concept pitches. “It’s like ‘Ghost’ meets “The Manchurian Candidate,’ but funny, and with a heart in the right place.” “Well, ‘funny political,’ doesn’t scare me ‘political political’ scares me.”

For years “Die Hard” was the benchmark of the high concept.

It’s “Die Hard” on a cruise ship!!! Or…

“Die Hard” in a high school!!! Or…

“Die Hard” on a mountain!!!

Then it morphed into an idea that could be communicated in one or two sentences… that blows your mind!!!

Imagine a world where everyone tells the truth all the time, and nobody is capable of lying. Then, one day, a man tells the first lie.

A by the book cop gets a rouge partner who plays by his own rules.

There are a bunch of snakes on a plane.

A seemingly harmless thing becomes a murderer.

High concept doesn’t mean bad, far from it. High concept is just a BS marketing idea that is pushed as if it has some sort of substance. It is, essentially, distilling a movie down to its most basic elements. I’m not even talking plot, I’m talking situation.

Yeah, “Die Hard,” can be described as ‘tough cop on the loose in a building full of terrorists,” but that doesn’t really describe it. It’s more ‘tough cop who is on the outs with his wife is running free in a building where a group of terrorists are holding a group of people, including his wife, hostage in an attempt to pull off a massive heist, and said cop is the only person who realizes what is going on and has to stop them in order to save the lives of all the hostages and hopefully his marriage as well.” There is a lot going on there.

Bad high concept is when there is little more than the situation. What does this have to do with “Cowboys and Aliens,” you ask…

I am going to approach this review differently. About a year ago Brad Brevet wrote this fantastic article “Top Ten List of Worst Excuses Made for 'Bad' Movies,” that I will be referencing during this review, as I can already hear people gearing up to discredit my opinion with almost all of these.

1) "YOU JUST DON'T GET IT."

That might be the case, but what was there to get here? The plot didn’t make a whole lot of sense. So, there are aliens who came here to steal our gold and kidnap people for some reason that has something to do with experimentation. A guy gets away with one of their steam punk laser bracelets and all hell breaks loose.

You’re right. I didn’t get it. I didn’t understand why they were taking people in the first place. I didn’t get why Daniel Craig was wanted for the murder of a woman when, as the movie clearly shows, there is no evidence of her being murdered. I didn’t get it because it made no sense. What was the point of Harrison Ford’s son other than to force attention to Daniel Craig and kick the plot off?

Your right, I didn’t get it.

2) "IT'S NOT AS BAD AS PEOPLE SAID."

It kind of was.

3) "YOU HAVEN'T READ THE SOURCE MATERIAL! YOU'RE NOT JUDGING IT PROPERLY!"

OR… YOU CAN'T JUDGE IT BASED ON THE SOURCE MATERIAL. THE BOOK IS ALWAYS BETTER!

OK. My bad. I thought it was a movie, but I am apparently wrong. Precisely what part do I need to get a clearer understanding of? The cowboys or the the aliens, because neither one made much sense.

4) "YOU WENT IN WANTING TO HATE IT!"

Actually, I did not. You see, when looking at a movie called “Cowboys and Aliens,” I thought, “Wow!!! This is going to be so much fun!” I LOVE cowboy pictures and enjoy sci-fi movies. This seemed like a really good idea that I could easily love.

The problem is, it wasn’t good. I was bored out of my mind. All I wanted was a fun movie with cowboys and aliens in it. What I got was a boring movie with cowboys and aliens in it.

5) "YOUR EXPECTATIONS WERE TOO HIGH."

They really were not. It’s called “Cowboys and Aliens” the only expectation I could have had going into this was “Man, this is gonna be a hell of a lot of fun!!!” Not to repeat my point too much, it wasn’t fun.

So, at this point I think my chief complain should be clear. This movie was a boring, confusing mess. It starts out with a bit of promise, but then a majority of the potential is just dropped and it becomes a run of the mill “men on a mission” film. Except that it isn’t. It becomes a collection of slow, unnecessary expository scenes that culminate in one of the oddest final battles I’ve ever seen.

Question:

Why do aliens that have mastered interstellar travel, laser based weapons, electromagnetic mining (?), and countless other high tech devices, why do they run into battle naked? These are incredibly technologically advanced beings that are inexplicably primitive naked dog men. They have flying ships that shoot lasers, why are they running naked and unarmed into a group of people firing guns at them. I don’t care how many lasers or space ships you have, if you are naked… odds are you will feel the impact of the bullets.

This move was an absolute tee ball home run gone wrong. You are combining two of the most storied and beloved genres in history. This should be a no-brainer. But somehow we get this. How?

Well, let’s take a look at a part of the IMDB page to shed some light on this.

Writing credits

(WGA)

Roberto Orci (screenplay) &

Alex Kurtzman (screenplay) &

Damon Lindelof (screenplay) and

Mark Fergus (screenplay) &

Hawk Ostby (screenplay)

Mark Fergus (screen story) &

Hawk Ostby (screen story) and

Steve Oedekerk (screen story)

8 writers. EIGHT!!! And that is just the credited rewrites. You have to show a 50% contribution to a screenplay to get credit, so that means even if everyone was working in pairs you have 4 groups of people rewriting at least half of this script. How can you expect a well paced, coherent narrative when you have the creative equivalent of the game “Telephone,” being played.

Sadly, this is the problem with a lot of the big budget movies coming out these days. Instead of focusing on one solid story you get a bunch of writers fighting to get their name on the project so they can make some more money on it. Not that I can fault them, I mean it’s a job. So you get one guy who thinks that having a lot of Harrison Ford’s son seems cool, and another who thinks that adding more with Adam Bench would underscore things better. Then another person thinks that it would be great to include the Sheriff’s grandson… and not really spend any time discussing why his parents aren’t there. This movie is rife with subplots that don’t go anywhere, characters who don’t really need to be there, and scenes that take WAY too long, and suddenly what started as a really cool concept with potential to be a really fun movies, instead becomes a rudderless, incoherent, and worst of all booring mess.

If you are like us, and you probably are a bit more like us than you would wish to admit, movie quotes are a big part of your life. We use them constantly as a part of our regular discourse.

So this list brings up an interesting question. How do you quantify a quote? The AFI tries to do this, boy do they try.

But again, with criteria like this...

• Movie Quotation: A statement, phrase or brief exchange of dialogue spoken in an American film. Lyrics from songs are not eligible.
• Cultural Impact: Movie quotations that viewers use in their own lives and situations; circulating through popular culture, they become part of the national lexicon.
• Legacy: Movie quotations that viewers use to evoke the memory of a treasured film, thus ensuring and enlivening its historical legacy.

How can you go wrong? Well, we're here to show you how.

So sit back and enjoy yourself, but be prepared, this show might take more than one sitting.

Also, check us out on facebook, email us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, go over to iTunes and review the show, and if you want to you can even try to call us on skype at the_film_thugs.

See, we are all kinds of growns up.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [02:20:44m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (231)

During our recording session last night I decided to get a video of Clarkson's reaction to one of the most inane quotes I have ever heard. Here it is.

What do you think?

Super 8

Some movies are victims of their own hype. Don’t get me wrong, some over hyped films are still amazing and reach their levels of over exposure due to their quality. Films like “The Dark Knight,” “Terminator 2,” and “The Matrix,” all had unrealistic amounts of buzz surrounding them. But they endure because they are fundamentally good movies.

Hype in general tends to make me shy away from films. I didn’t see “Trainspotting” until it was out on video for months because for me it had become less a movie and more a series of posters that guys in the dorm had because it made them seem deep and interesting. But when I finally saw it I understood where the hype came from.

I think the problem with film hype is when it comes from the wrong place. There are some movies that attempt to build buzz by pushing things that are completely irrelevant to what the film is. Studios attempt this all the time and are, more often than not, unsuccessful with it. This is why you hear things like…

“From the studio that brought you…”

“From the producer of…”

“From the mind of…”

“From the visionary mind of…”

Hell, even “Death to Smoochie” was pushed as being “From the twisted mind of Danny Devito…” which is officially in the running for best sentence ever used on TV.

But really, what does all this have to do with the film itself? Does the studio really matter? How about the producer? Is there another place that a story comes from, or do we really need to specify mind?

It always reminds me of a Wayne’s World sketch from SNL when they were talking about the ads for “Carlito’s Way,” that flashed Pacino’s screen credits.

“Serpico,”

“The Godfather”

“Dog Day Afternoon,”

“Yeah, I noticed they didn’t say ‘Cruising.’”

Trying to push a movie like this is odd. Especially when you are using something that is not really tied to the person in question’s specialty.

So when “Super 8” came out and it was hailed as being “Produced by Steven Spielberg” I had my doubts.

Make no mistake, Spielberg is… well, he’s Spielberg. He is one of the undisputed masters of American cinema. He’s like Athena; he just sprang from the head of Hollywood fully formed and amazing. But has anyone ever hailed his producers talent? Not that he isn’t a great producer, but it’s like Bruce Willis’s band. No matter how good he is at it, you will never see him as a rock star (Note that I didn’t use “Billy Bob Thornton” and “The Box Masters” on this one, because I know he’s touch about his film and music career being mentioned together.).

So we have Spielberg as a producer, which is fairly meaningless in terms of anything other than being able to put Spielberg’s name on the film, and J.J. Abrams on as director.

Abrams is an interesting selling point because he is far more successful as a producer. Yes, he is a writer and a director, but his big successes have come from his producer work.

Don’t get me wrong, they are both accomplished in their respective roles, but it felt very much like there was an attempt to make this movie based on the names, and just the way people were used in this film… I don’t know.

Add to it that Abrams kind of has a problem with the third act. If you look at his work up to this point he had “Felicity,” about witch I know nothing other than it has a woman named Felicity in it (Or it is a meditation on the subject of Happiness. I don’t really know.), “Alias,” which started off really strong, got stronger, and then kind of fell completely apart, “Lost,” which was… well, I watched a few episodes of it, but I picked up very quickly on the “we have no idea what to do with this story and are making it up as we go along” aspect of it (I know it’s cliché, but it is also true.), and “Mission: Impossible 3,” which I thought was fantastic (Though a bit “Alias”-ey, but without Jennifer Garner in lingerie.), but it did start to lose its grip in the final third.

So, we have one of the masters of visual storytelling producing a fantastic producer who has issues with third acts on a film with an advertising campaign that stressed ambiguity. Let’s just say I wasn’t overcome with desire to see it.

But, I recently relented and decided to check it out, and I was pleasantly surprised.

On the surface it’s kind of a harder edged “E.T.” You have a child centered narrative, a mysterious alien, and an overwhelming authoritarian governmental intrusion. There isn’t the same sense of innocence here though. These kids live in a very real world where very bad things can and do happen. They still have the childlike wonder and all, but it is tempered with more reality than Eliot’s world was.

We have a group of kids working on a super 8 horror film for a competition who sneak out one night to use a passing train to add production value to their film. They see something they shouldn’t have and things progress from there.

There are a lot of good things going on here. The acting is fantastic. I normally cringe at adolescent actors because they tend to do kind of a half assed approximation of how kids their age act. That is not the case here. All the kids actually come off as real people reacting to their world in a believable way. It’s pretty amazing. Kyle Chandler knocks it out of the park. Yes, there are some echoes of Coach Taylor (If you don’t get that reference, stop reading and go watch all of Friday Night Lights. It’s ok. I’ll wait…. See, wasn’t he amazing?), but that’s not so much him as it is the part. It’s a guy who is similar to Coach Taylor, but isn’t Coach Taylor. It’s a slight distinction to make, but it’s there. The overall plot is interesting and well delivered as well.

There are some nagging points though. Ron Eldard shows up as the father of Elle Fanning’s (Who shows that Dakota isn’t the only member of that family with talent.) character and provides a kind of anticlimactic plotline. Chandler’s character hates him, and it is established early on that he is in some way connected to the death of Chandler’s wife (The mother of our protagonist.). But the back story they develop is weak and not compelling, thus making some of the later plot developments less powerful than they should be.

This film is odd because I though it was a good film but I felt like there were a few points that could have been fine tuned to make it a great film. If you are a fan of sci-fi it is definitely worth your time, but you don’t have to love sci-fi to like it. There is a very human story being told here that is very accessible. In the end, I think this film would have been better served by downplaying the producer/director wunderkind connection. Sometimes, letting the story stand on its own is a better way to go.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Quick confession. I have not seen any of “The Planet of the Apes” film from beginning to end. I have seen bits and pieces of a few, but never a complete beginning to end. Oddly, I have read Pierre Boulle’s book (he also wrote “The Bridge Over the River Kwai”). Yet somehow the movies have evaded me.

I never really felt like I was missing much. The iconic shocker of an ending has been ruined more times over than I can count, and since I feel as though I “get” what it’s about I haven’t ever really felt the need to watch any. It’s heresy I know, but I do intend to rectify this soon.

Sad to say, but I’ve actually seen more of the Tim Burton version than any of the others. That’s not saying much, I only caught the last 40 minutes or so on HBO one time and found it too hilariously grotesque to turn off.

That being said, I didn’t feel overtly compelled to see this one. Even when the positive reviews started flowing in I felt as if it was a case of lowered expectations being surpassed. I was very wrong.

What could easily have been a quick, mindless, effects reliant mess (basically what we have been trained to expect these days) is, instead, a thoughtful, touching, and emotional story of what happens when someone learns to expect more.

James Franco plays Will Rodman, a scientist working on a cure for Alzheimer’s disease. He creates a formula that allows the brain to create new pathways and repair itself at an alarming rate. In primate testing it delivers astonishing results. Due to some complications his project is cancelled, but not before it can yield a newborn ape who, through the genetic mutation caused by his vaccine, develops incredible intelligence. Things, of course, go awry and the hyper intelligent Caesar ends up in a primate sanctuary, where his mistreatment at the hands of humans causes the beginnings of man’s ultimate downfall.

That’s the broad strokes of it. No big surprises, as the title lets you know up front where things will end up.

I actually had fairly high expectations going into this. The guys over at The Adams Movie Podcast (The A.M.P) both listed this as their number two (almost number one) film of the year and I absolutely cannot blame them.

For starters the writing is fantastic. This is a much more personal story than you might think at first. Caesar is not an animal or a pet, he is developed as a child, a fully functioning, intelligent child. His interactions aren’t simple survival reactions (seeking food or shelter) but are emotionally driven. He is kind, inquisitive, and protective. In short, he is a full member of the family.

I’m not going to lie to you; Caesars story is absolutely heartbreaking. What could have been a simple revenge, animal gone wild story, is instead a story of a fight for freedom. You come to know and care for Caesar so much that when he is expected to act like an animal it is genuinely crushing and infuriating. This is not an animal, this is a very intelligent child that you have seen grow into a caring and inquisitive young man, and suddenly he is expected to eat slop and play in the water with a milk jug.

The performances are all very solid, which is to be expected form people like James Franco and Brian Cox, but the standout is Andy Serkis. I honestly have no idea how good an actor Serkis is as just a man. I’ve only seen him in a few things, most recently “Burke and Hare” (although I do hear that he is fantastic in “Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll”), but make no mistake, this man is the Olivier of motion capture. His portrayal of Caesar easily rivals his stunning work in “Lord of the Rings.” He is uniquely able to find and convey the humanity of a non-human character and make that character come to life, fully formed, and completely relatable. You will feel Caesars heartbreak, his longing, his joy, his desire to belong, and his ultimate fury.

I was absolutely stunned by this movie. Even though I had high hopes, it was not what I was expecting. Yes, there are some pretty thrilling action scenes, but there is also poignancy to those scenes. The violence matters, you feel every death and every injury. But more than that the film allows you, almost forces you, to side with Caesar. You are shown why he not only wants his freedom, but why he deserves it. In a movie about the ultimate downfall of mankind you actually find yourself cheering for the other side. Think about the difficulty in that.

During this years Austin Film Festival Campbell and I sat in on a panel entitled “Zombies, Apes, and Vampires: Breathing New Life Into Old Genre’s” featuring Rick Jafa (writer of this film), as well as a few others. We only lasted about half way through it because all discussion kept going back to another film (which I will not name here, but you might hear mentioned on the show) that was more “extreme.” That was literally all that was mentioned, how “extreme” it was. We heard nothing about how it was written or how it breathed new life into anything, just about the cool shit they did and how cool that shit really was. This is even more infuriating now as “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was possible the most refreshing take on a tried genre I’ve ever seen. It transcended the earlier films in terms of emotional impact (given what I’ve heard), it went beyond basic creation myth, and it completely up ended the idea of the revenge film.

This movie is why I hate writing best of the year lists. Invariably there is one movie like that that I didn’t see until after the new year, when my list is already out, and I find myself completely reevaluating what I wrote. Make no mistake, this isn’t on my list, but it damned will should be. This, along with another I forgot to mention (Source Code), belong firmly in my top 5. No question. So if you think it looks like a stupid sci-fi piece that you couldn’t possibly be interested in, do yourself a favor and take a chance on it. Trust me when I tell you that it is well worth the time.

This week on the HomeVideodrome podcast, Hunter reviews The Iron Lady, we talk The Golden Globes, and of course, we run down this week's releases.  Head on over to The Film Thugs to check it out!

Musical selections:

Van Halen - "You Really Got Me/Cabo Wabo" (live)

Van Halen - "Won't Get Fooled Again" (live)

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:09:35m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (204)

The AFI lists have begun making decreasing sense. The criteria has become so... oddly non specific that its becoming difficult to really discuss them with any level of sanity. So this week, in order to preserve our sanity, we look at three lists.

100 Passions

100 Cheers

Stars

Hopefully you will be able to make more sense out of their choices than we could.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:32:00m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (212)

Captain America

When it comes to comic books there are two wildly different worlds: fans and outsiders. The distance between the two is so vast and rigid that they are essentially different species. The fans have their own language, customs, and lens for viewing popular culture. Even though there are different levels and faction, but they are all very much in the same camp.

This makes it kind of difficult to navigate the world of comic book films. They are made for everyone, but have to appease two completely disparate audiences. To outsiders comic book characters are top tier super heroes (Superman, Batman, Spiderman, The X-Men, Iron Man [as of the movies], The Hulk), recognizable ones you know nothing about aside from maybe their powers (Green Lantern, Daredevil, The Punisher, Captain America, Thor), and the completely obscure (Alpha Flight, Elektra, Iron Fist, etc.).

That’s how they break down in outsider circles. To insiders all of these characters are somewhat familiar. Hell, even the top tier ones are more familiar. I would wager that I was the only person at my advanced screening of X3 who knew, before seeing him, why Jamie Madrox could be problematic.

However, as I mentioned in my “X-Men: First Class” review, Hollywood is the girl who falls in love during the first date and knows that this relationship will last forever and never have any problems. Some comic movies started doing well, therefore everyone everywhere wants to watch comic book movies all the time and will never ever ever get tired of them. How do you balance the known with the unknown? Which will be popular?

For years all you could really count on were Superman, Batman, The Hulk, and Spider Man coming around every few years. Then, a few second tier properties became mainstream. X-Men was big in the insider world, but not really known outside of it. Then the movie hit and everyone was suddenly wise in the ways of mutants. People were aware of Iron Man, but probably couldn’t name Tony Stark until the Faverau movie came out.

There is always a gamble. Is this going to be the obscure property to break through?

I was a bit of a fringe outsider for years. There were a few books I read, mostly mainstream alternative titles, but just being part of the world forced an awareness that most outsiders don’t have. Suddenly I was aware of multiple human Green Lanterns. I knew that Hal Jordan was the holy grail, but that John Stewart was pretty popular, and that Kyle Rayner was pretty powerful. I know that there is little respect for Aquaman or Prince Nemor. For some reason I even know that Wolverine was a member of Alpha Flight for a while. It’s just a part of that world.

So, the recent spate of comic films has been… well, a bit perplexing to me. Having inside heroes like Green Lantern, Thor, and Captain America all come out in the same year just feels like stacking gamble on top of gamble.

I know very little about Captain America. Basically, I know that Steve Rogers was a physically weak man with an incredibly strong will and fierce sense of duty who becomes part of a military experiment to create a unit of super soldiers. The procedure is a success, but the scientist who perfected it is killed before any more people can undergo it. He goes against a villain named Red Skull, who is so named because he has one.

The only reason I know this is because I saw the 1990 direct to video disaster. That being my main background, my hopes were pretty low.

That being said, I was pleasantly surprised. Captain America: The First Avenger isn’t a Spider Man or Nolan Batman level success, but it is a fairly solid action movie with a lot of heart.

Chris Evans has done a good job moving beyond the wisecracking pretty boy roles he seemed destined to play. He delivers a fairly compelling performance as both the small and frail Steve Rogers and transitions that sense of fierce determination beautifully to the superhero persona.

Hugo Weaving nails it as Red Skull, but there isn’t really much surprise there. The rest of the cast is pretty spot on, especially Haley Atwell who comes off both stern and sensitive as Peggy Carter, one of the military liaisons to the Captain America project.

The CGI was not, thankfully, distractingly over the top as it is in most of the movies of this type. Yeah, there was no shortage of it, but it was reserved in usage.

All in all, I enjoyed it. The recruitment, training, the struggle to gain respect, the missions were all decently entertaining. But the ending got a bit wacky. Gratanted, we were dealing with a superhero film, so wackiness is something you kind of expect. But there is an actual story here that is told pretty well. This wasn’t just a collection of cool action scenes and impressive looking set pieces. The very ending was a bit much for me, but it did fit, so it wasn’t as bad as it could have been.

In the end, Captain America isn’t a movie I will seek out to watch again, but I am by no means upset that I saw it. I only wish more productions took this angle, focusing on a person who goes on a journey based on decisions they made based on their established personality and not just some guy who can do cool things that a bunch of stuff happens to and near. But I realize that this is asking too much. So, enjoy one of the good ones and accept it for what it is and try not to worry too much about the upcoming sequels that will quickly choke out any and all good will you have towards it.

History has little use for third acts. Yes, things are always happening and then developing further complications, but real life feels no need to resolve things neatly. This isn't much of a problem in the study of history, but it really is when you are dealing with attempting to retell it in a dramatic sense.

It usually works best to allow enough time to pass for inaccuracies to be overlooked. That's why movies like "Braveheart," and shows like "The Tudors," work so well dramatically. There is little attention or care paid to history and a lot paid to drama.

So how do you handle an interesting true story that is less than 10 years old and doesn't really have much of a resolution?

This is the difficulty facing "The Devil's Double," and it is handled about as well as it could have been.

It is the story of a man chosen to be a double/decoy for Uday Hussein, the unstable son of Sadaam Hussein. It is a look at what happens when a sociopath is given a consequence free playground and how a person who is accustomed to a world that makes sense can become lost in it.

Dominic Cooper is absolutely amazing as both Latif Yahia, an Iraqi soldier who is pulled from his life and dropped into the most insanely decadant world imaginable, and as Uday, one of the most chillingly charismatic lunatics imaginable. He creates two completely unique people who exist on opposite sides of the moral spectrum. Latif is a moral man who is forced to endure, and in a way assist, Uday in his world where people are disposable playthings that are useful until they become boring. Uday is a spoiled child who has no regard, or even awareness, of other humans as anything other than things put there for his own amusement (the wedding scene is especially brutal). Cooper makes both completely real.

The first two thirds of the film are strong, very strong. But then it kind of falls apart, which is to be expected. You know how the story plays out, that Latif has to escape in order for his story to be told, and Uday has to live long enough to be killed in 2003, so much of the real dramatic tension leading to the climax is lost. Also, as Latif's real story was left somewhat open ended by history it is impossible to really put a dramatic release on the film without pulling an "Inglourious Basterds" and rewriting history, which goes against the purpose of this film.

What you are left with is a good film that doesn't really have a chance to rise above being good. The idea and set up is top notch and it is a fascinating look at a world that few of us could ever really imagine.

Remember that girl in high school who got “engaged” to her first boyfriend in the 10^th grade. Then they broke up and she was devastated. It was the worst break up in the history of break ups. But then she starts dating another guy in 11^th grade and after a month, guess what… she’s “engaged” again. Then a few months later she sets the record for worst break up ever a second time. This time she bemoans her “bad luck” with men. And next thing you know… she’s found the right guy!!! She’s engaged again and you know what’s coming this time.

Looking back you know what the future holds. She will get engaged 10 times before she gets married for the first time, then that will fail and she will get married again. Maybe one day she will find one that will stick, but you know that’s not very likely.

What does this have to do with movies? Well, Hollywood is a lot like that girl. Something comes out that does well and it is suddenly the greatest thing ever and nobody will ever get tired of it and they will make money doing it forever and ever and ever.

It’s happened more times than I can count. Hell, it’s happening now. 3D, reboots, gritty reboots, adaptations of teen novels, vampires, all of it. It’s happened before and it will happen again.

Probably the biggest one of the past ten years would be the comic book movie. Yeah, we’ve always had superhero movies, but they were, by and large, a novelty. Every few years they would roll one out and it would be met with moderate success or failure, but there was rarely (Tim Burton’s “Batman” aside) any big deal made about them.

Then at the turn of the century (sounds cool, doesn’t it?) 20^th Century Fox made a bold move and released an X-Men movie. Right off the bat there was concern from comic fans. This is one of the longest and most complexly layered comic universes out there. There are dozens of characters with multiple incarnations and near infinite storylines. How on earth could this hope to work?

Thing is, it did work. It worked quite well. This led to a seemingly unending stream of comic movies that looked kind of awesome at first. Led by X-Men and Spider Man, which were not only good movies, but were followed up by superior sequels. Yeah, there was a lot of crap, and crap with sequels and spin offs (did anyone really want or need Elektra?), but those two seemed bulletproof. Then part 3 of each rolled around and… things got strange.

Each franchise went in a wildly different way. Spider Man went scorched earth and straight up rebooted. X-Men decided to go into backstory.

Their first attempt, X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a hot nightmare. Somehow they took the most popular and, arguably the most popular member of the team and reduced his back story to… I don’t even know what to call it. This was a character whose background was kept secret in comics for 27 years. At this moment I checked out.

So, when they announced X-Men: First Class, I was awash in apathy. They couldn’t handle the most interesting back-story and now they were going to muddy the waters with MORE people? I abstained.

Then, New Year’s Eve rolled around. My girlfriend was out of town and I came down with a touch of food poisoning and was facing a night alone on the couch. So I decided to hit up Red Box. The only things they had that interested me at all were “The Devil’s Double” (Review forthcoming), “Captain America”(Review forthcoming), and “X-Men: First Class” (whose inclusion on a lot of best of the year lists had gotten my attention).

I am so glad that I had what was, on the surface, the most depressing New Year’s Eve since 1999-2000 when I worked as a camera operator at a TV station that did a midnight broadcast, so as the rest of the world welcomed the new millennium I was one of ten people watching two very bored reporters discuss how nothing had really happened.

X-Men: First Class is a solidly made, entertaining film that shows an incredible amount of promise for any forthcoming films.

Origin stories are difficult because there needs to be a balance between the hero actually becoming the hero, and the hero actually doing something specific. You have to introduce a villain and make them real while incorporating the existing canon. It’s a difficult prospect that this film pulls off brilliantly.

In essence it is a three-tier creation story with a common villain. The first two creation stories are by far the most important to the X-Men world. We see the very different backgrounds of Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Eric Lensherr (Magneto). Charles grows up INCREDIBLY privileged. Early on he befriends Mystique and they grow up well educated, safe, and loved. We meet Eric shortly after the events that began the first X-Men movie, where he is ripped, screaming, from his parents arms at the gates of Auschwitz. His grows up tortured, exploited, and subjected to the worst of humanity.

Chance brings them together to face an enemy bent of the destruction of the planet and the subjugation of humanity. They join forces, and together create the third tier of the story by working with a group of young mutants, forming the first incarnation of the X-Men.

There is a lot more going on, but that’s the broad strokes of it.

This is a gutsy film. Magneto spends a large portion of the film as a sullen loner bent on vengeance. However, at no point is he painted as a cartoonishly evil stock villain. I found myself siding with him most of the time, and even if I didn’t side with him I understood why he was acting the way he was. This is no mean feat. Creating a villain, even the early stages, is difficult. Creating one that your audience can truly understand is nearly impossible. But they pull it off.

Charles is portrayed as an idealist who believes that mutants can work with humanity to better the world. Of course he does, this is a man who grew up with people being nice to him so naturally he things that people are inherently good.

Stuck between them is Mystique, who is struggling to find her identity. She was raised like Charles, but due to her appearance has always felt the sting of humanity’s fear and ugliness that Eric grew up with. Her relationship with Hank McCoy (Beast) provides the hear of the film, as they both question how to exist in a world that does not accept them as they struggle to accept themselves.

That is really the strength of this film. Yes, it deals brilliantly with the technical, nuts and bolts aspect of the creation story, but it makes it about more than just creating a team. The X-Men comic has always been about more than action and adventure. It has, at its heart, been about a struggle for acceptance (both external and internal), identity crisis, self-preservation, the dangers of extremism and racism, the search for commonality in a world of infinite diversity, and ultimately how to find peace in a world that doesn’t make sense. This film deals with all of these themes quite deftly. It’s never preachy, but it gets the point across.

Ever the optimist, there is a part of me that really hopes that this film is a new beginning for this type of film. That perhaps now quality will work its way into the product mill that is comic book film, and it might be. But if we are honest with ourselves, this probably won’t be the case. That being said, I am still very happy that we got this one, because no matter how bad the ensuing sequels (and we all know they are coming) may or may not be, at the very least we have one solidly entertaining and engrossing film. Those are far too hard to come by these days.

The HomeVideodrome podcast returns with a meaty show this week, as Jim and Hunter discuss the movies we saw over our Christmas break, and of course, we catch up on the new releases.

Music selections

The Damned Things - "A Great Reckoning" Clutch - "Mr. Shiny Cadillackness"

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:34:53m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (216)

There are sports movies that aren’t really about sports. Some are pretty heavy handed about it, like “Remember the Titans” (racism is bad), others are more subtle, like “Million Dollar Baby,” (redemption), and others cast the sport in a very small supporting role, like “Brian’s Song” (the power of a friendship, and no I’m not crying the room is just dusty and I have allergies!).

Moneyball falls in the middle category. On the surface it is about the struggling Oakland A’s trying to compete against teams with much higher budgets. If taken just as that it’s a solid underdog sports film. However, if that’s all you get from it, you are missing a really fantastic and innovative movie.

Beyond the simple underdog angle this is the story of a man who challenged the very foundations of one of the pillars of America itself. Baseball doesn’t cotton to change. The idea of doing something new or different in baseball is… well, it’s easier to change the US Constitution. To give you an idea, the designated hitter (being able to substitute a person to hit in place of the pitcher without removing the pitcher from the game) was introduced in 1973, and there are still people who view it as cheating. Basically, you don’t mess with baseball.

So, when Oakland manager Billy Beane decides to go against 100 years of baseball tradition by ignoring the instincts of scouts in favor of a statistical approach… well, he would have been viewed more favorably had he killed someone on field during a game.

What makes the film so engaging is that it focuses on the drama of two outsiders who have the audacity to state that instead of signing players based on how nice their swing looks or how fluid their pitching motion is, that things like on base percentage, the ability to draw walks, or a low ERA might be a better barometer of potential.

Add to this innovative editing as well as striking visual and sound design and you have a solid and surprising film that is more reminiscent of “The Social Network” than any sports film.

Not only are the story and style outstanding, but also the performances are fantastic. Brad Pitt and Philip Seymour Hoffman the type of solid performance you have come to expect, and Jonah Hill gives by far the best performance of his career and shows that there is a lot more to him than his light comedy resume would lead you to believe.

It might sound like a dry film meant just for baseball fans, but I cannot stress enough how much more it is. This is a movie about what people can do if they just step back from the expected norms and stay true to their beliefs. Even if you don’t care for baseball that much, there is a lot going on here for you to enjoy.

I love and hate the idea of doing a Top 10 of the year. After an absolute favorite it's kind of hard to quantify. Really, how do you really differentiate between 7 and 8? Also, writing 10 reviews at once is kind of a pain, so I tend to gloss over some things, but what the hell? This is why I write for my own site. The idea is a bit absurd if you think about it, but it's also kind of fun, so...

The list...

Special Mention: Tree of Life

I am putting this here because as much as I enjoyed (?) it, I don't really care if I ever see it again. This is sort of like reading James Joyce. I understand the importance, I understand the artistry and all that and I completely agree that this is a brilliant film. But, that's about it.

If you see it and love it, I totally understand. If you see it and hate it, I get that too. But it is a remarkable film in that it's completely original and completely true to the intent of the filmmaker and that is far too important to overlook. Read my full review here.

10) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

I have seen part of all of every Harry Potter films. They are, for the most part, solid and enjoyable films that capture the spirit of the books and, by and large, achieve what they set out to achieve. A lot of the films consist of first act set up, there is a lot of pandering with characters and magic-ey things, and a lot of unnecessary scenes that go on far too long. But they are what they mean to be.

Deathly Hallows part 2, though, really hits something spectacular. In particular, the pensive scene. Oh, man that pensive scene. There is more style, heart, and sophistication in that sequence than in all 7 previous films combined.. It is solidly paced, well acted, the moments that need to hit do, and in the end it is a solidly fitting end to an unprecedented cultural phenomenon.

9) Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol

Spy movies are fun. They just are. I mean, they are complete B.S., but they are fun B.S. There is a reason spy museums aren't more popular. There are only so many hidden cameras you can see before you've seen every hidden camera .

This is why I love the show Mission: Impossible and some of the movies. At their best they are pure fantasy escapism. Our heroes get to do cool stuff with cool stuff all for the sake of our safety. Ghost Protocol hits it dead on the screws. It's basically a multi phase heist film, but a damned good one. There are some truly stunning action scenes and a solid story. The ending was a bit... much, but all in this stands as one of the best of the series. Well worth it if you are willing to completely abandon disbelief and just go with it.

8) The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

This is a rough one. Really rough. Like, you aren't ready for how rough this is. I have always been fascinated by what goes on out of view. Closed doors, covered windows, even the secret back areas of businesses you go to every day have always represented the unknowable to me. That guy who lives down the street that you never talk to, whose name you don't know, well he has a life as long and as rich as yours, you just don't know that story. Thing is, not all of these are good stories. That is what "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" is about. It's dirty laundry, and what people will do to keep that laundry unaired.

Fincher does what Fincher does best here. Every shot is beautiful, every performance is dead on. Trent Renzor and Atticus Ross deliver another stunning score, Steve Zallian nails it with the script, and the acting... just damn. Don't think of this as a remake of the original film, but as a different adaptation of the book. It is a different film, but just as effective. That being said, it is assuredly not for everyone.

7) X-Men First Class

It was physically impossible for me to care less about this film than I did when it was announced. Then the previews came out... nothing changed. Then the reviews that were... really good. I still didn't care. Between X-Men 3 and Origins I had been so thoroughly burned that I just didn't have it in me to care anymore.

Well, then New Year's Eve hit and I found myself couch bound with food poisoning. I figured to give it a go as, worst case, it would take my mind off my delicate condition.

I was very surprised. This thing has a solid story and direction, great direction, and really sets up what will/has come quite well. Fassbinder nails it, Bacon was terrifying, even the surprise cameo worked. Not the best of the series, but very solid and a film I would watch again.

6) Six Month Rule

You haven't seen this, but hopefully you will. This movie did not make my list because the director and star did a show with us, more the opposite. I wanted him on the show because of how much I enjoyed this film. Very few movies tell honest relationship stories from an authentic male perspective. This is an authentic love story that you will be able to relate to. It's honest and refreshing and well worth your time. Read my full review here.

5) Hugo

I paid to see a 3D movie. Yes, I did. And I stand firmly behind my previous statements. It is a cute gimmick, but it doesn't really add anything.

This is a movie made with people like me in mind. It is a loving tribute to the power and history of film, what it means and can mean to us. This Scorsese kid pulls off something spectacular here. He made a touching family film that isn't trite or saccharine.

4) Moneyball

I am a fundamentally logical person. The idea of doing something one way because "that's how it's done" has always felt absolutely ridiculous to me, especially in our current world. 15 years ago people scoffed at the idea of renting movies online, or the idea of stores without physical locations. 6 years ago the idea of a phone without buttons was unheard of.

Before that, Billy Beane came up with an idea that was even more insane. Challenge 100+ years of baseball tradition. Stop trusting scout's instincts and start looking at numbers. The idea of doing something new or different in baseball is... well, it's easier to change the US Constitution. But he did it. This is how. Even if you don't care for baseball, this is a hell of a movie. If you are a baseball fan, regardless of if you remember this time period or not, you will love it. It is a fascinating and riveting story of someone who saw a new way of doing things. Well worth it.

3) The Descendants

Alexander Payne does three things well.

1) He gets great performances out of great actors.

2) He tells personal stories about people growing.

3) He makes good movies.

All three of these are on full display here. Fantastic script, beautifully shot, and Clooney absolutely kills it. Read my full review here.

2) Warrior

This thing was poised to be number 1 on my list, but more on that later. If you want to know my full opinion, check out the show we did on this. This is a movie about heart, forgiveness, loyalty, anger, redemption, love, passion, what it means to be a man, family and how much they can let you down, and so much more. The fights are AMAZING because each one means something. It's not about the punch, it's about what the punch is about. If you want my full opinion on this, listen to the show we did about it. I kind of go off.

It is easy to discount this as a Rocky knock off, it is also wildly incorrect. That would be like calling Moneyball a Bad News Bears knock off because they are about underdog baseball teams. There is so much more going on here. From the first frame you know how the final fight is going to line up, but that doesn't matter because you don't know how it's going to turn out. The anticipation, the wondering, the BUILD is what it's about. It's about caring how it turns out. It's about not wanting to choose sides, but finding yourself doing so anyway. Warrior is an absolutely inspiring and powerful film.

1) The Artist

A while back I'd started to hear about this silent, black and white movie that was making all kinds of waves on the festival circuit. I heard people gushing about how inspiring and wonderful it was. It was one of those things that I though would flash in the pan and then be forgotten until it hit DVD. Then it made the Austin Film Festival where I was lucky enough to see it. I cannot think of another film that I stood to cheer out loud and applaud.

I could go on and on, but I've already done that here, so yeah, check that out.

The further into these lists we delve the less sense they begin to make.

At first there was some logic. Laughs- Is it funny?

Then it got tricky. Thrills... what? How do you quantify that?

Now... well, now we take a very subjective look at heroism and villainy and come up with a list where pedophile dream monsters are less villainous than sharks, and where bank robbing murderers are more heroic than Superman.

Maybe you can make more sense of it than we did.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:28:14m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (243)

You know those dreams you have where a random bunch of crap happens and you just accept it because it's a dream and you don't know not to accept it?

Imagine if you were awake and aware and all that crap started happening around you. That is what this list is like.

AFI decided to set the broadest parameters imaginable and put together a list that abandons all pretext towards things like "logic" or "reason."

Sit back and enjoy. Merry Christmas, you lucky people.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:55:55m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (294)

As we near our 100th episode we decided to get all "themey" on you.

Welcome to the first in our series looking at the AFI lists. What better place to begin than with comedies. An interesting list and we have a lot to say about it.

However, much like movies of today, the list falls apart in the third act and needs to be taken to task. So, take a listen and see what you think and see if you can figure out the glaring omission early on.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:49:56m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (262)

Christmas has come early folks!!! That’s right, the day you have been waiting for has finally arrived!!!!

The Golden Globe Nominations were announced to the wonderment of all.

Anyone?

Ok, so even for those who care about the major awards, The Globes are the junior varsity. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like we’re talking People’s Choice Awards or anything, but it’s still not an Oscar.

My Probable Winner is who I think will win, my choice is who I would vote for. Sometimes they will be the same, other times they will differ. I have done no research at this point, so my probables are basically blind guesses based off my instinct.

So, let’s look at my VERY early predictions.

Best Motion Picture - Drama

Nominees:

The Descendants (2011)

The Help (2011)

Hugo (2011/II)

The Ides of March (2011)

Moneyball (2011)

War Horse (2011)

I have only seen three of these (The Descendants, Hugo, and Moneyball), but I have loved each of them. All the buzz so far points to “The Descendants,” and I have to agree. Much as I love the others I honestly feel that is the best choice.

Probable Winner- The Descendants

Jim’s Choice- The Descendants

Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

The Artist (2011)

Bridesmaids (2011)

50/50 (2011)

Midnight in Paris (2011)

My Week with Marilyn (2011)

I love that they split this one in two. I really do. There is no competition in this category though, at least for me. Also, there is a ton of buzz on this one. Unless something stupid happens The Artist walks with this.

Probable Winner- The Artist

Jim’s Choice- The Artist

That also represents the battle for Best Picture at the Oscars. Of the two, my choice is The Artist. Hands down.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama

Nominees:

George Clooney for The Descendants (2011)

Leonardo DiCaprio for J. Edgar (2011)

Michael Fassbender for Shame (2011)

Ryan Gosling for The Ides of March (2011)

Brad Pitt for Moneyball (2011)

I think Clooney will and should get this. Yeah, there is a lot of buzz on Fassbender, Gosling is always solid, Pitt is outstanding, Leo has been due for a while (but the feedback on Jedgar is way too devisive for this to be the one), but Clooney is so damned moving and impressive in this.

Probable Winner- Clooney

Jim’s Choice- Clooney

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama

Nominees:

Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs (2011)

Viola Davis for The Help (2011)

Rooney Mara for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady (2011)

Tilda Swinton for We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

This is a street fight between Close and Streep. I know there is a lot of hype around Iron Lady, but Albert Nobbs is the type of story and performance that garners a lot of attention. Plus Close is a criminally under appreciated actress (yeah, I said it). To me this one is too close to call, but who am I kidding? Streep will take this.

Probable Winner- Streep

Jim’s Choice- Toss Up- Streep and Close

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

Jean Dujardin for The Artist (2011)

Brendan Gleeson for The Guard (2011)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt for 50/50 (2011)

Ryan Gosling for Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)

Owen Wilson for Midnight in Paris (2011)

Gordon Levitt has some weight here, but I am really pulling for Dujardin.

Probable Winner- Dujardin

Jim’s Choice- Dujardin

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

Jodie Foster for Carnage (2011)

Charlize Theron for Young Adult (2011)

Kristen Wiig for Bridesmaids (2011)

Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Kate Winslet for Carnage (2011)

I love Jodie Foster and it’s nice to see her in something were terrible things don’t happen to her. But I think this is the year of Kristen Wiig, and we will see that come through here. There are few people in Hollywood who are as solid and reliable as Wiig, so I am all for this one even though I haven’t seen Bridesmaids.

Probable Winner- Wiig

Jim’s Choice- Wiig

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Nominees:

Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Albert Brooks for Drive (2011)

Jonah Hill for Moneyball (2011)

Viggo Mortensen for A Dangerous Method (2011)

Christopher Plummer for Beginners (2010)

I am not familiar enough to make an educated guess, but I think Plummer will win it because he is Chris Plummer. I have no issue with this.

Probable Winner- Plummer

Jim’s Choice- Plummer

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Nominees:

Bérénice Bejo for The Artist (2011)

Jessica Chastain for The Help (2011)

Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs (2011)

Octavia Spencer for The Help (2011)

Shailene Woodley for The Descendants (2011)

This has been the year of Jessica Chastain. Between The Help, The Debt, Tree of Life, and Coriolanus she has been racking up the award bait. So I think she takes it, although my vote is for Bejo.

Probable Winner- Chastain

Jim’s Choice- Bejo

Best Director - Motion Picture

Nominees:

Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris (2011)

George Clooney for The Ides of March (2011)

Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist (2011)

Alexander Payne for The Descendants (2011)

Martin Scorsese for Hugo (2011/II)

Wow! So… apparently Malik can go straight to hell. Surprising. This is a tough one. As good as Allen and Clooney are, this is between Scorsese, Payne, Hazanavicius. I don’t think Scorsese will take it, and it is an absolute toss up between the others. I’m going with a split on this. I really want The Artist to win, but I think that Payne is about to get his.

Probable Winner- Payne

Jim’s Choice- Hazanavicius

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture

Nominees:

The Artist (2011): Michel Hazanavicius

The Descendants (2011): Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash

The Ides of March (2011): George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon

Midnight in Paris (2011): Woody Allen

Moneyball (2011): Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin

This is an odd one. All very different, all very good, one very gutsy. You can never rule out Allen or Sorkin, but I don’t think this is the year for either. The Ides of March, while probably very good, is up against too much. This could go either way, but I am going with my gut.

Probable Winner- The Descendants

Jim’s Choice- The Artist

Best Original Song - Motion Picture

Nominees:

Albert Nobbs (2011): Brian Byrne, Glenn Close("Lay Your Head Down")

Gnomeo & Juliet (2011): Elton John, Bernie Taupin("Hello Hello")

The Help (2011): Mary J. Blige, Thomas Newman, Harvey Mason Jr., Damon Thomas("The Living Proof")

Machine Gun Preacher (2011): Chris Cornell("The Keeper")

W.E. (2011): Madonna, Julie Frost, Jimmy Harry("Masterpiece")

I do not give a crap on this one. So… Elton John and Bernie Taupin?

Probable Winner- Hello, Hello- Elton John and Bernie Taupin

Jim’s Choice- Sure, same thing.

Best Original Score - Motion Picture

Nominees:

The Artist (2011): Ludovic Bource

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross

Hugo (2011/II): Howard Shore

War Horse (2011): John Williams

W.E. (2011): Abel Korzeniowski

I would go with Dragon Tattoo, but Trent won last year and the music in The Artist is too necessary.

Probable Winner- The Artist

Jim’s Choice- The Artist

Best Animated Film

Nominees:

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

Arthur Christmas (2011)

Cars 2 (2011)

Puss in Boots (2011)

Rango (2011)

Apparently Peter Jackson has discovered a real up and comer in this Spielberg kid. I think the foreign press will go nuts for his radical cinematic stylings.

Probable Winner- Tintin

Jim’s Choice- I don’t really care, so Tintin.

Best Foreign Language Film

Nominees:

The Flowers of War (2011)(China)

In the Land of Blood and Honey (2011)(USA)

The Kid with a Bike (2011)(Belgium)

A Separation (2011)(Iran)

The Skin I Live In (2011)(Spain)

Have not seen any. But there is an Aldomovar up, so…

Probable Winner- The Skin I Live In

Jim’s Choice- Yeah, that.

Best Television Series - Drama

Nominees:

"American Horror Story" (2011)

"Boardwalk Empire" (2010)

"Boss" (2011)

"Game of Thrones" (2011)

"Homeland" (2011)

Between Boardwalk and Thrones. I can’t make a call for either.

Best Television Series - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

"Enlightened" (2011)

"Episodes" (2011)

"Glee" (2009)

"Modern Family" (2009)

"New Girl" (2011)

I think Modern Family continues its dominance.

Probable Winner- Modern Family

Jim’s Choice- Modern Family

Best Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Nominees:

Cinema Verite (2011) (TV)

"Downton Abbey" (2010)

"The Hour" (2005)

"Mildred Pierce" (2011)

Too Big to Fail (2011) (TV)

Not familiar with any of these, but I’ve heard good things about Mildred Pierce.

Probable Winner- Mildred Pierce

Jim’s Choice- Sure, why not.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Drama

Nominees:

Steve Buscemi for "Boardwalk Empire" (2010)

Bryan Cranston for "Breaking Bad" (2008)

Kelsey Grammer for "Boss" (2011)

Jeremy Irons for "The Borgias" (2011)

Damian Lewis for "Homeland" (2011)

Tough one, but Cranston is such a beast that I see him taking it.

Probable Winner- Cranston

Jim’s Choice- Cranston

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Drama

Nominees:

Claire Danes for "Homeland" (2011)

Mireille Enos for "The Killing" (2011)

Julianna Margulies for "The Good Wife" (2009)

Madeleine Stowe for "Revenge" (2011)

Callie Thorne for "Necessary Roughness" (2011)

I’ve only seen the killing, and would love to see it win here, but it probably won’t. Gotta go with Miss Grandin on this.

Probable Winner- Danes

Jim’s Choice- Danes

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

Alec Baldwin for "30 Rock" (2006)

David Duchovny for "Californication" (2007)

Johnny Galecki for "The Big Bang Theory" (2007)

Thomas Jane for "Hung" (2009)

Matt LeBlanc for "Episodes" (2011)

Galecki but not Parsons. Wow. Look at the stones on the globes! Way to buck trend, sir. I only watch 30 Rock and Californication. I honestly have no idea or choice on this one.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

Laura Dern for "Enlightened" (2011)

Zooey Deschanel for "New Girl" (2011)

Tina Fey for "30 Rock" (2006)

Laura Linney for "The Big C" (2010)

Amy Poehler for "Parks and Recreation" (2009)

Again, only watch 30 Rock and Parks and Rec. However, Poehler has been so great this year that I think she takes it.

Probable Winner- Poehler

Jim’s Choice- Poehler

Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series or a Motion Picture Made for Television

Nominees:

Hugh Bonneville for "Downton Abbey" (2010)

Idris Elba for "Luther" (2010)

William Hurt for Too Big to Fail (2011) (TV)

Bill Nighy for Page Eight (2011) (TV)

Dominic West for "The Hour" (2011)

I don’t know. William Hurt?

Best Performance by an Actress in a Mini-Series or a Motion Picture Made for Television

Nominees:

Romola Garai for "The Hour" (2011)

Diane Lane for Cinema Verite (2011) (TV)

Elizabeth McGovern for "Downton Abbey" (2010)

Emily Watson for "Appropriate Adult" (2011)

Kate Winslet for "Mildred Pierce" (2011)

Ummmmm…. Kate Winslet?

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Nominees:

Peter Dinklage for "Game of Thrones" (2011)

Paul Giamatti for Too Big to Fail (2011) (TV)

Guy Pearce for "Mildred Pierce" (2011)

Tim Robbins for Cinema Verite (2011) (TV)

Eric Stonestreet for "Modern Family" (2009)

Some great people here, but Dinklage won the Emmy, and he is an absolute beast. You have to give the man his due, and I haven’t even seen the show yet.

Probable Winner- Dinklage

Jim’s Choice- Dinklage

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Nominees:

Jessica Lange for "American Horror Story" (2011)

Kelly Macdonald for "Boardwalk Empire" (2010)

Maggie Smith for "Downton Abbey" (2010)

Sofía Vergara for "Modern Family" (2009)

Evan Rachel Wood for "Mildred Pierce" (2011)

Wow! Sofia Veraga! That would be amazing. She has been killing it on Modern Family lately. But, Kelly Macdonald has such a strong and complex character that I think she takes it. Oh, and she’s Scottish, so… yeah.

Probable Winner- MacDonald

Jim’s Choice- MacDonald

There it is, my off the cuff response.

Lets get some feedback going here, ey?

HomeVideodrome #14 - Heavenly Creatures

In this week's HomeVideodrome, Hunter is sick, Jim is having technical difficulties, but we somehow pull it off. Here we talk about the disappointment that was Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the surprisingly fun Fright Night remake, and the greatness of Heavenly Creatures.

Musical Selections:

Faith No More - "A Small Victory"

Faith No More - "Stripsearch

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [00:45:23m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (231)

Stunt casting (casting a non actor) has been around as long as regular casting. It varies from politicians to musicians to athletes to bullshit reality TV people (and no, they are not reality TV "stars").

This week Vijay steps in for Clarkson (who is off honeymooning) and we have a very rambling discussion about rappers acting.

Enjoy.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:40:41m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (215)

HomeVideodrome #13 - The Help

WE FINALLY GOT THIS DAMNED THING WORKING!!!

This week on the HomeVideodrome podcast, Jim weighs in on the 3D in “Hugo,” Hunter reviews “Immortals” and we go on a plethora of other tangents.

Musical selections: Johnny Cash - "Thirteen", Big Star - "Thirteen

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [01:11:41m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (240)

As Clarkson begins his wedding/honeymoon hiatus I sat down and had a conversation with writer, director, and actor Blayne Weaver to discuss how he went from acting in a movie of the week while in high school to writing, producing, directing, and staring in  his own films.

We did have some slight technical problems with the audio, but it is a hell of a good show, so check it out.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [02:10:01m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (211)

HomeVideodrome #12 - Cave of Forgotten Dreams

In this week's episode, Hunter reviews Hugo, Bridesmaids, and Horrible Bosses, and we also dwell on Werner Herzog's awesome voice, because hey, there weren't too many releases one could give a damn about this week.

Musical selections: "Ritual" by Ghost "Fix My Heart" by Voivod

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [00:43:57m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (251)

In the past few weeks both Clarkson and myself have watched a lot of documentaries. A lot. So,continuing our tradition of "why the hell not" we decided to record another show about them.

Even if you don't like documentaries because you're an idiot, you should still listen it'll broaden your mind.

Oh, and here is  a rare behind the scenes pic of the show being recorded. Why? Because we love you.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (218)

HomeVideodrome #11: Lillian Gish on Ice On this week's edition of the HomeVideodrome podcast, we hit up this week's releases, talk about the sad state of American independent cinema and film festivals, Troy Duffy's bad attitude, and we give Rushmore a lot of love.  We packed this one with more discussion than usual, so go listen, and enjoy!

Music selections: "I Am Waiting" by The Rolling Stones "Ooh La La" by The Faces

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (279)

We love Sam Raimi. Always have, always will.

He makes movies that are fun, and therefore if you do not like him then you do not like fun.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (238)

Official Rejection

I have made no secret of my opinions regarding “independent” cinema these days. In short, it’s farcical.

Now, I am not saying that there isn’t a vibrant and necessary independent film scene, far from it. In many ways we are living in the salad days of independent film. You can go to best buy and purchase all of the equipment you need to shoot, edit, and internationally release your film (say what you will, but YouTube is instant international distribution). You won’t exactly make money that way, but it is possible.

This is a drastic sea change even when compared to 15 years ago. When I was in film school it was insanely expensive. You had camera rental, film stock, processing, then editing on flatbed or one of the handful of Avid systems on campus. It was a brutal, expensive, and cumbersome process.

But now? Now I have a 1080p HD camera on my phone. You can purchase the equipment necessary to make countless feature films for what it once cost to rent what you need for a short. If all you want is to make a movie the tools are available.

So, yeah, there is an amazing culture of independent moviemakers that I am a huge fan of.

However, that is not the farce to which I refer. No, the farce I refer to is the studio take on “indie.” Back in the days before Sundance and Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Michael Moore, Steven Soderberg independent movies were just that, independent. These were young and hungry filmmakers who went out and busted their ass to scrape together enough money, find locations, secure whatever actors they could, and just get a movie finished. They had no support outside of their immediate friends, family, and whatever investors they could find. It was a harsh frontier filled with outsiders and outlaws. In the end, even if what they put out wasn’t great it was still theirs from the ground up.

But now? Now that every major studio has an “indie” division, when people talk “indie” films you hear names like “Juno,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” “Away We Go,” “127 Hours,” “Revolutionary Road,” “Milk,” and other such films mentioned.

So we went from,

Reservoir Dogs- First time director, some stars, $1.5 million dollar budget

Sex, Lies, and Videotape- First time director, some stars $1.2 million dollar budget

Roger and Me- First time director, no stars, $160,000

Clerks- First time director, no stars, $27,575 budget

El Mariachi- First time director, no stars, $7,000 budget

being the standard of “indie” to…

Juno- Established director, multiple stars, $6.5 million budget, produced by Fox

Little Miss Sunshine- first time directors, multiple stars, $8 million budget, produced by Fox

Away We Go- Oscar winning director, multiple stars, $17 million budget, produced by Focus Features (art house division of NBC Universal)

127 Hours- Oscar winning director, multiple stars, $18 million budget, produced by Fox

Revolutionary Road- Oscar winning director, Oscar winning and nominated cast (2 nominees, 1 winner), $35 million budget, produced by Paramount and Dreamworks

Milk- Oscar nominated director, multiple stars, Oscar winning actor in lead, $20 million budget, produced by Focus Features (art house division of NBC Universal)

being considered “indie.”

I am not commenting on the quality of any of these films, but rather questioning the application of the title “indie.” Can you consider a film with that studio backed financing for production, distribution, and marketing to be “independent?” Independent of what, exactly?

What does all this have to do with “Official Rejection?” Well, “Official Rejection” takes a look at the only real outlet true independent filmmakers have to get their movies known, the film festival.

There is a strict hierarchy in the world of the film fest. Your top tier fests, places like Cannes, are insanely exclusive and very difficult to be selected for. But they are industry showcase fests. If you make a feature that doesn’t have studio backing, or a huge name connected you know not to even waste your time with them.

From there you get into the independent world. These are supposed to be places for unknown filmmakers to show their films in the hope of getting a distribution deal. There are some very highly regarded fests. Getting into South By Southwest (SXSW), Austin Film Fest (AFF), Telluride, or Tribeca goes a long way in helping your career. But at the top of this mountain is Sundance.

Beginning in 1978 as the Utah/US Film Festival it was originally intended to get more filmmakers to come to Utah. It was a combination of new and classic films and highlighted regional filmmakers (regional is a term meaning “not in Hollywood”).

Then Robert Redford got involved and, with the best intentions, brought a lot of publicity to the fest. Well, you know what they say about the road to hell? Yeah…

Now, Sundance has become very much an arm of the studio system. Once upon a time, not that long ago, a young kid could rack up a huge amount of credit card debt making a film and have a real shot at getting into Sundance and having their film noticed. Today though, if you don’t have a studio, or stars, or a huge budget, or have a combination of those things and plan on premiering somewhere other than Sundance, you’re out of luck.

So, now to the point of this review.

“Official Rejection” follows some indie filmmakers as they take their film through the festival circuit. You see the incredible hassle involved in submitting it. The various political forces at work in selection, the frenzy of marketing, and the insane machine that the festival world has become.

Essentially, what on the surface appears to be about art and storytelling is really just a business. I know this isn’t much of a shock (You mean the film industry is a BUSINESS?!?! You forget yourself, sir!), but it is when you look at what these festivals purport to be about.

Now, as someone who reads scripts for a screenplay competition I can sympathize with the festival programmers. I mean, you get THOUSANDS of submissions, many of them are not so good, and you have to sift through them in hopes of finding something worth screening. I will read 100 scripts and be shocked if 10 of them are good enough to move on. That doesn’t mean they will win or even be semi finalists, it just means they are good enough to be considered for that.

Imagine doing that with films. Then take into consideration that you aren’t necessarily looking for the best films, but often for films that fit the program. Add to it the number of really big deal, studio star vehicles that you get offered which will give your festival a lot of positive publicity. That’s leaving out that you are among thousands of films fighting for less than 100 spots.

We follow our filmmakers through the insanity of this process. From Sundance to San Francisco, to Arizona, to Chicago you get to see behind the curtain of festivals and learn a little bit about how the industry works.

Along the way you meet other indie filmmakers and get their experiences, from frustration with possibly the worst festival I’ve ever seen (sorry Chicago Independent Film Fest), to more reputable and better run affairs. It’s fascinating and casts a very interesting light on the industry.

The only criticism I have about this film is the amount of frustration that seeps into the film. You can tell how pissed the filmmakers are getting by the end. Yeah, it’s justified. I mean these festivals were meant as an alternative to the very system they have become a huge part of. But after a point it feels a bit like raging against the machine they are trying to become a part of. That is a bit of a nit picky criticism, but I’m trying to be balanced here.

If you are a film fan and have ever been to a film festival or a filmmaker thinking about submitting this is a film you should check out.

On this week's episode of the HomeVideodrome podcast, we discuss Ozzy and Dio in Black Sabbath, we wonder why Julia Roberts ever became America's sweetheart, and we dedicate "Hell Awaits" by Slayer to Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky.  So go listen, and enjoy!

Musical selections: Ozzy Osbourne - "No More Tears" Slayer - "Hell Awaits"

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (231)

Here's the idea, we each made a list of things related to film that we find annoying. Then we sat around and talked about them.

It might seem a bit unstructured, but here are my notes...

So, with that image in mind... I guess we were pretty structured and coherent.

Anyway, enjoy.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (219)

The People Vs. George Lucas

"I am very concerned about our national heritage, and I am very concerned that the films that I watched when I was young and the films that I watched throughout my life are preserved, so that my children can see them."

– George Lucas expressing concern over the Colorization of black & white films

George Lucas. Damn. It’s amazing how quickly that name completely changed meanings. Remember when we were young and that name brought up images of some of the greatest films ever made? Yeah, he was responsible for some that were maybe not great, but the good… oh, man the good outweighed the bad.

I mean, “Star Wars,” and “Indiana Jones” aside, this is the guy who brought us things like “American Graffiti,” “Willow,” and “The Land Before Time.” While these aren’t all great, the are, at the very least, interesting and original.

So, what happened?

It is this exact question that “The People vs. George Lucas,” attempts to answer.

Like it or not, “Star Wars,” has become part of our national culture. Other than making scads of money, changing the way films were made, changed the basic principles of movie marketing, spawning its own extended universe of fan fiction, creating an entire global fan culture, and becoming damned near required viewing for citizenship in our global community, it’s a pretty damned good movie.

Think about it this way, this is one of the first films to be included in the national film registry of "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant films.” It was inducted alongside, “Citizen Kane,” “Vertigo,” “The Wizard of Oz,” and “The General,” for God’s sake. Hell, it was included before “The Godfather,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” and “King Kong.” To say that the original Star Wars Trilogy is important is an understatement.

So… why?

Why would he go back and change these landmark films? Why alter these genre defining, cultural landmarks?

It is all a question of ownership, sad to say. To paraphrase Lucas from his appearance on “The Daily Show,” People don’t know that my middle initial is W. I am the other George W. I’m not just the decider; I am the creator.

Like it or not, the films are his.

This film looks at the impact of the Star Wars films as well as the reaction to the changes and the prequels. It’s an interesting look at something that has gone beyond national phenomena and entered the realm of global obsession.

There are some interesting points and questions raised in this documentary. From Lucas’s vehement opposition to colorization because of a need to preserve the films that were important to him growing up, to the ethics of altering a film that has been tagged for preservation in the national registry, to questioning the altering of visual effects in a film that won the Oscar for best visual effects. These are all addressed.

Make no mistake, this is a film targeted at fans. You don’t have to be a fan to watch it, but I have a hard time imagining anyone who isn’t a Star Wars fan putting this on.

From a personal standpoint I have grown to a point of indifference about “Star Wars.” More accurately, I am of two minds. Yes, the films are Lucas’s. He imagined them, he created them, and he owns them. But, at what point do you just let them exist? Is it ethical to alter fundamental character moments (Han shooting first is a fundamental character defining moment) on a film that has this level of cultural currency?

Hell, Harper Lee is the creator of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” but does that mean she could go back and save Tom Robinson from dying? Yeah, she could, but it wouldn’t make any sense.

I guess that’s what gets me about it all. Going back and improving something that didn’t work the first time is understandable, but I think one could state objectively that “Star Wars” worked. But in the end, what can you do?

Ever since the special editions I have been a bit reserved about “Star Wars.” I didn’t like the content changes at all. Everything from Greedo shooting first, to the appearance of Jabba in the first film, to Luke screaming as he fell, to the unrealistically annoying musical number in Jabba’s palace felt completely unnecessary and detracted from the film itself. The cleaning up of the visual effects was… well, unnecessary. Yeah, they look better now, but did they really look that bad before? The may not have looked cutting edge by today’s standard, but remember these were groundbreaking at the time. Yeah they’re outdated now, but damn it that is how history works. It would be like going back and digitizing all the Harryhausen effects. They would cease to be what made them special to begin with.

But, he is the creator, the owner, and the ultimate authority on what is and is not “Star Wars.”

I have not spent one dime on Star Wars since “Revenge of the Sith,” which, incidentally, I hated. Let’s be honest, all the prequels are bad. They just are. I have written about this before, but it bears repeating. This isn’t me just hating, it is me stating an honest opinion. They were hastily written, amateurishly directed exercises in cramming as much CGI nonsense on the screen as possible. The stories didn’t really make sense and didn’t really add anything to the overall universe. Add that to the continued changes to the original movies and it adds up to me being done with it.

This is the difference between me and the fan boys who deride Lucas. Why should George take us seriously when we complain a about the changes he’s making? I mean, yeah, they complain… and then go out and buy the new versions that have all the changes they claim are “ruining” the movies. Well, if they are ruined, stop buying them.

If you know that something is bad, and a betrayal, and “raped” your childhood, then stop. Just stop. Don’t buy the Blu-Ray boxed set. Don’t go to the 3D re-releases, don’t spend any more money on them. It’s a difference between words and actions. You are saying that he is ruining the movies, but you are paying him to do it. You aren’t just paying him to do it, you are paying him over and over again. So, stop. Just…

Why am I bothering? I mean, next year he could come out with a version that has Yoda back flipping through Degobah, or everyone escaping Alderaan before it gets destroyed, or Vader saving a basket of puppies at the end and people would still flood theatres to see it. I guess addiction is a funny thing, and Star Wars is a hell of a drug.

This week on the HomeVideodrome podcast, Hunter reviews Lars Von Trier's Melancholia, Jim offers up his love of William Wyler's The Collector, and we both talk about our love of The Cannonball Run, all while running down this week's releases. Music selections: Faith No More - "Easy" Queen - "I'm in Love With My Car"

CORRECTION: In the show, it was stated that the lost deleted scenes from Blue Velvet were not available on the Blu-ray.  This is actually not true, as we have learned that the lost scenes are included as extras on this Blu-ray.  I guess it IS my pick of the week after all, as this is a must for any David Lynch fan. -Hunter

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (295)

Mel Brooks is funny. Damned funny. At least he is when he's doing his own thing and not trying to cop another filmmakers style.

He is responsible for making two of the funniest movies ever made... in one year. That alone is enough to put him atop most lists, but he has done so much more.

This week we discuss the man whose movies informed more of what we thought was funny as children than any other person on the planet.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (253)

Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold

I have probably put more thought in to Morgan Spurlock than anyone who isn’t related to him should. His 2004 documentary “Super Size Me” launched him into the national spotlight by using an interesting gimmick to address a serious social issue. It was sensational, thought provoking, and, though it lacked much in the way of actual science (more on that in a moment), it brought much needed attention to something people don’t think about anywhere near as much as they should.

The reason I say “Super Size Me” lacked much in the way of actual science is because… well, it does. He talks to a lot of lawyers and political activists, and while he does visit a doctor a few times, he doesn’t really actually talk to many doctors or scientists on the subject of proper nutrition.

That aside, his claims are dubious. He claimed to eat a diet of 5000 calories a day, but has refused to release his food diary. This refusal has made his claims impossible to verify. However, if you follow his claims of what he ate (3 meals a day, super sizing 1 in 10 meals) you get around 3500 calories a day.

Why do I make such a big deal out of this? This is a documentary. It is meant to document something. If you falsify your information then you throw the voracity of your argument into question. Now, I do not believe that McDonald’s is healthy by any stretch, but if it is as unhealthy as this film claims then why would he have to falsify information to prove it?

Put even more simply you cannot have a valid argument based on falsified information.

But had he eaten 3500 calories a day he may not have gotten the type of sensational results that got him so much attention at Sundance and changed his life. There are a lot of other questions about the veracity of his health results, but that’s something for another time.

Spurlock has successfully capitalized on the sensation his first film caused with a series on FX (30 Days) and a few other documentaries (Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden, and Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold) as well as some short segments for other projects (The Simpsons, and Freakanomics). All of these share one thing in common; Spurlock is front and center in all of them.

In essence Spurlock is almost more of a quintessential modern documentarian than the inventor of the new style, Michael Moore. These days it’s not enough for a documentary to be about the subject. No, it has to be about the documentarian and his or her relationship to the subject. We have to follow them as they do something in an attempt to prove the thesis of their film. A thesis, by the way, that was developed before a single minute of actual research has been done or a single frame of film has been shot.

This is the core of my problem with most modern documentaries. These aren’t attempts to learn or discover, but to prove and push an agenda. I take a slight amount of issue with that.

All of this being said, let’s talk about Spurlock’s latest film, “Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold.” Here, Spurlock sets out to see if it is possible to finance a film 100% through product placement and corporate tie ins. It is an interesting experiment, but that’s about it.

The real problem is that it lacks any real thesis or point. I mean, is there anyone out there who isn’t aware of product placement and corporate tie ins? There might be, but are those people the likely audience for a documentary?

There were some interesting things in this. Seeing him try to find representation that could put him in touch with the people with the money, watching him pitch the idea to different companies, finding out the mountain of paperwork and the multitude of hoops he had to jump through were all fascinating looks behind the curtain. His meeting with the guy who thinks that there should be on screen notification of any and all product placement on the screen during any movie or film was fascinating. It was interesting and all, but I kept wondering, “What’s the point?”

Yeah, he points out that product placement is prevalent, but did we really need to be told that Will Smith’s character opening his “Converse Chuck Taylor, vintage 2004” shoes, or scenes from TV shows where a character holds a soda can, label facing the camera, and says “All you’re doing is drinking Dr. Pepper,” to the response “It isn’t a road trip without a lot of Dr. Pepper!” are ads?

Are there people out there who really talk that way? If there are, I think they would make a far more interesting subject for a documentary.

But what we are left with is a fairly uninspired, uninformative vanity project that didn’t really serve much of a purpose.

Red State

“How much do you think a cross like that costs?”

“Do you mean in dollars or common sense?”

-ASAC Brooks and Joseph Keenan, Red State

“First of all, if you write a screenplay without conflict or crisis, you’ll bore your audience to tears.”

-Robert McKee (Brian Cox), Adaptation

Kevin Smith. Can anything original be said about him any more? Here is a guy who went from convenience store clerk to indie-auteur in the matter of a few years. He has made some outstand films, and some that were less than outstanding. He defined a genre, has millions of rabid fans, and has inspired countless independent filmmakers. Oh, make no mistake, Smith is an important and influential film maker.

I have LOVED some of Smith’s work in the past (Dogma, Chasing Amy, Mallrats, yeah, so I loved Mallrats, what of it?), I’ve liked some (Clerks, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back), disliked others (Clerks 2, Zack and Miri) and outright hated some (Cop Out, and yes, I believe that Cop Out was objectively bad, but you can read about that HERE).

Also, I am in that group of people that liked Jersey Girl. It was a very heartfelt and personal film that got a massive shit end of a massive stick for no reason other than it was a departure from his established brand. Sadly, the reaction was so poor that he went right back to his comfort zone. I say sadly because he proved that he could do films that were more. Not that there is anything wrong with his “Jersey” movies, but as he got older they began to lose that personal feel. He was no longer making movies about his own world, but rather a remembrance of what it was like back then.

But throughout his career I have always wanted to see more from Kevin. Not that I find his output lacking, rather I wanted to see him break out of that comfort zone. “Jersey Girl” let me know he could, and could do so well, and I always wanted to see him challenge himself more.

Well, he did. “Red State,” is a strange one. There is no other way to put it. It is, by far, his most sophisticated filmmaking. It is also, by far, some of his least sophisticated storytelling.

What the hell do I mean by that?

Simply put, from a technical aspect, the camera work, the building of tension, and the starkness of it all was a complete departure for him. Watching this I was completely blown away from the technical aspect. Out of nowhere Kevin went from a “put the camera there and film it” director to “not only can I move it, but I can move it well.” I think this film had more visual stylistics than damned near everything he’s done before combined.

But it didn’t look busy, showy, or show offy. His camera work, use of perspective, and overall film grammar were stunning and effective. They added to the emotion of the scenes and gave new dynamics to the character interactions. On that level this is the best thing Kevin Smith has done.

But…

The story left me a little flat. I didn’t know what he was trying to say with this.

Basically there is either no protagonist, or a protagonist so unlikable that you don’t really care too much about what happens to him. You have a villain without much going on other than his zealotry. Yeah, there are some attempts at giving his side, and you definitely get that he believes himself to be God’s hero, but he was just plain mustache twirling evil. Then you have the ineptness of the government.

So, what is it about? I don’t mean plot, I mean thematically. Because, here’s the thing, whatever your opinion of Kevin or his films you have to admit that he is very good at giving what is happening meaning. From Dante learning to take some responsibility for himself and his actions in “Clerks,” to Holden finding out about the strength it takes to actually love another person in “Chasing Amy,” to Zach and Miri learning how to realize what is right in front of them, Smith has always been a writer who gives thematic weight to his films.

That being said, I repeat the question; what is it about?

I have been asking myself that question since I watched this movie a few days back and I can’t really come up with anything.

Is it about the dangers of dogmatic funtimentalism?

Is it about the danger of following institutional logic?

Is it about the pervasiveness of corruption in our society?

I honestly cannot say.

We begin with one story, shift to something completely different, then do a complete 180 and end up with yet another different story. I have no idea what he was trying to say. That’s where this movie suffers.

It just can't decide what it wants to be. And there are some other issues.

First off, there are way too many dialogue dependant scenes. There are massive amounts of information we get by simply being told. I can’t fault Smith too much here because he had some amazing actors giving amazing performances. Hell, Michael Parks has an amazing monologue that he delivers like… well, like Michael Parks. He absolutely kills it, but the problem is… well, it’s a really long monologue. In the end, no matter how good a monologue is, it is still someone talking for an extended period. Smith does some interesting camera moves, but it is still a long bit of talking in the middle of a film. There is no catharsis from the speech, it doesn’t pull things together, it just happens.

The primary storytelling device seems to be long monologues where we are told what we need to know. John Goodman enters the scene, playing an ATF agent investigating Parks’ Westboro/Branch Davidian type church, and proceeds to give a long monologue giving us all the information we need up to that point. It comes as one side of a phone conversation, and Goodman absolutely nails it, but it’s… again, a long scene of a guy talking.

The tie up at the end might as well have been a monologue. There wasn’t any sense of resolution because there was nothing at stake other than the external conflict.

Basically it started out as a movie about three guys trying to get laid, it then becomes an escape movie, and finally ends up as a siege movie. But none of them had any emotional stakes other than escape and survival.

If a movie doesn’t have internal growth or change, if your characters don’t learn anything or have any discernable arc, then there is no crisis in your film. If there is no crisis or growth there is no real meaning. If there is no real meaning then why the hell am I watching?

The internal struggle is the key to Smith’s work and it is missing here. Let me show you…

Clerks- External- Making it through the day/girlfriend trouble. Internal- Appreciating and finding meaning in what you have.

Mallrats- External- Get the girl. Internal- Becoming strong enough to deserve the girl

Chasing Amy- External- Relationship. Internal- Being comfortable enough with yourself to accept others flaws.

Dogma- External- Stop the apocalypse. Internal- Accept the nature of faith.

Zach and Miri- External- pay the rent. Internal- Seeing the beauty of what is in front of you.

That’s right, even “Zach and Miri,” a movie Smith himself has major issues with, has an overarching theme and internal conflict that gives it meaning.

“Red State” frustrates me because Smith had the chance to do something amazing here. He self produced, and self distributed this thing. That means he had total creative control. Nobody could tell him what to do with it. He could have gone to town. But he didn’t. He went halfway to town and decided that was good enough.

Now, let’s talk ending. The ending was almost amazing. Almost. He set up to do something unique, ballsy, and challenging as hell. Honestly, for a minute I though he was going to do it and I was ready to stand up and applaud in my living room. Then… it doesn’t happen. We get something that feels decidedly like a tacked on after though. It got me because I thought I was going to get something close to the meaning I wanted, and instead got… another dialogue scene.

I know that Smith is known for his dialogue, but he needs to have more. In the end, this felt like the first draft of a script that could have used a rewrite or two. To quote my co-host, “It felt undercooked.”

Let me be clear, this film shows that Smith knows how to direct a movie. It looks amazing and is an amazing departure from what he normally makes. For that I was thankful. I have always thought that Smith could be an amazing filmmaker if he pushed himself, and here he shows the beginnings of what he could do.

When Dreams Take Flight

This is a solid, rousing documentary about the first successful Ornithopter (a flapping wing aircraft) flight. This film covers the basic history of ornithopter flight as well as following the young scientist who is dedicated to solving the problem of human powered, non fixed wing flight.

It is very inspiring, but felt a bit too short. I would have liked to see the director go into more depth with the scientist and the design, the why, maybe some more background. But for a short, less than an hour, documentary, it is fantastic.

The Woman in the Fifth

This was rambling, pretentious, and dull.

Ethan Hawke stars as a writer who goes to Paris to be near his daughter. His ex doesn’t want him around, she even has a restraining order. After being sent away he falls asleep on the bus and has all of his possessions stolen. He ends up staying in a room above a café.

There are some weird, supernatural-esque touches after that but it just felt… I don’t know. Flat. Dull. I didn’t really care. There might have been an interesting thematic message, but the delivery was uninspiring.

AFF Review- The Ecstasy of Order: The Tetris Masters

I still remember the first time I ever played Tetris. It was at Diversions arcade in Leon Valley (the northwest edge of San Antonio). We had just moved back from Panama and I was remarkably overwhelmed by everything in the US. Since coming back though my exposure to video games had been restricted to “Super Mario Brothers” at the local Stop N’ Go or some odd, generic, kung fu fight game with two joysticks (imagine a really tame 16 bit version of Mortal Kombat) at the 7/11. To say the least I was uninitiated in arcade gaming.

Not to say I was totally out of the loop. No, we got games in Panama, it’s just that they tended to be a bit… well, out of date seems an appropriate word. Yeah, we had games like Sinistar and Super Punch Out (pre Mike Tyson), but mostly it was odd, secondary games that US arcades wanted as far away as possible. I still remember playing the Krull game at the café on Howard Air Force Base. It bared little resemblance to the film.

So, we came back to the US and I got to spend the day with my old friend Justin at Diversions. So, we are having a time and I discovered this odd, Russian looking machine and decide to have a go. I’m not going to lie, I was having a great time. Then Justin walks over to me and says, “Man, I can’t believe you’re playing Tetris,” and I stopped.

That’s right, I was shamed out of playing Tetris.

A few years later I was reintroduced to it in my sisters journalism classroom, where I would play a few games while waiting for her after school. I still loved it.

That’s the funny thing about Tetris, it is impossible to have a negative attitude towards it. Yeah, I can see it not being your favorite, but come on! It’s Tetris, you can’t really hate it.

Is there a more universally known and played game than Tetris? You can throw out all the names you want, but deep down you know there isn’t one.

Donkey Kong? Ask the next five people you talk to about it and there is a chance that at least one of them hasn’t played it.

Pac-Man? Closer, but still, there are some folk who are uninitiated, or at least haven’t played it in over a decade.

Solitaire? Maybe, but now you’re just being deliberately unreasonable.

Other than older members of your family, can you think of anyone you know who hasn’t played at least one game of Tetris? Hell, at this moment, somewhere in your office, someone is playing Tetris instead of working.

Thought about from this perspective, one could almost ask, “Why the hell has it taken so long to get a documentary about Tetris?”

The answer? Because nobody could make one as good as “Ecstasy of Order: The Tetris Masters,” until now.

There have been a handful of video game documentaries, but they have all been standing in the shadow of one. Which is really a shame because “Chasing Ghosts” is phenomenal, and “8 Bit” is a really interesting look at the phenomena. But let’s be honest, in this genre there is “King of Kong,” and then there is everything else.

That was the attitude I took into “The Ecstasy of Order.” All I wanted was something that reached the level of “King of Kong.” Thankfully it did, and in many ways that level was surpassed.

Fans of the show know that both Campbell and myself have a few issues with “Kong.” For those unaware, the main issue is the treatment of Billy Mitchell as a default villain and the assumed acceptance of Steve Wiebe as an underdog hero. Honestly, Mitchell’s only crime is success and Wiebe’s only claim towards heroism is his status as an underdog. Granted Mitchell did engage in some prickish gamesmanship, but he was also very unfairly painted. He is shown as completely avoiding Wiebe when in fact the two did have dinner together. The filmmakers chose to show their relationship as being hostile and antagonistic when it really was not.

This is perhaps my favorite part of “Order.” There isn’t even an attempt to paint one of the competitors as somehow morally superior to the others. Thor Aackerlund, a near mythic figure in the world of Tetris, is treated with the same objective eye as all the other players.

All the competitors are shown as friendly rivals who are united in their love of the game. Thor is willing to give advice as well as demonstrate his playing style for the others, players sit together and talk about their difficulties with the game, their strategies, their tough losses, and in general come across as a group of friends hanging out rather than a group of competitors fighting for supremacy.

Even though the focus of the film is the tournament of champions there is also a good amount of time dedicated to the history and development of the game. From it’s creation by Russian computer programmer Alexey Pajitnov, who got screwed out of a royal payday for making the mistake of creating a global phenomena while living in the USSR, to it’s current state as a global obsession we see how this game is now a part of the world’s pop culture vernacular.

And to be clear, this game is still a global phenomenon. Japan still has arcade games that bestow the title of “Tetris Master” on individuals who can survive for one minute on a board where pieces become invisible once placed. This game is huge.

It is just this universality that makes this movie so affective. When the tournament comes around you know the frustration the players are dealing with. Who hasn’t gotten a board going, created a massive center well and was waiting for some straight column pieces to fall so you could rack up some points, only to screw up and place one of the Z pieces over it and kill your game? We have all been there.

So, knowing this, it shouldn’t be surprising that the audience was literally hanging on the edge of their seats over the final tournament. It shouldn’t be, but somehow it is.

How many movies have you been to where the audience audibly groans and cheers as one at the same moment? It was like the first time I watched “Searching for Bobby Fischer,” and had to pause when I found myself hanging on every move made in a chess game between children.

The thing is, this movie prove why this shouldn’t be a big deal. What difference does it make what the activity is? If the movie is made right and you feel empathy and connection to the people on screen, why shouldn’t your emotional involvement with the outcome be that intense? Emotional connection is emotional connection. Hell, Alfred Hitchcock was able to make you crawl out of your skin over a man lighting a Zippo, why shouldn’t a game of Tetris have the same impact?

I am very critical of much documentary work these days because they abandon all pretexts towards objectivity. There is a good guy and a bad guy, even if there isn’t a good guy or a bad guy, or the documentarian has to prove their thesis even if they lack the evidence, or the point of the film is so obscured that the filmmaker can clam whatever victory they want.

This new school of documentary was very much in danger of ruining the entire genre for me. I guess that’s why I am so fond of this film. Oh, to be sure it is an outstanding film, but for me it’s more than that. It is a documentary that simply documents what happened. It doesn’t preach, it doesn’t politicize, it doesn’t attempt to propagate any particular agenda or viewpoint. It simply shows you a world and lets you see what happens in that world, leaving all interpretations and opinions entirely to you.

For the first time in a while we have a documentary that isn’t full of a bunch of manipulated footage (Michael Moore’s attendance at a GM stockholders meeting in “Roger and Me,” the ignition of the tap water in “GasLand”), unsubstantiated claims (Morgan Spurlock’s refusal to release his food diary from “Super Size Me,” the interesting take on what constitutes science in “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”), or invention of drama/villains/heroes (“King of Kong”). It’s kind of a refreshing change of pace to see a documentary that is content with simply documenting something.

HomeVideodrome #8 - Cars in The Cop Land Down Under

In this week's episode, Hunter and Jim discuss education documentaries, review Kevin Smith's Red State, and go through this week's releases, including Cars 2, Cop Land, and Quigley Down Under.

Music selections: Talking Heads - "The Big Country" (expanded version) Weezer - "You Might Think"

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (279)

Fred and Vinnie

Long distance relationships are the greatest terrible idea ever. For romantic relationships it creates false extension of the “honeymoon phase” because they consist of longing to see the other person, the excitement of an upcoming visit, the rush of finally seeing them, a brief moment of comfort, then the dread of the visit ending. It’s completely manufactured, but it’s nice.

With friendships it’s a similar situation. You don’t talk to or see each other that often so when you do it tends to be a little more special. There’s nothing wrong with this. In fact, there are some friendships that work better this way.

“Fred and Vinnie” is about one of those friendships.

This is an autobiographical film written by comedian Fred Stoller, who basically plays himself. Fred is a successful enough actor/comedian who is working on a book (a diner’s guide to restaurants you don’t feel self conscious eat alone in) who is a little bit lonely. He’s not great with women, he isn’t as successful as he would like, and he isn’t a terribly social man. But among the high points of his life are the occasional phone calls with his friend Vinnie. Vinnie is a high spirited agoraphobic who hangs on Fred’s every word, revels in the stories of his every day life, and basically lives vicariously with enthusiasm through Fred’s life.

Through these phone calls you get to see Vinnie as a happy and enthusiastic friend who is content sleeping on the couch in his “cave.”

Which would be great… if he had stayed in Philly and kept their friendship a series of phone calls. But when he decides to head out to LA to try and “make it as an actor,” Fred does what any true friend would. He invites Vinnie to stay with him until he can get on his feet. The problem is, Vinnie is completely helpless and has a charm that compels you to take care of him. He is a good guy, but just a bit of a mess.

Vinnie is a collection of maddening habits. He takes dominates the bathroom every morning until his hair “looks just right,” sits on the couch all day looking at his baseball cards, he snores like a wood chipper, and has no real motivation to do much of anything else.

Fred does his best to be a good friend, but finds himself in a tough situation. What do you do when you are saddled with the sweetest, most helpless person in the world? Not only is he sweet and helpless, but is also is content with very little. All he wants is his dollar store snacks, his cigarettes, and his baseball cards.

It’s much like living with a large baby. He doesn’t work, or really have much ambition to do so, he doesn’t like going out, he wakes you up all night, and he does it all with a pure innocence. Much as you would like to, you can’t hold it against him.

Even when he tries to move out he does so in a way that makes Fred beg him to come back. It’s like when you’re in that horrible relationship that you want out of and during an argument the other person asks if you want to break up, and you do, more than anything in the world you do, but you find yourself talking them out of doing the one thing you want more than anything else in the world. Yeah, I want to end this, but not like that.

Basically “Fred and Vinnie” is about friendship and all the madness that it can bring. Vinnie is a good friend, but a bad roommate. He hangs on Fred’s every word and is utterly amazed by his moderate successes. As a voice on the phone he is the most amazing friend you could want, but sadly, he becomes something more than that voice.

“Fred and Vinnie” is a very sweet and heartfelt testament to friendship and how important the people who can occasionally drive us insane really are.

“America the Beautiful”

So, while I was in line to see “Fred and Vinnie” one of the festival volunteers asked me if I was “Nathaniel’s friend.” While I do have friends named Nathaniel it turns out that I did not know the one she was asking about.

Why did I tell you this? Well, because as she did I saw a familiar face walk past. A guy named Nathan Harlan, who I went to middle and high school with. I pointed and said, “Do you mean that Nathan? Because, yeah, I know that one.”

He was not the one she was referring to, but he recognized me and we both shared a moment slight, humorous shock at the odd coincidence. Nathan, it turns out, was there to show his short film “America the Beautiful” before the feature.

Now, I am not one to bias my reviews based on my knowing a filmmaker. This has caused some issues in the past on this site. There is nothing worse than giving a filmmaker your card and telling them to check out the review on your site… before you see their movie. I’ve done this and ended up panning the movie. It doesn’t exactly feel great. As I see it, I haven’t seen Nathan in almost 20 years, so it’s ok for me to be honest.

Well, actually it’s easy to be honest because this was a God damned riot.

Basically, Captain America is having a bad day. Come on, he’s only human. He’s dealing with a tough break up, badly. His apartment is a mess, he’s drinking too much, and he’s wearing dirty underwear and a filthy bathrobe.

We hear about his downfall as he listens to his voicemail, falling deeper into depression as the messages play. This is a strange, but very entertaining short and highly original short. Honestly, there are so many shitty short films out there that it is really refreshing to come across one that is actually really good, so hunt this thing down and check it out.

Another Austin Film Festival successfully navigated. Here we discuss panels, lessons, screenings, and all the things that make AFF so amazing.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (242)

American Teacher

"Those who can, do.

Those who can't, teach."

- Someone who never stood in front of a classroom

"If we paid teachers what they're worth then the quality of education in this country would improve greatly."

- Someone else who has never stood in front of a classroom.

"This ain't a job. This ain't an occupation. It's calling, a need."

- Tommy Gavin

Oh, great. Another teaching documentary.

I am really torn on these things. Yes, they are important and I am grateful that someone out there is trying to communicate the realities of my profession, but I just.... Well, as a teacher, I know what it's like. I am six years on the job and during that time I have dealt with EVERYTHING a teacher can deal with. I am not exaggerating.

To give you an idea, last year alone my campus had

an accidental student death

a student suicide

a recent graduate die accidentally

a recent graduate commit public suicide

the death of a custodian on campus

the death of a former administrator

the death of one former student in an armed robbery

the arrest of another former student in the same armed robbery

Add to that the number of pregnant teenagers, dropouts, drug users, gang members, kids abused by their parents, kids abused by the person they are dating, and kids who get bullied and sometime it feels like I am fighting to hold Helms Deep.

"American Teacher" is interesting though. It isn't a hack job perpetrated by some hatchet faced prick like SOME MOVIES I COULD MENTION. I already talked about that one, and I OFFERED MY SOLUTION.

I come across all kinds, some critical, some laudatory. As a 6'8" 290 pound teacher, I find that the critical ones tend to shut up around me. I guess their desire to feel superior takes a back seat to their desire to not have the ever loving dog crap kicked out of them. The problem I do find though is that even the people who support me have it wrong. What do I mean?

There are two statements that explain this.

"If we just paid teachers what they are worth then kids might actually learn something."

and

"If we paid teachers more then we would attract the best and brightest to the profession."

How could I possibly have a problem with either of these, you ask?

Let me translate,

"If we paid teachers what they are worth they might actually do their jobs."

and

"If we paid teachers more then we would get better people and finally be able to replace all the lazy incompetents we have now."

This may not be the intent behind either, but that is definitely the subtext.

How about this...

"Why don't we pay teachers more because we value education and think it's appropriate to pay the people who educate our children as if we value the education they are providing?"

That is what people mean, but it's not what they are saying.

Let me say this. Nobody who goes into teaching, or who stays with it, has any allusions about how much we will be paid. Yes, this keeps people away from the profession, but it isn't one that is, or should, be done for money. But I will get to that later.

I have gone on at great length about WHAT I THINK IS WRONG AND HOW TO FIX IT. But there is a larger problem.

The rules surrounding education are written by people who have never stood in front of a classroom. Our pay, our curriculum, our ability to discipline, all of it is decided by people who know nothing about what we do.

Can you think of any other profession where that statement could be made? Would you want a house designed by an architect and an engineer, or by someone who knows all about houses because they've lived in them and use to build them with Legos?

Would you want a surgeon who went to med school, or someone who watched a lot of ER and played the game Operation a lot as a kid?

Would we let our Army be run by someone who was really good at the game Risk?

No, that would be stupid. And yet...

We allow our educational policy to be written entirely by lawyers and career politicians.

I could go on about this, but I think it's time to get to the review.

This movie is a celebration of teachers and the sacrifices we make. It shows the struggle of the long hours, the low pay, the inadequate support, and the over filled classrooms. You get to see the daily lives of teachers and meet successful educators who have left the field because they could make much more money for much less work (in some cases by just leaving the classroom for administration).

I like that the film eschews politics. There is no mention of unions, unlike some other PRICK FILMMAKERS I could mention, and not a ton of focus on students (unless it is in regards to their attitudes towards their teachers). It is simply about the difficulties of living on what our society says our services are worth.

What gets me is that it didn't go far enough. We didn't get to hear about the amount of time stolen from teachers for pointless testing or the uselessness of No Child Left Behind (Which was a bipartisan cluster fuck, so don't get all high and mighty if you happen to vote for people with D after their names. Yeah, Bush signed it, but Ted Kennedy wrote it, so everyone is an asshole on this one.)

For example, as an English teacher I was required to give...

Beginning of the year benchmark

Middle of the year benchmark

End of they year benchmark

District authored six weeks test (6 total)

The actually state test

That is 10 completely different testing days.

Now realize that kids have to take the same for all four core subjects.

That gives you 40 days of testing per year per student.

Think of that in terms of money. The tests have to be written, duplicated, administered, graded, scanned, indexed, and processed into both individual and campus wide results. Each step of that process costs money. And there is very little about any of this which is useful because tests don't tell you anything more than how good someone is at taking tests.

But back to the film.

It's a loving look at my profession, and were I not a teacher I would have found it incredibly moving and inspirational. But I am a teacher so I spent the entire time thinking, "Well, yeah. And..." It was stuff I already knew and assumed that everyone else knew.

What I wanted to see was the real hardships. Not just the low pay for hard work, but the heartbreaking, soul shattering side of it. Yeah, you work your ass off and get paid very little, but what about when the 14 year old girl tells you she's pregnant? How does that affect you? Or when one of your best students has to drop out so they can get more hours at the fast food place they work so they can support that child? What does that do to you? Or the kids who flat refuse to try because they are trying to impress the other members of their gang? What about the suicides, accidental deaths, abuse, and drug use we see?

How do you explain that to someone that has never been there?

This is a very good movie. It's moving and it makes the point well. But it does have a thesis that annoys me. Pay us what we are worth and we'll do our jobs, or pay us what we are worth and we might get some worthwhile people to do the job.

How about a simpler question, how seriously can you take a country's commitment to education when they pay their educators less than an assistant manager at a Chili's. Not that I am slamming Chili's management staff, but I think that what I do should be valued as much as what they do.

"American Teacher" is not just a documentary, it is a cry for attention and a call to action. It asks you as a viewer to look at your priorities and see where you stand, if you stand at all. It asks you to look at what decisions are being made in regards to YOUR children and to do something about it.

This is a fantastic movie, but as an insider it was something I knew too much about to really enjoy.

I said something earlier about it not being about the money. This is clichéd, but here it is. We do it because it is important. Because, while the pay might be low, it is a job where you get to objectively do good. There are not many of those out there.

Instead of trying to figure out the best way to end this, I'll just paraphrase the rest of the Tommy Gavin quote I started this with.

But there ain't no medals on my chest, assholes, 'cause I ain't no hero. I'm a teacher. We're not in the business of making heroes here.

“O, a kiss.

Long as my exile,

Sweet as my revenge!”

- Caius Martius “Coriolanus”

“Nature teaches beasts to know their friends.”

- Sicinius

Shakespeare adaptations are a difficult proposition. There have been more than 420 feature length film and TV versions of his plays and they are nothing if not a mixed bag. The quality and treatment vary greatly. Some keep the language, others just the plot, some go contemporary, others keep with the classical settings, while others imagine different worlds for the work.

Thing is, even though he wrote 38 plays people really only know about 12.

Hamlet

MacBeth

The Merchant of Venice (Most people don’t even realize that this is considered a comedy)

Romeo and Juliet

Julius Caesar

A Midsummer Nights Dream

Othello

Taming of the Shrew

Henry V

Richard III

King Lear

The Tempest

I know there are more that get adapted, but by and large these are the ones that most people would recognize. Hell, mention “The Two Noble Kinsmen” to most people with English Degrees and you will get a blank look in response.

That’s part of what makes Ralph Finnes’ directorial debut, “Coriolanus” such an interesting experience. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a Shakespeare adaptation without knowing what was going to happen? For someone with such an amazing collection of work, William has certainly become predictable in our world, hasn’t he?

For those unfamiliar, which will be about 99.993% of you reading this, “Coriolanus” is the story of a conquering general who, through political manipulation, is banished from Rome. He immediately goes to the general he recently defeated and agrees to lead those troops in an out right attack on Rome.

I love this story. There is so much potential for amazing action and drama in this story, and the handling of it. This is one of the grittiest movies I’ve seen in ages. It felt like watching an episode of “The Shield,” which I have compared to gritting your teeth for an hour. There is a solid intensity to it that services the nature of our protagonist.

The performances are fantastic. Finnes completely embodies a man raised for war, to whom normal society is nonsensical and lacking in order. You believe his rage and his commitment, which makes his downfall tragic and unavoidable. Gerard Butler is amazing as his blood enemy/comrade. This was a personal project for Butler (this play being one of the first of his acting career) and his love for I is evident. Brian Cox is… well, he’s Brian Cox, so he kind of kicks everyone’s ass.

Oh, and it has James Nesbitt. I fucking LOVE James Nesbitt. He is almost instantly the best part of anything he appears in. This guy, if you’re not familiar, get on the stick. Check out “Jeckyll” or “Murphy’s Law” or “Five minutes of Heaven” or “Bloody Sunday” and then be prepared to apologize for being such an asshole that you didn’t know him before.

Also, Vanessa Redgrave is stunning, and Jessica Chastain continues to shine in what I am calling “The Year of Jessica Chastain.” Honestly, she’s in everything, and she is great in everything she is in.

Finnes also makes some incredibly bold choices in directing. This is a modern retelling, filmed in Serbia. The place looks both ravaged by war, and stately. The differences between the nobility and the peasantry are stark and undeniable, and as that difference is so important to the story it adds layers to the drama.

The use of technology is fantastic as well. Instead of heavy dialogue scenes to deliver exposition Finnes makes use of television news, using headlines and images to move the story along.

It also features some of the most brutal and believable battle scenes ever captured on film. You feel the conclusiveness of the explosions, the confusion of battle, and the fatigue. Everything about it feels real.

Butler and Finnes play brilliantly as enemies become allies, a very difficult dynamic to portray.

However, the problem I have is that, as it is a play adapted to a movie, so much of the advancement of the story is reliant on long dialogue scenes. That is, essentially, the problem with most Shakespearean adaptations. His plays were not visual stories they were linguistic stories. When you begin with such ferocious and intense battle scenes it feel a bit of an anticlimax to have everything boil down to a conversation. This is not to say that it is bad to use dialogue, but when you base your film on action it is difficult to shift your focus to dialogue. I kept expecting a climactic battle, and when it didn’t come I felt as if something was missing.

Don’t get me wrong. This is a fantastic adaptation, and one that I think will stand up well over time. The ending was fantastic and fitting, but it was just something different than what I was anticipating.

I won’t lie, this movie is not for everyone. If you don’t enjoy Shakespeare you will probably piss and moan about how hard it is to understand the language, or how long it is, or some other diaper baby nonsense. Yeah, it’s a two hour long movie in Shakespearian English. But it’s also a pretty damned good one.

“Coriolanus” is a story of loyalty, patriotism, betrayal, vengeance, and family. It is gritty, dirty, and intense. You feel the horror of battle, the sting of Coriolanus’ betrayal, and the joy of his revenge. That is the most remarkable thing about this film. You find yourself pulling for the man invading his home. You want to see him tear Rome apart. In essence this film is about how easily people can be lead. How much we want and need to have someone to follow and how far we are willing to follow those leaders. It is a visceral story that comes very close to being perfect. Sadly, people have convinced themselves so fully of Shakespeare’s impenetrability that it will not get the audience it should.

“I’m going to hit you.”

- Scott (Robert Forester)

“This is Hawaii. Some of the most powerful people here look like bums and stuntmen.”

- Matt King (George Clooney)

Alexander Payne is a bit of a badass. Even if you aren’t a huge fan of his work you have to admit that this is a man who can take amazing actors and bring some defining performances out of them.

He did it with Nicholson in “About Schmidt,” he did it with Paul Giamatti in “Sideways,” and now he does it with George Clooney in “The Descendants.” They may not be flashy performances full of “actor-y” moments, but they are solid, real, and believable human beings that he is able to bring to the screen. I know he does it with brilliant actors, but he does it with fairly well known actors and makes you forget what you know, or think you know, about them.

In “The Descendants,” George Clooney plays Matt King, a happily married father of two who makes a good living as a lawyer. Oh, and he is also the head of a trust that owns an enormous amount of completely undeveloped land in Hawaii. We meet him just after his wife falls into a coma after a boating accident, a coma she will never come out of. He is tasked with helping his daughters deal with the impending death of their mother, informing her friends and family that she doesn’t have long to live, oh and deciding the fate of the massive quantity of land that supplies his family with their fortune.

He has a lot on his plate.

Brief aside. Has there ever been an actor with a better “silly serious” face than Clooney? Think about it. He is crazy good looking, but he can do this think where he looks completely concerned, focused, and absolutely ridiculous. It’s kind of cool.

Anyway... back to the review.

First off, this movie gets comic relief right! That is such a rarity these days. You are dealing with some serious, depressing subject matter, but you never feel weighed down by it. Actually, for as serious as the goings on are, this is a hysterically funny movie.

Second, it looks stunning. Hawaii is a ridiculously beautiful place and I am stunned that more movies aren’t filmed there. I mean, yeah there are a lot of movies that are set in Hawaii, but how many of them don’t involve surfing? The quiet, stunning beauty of the movie really provides an amazing backdrop for this story.

The performances are fantastic. Like I said before, Payne is great at getting performances out of actors. To give you an idea, he made Matthew Lillard absolutely compelling as an adult! Honestly, has he played an adult before? I don’t think he has.

Shailene Woodley is incredible as the conflicted, delinquent older daughter. She allows you to feel for this confused young girl who really loves and wants to protect her father, and feels betrayed by here dying mother. Her heartbreak and anger are so real that you can’t help siding with her, even when she’s being a bit of a bitch.

The other performances are outstanding as well. Nick Krause, who plays Sid, is absolutely amazing. This character should have annoyed the absolute hell out of me, but somehow it didn’t. Krause brings a complexity to his character that was refreshing. I'm hoping to see more of this kid in the future. Rob Huebel (of “Children’s Hospital”) steals damned near every scene he’s in, and Robert Forester creates an amazingly sympathetic bastard as Clooney’s grieving father in law.

The direction is… well its Alexander Payne. He has never been afraid to look closely at the relationships that define us (friendships, loves, families) and show characters that really don’t have what they need in them. I mean they have friends, lovers, and families but they always seem to be apart from them. He shows the walls that people build around themselves out of fear and insecurity and how those walls become such a big part of who they are that they aren’t even aware they are behind a wall anymore.

This film is no different. Matt’s life isn’t what he wants it to be. He is distant from his wife, separated from his oldest daughter, completely baffled by his youngest daughter, and a member of a family so big and so peripheral to him that he has a “Cousin six.” This is a man who has everything, a great family and a huge fortune, buy who is so wrapped up in his own head that he can’t for a moment really enjoy it. You get to feel for the man, see him grow, see him find a path and hope that he stays on it. Because in the end, all the future ever gives us is hope.

Payne makes movies about dysfunction, loss, and broken people who have to go somewhere else to reassess their priorities so they can come back home whole. I have been a fan of his since “Election,” and I always think he has done all he can to impress me, I am always wrong. “The Descendants” is a fantastically written, brilliantly directed, flawlessly acted film that is quite possibly Payne’s best. And that is saying quite a lot.

George Burns was right: show biz is a horrible bitch goddess.

-Bart Simpson

“I won’t talk. I won’t say a word.”

George Valentin- Opening Line of “The Artist”

What do you love about movie? Not what movies do you love, but what is it about film itself that you love?

For me it’s the wonder of it. I still remember the excitement I felt when I was a little kid, when going to the theatre to see a movie was like going on vacation. It was a special trip that you made with mom or dad when they wanted to do something special for you. There was this excitement because everything was so big. Not just the screen, but the room, the popcorn, the sodas, all of it seemed larger than everything else in your life.

Even as I got older and movies became more commonplace that feeling still hung on. Hell, even when I was a theatre manager and ran the projector, seeing completely behind the screen it just added to the spectacle.

But as you get older it becomes more and more difficult to hold on to that feeling. You know what is going on behind the curtain, and it’s not pretty. It goes from being a special treat you enjoy with your family to a business. You are aware that your inflated ticked price is paying for some over budgeted, heavy effect, light story, over tested product. Now instead of being a wonderful experience that takes you away from the world for a little bit you are aware, even if just slightly in the back of your mind, that you are signing someone’s multi million dollar paycheck.

Remember what it felt like when you were a kid? Do you remember that rush of pure joy that came from even the most disposable of entertainment? When was the last time you had it?

I can specifically remember two movies that gave me that feeling recently. “Son of Rambow,” and “Slumdog Millionaire.” Agree or disagree, these are movies that provoked that sense of spontaneous joy in me. I treasure those movies because I will never forget how they made me feel like a 7 year old seeing “Legend of the Lone Ranger,” and being so swept away by it that I failed to realize how awful it was.

That is the feeling I am looking for when I enter a theatre now. Not for a movie that makes me ignore its awfulness, but one that is so incredibly moving, so infectious in its joy, and so captivating in it’s energy that I leave feeling like a giddy child.

“The Artist” has given me another film to add to this list.

First and most importantly, this is a silent, black and white film. If the idea of a silent, black and white film is immediately repellent to you, please navigate away from this page. No offense, but if that will keep you away then perhaps you need to find another place to spend your time.

This is one of the best films I have seen in years. Full stop. No qualifications, no categorizations.

It is the story of George Valentin, the king of the silent action films. He is the king of the film world. He and his dog (who steals every scene he is in, and proves categorically why dogs are better than cats) can get any picture made and whatever picture they make together is sure to be a hit. But then… sound.

From the beginning film was meant to be a sound medium. But the technological limitations prevented decent recording and playback. When the tech caught up the industry was shaken to its core. Many of the stars of silent film were either unable or unwilling to make the leap (many of them being “foreigners” with heavy accents didn’t help).

Well, George Valentin finds himself in just that position. His world is silent and he sees “talkies” as a passing fad, a novelty that will fade once people grow tired of it. We kind of know how this plays out.

As George falls we see the rise of Peppy Miller, a young woman first noticed when she literally fell out of line and into Velentin’s arms at a premier. He helped her get her first job, and in doing so unwittingly played party to his own downfall.

Peppy was of the new breed of movie star (which itself was a new breed of celebrity), one who spoke.

We follow their disparate, intertwining lives over the course of a few years.

Enough about the plot. This is really a movie about sticking by your convictions no matter what the cost, but also about the cost of sticking by your convictions.

This film is absolutely expert in all regards. The musical choices, the writing (title cards as well as plot), the supporting performances (John Goodman, James Cromwell, and Uggie, Dash, and Dude who share the role of Jack the dog), the brilliant casting of the lead characters, who incidentally give amazing performances as well, (Jean Dujardin, Valentin, is French, and Berenice Bejo, Peppy Miller, is Argentinean. The casting itself is a wink to film historians who know the impact sound had on non-American actors), and the choice use of sound in two scenes, are all absolutely perfect.

I honestly could write about this movie for another hour. It is wildly inventive, gutsy, and thoroughly entertaining. This is a movie made for people like me who love movies and who are constantly looking for something to remind us of what we love about them. Even if the idea of a silent, black and white film doesn’t sound like your cup of tea then you need it more than someone who thinks it sounds great. I had almost forgotten about the joy of film, the pure love I had when I was a kid when the lights would go down and my pulse would star to race. This movie helped me remember. I know it sounds a bit dramatic, but it’s the truth. I literally cheered at the end of it, and that is saying a lot. So go and see “The Artist” and fall in love with movies again.

I love artistic competition movies. I mean, I absolutely love that shit.

If you don’t know what I mean by “artistic competition” movie it’s a simple concept. Any time you have a person facing off in a competition involving a strictly subjectively viewed artistic endeavor… well that, my friends, is an artistic competition movie. There is a simple beauty in their absurdity and the totally subjective nature of any perceived victory. It's basically a "we won... 'cause!" situation. I can think of nothing more American.

So if you’ve ever sat through the experience of someone getting served, or roll bouncing, or break dancing, or even, in one of the greatest films ever made, rapping (“Rappin’” was an 80’s film staring Mario Van Peebles as a man known as “Rappin’ Hood” who used his rapping powers to… I’m not sure what he did with them, but I think it involved a business developer. And that fool got owned. Oh!!! And he had a friend who punctuated his raps [rappings?] with a fucking bullwhip! You should have stopped reading by this point and gone to Neflix instant to watch this shit. I’ll wait… you see, totally worth the time, wasn’t it?) than you have enjoyed an artistic competition movie.

The thing is, they are by their very nature fucking absurd. Some kids break dancing to save the abandoned warehouse they hang out in (preventing the greedy land developer from providing jobs and commerce for their distressed area) makes perfect sense when you are a preteen/teen, but once you hit voting age they become a bit… silly.

Now, there have been attempts at this in the past. Things like “Dance Movie” unfortunately come to mind. And tragically these hunks of shit have added a preemptive stench to the very idea of this type of parody.

So, who better to effectively parody the genre than the masters of smart, absurd comedy The Upright Citizens Brigade?

I submit, nobody.

Matt Besser (Founding member of the UCB, Adar on the Comedy Central show they did, he was in Walk Hard, as well as showing up in damned near everything that is funny) directs this film version of the UCB stage show “Freak Dance.”

I was leery of this at first. Even though I am a huge UCB fan as well as a big fan of Besser (his album “Can I Help You, Dumbass?” is utter genius) what passes for parody film these days is so depressing and just insultingly unfunny that I am predisposed to avoidance. But I sucked it up and went.

Damn, am I glad I did.

“Freak Dance” is absurdist comedy at it’s best. It exists at the spot in the universe where every artistic competition movie ever made collided with “The Warriors.” This is a world where dancers are poor street people, dancing is frowned upon in polite society, and “the marijuana” is the scourge of the streets.

The story follows Cocolonia, a rich girl desperate to break away from the repression her mother (Amy Pohler doing what she does best) and dance. She runs into a scrappy dance crew run by Funky Bunch. From there the plot is fairly formula, but that’s the point.

The headquarters of the crew is at risk of being shut down for lack of a second means of egress, and they are forced into a dance competition in order to raise the money to help.

What sets “Freak Dance” apart from the trash pile of contemporary film parodies is the respect paid to the audience. Yes, there are references a plenty, but you don’t have to get that this bit is from “Flashdance” or that bit is from “Warriors” or this other bit is from “Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo” in order to enjoy it. Catching the references helps, but even if you don’t you will still find something to laugh at.

How awful is it that we live in a world where getting to say, “This comedy is funny,” is a novelty? Honestly, it’s God damned awful. We have such a steady diet of over explained, dumbed down, lazy, obvious humor that something this fresh, original, and genuinely funny is… well it’s a relief.

Find this film. I don’t care how, just fucking find it. Watch it, laugh your ass off, and tell your friends. It’s about time we went out of our way to support good comedy.

In addition to “Freak Dance” this screening also included the short film “Playing Doctor,” a PSA parody directed by Willie Rockerfeller which boldly asks the question “are doctors really… doctors?” It’s about the dangers of people impersonating physicians.

This is one of the best short films I have seen in years. It is absolutely hysterical and contains one of my favorite lines ever (“Your vagina is all… bugaboo.”). You need to find this one quick. It is brilliant.

This week Jim and Hunter take a look at a wealth of new releases, from blockbusters like Captain America, to Criterion releases like Dazed and Confused.  Topics include the Austin Film Festival, the lovely personality of Tommy Lee Jones, and the pronunciation of the last name of John Cazale.

Musical selections: Ted Nugent - "Stranglehold" Weird Al Yankovic - "Jurassic Park"

Jim's note- The Film Thugs should be back next week with coverage of AFF.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (261)

Jim here,

A quick welcome to anyone new to the site. If you got a card at AFF you got it from me. Thanks for not just throwing it away. Hope you enjoy my stream of consciousness reviewing.

For this years AFF I am doing things a bit differently. Instead of doing everything the day of I have decided to spread it out a little bit and write about the movies and the panels whenever I feel like writing about them.

That is the beauty of running the site, I can do that. So... without further

6 Month Rule

w/d Blayne Weaver

Starring: Blayne Weaver, Martin Starr, Natalie Morales, Dave Foley, John Michael Higgins

I am going to be honest with you here. I was a little leery going into this film. Sure, it looked interesting, but I have reservations any time I see something that could be termed a romantic comedy. While the description I read didn’t scream rom-com, there was a definite whisper in what I read.

But, after reading the comments from the show’s technical savior Matt (formerly “My Jewish Friend Matt,” who has fully earned his new title after resurrecting our Kubrick show) I decided it would be a film worth seeing.

…and I was right.

“6Month Rule,” is the story of Tyler, a talented photographer who has sold out for easy money. Tyler is the kind of guy who thinks he has the cheat code for life. He has a set of rules for how to maneuver without any hindrance to his freedom and independence. He believes that there is no woman out there that a man cannot completely get over within six months, and why would he want a long term relationship when he could be free and clear and experiencing the exciting newness of a conquest in half a year.

Then he meets Sophie and she complicates things. Now, at this point you’re asking, “How is this not a romantic comedy?” Well, first off, throw out any and all notions of “romantic comedy.” Yes, there are some hallmarks here, but they are handled in such a fresh, real, and original way as to completely remove the label. This is a film about detachment, friendship, love, the pursuit of happiness, and mostly fear and how that fear can cause us to miss the happiness.

Tyler isn’t some hard-core player who can score any chick any time. He is a confident guy who does well with women. He is a man at that odd age where he is no longer a college student in a world of disposable relationships, but is not quite a settle down and get married guy. He is a younger version of Hugh Grant in “About a Boy,” but with a slightly less predatory sensibility.

This choice, this not making him the guy who can get any girl, is what makes this movie work. If nothing else Tyler is relatable. Everyone has a friend like this and if you don’t, it’s because you are/were like this. He has an easier time with women than most, and all he wants is to not be tied down. Had he been played the other way, he would have been irredeemable from the beginning and the movie would have died on the starting block.

He is not a completely likeable character; in fact there are times when you are completely justified in wanting to smack him. But he is not malicious about it. His longest romantic relationship, a brilliant storyline involving Vanessa Branch (who is amazing), shows that he is just a fairly self centered guy who cannot appreciate what is happening in front of him.

What I found most refreshing about this film is that Weaver, your writer/director/star/ didn’t write one good part for himself and then populate the rest of the movie with people who make him shine by comparison. Every character is well thought out, well written, well acted, and, most importantly, has a definite purpose in the world of the film.

I am going to start with what I loved most about this movie. Sophie, played brilliantly by Natalie Morales (White Collar, Parks and Rec [editorial note: Tom Haverford should be kicked in the stomach until he vomits blood for messing up his relationship with her), is an actual well written female character! Anyone who listens to the show knows that I fucking hate how most female characters are written. They are either a manic pixie dream girl, a shrieking harpy, or some vapid pretty face that our hero wants simply because she is hot. First off, yes Natalie is hot, but she also looks like an actual, real woman. You know the kind I’m talking about, you’ve fallen in love with one at some point in your life and were too scared to talk to her or you did and ended up being her good friend. She has an approachable beauty that makes her even more unapproachable, if that makes any sense.

Now, if she were just hot that would be one thing, but she is also a very down to earth, fun, funny, and interesting person. She isn’t quirky (Film Thugs Translation: annoying), or aloof (Film Thugs Translation: narcissistic). She’s real. You believe Tyler would fall in love with her because you kind of fall in love with her. The best part, she is just as flawed as Tyler, only in a different way. She isn't some idealized version of the perfect woman. Her flaws just happen to make her perfect for him.

Speaking of love, I must pull an aside here and say that this film features what may be the best “falling in love” sequence I’ve ever seen. It’s a single location montage that covers a few days and it is probably the most relateable scene of it’s type I’ve ever watched. Who hasn’t had this happen? You meet, you go out, you hit it off, you have one night that bleeds into the next day which bleeds into the next night and morning and you find yourself hooked. It is the best part of any relationship and is conveyed with such conviction that it moves you through the rest of the film. It is so powerful that when we reach the inevitable heartbreak (I’m not spoiling anything, you know it’s coming, but not due to predictability of story, but because it is the only place these characters can end up) it is all the more devastating.

The love story is fantastic, but it is by no means the central point of the film. For that we go to the friendship.

Martin Starr is Alan, Tyler’s best friend, is just out of a three-year engagement and is struggling to move on. Tyler is determined to help him learn the value of his six month rule. However, Alan sees how dysfunctional this is and resists. He is the voice of morality. He wants connection and stability and cannot understand why Tyler is so set against it. Even though Tyler is determined to help Alan you know that the teacher/student roles should be reversed.

Add in Dave Foley giving one of his best, if not his absolute best, performances, and John Michael Higgins killing like he always does,as well as Patrick J. Adams (who is a bad ass on "Suits") in an absolute scene stealing performance and honestly, how could you resist?

“6 Month Rule” is a refreshing look at a familiar genre. Like “Swingers” it focuses on the relationships that really matter in life and shows how difficult moving on and growing up can be. It’s about the need to connect and the need some people have to sabotage themselves out of fear of what both failure and success could mean.

Day 3

Long, busy day. Saw Michael Arndt give his Toy Story 3 presentation, saw John Lassiter, saw a panel by show runners. Met comedian Fred Stoller. Ran into an old high school friend, saw a short and a feature, and walked past James Franco at the Driscol bar.

Details forthcoming.

Day 4

Saw Arndt's presentation on endings again. Even on second viewing it was the highlight of my weekend.

I also saw...

American Teacher

Six Month Rule

Both were outstanding.

I have decided to write my reviews starting tomorrow and to review them in the order that I feel like reviewing them. So that will be fun.

Details and awesome show forthcoming.

Another cop out.

But honestly, lighten up people. I left my place at 6:50 this morning and am just now getting home... at 12:48 am. According to my math that is 28 hours. Don't quote me on that, math was never my strong suit.

Today I saw...

1)  Lee Shipman and Brian McGreevy discuss breaking into the business.

2) Shane Black being awesome.

3) Lawrence Kasdan

4) Shane Black again.

5) "The Extacy of Order: Masters of Tetris" outstanding documentary about the world Tetris championship.

6) "Freak Dance" a brilliant satire by the Upright Citizens Brigade's Matt Besser (Who I had a very drunken, me not him, conversation on a bus with). Great movie, great guy.

Detailed coverage forthcoming.

This is a total cop out. Think of it as a placeholder.

Know this...

AFF 2011 is underway.

Today. October 20th 2011 I saw the following... 1) When Dreams Take Flight (documentary feature)

2) Animated Short Film Program

3) Panel discussion on writing horror

4) Met the writer of the amazing "Mortal Kombat Rebirth" film. He is a solid cat.

More on all of this later.

That is all I have the energy to write at the moment. I have been out of the house for the past 18 hours and will need to be up and out the door in... well, far too few.

Full reviews of every film will be posted, and full conference coverage is forthcoming.

This week Jim and Hunter flail through an unfocused show in the throes of illness and bad movies. Subjects include Kevin Smith, shitty "Crow" sequels, and why Jack Sparrow is a terrible lead character.

Musical selections: Richard Cheese - "Down With The Sickness" The Lonely Island (featuring Michael Bolton - "Jack Sparrow"

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (277)

Every once in a while you are just wrong about something. It's difficult to admit, I know, but it happens.

This week we take a look at times when our initial opinions on movies were incorrect.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (287)

Hunter & Jim fill out a thin week of releases by bullshitting about Morgan Spurlock's need for attention, product placement, rad Jet Li movies, and eating food, cuz that's what big guys like us do.  Usually while watching movies.

Music choices: Clutch - "When Vegans Attack" Kinky Friedman - "Miss Nickelodeon"

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (275)

“Alice kept secrets. She kept the fact that she had secrets a secret.” This one line hints at only a fraction of what makes 2008’s Lake Mungo, from writer director Joel Anderson, worth your time and attention – your close attention.

With so much hype being laid at the feet of paranormal activities on either the big screen or, even more so, delivered by the gadget wielding and heavy hair gelled on TV these days, I have to admit that another “found footage” documentary style ghost movie was not what I was hankering for when I came across this title on Netflix. That said, I’m glad I gave this film a chance. Exploitation, cat scare and gags all have their entertaining place in ghost stories of any kind. Lake Mungo relies less on these devices to weave a subtler tale of what we all know truly exists after death: grief.

Shot in the style of a documentary, Lake Mungo features the Palmer family as they struggle with the drowning death of Alice Palmer and the strange events that follow. A death that Alice may have seen coming. The capturing of what appears to be Alice’s ghost in the family home on video only complicates the pain felt by her entire family. The family’s grief is further compounded by skeptical friends and neighbors trying to understand and come to terms with the Alice Palmer they all thought they knew so well. Alice’s death and haunting serve equal time as tragedy and catalyst for further secrets to be discovered.

The disciplined use of video, film, and still photography, particularly the family photos, along with a clever script slowly turns a Twin Peaks by way of The Blair Witch Project chiller into as much a family drama and potential murder mystery as it is ghost story. Incredibly natural performances from the cast solidify the film’s intimate feel as the story reveals itself at a methodical pace with grief affecting each character in different ways.

It is precisely this subtle approach and measured pace that will turn some away from this kind of movie. This is not a quick edit popcorn shocker. Lake Mungo is a fascinating and effective meditation on grief from this side and the other.

Clarkson Campbell

Resident Thug

So, a movie does good and inevitably a sequel finds its way into theaters.

But that's rarely good enough. So eventually we get part 3.

Part 3s are a weird thing. They vary wildly in quality and necessity. So, let's talk about some.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (251)

HomeVideodrome #4: The Poo-Poo Platter

Things are looking up for us here at HomeVideodrome!  This week, Jim and I talk about Queensrÿche vocalist Geoff Tate's weird facial hair, Ken Burns documentaries, the poo-poo platter in Salo, and how people who claim to hate Sarah Palin can't stop obsessing over her.  So head over, tune in and leave some feedback!

-Hunter

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (287)

So, this week we tried something a little different. We decided to see two movies, "Moneyball" and "Warrior," then just talk about them and see where the conversation took us.

It is a touch all over the place, but if you're a fan, you'll probably dig it.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (247)

HomeVideodrome #3: We're the Dream Warriors

This week isn't much stronger than last week, but that doesn't stop Hunter & Jim from going off on tangents about Don Dokken's limp voice, the horror that is Whitney, and how iTunes & Netflix think we have shitty taste in things. Also they talk about movies, good, bad, and stupid. So listen, and go buy stuff. Or don't. Whichever.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (304)

What can be said about Sylvester Stallone that hasn't already been said?

Well, listen and you'll find out.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (249)

It's feast or famine here at HomeVideodrome, last week it was a feast, this week Jim and I are using the urine-to-water machine from Waterworld just to stay alive. Not much is coming out this week, but we bullshit our way through it anyway. So go listen up. Then buy some DVDs. Or don't. Makes no difference to me.

-Hunter

Correction: On this week's episode, I said that ABC dropped The Kennedys miniseries. This is incorrect, as it was The History Channel that dropped the show.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (272)

Who doesn't have at least one vice?

I'm not suggesting that you're all shooting heroin between your toes while tweaked out on meth, but you probably enjoy a refreshing cocktail every now and then.

This week we take a look at some of our favorite films about some of our favorite (and not so favorite) vices.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (274)

This here is the premiere episode of the HomeVideodrome podcast, a companion to Hunter Duesing's weekly Blu-ray/DVD column that appears over at Parcbench and Big Hollywood.  Jim joins Hunter as they weigh in on the week's releases like the nerds they are.  Hopefully this show will soon get its own home, but for now it'll be popping out here in the Film Thugs feed.  Give it a listen, and provide us with some feedback. --

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (349)

If there is one thing we love in this country it's an underdog. Nothing wrong with that. There are some heartwarming stories out there of people overcoming great odds to succeed.

The problem is, not all of those people succeed. Hell, a lot of them don't even deserve to succeed.

We though it would be interesting to discuss some of the more popular underdog films and characters and decide if they are really underdogs or just a-holes we are expected to pull for.