The Film Thugs Movie Show

The Son of The Hitchhikers Guide to Science Fiction

thefilmthugs — Sun, 19 May 2013 19:41:01 +0000

For as long as man has been telling stories, man has been telling science fiction stories. They might not always be about spaceships and robots, but we have always had a fascination with things that were just a little bit beyond our abilities.

Well, for as long as sci-fi stories have existed, sci-fi sequels have existed. So this week, we get in on the action by putting out our own science fiction sequel. Nearly three years later, we bring you… The Son of The Hitchhikers Guide to Science Fiction.

Check out the original here.

Also, this week sees the return of Jerry, as well as the introduction of his best friend.

As usual the Thug hotlines are both still open and awaiting your phone calls, if you live in the US call 512-666-RANT and leave a message about your most memorably awful movie theater experience. If you don’t live in the US and want to avoid costly international charges, just Skype us at The_Film_Thugs. You can also e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, or thugquestions@gmail.com to be a part of the next run at this show. We are also on Twitter @TheFilmThugs, on Vine @TheFilmThugs, and on Facebook. Reach out, connect with us, and become part of the Film Thug family.

Until next time…

Jim out.

Bombs Away!

thefilmthugs — Sun, 12 May 2013 16:19:04 +0000

Usually neither one of us care how much money a movie makes or loses. It’s a fairly irrelevant piece of information. Unless you have some personal stake in the success of a film, like if you’re an investor, an actor, a writer, your company did something for the film, the box office receipts of a particular film are possibly the most irrelevant thing about it. While you could use a massive failure or success as a way of gauging the quality of a film, a quick look at the most profitable films of all times lets you know how dicey a proposition that can be.

But every once in a while a movie loses such a staggering amount of money that you simply cannot ignore it. These are the films that lost the combined budget of several studio pictures.

This week we just sit back and marvel at the glorious excess of Hollywood as we marvel at the startling ineptitude that leads to the film equivalent of a good old fashioned money bonfire.

Until next time…

Jim out.

300×250 Medium Rectangle

Progressive Commentary #1: The Green Lantern.

thefilmthugs — Sun, 05 May 2013 18:51:52 +0000

For those of you who have been following the show for a while you may have noticed that we haven’t done a feature commentary in a few years. You may, or more likely, may not, be wondering why we stopped. Well, there are a few reasons for that.

First off, recording them is kind of a pain. Once you start recording you really cannot stop for any reason at all, or it throws the sync off, and once the movie gets going it’s difficult to not just sit back and watch it.

Second, to do one right, you have to do a lot of preparation. You need a script, and you need to do at least one run through before recording.

Third, it’s not really our style. We don’t riff, we rant.

Fourth, people don’t really want to put forth the effort of listening to one. It’s not a huge pain, but it’s enough of a bother that many people just won’t do it.

Well, Jim came up with an idea. Who says that all commentaries have to be the same? What if we were to take the concept of riffing and commentating and adapted it to fit our style?

And thus, the “progressive commentary” was born.

What is a progressive commentary, you ask?

Well, we pick a movie, watch the first 15 minutes then hit pause and record for as long as we want. Then we watch the next 15, pause and record. Then the next 15, and so on until we’ve gone off on the whole movie. It gives us a chance to do what we normally would do in a commentary while playing to our particular style.

What better way to initiate this type of thing than to watch one of the worst films of the past few years “The Green Lantern.”

This episode has everything. We talk shit, get a visit from Sinestro himself, and introduce you to our new friend Jerry. So check it out and let us know what you think.

Until next time…

Jim out.

Ask The Film Thugs

thefilmthugs — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:42:26 +0000

A few months ago Jim had an idea. What if we did a show where we not only did zero preparation, but had no idea what the show would be about until we were recording it? Would it work? Would it fail spectacularly? How could we actually do it?

With the help of electronic-mail and occasional Thug and Midnight Movie Cowboy Hunter Duesing we figured out how.

We opened the e-mail address thugquestions@gmail.com and gave the password to Hunter. We never opened it, we never checked it, we don’t even know if he changed the password. He collected questions until he had what he thought was a good amount for a show, recorded each of them, and sent the audio to us.

What resulted was a show where the hosts went in blind and had to rely on the quickness of their wits to try and create a decent episode. We think we succeeded.

Hopefully, you agree.

Until next time…

Jim out.

The Film Thugs Trailer Park

thefilmthugs — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 18:06:53 +0000

Going to the movies is a singular experience. You pay too much for something you probably won’t like, you buy insanely overpriced food and drinks, you sit next to complete strangers who may or may not have wildly varying ideas about what constitutes acceptable behavior in a theater, and the most you are hoping to get out of the transaction is a pleasurable ninety minutes or so.

But there is so much to love about it. The amazing picture, the incredible sound, the experience of seeing an amazing story unfold right in front of you, and the trailers. Sometimes the trailers are the best part of the entire affair. Quick aside, did you know that they are called “trailers” because they were originally shown after the feature? Well, now you do.

This week we pay tribute to the art form of the movie trailer. We look at the good, the bad, the misleading, the “better than the movie,” and all areas in between as we discuss the sometimes maddening world of film trailers.

Also, submit your own “guilty pleasure” films as well as horrible theater going experiences, or your dream programming week at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, or at (512) 666-RANT or on Skype at the_film_thugs

We are also in the final week of accepting questions for our “Ask the Film Thugs” show. Send questions about ANYTHIG to thugquestions@gmail.com. Hunter Duesing from The Midnight Movie Cowboys will pick the best questions we receive, record them and send them to us. Every question will be heard for the first time on the show and we will answer completely off the cuff. Questions do not have to be film related. We are unofficial life coaches and are happy to help with anything you need help with.

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

Movies that are not good, but we like them anyway REDUX!!!

thefilmthugs — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:01:40 +0000

One man’s trash is another man’s overused cliché’. Welcome to The Film Thugs Movie Show where we continue our look back at “classic” episodes by tackling. This week we look at Episode 4: Movies that are not good, but we love them anyway.

It’s kind of a guilty pleasures show, but neither of us really likes to use that term, so we go slightly longer and more descriptive in our titling.

Join us as we talk about the movies that we really dig, even if the world doesn’t understand our love.

We are also in the final weeks of accepting questions for our “Ask the Film Thugs” show. Send questions about ANYTHIG to thugquestions@gmail.com. Hunter Duesing from The Midnight Movie Cowboys will pick the best questions we receive, record them and send them to us. Every question will be heard for the first time on the show and we will answer completely off the cuff. Questions do not have to be film related. We are unofficial life coaches and are happy to help with anything you need help with.

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

Ultimate Theater Week

thefilmthugs — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 17:27:34 +0000

This year at the Austin Film Festival, Jim saw the premiere of a Canadian documentary called “The Rep,” about the Toronto Underground Cinema, a repertory theater, in its first year of operation. The screening was held at the Alamo Drafthouse, which has become the global Mecca for rep theaters.

The film was directed by Morgan White, and if you listened to our AFF On the Scene show, http://www.thefilmthugs.com/2012/10/21/austin-film-festival-2012-on-the-scene-with-the-film-thugs/, you know that he is a pretty solid guy.

We’ve wanted to have him back on the show for a while, and we finally found the perfect topic.

The Ultimate Rep Week.

The rules are simple.

7 Days to program a rep theater. There are no limitations beyond that. Cost is not a problem, rights are not a problem, guests are not a problem. If you want to do a food menu, go for it.

This episode also features Clarkson’s long in development first menu for “Fat Assley’s,” the restaurant he and Jim have been planning for years. This might be the funniest thing we’ve ever done.

So, check out our programming weeks, and submit your own at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, or at (512) 666-RANT.

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

And now, the parade of advertisements. Click on a link and buy some shit, you cheap bastards.

Alpha to Omega: Rocky Balboa

thefilmthugs — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 23:05:34 +0000

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 Balboa

Have you ever screwed up with your girlfriend/boyfriend?

I mean really screwed up?

I mean really screwed up in a “this thing is over unless I do something substantial” kind of way?

If you answered no that means either…

a. You have never had a girlfriend/boyfriend.

b. You have, but are some kind of extra strength stupid that kept you from seeing it.

c. You are willfully lying to yourself.

I have. Boy, have I ever.

On one of my X’s birthday was the day before Valentine’s day, it was also the day after the birthday of someone in a very tight group of friends I had. I decided, in the infinite wisdom I had acquired in my then 26 years on the planet, to just let the celebration we had for that birthday count as hers. In my mind she was working on both her birthday and Valentine’s day (she was a restaurant manager, so that meant that she worked late and came home and went to bed), so it wouldn’t really make that much of a difference.

I was asleep when she got home on her birthday (in my defense, she didn’t get home until well after midnight), and the next night… well, I intended to just watch TV until she got home. What I did was watch TV and drink a whole lot of beer and eat nothing. So when she got home at 8:30, I was immobile drunk.

The honest, non delusional ones among us with any sort of romantic history know that such an error requires something major, a grand gesture if you will, to put things right.

To put this in a clearer perspective, in less than 48 hours I had dropped the ball in a major way and knew that I had some major work to do to repair that bridge.

Still, my transgression paled in comparison to the film that was “Rocky V.”

There are few film series as beloved as the Rocky movies. I almost wrote “as beloved to men,” but realized that was a stupid thing to say, as all that you need to love Rocky is a soul.

How significant are these movies?

There is a book about people running the “Rocky steps” in front of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Their reasons vary from “I lost 50 pounds,” to “I asked her to marry me and she said yes.” But for some reason, they find inspiration in running up these stairs and recreating this scene. As one of them said, “Doing this makes you feel like anything is possible.”

Somehow, this no budget little movie, written by and starring an unknown was able reach with Malcolm Gladwell calls “the tipping point.” It didn’t just connect, it worked its way into the public consciousness and became a part of, at the very least, the American identity. But it goes so much further than just America.

There was such a genuine earnestness to 1-4. They were all basically extensions of what Rocky said to Adrian in his dirty little apartment.

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.

Five felt like fan fiction written by someone who hadn’t seen the first 4, but had talked to someone who had… a long time ago.

This was a “Batman and Robin,” “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace,” level franchise murdering misstep.

In the eyes of fans, Rocky may as well have died at the end, as originally planned, because nobody wanted any more from it.

But the years passed. Lots of years. 16 to be exact.

Think about that. Rocky to Rocky V took 14 years. V to Balboa… 16.

Somehow, during that near two decade break, Stallone figured out how to fix things.

This wasn’t some, “I’ll make you your favorite meal,” level amends. This was more like, “I’ll fly you to Paris for the weekend, and we’ll have your favorite meal there.” Stallone went to the mountain top and found the source of all Rocky.

Rocky is about the guy whose “whole life was a million to one shot.” A man who everyone counted out and who just wanted to be on his feet when the bell rang.

“Balboa” continues the “V” timeline. Rocky has rebuilt a solid, working class life after losing everything.

16 years after the Tommy Gun debauch, Rocky has a nice little neighborhood restaurant called “Adrian’s” after his late wife.

Ok, first off… OUCH!

If you are a fan of these movies, you know that losing Adrian is the absolute worst thing that could happen to Rocky. She was his heart, and in this series… that means everything.

Without Adrian his life has become routine. He gets up early to hit the market for the restaurant, he visits Adrian’s grave, and spends the rest of the day being the consummate restaurant owner. He was always a friendly guy who loves to talk and tell stories and be around people, and now he gets to do that professionally. He even makes sure that guys from the old days, like Spider Rico (the first person we see him fight) has a place at his place. He’s turned into the kind of older guy you wanted him to. He may or may not be happy, but he is content even if he’s a little lonely.

When Adrian died he didn’t become single, he became a married man whose wife passed away. There is a difference. He is as loyal and dedicated to her as he was when she was alive. “The Tour” section of the film is one of the most beautifully heartbreaking sequences I’ve ever seen. It sets up what the film is really about. He lost his ehart when she died, and now he needs to get it back.

Adrian isn’t the only person he lost. His son, Robert, though still alive has grown estranged. Spending his life standing in the impossible shadow of his father, in a city where his father is revered with almost religious wonder ended up being too much for him, so he completely pulls back from him.

It’s unfortunate, but understandable. Could you imagine how difficult it must be to live in a city where you cannot be your own person? I don’t think I could handle living a life knowing that everything that came my way was because of who my father was.

He has become, essentially, the opposite of his father. his heart and will have been stripped away, leaving a timid shell who is unwilling to risk anything because he has never been able to believe in himself.

So, you have two men. One is all heart and leads a contented life that has lost his compass. The other is lost, has never had a compass or a map of his own, who feels like the tide is pulling against him.

Then you have Marie, who we met in the first film.

She’s a girl from the neighborhood that Rocky tries to help and advise when she was younger. He runs into her and tries to help again. This really is the perfect expression of who Rocky is as a person. He meets a single mother from the neighborhood and helps her. he doesn’t want or expect anything in return. He does it to help because he is all heart.

That is where we find Rocky.

One night ESPN runs a report on a computer simulation pitting current champ Mason “The Line” Dixon (played by real life champion boxer Antonio Tarver) against Rocky, predicting a Rocky win by 10th round knockout. Rocky, feeling that he has some”stuff in the basement” he needs to deal with is inspired to get back in the ring (the brain damage from “Rocky V” is not even mentioned).

All Rocky wants is a few small, local fights for charity. However, Dixon’s management sees an opportunity to seize on all the publicity. You see, Dixon is a great fighter who has never had a really memorable fight or beaten a truly great opponent. He’s never proven himself the way Rocky has and has suffered some criticism because of it. He sees the fight as a way to end all the talk and prove that he’s a true champion.

Due to the fact that he is 59 and hasn’t fought is 16 years, the press dismisses Rocky’s chances. So, we find Rocky where we did at the beginning of the first film. A guy with something to prove that nobody thinks he can achieve.

This causes problems for Robert, who sees this as a way for his dad to expand his already massive shadow and make his live even more difficult. He asks his dad not to fight, and we get this…

Damn! Just… damn! This seals it and the fight is on.

Now we finally get to the staple of the Rocky movies. Not a boxing match, but a training montage. This montage is a little different. You see, Rocky is an old boxer. That means his body, though able to pass a physical, isn’t up to the rigors of training. As his trainer Duke says,

Duke: You know all there is to know about fighting, so there’s no sense us going down that same old road again. To beat this guy, you need speed - you don’t have it. And your knees can’t take the pounding, so hard running is out. And you got arthritis in your neck, and you’ve got calcium deposits on most of your joints, so sparring is out.

Paulie: I had that problem.

Duke: So, what we’ll be calling on is good ol’ fashion blunt force trauma. Horsepower. Heavy-duty, cast-iron, pile-driving punches that will have to hurt so much they’ll rattle his ancestors. Every time you hit him with a shot, it’s gotta feel like he tried kissing the express train. Yeah! Let’s start building some hurtin’ bombs!

This montage, more than anything, shows what Stallone was trying to do with this movie. All of the insanely punishing weightlifting is not only real, meaning that yes, he actually did all of it, but it was done in a singe, 17 hour day of filming. Stallone was so dedicated to giving the best film he could that he put himself through a SEVENTEEN HOUR WORKOUT! I don’t know about you, but in my prime I could maybe manage 2 hours, and that was when I was doing an hour of cardio with it.

Rocky Balboa is part apology, part love letter to fans of this series. It’s mostly the latter though because, Rocky isn’t really fighting to win. He knows full well that him winning isn’t the million to one shot it was against Creed, but a hundred million to one shot. Winning isn’t what matters, much like the first film. But unlike the first film, he isn’t just proving himself with this fight. He’s giving Dixon a chance to do the same.

The final fight is just… it’s epic. For starters, it’s a new Rocky fight. The ESPN commentator puts it best. “Wow, Rocky Balboa said hi to me, I watched Rocky when I was a kid, I never thought that I would commentate one of his fights!” For people like me who grew up on the Rocky movies it was something I never thought I’d see again, especially after 5. But here it was, and it was different. It was classic.

Rocky started out as a person, morphed into a symbol, then grew into an icon that become almost a parody. But here… here is back to being a real person with motivations that make sense.

But it’s more than that. This fight feels real. Part of that is due to the fact that every punch sound effect in this movie is the actual sound of an actual punch. There’s nobody slapping a piece of meat with a ping pong paddle. But more than that, it feels like a real fight because it is a real fight. There were no punches pulled. You know the scene where Rocky gets knocked down for a 9 count and tries to get to his feet by taking hold of the rope? Yeah, that wasn’t acting. Tarver straight knocked him unconscious.

If you’re a Rocky fan, this is one of the most satisfying movie experiences you could have. If you’re not a Rocky fan, this movie should make you one. If you don’t like Rocky, well, you may not like this, and that is really on you. This film works on so many levels. It’s a sports movie, but it’s also about redemption, family, reconciliation, community, and believing in yourself. Basically, it’s about everything that makes this a great film series.

Touchingly enough, the last scene filmed for this was Stallone’s final run up the steps at the museum. Stallone knew that the emotion of that scene would be too overwhelming. I can’t disagree. The new version is different. He’s not as fast and his victory dance is far less enthusiastic (even though in a lot of ways it is far more powerful), but he does it with an adorable puppy dog and if the addition of an adorable puppy dog doesn’t make something better for you, then you an awful, awful human being.

If Stallone is to be believed, and I do believe him here, this is the last Rocky movie which is a really good thing. It felt almost blasphemous to have Rocky V be the last one. Even when it danced on the edge of silliness (not naming names, but Rocky IV, I am looking in your general direction) there was an undeniable sincerity to the film in the series. Five didn’t have that and had it been the final chapter… that would be like Bela Lugosi ending his career with Plan Nine From Outer Space. It just wouldn’t be right. Thank God that there was a studio that was willing to take a chance and let Stallone come back and end it right.

More than anything, thank you, Mr. Stallone for giving us the final chapter that people who love these movies so desperately wanted.

The people, They Like the Tom Cruise

thefilmthugs — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:16:10 +0000

You got your actors, then you got your movie stars.

Actors are all over the place. You recognize them, you follow their work, hell, you may even watch some movies just because of them.

But they aren’t movie stars.

A movie star is something different. Movie stars are people like Jimmy Stewart, Elizabeth Taylor, Carey Grant, Lauren Bacall, Catherine Hepburn, Audrey Hepburn… those are movie stars.

There’s always an air of… almost otherworldliness about them.

Their movies are always a big deal just because they are in them, and they make a lot, A LOT of money.

So, is Tom Cruise an actor or a moviestar? I’ll give you a spoiler, if you don’t think he’s a movie star… you’re trying to prove something.

This week we discuss mister Cruise in an effort to see what the big damned deal is.

Also, we are trying to have a new weekly segment that requires your assistance. Call our Google Voice number at (512) 666-RANT (7268) and leave a message about your worst experience in a theater. That message will be transformed into comic GOLD by the power of Google Voice’s text preview, voice recognition translation. Listen to this and last weeks show and you will see what we mean.

And we are still raising money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association on behalf of our little buddy Amadeo Andrade who was diagnosed with Becker Muscular Dystrophy in 2008. Last year, as a team, we raised $23,800 in support of Amadeo for MDA! This year our team goal is $25,000. We will be raising money until February of 2013. Anything will help and be appreciated, and remember all donations are tax deductible!

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Check out our multitude of sponsors while your at it as well.

I’m Still the A-Hole: Episode 6 Redux

thefilmthugs — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 02:38:02 +0000

Man, we have been doing this a long damned time. How long? Long enough that we can safely go back and revisit our old shows. Honestly, I must be getting old as hell because recording this original episode seems far more recent than 3 years ago, but here we are.

Episode 6 (from back in a time when we actually numbered the damned things) was simply called “I’m the Asshole,” and it was a look at movies and directors and stars that, though popular, we just don’t get. This isn’t an “I’m right and you’re wrong!” thing. This is an “I know these are good. I know that people like them for a good reason… I just don’t like it. I’m the bad guy here,” type thing.

I’ll be honest, this weeks show has everything. It has a readers theater, a clip from Episode 6, and a came by Johnny Cash. What more could you people want.

Enjoy, and be sure to check the sidebar of this page for our new sponsors Hulu plus, Vimeo, and the Warner Brothers Store. You can get all kinds of cool shit and help the show. You literally cannot lose!

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

Geek Like Me, or The Nerdish Mystique

thefilmthugs — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:18:26 +0000

There has been a fundamental paradigm shift

in recent years. You see, once upon a time being a “geek” or a “nerd” was an entirely bad thing. It was just awful.

You didn’t have friends, you were obsessed with stupid stuff that no normal person cares about, you were a misfit.

Then…

Suddenly…

From out of nowhere…

Everything that made “geeks” “geeky” became… kind of ok.

It all went from being relegated to comic book stores, obscure shelves in the corner of your local video stores, and poorly attended conventions to acceptable and, dare I say, mainstream.

This week we take a look at what it means to be a geek today and how we got there.

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

And we are still looking for questions for our “Ask the Film Thugs” show. Ask us about anything at all. Could be about movies, relationships, family, history, recipes, what have you. We will have no idea what your questions are until we read them on the show. Do you want you want to know how quick Jim and Clarkson came come up with some bullshit? Sure you do! So go ahead and ask away at thugquestions@gmail.com

Finally…

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

Señor Ding Dong’s Tagline Fiesta

thefilmthugs — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:13:55 +0000

In keeping with the spirit of this episode I will try to write this entire thing in taglines.

Two friends.

Two microphones.

Endless possibilities.

They saw the words that sell the films we love.

A comic masterpiece for the ages.

Only you can hear…

Señor Ding Dong’s Tagline Fiesta

presented by The Film Thugs

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

Finally…

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

Tom Hanks ruled the 80’s and 90’s with an iron fist.

thefilmthugs — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:27:45 +0000

There might be actors some people associate with the 80’s and 90’s more than Tom Hanks, but there are very few people he wouldn’t enter the conversation for.

This week we take a look at the guy who represents the films of our childhoods like nobody else.

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

Finally…

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

- See more at: http://www.thefilmthugs.com/#sthash.WK0UFmJd.dpuf

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

- See more at: http://www.thefilmthugs.com/#sthash.WK0UFmJd.dpuf

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

- See more at: http://www.thefilmthugs.com/#sthash.WK0UFmJd.dpuf

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

- See more at: http://www.thefilmthugs.com/#sthash.aL8IeFIV.dpuf

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

- See more at: http://www.thefilmthugs.com/#sthash.aL8IeFIV.dpuf

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

- See more at: http://www.thefilmthugs.com/#sthash.aL8IeFIV.dpuf

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

- See more at: http://www.thefilmthugs.com/#sthash.aL8IeFIV.dpuf

You ought to be ashamed

thefilmthugs — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 00:31:11 +0000

Sometimes actors make choices that just don’t make sense. This week we take a look at a few roles like that.

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

That Oliver Stone is quite a conondrum.

thefilmthugs — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:23:08 +0000

Oliver Stone is an interesting filmmaker. His filmography ranges from genius to… forgettable. Sure, the same could be said for a lot of filmmakers, but few have had the massive swings of Oliver.

This week we tackle this conundrum of a man and see if we can finally get to the bottom of things.

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

Jim’s 2012 Lists part 5: 5-1

thefilmthugs — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:02:05 +0000

As we said on our last show, this week was so hectic that we literally could not get together at all to record. So, for I believe the second time in 3 years, there will be no show this week.

That being the case, I offer the end of my Best of the Year lists as a paltry substitute.

5-1

Finally! I’m speaking for myself with that. Honestly, I am so glad to be done with this thing. I enjoyed it, but enough is enough. So, here you go. The home stretch, my top 5 of the year.

5) Moonrise Kingdom

I didn’t see this movie until very recently. Like mid January. I wanted to see it sooner, but just couldn’t get it together. I am so glad I finally did.

Wes Anderson… man, I have a tricky relationship with him. I saw Bottle Rocket in the theater during it’s initial run. At the time I was living in a dorm that had one of the best independent theaters in the state attached to it, so I got to see some really amazing films in incredibly small, empty theaters.

I liked it, but not so much as everyone else. It has amazing characters and dialogue, but the story is really thin, so I just don’t connect with it that much.

Rushmore is… well, it’s Rushmore. He and Owen Wilson set the bar so high with that one that I thought it would be impossible to reach.

But then…

The Royal Tenenbaums cleared it. Easily. That move is just… damn!

Then…

The Life Aquatic was a bit of a let down for me. Not terrible, but just not something I really cared for that much.

Which was followed up by…

The Darjeeling Limited was… I really didn’t like it. Not at all. It took me a week to finish it. It couldn’t hold my attention and I kept falling asleep. Again, good dialogue and characters, but the overall execution was just lacking.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox was a really outstanding return to form. It was funny, quirky, fun, just… everything I love about Wes Anderson’s work.

Moonrise Kingdom looked… well it looked really precious, like Wes had stored up all his excess quirk and threw it all at the wall for this one.

Which he did. And man, did it work.

Moonrise Kingdom is Wes Anderson at his Wes Anderson-ist. It all takes place in a world that we don’t live it. Yeah, it looks kind of the same and the people in it act kind of like people you may have met, but it’s just off enough to be… well, charming.

It’s about an orphaned scout who runs away from his summer camp to be with the girl he met a year earlier at… well it wouldn’t make sense if I explained it.

I’ve had a theory about Wes ever since Life Aquatic. I think that he is one of those writers who needs the right partner. His work with Owen Wilson was superb, but when he started working with other people it started to become a bit spotty. That’s no insult to him or the other writers, but he and Wilson met in college and really developed as writers together. It’s hard to get that chemistry down.

This is the second script he wrote with Bambach was Fantastic Mr. Fox, and this was his second with Roman Coppola and in both cases the maturation of their working relationship was evident.

Moonrise Kingdom is one of the quirkiest movies I’ve ever seen. It very easily could have slipped into obnoxiousness, but it doesn’t. The characters are odd, but believable. The rules of their world are absolutely insane, but they make sense because the world itself is a bit insane. This is one of those rare, touching films that reminds me what I love about movies in the first place.

4) Lincoln

I’v e read some things about this movie recently that have struck me very odd. There are quite a few people who are calling it dull and boring. Which, if I’m being completely honest, is what I was expecting. Going into this I was only expecting one thing- to be utterly blown away by Daniel Day-Lewis and find the rest of it to be very stuffy and costume drama-ey.

More than anything I was, and in many ways still am, blown away at how interesting I found this film. Yes, it is a bit slow, but the subject matter is so absolutely engrossing that I couldn’t help but be completely pulled in by it.

I will confess that I am very interested in history the way this film portrays it. I like knowing the small things, the little moments that make up every day life. The way I put it, were I to meet someone who was on the Titanic, let’s say, I wouldn’t care about the things you normally learn in history class. I would want to know what music they listened to, how family dynamics and friendships worked. How was your actual life different than mine? That’s what fascinates me.

Lincoln gives you that, but in the context of one of the most important days in the history of my country. People forget that the words we live by in our constitution (as Piers Morgan so lovingly refers to it “our little book”) have changed over the years. I mean, “We the People” originally meant, “We the property owning white males…”

This film shows the events of a few days, the dirty politics of a massive system, as it attempts to correct a grievous sin. Above all else, it shows just how dirty a business politics is. Make no mistake, the 13 Amendment was purchased by Lincoln, and this movie shows how.

Day-Lewis is amazing, as expected, but so is everyone else. This film is an collection of best in career performances. Sally Field, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson, hell, I could go on, but they are all amazing.

I could see how some people might find this movie dull, so be forewarned. Personally, though, I found the subject matter fascinating, the performances amazing, the direction solid and well paced… just in general, I loved this thing.

3) The Dark Knight Rises

Another one that some people have problems with. I think this was the absolute perfect end to an amazing series. I make no secret of my love for Christopher Nolan. His films are entertaining, intelligent, and visually striking, writing and narrative style is perhaps the most sophisticated and well developed out there, and his ability to make wildly entertaining movies that you have to pay close attention to in order to understand is second to none.

Nolan had his work cut out for him on this one.

a- How do you follow up a movie that is held up to the impossible standard of “The Dark Knight?”

b- How do you wrap up such a respected and obsessed over film series without letting a lot of people down?

c- How the hell do you have a villain step into Heath Ledgers massive shoes?

Nolan was somehow able to not just follow up TDK, but in many was surpass it because he set out to make a different film. Instead of trying to retread it, he took things in a wildly different direction. Begin with a broken hero and give reason for him to come back. Establish what your film is, and execute it with as much gusto as humanly possible. Create a villain that is as different from the last one as you can make him.

Basically, make it its own film.

Tom Hardy as Bane is… just DAMN!

For as terrifying as Leger’s shotgun of random chaos Joker was, the intense focus and singleminded determination of Hardy’s Bane just amplifies that feeling.

It’s a movie about the cruelty of false hope and the need to embrace your own fallibility and weakness.

Some people may not agree, but I don’t care. The Dark Knight Rises is one of the most original and striking films I’ve seen in years.

2) Zero Dark Thirty

There are few jobs more horrendously misrepresented in film than that of spy. You dress cool, go to cool places, get cool gadgets to play with, everyone you work with is really attractive and all they want to do is have sex with you.

Zero Dark Thirty puts the lie to that and does so in one of the most fascinating, engrossing, and thrilling movies I’ve seen in a while. Everyone knows the broad strokes and this film fills in a lot of the details.

Imagine the impossibility of this undertaking. One man hiding somewhere in the world, most likely in Afghanistan, or maybe Pakistan, or… maybe somewhere else. All we know is that he, and the very large organization he heads up, would rather he not be found.

It’s stunning that such a small team of people was able to accomplish anything, much less finding and killing the guy.

That’s kind of what pisses me off about the way the media covers things like this. Neither Obama nor Bush “got” Bin Laden. A group of people in the CIA, working for YEARS with little to no information was able to put together enough to track him down. And that’s what this movie shows you. A very small group, grinding it out over many years.

To the “controversy” over the torture scenes. Yes, there are scenes of torture, and yes they are pretty rough, and yes the torture does yield a small amount of information. But the tremendous amount of single minded work that went into finding the man really takes center stage. The movie makes it quite clear that all they got from the torture was one name. Had that name not stuck with one intelligence officer who refused to let it go, nothing would have happened. But one woman wouldn’t let the lead go.

This is a tough movie to categorize. I mean, it’s a spy movie, but a realistic one. It’s also a procedural, but different than you are maybe used to. It has elements of an action movie, but a very grown up action movie. It’s drama for certain, but not manufactured.

I’ve written before about the difficulty of making a movie about actual events. I was writing about “The Devil’s Double,” and how it lacked a satisfying resolution, because in real life that’s how it went. Zero Dark Thirty was lucky in that it is a complete story that ends in success. Personally, I don’t think it would have been anywhere near as compelling if it had been made before Bin Laden was killed. It would have been a lot of built that ended with a question mark. Instead you get real life falling together in a very Hollywood way.

Zero Dark Thirty manages to do something very difficult. It is a smart, adult targeted espionage movie that never drags or gets boring with an ending that feels completely fantastical and totally realistic at the same time.

1) Argo

Another Middle East centric movie based on actual events that has been criticized over nit picky details that have nothing at all to do with the film itself? I am just soooo predictable.

I am going to address the bullshit criticism before I go on about why this movie topped my list.

1) Canada’s Involvement

Critics claim that the movie underplays the involvement of the Canadian Government and Ambassador Ken Taylor claiming that not enough credit was given for their risk and role in the planning and execution of the extraction.

I call a bit of BS on this because those who criticize it give me my retort.

“Taylor himself has a major part, and is presented as a sympathetic and brave man who took great personal risks to save the Americans. But his actual role was even larger.”

You know what? There are a lot of people who contributed significantly who didn’t get mentioned at all. It’s a movie, and a movie’s intended purpose is to tell a story as compellingly and as concisely as possible. Is it necessary to go into great detail about everyone and make a 12 hour miniseries just to insure that nobody gets overlooked.

Taylor comes off as a compassionate human being who is willing to risk his life by committing what would be considered an act of war in order to do what is right. I cannot think of any higher praise one could be paid than that. This was not a “he might get in trouble” situation. He witnessed the storming of an embassy, he knew what would happen just by having them there. The level of courage it took to do that demands respect.

Also, the fact that Canada took sole credit for the mission for 25 years and Taylor himself received 112 citations for what he did should be sufficient. It’s a movie, don’t lessen what you did by bickering over it.

You know what you don’t see? Tony Mendez complaining that he was denied credit for one of the most incredible intelligence operations ever conducted for almost 3 decades. Canada, we thanked you then and continue to thank you now. Perhaps let the other people, those who had to keep their participation a secret for 25 years, have a moment in the sun.

2) Not spending sufficient time on the hostages.

More than one article that I’ve read has criticized this film for focusing on the 12 who got out and basically ignoring the 52 who were held for 444 days.

Ok, so your criticism is that the movie isn’t about something else. That’s what your saying. It should not have been about a, it should have been about b.

In other words, you didn’t like the movie. Because that’s what you’re saying. It’s a nit picky bullshit reason to criticize something. That’s like criticizing Zero Dark Thirty for not giving enough screen time to the helicopter pilots. The movie wasn’t about them.

3) The escape didn’t happen that dramatically.

This one might have the most validity, but it is still stupid. For starters, it’s not a documentary, it’s a fiction film that is meant to entertain. That’s it. Most movies based on actual, historical events are not 100% faithful to the actual history.

Did you know that Mozart and Salieri were actually quite good friends? So, does that make Amadeus a bad movie?

There are no recorded cases of Russian Roulette being played by Vietnam POW’s, does that make Deer Hunter any less good?

Marcus Aurelius never wanted to restore the Republic. Commodus didn’t kill him. Maximus never existed. So I guess Gladiator is a piece of shit.

Yes, history is important and movies tend to be more popular than books and this can lead to massive misunderstandings in the popular culture. But that isn’t new.

Do you know who Israel Bissell was? No? Strange, because he rode hundreds of miles to warn American colonists that “the Redcoats are coming.” Paul Revere only rode 13 miles, but because Paul Revere rhymes with more things than Israel Bissell, he had a kick ass poem written about him and history followed suit.

Sucks for Bissell, but it doesn’t change the history and those who are willing to learn it will, those who aren’t never will. At least the movie or the poem will give them some sort of knowledge.

Also, do you really want to watch a movie without a climax, because that’s what it would have been had they done it the way it happened.

So, now why is this my movie of the year?

Good question.

I have not seen a movie that has made me twist in my seat the way this one did in a very long time. The urgency of every scene, the palpable sense of dread, the immediacy of it all.

Yes, this is essentially a caper/heist movie. So what? It’s a fantastic caper/heist movie. So far as a that genre goes, it’s pretty much a perfect caper film. It’s an absurd situation that, were it not based on actual events, would be laughed off the screen as completely unbelievable. The thought that the largest intelligence agency, serving the most powerful country in the world was reduced to “the best bad idea we have,” is amazing.

I also love hidden history. Like Lincoln’s political dealings, or the behind the scenes intelligence work necessary to bring down Bin Laden, the actual machinations needed to enter a wildly hostile country alone and walk out with 6 other people, while constantly under the risk of exposure and execution is incredibly fascinating to me.

Argo pretty much hits everything I love in a movie. It’s smart, funny, exciting, well paced, well acted, well written, brilliantly directed, and about something I find absolutely fascinating. It may or may not be one of my fabled “perfect movies,” for that I will need a few more viewings. But I can say after just one screening that it is damned close to perfect.

So, there you have it. A few months late and a few thousand words too long, but damn it, I finished.

Thanks for checking it out.

Jim’s 2012 Lists part 4: 10-6

thefilmthugs — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:17:58 +0000

Top 20- Things Get Real- 10-6. The most diverse part of my list.

OK, basically every number above 10 is kind of irrelevant. Honestly, anyone who tells you that they can quantify a difference between 15 and 20 when writing a list like this takes themselves a bit too seriously. It’s like a teacher who claims their grading system is exact enough to justify a difference between an 89 and a 90. It’s just not so.

Now, we are down to the real list. I tend to obsess over thing like this and, with the exception of my number 1, which has been set in stone since I left the theater, everything else has moved around a little. So, before I reorganize again, here it is…

10) The Avengers

I was more than a little apprehensive going into this. Rarely has a movie had this much build up. I mean, how many films have had to act as the culmination of 5 essentially unrelated movies? Add to it that only one of the Iron Man films was good, Thor was… well, Thor was, Captain America was half of a good movie, and The Incredible Hulk was a good movie that happened a very long time ago, the deck felt, for me at least, fairly stacked against it.

Then it came out and people started talking about box office. Not the quality of the film, but how much money it made. That always turns me off because I feel that you should talk about what is most impressive about a film. If the most impressive thing was the box office, then it’s not something I really care to see.

But people with whom I tend agree started talking about how good it was and people with whom I tend to disagree started talking about how disappointing it was. So I had to give into the cultural zeitgeist (that’s right, I said it), and see it.

This movie is far, FAR better than it should have been. For starters, it’s fun as hell, which really is the most important thing for a movie like this. The characters are fully realized and brilliantly executed.

Joss Whedon nails it. I was a bit thrown by the choice of a TV guy for a movie like this, but if you think about it, a TV guy is the best choice. Joss excels at creating massive worlds populated with a host of interesting characters that balance big stories and small stories expertly. It’s a movie with 6 protagonists that needed a director who could manage a world. Joss nailed it.

9) Ted

I waited a very long time to see this one. When a movie comes out and people star throwing the “greatest _______ ever” thing around… I tend to shut down a little. I’ve always had the attitude that your second viewing, removed from the hype and emotion of the initial theatrical viewing, is a more accurate barometer of how you feel about a movie.

I saw Ted on video, by myself, after pulling a theatrical triple feature. So, it being my fourth movie of the day, alone on my couch, I was ready to judge it honestly.

Holy crap was it funny. Damned funny. Not funniest movie ever made, but funniest thing I’ve seen in years. When it comes to comedy, Seth MacFarlane just pins his ears back and goes full speed ahead.

Now, the story is pretty by the numbers and basically just serves as a vehicle for gags, but the gags work. Sam Jones absolutely steals the show, and I cannot remember laughing harder at anything than I did at the entire “shit on the rug” bit.

This is a juvenile movie aimed at adults who embrace the juvenile, so if you take yourself too seriously, then you are probably going to hate it. But, if you can just allow it to be what it is and have fun with it, you will laugh your stupid, stupid ass off.

8) Django Unchained

There is nothing like manufactured controversy, is there? Especially when it is one that is un-winnable. What do I mean by un-winnable? Well, Tarantino makes a movie about slavery in the United States. He makes a freed slave the hero. Aaaaannnnnnddddd…. people who are spoiling for a fight over racism LOSE THEIR GODDAMNED MINDS!!!

Of course they did. And in losing their minds, they purport to speak for an entire race of people. I can’t really comment. You see, I’m white. So, while I can understand how certain words can be inflammatory, they don’t really hit me with the same power.

All I will say is, how would Spike Lee have reacted were the term “African American” substituted? Is that what he wanted?

Would the exchange,

“Christ, Stephen! What is the point of having an AFRICAN AMERICAN that speaks German if you can’t wheel ‘em out when you have a German guest? Now I realize it is an inconvenience! Still, you take her ass out.”

have been better?

No. It would have sounded stupid.

Also, this is a movie that depicts a time when HUMAN BEINGS WERE PROPERTY! How the fuck is a WORD what’s offensive here?

But, let’s get past that. This is QT doing what he does best. Bad ass characters with bad ass dialogue doing bad ass things. It is brutal, funny, and entertaining as hell.

Christof Waltz is so fucking good in this that it almost pisses me off. He should be in every movie that gets made these days, and after he dies, I want a Tupac hologram of him in every movie that gets made.

Don Johnson, Tom Wopat, Samuel L. Jackson, and Jonah Hill all steal their scenes with ease.

The only reason this isn’t higher is because I had slight, and I do mean slight issues with three things in it, very brief things that were very much in keeping with the traditions of the Spaghetti Western genre, but they just made me scratch my head a little. No big deal, hell… it’s still in my top 10.

If you are easily offended in any way or are turned off by fairly brutal violence, you might want to skip this. If you are looking for a good time with one of the greatest genre tributes ever made, then check this shit out.

7) The Cabin in the Woods

Post modern film making is a tricky prospect. What I mean by “post modern” in this regard is a genre movie that admits to and plays with the fact that it is a genre movie. The genre is almost a cast member.

The Cabin in the Woods takes every horror movie convention you can think of and shifts it to the forefront, from the crazy old man warning our band of kids, to the makeup of the group, to the predictability of predictability of the outcome. All of those are exposed as just part of the world and then twisted and repurposed into something new.

This was a gamble of a movie. With something like this there is a razor thin line between brilliant and obnoxious. Not only does this movie never spill over onto the obnoxious side, it never even comes close to it.

If you are a horror fan, this movie is taylor made for you. The amount of inside jokes and references hidden and put on direct display throughout this movie is incredible. But it never feels like it’s trying to be clever, even though it is very clever.

Also, the ending is one of the outright ballsiest things I’ve ever seen, so… that’s pretty cool.

6) Eden

People, normally very self important ones, like to throw the word “important” around when talking about movies. Normally it’s code for boring and pretentious. Sometimes, though, sometimes it’s the only fitting word.

We may not like to hear it, but according to statistics there are more people held as slaves today than there have every been at any point in human history. Most are female, most are underage. Eden is the true story of a young woman survived a horrific three years of sexual slavery in THE UNITED STATES.

The movie unflinchingly shows this brutal world where young women are treated as property, rented out in a sometimes shockingly public manner. This is not a comfortable movie, but I think it is a vitally important one because it brings to light an issue that too many people are unaware of, and that no where near enough effort is put into stopping.

This movie will scare you, it will break your heart, and it will open your eyes. It’s not an easy one to watch, but it will change your outlook on some things. I am really grateful that I got to see this at South By Southwest and to hear the director talk about the process of making the film and the woman about whom it is based. I encourage people to look into this problem more, and hopefully begin to discuss how real the problem still is.

So that brings the most wide ranging part of this list to a close. Come back in a few days for the thrilling conclusion to my top 20 of 2012.

Sequels that Should Exist

thefilmthugs — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:35:50 +0000

Sequels are real feast or famine proposition. Yes, most are uninspired cash grabs that don’t do anything to actually advance the characters established in the first film, but there are quite a few that do, and those sometimes end up better than the original.

But what about the sequels that don’t get made? There are some really cool movies out that that have the potential for amazing follow ups… but nothing.

This week we are joined by our friend Colin Higgins to discuss some movie that should have sequels.

We are still collecting questions for our forthcoming episode, “Ask The Film Thugs.” Email questions about anything, ANYTHING to thugquestions@gmail.com and we will answer them on a forthcoming episode. Neither Jim nor Clarkson will see the questions before the show, so everything you hear will be completely off the top of our heads.

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

Jim’s 2012 Lists part 3: 15-11 where numbers are still basically arbitrary

thefilmthugs — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:20:23 +0000

Best of 2012 Part 2: 15-11

Still slugging my way through the year that was 2012. These are still a little in the “what’s the difference category,” but a little more clarity begins to emerge at this point. Still, there is a basic interchangeability here, so take that as you will.

15) Queen of Versailles

The final documentary on my list.

This is an interesting one because a lot of people will like it for a completely different reason than I do.

It’s a documentary about a house, basically. Not just any house, though. It’s about the biggest house in the US.

In 2004, Jackie Siegel, wife of time share magnate David Siegel, began working on building her dream home. And let me be clear, her dream home is a little different than yours. My dream home is a decent sized thing with Connor MacLeod’s secret room hidden behind a fake bookcase in my office. Her dream home, on the other hand, is an 85,000 square foot, 10 kitchen, 13 bedroom, 23 bathroom mansion with a two lane bowling alley, an indoor skating rink, a video arcade, a fitness spa, two tennis courts, and a baseball diamond.

The thing looks more like a resort than a home.

The Siegel’s paid cash for it and owned the thing outright. Thing is, David is an old school businessman who believes that an asset that isn’t contributing to the business is a pointless asset. So, he takes a mortgage out on the property and puts that money into his business, which is time share property.

Then the real estate bubble burst.

His business faltered and suddenly he is at risk to lose the house before it is even completed.

What started as a documentary about extravagance turned into a document of the financial crisis at the highest levels.

What I gained from this doc is that the troubles of the rich and the troubles of the poor are not that different, but with the rich the odds are just a hell of a lot higher.

David started with very little and built an empire of over 20 properties. He made a ton of money and made a ton of money for a lot of other people. He is shown as very single minded and often prickly. But nobody gets as far as he does without a personality that is a bit obsessive and intense. Like Clarkson says, you don’t get to the top of the mountain by saying please.

Jackie is shown in as sympathetic a light as possible, but is still a fairly easy target for people. She’s a bit ditzy, she has massive fake breasts, and is very privileged and entirely out of touch with the real world, but she isn’t by any means a bad person. She just lives a wildly different life than any of us could imagine.

This is a fascinating look at wealth, power, ego, privilege, and how the other half lives. Many people are dismissive of the entire family because of their wealth and somewhat clueless attitude, but they are people who are living the only lives they have.

Try watching it with an open mind. It’s pretty fascinating.

14) Looper

It’s about time we started to get more smart science fiction.

I went into “Looper” with really high hopes, maybe too high. Let me start by saying that I liked the movie a lot, but it fell into the trap that most time travel movies do. Let me explain.

When I’m watching a “smart” movie, which “Looper” is, I tend to think about it. You know, put in a little thought.

The problem is, it’s a time travel movie, and time travel movies rarely hold up to too much thought. If you put too much thought into this one it does start to implode a little bit. Now, that does not make it less enjoyable or less entertaining or any less of a good film.

This is a really cool and well made film that won’t insult your intelligence. It does have some problems. They are minor, but enough to keep it out of my top 10.

13) Skyfall

I was a little dubious when they announced that Sam Mendes was going to be directing the new Bond film. First off, Mendes isn’t exactly an action guy. Second, I didn’t think it was a good idea to have a name director on a Bond film. It’s an iconic series with a pretty set direction and not much room for “individuality,” as it were.

Now, I think that having more established directors take the helm might be a good thing. The old formula works, but it does feel old and too formula. This is the first time I’ve ever been aware of a directors stamp on a Bond film, and I really liked it.

There are a lot of people who are putting the “best Bond film ever” monicker on this, but I think that is a bit premature. It might well be, but we are too close to it now to really give it that title. But I can say that it is one of the best, without question.

Bond is much more human and vulnerable, we see a possible dark side to his future in intelligence. It does get a bit fantastical at times, but it’s a Bond film, that’s how they work. The rest of the film is firmly enough rooted in reality to make up for the few genre flourishes.

12) 21 Jump Street

This one surprised the hell out of me. When it was announced you could almost hear my eyes roll. Then it premiered at South By Southwest, and I didn’t go because, you know eye roll.

But people started talking about it, and I got curious.

Then it came out and people loved it, and I got more curious.

So I decided to rent it on Amazon, and the next night I bought it.

This thing is absolutely hilarious. Everything about it works beautifully. Who knew Channing Tatum was that funny? I didn’t. But damn! That guy can make the funny. the writing was really outstanding, the acting was great (especially my buddy Randall), and the cameos were among the best I’ve ever seen.

What could, and by all rights should, have been another embarrassing entry in the reboot/remake/re-imagined file ended up being one of the most genuinely enjoyable and funny movies I’ve seen in years.

11) Wreck-It Ralph

This is the best non-Pixar Pixar film that I have seen in YEARS.

When I say Pixar film, I don’t mean animated, I don’t even mean computer animated. What I mean is a movie that people say “Well, it’s a kids movie but it has stuff in it for adults,” about, when the truth is it’s a movie meant for grown ups that has stuff in it that kids will enjoy.

Make no mistake, Wreck-It Ralph is a movie for my generation. Yes, younger people will dig it but if you never spent your time at a convenience story, dropping your allowance one quarter at a time into a giant, primitive game cabinet, it’s not really something you understand.

I remember when Pac Man fever was an actual thing. I remember going to the Stop n’ Go to play Super Mario Brothers, the 7/11 to play Kung Fu Tournament (I believe that’s what it was called. It had two joysticks and no buttons. It was weird.), and the Circle K to play Golden Gun (A fairly flagrant James Bond rip off). I am genuinely embarrassed by how much money I spent on those machines. I remember getting an Atari 2600 and being blown away by the very idea of playing games at home. I remember when the only thing I wanted in the world was an NES.

Yes, kids have video games, but the gaming experience is so different.

Wreck-It Ralph nailed the idea of the classic arcade perfectly. No back story, no saving, no replays, just a pixelated hero and a villain that was a villain because you were told he was a villain. You did the exact same thing on basically the exact same screen over and over again with no end in sight and no goal other than the high score.

The arcade was a world in and of itself. I love how this movie captures that and so much more.

Ralph is one of the most compelling protagonists I’ve ever seen. Everyone can relate to being relegated to a role they don’t want and don’t deserve. For a game about characters we routinely see die, and often times kill, it is amazingly human.

Next time, the top 10 begins!

Jim’s 2012 Lists part 2: And so it begins… 20-16

thefilmthugs — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:35:23 +0000

Best of 2012 Part 1: 20-16

I am breaking this down for two reasons. First, by breaking it down I make it a less massive, more manageable project. Second, by making it more manageable I allow myself more time on each part so that I am not rushing through it. You may not know this, but writing about 20 movies in one sitting is a bit of a chore, at least it is if you want what you write to be worth a damn. This way I can hit five at a time and put some thought into what I write.

Are you ready? Outstanding. Here we go!

20-16: This is the part of the list where the numbers are pretty irrelevant. Basically, until you get to the to 6 or 7, all the numbers are just a matter of semantics. Honestly, can I really quantify a difference between 20 and 11? Not really. So take that in with you when you read it.

20) Brave

This one is probably going to be the most questioned on my list. A lot of people didn’t like it very much. I almost omitted it in favor of “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World,” because of it. But then I decided to keep it for that very reason.

I understand that it’s not perfect and it is far from Pixar’s best. But, it’s not an awful movie as some people like to prattle on about. It’s different, and I think that’s the problem. It deviates from Pixar’s established story structure and I know that a lot of people don’t really cotton to that. Structurally it’s very much an old fairy tale that doesn’t adhere to a familiar outline. But if you give it a chance I think you’ll see that it does have all the hallmarks of Pixar films that people love without question.

19) Goon

I went into this thing thinking that it would be some really stupid nonsense that just existed to show some bad ass hockey violence. Shawn William Scott doesn’t have the best track record on this type of thing, so I was apprehensive.

I am really happy that I was wrong. This was a fairly by the numbers “loser gets a break and makes it big,” but it has a surprising amount of depth.

It’s more about teamwork, loyalty, and being true to your nature than anything else. The relationship between Liev Scrhiever and Shawn William Scott is so subtle and genuine and it really adds a nice weight and relateabiltiy to the story.

18) Jack Reacher

A lot of people want to judge this film harshly because Tom Cruise blah, blah, blah. The title, blah, blah, blah. All this crap that has little to do with the movie itself.

The movie is very hard hitting, very adult, and very unflinching in pretty much every regard. Cruise is outstanding as a man with no flexibility who is there to do a job and nothing else. He is not a hero, but he is a man who does the right thing. His character is hard to like, but you know that you are happy to have him on your side.

I miss the days of the smart, adult oriented, hard boiled action/detective story. Everything is so watered down for family consumption that it’s almost refreshing to go, as an adult, to a move like this and see something that was intended for me and not for the family of 8 that was seated behind me at the screening (there were 3 kids under 10 with them, which gave me pause).

Anyway, this is a grown up action/detective/thriller that I absolutely loved and think that everyone should check out. Well… maybe not 7 year olds.

17) Paul Williams Still Alive

So, I met Paul Williams. No big deal. Just the guy who wrote “Rainbow Connection,” and played Little Enos in “Smokey and the Bandit.”

I met him after seeing the second screening of Steven Kessler’s “Paul Williams Still Alive” at South By Southwest and, given our brief interaction I would classify him as a good guy.

“Paul Williams Still Alive,” is a very interesting and superbly made documentary about someone who went from obscurity, to the heights of fame, to relative obscurity. It shows the pitfalls of fame and the embarrassing hubris that can go with it. It shows how someone can have too much of a good thing (booze and drugs) and then spend the rest of their lives letting people know that they really aren’t such a good thing. It shows the absolutely fickle nature of fame.

Paul Williams was a giant of a small man back in the 70’s. He was everywhere and everyone knew who he was. His fame was an absolute mystery. I mean, he was a songwriter. How many songwriters become famous. Not just industry famous, but famous famous. Because Paul Williams was a full blown celebrity. You damned near couldn’t turn on your television without seeing the guy. He had songs, movies, TV specials, concerts… the guy was an absolutely ubiquitous part of the cultural zeitgeist of the 70’s.

And then… he went away.

You learn why, but more importantly you learn who the man was and who he is.

Paul Williams Still Alive is not a picture of a faded star trying to reclaim his former glory, it’s an honest and warm hearted love letter to a man who has created some amazing entertainment and has found a much earned comfort and peace in life. From small club shows in the US to “The Phantom of the Paradise” fan festivals in Canada, to SOLD OUT STADIUM SHOWS ALL OVER THE WORLD, this movie gives you a look at a man who has done it all and is doing it again the right way.

Paul Williams Still Alive is an insightful portrait of a wonderfully charming man who has lived an amazing life and is lucky enough to have matured to a point of having complete perspective.

I started this movie liking Paul Williams, I ended it a full blown fan. I can’t really give it higher praise than that.

16) The Bitter Buddha

The second of three documentaries on the list!!! And the second documentary about a performer you should know more about. I was also lucky enough to get an interview with the director and the star of this film immediately following the premier of it at the Austin Film Festival, which means that you can hear the first interview done after the film premiered on this very site! Isn’t that exciting?

The Bitter Buddha is a documentary about Eddie Pepitone, a stand up comedian known as a “comic’s comic.” Eddie is a brilliantly funny comedian who doesn’t have time for any more of your bullshit.

There are a multitude of reasons to love this movie, but I am going to focus on two.

1- It provides a platform to one of the most inventive and original voices in the world of comedy today.

and…

2- It provides an actual, honest portrayal of stand up comedy.

Stand up is an art form just like any other. You have masters and you have hacks. The masters will have an audience, but for some reason the hacks always find a way to become bigger.

Don’t believe me? Ke$ha’s “Tik Tok” has sold more copies than any Beatles song. Ever.

Led Zeppelin, R.E.M., and Depeche Mode have never had a number one single. Rihanna has had 10.

The cast of Glee has had more songs chart than The Beatles and Flo Rida’s “Low” has sold as many copies as “Hey Jude.”

People love crap, but there is good stuff out there.

This movie gives you a look at a comedian that you may not have gotten a chance to see otherwise. Eddie’s comedy is fresh and original and different than what you will get from what you will get anywhere else.

The second point, stand up comedy is a rough fucking business. It’s just like any other popular art form, the most amazing talent is not always recognized the way it should be. This is not to say that Pepitone isn’t popular, he is. But he is nowhere near as popular as he should be. d

But we live in a world where Kim Kardashian has 17,000,000 Twitter followers, so is it a shock that someone who uses that medium for jokes like

“Whenever someone yells ‘can I get a woot woot?’ I like to yell ‘only if you promise to read a book in your lifetime.”

only has 49,600.

So, bottom line, check out Eddie Pepitone, see “The Bitter Buddha,” and look into getting some better taste, ya bastards!

Jim’s 2012 Lists part 2: Movies that almost made my list

thefilmthugs — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:25:07 +0000

Near Misses

I see quite a few movies every year and always struggle with a year end ranking. It’s actually quite difficult to do if you care at all about the quality of your list. Because for some reason I do care about that it takes me forever to put mine out, which is pretty obvious as it is almost February and I don’t have my complete list published yet.

Before I get to that I want to go over a few movies that didn’t make my final list and talk about why they were so close, but ultimately didn’t make the cut.

The Hobbit

Ok, this one is a bit polarizing. Part of my reasoning for this not making the list is my slight annoyance with what I see as a pretty flagrant cash grab on the part of the production.

The first edition of The Hobbit was 310 pages.

The first edition of The Fellowship of the Ring was 531 pages.

The first edition of The Two Towers was 416 pages.

The first edition of The Return of the King was 624 pages.

So, a 310 page book is going to be made into a film series that runs the same length as a 1571 page trilogy. The concept just rings so false and forced. I know, there is going to be stuff from the other books put in, but that feels like something being padded out.

That aside, I did enjoy this movie. Really, I did. I actually liked it a whole lot more than I thought I would. But that being said, I didn’t think it was great. The entire time I was aware of the story being padded out. The opening part in the Shire was cute, but it felt padded and pandering. There was no need for it and it made the film overlong.

I get that there is a need to set mood and all that, but if you watch this movie and are not well aware that it is part of The Lord of the Rings world, then will including this really help clear that up for you?

The first rule of screenwriting is to start every scene as late as possible and leave as soon as possible. The beginning meandered so long that it sort of became distracting. Had that time been spent with young Bilbo going about his life it wouldn’t have bothered me that much. I just found the inclusion of the stuff from Fellowship to be a little too mugging for the camera for my tastes.

Like I said, good movie, but it just didn’t have enough to clear that hurdle for me.

Expendables 2

First off, this one kicked the ass clean off the first one. I got a whole lot more of what I wanted in this one. But, again, it just didn’t clear the hurdle enough for me. Honestly I kept waiting for Jet Li to come back. I really wanted the end fight to be between him and Van Damme. Yeah, Stallone kicks ass, but he’s never been a martial arts guy. Le vs Van Damme… that would have been epic.

That being said, I did love this movie, but it just didn’t hit the top 20 for me.

The Hunger Games

Yes, I get it, this movie has similarities to “Battle Royal.” Congratulations, you’ve seen a Japanese movie. Now take your bubble tea and get the fuck out of my face. Saying this is the same as BR is like saying that “Goodfellas,” “The Godfather,” and “Donnie Brasco,” are the same movie because they are about the mafia.

Kids killing each other. That is literally the only similarity. It’s a surface similarity, that’s it. I find the premise of The Hunger Games so much crueler than BR. I mean, this is kids fighting for the amusement of the wealthy as their families are forced to watch. These are starving, poor children who are being forced to kill each other so that their home town might be able to finally not be hungry for one year.

The idea of class structure, exploitation, suffering as entertainment, and sacrifice are explored in a way that kids can actually grasp it. At least in the book. The movie does a fine job of capturing it, but it just didn’t hit as hard as I would have liked.

Chronicle

The found footage movie. Most of these… well, most of these don’t really work. I mean, they kind of work, but there is such an attempt to make it look amateur that the story structure goes out the window. Chronicle impressed the hell out of me because it was able to capture the amateur feel, but still had a solid and tight structure that made the narrative work really well.

If you haven’t seen it I definitely recommend checking it out. It’s a really fantastic take on the found footage genre.

Seeking a Friend For The End of The World

I have said for years that a person can be noble and kind and selfless, but people as a group are just an awful group of bastard flavored bastards with a chewy bastard middle. This movie illustrates that idea quite beautifully.

So, the world is about to end. There is some cataclysm that we have tried to avert, but were unsuccessful. We are never told what it is, just that everything is about to end. What happens?

Well, people actually start acting like there is no tomorrow. Drugs, promiscuity, riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

But what about someone who doesn’t want to go out like that? What about someone who wants to live out there last few days with quiet dignity in the presence of someone they have an actual connection with.

That is what this movie is about, and it’s kind of beautiful. I mean, in the face of an utterly hedonistic society where what you does really bears little meaning, is there anything more powerful than ditching all of that insane indulgence and self gratification in exchange for a few minutes of genuine human contact?

This isn’t a perfect movie, but it’s a pretty damned good one that is well worth your time.

… and now we talking about opening scenes!

thefilmthugs — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:04:25 +0000

We have two things that we are working on right now, and both require your assistance.

First, we are still collecting questions for our forthcoming episode, “Ask The Film Thugs.” Email questions about anything, ANYTHING to thugquestions@gmail.com and we will answer them on a forthcoming episode. Neither Jim nor Clarkson will see the questions before the show, so everything you hear will be completely off the top of our heads.

Second, we are trying to have a new weekly segment that requires your assistance. Call our Google Voice number at (512) 666-RANT (7268) and leave a message about your worst experience in a theater. That message will be transformed into comic GOLD by the power of Google Voice’s text preview, voice recognition translation. Listen to this and last weeks show and you will see what we mean.

We are still raising money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association on behalf of our little buddy Amadeo Andrade who was diagnosed with Becker Muscular Dystrophy in 2008. Last year, as a team, we raised $23,800 in support of Amadeo for MDA! This year our team goal is $25,000. We will be raising money until February of 2013. Anything will help and be appreciated, and remember all donations are tax deductible!

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

This weeks show is the flip side of last weeks. No matter how great the ending is, it doesn’t matter if you aren’t invested enough to reach that ending. An amazing opening scene can set the stage so well that even if a movie isn’t great, it can trick you into thinking that it is.

So this week we take a look at the best opening scenes that we could think of.

The Best of 2012 Part 1: The Almosts

thefilmthugs — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:41:21 +0000

This year I am going to do my best of a little differently. First off, instead of rushing it out before the new year I decided to wait until I saw everything I thought I would like to put on the list. This took a while.

Second, instead of just doing one, I decided to do a few and break them down in categories.

This is “The Two Movies That either almost, or could have, made my list. One of these films I really liked, but left off because of semantics, the other is one I really wanted to love and include in my best of, but just couldn’t. Here you go.

Honorable Mention

ESPN 30 for 30: Broke

This is an honorable because it is a made for basic cable/direct to video film, so I don’t really class it the same as the others. Call me an elitist or classist, whatever. “Broke,” is another fantastic entry in ESPN’s 30 for 30 series, which began as a series of 30 documentaries about sports stories that occurred during ESPN’s first 30 years on the air. It’s extending beyond that some, which I think is a good thing. I like sports and I like documentaries, so having a well made, film that gives me a new way to look at a story that I might be passingly familiar with is really cool.

“Broke” looks into one of the most puzzling phenomena in sports today. How does someone who ENTERS the labor market with a multi million dollar job go broke? It’s becoming surprisingly common. For every athlete who is smart with his money, who makes good investments and trust the right people to manage their wealth there are quite a few who go broke. This movie takes an even handed look at how that happens.

I like it because there is no big call for sympathy or pity for these men, but rather an even handed look at how it happens and how it can be avoided. People like Bernie Kosar, Andre Rison, Kurt Schilling, and Cliff Floyd tell how they went from millionaire to broke in a very straight forward way. They discuss the pitfalls of extravagance and mismanagement, from owning fleets of cars and mansions, to investing in real estate, steakhouses, and car washes.

This is something I’ve wondered about for years, being baffled by the stupidity and huburis that must go hand in hand with this type of business. But after seeing this and hearing the stories of these athletes presented in a “I really screwed up” kind of way, I realized that, were I in the same situation, I may not fare any better.

Not quite dishonorable, but just disappointing enough to merit a Mention

Les Miserables

I am a rarity in regard to this movie. Before seeing it, I knew nothing about it. I mean NOTHING. I knew the names Jean Valjean, Cosette, Fantine, Javert, and Eponie. I knew the song “I Dreamed a Dream,” “On My Own,” and “Do You Hear the People Sing?” I knew there was something about jail, stealing bread, an orphan, and revolution. If you know the story, you realize I went into this movie as clean a slate as humanly possible.

When it was announced, I didn’t really care. All I saw was another movie musical, and I am not a fan of movie musicals. Stage musicals, those I’m ok with. There is an energy and a spectacle to the live versions that just cannot be captured on film.

Then I heard about the live singing. For the first time ever an entire musical was going to be released that captured all the actors singing LIVE ON SET! This might not seem like much, but it is really quite significant. I mean, this could solve my main problem with this type of film.

So, does it work? Well… kind of. More to the point, it could have worked.

The concept is solid, but it lacks a solid execution. The story of Les Miserables, while interesting, isn’t the strength of the show. The strength is the music and, more precisely, the singing. On this front… the leads just didn’t deliver. Russell Crowe has a decent enough voice, just not for Javert. Hugh Jackman can sing and I was expecting him to knock it out of the park, but instead he sang everything in the high end of his range and ended up washing his vocals out.

The women faired much better though. Anne Hathaway was amazing, and Samantha Barks was brilliant (but she damned well should be, being that she’s played this character on stage for years.

The rest of the company was fine. I though Sasha Baron Coen did a fine job, as did Helena Bonham Carter (although she is just going through the motions with the same character she plays in everything now).

After seeing it something felt off. I went in wanting to see the spectacle and be blown away by it. I went home and watched a bunch of clips from various stage productions as well as the anniversary concerts. Then I realized what the problem was. How is it possible that watching clips on a four inch video player could give me chills and make me choke up, and this massive, expansive production could leave me flat.

The highlights, for me at least (Hathaway not withstanding), were the stage actors reprising their roles on screen. I don’t understand why they didn’t use more of them. I know some of the iconic performers are too old for their roles (otherwise we would have had Lea Solange), but the rest?

The live singing was great, and I think that in time it could lead to a renaissance of movie musicals. But the spectacle and power of the live stage show was completely absent. It wasn’t electric, and it should have been.

I’m not saying this is a bad movie or a failure, just a disappointment, and made more disappointing by the potential that was not achieved.

A show about endings that is surprisingly light on the spoilers.

thefilmthugs — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:13:54 +0000

Let’s be honest. Movies are really all about the last few minutes. The beginning and middle can be amazingly constructed, inspiring, touching and heartfelt, but if the end falls flat… the beginning and middle suddenly don’t have the same weight or impact. It’s like The Matrix Trilogy. Fantastic act one, questionable act two, abysmal act three that reduced act two from questionable to awful.

This week we discuss some of our favorite movie endings. We thought this was going to be a spoiler crazy episode, but it really turns out to be remarkably less so than we initially thought.

So, check it out. We don’t really get into the movies for about half an hour and when we do you can skip the parts you don’t want to hear, but again we don’t really spoil things that much.

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

Finally…

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

The Poor Mans Whatever…

thefilmthugs — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:09:21 +0000

For starters, we are still looking for questions for our “Ask the Film Thugs” show. Ask us about anything at all. Could be about movies, relationships, family, history, recipes, what have you. We will have no idea what your questions are until we read them on the show. Do you want you want to know how quick Jim and Clarkson came come up with some bullshit? Sure you do! So go ahead and ask away at thugquestions@gmail.com

Now, on with the show.

Let’s be honest, we all love a bargain. Yeah, sometimes a knockoff is worth it. It’s a little lesser quality, but you enjoy it just the same. It happens in movies too. This week we discuss the actors, directors, and films that are just a poor man’s imitation of a superior product.

Also…

We are raising money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association on behalf of our little buddy Amadeo Andrade who was diagnosed with Becker Muscular Dystrophy in 2008. Last year, as a team, we raised $23,800 in support of Amadeo for MDA! This year our team goal is $25,000. We will be raising money until February of 2013. Anything will help and be appreciated, and remember all donations are tax deductible!

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

Finally…

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

Jim’s Oscar Predictions 2012

thefilmthugs — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:18:13 +0000

It’s Oscar time again.

Some times, the Academy screws up. Hell, we did a show about it. This year… Well, this year they screwed up so bad that I might not even watch.

Ben Affleck not being nominated for Best Director for “Argo” is a joke. Period. I will expound more on this later, but I am stating up front that this years awards is kind of a sham for me because of this omission.

Best Motion Picture of the Year

Nominees:

Amour (2012)

Argo (2012)

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

Django Unchained (2012)

Les Misérables (2012)

Life of Pi (2012)

Lincoln (2012)

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

So far, based on what I have seen, Argo and Lincoln are the front runners. Les Miserables is good, but it just doesn’t really land the way it should. The music isn’t what it should be. That being said, I also haven’t seen Zero Dark Thirty, so my opinion is incomplete. Were I to vote today, Argo wins, no question.

Pick- Argo

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role

Nominees:

Bradley Cooper for Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln (2012)

Hugh Jackman for Les Misérables (2012)

Joaquin Phoenix for The Master (2012)

Denzel Washington for Flight (2012/I)

Daniel Day-Lewis can do no wrong. But even with my love for him, his performance in Lincoln is simply next level. Jackman was good, even though I don’t think his voice was right for Valjean, but that aside he still wasn’t Day-Lewis.

Pick- Day-Lewis

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role

Nominees:

Jessica Chastain for Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Emmanuelle Riva for Amour (2012)

Quvenzhané Wallis for Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

Naomi Watts for The Impossible (2012)

I haven’t seen anything in this category. But, Chastain has been such a fixture in nominated films that I could see her taking it.

Pick- Not enough information to make a choice.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role

Nominees:

Alan Arkin for Argo (2012)

Robert De Niro for Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Philip Seymour Hoffman for The Master (2012)

Tommy Lee Jones for Lincoln (2012)

Christoph Waltz for Django Unchained (2012)

Every one of these men has won an oscar already. How often does that happen? I’ve only seen three of these, and from what I understand the two I’ve missed have been pretty good. My call is, was, and ever will be Waltz, because he is the most naturalistic actor working today. I utterly believe him every second he is on screen. He is solid, consistent, and outstanding.

Pick- Waltz

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role

Nominees:

Amy Adams for The Master (2012)

Sally Field for Lincoln (2012)

Anne Hathaway for Les Misérables (2012)

Helen Hunt for The Sessions (2012)

Jacki Weaver for Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

More with the Silver Linings Playbook? I guess it’s better than it looked to me. That said, I think Hathaway will take it. She was one of the two overwhelming strong points of Les Miserables, and I think she absolutely deserves it.

Pick- Hathaway

Best Achievement in Directing

Nominees:

Michael Haneke for Amour (2012)

Ang Lee for Life of Pi (2012)

David O. Russell for Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Steven Spielberg for Lincoln (2012)

Benh Zeitlin for Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

Fuck this award. Fuck everything about it. I don’t care who wins, because it will be an asterisk award. Ben Affleck’s direction of Argo was beyond amazing. The others are fine, but Affleck was able to wring unbelievable tension and urgency from a story you already knew the outcome of. That is worth something in my book. Some people will be upset about Tarantino not getting the nomination, but that doesn’t bother me too much. I liked Django, but I don’t think it’s the movie that should win Tarantino an Oscar, that was Pulp Fiction. We will have to wait for him to hit that level again for me to get pissed off about him not getting nominated.

Pick- Ben Affleck… but Spielberg will win

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

Nominees:

Amour (2012): Michael Haneke

Django Unchained (2012): Quentin Tarantino

Flight (2012/I): John Gatins

Moonrise Kingdom (2012): Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola

Zero Dark Thirty (2012): Mark Boal

I think it might be time for Wes Anderson to win one. Also, this would be the fourth Coppola to win an Oscar, so that’s pretty cool. But I haven’t seen it, so I can’t really say. I just have a gut feeling.

Pick- Moonrise Kingdom

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published

Nominees:

Argo (2012): Chris Terrio

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012): Lucy Alibar, Benh Zeitlin

Life of Pi (2012): David Magee

Lincoln (2012): Tony Kushner

Silver Linings Playbook (2012): David O. Russell

This one is always a tough call. But, I think that between Argo and Lincoln, which to me are the clear front runners, Argo will take it. If you want a clinic on how to write a suspense film, just watch Argo.

Pick- Argo

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year

Nominees:

Brave (2012)

Frankenweenie (2012)

ParaNorman (2012)

The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012)

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Even though most people don’t love Brave as much as I do, I still see it as a front runner. However, of the two that I’ve seen, Wreck-It Ralph is the best. It’s fresh, funny, and completely original in execution. It reminded me of the first time I saw Toy Story in the way it created a new world for something I was very familiar with.

Pick- Wreck-It Ralph

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year

Nominees:

Amour (2012): Michael Haneke(Austria)

War Witch (2012): Kim Nguyen(Canada)

No (2012/I): Pablo Larraín(Chile)

A Royal Affair (2012): Nikolaj Arcel(Denmark)

Kon-Tiki (2012): Joachim Rønning, Espen Sandberg(Norway)

Have not seen any, but one of these films is nominated for Best Picture and Best Director. That’s kind of a give away.

Pick- Amour

Best Achievement in Cinematography

Nominees:

Anna Karenina (2012/I): Seamus McGarvey

Django Unchained (2012): Robert Richardson

Life of Pi (2012): Claudio Miranda

Lincoln (2012): Janusz Kaminski

Skyfall (2012): Roger Deakins

I’ve seen three of these, and think they all look great. But the two I haven’t seen are custom made for an award like this. I really think Life of Pi takes this.

Pick- Life of Pi

Best Achievement in Editing

Nominees:

Argo (2012): William Goldenberg

Life of Pi (2012): Tim Squyres

Lincoln (2012): Michael Kahn

Silver Linings Playbook (2012): Jay Cassidy, Crispin Struthers

Zero Dark Thirty (2012): William Goldenberg, Dylan Tichenor

Umm….

Pick- Argo

Best Achievement in Production Design

Nominees:

Anna Karenina (2012/I): Sarah Greenwood, Katie Spencer

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012): Dan Hennah, Ra Vincent, Simon Bright

Les Misérables (2012): Eve Stewart, Anna Lynch-Robinson

Life of Pi (2012): David Gropman, Anna Pinnock

Lincoln (2012): Rick Carter, Jim Erickson

Again, Anna Kerenina, and Life of Pi are the types of films that are designed for this type of award. The Hobbit might win, but it is just a retread of LOTR, so it’s not really a stand out.

Pick- Life of Pi

Best Achievement in Costume Design

Nominees:

Anna Karenina (2012/I): Jacqueline Durran

Les Misérables (2012): Paco Delgado

Lincoln (2012): Joanna Johnston

Mirror Mirror (2012/I): Eiko Ishioka

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012): Colleen Atwood

Speaking of buttholes, I just wish that woman who casually slipped in how many of these she had won already was nominated again. Hell, she might be. I have no idea. But a costume drama, period piece will win this.

Pick- One of the costume drama period pieces.

Best Achievement in Makeup

Nominees:

Hitchcock (2012)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Les Misérables (2012)

Umm…

Pick- the Hobbit?

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score

Nominees:

Anna Karenina (2012/I): Dario Marianelli

Argo (2012): Alexandre Desplat

Life of Pi (2012): Mychael Danna

Lincoln (2012): John Williams

Skyfall (2012): Thomas Newman

Hard to say. No music really stood out to me this year. So…

Pick- John Williams?

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song

Nominees:

Chasing Ice (2012): J. Ralph(”Before My Time”)

Les Misérables (2012): Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Schönberg, Herbert Kretzmer(”Suddenly”)

Life of Pi (2012): Mychael Danna, Bombay Jayshree(”Pi’s Lullaby”)

Skyfall (2012): Adele, Paul Epworth(”Skyfall”)

Ted (2012): Walter Murphy, Seth MacFarlane(”Everybody Needs a Best Friend”)

I really wish the Thunder Buddys Song was up for this. But, Les Miserables is pulling an “Evita,” so figure that for the win.

Pick- Les Miserables

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing

Nominees:

Argo (2012)

Les Misérables (2012)

Life of Pi (2012)

Lincoln (2012)

Skyfall (2012)

Ummm…

Pick- Les Miserables

Best Achievement in Sound Editing

Nominees:

Argo (2012)

Django Unchained (2012)

Life of Pi (2012)

Skyfall (2012)

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Ummm…

Pick- Argo?

Best Achievement in Visual Effects

Nominees:

The Avengers (2012)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Life of Pi (2012)

Prometheus (2012/I)

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

None of these did anything that really blew me away, but Prometheus seemed to have the big scale shit these people love, so… that.

Pick- Prometheus

Best Documentary, Features

Nominees:

5 Broken Cameras (2011)

The Gatekeepers (2012)

How to Survive a Plague (2012)

The Invisible War (2012)

Searching for Sugar Man (2012)

I haven’t seen any of these, so I can’t even hazard a guess.

Best Documentary, Short Subjects

Nominees:

Inocente (2012)

Kings Point (2012)

Mondays at Racine (2012)

Open Heart (2013)

Redemption (2012/V)

Again, can’t even guess.

Best Short Film, Animated

Nominees:

Adam and Dog (2011): Minkyu Lee

Fresh Guacamole (2012): PES

Head Over Heels (2012): Timothy Reckart, Fodhla Cronin O’Reilly

Paperman (2012): John Kahrs

The Simpsons: The Longest Daycare (2012): David Silverman

Can’t even guess, but since the Drafthouse will have a screening I will pick after I see them. But for now…The Simpsons? Yeah, probably that.

Best Short Film, Live Action

Nominees:

Asad (2012): Bryan Buckley, Mino Jarjoura

Buzkashi Boys (2012): Sam French, Ariel Nasr

Curfew (2012/I): Shawn Christensen

Death of a Shadow (2012): Tom Van Avermaet, Ellen De Waele

Henry (2011/III): Yan England

Again, can’t even guess. Will pick when I’ve seen them at the Drafthouse this year.

Them’s Fightin’ Words

thefilmthugs — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:11:44 +0000

Now, on with the show.

Fight scenes are awesome. We aren’t telling you anything you don’t already know here. Granted, they are as unrealistic as hell, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a hell of a blast to watch. This week Jim and Clarkson take a look at some of the best and worst fight scenes ever put to film. In addition they discuss traffic accidents, inane theater discussions, and are interrupted by an insurance company more than once.

Also…

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

Finally…

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

Franchise Killers

thefilmthugs — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 16:57:25 +0000

The film franchise has become as much a part of modern life as fast food franchises, with much the same positive impact on our lives.

Stunning thing about this is that most franchises are pretty terrible. There are some that still deliver the goods, but by and large they are not film making at its best.

So, how can it be that, in an arena with so much garbage, there can be movies bad enough to kill an entire franchise where it stands? Hell, some are bad enough to preemptively kill a franchise before it even has a chance to show just how bad it can get.

This week we look into that.

Also, we have some important business to discuss. Since it’s Christmas and all, we decided to get charitable for once in our lives.

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

Finally…

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

Christmas With The Film Thugs

thefilmthugs — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:45:38 +0000

Ok, before we get into the show, we have some important business to discuss. Since it’s Christmas and all, we decided to get charitable for once in our lives.

This year we are Amadeo’s ARMY. Not team. Not club. Not group. ARMY! So lets show a great kid just how bad ass Thug fans are.

His Page Link is Below:

Amadeo’s Army

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

General/Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff for Amadeo’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Thank you for checking that out.

Again, as it is Christmas time and we have never done a Christmas show, we decided it was high time to record one.

So, here it is, Jim and Clarkson give their takes on the holiday film.

Also, we are still looking for questions for our “Ask the Film Thugs” show. Ask us about anything at all. Could be about movies, relationships, family, history, recipes, what have you. We will have no idea what your questions are until we read them on the show. Do you want you want to know how quick Jim and Clarkson came come up with some bullshit? Sure you do! So go ahead and ask away at thugquestions@gmail.com

and…

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

Punk Rock Cinema

thefilmthugs — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:39:42 +0000

First thing’s first…

We are still looking for questions for our “Ask the Film Thugs” show. Ask us about anything at all. Could be about movies, relationships, family, history, recipes, what have you. We will have no idea what your questions are until we read them on the show. Do you want you want to know how quick Jim and Clarkson came come up with some bullshit? Sure you do! So go ahead and ask away at thugquestions@gmail.com

SO, what is punk? I know it’s a kind of music, but there is more to it than that. There is a movement and an ethos of sorts behind it.

This week we decide to look into that and figure out what it means to be punk and how that ideology plays in movies.

Also,

We are raising money towards the Muscular Dystrophy Association on behalf of our little buddy Amadeo Andrade who was diagnosed with Becker Muscular Dystrophy in 2008. Last year, as a team, we raised $23,800 in support of Amadeo for MDA! This year our team goal is $25,000. We will be raising money until February of 2013. Anything will help and be appreciated, and remember all donations are tax deductable!

My page link is below:

https://secure2.convio.net/mda/site/Donation2?idb=596745268&df_id=1504&FR_ID=4092&PROXY_ID=1101717&PROXY_TYPE=20&1504.donation=form1&JServSessionIdr004=ptycgmn3r2.app213a

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

http://www2.mda.org/site/TR/Walk/77-F4-735-AustinDistrict?team_id=13111&pg=team&fr_id=4092

and…

Check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

Golden Globes 2012: Jim Predicts Awards Nobody Really Cares About… Including Him.

thefilmthugs — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:38:05 +0000

Golden Globes Un-researched Response and Predictions

First off… Buy your Christmas shit here:

Awards shows are kind of stupid. They are little more than a chance for very rich people to pat other very rich people on the back. They are garish, insider affairs that are essentially the same as your offices awards at the end of the year, except a whole lot of people whose lives are not impacted in the slightest by the outcome really, really care who win.

As this is a movie site, and we are in the business of talking movies, I will give my two cents worth. However, it should be noted that adjusted for inflation, my two cents are worth about .75 cents. So take it for what it’s worth.

The red headed stepchild is back, and for some reason people care.

As I am in the custom of giving the people what they want, here are my completely off the cuff predictions of who will win an award that doesn’t really mean that much.

MOVIES

Picture, Drama: “Argo,” “Lincoln,” “Life of Pi,” “Django Unchained,” “Zero Dark Thirty.”

I totally agree with splitting this category. Drama gets so much more respect than comedy and I think it’s important to recognize comedy, so good on them. That being said… I think Argo should win, but most likely it will go to Zero Dark Thirty or Lincoln. I haven’t seen either of them, but I have seen and love Argo and think it’s a stretch that either of these is qualitatively better. But I think they will go for one of these based on director.

Picture, Musical or Comedy: “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel,” “Les Miserables,” “Moonrise Kingdom,” “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen,” “Silver Linings Playbook.”

I don’t get combining musical and comedy. Just include the musical in whatever category it belongs in.

From what I hear, Les Miserables is HILARIOUS, so it only makes sense to put it in a category paired with comedy. Haven’t seen any of these, but it will go to Les Mis.

Actor, Drama: Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln”; Richard Gere, “Arbitrage”; John Hawkes, “The Sessions”; Joaquin Phoenix, “The Master”; Denzel Washington, “Flight.”

I would love nothing more than to see John Hawkes win this. That would truly make my day. However, one does not go up against Daniel Day-Lewis in this type of matchup and win. It just doesn’t happen. I might be wrong, but I think this is double D’s year again.

Actress, Drama: Jessica Chastain, “Zero Dark Thirty”; Marion Cotillard, “Rust and Bone”; Helen Mirren, “Hitchcock”; Naomi Watts, “The Impossible”; Rachel Weisz, “The Deep Blue Sea.”

I have not seen any of these and know nothing at all about it. Any prediction would be a blind guess. That being said… Helen Mirren?

Director: Ben Affleck, “Argo”; Kathryn Bigelow, “Zero Dark Thirty”; Ang Lee, “Life of Pi”; Steven Spielberg, “Lincoln”; Quentin Tarantino, “Django Unchained.”

Ummmm…. Les Miserables redefines the movie musical… but the director gets ignored. Of course. Have only seen Argo and thing that deserves it, hands down.

Actor, Musical or Comedy: Hugh Jackman, “Les Miserables”; Jack Black, “Bernie”; Bradley Cooper, “Silver Linings Playbook”; Bill Murray, “Hyde Park on Hudson”; Ewan McGregor, “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen.”

Again, haven’t seen anything here, but it’s Jackman in a musical. That’s his wheelhouse, so I predict he takes it.

Actress, Musical or Comedy: Emily Blunt, “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen”; Judi Dench, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”; Jennifer Lawrence, “Silver Linings Playbook”; Maggie Smith, “Quartet”; Meryl Streep, “Hope Springs.”

I have not seen any of these and find most of the titles off putting. But I really think it’s time that a really hot lady won one of these things. So I am pulling for Blunt, Lawrence, or Dench.

Supporting Actor: Alan Arkin, “Argo”; Leonard DiCaprio, “Django Unchained”; Philip Seymour Hoffman, “The Master”; Tommy Lee Jones, “Lincoln”; Christoph Waltz, “Django Unchained.”

I could honestly see this going to any of them. But I love Waltz, so I want him to win.

Supporting Actress: Amy Adams, “The Master”; Sally Field, “Lincoln”; Anne Hathaway, “Les Miserables”; Helen Hunt, “The Sessions”; Nicole Kidman, “The Paperboy.”

From what I’ve seen this is Hathaway’s year. The bits of her from Les Miserable that I’ve seen have been amazing. I mean, the woman outright claims the song, “I Dreamed a Dream,’ which is no small feat. So, I am pulling for her.

Foreign Language: “Amour,” “A Royal Affair,” “The Intouchables,” “Kon-Tiki,” “Rust and Bone.”

No idea, but I’d like “Rust and Bone” to win, because it has the word “Bone” in the title and I am apparently 12.

Animated Film: “Brave,” “Frankenweenie,” “Hotel Transylvania,” “Rise of the Guardians,” “Wreck-It Ralph.”

I loved “Brave,” but a lot of people had issue with it, which I understand. It deviates from form and goes in a really different direction that may not be your cup of tea. I would love to see it win, but “Wreck-It Ralph” has gotten so much play that I think it qualifies as a front runner.

-Screenplay: Mark Boal, “Zero Dark Thirty”; Tony Kushner, “Lincoln”; David O. Russell, “Silver Livings Playbook”; Quentin Tarantino, “Django Unchained”; Chris Terrio, “Argo.”

Argo is an amazing script that balances human drama, political intrigue, and re-donkulous amounts of suspense with absolute mastery. I don’t even see a competition here, but who knows. Could go anywhere, but my money is on Argo.

Original Score: Mychael Danna, “Life of Pi”; Alexandre Desplat, “Argo”; Dario Marianelli, “Anna Karenina”; Tom Tykwer, Johnny Klimek and Reinhold Heil, “Cloud Atlas”; John Williams, “Lincoln.”

I don’t know… John Williams?

Original Song: “For You ” (music and lyrics by Keith Urban), “Act of Valor”; “Not Running Anymore” (music and lyrics by Jon Bon Jovi), “Stand Up Guys”; “Safe & Sound” (music and lyrics by Taylor Swift, John Paul White, Joy Williams and T Bone Burnett), “The Hunger Games”; “Skyfall” (music and lyrics by Adel and Paul Epworth), “Skyfall”; “Suddenly” (music by Claude-Michel Schonberg and lyrics by Schonberg and Alain Boublil), “Les Miserables.”

I want Jon Bon Jovi to win, and don’t really care other than that. But I think the new song from Les Miserables will win.

TELEVISION

Series, Drama: “Boardwalk Empire,” “Breaking Bad,” “Downton Abbey,” “Homeland,” “The Newsroom.”

In my mind there are two dramas on TV right now. Breaking Bad, and shows that AREN’T Breaking Bad. I liked Homeland season 1, but season 2 is garbage, so that screws it up for me. If this doesn’t go to Breaking Bad, then this farce of an awards show will be a farce… But Homeland will probably win, because it is a very good show and ever so topical.

Actor, Drama: Steve Buscemi, “Boardwalk Empire”; Bryan Cranston, “Breaking Bad”; Jeff Daniels, “The Newsroom”; Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”; Damian Lewis, “Homeland.”

Again, there are two lead performers in TV dramas. Bryan Cranston, and not Bryan Cranston. Again, I call shenanigans on any award he doesn’t win. But Damian Lewis will win because he is very good, and also… see above.

Actress, Drama: Connie Britton, “Nashville”; Glenn Close, “Damages”; Claire Danes, “Homeland”; Michelle Dockery, “Downton Abbey”; Julianna Margulies, “The Good Wife.”

Claire Danes will probably win this one.

Series, Musical or Comedy: “The Big Bang Theory,” “Episodes,” “Girls,” “Modern Family,” “Smash.”

I don’t get combining musical and comedy. Just include the musical in whatever category it belongs in. However, we are living in Modern Family’s world, everyone else is just visiting. Oh, but Louie should win based on the strength of the three part episode.

Actress, Musical or Comedy: Zooey Deschanel, “New Girl”; Julia Louis-Dreyfus, “Veep”; Lena Dunham, “Girls”; Tina Fey, “30 Rock”; Amy Poehler, “Parks and Recreation.”

I want Poehler to win. She is incredible on Parks and Rec. I don’t know the others very well, but I don’t think they stack up. That, and Zooey Deschanel makes me feel like killin’.

Actor, Musical or Comedy: Alec Baldwin, “30 Rock”; Don Cheadle, “House of Lies”; Louis C.K. “Louie”, Matt LeBlanc, “Episodes”; Jim Parsons, “The Big Bang Theory.”

Louie became something more than a sitcom this year. It was the best comedy out there, hands down. But, Jim Parsons is the reason Big Bang is still around, so he will probably win.

Miniseries or Movie: “Game Change,” “The Girl,” “Hatfields & McCoys,” “The Hour,” “Political Animals.”

This is going to be a tough one. Not really. Game Change wins.

Actress, Miniseries or Movie: Nicole Kidman, “Hemingway & Gellhorn”; Jessica Lange, “American Horror Story: Asylum”; Sienna Miller, “The Girl”; Julianne Moore, “Game Change”; Sigourney Weaver, “Political Animals.”

People in the entertainment industry LOVE Sarah Pailin impressions. They LOVE THAT SHIT! So, Julianne Moore will win this one.

Actor, Miniseries or Movie: Kevin Costner, “Hatfields & McCoys”; Benedict Cumberbatch, “Sherlock (Masterpiece)”; Woody Harrelson, “Game Change”; Toby Jones, “The Girl”; Clive Owen, “Hemingway & Gellhorn.”

Benedict Cumberbatch. There is absolutely no competition in my mind. But who knows.. probably Woody Harrelson for Game Change.

Supporting Actress, Series, Miniseries or Movie: Hayden Panettiere, “Nashville”; Archie Panjabi, “The Good Wife”; Sarah Paulson, “Game Change”; Maggie Smith, “Downton Abbey”; Sofia Vergara, “Modern Family.”

Game Change, Downton Abbey, and Modern Family in the same category… because that makes sense. This is a complete toss up.

Supporting Actor, Series, Miniseries or Movie: Max Greenfield, “New Girl”; Ed Harris, “Game Change”; Danny Huston, “Magic City”; Mandy Patinkin, “Homeland”; Eric Stonestreet, “Modern Family.”

Game Change, Homeland, and Modern Family… seems about right. I want Danny Huston to win, because he is a total bad ass. But this is between Patinkin and Stonestreet. Could go either way.

That’s all I have to say about that.

Muscular Dystrophy Association Fundraiser

thefilmthugs — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:37:10 +0000

My page link is below:

https://secure2.convio.net/mda/site/Donation2?idb=596745268&df_id=1504&FR_ID=4092&PROXY_ID=1101717&PROXY_TYPE=20&1504.donation=form1&JServSessionIdr004=ptycgmn3r2.app213a

Also here is the link to the team page if you would like to read a little about Amadeo:

http://www2.mda.org/site/TR/Walk/77-F4-735-AustinDistrict?team_id=13111&pg=team&fr_id=4092

Thank you in advance, The Film Thugs Movie Show

It’s 2012. Yes, the world will end in a few weeks… or maybe not.

thefilmthugs — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:16:02 +0000

Again, we are still looking for questions for our “Ask the Film Thugs” show. Ask us about anything at all. Could be about movies, relationships, family, history, recipes, what have you. We will have no idea what your questions are until we read them on the show. Do you want you want to know how quick Jim and Clarkson came come up with some bullshit? Sure you do! So go ahead and ask away at thugquestions@gmail.com

Now, on to the show.

Clarkson was out of town this week at Disneyland, so Vijay filled in for him.

According to the Mayans, a civilization that hadn’t figured out the wheel, the world will be ending soon. So we decided to talk about end of the world movies.

Well, we wanted to but ended up spending a lot of time talking about cheap beer and fast food colognes. So, have a listen and see what you think.

Also, check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

Keanu Reeves: How exactly did this happen?

thefilmthugs — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:17:15 +0000

Before we get into it, we are still looking for questions for our “Ask the Film Thugs” show. Ask us about anything at all. We will have no idea what your questions are until we read them on the show. Do you want you want to know how quick Jim and Clarkson came come up with some Bullshit? Sure you do! So go ahead and ask away at thugquestions@gmail.com

Now, on to the show.

Keanu Reeves seems like a decent enough guy. He’s handsome, picks good parts, doesn’t say or do anything particularly… off putting. But for some reason, people love to bag on the guy.

This week we decide to discuss his career and see if we can make sense of it.

We also talk about Willie Nelson, and instruct you on the proper pronunciation of “Hawa’ii.”

Also, check us out on Twitter at @thefilmthugs, on the Facebook, e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com, call us at (512) 666-RANT, or on Skype at the_film_thugs.

Alpha to Omega- Rocky V

thefilmthugs — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:46:45 +0000

Alpha to Omega

Rocky V

Movies are a complex thing. So much happens between the page and the screen that it is often a wonder that any movies get made, let alone good ones.

Look at the basic steps-

Pre-Production- Concept, first draft, rewrite, rewrite, rewrite, securing finance, finding a director, hiring a crew, casting, location scouting, wardrobe, rewrite, rewrite, rewrite.

Production- Film, rewrite, reshoot, rewrite, reshoot

Post Production- Edit, rewrite, reshoot, edit, sound edit, color correct, recast, rewrite, reshoot….

It’s all a hot damned nightmare.

So, can it really be considered a surprise when a movie that has a really solid concept completely falls apart in execution?

This is the case with “Rocky V,” a movie that is savaged to the point of having its existence outright denied by Rocky fans… and with good reason.

Let me be clear right off the bat, this is not a defense of “Rocky V,” far from it. It’s a pretty awful film. Hell, even Stallone lists this as his biggest regret. Not “Rhinestone,” not “Oscar,” “Stop or My Mom Will Shoot,” (of which he says,“People didn’t expect me in comedies or musicals. I made some truly awful movies. Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot was the worst. If you ever want someone to confess to murder, just make him or her sit through that film. They will confess to anything after 15 minutes!”), not “Assassins,” or “The Specialist,” but… “Rocky V.”

But how? The idea, on paper at least, isn’t terrible. In fact, it’s kind of amazing and fits completely with the arc of the films.

Rocky- Act 1- We meet and come to care about the guy.

Rocky 2- Act 2- We see him face setbacks while running from his destiny until he is ultimately forced to face it.

Rocky 3- Act 3- He gets what he wants, loses what he needs, and has to fight his way back.

Rocky 4- Act 4- He goes to Russia and busts the ass of a communist robot.

At this point the series is following typical dramatic structure pretty cleanly. So, what would happen next that would force the story forward.

Well, as it was established in “Rocky 2,” Rock isn’t very bright and has no idea how to manage his money. So, through some completely unimportant plot contrivances, let’s have him lose everything and force him to start all over again with nothing.

If you think about it, this is the only logical way the story could move forward at this stage. By taking Rocky back to who he was at the beginning, making him a stranger to that world, and forcing him to adapt to it again you get to the core of the character. Rocky is, was, and always will be about resilience. No matter what gets thrown at him he keeps moving forward (this will be revisited in the next film).

Think about it,

1- He’s a joke with no chance who has to prove that he is someone.

2- He has to come to terms with who and what he is and come back to himself.

3- He loses touch with who he was and has to earn that fire again.

4- He has to beat up Russia

Again, classic character arc stuff here.

So, after going through all of this and having everything, what do you do?

Simple, you take it all away.

At the beginning of “Rocky V,” Rock has lost the championship by taking part in an unlicensed fight in Russia, he has lost the ability to fight because of the inhuman cranial pounding he took in Russia, he has no money because of… well, that’s a bit convoluted and ultimately unimportant, the point is he’s broke, and because of the fallout from his financial nightmare he can’t even get endorsement deals.

All he has is a house in the old neighborhood, and Mickey’s gym, which was willed to his son when Mickey died.

So, Rocky moves back to the old neighborhood with nothing and the family tries to start over again.

Now, on paper this is a really solid idea. On paper. But when it hit the screen it was… well, a bit of a mess.

Why? Well, Stallone himself put it best.

“I’m greedy - what can I tell you? It was a mistake because the audience didn’t want to see the downside of the character. They wanted him to remain on top. I should have known that. I fell into a sense of self-parody.”

So, what happened.

Well, lots of things.

Basically, everything involving Rocky and his family was pretty solid (performances not withstanding). Adrian does what she does, she keeps the family together and does what needs to be done to keep things moving. Again, Adrian has always been the heart of the movies and in this film she falls naturally into the role.

His son has to adjust to being the son of a famous/disgraced celebrity, thrown from a comfortable world of rich kids and rules onto the streets of Philly where things are a bit rougher.

Rocky turns to training fighters and running the gym. Basically, back to where he started. He meets a scrappy up and comer and takes him under his wing.

There is so much promise here.

Then it gets strange. There is a Don King-esque boxing promoter who is convinced that he MUST get Rocky to fight again. He turns Rocky’s protege against him and the whole thing ends in a street fight.

What didn’t work?

Well, Richard Gant as George Washington Duke, the Don King character, didn’t make much, if any, sense. He is crazy rich to begin with, so his obsession with Rocky fighting again seems odd. What is the gain? It’s not like it’s life changing money for the man, it’s just more money. No knock against Gant. He does a great job with what he was given. He just wasn’t given much.

Here’s the thing about bad movies, the villain is never more complex than an adjective or two.

Why is he bad? Well, he’s “greedy.”

There isn’t any more motivation than that. No personal vendetta, no complex issue from his past, no nothing. He wants more money and is willing to put Rocky’s life on the line to get it.

Rocky’s protege doesn’t really work because they cast a boxer and tried to get him to act rather than an actor they could make look like a boxer.

Apollo Creed worked because Carl Weathers is unbelievably charismatic. Honestly, you can’t take your eyes off him. Yes, he is an athlete, and a damned good one, but he was undeniably an actor as well.

James “Clubber” Lang worked because Mr. T was an actor. Not a great actor, but Lang was a one note character. T just happened to be able to hit that note cleanly.

Ivan Drago was… well, he didn’t need to do anything other than look like an action figure. Say what you will, but Dolph is nothing if not an imposing force of nature.

So, Tommy Gunn… played by Tommy “Machine Gun” Morrison, had a bit to live up to. Sadly, he didn’t really deliver. Nothing against him. He’s a boxer who had never acted before and hasn’t really acted since playing a pivotal role in one of the most beloved film franchises in history. The kid didn’t stand a chance.

Rocky’s son Robert, played by the late Sage Stallone…. Look, this kid has been the whipping boy of this film since it came out. I’m not going to pile on. Was his acting great? No. Was it horrid… not really. He was a 14 year old kid in his first acting role playing opposite his father in a movie written by his father from a wildly popular series of films created by his father. He was in an un-winnable position from the beginning.

He wasn’t great, but he did as good a job as any person in that situation could reasonably be expected to do.

The story itself is what killed this thing.

Basically, Rocky loses everything, trains a new fighter, neglects his family, the fighter betrays him in a move orchestrated by a greedy fight promoter in an attempt to score a major payday with a Rocky Balboa comeback fight, the young fighter believes the hype, challenges Rocky to a fight, the two have a street brawl, Rocky wins and realizes what is important in life.

You think that’s bad, substitute the ending with “Rocky is beaten to death in the final fight and dies in Adrain’s arms” and you get an idea of how bad it could have been. I am by no means saying that “it’s good because it’s not as bad as it could have been,” quite the opposite, in fact. This movie was so fundamentally flawed that I can’t really think of a way you could have saved it.

I mean, the best I can think of is setting it up as more of a remake of the first movie with Rocky in the Mickey role, and that sounds fucking terrible. Basically, at this stage of the game there isn’t any real way for them to advance the story of the character without doing something they have done before. So, they had painted themselves into a corner. They’ve done redemption and revenge, now they need to do betrayal and survival, which is not inherently a bad idea, but it can’t work because, as Stallone himself said, “the audience didn’t want to see the downside of the character.”

This is a character we have invested in. The first time we saw him he was fighting for next to nothing in front of next to nobody and we go with him through all manner of personal turmoil and land on top with him. Asking us to see him lose everything was just asking too much.

To me there is one, and only one, reason to make a sequel. There is a cool or interesting story to tell with those characters. That’s it. It doesn’t have to be some epic story arc or anything. All you need is a good story for those characters. Give an audience that, and things like logic and reason go out the window (Rocky 4 proved that quite convincingly).

Rocky V is a case study in the law of diminishing returns. At some point you just run out of ground to cover. That doesn’t mean that the story or the character is dead, it just means that at a certain point you won’t get what you use to out of them. Most movie series hit this wall a few entries earlier, so to have four solid films out before tanking is pretty impressive.

But if you think about it the movie going public has been so thoroughly conditioned to expect awful sequels that the longer a series goes without producing one, the greater the expectations grow and the harder it becomes to make ones that don’t disappoint. We know that the cliff is out there and that, eventually, the series is going to find it. It seems like every good entry the cliff gets a little bit higher. The higher the cliff, the more spectacular the fall.

So, no, Rocky V is not unwatchable, it’s just bad and in such a beloved and successful series, “bad,” is the same as horrible. Once again, Hollywood proves that just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.

Shop Amazon Home Entertainment - Black Friday Deals on TV, Video

His Holiness… Kurt Russell

thefilmthugs — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:25:15 +0000

There are people who you cannot badmouth in front of Jim or Clarkson without putting yourself at risk.

Very high on that list is a man named Kurt Russell.

He’s just… he’s Kurt FUCKING Russell!

He has been in some of the best movies ever, had a cartoonish batting average as a minor league baseball player, and his name was the last thing Walt Disney ever wrote. What more do you need?

The man started out…

Grew into…

Took some time off to do this…

Where he had a .580 batting average (which is UNREAL).

Before becoming this guy…

This guy…

And this guy…

And since that wasn’t enough, he decided to step back and reinvent trash talking as this guy…

So, join us this week as we discuss the man, the myth, the FUCKING LEGEND that is…

His Holiness… Kurt Russell

Also, call us at 512-666-RANT

or on skype at The_Film_Thugs

or e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com

And we will play your message on the show!!!

Also, e-mail any and all questions about any and all subjects to thugquestions@gmail.com for our upcoming “Ask the Film Thugs” show.

Rate and review us on iTunes, check us out on Stitcher Smart Radio, and…

Buy some Kurt Russell stuff on Amazon!

V/H/S

thefilmthugs — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:23:42 +0000

I love anthology horror movies. I love anthology horror movies for the same reason that I love horror short stories – the stories are short. They tend to be all killer and no filler if you’re lucky. Creepshow, Black Sabbath, Campfire Tales, Cat’s Eye, the more recent Trick ‘r Treat, and the underrated Tales from the Crypt from 1972 all vary in quality and in delivered goods but at least if one of the stories sucks they don’t last long! Netflix, Amazon, On Demand, etc are all stacked to the ceiling with crap horror flicks that go on forever with little or nothing in return for your time. I’m happily surprised to report that V/H/S does not waste your time.

Are you sick to death of found footage genre films? Well too bad because this flick doubles down on the found footage premise. Not only are the individual stories found footage but the entire movie is framed around the “Tape 56” found footage arc that follows a group of particularly dumb and awful young criminals as they land a job to steal a certain tape from a seemingly abandoned house. What does this merry band of jagoffs stumble upon? A whole damn bunch of tapes!

Now, bear in mind that they don’t know which tape they’re looking for or even have a title or general description of the footage on said tape so as to identify it. Damn. I guess they’re going to have to watch a few, huh? What follows are five shorts directed by five different directors each choosing a different style of horror story to showcase.

Amateur Night, directed by David Bruckner, is the creature feature of the five and a damn good one too! Writer and director of 2009’s The House of the Devil Ti West, takes on murder in what I found to be the most disturbing story of the five with Second Honeymoon. The slasher of young folks in the woods a la Friday the 13^th is offered up with an interesting twist by Glenn McQuaid as Tuesday the 17^th. The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger directed by Joe Swanberg is sci-fi story that uses the trappings of a haunting. While this one was not my personal favorite it should still be applauded for trying something different. Finally we have a straight up effects heavy haunted house story in 10/31/98 directed by Radio Silence that I found, for the most part, quite clever and refreshing. “Hey, Chuckles? There are like fifty other tapes in this place. Why watch only five?” Because shit starts to get real for our criminals away from the VCR, son! Also, the possibility for a sequel abounds and is apparently already in pre-preproduction. Hazzah!

V/H/S is not The Shining. V/H/S is not Rosemary’s Baby or The Exorcist or even (insert your favorite horror movie here). This film may never inspire the same reverence in horror snobs that the aforementioned films have but goddamn it really goes for it! I really got the vibe from all of the directors involved that they are sick to death of what is being paraded around by Hollywood as good horror movies. They, like many of us that call horror our pet film genre, want horror movies to get on with it and deliver the goods! With stories that are short, sweet, and to the point, V/H/S is a ballsy take on an almost forgotten style of film making and just a damn good time. V/H/S delivers.

Clarkson Campbell

James Bond Part 4

thefilmthugs — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:21:38 +0000

Wait… What?

What happened to part 2?

What about part 3?

If you know the show then you know that things like chronological order take a backseat sometimes. This is one of those times. Since “Skyfall” came out this week (in America at least), and is currently making all the money in the world, we decided to skip ahead and cover the Craig Bond era, which we do… kind of.

This week we are joined by Campbell’s wife and Jim’s girlfriend to discuss the highs and lows of the Daniel Craig following our viewing of “Skyfall.”

Warning, things get strange.

Halloween 2012

thefilmthugs — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:22:07 +0000

Hey, remember the 80’s. We sure do, and now so can you.

This week we decided to commemorate that most evil of holidays by discussing that most of of films from that most evil of decades… 1980’s horror!!!

That’s right, all the fake blood, fake boobs, and fake… something else to complete this sentence you could ask for.

Also, check out this wonderful blog entry to find out why Jim thinks art is important.

We also need you, that’s right, you to e-mail any questions you might have about anything to thugquestions@gmail.com. The best of these will be answered on a future episode… the catch is, we won’t know what the questions are until they are read during the recording of the episode. Questions can be about ANYTHING AT ALL, so try and get creative.

As always we can be reached by phone at 512-666-RANT, as well as The_Film_Thugs on Skype, and thefilmthugs@gmail.com

Thanks for listening.

AFF 2012 Wrap Up

thefilmthugs — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:22:39 +0000

Last week we gave you the interviews, this week you get the commentary.

What did we see and what do we think about what we saw? Learn the answers to these and many more questions on this weeks Film Thugs Movie Show.

Austin Film Festival 2012- On the Scene With the Film Thugs

thefilmthugs — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:19:39 +0000

Once again the Austin Film Festival is upon us and this year we decided to do something different. Instead of just hearing from us, we figured you might like to hear from some of the people who participated in this years fest. So, we camped out and did some interviews.

Its a different kind of show, but we think you will enjoy it. So, check out our on the scene AFF 2012 show, complete with fabulous guest, and come back next week for the festival wrap up.

The Film Thugs International- Scotland

thefilmthugs — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:20:51 +0000

There was a time when calling a different area code was prohibitively expensive. Like, crazy expensive. Like 10 cents a minute was considered a steal of a deal. Now, now not so much. You can talk to and do a show with someone half a world away with the cheapest laptop on the market. The future is NOW!

So, this brings us to our first ever FILM THUGS INTERNATIONAL episode.

Person- John Gibson from The Film Wu Podcast- www.filmwu.podbean.com

The place- Scotland

The subject- We listed films and actors that we think the average person would associate with Scotland, and John listed the films that he most associates with America/Texas.

A good time was had by all. So, join in the conversation, we promise you will enjoy yourself.

The Initiate Series: Lawrence of Arabia

thefilmthugs — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:44:12 +0000

In 1962 a movie was released which served to make every film before and since look hideous and uninspired. It asked only that you be willing to sacrifice 4 hours of your time. In 1987 a more definitive version was released into theaters where Jim saw it for the first time and instantly fell in love with it. Since that first screening he has seen it, in the theater, 4 additional times.

Clarkson had never seen it. Any of it. At all.

So, when the 50th anniversary, digital restoration hit theaters for a single day… we knew where we had to be.

The film in question…

Lawrence of Arabia.

Not an epic… THE epic.

The next day we sat down with Jason, who you might remember from our “Dark Knight Rises” pub cast and our 100th Episode Spectacular, and recorded our thoughts on their first screening and Jim’s 24 hours of theater time watching the greatest film ever made.

Elementary… it’s not Sherlock, but at least it wasn’t really trying to be

thefilmthugs — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:31:13 +0000

What constitutes a remake? The term gets thrown around a lot, but like the word “trilogy” there is a specific definition.

If you make a movie or a TV show that uses an other, existing movie as the source of the screenplay or central idea, then you have a remake. Some are good, some are awful.

So, movies that fall into this category are things like…

Cape Fear

Dawn of the Dead

Funny Games

The Getaway

Oceans 11

Psycho

… and many more.

But there is a fairly new phenomenon where movies are being made that are based on books that have already had films made about them. Movies like this include…

Let Me In (new version of the book, not a remake of “Let the Right One In.”)

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

The Lord of the Rings

… and pretty much every piece of classic literature.

Some might call it nit picking, but there is a distinction that needs to be recognized because it does make a difference.

This brings me to the new Sherlock Holmes show “Elementary.”

When I heard about it, it was described as an American remake of the amazing BBC show “Sherlock,” and that Lucy Liu would be playing the part of Watson. This sounded like the worst idea I had ever heard. Honestly, it sounded like a joke, a bad joke. I won’t go into it here, but I honestly think that “Sherlock,” stands as the freshest, most original, and most daring look at one of the most classic and recognizable characters in the canon of English literature.

So, I went into the first episode of “Elementary,” with my guard pretty firmly up.

What did I think?

Well, three things:

It was resoundingly OK.
Were it not for “Sherlock” I would have probably loved it.
It is not a remake of “Sherlock,” and in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with that show other than the main character.

So, let us discuss.

First off, it’s a decent show that could be really good. Johnny Lee Miller brings something very different to the role of Holmes. Most of his key characteristics are there, but this time he’s kind of… well, cool. He’s got a young, hip, sexy thing going that kind of works in the world the show occupies. I don’t know how much I like it, but I do give credit to Miller for being a bit bold with it. Also, his Holmes is much less disconnected from the world. He actually cares about how his behavior effects other people.

Watson is interesting. Instead of being a veteran, this now female Watson is a former surgeon who was forced out of medicine after losing a patient during an operation. She is damaged and Sherlock appears to be the one person who can help put herself back together. She is far more into the idea of being a detective than any Watson up to this point (save Ben Kingsley in “Without a Clue,”), and isn’t afraid to call Holmes out for being a prick. She even helps solve the first case.

The relationship and the show are both interesting, and both have potential, but the show feels lacking.

Holmes gets to do some deduction, but there isn’t anything that special about it.

This brings me to my second point. Had this not come out on the heels of one of the best, the most original, and the most entertaining adaptations of Holmes, I think my opinion would be far different.

“Elementary,” is a classic Holmes living in “Sherlock”’s world. Where a few years ago, a more traditional update might have worked, now it just feels flat.

Cumberbatch’s Holmes is a hyper version of the original, and we live in his head. We see the world how he sees the world and in doing so we understand him more. When he says, “What’s it like in your mind? It must be so boring!” we understand, because we have seen inside his and know that he is living in HD while the rest of us are watching a hand cranked 8 mm home movie.

Miller’s Holmes, though interesting, isn’t as available to us, so we don’t have the same ability to connect and understand how he does what he does. What we get feels more like a decent card trick. You know how it’s done, and it’s executed well enough, but there isn’t enough personality in to to really pull you in.

But that, again, is comparison. Sadly, I cannot talk about it in any other terms. I reckon that it would be a really good show if it could stand on its own, as evidenced by the fairly warm reviews it’s received, and I don’t hate it. As it is, it comes off very middle of the road. It could be better, but it could also be a lot worse. Such is its fate.

All this being said, I am now trying to approach it as a completely different animal than “Sherlock,” because, main characters aside, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that show.

“But it’s a modern retelling of Sherlock Holmes and so is ‘Sherlock,’ therefore it has to be a remake.”

Does it? Watch the run of “Sherlock,” and then watch “Elementary,” and ask yourself the following…

How are the characters of Holmes and Watson the same?

How are they different?

How is the style of the show the same?

How is it different?

To answer, in short…

Holmes and Watson are characters of the same name and play a very similar role in each show.

However, “Sherlock,” presents a “functioning sociopath” who is completely oblivious to the emotions of other people. He is uncomfortable interacting with other people and appears to have little use for them beyond their functionality.

In “Elementary,” though… he seems to be far more in tune with other people. He shows kindness towards Watson and has a past that hints at a love that caused a spiral of drug addiction. He is a much more empathetic and human character than in the BBC version.

Watson is far more assertive in “Elementary.” She bosses Holmes around, and he lets her, she asks questions and gets information Holmes can’t, and she notices things that Holmes misses. In this world they… well, they aren’t equals, but they are as close as these two characters can get.

Stylistically, the shows couldn’t be more different.

“Sherlock,” is a hyper stylized redefinition of the character. We see what and how he thinks and follow as the conclusions are drawn. It presents new takes on classic stories and uses the technology of the modern world to make Holmes… well, to make him more Sherlock.

“Elementary,” is a far more standard police procedural. Holmes is still amazing, but he is presented in a far more realistic way without the stylistics or the use of technology to make him the Übermensch he is in the BBC version.

This show is very difficult for me to write about objectively. It’s good, but not great and it exists in a world where there is a great version of a similar idea which makes this show pale a little bit in comparison. If you haven’t seen “Sherlock,” I can see taking great pleasure in the show. It’s a fresh and new look at a classic character that delivers fairly well. If you are familiar with “Sherlock,” then it is impossible to really appreciate this show if you compare the two. However, if you are able to separate this from the BBC and view it as what it is, a completely different animal with completely different characters and style then you may be able to enjoy it. Just remember, it isn’t the same show and it isn’t meant to be. So if you hate it, hate it on its own merits, not just because it isn’t something that it was never trying to be in the first place.

Things that are bad ass, are bad ass! A look at general badassery.

thefilmthugs — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:53:45 +0000

If the best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry, then what of the not so well laid plans? Do they even stand a chance? Well, this week you find out.

Normally, we aim for some level of clarity in our show topics. Granted, we don’t strictly stay on that topic, but there is a fairly concise idea that guides our show prep.

This week we said, “Hell with that!”

Last week, while deciding what to do, the following text conversation occured…

Campbell- “‘Nice Shot!’ Our favorite shots, camerawork, and cinematography in general.”

Dirkes- “Shots is a good idea, but do we have time to prep?”

Campbell- “How about a general badass concept? Like Dean Winchester badass. Creatures, characters, effects, chicks, gadgets, cars, ect…”

Dirkes- “General badassery! I love that!”

And with that as our guide… we prepared.

So this week, with the shakiest of foundations, we discuss the things we find “bad ass” and discover how big a tent that really is.

Animals?

thefilmthugs — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 19:31:45 +0000

Someone, I believe it was Plato, once said, “Never work with children or animals,” I believe the original quote was longer, but it trails off into a very racist diatribe, so I’m just going with the first part.

This week we (sort of) discuss people who didn’t follow this rule. That’s right, we are (sort of) discussing the best and the worst animals in movies. In addition, Jim changes his shirt at least twice, we discuss having a child step in your testicles, and Jim breaks Clarkson’s spirit in an off air clip and makes a bold offer to anyone who can figure the statement out.

Tweet your best guesses to us with #sewertale and we will read them on the air.

Speaking of being read on the air, we are working on a new show idea. Here it is…

Email any and all questions you have about anything, and we do mean ANYTHING to thugquestions@gmail.com. Hunter from the Midnight Movie Cowboys will check that address and compile a list of the best questions. He will then forward them to us and we will answer them SIGHT UNSEEN on the show. We need about 20 or so, so get on the stick. This will be a completely free form show, dictated by questions, and all responses will be genuine. Repeat, we will not hear these questions until we get the e-mail from Hunter the day of the recording, and we won’t read them until the show starts.

So remember, e-mail any query about any subject to thugquestions@gmail.com and help us make an amazing show for you people!

Oh, we also announce the winner of our Summer Movie League, and Jim explains why he hasn’t sent the prize yet.

Movie Myths, Legends, Bizarre Candy Corn, and Shaved Pumpkins

thefilmthugs — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:40:49 +0000

Hollywood is rife with urban myths, legends, curses, and outright falsehoods. This week we decided to take a look at some of the most notable, interesting, and strange ones and marvel at the amount of easily disprovable nonsense people tend to believe.

We also dive headlong into the surprisingly diverse world of candy corn, discuss possible Kardashian career moves, and finally answer the question, “why would one need to shave a pumpkin?”

All this week on an exciting new episode of… The Film Thugs!

Favorite Performances, Pumpkin Beer, and Cucumber Drinks

thefilmthugs — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 16:06:22 +0000

This week we decided to take a look at some of our favorite performances of all time. Not necessarily the best, but the ones we love the most. These people work hard, damn it!!!

We also discuss the merits of cucumber flavored beverages, the different types of pumpkin beers, and much, much more.

The Big Con

thefilmthugs — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 15:58:22 +0000

Is there anything in the world cooler than being a con artist? Well, a movie con artist, at least.

Think about it. You wear cool clothes, go to cool places, take money from people who deserve it, and live a pretty exciting, freewheeling lifestyle of comfort and leisure.

Just writing about it makes me want to start breaking some laws.

This week we take a look at some of the best, and most memorable movie con men and try to figure out what separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

We also discuss exposed fruit meat, a new business venture for Richard Gere, and why our significant others don’t really need to listen to the show.

Resquiat in Pache, Mr. Scott

thefilmthugs — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:12:18 +0000

We really went into this with the best of intentions. We did. Tony Scott is one of those filmmakers who really defined a big chunk of our childhoods. Many of his films are absolute classics of their genres and and hold incredible sentimental value for every film fan who grew up in the 80’s.

But, you must remember that this is The Film Thugs, and though we hold Mr. Scott in the utmost esteem… we are first and foremost a pair of jabbering, braying jackasses who lack anything that could reasonably be identified as an “attention span.”

So, join us as we say farewell to one of the great ones… and discuss pizza, filthy barns, asinine hygiene rituals, public domain celebrity images, awful celebrity look a likes, and a veritable host of other things that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the late great Tony Scott.

Ridiculous Cage

thefilmthugs — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:58:56 +0000

We love Nic Cage. We just love the man. Who else in the world has as bulletproof a career? If a Cage movie sucks you aren’t disappointing, if it’s great you aren’t surprised, if it’s mediocre… well of course it is.

But the man has gone through quite a transition. From quirky independents to hard core Oscarbation, to mindless action, to direct to video nonsense… this man has done it all.

So join us as we look at the many faces of Nicholas Cage.

Also, get your ass over to this link and buy or rent “6 Month Rule,” a movie by actor, writer, director, and friend of the show Blayne Weaver. It’s one of Jim’s top 10 of the year.

Time can be so very unkind.

thefilmthugs — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:36:44 +0000

Some movies just aren’t meant to be watched more than once. It’s awful, but it’s true. For every movie that gets better with multiple viewings that are two that just don’t hold up.

This week we take a look at some of the most notable movies that do not stand the test of time.

The Son of Movies That Are Considered Bad, But That We Enjoy

thefilmthugs — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:41:02 +0000

Some people call them “guilty pleasures,” but if you know us, then you know that we don’t traffic much in guilt. So, instead this week we talk about movies that aren’t really very good, but that we love nonetheless.

Episode 3 Redux- More Movies We Hate

thefilmthugs — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:25:13 +0000

We continue our look back at the early days by revisiting our second show, Movies We Hate.

In reviewing and preparing for this show we realized that we have actually mellowed since our first show. Take a listen and see what movies will get an askance view from us.

Jim Reviews The Dark Knight Rises

thefilmthugs — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:47:36 +0000

I have never made any attempt to hide my absolute adoration of Christopher Nolan. From the first time I saw “Memento,” I knew that I was seeing something special. This wasn’t an ordinary filmmaker. This was a man with a unique vision, a unique narrative technique, and a solid visual aesthetic that no first time filmmaker should have.

He followed his amazing debut up with a string of diverse, original films (yes, I know “Insomnia” is a remake, but he makes it his own) that showed remarkable growth from one to the next. I firmly believe that he is the best filmmaker working today.

That being said, any opinion I give needs to be taken with a grain. Not that I am a fanboy who will not admit to any fault on his behalf, but rather because I am a fan who has studied and strived to understand his particular narrative style. I get him. Not to say that those who don’t like his films don’t “get” them. I can fully admit that some people will dislike the things I love. It’s alright. I am secure enough in my appreciation of his work that a dissenting opinion has little affect on me. I know and love his style of storytelling and that informs my opinion of the stories he tells. It’s no different than being a rabid fan of a band. If you are a U2 fan it is more likely that you will love their new album than someone who doesn’t like them or doesn’t have an opinion on them will.

Entertainment Weekly put it best, and I will paraphrase them here.

When you go to a Nolan movie you need to expect the following…

1) A very elaborate, flashback heavy structure that follows and flaunts convention.

2) A protagonist who is haunted by the loss of an idealized person. It could be parents or a love interest, but whoever was lost was this person’s rudder and they are struggling to find their moorings without them.

3) There will be another love interest, and you aren’t really certain if they can or can’t be trusted.

4) The score will feel very big, even if it isn’t.

5) He will have a mentor… but one he shouldn’t trust.

6) The film will spend a lot of time wrestling with the delicate balance between order and chaos.

7) If Michael Caine is there, he will be there in place of the protagonist’s parents, and he is the only one you can, or should, trust.

8) Nobody will ever worry about money. Not for a second. And we aren’t talking about, let’s go to an expensive restaurant… more like, let’s fly around the world and then retire to our mansion. Even if the character is broke, money ain’t no thing.

9) The hero and the villain will be two sides of the same coin.

10) The climax will fuck with you. It will be cathartic and completely upend the idea of catharsis at the same time.

Basically, all of the elements listed above are things that I love in a story. Nolan has cracked my narrative DNA and makes movies that are specifically coded to me.

So… that being said…

Nolan’s Batman films have become something almost mythic. “Batman Begins,” did well enough in theaters, but nothing special. It found a strong following on video and that lead to a lot of interest in “The Dark Knight.” Then Heath Ledger did two things that made it something more.

First, he gave an amazing performance that redefined one of the most iconic villains of all time.

Second, he died tragically and made what was an amazing performance something… different. His death made this performance a heartbreaking tribute to lost potential. Suddenly it wasn’t just great, it was iconic. What could he have done had he lived?

Out of nowhere this went from a brilliant comic book movie to a movie that you HAD to see.

“The Dark Knight” became one of the highest grossing movies of all time. I do not think that the amount of money a movie makes is important at all. In fact, I find it to be possibly the least important thing about the movie. I am not making money off it, so I don’t care how much it makes. But, when something becomes that big… the expectation for what comes next grows.

It is fair to say that the anticipation for “The Dark Knight Rises,” could not possibly have been higher. This was to be THE END to the most successful comic franchise ever. How could you not be completely jazzed about it.

Going into it, I did something that has become my standard operating procedure for a Nolan film, I completely cut out any and all media connected to it. I didn’t watch a single preview after the first theatrical. I didn’t read a single article, watch a single interview, and I didn’t discuss it with anyone. I went in as fresh and clean as humanly possible.

So, what were my feelings.

For starters I will say this… I haven’t seen this movie before. Hell, that’s true for most of all Nolan’s movie. Most movies follow a conventional enough structure that, even if it’s new, it is something you have seen before. Not this. This is something new and different.

I am reluctant to call it my favorite of the series because, as I said on the pubcast, I am still in the honeymoon period with it. My opinion is too heavily effected by the newness of it. You wait four years and build in your love for the filmmaker, then you make a conscious effort to preserve the purity of the movie going experience… that is going to increase your emotional response. If you don’t like it… that moderate dislike turns into hate. If you like it… that like becomes blind, passionate love.

Let me say this upfront. I flat out loved this movie. I want to grow old and die with this movie. Were I to go with my instinctive reaction I would call this the best of the series. I might still do that, but at the moment I will refrain.

This movie is the absolute flip side of “The Dark Knight.” It is starker, it is more brutal and bleak, and it has much less Batman in it. This was the perfect marriage of the themes and the ideas of the first two films, while being completely different from them.

To begin with the villain, because that is always the most important part of a superhero film, is AMAZING. I can’t say for certain, as I said… honeymoon, but this is as close to being better than Ledger’s Joker as you are going to get.

Bane exists in a strange middle ground where he is at polar opposite to The Joker and Batman at the same time.

The Joker was an agent of chaos, a dog chasing cars who wouldn’t know what to do with one if he caught it. He exists to fuck up your world and all he wants in return is to watch it fall down. The world is an intricate display of dominoes, and he wants nothing more than to watch them all fall over. By injecting that chaos he hopes to make you embrace the worst in yourself. He could not be defeated because all he wanted was for Batman to break his one rule and kill him and prove that he was right all along.

Bane, on the other hand… Bane is an agent of extreme order. He has a precise and definite plan that will proceed in a pre-planned fashion until the very end. Not only does he have a plan, but he is smarter, stronger, and more fierce than you are. Anything you do to stop him… he has a contingency for it and it’s already started when you begin coming at him. He knows what you want to hear and will get you to accept his order on his terms and have you thanking him for the opportunity to serve him.

I was unsure about the inclusion of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, and in fairness she doesn’t really play Catwoman. Yeah, she does, but it’s minus the annoying affectations. She is a world class thief who has learned how to preserve herself at any cost.

What makes the movie work is that no character views themselves as bad. Everyone is the hero of their own story. That is not easy to do, and it challenges the audience. Nolan pulls it off brilliantly.

I don’t know how to discuss this without giving too much away, but I will try.

This movie is about hope and the desire to live. This might sound strange, given the type of movie it is, but at its heart, “The Dark Knight” is an affirmation of the human spirit and the desire to rise above and be something more. It is about our need for each other and what happens when our fundamental trust, and our community bond is broken.

Everything in this movie has weight. The fights are brutal and you feel the force of the punches. The relationships between people are vital and hold what can be held together.

This is not the movie you are expecting. It is more serious, more intense, and more bleak film than you are expecting. But that is not a bad thing.

Batman- From West to Nolan SPOILER HEAVY EPISODE

thefilmthugs — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:40:12 +0000

In case you missed it, there is a new Batman movie out! So, in honor of Chris Nolan’s last Caped Crusader film we decided to take a look at the character’s film history.

From West to Keaton to Kilmer to Clooney to Bale/Nolan we take them all on and let you know what we think.

WARNING: THIS IS A VERY SPOILER HEAVY EPISODE!!!

The Dark Knight Rises Pubcast

thefilmthugs — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 07:52:02 +0000

We saw “The Dark Knight Rises,” and…well, instead of writing about it you can hear us talk about it.

Jim, Clarkson, Vijay, and our friend Jason went to a local pub after the screening for a few beers and some chat.

So, here is our first special edition Pubcast, live from the Dog and Duck Pub in Austin, Texas.

Episode 1 Revisited: The Movies We Love part 2

thefilmthugs — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 23:55:49 +0000

It just dawned on us that we have been doing this for a long time. How long? Well, long enough that revisiting earlier shows doesn’t seem like such a cop out. So, this week we decided to take our very first topic and take another stab at it.

So here it is, two and a half years later Movies We Love Revisited.

Jim Reviews Django

thefilmthugs — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 23:28:52 +0000

The term “Spaghetti Western” normally brings two names to mind. Some people think of Clint Eastwood, and that’s fine. Others think of Sergio Leone. Again, nothing wrong with that. He basically invented the genre and made its three most popular and enduring films.

But for fans of the genre, true fans, a third name usually works its way in there. While Leone made the landmark films, another Sergio was right up there with him.

Sergio Corbucci is responsible for movies like, “The Great Silence,” and “Companeros,” and while to most casual fans those aren’t familiar films, to the lovers of the Spaghetti Western, they are absolutely necessary.

Although not as popular as the Eastwood movies, Corbucci did have his, “Man with No Name.” Even though his had a name, he was just as mysterious and dangerous.

That man, was “Django.”

Released in 1966, “Django,” represented a view of the west that was in line with Leone’s, while having enough differences to make it stand out from the multitude of copycats.

You see, even though people tend to think that Hollywood is the only place where ideas get reused and recycled, copied and cannibalized, or knocked off and bastardized… we really don’t have much on the Italians. Even though many of them never made it to the US there is a mind bogglingly massive amount of westerns that have the word “Dollars” in the title, (My favorite being, “And they Smelled the Strange, Dangerous, Exciting scent of Dollars.”) and even more with the word “Clint.” The market was absolutely saturated, and there was a whole lot more chaff than wheat.

According to Franco Nero, who played Django, he became so identified with the character that almost every movie he was in for years had the name “Django” in the title. No matter where or when it was set, no matter the genre, it was a Django movie. He even pops up in Tarantino’s “Django Unchained.” Watch the trailer, he’s the guy Jamie Foxx says, “The D is silent,” to.

Both Sergios made movies about mysterious loners who came to town looking for something, and that something was none of your business and normally meant a world of hurt for someone who deserved it.

“Django,” is the story of a lone gunman who roams the west dragging a coffin behind him. He is quick on the draw, deadly as hell, and utterly fearless.

These men also have a code of honor. Yes, they are bad men in the conventional sense, men who don’t hesitate to kill you graveyard dead where you stand, but they have a firm sense of what is right, and they will do what is right no matter what.

“Django” begins with a prostitute about to be killed for unknown reasons. He saves her, incurring the wrath of the local heavy.

From here, the story does get a little complicated. Which is another staple of the Spaghetti Western.

In essence, “Django,” is a simple revenge story, in as much as vengeance can be simple. Django had someone taken from him, now he must settle that score.

I liked this movie, but I didn’t love it. It’s got some great violence and outstanding character work, but it felt a little over long. The pacing of the narrative started out really quick, then it slammed to a halt, then it picked up a little until it kind of trailed off. It didn’t have that incredible build that marks many of the other films of the genre.

Where Corbucci differs is that his west is dirty. Not that it was clean in Leone’s world, but it’s… well, different. Basically, Leone had a dusty west, Corbucci had a dirty west that was ugly, sadistic, and cold. Not figuratively cold, literally cold.

This makes the movie a little hard to watch. The soundtrack is dominated by a bitter wind that whips through the town. Every inch of ground that doesn’t have a building on it is caked in thick mud. The environments feel more real, less like rough treated sets. Where Leone allowed some separation from what was going on, Corbucci wants you right in the middle of it.

As strange as it sounds, there is more of a Catholic influence in Corbucci’s work. There is suffering as penance, there is absolute good and evil, and there is no escaping judgement. People are punished, and punished cruelly. This did happen in Leone’s movies, but it was never as visceral as it is in Corbucci’s.

I found myself wanting to like this movie more than actually liking it. It does not hold a candle to “The Great Silence,” which is an absolute masterpiece, but it is serviceable. But, sadly, the slow middle makes it a little difficult to get through. It’s good, but just bear in mind that it isn’t “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,” and that’s OK. Not many movies can be.

It appears that Spielberg fellow makes films that people enjoy.

thefilmthugs — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 16:02:14 +0000

Is there a name that invokes Hollywood royalty as immediately as Spielberg? Yeah, there might be some filmmakers that have made more money or won more awards, but there is something about Steven Spielberg that is just… next level.

And it seems like it’s always been that way. From the very start of his career he seemed destined to be something more than just a filmmaker.

This week we decided to tackle his career and see what we could make of it. So, enjoy our look at one of the most ubiquitous names in Hollywood today.

First shot kills

thefilmthugs — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:13:35 +0000

Sometimes it takes a while for a filmmaker or an actor to hit their stride, but some hit the ground at a dead sprint.

This week we look at some of the more remarkable freshmen projects.

Alpha to Omega: Rocky IV

thefilmthugs — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:19:44 +0000

Alpha to Omega

Rocky IV

Jean-Luc Goddard once said that “The cinema is truth at 24 frames per second.” First, I think this gets at the essence of thoughtful cinema. Any movie that has an emotional or intellectual investment on behalf of the filmmakers will, in some regard, be a representation of how that person sees the world. Things don’t always work out the way you want them to, people don’t win when they should, and things aren’t always connected.

Second, how great is it that I found a way to quote Goddard in an article about “Rocky IV?”

Why would I do such a thing? Well, in not everything that happens to a person is part of the same story. Our lives are more segmented than we think they are. Yes, you are a constant but not everything is thematically tied together.

Such is the case with “Rocky IV.” This movie, wonderful though it is, has very little to do with the rest of the series. As I said in my “Rocky III” piece:

If you look at the first three Rocky films as a thematic trilogy it goes as follows:

Rocky- Heart and hunger vs Pride

Rocky II- Pride and destiny vs Hubris

Rocky III- Hubris and Fame vs heart and pride

Rocky IV falls more into Heart and Pride vs… Russia.

It really does stand apart. Yes, there are common themes and there are events that are wildly important in the Rocky universe, but it’s very much an episodic, standalone movie.

Plot rundown, just to refresh…

It’s the middle of the cold war and the Soviet Union decides that it is time for them to show their superiority by entering the world of professional boxing. And they don’t just throw any old ham and egger out there, instead they bring a 6′5″ 261 pound (which I guess is impressive to everyone in the world but me, who stands 6′8″, 290 pounds, but it’s fun pretending that someone smaller than you are is a giant, so I went with it) paragon of Soviet superiority named Ivan Drago. First off, well played with the name. I love movies that give bad guys names like this. Somehow it comes off more mustache twirling than Boris Badinoff. I know there are people out there with names like this (hell, there is a retired Army sergeant named Max Fightmaster… so if Sgt. Max Fightmaster is a real person, I suppose Ivan Drago isn’t so much of a longshot) but it comes off so much faker. Normally it’s the hero with a handle like “Jack Slade,” or “John Matrix,” or “Bob Swagger,” but they might as well just name them Rad Heroman. I think they went with Ivan Drago because “Boris Badinoff” was already taken, but…

So, the Russkies think they can just waltz into our country and be all, “We are superior. Our training is better, our people are stronger, and we will crush you puny American’s like… how you say, grape?” Well, not on Apollo Creed’s watch, because there is nothing that strikes fear into a pristine Russian fighting machine like a retired boxer in his 40’s.

Creed arranges a massive event in Las Vegas where he will take this cocky Bolshevik down a peg or two. The fight begins with a massive, over the top entry performance featuring James Brown singing, “Living In America,” and Creed dressed as Uncle Sam that would make Creed look like kind of a douche today, but in the 80’s it made him look like a proud American, and ends with Creed beaten to death.

Drago seems rather cold, only stating, “If he dies… he dies,” before lighting a bus full of orphans, puppies, and orphan puppies on fire and laughing as he lights a Cuban cigar in with the flames (part of that last sentence might not have happened).

Rocky isn’t having this and decides to go to Russia and get a bit of the old American style revenge. Several montages later (And I do mean several. This movie is to montages what “The Wild Bunch” was to dying in slow motion) Balboa is facing off against this remorseless punching machine in Russia on Christmas day. Long story short, after being brutally tenderized for the entire fight Rocky wins, not only the fight, but the hearts of the Russian people. He gives a speech and we fade out on him draped in the stars and stripes and any man with a heart in his chest wiping a tear from his eye.

While this movie does have many of the hallmarks of the Rocky series, and does advance the characters some it is very clearly a departure both thematically and narratively. Where the first three had a defined arc both as individual and series films, this one really does stand alone.

First off, Rocky doesn’t really need to go to Russia. In 2 and 3 he needed to beat the guy in order to gain, or regain his self respect. Here, he is doing it out of guilt for allowing the Creed fight to go on, and to avenge his friend. Revenge, though cool, is not really the same as heart.

Second, there isn’t anything new introduced, rather the themes from the first three are expounded on. Rocky trains old school, in the middle of nowhere. While Drago is in a state of the art lab… quick aside. Knowing what we now know about the Soviet Union, how ludicrous are those training facilities? Don’t get me wrong, Russia did some hardcore training, but they throw cannon balls around and beat tires with sledge hammers or work in rock quarries using only their fists… they didn’t have state of the art computer analytics and temperature controlled indoor tracks and treadmills.

Drago’s training would have been more like Rocky’s. Living in a barn, doing intense chores, and running up mountains… gets all manner of scientific help (they don’t outright say he uses steroids, but they do show him getting injected and I can only assume there was a part of that scene that was cut where they show a comically large vial marked STEROIDS that they draw the shot from).

Also, the Adrian storyline, though nice and important, wasn’t really new. She refuses to support him in the fight at first, like in Rocky 2, but eventually comes around. This is almost a more predictable story than Rocky winning. Adrian has always been the most important part of these movies. She’s been Rocky’s heart, and Rocky is all about heart. Had she not surprised him in Russia, there isn’t much chance he would have own. Without Adrian he is lost… but this isn’t new. It’s covering old ground, and even though it does it well, it’s still old ground.

There are many things about this movie that are absolutely amazing. The biggest being Dolph Lundgren. First off, he looks like a fucking action figure in this thing. Not like a regular, but like one designed by someone who was trying to get fired. He is unrealistically big. But that just goes to my theory that Dolph exists on this planet to show every other man how he is deficient He is a former Amphibious Ranger with the Marines, karate champion, masters degree in chemical engineering, MIT Fulbright scholar who speaks 7 languages and looks like this…

So, no you are not as good as him.

But this is a problem. Just look at the matchup in this movie…

I love you Rock… but you end this fight as a skin bag full of broken bones that requires a closed casket funeral.

But of course Rocky guts it out. I’m not complaining, that was the point of the movie. It’s nationalistic, escapist fun, not a documentary shot in real time.

What makes this movie stand out though is the montages. There are no fewer than 8 montages that cover about a half an hour of screen time.

They are…

Exploding gloves/Rocky 3 recap- 2 minutes

Creed and James Brown (though not a Hollywood montage, it is basically a music video that follows a more classic montage template than anything else, so it counts)- 2 min 50 sec

Rocky drives to the airport (this features “No Easy Way Out,” a song that objectively rules)- this recaps the first three movies- 4 minutes 25 seconds

Three minutes later…

Rocky arrives in Russia montage (Survivor’s “Burning Heart,” a bit too on the nose, and a weak follow up to “Eye of the Tiger.”) - 2 min 41 sec.

Four minutes of Duke telling Rock that he needs to train later…

Training Montage 1- 3 min 40 sec

45 SECONDS LATER…

Training Montage 2- 4 min 15 sec

Final Battle- 4 min 35 sec

Victory Montage- 4 min 45 sec

That is 29 minutes and 10 seconds of montages in a movie that is 91 minutes and 20 seconds long. Do the math… carry the one… and that adds up to…

31.9% OF THE FILM

I am not criticizing. The first time I saw this movie was on an Air Force base in Panama when it was new. Anyone who even thought of looking at this movie with anything short of screaming praise would have been beaten to death in the theatre… and justifiably so.

The final fight is fascinating. First off, it appears that Russia doesn’t cotton to the “get knocked down three times in a single round and you lose on a TKO” thing, because Rocky spends more time on the mat than in his corner (in Russia Technical knocks out you!). Honestly, Drago hits him so hard that, if you slow it down, you can actually see the taste leaving his mouth.

Rocky takes so many unobstructed face punches from this Baltic death machine I am surprised he didn’t just start punching himself in the face in an effort to stop himself from running into that nightmare one more time.

Here’s the thing about Rocky 4… unlike the rest of the movies in this series you cannot bring your hip, new century judgmental bullshit into it. If you approach this movie from a “that would never happen” or “Isn’t the patriotism a little over the top,” then you have failed to understand this film on such a fundamental level that any further discussion will just end in me wanting to slap your stupid monkey face so hard that you couldn’t do anything other than just stand there, grooving on it.

This is a fun, time capsule of a movie. Yes, there was a time when the US had a clear enemy for unclear reasons. It was amazing because it made movies like this easy. There weren’t protests about how we made the Russians look bad, or that it was blatant propaganda. Both of these things are true, but nobody really gave a shit. Just have some escapist fun and realize that there is nothing wrong with it.

The Film Thugs Film School

thefilmthugs — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:15:05 +0000

About a week ago a fan asked the following question on Facebook, “If the Thugs were to teach a film school, what would be on the list of required study?”

We decided that this was a show waiting to happen, so we made it so.

Luckily, Jim use to teach film history, so all he had to do was pull out his old syllabus and class was in session.

So, sit back and enjoy our walk through film history and the movies you need to see to get a grip on the basics of the history of the motion picture.

Also, we introduce a new segment this week, “At the Movies With My Sisters Kids.”

Enjoy!

Jim Reviews Brave

thefilmthugs — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 16:12:52 +0000

Brave

I am convinced that Scotland exists to show the rest of the world how ugly it is. Have you ever been? It’s Goddamn amazing. There are more shades of green in one acre of that country than in every box of crayons ever imagined. I never thought it was possible to make that country look more beautiful…

Then I saw “Brave.”

Well done Pixar.

Before I say anything about the movie let me stress this: it is unrealistically gorgeous. Combining the amazing Celtic soundtrack with the amazing visuals based on the most beautiful country I have ever laid eyes on makes Pandora look like a pile of puke.

With “Brave” Pixar goes in a new and interesting direction, and in the process continues their streak of movies that range from good to great. This is a great film.

Right off the bat I will tell you that it is different from most Pixar films. The structure that dictates all of their other films is tweaked a bit.

What I mean by this is that every Pixar film up to this point has followed the same basic structure. It’s so ingrained in their narrative style that you can almost tell to the minute how far you are into one of their films by what is happening on screen. This isn’t a bad thing, quite the contrary. Solid narrative structure is very difficult to master, and the people at Pixar have done that.

“Brave,” however, follows a more… fairy tale structure. Which is slightly different, but just as effective.

The movie is about Merida, the free spirited daughter of a Scottish King who is determined to defy tradition and live her life the way she wants to.

This is a landmark for Pixar in many ways. First it is the first film that features a female protagonist. About damned time. And by “female protagonist” I don’t mean a male character they gave a female name, but an actual, realized, believable female character. She is also the first Pixar character to be included as one of the “Disney Princesses,” which is great, because she is a bad ass and it does my heart well to see Disney embracing such a strong female character. It’s also Pixar’s first period piece, and here is hoping that it won’t be their last.

Another thing this movie actually got right was it cast actual Scottish people as Scottish people. Billy Connolly is in it, because there is a binding UN resolution that requires him to be in any movie about Scotland, or there bloody well should be, Craig Ferguson, Kevin McKidd (Trainspotting), and Robbie Coltraine (no, he is not English, he is Scottish).

But the best casting had to be Kelly MacDonald. You may know her from “Trainspotting,” or “Boardwalk Empire,” but she is an actual, for real Scottish lady. She is absolutely brilliant as Merida. Originally the part was to be played by Reese Witherspoon, so at the minimum MacDonald saved us from an hour and a half of Witherspoon approximating a Scottish accent. Not that she isn’t a fine actress, but who wants that?

MacDonald gives Merida a vitality and a playfulness that offsets the more serious scenes brilliantly. Hopefully we will be seeing more of her.

What is nice about this movie is that it is a mother/daughter story, which is so very rare these days. We are sick with mother/son, father/son, father/daughter movies that it almost feels like Hollywood forgets about this relationship. It’s a very touching and heartfelt narrative that I think all mothers should see with their daughters.

Be warned, this is a little different than the Pixar you are use to, but that’s not a bad thing. This is one of those amazing times when a company goes for something new, fresh, and original and succeeds brilliantly.

A picture of your completely unbiased reviewer.

Jim Reviews Rock of Ages

thefilmthugs — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:07:24 +0000

Rock of Ages

I was born in 1975 which means that I was born into a musical world at a crossroads. We were still in the midst of classic rock, but the influences of glam, punk, metal, and even rap were starting to be felt closer and closer to the mainstream. It was truly an amazing time. You had bands like Led Zeppelin and Cream along side Iron Maiden, Judas Priest while The Ramones and The Sex Pistols were taking things in a totally new direction, and New York was producing acts like The Sugar Hill Gang, and Grand Master Flash.

In short, it was an amazing time to grow up and gave me some pretty solid foundations for what I consider good music.

One of the biggest things I look for is a singer with a distinct sound and style. I have never gone for the polished, sterile voice. My favorite musicians are people like Tom Waits, and Nick Cave, and bands like The Pogues, Flogging Molly, or for rap… I really only go as deep as Public Enemy and The Beastie Boys.

What do all of these have in common? Each one has a vocalist with a very unique tone. This is what I hate about shows like “Glee,” and “American Idol.” Yes, they give us technical singer that can sing really well, what they don’t give us is… well, any grit. It’s all very homogenized, very white bread, very boring music. And sadly, that is becoming the norm today.

So, “Rock of Ages,” really got my attention. A rock musical set in the days of my musical awakening (I was 12 at the time the movie was set, around the time I bought my first album… Def Leppard’s “Pyromania”) that featured a bunch of kick ass songs from that period. How could I not be at least interested?

Thing is… I forgot something I call my “Across the Universe” rule.

For those who have not listened to my show long enough to know what I’m talking about I will explain. The “Across the Universe Rule” is as follows…

Movie musicals are awful, and are made more so by the inclusion of pre-existing songs, and made unbearable by the presence of hippies.

Thankfully, “Rock of Ages” is completely free of hippies. So, it has that going for it.

The problem I have with movie musicals is that musicals are all about the spectacle. There is nothing like being in the theatre as these massive, choreographed numbers unfold live in front of you. The energy is amazing and the performances come so fully to life that it’s impossible not to be sucked in.

Then you make a movie and the spontaneous energy that fuels those numbers is gone. There is no live audience fueling the performers, so you get technically proficient and utterly flat performances. It’s not the same.

Add pre-existing songs and that is compounded. Instead of songs that fit the story you have stories that fit the songs. You find yourself predicting what song is coming next, and wondering how it’s going to come off as part of this story.

“Rock of Ages” was nothing but songs that I know, and know well. They are the songs that I grew up loving. So… what’s the problem. Well, there is a world of difference between a good signer and a good ROCK singer.

A good singer, in particular a good musical theatre singer, needs to have a good voice. They need to have clear diction and amazing pitch. They have to be able to clearly vocalize in a way that conveys story as well as emotion.

A good rock singer has to rock. That’s it. A good voice is required, but so is presence, personality, and a completely unique style.

Sadly, this movie was populated by good musical theatre singers… and Tom Cruise.

The story is thin and predictable, which in a theatre production is allowable because people are going for the spectacle of the show and the energy of the performers. So much of that is lost here that all you have left is the songs. And as the vocalists are very polished (for the most part) you don’t really get that.

So, what did I think about the film itself. Well, it had some good and some bad. Let me walk you through it.

The music- Good, but not what I wanted. These are not rock songs. Well, they are, but not the way they are presented here. Here there is impeccable pitch and pronunciation. It’s so clear that I understood lyrics that I have never been able to decipher before. That’s because they have a function beyond emotion.

There was a point where they actually played the original master version of “Talk Dirty to Me,” by Poison and I found Brett Michaels’s vocals to be so refreshing. There was that charisma and style that made the metal bands from back then so amazing. They showed it, then took it away. This upset me.

Also, a lot of it felt a bit forced for my tastes. When you have someone actually say, “We built this city on rock and roll,” before the cast breaks out in “We Built This City (On Rock and Roll),” just feels corny.

I realize that this is a taste thing, and there are some people who really dig this sort of thing, just know that if you aren’t one of those people… it will be a bit of a letdown.

The performances- By and large these were good. I did have problems with the leads. Neither one of them is a rock singer. Yes, they both sing well, but there is nothing rock about what they do, not in the slightest. The vocals are good, but dull. Julianne Hough,the female lead (who plays a character named “Sherrie,” in a rock musical that features Journey, but not “Oh, Sherrie,” nothing makes sense to me anymore), has a pretty voice, but “Harden my Heart,” and “Shadows of the Night,” aren’t meant to sound pretty, they are meant to sound raw and powerful. They didn’t. Diego Boneta, the male lead, just felt out of place.

The rest of the cast was good. Baldwin was outstanding as the burned out old rocker who just will not give up on rock. I kept waiting for him to talk about his days as a roadie, which is good here. That’s exactly what it needs to be. Paul Giamatti was dead on as the scumbag manager.

Russell Brand is a tough one for me. I’m of two minds on Mr. Brand. Sometimes I want to cave his head in with a rock, but other times I find him to be pretty funny and charming. I wish I could settle on one, good or bad. This would make my life much easier.

The Baldwin and Brand characters were interesting, but they didn’t play on screen as well as I would be they would on stage.

There are three performances that absolutely steal the show, and they are…

Malin Åkerman as Rolling Stone writer Constance Sack

Tom Cruise as Stacee Jaxx

A baboon (sorry, I forgot his Christian name) as Hey Man.

The Cruise scenes are great, and his scenes with Akerman are the best in the film.

Cruise is unreal. He embodies everything amazing about the decadent singers of the 80’s. He is an absolute caricature and you can tell he loved every minute of this part. I didn’t know what to think of him in this part, but he really went above and beyond any expectations I could have had.

The baboon killed it. This might be the best primate performance I’ve ever seen.

The rest is pretty much what you’ve heard. It’s very cheesy and cliché ridden. The plot exists as a way to put a bunch of songs that you already knew were awesome in a less awesome format. I just don’t get the point. Why go see a thin story with music you can hear in a much better format elsewhere? Yeah, Cruise and the Baboon were great, but is that enough?

I have a feeling that on stage, with the heightened energy and the audience reaction and the absolute precision that a lot of this needs, this is probably an amazing show. But, like most movie musicals, everything that made it special has been removed and toned down to make it just another so so piece of entertainment.

The Initiate series: Wopsgiving/Godfather Feast

thefilmthugs — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:47:29 +0000

We had a plan, and that plan was called “wopsgiving.” It was simple. Eat a ton of Italian food and watch 3 amazing gangster movies. In this case, Godfather 1, Godfather 2, and Goodfellas. It was going to be EPIC. The fact that Vijay had never seen any of them was the icing on the cake.

Well, long story short, our eyes were a bit bigger than our stomachs and we only made it through the first two. But, still, discussing Godfather 1&2 with an initiate is still an interest concept.

So, here it is. An actual, honest reaction to someone’s first viewing of two of the finest American films ever made.

Jim Reviews John Carter

thefilmthugs — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:07:21 +0000

John Carter

At some point people began caring about how much money a movie made or lost. Once upon a time it was OK for a movie to be good or bad. Then it became a race for the biggest movie of the year. Then the biggest opening weekend. Then the biggest movie in the US. Then the biggest movie in the world. I don’t know when it happened, but it did.

Does it really matter? I know it can be fun, and as someone who hosts a http://www.summermovieleague.com/ league (go to the link and find The Film Thugs Movie Show contest and join in the fun) I realize that, but I also admit that it has no connection to the quality of the film. In fact, it kind of frustrates me.

What is more important, that “The Avengers” made all the money in the world… or that it’s actually a really good movie? I maintain that had it made $10 it would have been a success because what was on screen was so good. But for some reason the money dominates.

My attitude, unless you are getting paid a dividend or are trying to win something, like the summer movie league, then there is no reason to care about or to discuss the amount of money they make.

But when you are talking about a massive hit or a massive flop, it’s kind of hard not to.

For a while, “John Carter” held the distinction of being the biggest box office flop in history. And for a while it was. But remember, you are talking about studios here, so there is flop and then there is “financial quarter flop.” Yes, “John Carter” was a flop, costing the studio about $200,000,000… for a quarter. After the quarter ended it kept making money. Thanks to Europe the movie now sits at a $32,000,000 profit. Not a massive return, but it’s in the black, so there.

But this was a movie that generated a mind blowing loss. Hell, you could have produced “The Hurt Locker” 13 times over with the money this movie LOST and you still would have had $6,000,000 left over. Since we are living in an age where people Tweet about how much money a move made in a weekend and act like its some sort of personal victory it is impossible for such a massive loss to not become part of the movies narrative.

Somewhere in all of this, the movie itself is forgotten.

I was skeptical about “John Carter” for much the same reason many other people were. The ad campaign made it look awful. Now, I know you shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover but when you are talking about such an inescapable carpet bombing campaign it is hard not to have your judgment clouded.

Let me be clear up front. The ad campaign for this movie SUCKED. It was objectively awful. If you had no idea what the source material was it looked like a guy in a furry cock sock jumping really high around a bunch of alien looking creatures in the desert. I knew a little more about the source material than most people and even I couldn’t make sense of it.

The movie is based on Edgar Rice Burroughs’s “Barsoom” books which began with as a serialized publication, “Under the Moons of Mars,” and was later compiled into a series of novels beginning with “A Princess of Mars.”

I contend that a lot of the problems with the film’s performance could have been fixed by changing the title to either, “John Carter of Mars,” or “John Carter and The Princess of Mars.” Then the jumping, the aliens, and the barren landscape would have made sense, but as it was… it didn’t.

It’s not like this was a rushed production. The first attempt to make this began in 1931 and test footage was shown to exhibitors in 1936. Disney has been working on this version on and off since the early 80’s. So why go through that massive effort just to cock it up at the end. Sadly, we shall never know.

So, all that being said, what is my take on this film?

First off, it’s much better than I thought it would be. But that’s not saying much as my expectations were as low as possible.

All in all I thought it was decent. Not great, not terrible, just decent. The action was solid, the performances were very good, and the story was solid if a bit busy.

The entire film is framed as a journal written by John Carter and read his nephew Edgar Rice Burroughs after Carter’s rather mysterious death. Basically, Carter was prospecting for gold when he accidentally kills an alien man who appears out of thin air. As the man dies he hands Carter a medallion and says the word “Barsoom.” Carter repeats it and is transported immediately to Mars.

Granted, it takes him a while to figure out where he is, but in the meantime he is taken in by a nomadic tribe due to the heightened physical abilities he now has as a result of Mars’s low gravity.

There is a lot going on plot wise. You have war, a love story, political intrigue, technologically advanced aliens aiding the different factions. It’s a lot to take in.

So far as big, dumb, fun summer movies go this holds its own. It has a compelling protagonist with a definite set of problems to overcome, a beautiful female lead who is as strong as she is sexy, and a bad guy who twirls the mustache just enough.

Yeah, the dialogue is a bit corny and the characters are a bit broadly drawn at times, but it’s a damned pulp serial, what the hell do you expect. If you are buying in enough to watch it, then you need to understand the nature of what you are seeing and accept it for what it is.

Taylor Kitsch is fantastic in it. If you are a fan of “Friday Night Lights,” then you know this. If you aren’t… why the hell not? It’s great and you should watch it. The kid has skills. Hell, he’s Canadian and he got my Texas ass to buy him as a Texan, and that’s no small task (Derek Phillips, who played his brother, is from Florida and was just as convincing, but he went to Baylor so he has some background. Oh, and yeah, I’m name dropping because we were in our freshman acting classes together.).

I’m the tall one. Derek has the sword. I don’t remember who the guy in the hat is.

One of the only problems I have with the film is Mark Strong. Not that he wasn’t great, which he was. He is a fantastic actor, but he has kind of been typecast. I really want to see him do more, but hey, if they gonna pay a man to growl and be menacing, then that man should be paid for growling and being menacing.

There is a lot to like in this movie, and not a lot to really hate.

I know that there has been a lot of flack flying about how people ruined this movie by word of mouth without having seen it, but I don’t think that was the case. Disney shot itself square in the foot on this one. This should, and could, have been huge. It’s a family friendly sci-fi epic that does exactly what it sets out to do. But, no matter how good what you’ve made is, people don’t know that until they see it, and if you are giving them little, or to be honest no reason, to go… then they won’t.

Summer Movie League

thefilmthugs — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:39:33 +0000

I’ve started a Summer Movie League for Film Thugs Fans. It’s like fantasy football. Go to www.summermovieleague.com Find The Film Thugs Movie Show league. Choose 10 movies that are coming out this summer. Whoever picks the 10 with the highest combined gross will win… something.

The Junior Varsity Action Team

thefilmthugs — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:24:44 +0000

We all love action movies. All of us, without exception. Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Norris, ect… stand atop the mountain of action and are know throughout the land as the kings of the genre.

But what about everyone else?

What about Don “The Dragon” Wilson? What about Michael Dudikoff? What about Jeff Speakman?

Who?

Exactly.

This week we take a look at the lesser known, the also rans, the guys who made the movies that not very many people have seen.

They are the Junior Varsity of the action world, and we love them for it.

Jim Reviews We Need To Talk About Kevin

thefilmthugs — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:07:29 +0000

We Need To Talk About Kevin

I don’t have the slightest idea of how to review this movie. It’s not like I could say I “enjoyed” it, because enjoyment has nothing to do with this film. I did find it moving and fascinating, but I can see where people wouldn’t and I could not blame them.

On the surface this seems to be an impossible film to make. It’s based on a book that is told through a series of letters from a woman to her husband about their son in the wake of an undisclosed tragedy. Yes, this device has been used and adapted before (The Color Purple), but in this case there is such a crippling emotional weight attached to it that it’s a difficult narrative to get across.

Without spoiling anything it’s the story of Eva Khatchadourian, a celebrated travel writer who has her adventurous life interrupted by the arrival of her son Kevin. All through Kevin’s life there is an odd disconnect between mother and child. From the beginning it seems as if the boy just doesn’t like his mother. As a baby he screeches whenever she holds him. As a toddler he refuses to listen, play with, or otherwise engage her. As he grows older his attitude towards her grows in hostility. From vandalizing her home office to using abusive language, this boy doesn’t seem to have any love at all for his mother.

Not that he is alone. Eva doesn’t really seem to like Kevin that much either. She seems to blame him for her losing the life she loved so much. Instead of traveling the world she gets to hear the screams of a baby that seems to repel at her touch. Instead of living in New York city she is trapped in a sterile suburban community with nobody to talk to but a son who actively dislikes her. There are instances of abuse, both physical and verbal, from the mother to her son. It all leads to an unimaginable tragedy that leaves Eva a completely broken woman, as it would appear to have been Kevin’s plan all along.

Everything about this movie is a downer. Not that that’s a bad thing, but as a viewer you need to know going in that this is not a movie where good things happen.

That being said, everything about the film itself is brilliant.

Not only is the subject matter challenging, but the manner the film is made is challenging as well. It is a very non-linear story, jumping from present day Eva, living alone and struggling with life in a world that doesn’t seem to want her, to Kevin’s childhood. All throughout you get hints at the tragedy and hints at the problems with Kevin, but it’s never explicit. It’s evident that he is a sociopath (in this case a true sociopath, which is a disregard for the feelings of others and a lack of empathy and remorse), but it’s never stated. Eva obviously has some post partum depression that is never dealt with, but again it gets swept under the rug. In this way it is one of the most challenging movies I’ve ever seen. It’s difficult subject matter, directed in a nonlinear fashion, with characters who don’t spell out what they are feeling. Director Lynne Ramsay absolutely crushes it with this movie. But, as good a film as it is, it is also one that I can see people not liking, and I cannot fault anyone for that.

Tilda Swinton, who I have always enjoyed but have never been in the “she is so amazing” camp with, gives an incredible performance. She makes Eva a very real person. You understand her frustration and her pain and her isolation, but at the same time you see her flaws.

John C. Reilly does another solid dramatic turn as well. He is the only member of the family that Kevin appears to care for or connect with and he really conveys a man who is torn between his wife and his child. He never sees the coldness that Eva sees, all he knows is that his wife seems to dislike their child and he doesn’t know what to do about it.

This may not be the movie for you, but if you like directors that take chances both in storytelling and with character development than “We Need To Talk About Kevin,” will most definitely do it for you.

One Scene Wonders

thefilmthugs — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:36:27 +0000

Quality, not quantity. That’s the order of the day. In a rare 3 man show Jim, Clarkson, and Vijay discuss some of the most memorable single scene characters in movies.

Jim Reviews Young Adult

thefilmthugs — Tue, 29 May 2012 20:11:36 +0000

Young Adult

I have never made even the slightest attempt to hide my complete and utter disdain for the movie “Juno.” From my very first viewing I found it insufferable. I hated the characters, found the dialogue unbearable in it’s hipster cuteness, and in general found it to be one of the least pleasant movie going experiences I’ve ever had.

Apparently, I am in a very small minority with this reaction. During the screening every person in the theatre was laughing hysterically at every line that had even the promise of comedy. I was able to identify every intended joke, but they elicited little more than a mental groan from me. Don’t get me wrong, I found the term “pork sword” to be screamingly hysterical… when I was in middle school. So it struck me odd that I was sitting there in a room full of adults who unleashed torrents of gut busting laughter at its utterance.

I kept looking around to see if people were maybe listening to something different on headphones or something, like maybe everyone else was given an iPod with a bunch of Richard Pryor or George Carlin stuff on them and that was what they were laughing at. Honestly, I cannot accurately describe how little I liked this movie.

And don’t try to change my mind on this one. Many people have, and have left the conversation liking “Juno,” less. I have put much more thought into my reasons for hating it than you have put into your reasons for liking it.

“Juno,” was followed up by “Jennifer’s Body,” which found a way to be worse. That thing… oh, crap was that thing awful. I didn’t eve bother finishing it. It honestly felt like she somehow heard my criticism and responded, “Oh, you think that one sucked? Son, I’ll show you a movie that sucks.”

Hell, casting Amanda Seyfried as the “plain” girl who is too into her popular, beautiful friend and then naming her “Needy” Lesnicky… I don’t even know how to respond to that. Why not just remove all subtext and call her “Codependance McSexuallyConfused.”

I haven’t seen “United States of Tara,” because it looks stupid. Yes, Toni Colette is a fine actress and all, but this show always looked like crap to me. Yeah, people love it and say it’s brilliant… just like they did about “Juno,’ so that means nothing to me. There is too much great television out there for me to waste my time on something I have no interest in.

All of her writing looks like this to me

Now we have “Young Adult.” From the moment the first poster hit the net I was dubious to say the least. It looked like… well, like more crap from a writer I do not like. The reviews hit and it was more of the same. It appeared as though Cody’s deal with Satan was still in full swing. But I was given some pause. People who I actually respect, and who dislike “Juno,” were actually behind it. They didn’t love it, but they gave it an “it’s not so bad,” pass.

So, I sat down and watched it. And…

Meh.

That’s about all I can say about it. It isn’t terrible or terribly good. It’s ok. There were some things I found interesting in it, but mostly I found it to be pretty forgettable. I think the word I am looking for is “bad.”

“Young Adult,” features yet another unsympathetic protagonist. Note, I didn’t say unlikable, I said unsympathetic. Likeable is too subjective a term, and I have no problem with an unlikable character. Hell, there are some characters that I love for their unlikability. There are characters I HATE that other people absolutely adore. But sympathy… that’s a little more universal.

Juno, I didn’t like her, but I could sympathize with her. I mean, that is a difficult position for a teenager to be in. Granted, I think she behaved like an asshole, but I could sympathize.

The protagonist of “Young Adult,” is Mavis Gary, a recently divorced ghostwriter for a series of young adult novels. She was the coolest, prettiest girl in her high school and is now living a somewhat glamorous life in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Things aren’t going great for her. As I said, she just got divorced, the book series she writes for is being cancelled, she has a very serious drinking problem (by that I mean she is a full blown alcoholic), and to top things off she just got an e-mail from her high school boyfriend announcing the birth of his first child.

So she does what any normal, rational, mature human being would. She drives back to her hometown to try and steal this man away from his wife and child.

Up until that last bit, this is a character that I could see as compelling. She is a train wreck in full crisis mode. Right off the bat I was, if nothing else, curious about this person. I mean, this is someone who has it all. Good job, hell, GREAT job. She gets paid to do what thousands of people would literally kill to do. She is beautiful, successful, and there is no reason why she shouldn’t be happy.

But she isn’t.

Who can’t relate to that? We have all had times in our lives when things were going as well as we could hope, but for some reason it’s just not enough. The one thing you need to be happy isn’t there. You may not even know what it is, but you know that it’s missing.

This is a good basis for a character. There is a possibility for depth and empathy if they are handled properly. The problem with this movie is that you have a brilliantly set up, horribly executed person.

What starts out with the promise of depth quickly vanishes into a one-dimensional, ID driven monster that I can’t describe as unlikable because there isn’t anything to really connect to.

Not only that, but she is a completely static character. She doesn’t grow, she doesn’t change, and she doesn’t evolve. She is just as revolting a human being at the end as she was at the beginning.

Now, I am not saying that a character has to go through a huge change and learn a big lesson that changes their life in order for it to be a good movie, but there has to be some level of growth in order for the conflict to have any meaning. I know that this doesn’t always happen in real life, but this is a movie and not giving your character some level of growth or self-awareness is just lazy.

There is some really great stuff in this movie, but almost all of it is tempered by something that doesn’t work.

Patton Oswalt is fantastic as Matt Freehauf, an outcast Mavis went to high school with. His performance is probably the best thing about the movie.

But, I just didn’t buy his character. Here’s a guy that Mavis only remembers as “The Hate Crime Guy,” because in high school a bunch of jocks thought he was gay and beat him with a crowbar, crippling him, mangling his genitals, and then left him for dead in the woods. I don’t understand why he puts up with her. This is a woman who represents everything that caused him to be brutalized. Not that she formerly symbolized it, but that she currently symbolizes it. She is the exact same superficial piece of trash she was in high school, but she speaks to him and suddenly, he’s like a puppy falling at her feet. I just didn’t buy it. I am speaking as someone who was bullied in middle school. There is no part of me that would be willing to hang out with the person who did that to me, or with someone who facilitated what happened.

But other than the unrealistic relationship they formed, Oswalt created a completely believable and sympathetic man who has gone through some shit and is somehow able to maintain his dignity.

The direction is superb. Jason Reitman is really shaping up to be one of the best directors working today. He has a feel for character, pacing, and visuals that is absolutely incredible.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but my problems with this movie come back to the script. Granted, it wasn’t soaked with banal hipster dialogue like “Juno,” and “Jennifer’s Body,” but it was just lacking. It felt like a half developed premise that Cody didn’t feel the need to go back and hone. By the time the movie was over I found myself searching for a point.

Because, let’s be honest, this is a movie without a point or anything to really say. What was I supposed to take away from this? Am I supposed to feel sorry for Mavis because she has everything except fulfillment? Was I supposed to hate her? Was I supposed to pity her? What? What was the point of this?

All “Young Adult” gives you is a narcissistic borderline sociopath who feels entitled to everything and doesn’t care in the slightest about anyone other than herself. I wouldn’t have a problem with that if she had at least been interesting.

And starring… as himself

thefilmthugs — Sun, 27 May 2012 15:12:48 +0000

The celebrity playing themselves cameo is an odd thing. Here you have a completely artificial world that exists in it’s own reality… and then you get someone you know, showing up in it. They don’t know it’s a different world, they don’t know that something is off… but you do.

This week we take a look at a few of the times that celebrity cameos have worked, and a few times they have not.

Alpha To Omega: Rocky 3

thefilmthugs — Wed, 23 May 2012 17:14:08 +0000

Rocky 3

Part 3’s have become a pretty horrible thing lately. I have personally lost count of how many recent series have begun strong, gotten stronger… and then fallen to crap.

Granted there are exceptions. Toy Story 3, among others, was fantastic, but more often than not the third film is about where the production company takes over and decides that toys are more important than the film. What you end up with, most of the time, is an overwritten, pandering, poorly thought out unnecessary film that has little to do with the original.

Quick aside…

A third film does not make a trilogy. A trilogy is a three-part story. Star Wars (the original), Lord of the Rings, Back to the Future, are complete stories told over the course of three films.

Indiana Jones, Alien, Toy Story, Pirates of the Caribbean, and other series films, are not and never will be trilogies. Even if you stop at 3… if you aren’t beginning, continuing, and concluding a story over three films, you are not making a trilogy.

There are also, on occasion, films that fit the first criteria, but then move on and extend the trilogy and become a series. This is very rare.

In 1982 Sylvester Stallone made just such a film. Oh, it’s also, quite possibly, the greatest film of the 80’s (that isn’t “Big Trouble in Little China”) and possibly… the greatest movie of all time.

“Rocky III,” is, for lack of a better term, FUCKING MAGIC!

If you look at the first three Rocky films as a thematic trilogy it goes as follows:

Rocky- Heart and hunger vs Pride

Rocky II- Pride and destiny vs Hubris

Rocky III- Hubris and Fame vs heart and pride

Rocky a man with nothing, who was hungry to prove himself going against a man who had everything and had nothing to prove.

Rocky II was a man fighting his destiny going against a man who could not live in a world that doubted him in any way.

Rocky III is a man who won the world, but lost his soul going against a man who had nothing and was hungry to prove himself.

This is classical narrative structure. A man has nothing, goes on a journey and achieves his goals only to lose them and have to go on another journey to get back what he lost.

When last we say Rocky he had just won the heavyweight championship in a stunning upset defeat of Apollo Creed. This film picks up three years later, and what a three years it has been. Rocky has defended his title 10 times and become a national media celebrity. He is incredibly wealthy and comfortable in his new life. Everything is perfect…

Until a young, hungry upstart named James “Clubber” Lang starts rising through the ranks. A violent thug turned boxer (while in prison) he is looking to become king of the mountain, and like Apollo Creed, feels the only way he can truly do that is by beating Rocky.

He challenges Rocky publicly and gets him to agree to the fight.

Rocky sees it as a publicity stunt. He turns his training into a media circus. This isn’t a fight to him, this is a farewell tour.

Lang, on the other hand, is hungry and determined. He trains obsessively, with one goal in mind: Destroy Rocky.

Fight night arrives and all hell breaks loose. On the way to the ring Balboa and Lang have an altercation and Mickey is injured. Rocky wants to cancel the fight, but Mick urges him to fight and win.

Rocky enters the ring distracted and… gets beaten soundly in two rounds.

Defeated, Rock returns to the locker room in time to see Mickey die. Defeated and heartbroken Rocky is, for the first time lost.

Mickey and Adrian have always been Rocky’s heart and soul. What does he have without his mentor?

In steps Apollo Creed. You see, Lang is a large type asshole and Creed wants to see the arrogant man defeated. So, he steps in and offers to train Rock and help him get back the “eye of the tiger” that he has lost through years of comfortable living.

From here we get some masterful training montages. Honestly, these things set the bar. They are also a tad… homoerotic, I guess is the term. There are a lot of close ups of men’s thighs as they run down the beach and through the surf.

Rocky comes to the rematch honed, toned, and ready. He unloads on Lang, who comes back, and after taking a bit of the old busta fazool, Rock finally knocks the other man out and reclaims his title.

I cannot possibly speak objectively about this movie. It came out when I was 7 and by the time I saw it I was a full-fledged A-Team addict. I LOVED Mr.T, and even though he was THE bad guy, and be clear, he was not A bad guy, this cat was THE bad guy, I was absolutely fanatical about T.

This movie… it’s just so damned amazing. I am not kidding when I call it the only movie from the 80’s to give “Big Trouble in Little China” a run for “Best Film of the Decade.” It doesn’t beat it, but it’s in the conversation. Sure, that statement might be awash in youthful nostalgia, but it might also be completely true.

Let’s look at it from two points of view.

First, from a structural/narrative vantage.

This movie not only continues the story of Rocky Balboa, it takes it in the most interesting direction possible. This is a man who went from nobody to champ in a very short period of time. He has everything. What do you do to the man who has everything? You take it away.

Not money, mind you. At this point Rocky is just a step above the tough, working class guy he was in the first movie. No, you have to take away everything that matters.

So, you kill his mentor and father figure, and take the one thing that he worked the hardest for, his title. But you don’t just do those two things, you do them in the same night, and you have him lose his title badly. You have him lose it so badly that it looks as if he never deserved it in the first place.

In short, you break him. It’s an extension of what happened in Rocky 2. People start disrespecting him and he almost loses Adrian, his heart.

Then, when he’s broken down and has nobody to really help pull him back up (yeah, Adrian keeps him afloat, but Mickey made him reach higher) you bring in a new mentor.

But who?

Well, if you’re lazy and unimaginative, you create another Mickey, some gruff old guy who kicks him in the ass and gets him moving.

Or, if you’re not a lazy hack you take his biggest rival and transform him into his mentor.

Why is Apollo Creed the only real choice here? Two reasons. First, he knows what Rocky is capable of. He has stood toe to toe with the man for 30 rounds of brutal combat, so he knows what is in Rock’s heart.

Second, he has been where Rocky is. He had the title and lost it because he underestimated his opponent and overestimated himself. He knows the sting of losing a fight because he lost focus. So he knows what needs to happen to get Rocky back where he needs to be.

When we get to the final fight, and Creed gives Rocky his red, white, and blue trunks… it means something. It’s not just a vote of confidence or a show of friendship; it’s a subtle reminder. Remember who you were that night, and go out and be that guy again.

It’s an amazing transformation for Creed. He goes from dismissive businessman to obsessed villain, to human.

The final fight is absolutely everything you want it to be. Rocky has become a better, faster boxer and comes at Lang with everything. Lang rages back, but Rocky won’t back down. Rocky has found what he lost and then some. He has grown and earned the right to win, which he does.

This movie follows classical narrative structure not only as a self-contained film, but also as a part of the larger world of the film series.

Now, let’s look at this from a nostalgic “how awesome is this” point of view.

What the hell is there not to love about this thing?

It has Hulk Hogan in one of the most incredible cameo appearances ever as Thunderlips. Hell, one of my earliest film memories is his fight with the wrestler.

Then you have Lawrence Trudeau absolutely killing it as the most detestable bad guy imaginable. He embarrasses Rocky in public, disrespects Adrian in a very lurid way (T’s mother slapped him at the premier stating, “I didn’t raise you to talk to a lady like that,” before storming out), almost fights the MEDIA in his locker room, he basically tells Apollo Creed to fuck off in the ring before the fight, and causes Mickey’s death by trying to fight Rocky BEFORE they get in the ring. He is a bad guy. But damn! You cannot take your eyes off him.

I do not think there ever has been or ever will be a better trash talking baddie in film. Don’t believe me?

“No, I don’t hate Balboa. I pity the fool, and I will destroy any man who tries to take what I got!”

“Interviewer: What’s your prediction for the fight?

Clubber Lang: My prediction?

Interviewer: Yes, your prediction.

Clubber Lang: Pain!”

“Clubber Lang: I’m the baddest man in the world.

Rocky Balboa: You don’t look so bad to me.

Clubber Lang: What did you say, Paper Champion? I’ll beat you like a dog, a dog, you fool!”

“I’m gonna torture him. I’m gonna crucify him. Real bad.”

“I want Balboa! I want Balboa! You hear that, Old Man? You tell Balboa to come here! Nobody can beat me! You tell him what I said! And he’s NEXT! I’m gonna kill him! Nobody can stop me! You tell Balboa that! I’M COMING AFTER HIM! YOU TELL HIM!”

And there is so much more.

He was such a dominant and amazing character.

Then you have the training montage. Yeah, all the Rocky movies had them up to this point, but this one was something more. He wasn’t training, he was rebuilding, relearning, becoming something better. Granted, this one got a bit… affectionate with it’s close up of Rocky and Creed’s thighs as they run and frolic in the surf, but it’s still amazing. But nowhere near as amazing as…

The song. Yeah, the music to Rocky is iconic from the very beginning, but this one had that song. Hell, is it possible to listen to any part of “Eye of the Tiger” and not want to go beat someone’s ass? I sure as hell can’t. The thing was epic and inescapable. The first cassette tape I ever owned was a “The Chipmunk’s Go Hollywood,” and even that had “Eye of the Tiger,” on it. Don’t judge me… I was 6 at the time so my tastes were not as refined… Actually, hold that. It’s awesome and I am pissed that I don’t have it any more.

The final fight is epic. Yeah, it’s not as long as the first two, but it’s exactly what it needs to be. Rocky dishing it, Rocky taking it, and Rocky winning.

Everything just came together in this movie. I honestly don’t think I am clouded in nostalgia. Anyone who enjoyed the first two films on any level can find something to love here. If you are one of those people who are “too cool” for Rocky, then please take a minute to learn how to enjoy life. There is no better representation of the 80’s film aesthetic than this.

Alpha to Omega: Rocky 2

thefilmthugs — Mon, 21 May 2012 17:06:07 +0000

Alpha to Omega

Rocky II

In any film series, particularly one that achieves cult status, there is usually at least one film that falls between the cracks. A lot of times it’s because the movies are just bad. Studios are all about money, so when you have a property that is recognizable they will seize on that and start cranking them out. Did you know that there are 4 “Iron Eagle” movies, 11 “Shaft” movies? I didn’t.

Sometimes, though, it’s nothing to do with quality, many of these films are quite good, but for some reason they are almost doomed to live in the shadows of the other films. There are 22 Bond movies (not including the yet to be released “Skyfall”), and a lot of those are relegated to a more obscure position than they should be. I personally think “The Spy Who Loved Me” to be one of Roger Moore’s best, but more people have seen “Moonraker,” “Octopussy,” and “A View to A Kill,” and those border on un-watchable.

Essentially, Bill Goldman was right… nobody knows anything.

As a “Rocky” fan I have had countless conversations about how moving and inspiring the original is, or about how mind blowingly bad ass “Rocky III” is, or the jingoistic merits of “Rocky IV,” hell, I’ve even talked at length about the relative merits and weaknesses of “V.” But I found that as I embarked on this… I have never had a conversation about “Rocky II.” If you listen to our Stallone show, you have heard, quite literally, everything I have ever said about that film.

Why?

Honestly, I have no memory of actually seeing it. I mean, yeah, I’ve seen the ending during the montages in the other films, but I don’t remember ever sitting down and watching it.

Well, a few weeks back I rectified this as part of my “Rocky” marathon. Actually, it was the reason for the marathon and, indirectly, this series of articles.

So, what did I think?

In short, it is criminally overlooked. It isn’t the best of the series, but it is far from the worst… very far from the worst. From a strictly narrative standpoint it is the most necessary and has the strongest emotional link to the original (until “Rocky Balboa” that is).

Done properly a sequel will advance the characters and/or the narrative of the original film. It becomes a necessary step in the evolution of the world of the first film. “Rocky II” does that brilliantly by not only advancing the story and the characters, but by evolving the themes and building on the emotional impact of the original.

Quick recap- Robert “Rocky” Balboa is a scrappy ham and egger (boxers who lack sufficient skill to fight for big prizes, they go paid so little that they couldn’t afford steak) who was given a shot at the heavyweight championship of the world. He didn’t stand a chance, but had enough heart to be the first fighter to ever go the distance with Apollo Creed, the Ali-esque undisputed champ. To Creed it was a show, to Rocky it was a chance to be some thing more than just some “bum from the neighborhood.” He loses the fight, but wins the love of Adrian, the shy sister of one of his closest friends.

The movie came out of nowhere and became the biggest hit of the year, win Oscars, catapult the cast into the A list, and became a fixture in American pop culture. So, naturally there had to be a sequel.

“Rocky II,” is a direct sequel, picking up exactly where the first film left off. In essence, if you removed the credits the two could play as one movie. It does what the best sequels do, it continues the story of the original while developing its themes and allowing the world of the film to grow with the characters.

The movie begins with both fighters being rushed to the hospital for treatment after the brutal fight that ends the first movie. In the aftermath of the fight Creed realizes how much the split decision could harm his reputation and once at the hospital he publicly challenges Rocky to a rematch. Rocky declines and announces his retirement.

From here he attempts to enter normal life. He has a bit of money from the fight and doesn’t think it will ever run out. He buys an expensive car that he doesn’t know how to drive, nice clothes, fancy jewelry, and a house. He is living the dream. His newfound fame affords him a chance to make more money through endorsements and he thinks it will lead to a job.

The problem is, as he said in the first movie, he isn’t someone who can make a living off his brains. He tries to do commercials but can’t read lines. He tries to get a job, but lacks education and skills. He even tries going to work at Mickey’s gym, but because he was a contender for the championship and is now cleaning spit buckets and moping the floors he isn’t given any respect by the fighters.

So, broke, broken, and desperate he starts working in the meat packing plant with Paulie. He marries Adrian and she is soon pregnant. Everything seems to be shaping up well for Rocky.

Meanwhile, Apollo is getting deluged with hate mail. Fans see his split decision as an indictment of his championship. If he’s so great, how did this ham and egger go the distance? He is desperate to clear his name and embarks on a public smear campaign of Balboa in hopes of goading him into the ring.

This is where the movie gets interesting. In the first film Creed wasn’t really a villain. He was Rocky’s opponent, but he wasn’t a bad guy. He was a businessman seizing an opportunity. Here, however he turns bad. What makes him bad is the same thing that makes Rocky good; his pride and his desire to be the best. The line that best encapsulates him doesn’t even come from this film. It comes from “Pulp Fiction.”

“The night of the fight, you may feel a slight sting. That’s pride fucking with you. Fuck pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps.”

Creed cannot turn his back on his pride. He is the undefeated champion of the world. No fighter had ever gone the distance with him before, but it wasn’t enough. He needed to be perfect, and Balboa was in the way of that. In his mind, and against the advice of his trainer, he has to get Rocky back in the ring and beat him.

“He’s all wrong for us, baby. I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man kept coming after you. Now we don’t need no man like that in our lives.”

Eventually Rocky has to accept who he really is. He is a fighter, and the only way he can really provide for his family is by doing the only thing he knows. He decides that, against the advice of his doctor who fears for Rocky’s eyesight, he has to fight Creed. In his mind it’s the only way he can support his family and regain his pride.

Things go from bad to worse for Rock when Adrian, who is staunchly against the fight, falls ill and ends up in a coma. He abandons his training and sits by her side.

This sequence reminds you what makes these films work. Rocky isn’t really about fighting. It’s really a love story between Rocky and Adrian. She is his heart, and as the movies are about having the heart to keep going… you see what I’m saying.

Well, as you might expect Adrian comes out of her coma, the baby is fine, and she tells him to go and beat Creed.

The fight comes and Creed is gunning for blood. He vows to knock Balboa out in the first two round to prove that the first time was a fluke.

But he doesn’t. He keeps beating on Rocky, gaining an insurmountable points lead. But Rock won’t go down, reaching the final round.

In the final round, Creed has the fight won on points. All he has to do is dance around Rocky for three minutes and the fight is his. But then pride starts fucking with him. He trades blows, going for the knockout. Finally, after standing toe to toe, pounding on each other, Rocky gets a clean shot in and knocks the champ down….

But he falls off balance and hits the mat at the same time.

Two boxers, one count, and the one to get to his feet before the count of 10 wins.

Finally, after suffering defeat, humiliation, rejection, and almost losing Adrian, Rocky digs deep, because that is what Rocky does, and gets to his feet in time too win.

In many regards this is a perfect sequel. It takes Rocky in a very necessary and important direction and shows his growth as a person. It also shows Creed as a flawed and very human character. Both men represent different sides of the same coin.

Both are dedicated to what they do, they are committed to giving their all, not for money, but for pride. But, whereas Rocky is the embodiment of how pride can help you pick yourself up, Creed shows how dangerous it can be when it gets in the way of common sense.

So far as the Rocky canon goes, this one is difficult to place. It’s not the best, but it is far from the worst. Yet, it still gets less respect than it should. It is a solid addition to the world created in the first one. It moves the characters forward, not just from a narrative standpoint, but also from a personal standpoint. But for some reason it gets lost in the shuffle. If you haven’t seen it, correct that. It’s really good. If you’re like me and can’t remember when you saw it last, you should really take the time to reexamine it. There is a reason Rocky has become as iconic to American cinema as he has, this movie is a big part of it.

The Legion of A-Holes

thefilmthugs — Sun, 20 May 2012 18:03:28 +0000

Last week we took a look at those we hold in the highest possible regard. This week we decided to do something a little different…

This week we focus exclusively on the people and films that we would actively cross the street to avoid. These sorry outfits are the worst of the worst.

Hope you enjoy.

Jim Reviews The Avengers

thefilmthugs — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:14:27 +0000

The Avengers

Is there a reason to review “The Avengers?” Honestly, at this point everyone in the world has seen it. You know that tribe they found last year in the jungles of Peru that has never been contacted by civilization? “The Avengers” is number one there. Granted, it only beat “Dark Shadows” by a hundred dollars, but still!

I was resistant to this movie at first. No, I wasn’t being a contrarian, or trying to look cool. I honestly didn’t think it looked good. The preview looked like every other action movie trailer, Marvel is hit and miss at best, Joss Whedon hasn’t made a lot of movies (even though he is a masterful story teller), it’s an offshoot of a group of movies that are very hit and miss…

Iron Man was great, but Iron Man 2 was awful.

Captain America was decent at times, but as a whole wasn’t very strong.

The Hulk is batting .500, although the most recent was quite good.

Thor sucked. It sucked hard. To be clear, it was awful, unwatchably awful. Were it not for Rifftrax I wouldn’t have seen any of it.

Black Widow was not used well in Iron Man 2.

Hawkeye isn’t the most inspiring of choices.

… and it has a villain from the worst movie of the lot.

So, I took the good with the bad and was about 50/50 on this one.

Then it came out amid an obscene amount of publicity and made all the money in the world.

Most people loved it, some didn’t (but in fairness, the people who don’t like it actually gave me hope that it would be good). But an odd thing happened. People started talking about the money it was making. Suddenly, the talk of money started to eclipse talk of the film itself. That gave me serious pause. If it’s so good, why does it matter how much money it made? People tend to talk about what’s good about a movie, and when that talk becomes about something that isn’t the movie, it makes me doubt the quality.

In “The Avengers,” you have an impossibly over hyped movie that is proving to be universally accepted…

It couldn’t possibly live up.

Then I sat down in the theatre to watch it…and the first scene actually gave me more pause. I thought it was great, but it was familiar. Too familiar. In fact, it was almost identical to a scene in “Angel.” If you’re familiar, remember when Faith broke out of prison? The opening of “The Avengers” is the same scene.

This isn’t a criticism. It’s different enough, and fits the character and the world enough that it didn’t really bother me, but I was worried. I was worried that it was going to be a compilation of Joss’s greatest hits. Some sort of over the top fan fiction comprised of the coolest moments he had done up to that point, only grafted onto the Marvel universe.

But I kept watching. Slowly I found myself forgetting the hype and focusing on the movie itself. By the end I was in. Completely, unequivocally in.

This movie didn’t live up to the hype, it surpassed it. Somehow this movie that had been talked up, praised, and glorified beyond all reasonable bounds had somehow… exceeded it all.

There are two camps of comic book movies. There is the Nolan camp, which is gritty and based in a very real and scary world, and there is the Marvel camp, which is a comic book version of the real world. It’s realistic and fantastic in equal measure.

This movie is the perfect encapsulation of the Marvel side. It is a fantastical reality where all this stuff could happen, but is connected enough to the real world that you can identify with it. It’s a world where you can have demigod and a scientist working side by side and not come off as ridiculous.

Two things surprised me the most…

I didn’t hate Loki as the villain. Quite the contrary. Had “Thor” gone this direction with him, that movie might not have sucked as much. He is dark, obsessed, flawed, and completely committed to his warped world view. You weren’t rooting for him, but you could (if you wanted to) see his point. Most movies forget that part. A good villain is the hero of his own story, and Loki achieved that beautifully.

The Avengers themselves were fantastic.

Iron Man had the best lines and Downey Jr. delivered them perfectly.

Thor was better than he had been in his own movie.

Captain America was beautifully realized, especially when he stepped into his role as leader.

Hawkeye was brilliant. This had always been a problem for me because… well, he’s got good aim. But the way he used his arrows as delivery systems for more powerful weapons was brilliant. And Renner was as awesome as I knew he would be. That guy is certified bad ass.

Black Widow was as good as she could have been. Scarlett is an ok actress, but she’s a bit too one note in most of her roles, but she quite good in this.

But the biggest surprise… The Hulk absolutely stole the show.

I did not see this coming. There has been a lot of talk, too much if you ask me, about Norton not playing Banner. Well, Ruffalo, in my opinion, is the best portrayal so far. He captured the nervous brilliance of the man flawlessly. But beyond that, when he finally Hulks out… he is the best part of every scene he’s in. Also, Whedon found a way to replace “You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry” as the best Hulk line ever.

Joss Whedon went beyond my expectations as a director. The pacing and camera work is outstanding. You can actually see the action and understand what is happening, it’s not just a jumbled mess of thrown together images. He establishes relationships beautifully, and crafted a story that is as interesting as it is entertaining.

My feelings on this movie almost perfectly mirror what I felt about “The Dark Knight.” I found all the praise and talk of money to be off putting and I saw it almost begrudgingly and ended up loving it beyond all reasonable bounds. That being said, I can’t, and won’t, compare this to the Nolan films because they don’t have anything in common other than being based on comics. They are set in different worlds, have different audiences, and completely different approaches. It is possible to like them both equally.

“The Avengers” is, for lack of a better term, an absolute breath of fresh air in a world where fun movies are often more stupid and insulting than fun. It’s smart, funny, full of incredible action movies, and has enough of an emotional impact for all of the smart, fun action to actually mean something.

Alpha to Omega: Rocky

thefilmthugs — Mon, 14 May 2012 18:55:16 +0000

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

Hall of Fame

thefilmthugs — Sun, 06 May 2012 13:39:37 +0000

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.

Jim Reviews Atlas Shrugged: Part 1

thefilmthugs — Wed, 02 May 2012 15:51:48 +0000

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.

The Film Thugs Guide to Theater Etiquette

thefilmthugs — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:38:05 +0000

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…

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.

At long last… Jim reviews the Psycho remake.

thefilmthugs — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:22:53 +0000

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.

Non Literary Adaptations

thefilmthugs — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:08:13 +0000

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.

Biopics: The Good, The Bad, and The Unfiltered BS

thefilmthugs — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:36:38 +0000

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.

Jim Reviews The Hunger Games

thefilmthugs — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:44:51 +0000

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

thefilmthugs — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:21:24 +0000

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.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

thefilmthugs — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:39:46 +0000

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.

Eden

thefilmthugs — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:47:17 +0000

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

thefilmthugs — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:24:04 +0000

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.

Jim Went to South By Southwest. Here is what he thought of it.

thefilmthugs — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:46:26 +0000

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.

That was the year that was 2011

thefilmthugs — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:30:27 +0000

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.

Kevin Smith- From Indie Icon to Podcasting Mogul… why the hell not?

thefilmthugs — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:25:55 +0000

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.

Silent House

thefilmthugs — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:15:52 +0000

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

thefilmthugs — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:16:55 +0000

HomeVideodrome #21- The Adventures of Tin Tin

This week, Jim talks about the upcoming headache that is SXSW in Austin, Hunter reviews the puzzlingly controversial John Carter, and we cover a bevy of new releases, including Spielberg’s The Adventures of Tin Tin, Paul W.S. Anderson’s surprising The Three Musketeers, and Lars Von Trier’s depressing-yet-fascinating Melancholia.

Musical selections: Melvins - “Revolve” Melvins - “Black Book”

You are so vain.

thefilmthugs — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 02:02:10 +0000

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.

“Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip,” Free Speech, The First Amendment, and The Importance of TV Comedy

thefilmthugs — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:23:01 +0000

“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.

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.

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.

Big. Dumb. Movies

thefilmthugs — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:05:45 +0000

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.

HomeVideodrome #20: Hugo

thefilmthugs — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:52:26 +0000

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)

Is Anthony Hopkins Good?

thefilmthugs — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 17:42:05 +0000

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.

The Return of the Son of the 100th Episode

thefilmthugs — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:33:38 +0000

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.

The Film Thugs 100th Episode Spectacular… The Beginning.

thefilmthugs — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:47:12 +0000

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)

Jim Reviews Drive

thefilmthugs — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:18:39 +0000

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

thefilmthugs — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:13:55 +0000

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”

AFI’s Top 10 Top 10. Many of these lists are invalid.

thefilmthugs — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:56:29 +0000

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.

Are women funny?

thefilmthugs — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:08:38 +0000

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

thefilmthugs — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:23:40 +0000

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

Jim Reviews Green Lantern

thefilmthugs — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:12:52 +0000

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 appears that The AFI has eclectic taste in music. Almost like a hipster.

thefilmthugs — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:12:00 +0000

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.

HomeVideodrome #17: Godzilla

thefilmthugs — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:01:43 +0000

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)

Jim reacts to this years somewhat bizarre Oscar nominations

thefilmthugs — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:52:37 +0000

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.

Jim Reviews Cowboys and Aliens

thefilmthugs — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:04:27 +0000

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.

AFI’s 100 Years, 100 Quotes, some bizarre placements, and baffling omissions.

thefilmthugs — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:19:57 +0000

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.

A one minute reaction video.

thefilmthugs — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:30:17 +0000

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?

Jim Reviews Super 8

thefilmthugs — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:23:02 +0000

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.

Jim Reviews Rise of the Planet of the apes.

thefilmthugs — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:16:47 +0000

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.

HomeVideodrome #16: The Ides of March

thefilmthugs — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:12:00 +0000

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)

Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds

thefilmthugs — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:30:11 +0000

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.

The Film Thugs Movie Show

The Son of The Hitchhikers Guide to Science Fiction

Bombs Away!

Progressive Commentary #1: The Green Lantern.

Ask The Film Thugs

The Film Thugs Trailer Park

Movies that are not good, but we like them anyway REDUX!!!

Ultimate Theater Week

Alpha to Omega: Rocky Balboa

The people, They Like the Tom Cruise

I’m Still the A-Hole: Episode 6 Redux

Geek Like Me, or The Nerdish Mystique

Señor Ding Dong’s Tagline Fiesta

Tom Hanks ruled the 80’s and 90’s with an iron fist.

You ought to be ashamed

That Oliver Stone is quite a conondrum.

Jim’s 2012 Lists part 5: 5-1

Jim’s 2012 Lists part 4: 10-6

Sequels that Should Exist

Jim’s 2012 Lists part 3: 15-11 where numbers are still basically arbitrary

Jim’s 2012 Lists part 2: And so it begins… 20-16

Jim’s 2012 Lists part 2: Movies that almost made my list

… and now we talking about opening scenes!

The Best of 2012 Part 1: The Almosts

A show about endings that is surprisingly light on the spoilers.

The Poor Mans Whatever…

Jim’s Oscar Predictions 2012

Them’s Fightin’ Words

Franchise Killers

Christmas With The Film Thugs

Punk Rock Cinema

Golden Globes 2012: Jim Predicts Awards Nobody Really Cares About… Including Him.

Muscular Dystrophy Association Fundraiser

It’s 2012. Yes, the world will end in a few weeks… or maybe not.

Keanu Reeves: How exactly did this happen?

Alpha to Omega- Rocky V

His Holiness… Kurt Russell

V/H/S

James Bond Part 4

Halloween 2012

AFF 2012 Wrap Up

Austin Film Festival 2012- On the Scene With the Film Thugs

The Film Thugs International- Scotland

The Initiate Series: Lawrence of Arabia

Elementary… it’s not Sherlock, but at least it wasn’t really trying to be

Things that are bad ass, are bad ass! A look at general badassery.

Animals?

Movie Myths, Legends, Bizarre Candy Corn, and Shaved Pumpkins

Favorite Performances, Pumpkin Beer, and Cucumber Drinks

The Big Con

Resquiat in Pache, Mr. Scott

Ridiculous Cage

Time can be so very unkind.

The Son of Movies That Are Considered Bad, But That We Enjoy

Episode 3 Redux- More Movies We Hate

Jim Reviews The Dark Knight Rises

Batman- From West to Nolan *SPOILER HEAVY EPISODE*

The Dark Knight Rises Pubcast

Episode 1 Revisited: The Movies We Love part 2

Jim Reviews Django

It appears that Spielberg fellow makes films that people enjoy.

First shot kills

Alpha to Omega: Rocky IV

The Film Thugs Film School

Jim Reviews Brave

Jim Reviews Rock of Ages

The Initiate series: Wopsgiving/Godfather Feast

Jim Reviews John Carter

Summer Movie League

The Junior Varsity Action Team

Jim Reviews We Need To Talk About Kevin

One Scene Wonders

Jim Reviews Young Adult

And starring… as himself

Alpha To Omega: Rocky 3

Alpha to Omega: Rocky 2

The Legion of A-Holes

Jim Reviews The Avengers

Alpha to Omega: Rocky

Hall of Fame

Batman- From West to Nolan SPOILER HEAVY EPISODE