Since before October of 2006, I have wanted to see "Southland Tales".
It received a horrible One Star Review at Cannes, and it only gets Two Stars (out of five) from Shane.
I constantly blogged about how upset I was with the studios for wanting to cut down Richard Kelly's film into a 100 minute film. Well, via Netflix, I got the 144 minute version of the film. IMDB lists that the Cannes version of the film was 160 minutes long - so it seems I got the in-between version of the film. Not as short as the producers wanted it, but not as long as Kelly intended it.
First, the film is nowhere near as good as "Donnie Darko". Not even close.
It's pointless to even attempt to explain - in any intelligent manner - the storylines present in the film. It's such a mish-mash hodge-podge of uninteresting activities. It attempts to incorporate a mystery into the storyline, while never directly addressing the mystery. It also constantly references a character's amnesia, while that character never appears confused about his whereabouts or his actions.
In an attempt to explain: Boxer Santaros (played by Dwayne Johnson - aka The Rock) returns to Los Angeles with amnesia. But, somehow he hooks up with Krysta Now, a porn star played by Sarah Michelle Gellar. They write a script about a man who discovers how the world is going to end. Throw in a sub-plot about a group of Marxists who are attempting to over-throw the government using a police officer and his twin brother as pawns, and add in the Senator who becomes their target, and the crazy scientist who developing alternative fuel sources (since we can't import oil anymore) and you've got a multi-layered insane mass of stories to be told, which all gets narrated by Justin Timberlake (who actually was pretty good in this film).
The film opens with a scene that is supposed to explain how World World 3 starts, and how the government basically shuts down the country, including the Internet. "Big Brother" pretty much takes over any and all forms of communication. The majority of the film comes off more as a Political Statement than anything else. It's sort of an anti-war and anti-government piece. It seems to pull fears that Kelly has about how the future will be, if we continue giving so much power to politicians and the government. Perhaps this is similar to some of the thoughts and feelings felt by Terry Gilliam as he worked on "Brazil"???
In the last 20 minutes of the film, Kelly attempts to throw in a Science-Fiction twist, that is supposed to attempt to partial explain certain elements of the film, and it just comes off as a poorly conceived idea that was thrown in, due to a lack of intelligent story composition.
So, I was honestly a lot more disappointed with the film last night when I just got done watching it - than I am now. Thinking back, it really was a very though-out piece of "art". But, there's so much exposition that isn't required, so many layers of story-telling that it makes it difficult to follow, and still the overall sense that Kelly didn't really know where he was going, or what he was doing. Granted, it's not as ill-conceived as Lynch's attempt at "Inland Empire" - but it's still a film that feels like it tried to do too much, while over-stimulated the viewer to the point of un-interest in the characters.
More than likely, I'm going to have to find time to watch the film again. Now that I now what to expect, perhaps I will be better equipped to enjoy certain aspects of the film - or pick on pieces that I originally missed. All I know, is that after almost two years of waiting - I was greatly disappointed with the product given to me.
Monday, March 24, 2008
"The Lookout" Review
I'm a little behind in some of my Netflix reviews, so I'm going to catch up on the last two.
"The Lookout" was a film I had wanted to see for a while, but I think it was pretty limited in Indy, and I never made the time to go out of my way to see it. I often saw the DVD, but never got around to buying it.
Like "Brick", the film stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and he does another wonderful performance. The film spends a good amount of time on character development. Developing the mundane and sorrowful life that Chris Pratt (Gordon-Levitt) is forced to live, 4 years after a car accident in which he killed two of his friends, and suffered some life-threatening injuries. The film builds up his personal relationship with Lewis (played by Jeff Daniels) and their co-existing friendship as roommates, placed together by the rehabilitation center.
Matthew Goode ("Match Point") does an amazing job, playing Gary, a bad guy who befriends Chris and uses his powers of manipulation to convince Chris to help them rob the bank the Chris works at, as an overnight janitor.
Then, there is the vixen used to tempt Chris, played by Isla Fisher - who I am falling in love with!
All of the actors are amazing. And I loved seeing Bruce McGill get some more work (Jack Dalton from "MacGyver") playing Chris' Father. The interaction between Chris and Gary and the other members of Gary's group are well played. They make Chris feel like he is a part of their group, before they let him know what their plan is. I'd say the first 50 minutes of the film are dedicated to developing all of the characters and their relationships - before the bank heist actually gets in motion.
Sadly, the worst part of the movie is this: There comes a point when Chris could do something - something that I believe any normal, sane person would consider the right thing to do. And if Chris would make this choice - the film would be over. Instead, Chris makes decisions that I consider irrational and idiotic. This drags out the film for the final 25 minutes, and simply drags out the story more. I suppose it's required for the redemption of Chris' character, after getting involved with the robbers - but I don't believe it's the most intelligent decision for a person.
Overall, I give the flick 3 Stars out of 5. It's worth renting, but I don't believe its worth buying. There is some nice cinematography in the film, and with the snow-covered terrain, it makes for some nice contrasting shots. Like I said, the acting is GREAT and I would watch the flick again just for that.
"The Lookout" was a film I had wanted to see for a while, but I think it was pretty limited in Indy, and I never made the time to go out of my way to see it. I often saw the DVD, but never got around to buying it.
Like "Brick", the film stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and he does another wonderful performance. The film spends a good amount of time on character development. Developing the mundane and sorrowful life that Chris Pratt (Gordon-Levitt) is forced to live, 4 years after a car accident in which he killed two of his friends, and suffered some life-threatening injuries. The film builds up his personal relationship with Lewis (played by Jeff Daniels) and their co-existing friendship as roommates, placed together by the rehabilitation center.
Matthew Goode ("Match Point") does an amazing job, playing Gary, a bad guy who befriends Chris and uses his powers of manipulation to convince Chris to help them rob the bank the Chris works at, as an overnight janitor.
Then, there is the vixen used to tempt Chris, played by Isla Fisher - who I am falling in love with!
All of the actors are amazing. And I loved seeing Bruce McGill get some more work (Jack Dalton from "MacGyver") playing Chris' Father. The interaction between Chris and Gary and the other members of Gary's group are well played. They make Chris feel like he is a part of their group, before they let him know what their plan is. I'd say the first 50 minutes of the film are dedicated to developing all of the characters and their relationships - before the bank heist actually gets in motion.
Sadly, the worst part of the movie is this: There comes a point when Chris could do something - something that I believe any normal, sane person would consider the right thing to do. And if Chris would make this choice - the film would be over. Instead, Chris makes decisions that I consider irrational and idiotic. This drags out the film for the final 25 minutes, and simply drags out the story more. I suppose it's required for the redemption of Chris' character, after getting involved with the robbers - but I don't believe it's the most intelligent decision for a person.
Overall, I give the flick 3 Stars out of 5. It's worth renting, but I don't believe its worth buying. There is some nice cinematography in the film, and with the snow-covered terrain, it makes for some nice contrasting shots. Like I said, the acting is GREAT and I would watch the flick again just for that.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
"Once" Review
Once is probably the best way to describe how many times I'll ever watch this film.
The film is not bad. I actually enjoyed it. I don't regret watching it.
The only thing I regret is starting the film at 12:45am, and having to drink two Mt. Dews and do jumping jacks in the living to to keep myself awake long enough to finish the 85 minute film.
It's an art film. Plain and simple.
Here's the best thing about the film: In contrast to typical films, this one reminds us that sometimes a film is just a slice of life. It's a glimpse of characters, during a specific period of their lives, for a specific reason. And sometimes, it shows us that things don't always work out like we want them to, and eventually we have to go back to what originally worked for us. It shows us how people can impact our lives, in big ways in a short period of time.
The film is a musical. And not a musical like "Rent" where people are talking about their lives and their problems. No, in this film, the musical part of the film is the songs that the characters are writing and rehearsing. They don't just randomly break out into song in the middle of the street, while people walk by without paying attention. Instead, if they are sitting on the bus, and he's strumming his guitar and then starts singing - it makes sense. And when The Man raises his voice at a specific part, and the old lady looks at him - you realize that their actions are not limited to themselves, they are still interacting with the real world. I can only imagine that some people I know, who are true musicians, would probably find this film extremely enjoyable.
However, There is no dramatic story arch.
Honestly, I would consider this to be "This is Spinal Tap" WITHOUT the comedy and satire.
It would be like "Almost Famous" without the storyline, or maybe better "Music and Lyrics" without a storyline. There's no dramatic tension, there's no issues, there's no real problems.
The film follows a street musician, who one day talks to a woman in the street. They get to know each other, and she learns he fixes Hoovers. Ironically, she has one that is in need of repair. They go back and forth flirting with each other, however they each also seem to keep their distance from one another. As they get to know each other, The Man puts some of his music onto CDs for The Woman. Shortly after watching her play the piano, he asks her to write some lyrics for some of his music.
The rest of the film follows them as they write music, acquire additional musician's help, and get studio time to record his songs, before he plans to leave to go to London. Throughout this time, we learn a lot about each of their personal lives, and some of the mental struggles they are currently going through. As they are developing their music, they inadvertently help each figure out where they need to go with their lives.
One of the best scenes in the film comes when The Man sits in the dining room with his father, and plays him a tape of one of his songs. His father's reaction, and what he says, is so awesome. It's probably my favorite scene in the film.
It's not the best film I've seen, but for what it was it was enjoyable. I would advise people to be prepared for what they are getting into. Those you loathe Hollywood Cinema, and long for more artistic films, I believe they will enjoy this film. Anyone who is seriously interested in being a musician, and enjoys the process one goes through to record some songs - they should really enjoy this film too. It's a nice look at a week, in the lives of two people who love creating music.
Monday, March 17, 2008
"Funny Games" Review
Okay, if you read Michael Maier's Blog, you already know how much he hated "Funny Games".
And he's allowed to have his opinion. He didn't like it, and that's too bad.
You're going to find a completely different review here.
***Michael, you don't need to post a comment telling me I'm an idiot for liking the film, I already read it on your blog. And if anyone wants to know how you feel about the film, they can GO HERE. You don't need to repeat yourself on here, cool?***
Shane's Review:
I give "Funny Games" 3 1/2 Stars our of 5.
In case you're not familiar with the film, here's the short of the story: Two harmless looking young men make their way into a rich family's home. Throughout the night the play numerous mental games with them, terrorizing them.
It's a psychological film. It's a slow film. It's not an action movie, and it's not a gore-fest film. It's a psychological film, done in a minor Hitchcockian way.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said, "Where there is no imagination there is no horror". I believe this is a perfect way to explain the film. Like I previously said, this is not a gore-fest like the typical horror films on the 21st Century, where they try to gross-out the audience by showing heads exploding, and objects being inserted into the skin, causing massive amount of blood and amazing pain. EVERY violent moment in this film (and there are only three, that I remember) are all seen off-screen. This forces your imagination to think about what it looked like, and let's be honest - your imagination can run wild. You probably make it a lot worse than it really is.
I believe the director, Michael Haneke, has created a somewhat anti-American film. It's a satire of the society of America. Those people who HATE this movie, hate it because it's not the spoon-feed garbage of gore that American Audiences have come to beg for (Michael, I don't mean this at you, I know you're not a typical movie-goer - this was a general statement). "Give us more gore!" Why are there so many CRAPPY horror films coming out? The multiple amounts of "Saw" films, that keep trying to raise the bar. The UNWATCHABLE film "Hostel" and I've heard its sequel goes even farther than the original - I refused to watch it. In America, everyone has become so obsessed with seeing every little bit of violence on screen, that they lust for it. This film denies them that. It refuses to show it to them, and instead forces intelligent people to put together in their own minds what happened. I respect that. I respect his (probable) intention of creating an anti-gore film. In another anti-horror/slasher/gore film move, the "bad guys" aren't rude and evil terrorists. They are two overly kind and polite young men, who are freakishly polite, even while they are demanding things from you. And if you don't do as you ask, you get a glimpse of what they might become, but they are very quick to apologize for their outbursts, and go back to being overly friendly. It's hard to hate a character who always says "please" and "thank you", even when they are threatening the lives of people.
I'm not going to lie, at one point in the film I really felt CHEATED. REALLY CHEATED. I felt like the director was doing something horribly wrong with the film. However, in retrospect - I think I understand it more. I think it goes back to "giving the audience what they want". The audience WANTS to see the bad guys win, they want to see the bad guys torturing people. So, when this event happens - due to the graphic nature of the event, what happens makes sense: in the attempts to keep this as anti-gore as possible. Despite it's implausibility in reality, in context of a film knowing its a film - by breaking the fourth wall - it was doing what "...it thought the audience wanted..." by preserving something the audience was invested in.
The fourth wall is broken a number of time in this film, and I believe that goes to further my assumption of Haneke's intentions. The "bad guys" are often making references to "the audience" and "we have to give the audience what they want..." And when they actually turn to the camera and completely BREAK the Fourth Wall, it's eerily creepy. I got chills the first time it happened. While there is not a lot of constant tension, during the middle of the film there is a sequence that literally had my heart beating faster and faster. I was nervous and scared at the same time. This sequence seriously invoked the emotion of fear in me - and that makes it successful to me.
Now, as you are watching the film you should consider asking yourself this question: "Who are the real protagonists of this film?" You might be foolish to consider The Family the true protagonists of the film, and not The Boys. However, since the storyline always follows the family, and doesn't follow the boys - I could be foolish for considering them the protagonists.
During our conversation post-film, Phil pointed out a specific sequence of dialogue, which I had forgotten, that really seems to kind of set the mood for the actual context of the film. When/If you watch the flick, make sure you pay attention to the conversation Tim Roth's character has with his son on the boat near the beginning of the film. It really kinda of sets up the reality of the world this film takes place. Then, take into consideration my arguments for the purpose of the film, and you might actually enjoy it more than Michael did.
It's a thinking movie. It's not just mindless entertainment, so don't expect that. I also thought the acting was top-notch. Very good emotional performances by Roth and Watts, and even the kid who plays their son. Pitt and Corbet are freakishly impressive in their roles. While many moments of the film seemed slow and drug on, it was still for the previously mentioned purpose of forcing the audience to use their minds, and not be force-feed everything. The film is purposely ambiguous in that fashion, and it makes an interesting piece of art.
And he's allowed to have his opinion. He didn't like it, and that's too bad.
You're going to find a completely different review here.
***Michael, you don't need to post a comment telling me I'm an idiot for liking the film, I already read it on your blog. And if anyone wants to know how you feel about the film, they can GO HERE. You don't need to repeat yourself on here, cool?***
Shane's Review:
I give "Funny Games" 3 1/2 Stars our of 5.
In case you're not familiar with the film, here's the short of the story: Two harmless looking young men make their way into a rich family's home. Throughout the night the play numerous mental games with them, terrorizing them.
It's a psychological film. It's a slow film. It's not an action movie, and it's not a gore-fest film. It's a psychological film, done in a minor Hitchcockian way.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said, "Where there is no imagination there is no horror". I believe this is a perfect way to explain the film. Like I previously said, this is not a gore-fest like the typical horror films on the 21st Century, where they try to gross-out the audience by showing heads exploding, and objects being inserted into the skin, causing massive amount of blood and amazing pain. EVERY violent moment in this film (and there are only three, that I remember) are all seen off-screen. This forces your imagination to think about what it looked like, and let's be honest - your imagination can run wild. You probably make it a lot worse than it really is.
I believe the director, Michael Haneke, has created a somewhat anti-American film. It's a satire of the society of America. Those people who HATE this movie, hate it because it's not the spoon-feed garbage of gore that American Audiences have come to beg for (Michael, I don't mean this at you, I know you're not a typical movie-goer - this was a general statement). "Give us more gore!" Why are there so many CRAPPY horror films coming out? The multiple amounts of "Saw" films, that keep trying to raise the bar. The UNWATCHABLE film "Hostel" and I've heard its sequel goes even farther than the original - I refused to watch it. In America, everyone has become so obsessed with seeing every little bit of violence on screen, that they lust for it. This film denies them that. It refuses to show it to them, and instead forces intelligent people to put together in their own minds what happened. I respect that. I respect his (probable) intention of creating an anti-gore film. In another anti-horror/slasher/gore film move, the "bad guys" aren't rude and evil terrorists. They are two overly kind and polite young men, who are freakishly polite, even while they are demanding things from you. And if you don't do as you ask, you get a glimpse of what they might become, but they are very quick to apologize for their outbursts, and go back to being overly friendly. It's hard to hate a character who always says "please" and "thank you", even when they are threatening the lives of people.
I'm not going to lie, at one point in the film I really felt CHEATED. REALLY CHEATED. I felt like the director was doing something horribly wrong with the film. However, in retrospect - I think I understand it more. I think it goes back to "giving the audience what they want". The audience WANTS to see the bad guys win, they want to see the bad guys torturing people. So, when this event happens - due to the graphic nature of the event, what happens makes sense: in the attempts to keep this as anti-gore as possible. Despite it's implausibility in reality, in context of a film knowing its a film - by breaking the fourth wall - it was doing what "...it thought the audience wanted..." by preserving something the audience was invested in.
The fourth wall is broken a number of time in this film, and I believe that goes to further my assumption of Haneke's intentions. The "bad guys" are often making references to "the audience" and "we have to give the audience what they want..." And when they actually turn to the camera and completely BREAK the Fourth Wall, it's eerily creepy. I got chills the first time it happened. While there is not a lot of constant tension, during the middle of the film there is a sequence that literally had my heart beating faster and faster. I was nervous and scared at the same time. This sequence seriously invoked the emotion of fear in me - and that makes it successful to me.
Now, as you are watching the film you should consider asking yourself this question: "Who are the real protagonists of this film?" You might be foolish to consider The Family the true protagonists of the film, and not The Boys. However, since the storyline always follows the family, and doesn't follow the boys - I could be foolish for considering them the protagonists.
During our conversation post-film, Phil pointed out a specific sequence of dialogue, which I had forgotten, that really seems to kind of set the mood for the actual context of the film. When/If you watch the flick, make sure you pay attention to the conversation Tim Roth's character has with his son on the boat near the beginning of the film. It really kinda of sets up the reality of the world this film takes place. Then, take into consideration my arguments for the purpose of the film, and you might actually enjoy it more than Michael did.
It's a thinking movie. It's not just mindless entertainment, so don't expect that. I also thought the acting was top-notch. Very good emotional performances by Roth and Watts, and even the kid who plays their son. Pitt and Corbet are freakishly impressive in their roles. While many moments of the film seemed slow and drug on, it was still for the previously mentioned purpose of forcing the audience to use their minds, and not be force-feed everything. The film is purposely ambiguous in that fashion, and it makes an interesting piece of art.
Friday, March 14, 2008
"Unknown" Review
"August Rush" was on backorder yesterday, so I got "Once" and "Unknown" in the mail today. Although, I did get an email today telling me that I would get "August Rush" tomorrow.
So, after I got done watching "Lost" and basketball tonight - I decided I wasn't tired, and I wanted to pop in a movie. "Unknown" was the shorter of the two, so I decided to put it in.
It's a move that I've been wanting to see for a while, and I've actually picked it up and carried it around at Best Buy, only to put it down and claim I'm going to buy it another time. I'm really glad I never paid full price for the film on DVD, because I doubt its something I'll ever be in the mood to watch again.
It's a pretty good film. I did enjoy watching it, and trying to figure everything out. But, now that I know everything, I just don't think I'll ever have the desire to watch it again. Unless I'm going to be watching it with someone who hasn't seen it. That's about it. The film is in the same vein as "Reservoir Dogs", in the fact that its a group of men in one central location, who all don't trust each other. Granted, the dialogue and events of this film pale in comparison to those of "Reservoir Dogs".
It opens with Jim Caviezel waking up in the middle of a storage room, he looks around and sees other men, all passed out. There's lots of blood and weapons lying around. Over time, all of the men wake up, and everyone has amnesia, due to a container of some gas which has busted open. The film follows the men, as they all begin to regain their memories and piece together what happened to bring them all together. Some are good, some are bad, and we (as the audience) go along with the characters as they remember things.
Honestly, I believe the storyline would have been better served as a one hour television script for some crime drama. Because, while we watch the men in the warehouse - we also follow the cops who are working with the wife of one of the men, who pays the ransom for her husband. We see from their angle, as they pursue the criminals and attempt to track them down. But, there's a lot of things in the film that probably could have been scaled back or removed to make the pace a lot quicker. The film takes a while to get you involved. Probably ten minutes, or so - it's basically the polar opposite of "Brick". Once the film gets going, it is pretty well paced, despite the things that I feel could be cut.
I'd probably rank it a 6/10.
I'm taking "Once" to work with me tomorrow. And tomorrow night, after I get home from the Big Ten Tourney, I will probably put in "August Rush". Netflix is really turning out to be the most amazing thing ever. I love the ability to get any of these films that I've been wanting to see, but too lazy to purchase - and then, after I watch them, I realize that there's no reason to waste my money on the DVD. I think this is going to save me a lot of money in the long run. And, I'm just about ready to start selling off my DVD collection. Aside from the TV Shows I really care about, and maybe 50 films - the rest are going to be taken to a place that buys Used DVDs. Time to get rid of this massive collection of films that I never watch.
So, after I got done watching "Lost" and basketball tonight - I decided I wasn't tired, and I wanted to pop in a movie. "Unknown" was the shorter of the two, so I decided to put it in.
It's a move that I've been wanting to see for a while, and I've actually picked it up and carried it around at Best Buy, only to put it down and claim I'm going to buy it another time. I'm really glad I never paid full price for the film on DVD, because I doubt its something I'll ever be in the mood to watch again.
It's a pretty good film. I did enjoy watching it, and trying to figure everything out. But, now that I know everything, I just don't think I'll ever have the desire to watch it again. Unless I'm going to be watching it with someone who hasn't seen it. That's about it. The film is in the same vein as "Reservoir Dogs", in the fact that its a group of men in one central location, who all don't trust each other. Granted, the dialogue and events of this film pale in comparison to those of "Reservoir Dogs".
It opens with Jim Caviezel waking up in the middle of a storage room, he looks around and sees other men, all passed out. There's lots of blood and weapons lying around. Over time, all of the men wake up, and everyone has amnesia, due to a container of some gas which has busted open. The film follows the men, as they all begin to regain their memories and piece together what happened to bring them all together. Some are good, some are bad, and we (as the audience) go along with the characters as they remember things.
Honestly, I believe the storyline would have been better served as a one hour television script for some crime drama. Because, while we watch the men in the warehouse - we also follow the cops who are working with the wife of one of the men, who pays the ransom for her husband. We see from their angle, as they pursue the criminals and attempt to track them down. But, there's a lot of things in the film that probably could have been scaled back or removed to make the pace a lot quicker. The film takes a while to get you involved. Probably ten minutes, or so - it's basically the polar opposite of "Brick". Once the film gets going, it is pretty well paced, despite the things that I feel could be cut.
I'd probably rank it a 6/10.
I'm taking "Once" to work with me tomorrow. And tomorrow night, after I get home from the Big Ten Tourney, I will probably put in "August Rush". Netflix is really turning out to be the most amazing thing ever. I love the ability to get any of these films that I've been wanting to see, but too lazy to purchase - and then, after I watch them, I realize that there's no reason to waste my money on the DVD. I think this is going to save me a lot of money in the long run. And, I'm just about ready to start selling off my DVD collection. Aside from the TV Shows I really care about, and maybe 50 films - the rest are going to be taken to a place that buys Used DVDs. Time to get rid of this massive collection of films that I never watch.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
"Brick" Review
I bought the film back in August of 2006.
And I took it to work with me tonight, and after I watched it, I asked myself one question:
WHY did it take me SO long to watch this film?
The film is enjoyable because people talk in ways that "real" people don't talk. The dialogue is written very differently from how normal people talk, and that just adds to the appeal. When Humphrey Bogart talks in "The Maltese Falcon" - it's not typical, he's got this vibe about him, and his vernacular reflects it. Jack Nicholson in "Chinatown" is another perfect example. It's the way they carry themselves, that adds so much tot he character, and the way they talk is just anther reflection of their attitude and demeanor. Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is another one of those characters, he just happens to live in the modern day. And his "film noir" style dialogue is converted into hip modern dialogue, that is spoken with pure and true film noir diaglogue. It's very well done.
Wow, wow, wow. What a good film. I was hooked after the first ten minutes. It's not a typical indie film, that requires 30 minutes of set-up and explanation of characters and situations you don't care about. After the first minute, you're involved in the story and you're following the journey that Brendan is going on. You learn as he learns, you evaluate people as he does. You try to connect the dots, and when you think you know what's going on, you've got no real idea.
The cinematography is amazing, the shots are so well put together and composed. I loved the look of the film. It had a really grainy feel to it, and I loved how it felt to watch. I also enjoyed the use of color in this film. One group is specifically defined by the color white, while another group of people is specificaly designated to the black color. Then, we have Brendan, who is commonly wears grey throughout the film. A perfect metaphorical representation of how Brendan constantly walks the thin line between good and bad in the film, all in the name of love. Brendan is trying to solve the murder of a the girl he loves, and not only does he learn a lot about her, and the people she fell involved with - he also learns his own personal limits.
And just like typical drama-detective films, it's not over when you think its over, and Brendan has an amazing final scene - with the "true" killer - where you get the sense that he's smarter than we have ever thought. Which, thinking back, I shouldn't have underestimated him. He figures out a good amount of things throughout the film, and I should have seen him putting everything together.
Like I said, the most appealing part of the film is the fact that people talk in ways that are so atypical that it draws you into the film, from the first sequence. I highly recommend it, and I hope you don't wait as long as I did to watch it. Like "The Maltese Falcon" and "Chinatown", "Brick" is not a film I could watch regularly, but I imagine that every year, or two, I will break it out and want to watch it. It's definitely a film that I would watch with anyone who hasn't seen it, just to watch them and see their reactions.
And I took it to work with me tonight, and after I watched it, I asked myself one question:
WHY did it take me SO long to watch this film?
The film is enjoyable because people talk in ways that "real" people don't talk. The dialogue is written very differently from how normal people talk, and that just adds to the appeal. When Humphrey Bogart talks in "The Maltese Falcon" - it's not typical, he's got this vibe about him, and his vernacular reflects it. Jack Nicholson in "Chinatown" is another perfect example. It's the way they carry themselves, that adds so much tot he character, and the way they talk is just anther reflection of their attitude and demeanor. Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is another one of those characters, he just happens to live in the modern day. And his "film noir" style dialogue is converted into hip modern dialogue, that is spoken with pure and true film noir diaglogue. It's very well done.
Wow, wow, wow. What a good film. I was hooked after the first ten minutes. It's not a typical indie film, that requires 30 minutes of set-up and explanation of characters and situations you don't care about. After the first minute, you're involved in the story and you're following the journey that Brendan is going on. You learn as he learns, you evaluate people as he does. You try to connect the dots, and when you think you know what's going on, you've got no real idea.
The cinematography is amazing, the shots are so well put together and composed. I loved the look of the film. It had a really grainy feel to it, and I loved how it felt to watch. I also enjoyed the use of color in this film. One group is specifically defined by the color white, while another group of people is specificaly designated to the black color. Then, we have Brendan, who is commonly wears grey throughout the film. A perfect metaphorical representation of how Brendan constantly walks the thin line between good and bad in the film, all in the name of love. Brendan is trying to solve the murder of a the girl he loves, and not only does he learn a lot about her, and the people she fell involved with - he also learns his own personal limits.
And just like typical drama-detective films, it's not over when you think its over, and Brendan has an amazing final scene - with the "true" killer - where you get the sense that he's smarter than we have ever thought. Which, thinking back, I shouldn't have underestimated him. He figures out a good amount of things throughout the film, and I should have seen him putting everything together.
Like I said, the most appealing part of the film is the fact that people talk in ways that are so atypical that it draws you into the film, from the first sequence. I highly recommend it, and I hope you don't wait as long as I did to watch it. Like "The Maltese Falcon" and "Chinatown", "Brick" is not a film I could watch regularly, but I imagine that every year, or two, I will break it out and want to watch it. It's definitely a film that I would watch with anyone who hasn't seen it, just to watch them and see their reactions.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
"2 Days in Paris" Review
"It always fascinated me how people go from loving you madly to nothing at all, nothing. It hurts so much. When I feel someone is going to leave me, I have a tendency to break up first before I get to hear the whole thing."
The films is definitely an art film. There's really not a plot to follow, it's more an observation of two characters. It was a little slower than I was hoping for, but it really does make a lot of good observations on romance and relationships, and our past.
For me, the easiest part to relate to was Jack (Adam Goldberg). Throughout the film, as they spend two days in Paris - after some time in Venice, before going back to New York - they come into contact with a number of Marion's Ex-Boyfriends. Jack doesn't do well with meeting her exes, specifically since he doesn't speak French, and doesn't understand exactly how they are hitting on Marion. Jealousy and Insecurities mount up throughout the film, and causes Jack and Marion to realize that after two years, they really don't know each other.
I didn't really care for Marion's parents. I didn't really think they were that important to the overall story. And Marion's Sister goes from being rude and demeaning towards Jack, only to later be extremely nice and friendly to him. It seemed like an odd contradiction, with no explanation - unless I missed something...?
It wasn't the best film I'd ever seen, but it invoked thoughts and memories in my mind - which I suppose is one of the true tests of good cinema. If you're looking for something different, and not typical - this is good film to fulfill that requirement. I can't say its a good "date movie", but something that can be watched by the single, those with a serious significant other, and those who just want to observe "art cinema".
The films is definitely an art film. There's really not a plot to follow, it's more an observation of two characters. It was a little slower than I was hoping for, but it really does make a lot of good observations on romance and relationships, and our past.
For me, the easiest part to relate to was Jack (Adam Goldberg). Throughout the film, as they spend two days in Paris - after some time in Venice, before going back to New York - they come into contact with a number of Marion's Ex-Boyfriends. Jack doesn't do well with meeting her exes, specifically since he doesn't speak French, and doesn't understand exactly how they are hitting on Marion. Jealousy and Insecurities mount up throughout the film, and causes Jack and Marion to realize that after two years, they really don't know each other.
I didn't really care for Marion's parents. I didn't really think they were that important to the overall story. And Marion's Sister goes from being rude and demeaning towards Jack, only to later be extremely nice and friendly to him. It seemed like an odd contradiction, with no explanation - unless I missed something...?
It wasn't the best film I'd ever seen, but it invoked thoughts and memories in my mind - which I suppose is one of the true tests of good cinema. If you're looking for something different, and not typical - this is good film to fulfill that requirement. I can't say its a good "date movie", but something that can be watched by the single, those with a serious significant other, and those who just want to observe "art cinema".
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
"Music and Lyrics" Review
So, last night at work I popped "Music and Lyrics" into my laptop and watched it.
It was exactly what I expected it to be. I wasn't let down, and I didn't get anything that I didn't expect. It followed the very common Romantic Comedy Storyline, and it worked just fine. It wasn't anything new, but it didn't feel like the same old "crap" either.
I actually liked Drew Barrymore. So often she plays the ditzy hot-girl with no self-esteem who doesn't think she deserves the guy she wants, then somehow gets him. That's NOT how she plays this character, and it was a wonderful surprise to see her in the flick. She actually plays a woman who has some serious mental instability issues, and she portrayed them well. She's not psycho, or anything, she's just got some stuff that she doesn't like to mentally deal with, and it effects her. I thought she did a really good job with the character and her mannerisms.
Hugh Grant was Hugh. It wasn't my favorite flick of his. He's done so many more interesting characters, and I honestly was never sold on this character. It almost seemed bi-polar to me. In one scene, he's be lamenting about how he was just doing these things for the money, and how he needed to try to get famous again. Then in the next scene, he was acting as if he was fine with being a washed-up ex-pop star. There never seemed to be a consistency to his character. I would blame it more on the script and the director than Hugh. He does have some good moments with Barrymore, and their interactions are a lot of fun to watch.
As I previously said, the story follows a typical formula. It's nothing new, it's nothing different, but its still enjoyable to watch. While the film begins with Alex's (Hugh Grant) need to write a duet for him and a current pop teen idol, where it focus on his inability to write the song, until along comes Sophie (Barrymore) - who is supposed to water his plants. It's not long before they are writing the song. After they finish it, the film shifts to Sophie and her personal problems, where Alex now feels invested enough to attempt to help her through some personal drama. Eventually they fight. And eventually it all works out.
FORMULA. But, worth an hour and half. Especially if you've got someone special to watch it with.
So tonight, I brought "2 Days in Paris" with me to work, and once the Pacers game is over (I'm listening to it on the radio), then I'll put it in and watch it tonight.
I stopped by the post office today, to return "The Nines" and "Music and Lyrics". So, hopefully in the next few days I'll get "Once" and "August Rush" in the next few days.
Currently, I'm watching the IUPUI/Oral Roberts game on Game Cast. At 9:00pm, I'll have the Butler game on Game Cast. It's a BIG night for small Indiana Colleges hoping to guarantee an NCAA Tourney Bid...
It was exactly what I expected it to be. I wasn't let down, and I didn't get anything that I didn't expect. It followed the very common Romantic Comedy Storyline, and it worked just fine. It wasn't anything new, but it didn't feel like the same old "crap" either.
I actually liked Drew Barrymore. So often she plays the ditzy hot-girl with no self-esteem who doesn't think she deserves the guy she wants, then somehow gets him. That's NOT how she plays this character, and it was a wonderful surprise to see her in the flick. She actually plays a woman who has some serious mental instability issues, and she portrayed them well. She's not psycho, or anything, she's just got some stuff that she doesn't like to mentally deal with, and it effects her. I thought she did a really good job with the character and her mannerisms.
Hugh Grant was Hugh. It wasn't my favorite flick of his. He's done so many more interesting characters, and I honestly was never sold on this character. It almost seemed bi-polar to me. In one scene, he's be lamenting about how he was just doing these things for the money, and how he needed to try to get famous again. Then in the next scene, he was acting as if he was fine with being a washed-up ex-pop star. There never seemed to be a consistency to his character. I would blame it more on the script and the director than Hugh. He does have some good moments with Barrymore, and their interactions are a lot of fun to watch.
As I previously said, the story follows a typical formula. It's nothing new, it's nothing different, but its still enjoyable to watch. While the film begins with Alex's (Hugh Grant) need to write a duet for him and a current pop teen idol, where it focus on his inability to write the song, until along comes Sophie (Barrymore) - who is supposed to water his plants. It's not long before they are writing the song. After they finish it, the film shifts to Sophie and her personal problems, where Alex now feels invested enough to attempt to help her through some personal drama. Eventually they fight. And eventually it all works out.
FORMULA. But, worth an hour and half. Especially if you've got someone special to watch it with.
So tonight, I brought "2 Days in Paris" with me to work, and once the Pacers game is over (I'm listening to it on the radio), then I'll put it in and watch it tonight.
I stopped by the post office today, to return "The Nines" and "Music and Lyrics". So, hopefully in the next few days I'll get "Once" and "August Rush" in the next few days.
Currently, I'm watching the IUPUI/Oral Roberts game on Game Cast. At 9:00pm, I'll have the Butler game on Game Cast. It's a BIG night for small Indiana Colleges hoping to guarantee an NCAA Tourney Bid...
Monday, March 03, 2008
"Vantage Point" Talk
I had a really fun afternoon/evening over at Troy and Emily's place. We played a bunch of Wii, and we watched the end of the NASCAR race. We also watched my DOMINATING performance today CRASH and BURN when Jeff Gordon wrecked with FOUR laps to go!!! ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyways, it was a lot of fun and I appreciate them inviting me over. I also got to hang out with Zach and Jenny, which is always a fun time. Despite Mario Party 8 CHEATING in Zach's favor, it was still a great time and the banter was fun.
Later tonight, I ended up at Phil's theatre to watch "Vantage Point". The flick was alright. I enjoyed the story-telling aspect of it. I honestly think it must have been stolen from indie-art-house flick, but it worked well. The multiple points of view seemed to work well, and they honestly constructed it in somewhat of a "Lost" type manner. At the end of each POV, it's going one of those "Holy Cow!" moments, but only the character sees it, we (the audience) do not, not until later. So, there's lots of times when you're like, "WHAT did they see???" But, you have to wait to get your answers.
I can understand why most people in the general public won't like this film. It's not traditional, and you do watch the same assassination seven different times from different aspects. Anyone who enjoys the "art" of film and film-making should enjoy this film more than most, for its artistic accomplishments.
I can't say that I was completely surprised by the twists they threw in. Some of them were interesting, but others you could sense coming.
I also took my friend Amanda to see "Juno" last night, and it was still good the second time around. However, we saw it at the new AMC theatre, which is all in digital. And honestly, there are some films - and "Juno" is one of them for me - that I don't think I want (or need) to see in digital. "Juno" is an art-house film. I kind of feel that I should watch a gritty/grainy print to put me in the right mood to view the film. Maybe I'm just weird...
Anyways, it was a lot of fun and I appreciate them inviting me over. I also got to hang out with Zach and Jenny, which is always a fun time. Despite Mario Party 8 CHEATING in Zach's favor, it was still a great time and the banter was fun.
Later tonight, I ended up at Phil's theatre to watch "Vantage Point". The flick was alright. I enjoyed the story-telling aspect of it. I honestly think it must have been stolen from indie-art-house flick, but it worked well. The multiple points of view seemed to work well, and they honestly constructed it in somewhat of a "Lost" type manner. At the end of each POV, it's going one of those "Holy Cow!" moments, but only the character sees it, we (the audience) do not, not until later. So, there's lots of times when you're like, "WHAT did they see???" But, you have to wait to get your answers.
I can understand why most people in the general public won't like this film. It's not traditional, and you do watch the same assassination seven different times from different aspects. Anyone who enjoys the "art" of film and film-making should enjoy this film more than most, for its artistic accomplishments.
I can't say that I was completely surprised by the twists they threw in. Some of them were interesting, but others you could sense coming.
I also took my friend Amanda to see "Juno" last night, and it was still good the second time around. However, we saw it at the new AMC theatre, which is all in digital. And honestly, there are some films - and "Juno" is one of them for me - that I don't think I want (or need) to see in digital. "Juno" is an art-house film. I kind of feel that I should watch a gritty/grainy print to put me in the right mood to view the film. Maybe I'm just weird...
Monday, January 14, 2008
"Definitely, Maybe"
"From the Makers of 'Notting Hill' and 'Love Actually'".
Honestly, that's all it took to get me interested in the film.
Ryan Reynolds was a bonus.
"A second look at the past, will give him a second chance at the future" was also a pretty wicked tagline, that sparked some more interest.
Then, I found the trailer for "Definitely, Maybe" and now I CAN NOT WAIT to see this flick. It looks awesome, and now I'll just have to arrange a date for myself for Valentine's Day.
CLICK HERE to check out the trailer in High-Def.
Add in that the film is directed (and written) by the Adam Brooks, who also wrote and directed "The Invisible Circus", which was a movie I REALLY enjoyed a few years back (despite one or two things in the story, overall I thought it was a pretty well made and well acted film). And because it looks like he's made a really awesome film, I will forgive him for being the screenwriter on "Bridget Jones 2". Hey, every screenwriter needs to get paid, right? I don't blame him, look at Brian Helgeland ("L.A. Confidential" and "The Postman" both in 1997 - Won an Oscar for writing, at the same time his other movie was being considered one of the worst things ever put on film...).
Alright, time to start taking applications for my downtown dinner and "Definitely, Maybe" date on Valentine's Day...
Honestly, that's all it took to get me interested in the film.
Ryan Reynolds was a bonus.
"A second look at the past, will give him a second chance at the future" was also a pretty wicked tagline, that sparked some more interest.
Then, I found the trailer for "Definitely, Maybe" and now I CAN NOT WAIT to see this flick. It looks awesome, and now I'll just have to arrange a date for myself for Valentine's Day.
CLICK HERE to check out the trailer in High-Def.
Add in that the film is directed (and written) by the Adam Brooks, who also wrote and directed "The Invisible Circus", which was a movie I REALLY enjoyed a few years back (despite one or two things in the story, overall I thought it was a pretty well made and well acted film). And because it looks like he's made a really awesome film, I will forgive him for being the screenwriter on "Bridget Jones 2". Hey, every screenwriter needs to get paid, right? I don't blame him, look at Brian Helgeland ("L.A. Confidential" and "The Postman" both in 1997 - Won an Oscar for writing, at the same time his other movie was being considered one of the worst things ever put on film...).
Alright, time to start taking applications for my downtown dinner and "Definitely, Maybe" date on Valentine's Day...
Saturday, January 12, 2008
I'll be Partying with Wyld Mongoose for a Long Time
Over the past couple of weeks, these are the films I've been watching:
"Love Actually", "St. Elmo's Fire", "The Breakfast Club", "About Last Night..."
Yesterday morning, when I woke up, I laid in bed for a long time. The menu for "Love Actually" was on the TV, and I hit play. And while the movie was playing, I wasn't really paying attention. I was more taking a survey of my life, and wondering why I had been in such a funk for so long. Obviously, the demise of my marriage and my divorce was the number one thing, but that's been so long ago, I couldn't figure out what was causing all these feelings. I wasn't the happy person I once considered myself. Granted, I often put on outward appearances, and it wasn't like I was suicidally depressed, or anything, but I wasn't "happy".
Then, I started putting some pieces together.
I had not completed a script since 2003, when I wrote "Reunion". I've started a few, and I have three notebooks full of ideas for various scripts. I spent an extended period of time in Boston, working on "Wake Up in the Breakdown" with Jason. Which, just turned out to be an exercising of demons, as my exploration into the two main characters helped me come to terms with my very new (at the time) divorce. Honestly, I liked the story and the idea, but it hit a point where I didn't have a way to get my characters from Point A to Point B, and that's when I realized that in learning about the characters, I learned about myself, my flaws, and what I did wrong in my relationship. Granted, it was too little too late and even the good character development couldn't save things.
I hadn't directed a movie since 2003. "Reunion" was the last film that I directed, and I poured so much of myself into the project that I was physically and mentally drained when the project was over. Sadly, it was during this time, and my obsessive-compulsive nature towards the project that my marriage began to suffer. So, on top of the physically challenges of working long days and filming long days, on top of constantly having to evolve certain parts of the story, based on exterior problems with cast - I was facing a situation where I was neglecting someone important to me, and causing the rift between us. I'm a passionate person, and I don't know how to make film any other way, but I believe this fallout from making "Reunion" was never really fixed.
I hadn't produced a film since 2005, when I produced "Crazy About You" for Jason and Zach - through our company. This was the most difficult, as it dealt with one of our biggest casts, and probably most professional collection of people. But, this only added more and more stress to the project. Due to the fallout from "Reunion" (between us), Kristen had decided that she wanted nothing to do with "Crazy About You". She was pretty much fed up with my filmmaking, didn't like the late night and long hours that it took, and really hated how much of my time and life was dedicated to seeing a movie through to completion. It was a rough time, and got even rougher after filming was complete. The post-production on the project was almost non-existent. And one of the hardest thing I ever had to do as a Producer was demand that a partner of mine, a friend of mine, and the director/editor of the film give me all of the footage. I was then burdened with the task of cutting the film myself. Which, Kristen would refuse to come into the office when I was editing, because she wanted nothing to do with my filmmaking. And I felt the urgency to get the film cut together and shown to our cast and crew, who REALLY put in a lot of time and effort into the project. In my mind, my reputation was on the line, so I was constantly in my office cutting the film, every chance I got. The break-up happened, the divorce happened, and then I finally finished the film in August. Probably six months after I got the footage.
To this day, "Crazy About You" has not been finished. We shot most of the film over three years ago, with some scenes added to the shooting later.
The hardest thing was the basic break-up of GemInI Films, post-"Crazy About You". Production on that movie took a lot out of all four of us. Chris decided to dedicate himself to his band. Zach was working two jobs and had no free time. And Jason moved to Boston. All of those factors made it impossible to make films together, and I always said that I only wanted to make films with those people - with my close friends. How naive of a statement was that?
I hope I've done an acceptable job of painting this picture for you: The Art of Filmmaking left a SOUR TASTE in my mouth. But, as I laid in bed yesterday, I thought over all of this and I finally came to the conclusion that its been my lack of filmmaking - since the divorce - that has taken away from my positive mental attitude. It's what I want to do. I feel good when I do it. And even now, as I write this blog, I get excited about the next year of devoting myself to one project.
So, after a long look at my life, I made the decision that I wanted to begin seriously working on a new script. Matt and I were working together last night, and it posed the PERFECT opportunity.
Let me give you a little history with Matt: In the Fall of 2005, a group of kids from Butler University began shooting a movie at my theatre. We would let them come in at night, and shoot scenes - because the film was set in a movie theatre. So, we let them use all over the building and I got to know the director and some of the cast and crew. This was the first film for most of them, and since I had made so many, they sometimes would ask for some advice. At the time, Matt was just an actor in the film. And after they wrapped up production, I was shocked a few weeks later when Matt was hired at my theatre. He started out as just an employee, but over time has become a fellow manager with me. Matt attends IUPUI and is getting his English degree, and will be attending gradute school in Michigan in the fall, to work on his Fiction Literature BA. Basically, Matt wants to be an author, and he's always been talking about wanting to make another film, and writer more scripts, etc...
So, I walked into the office last night, and I looked Matt in the eyes and said, "I want you and I to sit in here all night and create a storyline for a script that we can write together." His eyes got big, asked me if I was serious, and then it began. I told him, I want to make a film about friends with an ensemble cast of four males and three females. I want to make something like "St. Elmo's Fire" for the modern generation. Films like that don't exist anymore, films about a bunch of friends, and how they help and hurt each other. It's that lost vibe from 80s Brat Pack films.
After an hour, that idea was completely scrapped, and we had the seed for what will be become "The Band Film". Currently, we are referring to it as "The Road to the Top" - but we have both agreed that name will soon change.
In five hours, we got our basic Act I, Act II, and Act III plot points down. We understand the three stages of the film, and what moves us from I to II and from II to III. We've developed the personalities of the four main band members. Started working on their history, and on their relationships. We've addressed the struggles and roadblocks that are going to come into play through the project. We've got our climax and our falling action almost perfect mapped out - to bring out what we think will be an extremely emotional segment of the film, and the resulting downward spiral will be an interesting way to end the film.
For five hours of work, I think we accomplished A LOT. And it didn't stop there, as I was driving home from work - Matt called, with more ideas. I miss that. I miss having those late night conversations that Jason Maier and I used to have all the time when we were kicking about story ideas and plots. I was awake until after 3am, writing in my notebook. Writing the biography of the band, and organizing all of the events that we have in place so far.
I felt productive. I felt good. It's not going to be a boring, character driven lament-over-lost-love, like "Reunion" was. It's got meat to it, and it can only bulk up even more. New ideas will pour in, we will make changes. We will add things, and remove others. It's going to be a very productive next couple of weeks, and Matt and I both plan on working on this as much as we can. We're organizing our schedules so that we can find time to work together. Matt's girlfriend is going to South Dakota for the entire month of February - and Matt plans on hanging out at my place every few minute he has while she's gone. We're hoping that by March we'll be on our way to starting the first lines of dialogue in the first draft of the script.
I am so happy to be working with someone who really has a passion and desire to write, and wants to complete a script. It's going to be great energy for us to bounce off of each other, and it's going to help us create an amazing project.
We're also both blessed to know a good number of people in various bands. This is going to help us in creating our fake band, by getting people who we think will have good screen presence, and the ability to also play instruments - creating a believable "fake" band. This is also going to make my return to directing a feature film, something I've longed to do since "Reunion" wrapped. Luckily for me, Matt knows some people who are very interested in editing - meaning I won't have to be the editor on this film. Now, anyone who knows me knows I'll be spending a lot of time with the editor, and explaining in great detail the things I am going to want for each scene. But, Matt and I both agreed that having someone else edit, and add their own eye to the story would be a great thing. It's something that has ALWAYS been lacking in a GemInI Film. Matt and I know of a potential investor. It's someone we both know that has made it known to us that they would be interested in reading any script we know about, and would consider putting some financial backing towards an indie film. Matt and I have never really taken this person too seriously, and never taken a project to him. But, we've both agreed that our project might be the right one to take his way. It's a long shot, but it never hurts to ask. Finally, I'm going to have to look for some more people to help produce this. By the time we actually go into production, Matt will be living in Michigan, and this is NOT a project I am going to produce on my own. Two to three other people will eventually need to be found to help out on this project. It's going to be pretty big at times, and we're going to need a lot more people helping out in more leadership roles than on any other project. That's kind of how GemInI Films has always worked, we've always tried to get a little bit bigger with each project we've done. I think we bit off too much on "Crazy About You" and didn't have the right people helping us to make sure it went as smooth as it could. We won't make that mistake again.
So, I've made you read all this history and though process.
Do you want to know what the film is about?
Here's a short synopsis:
The film follows a garage band who goes by the name of Wyld Mongoose. It's made up for members, who spend their days drifting through their "real" jobs, while eagerly waiting for 5pm, when they can head to band practice together. Steve, the lead singer, is a partier and major womanizer. Jimmy, the guitarist, is Steve's best friend and they party hard together. Despite Tara, Jimmy's girlfriend, Jimmy is constantly having an affair. Paul, the bass player, is married to Chrissy and has a child, and is the guy who is responsible for bringing the band together. The band practices in his garage. Finally, there is Keith - the drummer - who is an Uber-Drum-Dork, and lacks all social skills with women, because all he can ever talk about is the drums and music. He's not a retard, and he tries to talk to them, but they never can relate to him and his passion. Keith always carries drum sticks in his hands.
The film follows this little band, as they begin to play shows, and start to do well in a local Battle of the Bands. As they move on, and get noticed more, an indie record producer named Vic Stein meets with the band, and wants to sign them. However, from the moment they sign with Vic, he does everything in his power to change the band, and mold them into the band he thinks will be most profitable - This starts when he renames the band to Speedometer (we've got a GREAT idea for the band logo, I can't wait to have someone design it for us!). He sees their talent, but doesn't like their sound or their look. He attempts to get Keith kicked out of the band because of his eccentric-ness, but Paul does not allow this. Vic often attempts to exercise his domineering control over the band, and often tells them "...anyone one of you can be replaced, if you don't do what I tell you to do." Act II deals with the struggle of the band, as they attempt to hold onto their own identity and their love for music, while they learn the pressures that are put on bands who are attempting to make it big. Steve becomes the biggest sell-out, and is very influenced by Vic. Steve's desire to be a Rock God propels him to begin clashing with other members of the band, who just want to hold on to their identity. Act II ends with a massive tragedy that hits the band.
Act III begins the falling action of the film, and deals with the consequences of the tragedy. How the band gets through it, and the things that they all learn about themselves throughout the process of attempting to make a name for their band, which really wasn't even their band anymore. As the tragedy has long-lasting effects, it eventually rips and tears the band apart, while they all begin attempting to discover why they ever wanted to play music in the first place.
Then, we have an amazing final scene mapped out. And I can't wait to write, but more than that, I can't wait to film it, then I can't wait to cut it together and get the reactions from the first people who watch the film. I really think its a great way to end this story.
So, over the next few weeks and months, if you see me wandering around with a black notebook, or see me writing in the notebook, or if I happen to be sitting somewhere with my laptop and I'm typing away - you'll now know what I'm working on, and what I am going to pour my heart and soul into for the next year, or more, of my life. I very much look forward to getting back into filmmaking and writing, and creating... The journey starts right here, right now. I'll see you when it's over. And I hope you'll see the film.
"Love Actually", "St. Elmo's Fire", "The Breakfast Club", "About Last Night..."
Yesterday morning, when I woke up, I laid in bed for a long time. The menu for "Love Actually" was on the TV, and I hit play. And while the movie was playing, I wasn't really paying attention. I was more taking a survey of my life, and wondering why I had been in such a funk for so long. Obviously, the demise of my marriage and my divorce was the number one thing, but that's been so long ago, I couldn't figure out what was causing all these feelings. I wasn't the happy person I once considered myself. Granted, I often put on outward appearances, and it wasn't like I was suicidally depressed, or anything, but I wasn't "happy".
Then, I started putting some pieces together.
I had not completed a script since 2003, when I wrote "Reunion". I've started a few, and I have three notebooks full of ideas for various scripts. I spent an extended period of time in Boston, working on "Wake Up in the Breakdown" with Jason. Which, just turned out to be an exercising of demons, as my exploration into the two main characters helped me come to terms with my very new (at the time) divorce. Honestly, I liked the story and the idea, but it hit a point where I didn't have a way to get my characters from Point A to Point B, and that's when I realized that in learning about the characters, I learned about myself, my flaws, and what I did wrong in my relationship. Granted, it was too little too late and even the good character development couldn't save things.
I hadn't directed a movie since 2003. "Reunion" was the last film that I directed, and I poured so much of myself into the project that I was physically and mentally drained when the project was over. Sadly, it was during this time, and my obsessive-compulsive nature towards the project that my marriage began to suffer. So, on top of the physically challenges of working long days and filming long days, on top of constantly having to evolve certain parts of the story, based on exterior problems with cast - I was facing a situation where I was neglecting someone important to me, and causing the rift between us. I'm a passionate person, and I don't know how to make film any other way, but I believe this fallout from making "Reunion" was never really fixed.
I hadn't produced a film since 2005, when I produced "Crazy About You" for Jason and Zach - through our company. This was the most difficult, as it dealt with one of our biggest casts, and probably most professional collection of people. But, this only added more and more stress to the project. Due to the fallout from "Reunion" (between us), Kristen had decided that she wanted nothing to do with "Crazy About You". She was pretty much fed up with my filmmaking, didn't like the late night and long hours that it took, and really hated how much of my time and life was dedicated to seeing a movie through to completion. It was a rough time, and got even rougher after filming was complete. The post-production on the project was almost non-existent. And one of the hardest thing I ever had to do as a Producer was demand that a partner of mine, a friend of mine, and the director/editor of the film give me all of the footage. I was then burdened with the task of cutting the film myself. Which, Kristen would refuse to come into the office when I was editing, because she wanted nothing to do with my filmmaking. And I felt the urgency to get the film cut together and shown to our cast and crew, who REALLY put in a lot of time and effort into the project. In my mind, my reputation was on the line, so I was constantly in my office cutting the film, every chance I got. The break-up happened, the divorce happened, and then I finally finished the film in August. Probably six months after I got the footage.
To this day, "Crazy About You" has not been finished. We shot most of the film over three years ago, with some scenes added to the shooting later.
The hardest thing was the basic break-up of GemInI Films, post-"Crazy About You". Production on that movie took a lot out of all four of us. Chris decided to dedicate himself to his band. Zach was working two jobs and had no free time. And Jason moved to Boston. All of those factors made it impossible to make films together, and I always said that I only wanted to make films with those people - with my close friends. How naive of a statement was that?
I hope I've done an acceptable job of painting this picture for you: The Art of Filmmaking left a SOUR TASTE in my mouth. But, as I laid in bed yesterday, I thought over all of this and I finally came to the conclusion that its been my lack of filmmaking - since the divorce - that has taken away from my positive mental attitude. It's what I want to do. I feel good when I do it. And even now, as I write this blog, I get excited about the next year of devoting myself to one project.
So, after a long look at my life, I made the decision that I wanted to begin seriously working on a new script. Matt and I were working together last night, and it posed the PERFECT opportunity.
Let me give you a little history with Matt: In the Fall of 2005, a group of kids from Butler University began shooting a movie at my theatre. We would let them come in at night, and shoot scenes - because the film was set in a movie theatre. So, we let them use all over the building and I got to know the director and some of the cast and crew. This was the first film for most of them, and since I had made so many, they sometimes would ask for some advice. At the time, Matt was just an actor in the film. And after they wrapped up production, I was shocked a few weeks later when Matt was hired at my theatre. He started out as just an employee, but over time has become a fellow manager with me. Matt attends IUPUI and is getting his English degree, and will be attending gradute school in Michigan in the fall, to work on his Fiction Literature BA. Basically, Matt wants to be an author, and he's always been talking about wanting to make another film, and writer more scripts, etc...
So, I walked into the office last night, and I looked Matt in the eyes and said, "I want you and I to sit in here all night and create a storyline for a script that we can write together." His eyes got big, asked me if I was serious, and then it began. I told him, I want to make a film about friends with an ensemble cast of four males and three females. I want to make something like "St. Elmo's Fire" for the modern generation. Films like that don't exist anymore, films about a bunch of friends, and how they help and hurt each other. It's that lost vibe from 80s Brat Pack films.
After an hour, that idea was completely scrapped, and we had the seed for what will be become "The Band Film". Currently, we are referring to it as "The Road to the Top" - but we have both agreed that name will soon change.
In five hours, we got our basic Act I, Act II, and Act III plot points down. We understand the three stages of the film, and what moves us from I to II and from II to III. We've developed the personalities of the four main band members. Started working on their history, and on their relationships. We've addressed the struggles and roadblocks that are going to come into play through the project. We've got our climax and our falling action almost perfect mapped out - to bring out what we think will be an extremely emotional segment of the film, and the resulting downward spiral will be an interesting way to end the film.
For five hours of work, I think we accomplished A LOT. And it didn't stop there, as I was driving home from work - Matt called, with more ideas. I miss that. I miss having those late night conversations that Jason Maier and I used to have all the time when we were kicking about story ideas and plots. I was awake until after 3am, writing in my notebook. Writing the biography of the band, and organizing all of the events that we have in place so far.
I felt productive. I felt good. It's not going to be a boring, character driven lament-over-lost-love, like "Reunion" was. It's got meat to it, and it can only bulk up even more. New ideas will pour in, we will make changes. We will add things, and remove others. It's going to be a very productive next couple of weeks, and Matt and I both plan on working on this as much as we can. We're organizing our schedules so that we can find time to work together. Matt's girlfriend is going to South Dakota for the entire month of February - and Matt plans on hanging out at my place every few minute he has while she's gone. We're hoping that by March we'll be on our way to starting the first lines of dialogue in the first draft of the script.
I am so happy to be working with someone who really has a passion and desire to write, and wants to complete a script. It's going to be great energy for us to bounce off of each other, and it's going to help us create an amazing project.
We're also both blessed to know a good number of people in various bands. This is going to help us in creating our fake band, by getting people who we think will have good screen presence, and the ability to also play instruments - creating a believable "fake" band. This is also going to make my return to directing a feature film, something I've longed to do since "Reunion" wrapped. Luckily for me, Matt knows some people who are very interested in editing - meaning I won't have to be the editor on this film. Now, anyone who knows me knows I'll be spending a lot of time with the editor, and explaining in great detail the things I am going to want for each scene. But, Matt and I both agreed that having someone else edit, and add their own eye to the story would be a great thing. It's something that has ALWAYS been lacking in a GemInI Film. Matt and I know of a potential investor. It's someone we both know that has made it known to us that they would be interested in reading any script we know about, and would consider putting some financial backing towards an indie film. Matt and I have never really taken this person too seriously, and never taken a project to him. But, we've both agreed that our project might be the right one to take his way. It's a long shot, but it never hurts to ask. Finally, I'm going to have to look for some more people to help produce this. By the time we actually go into production, Matt will be living in Michigan, and this is NOT a project I am going to produce on my own. Two to three other people will eventually need to be found to help out on this project. It's going to be pretty big at times, and we're going to need a lot more people helping out in more leadership roles than on any other project. That's kind of how GemInI Films has always worked, we've always tried to get a little bit bigger with each project we've done. I think we bit off too much on "Crazy About You" and didn't have the right people helping us to make sure it went as smooth as it could. We won't make that mistake again.
So, I've made you read all this history and though process.
Do you want to know what the film is about?
Here's a short synopsis:
The film follows a garage band who goes by the name of Wyld Mongoose. It's made up for members, who spend their days drifting through their "real" jobs, while eagerly waiting for 5pm, when they can head to band practice together. Steve, the lead singer, is a partier and major womanizer. Jimmy, the guitarist, is Steve's best friend and they party hard together. Despite Tara, Jimmy's girlfriend, Jimmy is constantly having an affair. Paul, the bass player, is married to Chrissy and has a child, and is the guy who is responsible for bringing the band together. The band practices in his garage. Finally, there is Keith - the drummer - who is an Uber-Drum-Dork, and lacks all social skills with women, because all he can ever talk about is the drums and music. He's not a retard, and he tries to talk to them, but they never can relate to him and his passion. Keith always carries drum sticks in his hands.
The film follows this little band, as they begin to play shows, and start to do well in a local Battle of the Bands. As they move on, and get noticed more, an indie record producer named Vic Stein meets with the band, and wants to sign them. However, from the moment they sign with Vic, he does everything in his power to change the band, and mold them into the band he thinks will be most profitable - This starts when he renames the band to Speedometer (we've got a GREAT idea for the band logo, I can't wait to have someone design it for us!). He sees their talent, but doesn't like their sound or their look. He attempts to get Keith kicked out of the band because of his eccentric-ness, but Paul does not allow this. Vic often attempts to exercise his domineering control over the band, and often tells them "...anyone one of you can be replaced, if you don't do what I tell you to do." Act II deals with the struggle of the band, as they attempt to hold onto their own identity and their love for music, while they learn the pressures that are put on bands who are attempting to make it big. Steve becomes the biggest sell-out, and is very influenced by Vic. Steve's desire to be a Rock God propels him to begin clashing with other members of the band, who just want to hold on to their identity. Act II ends with a massive tragedy that hits the band.
Act III begins the falling action of the film, and deals with the consequences of the tragedy. How the band gets through it, and the things that they all learn about themselves throughout the process of attempting to make a name for their band, which really wasn't even their band anymore. As the tragedy has long-lasting effects, it eventually rips and tears the band apart, while they all begin attempting to discover why they ever wanted to play music in the first place.
Then, we have an amazing final scene mapped out. And I can't wait to write, but more than that, I can't wait to film it, then I can't wait to cut it together and get the reactions from the first people who watch the film. I really think its a great way to end this story.
So, over the next few weeks and months, if you see me wandering around with a black notebook, or see me writing in the notebook, or if I happen to be sitting somewhere with my laptop and I'm typing away - you'll now know what I'm working on, and what I am going to pour my heart and soul into for the next year, or more, of my life. I very much look forward to getting back into filmmaking and writing, and creating... The journey starts right here, right now. I'll see you when it's over. And I hope you'll see the film.
Monday, January 07, 2008
"Juno"
It's late, so I'm just going to make this quick for now: I saw "Juno" last night, and I LOVED IT!!!
Ellen Page is AMAZING, and Juno's attitude in the film is GREAT. I love her cynical and sarcastic nature, but she's never condescending. She's an awesome fictional chick.
GO SEE THE MOVIE! I'm think about going to see it again tomorrow, that's how much I enjoyed it.
Ellen Page is AMAZING, and Juno's attitude in the film is GREAT. I love her cynical and sarcastic nature, but she's never condescending. She's an awesome fictional chick.
GO SEE THE MOVIE! I'm think about going to see it again tomorrow, that's how much I enjoyed it.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Saw Some "Treasure"
Phil and I woke up early this morning to run to Wal-Mart and buy a bunch of stuff we still needed for the Christmas Party. When we finished that, we headed to the NEW AMC Castleton Theatre (which will NEVER replace Castleton Arts) to see what the new theatre was like, and to catch "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" in DIGITAL!!!
I was over playing poker WAY TOO LATE at Troy's last night, and had no chance of catching a screening last night, but this film was HIGH on my priority list this year, and probably #1 at Christmas.
First, the theatre LOOKS beautful! Nice high lobby ceiling, some nice comfortable couches and chairs in one part of the lobby. Down the hallways they have some nice murals of various directors - showing the director on a set, giving his name and the name of the movie. Scorsese, Spieldberg, and Lee are the three I remember off the top of my head. The concession stand has BEAUTIFUL digital marquees - but, they aren't new, Landmark has had the exact same ones since they opened. But, it still looks better than regular concession marquees. I was disappointed that they don't offer pizzas - like Greenwood - since I hadn't had lunch, and was looking for something to eat at the theatre that would fill me up.
The presentation was very good. Nice LARGE screen. PERFECT picture. The digital sure does look amazing. The only problem with the presentation was the SEVEN trailers before the film (including "Speed Racer", which doesn't look as good as I thought it would, but I do still want to see it...), followed by a 7 or 8 minute short CARTOON starring Goofy!!! Before THIS FILM!?!?!? Seriously? Put that in front of another animated movie, or a true kids film. But, as an adult, don't ruin "National Treasure" for me with a long cartoon. It was a good and funny cartoon, I laughed a lot, but I would have preferred to watch it at home, when I was watching other animated shorts with Goofy in them! Anyways, the start time was 12:00pm, it was 12:25pm before The Disney Logo actually hit the screen to signify the start of the film.
The chairs SUCK. That's really the only true complaint I have about the theatre. It was SO UNCOMFORTABLE!!! It felt like I was sitting on a board the entire time, I constantly found myself shifting and trying to get comfortable. It never happened. I hope after this busy holiday season, and lots of people coming in, that they might lose some of their stiffness and become a little more enjoyable to sit in. Granted, I'll probably only go there and pay their fee for movies that I really want to see in Digital. Why pay for it, when I can still see it other places for free? But, there will be some things that I have to see in Digital. Just like there are some movies that I have to own on HD-DVD.
When we went to the theatre, I told Phil this: "I just don't want it to suck. I can handle it not being as good as the original, I just don't want the film to be complete crap."
It's not as good as the original.
But, it's NOT crap either.
So, I was pleasantly surprised with the film.
I laughed a lot. I still enjoy Riley and his side-kick comments.
The story is a little weak, but not really bad. It's just not as big and built up as the original one was. There's not as many clues and mysteries to solve. And there's not as much of a sense of danger as in the original. I LOVE Ed Harris and the character he plays. He fits in well, but at times did just remind me of playing a Sean Bean clone. While his intentions and motivations are different, he pursues Nic Cage and follows him very much the same. There's really no big plot twist in this one, not that there really was one in the first film, but when they get to the bottom of the pit and convince Sean Bean and his men that they need to go to Boston, that was kind of a good "pull the wool over their eyes" moment. Not one of those this time. It's much more simple, and much more "straight-lined" in their pursuit of things.
Bruce Greenwood plays the President! (You STILL haven't watched "Nowhere Man", have you??? SHAME ON YOU!!! What is your problem???) I wish he was in more of the film, but I enjoyed what he did. It's funny, I've loved this dude since 1994, and it seems like every couple of months I am mentioning his name in something new (and, then mentioning "Nowhere Man" which IS AVAILABLE ON DVD!!!). I'm very, very glad to see him getting this much work. He deserves it.
They left it open for a sequel. I recently read where Nic Cage wants to take the next film (if they make one), but I don't know if the "opening" they left in the film would actually take him to where he said he wanted to go. Either way, IF/WHEN the make the third one, I'll be interested to watch it too.
I was over playing poker WAY TOO LATE at Troy's last night, and had no chance of catching a screening last night, but this film was HIGH on my priority list this year, and probably #1 at Christmas.
First, the theatre LOOKS beautful! Nice high lobby ceiling, some nice comfortable couches and chairs in one part of the lobby. Down the hallways they have some nice murals of various directors - showing the director on a set, giving his name and the name of the movie. Scorsese, Spieldberg, and Lee are the three I remember off the top of my head. The concession stand has BEAUTIFUL digital marquees - but, they aren't new, Landmark has had the exact same ones since they opened. But, it still looks better than regular concession marquees. I was disappointed that they don't offer pizzas - like Greenwood - since I hadn't had lunch, and was looking for something to eat at the theatre that would fill me up.
The presentation was very good. Nice LARGE screen. PERFECT picture. The digital sure does look amazing. The only problem with the presentation was the SEVEN trailers before the film (including "Speed Racer", which doesn't look as good as I thought it would, but I do still want to see it...), followed by a 7 or 8 minute short CARTOON starring Goofy!!! Before THIS FILM!?!?!? Seriously? Put that in front of another animated movie, or a true kids film. But, as an adult, don't ruin "National Treasure" for me with a long cartoon. It was a good and funny cartoon, I laughed a lot, but I would have preferred to watch it at home, when I was watching other animated shorts with Goofy in them! Anyways, the start time was 12:00pm, it was 12:25pm before The Disney Logo actually hit the screen to signify the start of the film.
The chairs SUCK. That's really the only true complaint I have about the theatre. It was SO UNCOMFORTABLE!!! It felt like I was sitting on a board the entire time, I constantly found myself shifting and trying to get comfortable. It never happened. I hope after this busy holiday season, and lots of people coming in, that they might lose some of their stiffness and become a little more enjoyable to sit in. Granted, I'll probably only go there and pay their fee for movies that I really want to see in Digital. Why pay for it, when I can still see it other places for free? But, there will be some things that I have to see in Digital. Just like there are some movies that I have to own on HD-DVD.
When we went to the theatre, I told Phil this: "I just don't want it to suck. I can handle it not being as good as the original, I just don't want the film to be complete crap."
It's not as good as the original.
But, it's NOT crap either.
So, I was pleasantly surprised with the film.
I laughed a lot. I still enjoy Riley and his side-kick comments.
The story is a little weak, but not really bad. It's just not as big and built up as the original one was. There's not as many clues and mysteries to solve. And there's not as much of a sense of danger as in the original. I LOVE Ed Harris and the character he plays. He fits in well, but at times did just remind me of playing a Sean Bean clone. While his intentions and motivations are different, he pursues Nic Cage and follows him very much the same. There's really no big plot twist in this one, not that there really was one in the first film, but when they get to the bottom of the pit and convince Sean Bean and his men that they need to go to Boston, that was kind of a good "pull the wool over their eyes" moment. Not one of those this time. It's much more simple, and much more "straight-lined" in their pursuit of things.
Bruce Greenwood plays the President! (You STILL haven't watched "Nowhere Man", have you??? SHAME ON YOU!!! What is your problem???) I wish he was in more of the film, but I enjoyed what he did. It's funny, I've loved this dude since 1994, and it seems like every couple of months I am mentioning his name in something new (and, then mentioning "Nowhere Man" which IS AVAILABLE ON DVD!!!). I'm very, very glad to see him getting this much work. He deserves it.
They left it open for a sequel. I recently read where Nic Cage wants to take the next film (if they make one), but I don't know if the "opening" they left in the film would actually take him to where he said he wanted to go. Either way, IF/WHEN the make the third one, I'll be interested to watch it too.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
TSO This Year
Amazing.
Probably more amazing than last year.
It's obviously fresher in my mind, but I do think they made some serious improvements.
The first hour and a half was the same as last year - music-wise. They went through the story from "Christmas Eve and Other Stories", which the entire album is a story about an Angel coming down to earth on Christmas Eve and visiting different places, and observing people and how they spend their holiday. The black gentleman who was the narrator (I don't know if it was the same one as last year) was AMAZING. The guy from last year was too, and they might be the same person.
I liked the set up of the lights better this year. It's hard to explain, in a way the vertical pillars had lights attached to them that came down diagonally and sort of resembled Tree branches. The over head light contraption was very similar to last year's in that it was (I think) 10 separate square light fixtures that moved basically 270-degrees in every direction.
The pyrotechnics were VERY increased from last year. Including much more fireworks during the regular show, and some pretty huge burst of flames that I could feel the heat from in me seat. And in addition to the rising stage in the middle of the audience, they also had a rising platform that had three "torches" on it, that they used. This year, the rising platform for the performers was directly in front of our seats (we were three rows up off the floor, directly in front of the stage) so we got to see the guitarist and violinist up close - following their rising stage performance, they continued playing their instruments as they walked up and down the aisles at Conseco - it was AWESOME. They would stop here and there to put on an extra display. The rising stage was also used by the lead singer in "Queen of the Winter Night" - which it is AMAZING what she can make her voice do.
This year they had dueling guitarists. Which was pretty cool. And luckily, they still did the dueling pianos, at one point including "Greensleeves" (which I don't know if Vince Guaraldi wrote or not, but I do know he has played the song on a Peanuts album) and the room (once again) ERUPTED (myself more than anyone) when they broke out with "Linus and Lucy" and used it as a segue into their Finale Medley. Amazing, amazing.
There were lasers.
There was snow.
It was amazing. It's a show that I am sad only happens once a year, here in town. I would go much more often, if I could. It AMAZES me what these people do with their hands, and the music that is made on their instruments. The way these guys play their guitars, and the way they blend guitars, strings, pianos, etc... all together to make these amazing sounds, just blows my mind. And then you couple that with their AMAZING visual light shows at the concert - it's just phenomenal.
I was able to track down a couple of videos on YouTube. This first one is cool because it begins with "Linus and Lucy" and then allows you to hear the different songs they strung together for their finale. it ROCKED!!! ENJOY:
This video is REALLY GOOD to show you the overhead lights, and how they moved:
This video gives you a good look at the "snow" coming down, as well as the video curtains that were on each side of the stage and going across the top:
Finally, this video just gives you a good overall feeling for how the stage looked, and all of the different lights that were used.
The best place to learn more about TSO is THEIR PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA.
Probably more amazing than last year.
It's obviously fresher in my mind, but I do think they made some serious improvements.
The first hour and a half was the same as last year - music-wise. They went through the story from "Christmas Eve and Other Stories", which the entire album is a story about an Angel coming down to earth on Christmas Eve and visiting different places, and observing people and how they spend their holiday. The black gentleman who was the narrator (I don't know if it was the same one as last year) was AMAZING. The guy from last year was too, and they might be the same person.
I liked the set up of the lights better this year. It's hard to explain, in a way the vertical pillars had lights attached to them that came down diagonally and sort of resembled Tree branches. The over head light contraption was very similar to last year's in that it was (I think) 10 separate square light fixtures that moved basically 270-degrees in every direction.
The pyrotechnics were VERY increased from last year. Including much more fireworks during the regular show, and some pretty huge burst of flames that I could feel the heat from in me seat. And in addition to the rising stage in the middle of the audience, they also had a rising platform that had three "torches" on it, that they used. This year, the rising platform for the performers was directly in front of our seats (we were three rows up off the floor, directly in front of the stage) so we got to see the guitarist and violinist up close - following their rising stage performance, they continued playing their instruments as they walked up and down the aisles at Conseco - it was AWESOME. They would stop here and there to put on an extra display. The rising stage was also used by the lead singer in "Queen of the Winter Night" - which it is AMAZING what she can make her voice do.
This year they had dueling guitarists. Which was pretty cool. And luckily, they still did the dueling pianos, at one point including "Greensleeves" (which I don't know if Vince Guaraldi wrote or not, but I do know he has played the song on a Peanuts album) and the room (once again) ERUPTED (myself more than anyone) when they broke out with "Linus and Lucy" and used it as a segue into their Finale Medley. Amazing, amazing.
There were lasers.
There was snow.
It was amazing. It's a show that I am sad only happens once a year, here in town. I would go much more often, if I could. It AMAZES me what these people do with their hands, and the music that is made on their instruments. The way these guys play their guitars, and the way they blend guitars, strings, pianos, etc... all together to make these amazing sounds, just blows my mind. And then you couple that with their AMAZING visual light shows at the concert - it's just phenomenal.
I was able to track down a couple of videos on YouTube. This first one is cool because it begins with "Linus and Lucy" and then allows you to hear the different songs they strung together for their finale. it ROCKED!!! ENJOY:
This video is REALLY GOOD to show you the overhead lights, and how they moved:
This video gives you a good look at the "snow" coming down, as well as the video curtains that were on each side of the stage and going across the top:
Finally, this video just gives you a good overall feeling for how the stage looked, and all of the different lights that were used.
The best place to learn more about TSO is THEIR PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Has It Really Been Six Years?
September 11th, 2001.
It's like the JFK moment of my generation.
I still remember the day very well.
Now, it's six years later. It's weird to think about.
Last summer, after I watched "World Trade Center", I wrote a long blog about the day.
You can READ IT HERE.
Light a candle tonight.
It's like the JFK moment of my generation.
I still remember the day very well.
Now, it's six years later. It's weird to think about.
Last summer, after I watched "World Trade Center", I wrote a long blog about the day.
You can READ IT HERE.
Light a candle tonight.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
"Shoot 'Em Up" Talk
The flick is AWESOME.
It's NOT GOOD, but it is AWESOME.
There's only one way it would have been better:
If Justin Rachal, Jason Maier, Dave Maier, and Michael Maier were in the auditorium with me. Because I would LOVE to have heard their laughs at how outrageous and ridiculous this entire film was. WOW!
It knocked off "Crank" as the most insane film that I have seen in a long time. GREAT! I doubt I'll ever watch it again - unless its with one of those aforementioned individuals.
Go see it, with the guys - because you'll laugh your tail off. It doesn't really appeal to chicks, I don't think?
It's NOT GOOD, but it is AWESOME.
There's only one way it would have been better:
If Justin Rachal, Jason Maier, Dave Maier, and Michael Maier were in the auditorium with me. Because I would LOVE to have heard their laughs at how outrageous and ridiculous this entire film was. WOW!
It knocked off "Crank" as the most insane film that I have seen in a long time. GREAT! I doubt I'll ever watch it again - unless its with one of those aforementioned individuals.
Go see it, with the guys - because you'll laugh your tail off. It doesn't really appeal to chicks, I don't think?
Friday, August 31, 2007
The New "Halloween"
As its own film, I liked Rob Zombie's "Halloween".
What's the same?
Michael Myers.
Killing.
Family.
Mental Institution.
Character names.
And the same basic storyline and structure.
What's different?
EVERYTHING ELSE.
On it's own, without taking into account the original, this is a well made film with a good story. Rob Zombie does an amazing job telling the story and has really good camera work with his DP.
Overall, I still love the original - and this is not as good of an overall film.
Will I own it? Sure.
Will I watch it again? Sure.
Is it freaky and generally scarier than the original? Yes.
Zombie's version attempts to justify the Michael Myers character. It's the one thing that I DO NOT like about this film. The original opens with Michael and him killing. It's a beautiful shot that doesn't cut (due to some good editing, a la "Rope"). This version spends the first 20 minutes of the film giving you the back story to Michael Myers and explains the circumstances that lead him to become the killer he is. I don't like this. It removes all of the mystery behind this character. And if the new Dr. Loomis was any good, he could connect the dots and realize he's a troubled kids from a screwed up family and life.
In the original, Michael parents arrive at home wearing a nice suit and a pretty dress. He came from a good family - and pure evil turned him into the killer he was. Instead, Zombie felt that he needed to justify the means that created Michael Myers. While it involves some good scenes, and amazing acting, it ruins the overall mystique of the character.
Aside from that fact, it is troublesome to watch the decline of this child. It's brutal and wicked how we watch him break down on screen.
This carries over into the adult Michael Myers. Zombie trades the long exposition of developing young Michael, by removing the majority of the character development between Laurie and her friends, and he almost completely removes the "stalker" aspect of the original film - which happened during the thirty minutes of character development. Once we see Laurie, it's not long before she's babysitting. And it's not long before people start to die - in many graphic ways.
While it follows the original jist, and even borrows some original dialogue, it's unique enough.
The flick is worth watching, but if you love the original as much as I do - it's going to be difficult for you to give this version proper credit. It is a poor remake, but it is not a bad film. It's very much more action packed and modern than the original. It's got some very suspenseful scenes. For what it was, I really enjoyed it.
Question for people after they've seen it: WHAT time period does this film take place?
We all decided that it was modern, but done up very retro - to the point that we almost believe it was in the past. Thoughts?
What's the same?
Michael Myers.
Killing.
Family.
Mental Institution.
Character names.
And the same basic storyline and structure.
What's different?
EVERYTHING ELSE.
On it's own, without taking into account the original, this is a well made film with a good story. Rob Zombie does an amazing job telling the story and has really good camera work with his DP.
Overall, I still love the original - and this is not as good of an overall film.
Will I own it? Sure.
Will I watch it again? Sure.
Is it freaky and generally scarier than the original? Yes.
Zombie's version attempts to justify the Michael Myers character. It's the one thing that I DO NOT like about this film. The original opens with Michael and him killing. It's a beautiful shot that doesn't cut (due to some good editing, a la "Rope"). This version spends the first 20 minutes of the film giving you the back story to Michael Myers and explains the circumstances that lead him to become the killer he is. I don't like this. It removes all of the mystery behind this character. And if the new Dr. Loomis was any good, he could connect the dots and realize he's a troubled kids from a screwed up family and life.
In the original, Michael parents arrive at home wearing a nice suit and a pretty dress. He came from a good family - and pure evil turned him into the killer he was. Instead, Zombie felt that he needed to justify the means that created Michael Myers. While it involves some good scenes, and amazing acting, it ruins the overall mystique of the character.
Aside from that fact, it is troublesome to watch the decline of this child. It's brutal and wicked how we watch him break down on screen.
This carries over into the adult Michael Myers. Zombie trades the long exposition of developing young Michael, by removing the majority of the character development between Laurie and her friends, and he almost completely removes the "stalker" aspect of the original film - which happened during the thirty minutes of character development. Once we see Laurie, it's not long before she's babysitting. And it's not long before people start to die - in many graphic ways.
While it follows the original jist, and even borrows some original dialogue, it's unique enough.
The flick is worth watching, but if you love the original as much as I do - it's going to be difficult for you to give this version proper credit. It is a poor remake, but it is not a bad film. It's very much more action packed and modern than the original. It's got some very suspenseful scenes. For what it was, I really enjoyed it.
Question for people after they've seen it: WHAT time period does this film take place?
We all decided that it was modern, but done up very retro - to the point that we almost believe it was in the past. Thoughts?
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
"Order of the Phoenix" Talk
First, if you go see the flick, there is a chance you'll see THIS PREVIEW.
Sadly, it's NOT what I wanted it to be. For a quick few seconds, I almost thought I was watching a preview for "Bill & Ted 3" - which would have ROCKED MY WORLD. And made me wonder how I didn't already know about it. Anyways, the preview is funny, but I wish my dreams were coming true, instead of that other film.
Film Five.
It's like every other "Harry Potter" film, and exactly what I expected: A mysterious story, mention of "He Who Shall Not Be Named" throughout, and finally some quick action at the end, and a short resolution. It's a formula, and it works for them, and the films are enjoyable.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of the book series, I've never read one page of any book, and I'm not getting in line for the July 21st release of the FINAL book. I'm just a fan of the films. I've got a number of friends who fill me in on the missing storylines and characters, and I feel like I've got a fairly good Harry Potter knowledge, for someone who has never touched the books.
I'm a fan of the films, and the visuals, and how the stories translate to the big screen. I saw the first one to see what the hype was about, and I like it. And I've continued to like them as the series has gone on. I don't find them boring, or dumb, and while this film was NOT as much fun as "Transformers", it was still exactly what I wanted, what I looked for, and what I expected. So, I can't say there was anything bad about the story, or the film.
Although, I'll be honest that the opening of the film wasn't a good taste, at first. While it looked cinematically beautiful, some of the editing, quick cutting, and hand-held camera work didn't feel like it fit into the Harry Potter Film Universe, it annoyed me much in the same away as Alfanso Cuaron's "Prisoner of Azkaban" film felt, with the contastant "Iris Close/Iris Open" to transition between scenes - I REALLY disliked that part of the film, despite it being an enjoyable storyline, the editing of the film makes it the hardest of them all to watch. Chris Columbus did an amazing job with the first two films, both style-wise and visually, that I don't think the last three have been up the bar he set. With that said, "The Order of the Phoenix" was EXACTLY what I expected and wanted, and I enjoyed it.
I hope you do too.
On a completely unrelated note, it looks like Warner Brothers is copying themselves with the "Superman" sequel being titled "Man of Steel" - it's the EXACT SAME concept they went with for the Batman sequel being called "The Dark Knight". The sequels are just being titled with the character's nicknames. Clever one WB, very clever.
So, in "The Order of the Phoenix", there are many exterior shots of London at the beginning and the end. Toss in Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson, and WHAT MOVIE do you think I am in the mood to watch when I get home? Yep, I popped in "Love Actually". Big surprise?
UPDATE: My former boss, Helene, gets a mention in THIS ARTICLE from Indy Star. It's always fun to see the names of people I know. Maybe I will have to check this out in IMAX sometime.
Sadly, it's NOT what I wanted it to be. For a quick few seconds, I almost thought I was watching a preview for "Bill & Ted 3" - which would have ROCKED MY WORLD. And made me wonder how I didn't already know about it. Anyways, the preview is funny, but I wish my dreams were coming true, instead of that other film.
Film Five.
It's like every other "Harry Potter" film, and exactly what I expected: A mysterious story, mention of "He Who Shall Not Be Named" throughout, and finally some quick action at the end, and a short resolution. It's a formula, and it works for them, and the films are enjoyable.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of the book series, I've never read one page of any book, and I'm not getting in line for the July 21st release of the FINAL book. I'm just a fan of the films. I've got a number of friends who fill me in on the missing storylines and characters, and I feel like I've got a fairly good Harry Potter knowledge, for someone who has never touched the books.
I'm a fan of the films, and the visuals, and how the stories translate to the big screen. I saw the first one to see what the hype was about, and I like it. And I've continued to like them as the series has gone on. I don't find them boring, or dumb, and while this film was NOT as much fun as "Transformers", it was still exactly what I wanted, what I looked for, and what I expected. So, I can't say there was anything bad about the story, or the film.
Although, I'll be honest that the opening of the film wasn't a good taste, at first. While it looked cinematically beautiful, some of the editing, quick cutting, and hand-held camera work didn't feel like it fit into the Harry Potter Film Universe, it annoyed me much in the same away as Alfanso Cuaron's "Prisoner of Azkaban" film felt, with the contastant "Iris Close/Iris Open" to transition between scenes - I REALLY disliked that part of the film, despite it being an enjoyable storyline, the editing of the film makes it the hardest of them all to watch. Chris Columbus did an amazing job with the first two films, both style-wise and visually, that I don't think the last three have been up the bar he set. With that said, "The Order of the Phoenix" was EXACTLY what I expected and wanted, and I enjoyed it.
I hope you do too.
On a completely unrelated note, it looks like Warner Brothers is copying themselves with the "Superman" sequel being titled "Man of Steel" - it's the EXACT SAME concept they went with for the Batman sequel being called "The Dark Knight". The sequels are just being titled with the character's nicknames. Clever one WB, very clever.
So, in "The Order of the Phoenix", there are many exterior shots of London at the beginning and the end. Toss in Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson, and WHAT MOVIE do you think I am in the mood to watch when I get home? Yep, I popped in "Love Actually". Big surprise?
UPDATE: My former boss, Helene, gets a mention in THIS ARTICLE from Indy Star. It's always fun to see the names of people I know. Maybe I will have to check this out in IMAX sometime.
Friday, May 25, 2007
"Pirates 3" Review
Um... I don't think I watched the same film that Phil and Justin told me was good. The film that Justin gave 4 out of 5 stars...?
Well, my first problem was going to see the film at Clearwater. The seats there are good for about 90 minutes, then they SUCK. It's hard to believe that back in the "Good Old Days" (when Dave Maier was my manager) that I used to watch HUNDREDS of films at that theatre. I don't know how I survived... Oh yeah, I was young and dumb and didn't know what comfortable theatre seats really were.
Anyways. Can a film be any more filled with pointless crap? Within the past two weeks I've watched the first two films to get my mind refreshed. They both run around 2 hours and 20 minutes. Then comes this film, which runs about 3 hours. The sad part is that there is only about 100 minutes of good story. There was SO MUCH POINTLESS CRAP thrown into this movie that makes it drag on and on and on and on, etc...
Next, I'm SO BORED with the betrayal after betrayal after betrayal. I'm going to betray you, because you've betrayed me, and you are betraying me again, and so now I'm going to team up with my enemy, but y real goal is to betray them, but then after that I am going to betray you, but wait, you've betrayed me two more times since I began betraying this betrayer. It's RIDICULOUS!!! I'm tired of it. Move on, and get a better plot device. JEEZ!!!
And I haven't hated the "falling action" of a story since "Return of the King". I was seriously wondering IF THE FILM WOULD EVER END!!! Drag on, drag on, drag on, leave it open for five more sequels, drag on, drag on, drag on... BLAH. GET OVER!!!
If I wasn't in a packed auditorium, I probably would have fallen asleep. Sadly, with so many people so close around me, I can't lay my head down and sleep - I wish I would have.
The action scenes were fun to watch. Keira was great to look at. Jack was overly annoying. Keith Richards' cameo was entertaining. Chow Yun-Fat was held back from being truly awesome - like EVERY OTHER MOVIE HE IS IN. Seriously, I can't think of another actor that get screwed over more. It would be like putting Vin Deisel in a movie, making him looks awesome, then having DJ Qualls beat him up. WHAT!?!?!? Seriously, one day I hope someone actually gives him a good role.
Oh, and I was disappointed I didn't get to see the teaser trailer for "National Treasure 2". Justin described it to me today, and it sounded really cool. I can't find it on the 'net yet. (EDIT: The trailer is available at Yahoo! Movies and it looks REALLY COOL!!!)
I'm sure this film is going to a billion dollars this weekend (I'm exaggerating). And I'm sure lots of people are going to disagree with me. I know both Justin and Phil told me today that they liked it. So, I'm sure Jason will too - since we never ever agree on films. I did get to see the "Transformers" trailer again, so that made me happy - that's the next film I am DYING to see. I am SO PUMPED UP for that film!!!
Well, my first problem was going to see the film at Clearwater. The seats there are good for about 90 minutes, then they SUCK. It's hard to believe that back in the "Good Old Days" (when Dave Maier was my manager) that I used to watch HUNDREDS of films at that theatre. I don't know how I survived... Oh yeah, I was young and dumb and didn't know what comfortable theatre seats really were.
Anyways. Can a film be any more filled with pointless crap? Within the past two weeks I've watched the first two films to get my mind refreshed. They both run around 2 hours and 20 minutes. Then comes this film, which runs about 3 hours. The sad part is that there is only about 100 minutes of good story. There was SO MUCH POINTLESS CRAP thrown into this movie that makes it drag on and on and on and on, etc...
Next, I'm SO BORED with the betrayal after betrayal after betrayal. I'm going to betray you, because you've betrayed me, and you are betraying me again, and so now I'm going to team up with my enemy, but y real goal is to betray them, but then after that I am going to betray you, but wait, you've betrayed me two more times since I began betraying this betrayer. It's RIDICULOUS!!! I'm tired of it. Move on, and get a better plot device. JEEZ!!!
And I haven't hated the "falling action" of a story since "Return of the King". I was seriously wondering IF THE FILM WOULD EVER END!!! Drag on, drag on, drag on, leave it open for five more sequels, drag on, drag on, drag on... BLAH. GET OVER!!!
If I wasn't in a packed auditorium, I probably would have fallen asleep. Sadly, with so many people so close around me, I can't lay my head down and sleep - I wish I would have.
The action scenes were fun to watch. Keira was great to look at. Jack was overly annoying. Keith Richards' cameo was entertaining. Chow Yun-Fat was held back from being truly awesome - like EVERY OTHER MOVIE HE IS IN. Seriously, I can't think of another actor that get screwed over more. It would be like putting Vin Deisel in a movie, making him looks awesome, then having DJ Qualls beat him up. WHAT!?!?!? Seriously, one day I hope someone actually gives him a good role.
Oh, and I was disappointed I didn't get to see the teaser trailer for "National Treasure 2". Justin described it to me today, and it sounded really cool. I can't find it on the 'net yet. (EDIT: The trailer is available at Yahoo! Movies and it looks REALLY COOL!!!)
I'm sure this film is going to a billion dollars this weekend (I'm exaggerating). And I'm sure lots of people are going to disagree with me. I know both Justin and Phil told me today that they liked it. So, I'm sure Jason will too - since we never ever agree on films. I did get to see the "Transformers" trailer again, so that made me happy - that's the next film I am DYING to see. I am SO PUMPED UP for that film!!!
Friday, May 04, 2007
"Spider-Man 3" Quickly
Best action of the three films.
An okay storyline.
Worst acting of the three films.
"Spider-Man 3" suffers from "Titanic"-Syndrome. BLOCKS. 10 minutes of action. 10 minutes of horrible drama. 15 minutes of action. 15 minutes of bad acting. There is no flow to the film, and there is no connection between the scenes. I'd love to watch a version of the film with all of the bad acting edited out. It would be like an hour long awesome action film.
They really tried to do too much. And while that aspect was annoying, it really wasn't the worst part of the film. The acting was just BAD, HORRIBLE.
Honestly, what was I thinking about during this film???
"I can't wait to see 'The Dark Knight', because I know Nolan knows how to blend action and drama and make a good film..."
Overall grade: B. (The amazing action sequences saved the film for me.)
An okay storyline.
Worst acting of the three films.
"Spider-Man 3" suffers from "Titanic"-Syndrome. BLOCKS. 10 minutes of action. 10 minutes of horrible drama. 15 minutes of action. 15 minutes of bad acting. There is no flow to the film, and there is no connection between the scenes. I'd love to watch a version of the film with all of the bad acting edited out. It would be like an hour long awesome action film.
They really tried to do too much. And while that aspect was annoying, it really wasn't the worst part of the film. The acting was just BAD, HORRIBLE.
Honestly, what was I thinking about during this film???
"I can't wait to see 'The Dark Knight', because I know Nolan knows how to blend action and drama and make a good film..."
Overall grade: B. (The amazing action sequences saved the film for me.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)