I saw the flick on Thursday night, and meant to write a review before now - but I didn't make the time this weekend. Then, I went and saw the flick again last night, so I decided that it did deserve my time to finally write the review.
First up, after watching the film - I do not understand the marketing campaign for the flick. "You Suck Sarah Marshall" and "I Hate You Sarah Marshall" just DO NOT go well with the film. While they do make for a funny marketing campaign, at no point in the film does the main character have this kind of attitude at all. Instead, Jason Segel as Peter spends the majority of the movie lamenting over his break-up, not reacting with anger towards Sarah Marshall. Before the film, the marketing campaign built my expectations up in one direction, while the film went in almost the polar opposite of where I thought it was going to go.
Just like last summer's "Superbad", this Apatow-produced film, written and starring Jason Segal of "Freaks and Geeks" does a great job of bringing REAL life attitudes and emotions to the screen. Much like previous Apatow-produced comedies "40-Year Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up", it's a romantic comedy from the male perspective - which is probably the exact reason who I enjoy it so much. Things don't have to turn out perfectly and every scene isn't a woman complaining about men, and our habits. Instead, it shows how we address emotions and relationships, and how we react. Granted, this is a much more comedic-than-reality kind of way, but that's what makes the films so enjoyable.
Now, you've got to be honest with yourself when you see this movie: It would NEVER happen this way. First, the completely random chance that these two characters would end up at the same resort in Hawaii after breaking up: Not likely. Second, the way Peter ends up acquiring his hotel room - wouldn't ever happen. Finally, the fact that one of the two of them wouldn't move to a different resort...? Come on. But, once you suspend the reality of the situations, which are required for the continuation of the plot - it's a pretty enjoyable film. It's a film about discovering who you are, once your heart has been shattered into a million pieces. It's about really people, making (mostly) real decisions, observing other people's relationships, and doing their best to move on in life. It's also about re-discovering yourself, after you've spent so much time in a relationship.
The flick has plenty of Laugh-Out-Loud moments. The dialogue is witty and smart. The story was well constructed, and from some of the articles I've read - Jason Segel used a number of real-life experiences to construct the storyline for this film. If you've liked the previously aforementioned films, I don't see any way you won't enjoy this one too.
And like a typical Apatow-produced flick, it features a number of "regulars". Starting with the star Segel, it also includes Jonah Hill ("Superbad"/"Knocked Up"), Bill Hader ("Superbad"/"Knocked Up"), and Paul Rudd ("Knocked Up"). Just another reason (as I've previously blogged about) that I really enjoy all of these films. Friends making movies with friends - it ROCKS!
Monday, April 21, 2008
"Summer of Fear" Review
It's been #1 in my NetFlix queue for about three weeks - with the message "Very Long Wait". But finally, on Friday, the film "Summer of Fear" showed up in the mailbox.
In 7th Grade English, we read the book "Summer of Fear" by Lois Duncan. She's the same author who is responsible for "I Know What You Did Last Summer" - although the film is NOTHING like the book. That's not true with "Summer of Fear". The film is a REALLY good adaptation of the book. Oddly, I didn't even know this film existed until about 3 years ago. I was perusing the DVD Section of Borders around Halloween, and they had a larger number of Horror films available, and I noticed the title. So, I picked up the DVD and looked more closely and saw that it was directed by Wes Craven. I wanted it, but for whatever reason, I didn't purchase it that day. Over these past three years, I gradually noticed the DVD more and more often, I think Best Buy in Castleton carries the flick now. But, I never purchased it. And on one level, I'm glad I never did.The flick showed up Friday around 1pm, and I instantly popped it into the DVD Player, so I could watch it before I had to go to work. As I previously stated, the flick was a REALLY good adaptation of the book. Even after I read it for school, I probably read the book another 4 or 5 times, because I really liked it. My brother eventually read it and enjoyed it also. Sadly, the film just feels long, slow, and drawn out. Now, I attempt to take into account that the film was made in 1978, and that it was Made For Television. But, I still think they could have done more with the film. Honestly, while I was watching it - I was thinking that I wish this film would get re-made. I know I'm usually anti-remakes, but I think this one could be done a little bit better. Lee Purcell, who plays the cousin who loses her parents in a car accident, just looks too old for her character. I'm pretty sure that in the book the two main female leads were both teenagers. In this film, they have Julia (the cousin) looking and acting like she's in her early 20s, and not a high schooler. But, perhaps that's the way teenagers behaved in the late 70s, but I don't think so, since it's nothing like the teenagers in "Halloween". Again, just another reason why I believe this film could be re-made and actually improved on. The tension and drama were done pretty well, and the characters were well written to build the tension between the characters as the story advanced.
I don't know if its the genre that's changed, or if it's Wes Craven's directing style, but I'm learning that I'm not a huge fan of the directing in his early works. I really like "Last House on the Left" for its story and for its shocking ending, but the last time I watched the film, I really realized that it's not that good "looking" of a film. It's a little boring and a little simple in its artistic style. The same goes for "The Serpent and the Rainbow" a film that I hunted down the VHS tape in 1999 to watch - and was very disappointed in how much anti-climactic drama there was in the film.
I'm glad that I've seen the film. But, I'm more glad that I waited to get it via NetFlix, and not paid for the DVD, that I probably would only consider watching around Halloween every year, and only if I was hanging out with someone else who was interested in watching it. I think it's worth one viewing just because it is a pretty interesting story. But, rent it - don't buy it!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
"This Film is Not Yet Rated" Review
Phenomenal. This documentary is so well done, and is very interesting to watch. It kept my attention the entire time.
There are really two different levels to this film.
1. Is the exposure of the MPAA and their hypocritical and often questioned motives for rating various films. It interviews a number of directors, and they explain what they were told (at various stages of their careers) that needed to be done, in order to lower their rating to an "R" from an "NC-17".
2. The film is also an investigative piece, where it hires a private investigator to help them uncover the identities of those people who actually watch and rate the films. During this investigation, it unearths various lies and deceits that the MPAA gives the general public and filmmakers, in regards to the members of the reviewing board. Through their investigative efforts, the filmmakers track down and identify the reviewers, and flat-out shows how they DO NOT fit the guidelines for reviewers that are told to the public/filmmakers.
Then, once the filmmaker has exposed all of these aspects - he submits his film to the MPAA to be reviewed. What follows, in the third act, is the stonewall of attempts to appeal the "NC-17" that his film received. It's really eye-opening and seriously shows what a "secret society" is all about.
The only thing that I wanted more, were more stories from filmmakers about their second submissions and their appeals. It touches on some some of these aspects, but not some of the more famous ones that I was previously aware of. It interviews Kevin Smith, but focuses on "Jersey Girl" and not the issues they faced with the original "Clerks". It does do a good job of covering "Team America" and what Matt Stone did to the MPAA on that film.
I think this is an amazing documentary, and really does a wonderful job of keeping the story interesting, and making it enjoyable to watch. The interviews are pretty good, and the facts that they give are interesting. It's definitely something that I recommend to anyone who is interested in filmmaking, or anyone who just enjoys documentaries.
There are really two different levels to this film.
1. Is the exposure of the MPAA and their hypocritical and often questioned motives for rating various films. It interviews a number of directors, and they explain what they were told (at various stages of their careers) that needed to be done, in order to lower their rating to an "R" from an "NC-17".
2. The film is also an investigative piece, where it hires a private investigator to help them uncover the identities of those people who actually watch and rate the films. During this investigation, it unearths various lies and deceits that the MPAA gives the general public and filmmakers, in regards to the members of the reviewing board. Through their investigative efforts, the filmmakers track down and identify the reviewers, and flat-out shows how they DO NOT fit the guidelines for reviewers that are told to the public/filmmakers.
Then, once the filmmaker has exposed all of these aspects - he submits his film to the MPAA to be reviewed. What follows, in the third act, is the stonewall of attempts to appeal the "NC-17" that his film received. It's really eye-opening and seriously shows what a "secret society" is all about.
The only thing that I wanted more, were more stories from filmmakers about their second submissions and their appeals. It touches on some some of these aspects, but not some of the more famous ones that I was previously aware of. It interviews Kevin Smith, but focuses on "Jersey Girl" and not the issues they faced with the original "Clerks". It does do a good job of covering "Team America" and what Matt Stone did to the MPAA on that film.
I think this is an amazing documentary, and really does a wonderful job of keeping the story interesting, and making it enjoyable to watch. The interviews are pretty good, and the facts that they give are interesting. It's definitely something that I recommend to anyone who is interested in filmmaking, or anyone who just enjoys documentaries.
Monday, April 14, 2008
"Smart People" Review
Sadly, the preview for "Smart People" was a lot better than the film turned out to be.
The worst thing in indie films is when there is no real character development. And, to make it even worse is when there is a small, tiny amount of character development that comes at the very end of film and it is forced. The character doesn't really learn anything about themselves, instead they just force themselves to "evolve" into a different person, without any real motivation.
I thought I was going to like the film. I laughed a number of times in the preview. And those times were when I laughed in the film. There's hardly any family development, or explanation as to why certain events happened. The do elude to a number of circumstances surrounding the events that have made Dennis Quaid act the was he does in the film. He's a very eccentric and aggravating character, who seems to live in his own world, and doesn't connect well to anyone, even those who are attempting to help him, after a seizure.
Thomas Haden Church is amazing. I really enjoyed his acting, despite how much I didn't really care for his wayward laxidazical attitude. His interactions with Ellen Page (yeah, she's shown up like 4 times in my life in the past week...?) are odd and caused me some serious discomfort while watching.
Page's character did provide a number of numerous wit, although it was almost all delivered in the same tone as she did in "Juno". Which comes out tomorrow on DVD - Yippy! What a good flick!
Sadly, I can't really say I enjoyed the film, for the simple fact that nothing significant happens, and like I previously stated: The only character development that happens in the entire film comes in the last five minutes and it forced. And that sucks. The entire time I was watching, I was waiting for the moment when something would happen, but it never did.
The worst thing in indie films is when there is no real character development. And, to make it even worse is when there is a small, tiny amount of character development that comes at the very end of film and it is forced. The character doesn't really learn anything about themselves, instead they just force themselves to "evolve" into a different person, without any real motivation.
I thought I was going to like the film. I laughed a number of times in the preview. And those times were when I laughed in the film. There's hardly any family development, or explanation as to why certain events happened. The do elude to a number of circumstances surrounding the events that have made Dennis Quaid act the was he does in the film. He's a very eccentric and aggravating character, who seems to live in his own world, and doesn't connect well to anyone, even those who are attempting to help him, after a seizure.
Thomas Haden Church is amazing. I really enjoyed his acting, despite how much I didn't really care for his wayward laxidazical attitude. His interactions with Ellen Page (yeah, she's shown up like 4 times in my life in the past week...?) are odd and caused me some serious discomfort while watching.
Page's character did provide a number of numerous wit, although it was almost all delivered in the same tone as she did in "Juno". Which comes out tomorrow on DVD - Yippy! What a good flick!
Sadly, I can't really say I enjoyed the film, for the simple fact that nothing significant happens, and like I previously stated: The only character development that happens in the entire film comes in the last five minutes and it forced. And that sucks. The entire time I was watching, I was waiting for the moment when something would happen, but it never did.
"Hard Candy" Review
I actually watched "Hard Candy" last Thursday, I just haven't found the time, until now, to type up my review of the flick.
Much like "Funny Games", this film is a slow and psychological film. It has a very small cast, and is very dialogue heavy. There is some occasional violence, however it is usually quick and brief.
See, I'm afraid to type too much. The trailer is so perfectly cut together that it truly doesn't reveal too much of the film, and I don't want to give away too much.
I do recommend the film, I do think it's something interesting to watch and it has some very serious character development that is actually relevant and eludes to many of the overall themes that are addressed by the end of the film. And it does a pretty good job of keeping you guessing about what is really going on.
And, it's fairly short, however due to the large amount of dialogue, it does sometimes seem sluggish at first, however the second half of the film does a pretty good job of keeping the pace moving at a fairly quick speed.
It's a pretty smart thriller that doesn't treat the audience like a bunch of idiots. I enjoyed it, despite the scenes that disturbed me. Ellen Page does an amazing job, and as some seriously freaky moments in the film.
Much like "Funny Games", this film is a slow and psychological film. It has a very small cast, and is very dialogue heavy. There is some occasional violence, however it is usually quick and brief.
See, I'm afraid to type too much. The trailer is so perfectly cut together that it truly doesn't reveal too much of the film, and I don't want to give away too much.
I do recommend the film, I do think it's something interesting to watch and it has some very serious character development that is actually relevant and eludes to many of the overall themes that are addressed by the end of the film. And it does a pretty good job of keeping you guessing about what is really going on.
And, it's fairly short, however due to the large amount of dialogue, it does sometimes seem sluggish at first, however the second half of the film does a pretty good job of keeping the pace moving at a fairly quick speed.
It's a pretty smart thriller that doesn't treat the audience like a bunch of idiots. I enjoyed it, despite the scenes that disturbed me. Ellen Page does an amazing job, and as some seriously freaky moments in the film.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Boston Recap with Pictures
So, my Boston Trip is over. Sadly, it was short, but still a lot of fun.
Jason picked me up at the airport, and we hit Fire + Ice for lunch. We played some video games at Dave & Buster's, before heading back to Quincy. We hung out with Kaylee and played with her outside. We also played a bunch of Wii Sports Tennis. Dave, Sam, and Drew showed up at Jason and Letha's place and we headed over to meet Jen at Chili's. We had a good dinner, and it was fun to hang out with Dave's Family.
Wednesday, Jason and I hung out. We took Kaylee to the Dog Park. We played some more Wii Sports Tennis, and got Jason up to a Pro. We picked up Erin, Jason's former roommate. We headed into Boston and picked up Letha and then headed to Fire + Ice for dinner. Yep, twice in one trip! But, the food is amazing, so I didn't care! I wish they would build one here closer to Indy. Then, it was off to The Garden.
TD Banknorth Garden, from the outside.
Flip Murray carries the ball across half-court.
There are A LOT of Celtics Banners hanging in The Garden.
There's a few Boston Bruins Banners hanging too.
Jason and Letha, at The Garden.
Me (not looking happy) at The Garden.
Letha bought me this AWESOME Charlie Brown that fits inside of an egg, for Easter!!! Another piece to add to my collection - THANK YOU LETHA!
Finally, when I got home from Boston - my NikeID Shox were waiting for me!!! I LOVE THEM!
The trip was awesome. Despite being short, it's always fun hanging out with Jason and Letha. After we got home from the game last night, we just hung out in the living room and talked a lot. It was a really good conversation, one of those 'put your life into perspective' conversations. I also got to look through an awesome book of pictures from their wedding - that Letha had made at Kodak.com. It was really cool. We tried to watch some "How I Met Your Mother" off of my iPod, but Apple obviously didn't want you to be able to watch anything - without THEIR CABLE, which I had sadly left at home. I wish I could have stayed longer, but I am happy for the time I had there. I'm happy I have friends who are willing to let me crash on their couch, and require their time and attention. I look forward to seeing them in May, when they are in town.
I decided to lay low tonight, and just chill at home. I grabbed Quizno's on the way way home from the airport, and then watched five episodes of "Freaks and Geeks". Then I turned on the L.A. Galaxy/San Jose Earthquakes soccer game, while I've been surfing the internet, editing my blog a little, and making this post.
I'm working quite a bit this weekend, before I head to Chicago on Sunday, for my brother's birthday. I'm going to get to see a number of other family members that day, so it should be a lot of fun.
Jason picked me up at the airport, and we hit Fire + Ice for lunch. We played some video games at Dave & Buster's, before heading back to Quincy. We hung out with Kaylee and played with her outside. We also played a bunch of Wii Sports Tennis. Dave, Sam, and Drew showed up at Jason and Letha's place and we headed over to meet Jen at Chili's. We had a good dinner, and it was fun to hang out with Dave's Family.
Wednesday, Jason and I hung out. We took Kaylee to the Dog Park. We played some more Wii Sports Tennis, and got Jason up to a Pro. We picked up Erin, Jason's former roommate. We headed into Boston and picked up Letha and then headed to Fire + Ice for dinner. Yep, twice in one trip! But, the food is amazing, so I didn't care! I wish they would build one here closer to Indy. Then, it was off to The Garden.
TD Banknorth Garden, from the outside.
Flip Murray carries the ball across half-court.
There are A LOT of Celtics Banners hanging in The Garden.
There's a few Boston Bruins Banners hanging too.
Jason and Letha, at The Garden.
Me (not looking happy) at The Garden.
Letha bought me this AWESOME Charlie Brown that fits inside of an egg, for Easter!!! Another piece to add to my collection - THANK YOU LETHA!
Finally, when I got home from Boston - my NikeID Shox were waiting for me!!! I LOVE THEM!The trip was awesome. Despite being short, it's always fun hanging out with Jason and Letha. After we got home from the game last night, we just hung out in the living room and talked a lot. It was a really good conversation, one of those 'put your life into perspective' conversations. I also got to look through an awesome book of pictures from their wedding - that Letha had made at Kodak.com. It was really cool. We tried to watch some "How I Met Your Mother" off of my iPod, but Apple obviously didn't want you to be able to watch anything - without THEIR CABLE, which I had sadly left at home. I wish I could have stayed longer, but I am happy for the time I had there. I'm happy I have friends who are willing to let me crash on their couch, and require their time and attention. I look forward to seeing them in May, when they are in town.
I decided to lay low tonight, and just chill at home. I grabbed Quizno's on the way way home from the airport, and then watched five episodes of "Freaks and Geeks". Then I turned on the L.A. Galaxy/San Jose Earthquakes soccer game, while I've been surfing the internet, editing my blog a little, and making this post.
I'm working quite a bit this weekend, before I head to Chicago on Sunday, for my brother's birthday. I'm going to get to see a number of other family members that day, so it should be a lot of fun.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
At the Garden
Let's pray for a miracle win.
It has been VERY interesting being "the enemy". Lots of talking by
their fans... I don't remember them talking like this last year.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Worst Book Adaptation
Forget "Jurassic Park", this IS the worst adaptation of a book to a movie.
I know a lot of Stephen King fans are disappointed with most of his books-to-movies.
Let me assure you: THIS IS WORSE!
Now, I am going to get picky. IF the credits said "Inspired by the Book..." I would be more okay with the film. But, NO - it says "Based on the Book..." WHICH IS A LIE!!! There's almost nothing based on the book in the film. Wait, that's a lie. There's college kids from MIT and there is Card Counting and Blackjack. I guess that's enough to qualify as "Based". PLEASE note the sarcasm.
I'm annoyed.
Honestly, the film AS A FILM is not bad. However, it is a horrible adaptation of one of the best books I've ever read. It removed so many interesting and tense moments of the real events. Instead, the film replaces them with lots of character development of ONE character (yep, just the main character gets any attention and/or motivation). Side characters are just their for story purposes, and we never really learn much. They did make Lawrence Fishbourne's character pretty mean and ruthless, but the Poker Chip Incident was left out. The changed a lot of the hand signals. BUT, they left in the Code Words, which was something I assumed they were going to neglect. So, I enjoyed that.
It's a fluff film. Someone (I believe Kevin Spacey) was smart enough to realize that the MIT Blackjack Team (one of the many...) was a good story, and worthy of a film being made about them. Then, someone else (one of numerous people, probably) were so STUPID that they allowed this hollow story of a script to be transformed into a film. So much potential, so little return on the investment (your time in the theatre).
Okay, all "drama" aside: If you don't know anything about the MIT Blackjack team, you'll probably somewhat enjoy the film, but you'll still probably have a hollow sense in your mind once the film is over. If you have read the book, or even seen the documentary: YOU WILL BE DISAPPOINTED.
Bummer.
I know a lot of Stephen King fans are disappointed with most of his books-to-movies.
Let me assure you: THIS IS WORSE!
Now, I am going to get picky. IF the credits said "Inspired by the Book..." I would be more okay with the film. But, NO - it says "Based on the Book..." WHICH IS A LIE!!! There's almost nothing based on the book in the film. Wait, that's a lie. There's college kids from MIT and there is Card Counting and Blackjack. I guess that's enough to qualify as "Based". PLEASE note the sarcasm.
I'm annoyed.
Honestly, the film AS A FILM is not bad. However, it is a horrible adaptation of one of the best books I've ever read. It removed so many interesting and tense moments of the real events. Instead, the film replaces them with lots of character development of ONE character (yep, just the main character gets any attention and/or motivation). Side characters are just their for story purposes, and we never really learn much. They did make Lawrence Fishbourne's character pretty mean and ruthless, but the Poker Chip Incident was left out. The changed a lot of the hand signals. BUT, they left in the Code Words, which was something I assumed they were going to neglect. So, I enjoyed that.
It's a fluff film. Someone (I believe Kevin Spacey) was smart enough to realize that the MIT Blackjack Team (one of the many...) was a good story, and worthy of a film being made about them. Then, someone else (one of numerous people, probably) were so STUPID that they allowed this hollow story of a script to be transformed into a film. So much potential, so little return on the investment (your time in the theatre).
Okay, all "drama" aside: If you don't know anything about the MIT Blackjack team, you'll probably somewhat enjoy the film, but you'll still probably have a hollow sense in your mind once the film is over. If you have read the book, or even seen the documentary: YOU WILL BE DISAPPOINTED.
Bummer.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Passport Approved!
Best News this week!
I came home today, and had my new passport waiting for me in the mail.
So, now its official, I have nothing to worry about, I will be traveling to Europe with no problems in September. After my initial denial, I was starting to get worried - spending so much money on my plane ticket before I knew for sure that the government was going to allow me permission to leave the country.
But, it's all resolved. And, I must say that these new Passports are A LOT more advanced than the one I had when I was younger. It's pretty cool. Kind of like our ever-evolving money. (Seen the new Fives, yet? They're pretty wicked!)
So, this weekend I'll probably buy my London Pass and my Chunnel Ticket!!! Everything is coming together, ROCK ON!!!
I came home today, and had my new passport waiting for me in the mail.
So, now its official, I have nothing to worry about, I will be traveling to Europe with no problems in September. After my initial denial, I was starting to get worried - spending so much money on my plane ticket before I knew for sure that the government was going to allow me permission to leave the country.
But, it's all resolved. And, I must say that these new Passports are A LOT more advanced than the one I had when I was younger. It's pretty cool. Kind of like our ever-evolving money. (Seen the new Fives, yet? They're pretty wicked!)
So, this weekend I'll probably buy my London Pass and my Chunnel Ticket!!! Everything is coming together, ROCK ON!!!
Monday, March 24, 2008
"Southland Tales" Review
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.
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)