In the spirit of the day....
John Carpenter's Halloween is considered a classic, but how does the trailer hold up?
One of the first things I noticed about the trailer was that the audience looks through the eyes/mask of the young killer. I'm not sure if you've read what I'm about to say, heard it, or observed it but...
I'm a fan of 50's and 60's B-movies, specifically monster movies. Whether the monster is of human form or out of this world form, in the early days, the chase or attack was from the perspective of the victim - we the victim/audience could see the monster/killer descending up on us. At some point in the evolution of the genre, the perspective changed. Now, the audience is the monster/killer and we descend upon the victim. Is this simply a reflection of our violent society? Food for thought.
While the slasher movie has evolved, the psychological component, in my opinion, has not. In the Halloween (1978) trailer, however, I found Donald Pleasence describing Michael Myers still creepy after all these years, "I spent 8 years trying to reach him, and then another 7 trying to keep him locked up because I realized that what was behind the boys eyes was purely and simply, evil." The tag line, "The Night HE Came Home", is also pretty creepy.
The other thing about this movie that I'd forgotten is that it's from the mind of John Carpenter. I've said that sometimes Carpenter's concepts are so great that the execution of them on film sometimes can't live up. Given this film's "classic" status, the theory doesn't apply here.
Though the trailer seemed dated, it's the original and it is a classic and I trust it is still a scary movie. I will likely watch it again to confirm.
Happy Halloween, 2011.
Monday, 31 October 2011
Friday, 28 October 2011
The Rum Diary
Johnny Depp in a Hunter S. Thomson story? Awesome. Playing a young Hunter S. Thomson? Wicked!
I loved the manic nature of this trailer. It was very much in the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson, except I don't recall anything blowing up, but I'm sure something will in this film.
The first 20 minutes of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is arguably the funniest opening 20 minutes of any film I've ever seen. The restaurant scene where he tosses the tip, the car rental scene, the unforgettable drive to Vegas, the bats, Benicio del Toro singing "One toke over the line," the hitch-hiker (Toby McGuire) and the arrival and check-in in Vegas. Just thinking about these scenes cracks me up. I'm watching them tonight on Netflix.
Michael Rispoli was hilarious as Spinner in one of my favourite dark comedies, Death to Smoochy. He looks like a good sidekick for Depp in The Rum Diary.
Aaron Eckhart is hit and miss for me. I enjoyed watching him get scalped in Nurse Betty, found him annoyingly charming in Thank You for Smoking and enjoyed his acting in Suspect Zero. Other roles, not so much.
The Rum Diary is a perfect way for Depp to redeem himself (to my unimportant self) after all that mainstream pirate nonsense. I know Johnny is an avid fan of Beerbohmtastic and cares deeply when he's mentioned.... okay so I can be delusional sometimes, but it's not alcohol nor drug induced....
This film would be high on my viewing priority list if I was organized enough to have a viewing priority list. I'll see it anyway... likely soon.
I loved the manic nature of this trailer. It was very much in the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson, except I don't recall anything blowing up, but I'm sure something will in this film.
The first 20 minutes of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is arguably the funniest opening 20 minutes of any film I've ever seen. The restaurant scene where he tosses the tip, the car rental scene, the unforgettable drive to Vegas, the bats, Benicio del Toro singing "One toke over the line," the hitch-hiker (Toby McGuire) and the arrival and check-in in Vegas. Just thinking about these scenes cracks me up. I'm watching them tonight on Netflix.
Michael Rispoli was hilarious as Spinner in one of my favourite dark comedies, Death to Smoochy. He looks like a good sidekick for Depp in The Rum Diary.
Aaron Eckhart is hit and miss for me. I enjoyed watching him get scalped in Nurse Betty, found him annoyingly charming in Thank You for Smoking and enjoyed his acting in Suspect Zero. Other roles, not so much.
The Rum Diary is a perfect way for Depp to redeem himself (to my unimportant self) after all that mainstream pirate nonsense. I know Johnny is an avid fan of Beerbohmtastic and cares deeply when he's mentioned.... okay so I can be delusional sometimes, but it's not alcohol nor drug induced....
This film would be high on my viewing priority list if I was organized enough to have a viewing priority list. I'll see it anyway... likely soon.
Thursday, 27 October 2011
Editorial: Good-Bye Blockbuster
We live in a time where the corner video store has outlived the giant video box store. I'm not an economist. Actually, I had to look up the spelling. Blockbuster Video stores are closing at a rapid rate and that means that consumers, such as me, are turning to on-line sources to watch movies, TV shows and game rentals.
But what does the closing of the last surviving "big box" video store really mean? Well, not being an economist, I don't know - but I'd love to hear your comments. For me and my family it means browsing through movies on computer, which is kind of boring. Searching genres, searching by actors, classics or new releases, the experience has changed. No longer can we spend way too much on impulse snack items near the checkout counter. No longer can we walk past the bargain bin of "previously viewed" movies for sale and say things like, "wow, Half-Baked is only $9.00!!!" or "Battlefield Earth? Wow, never saw that one. Should I pay $15.00 for a movie I will likely watch once?" Or "I liked Costner in Field of Dreams, maybe I should pay $12.95 for Water World."
Naturally I jest, but it was the experience - not the ridiculous cost of new DVDs, previously watched crap movies and impulse items, that made the local Blockbuster a community icon. Walking in, greeted by a pimply faced kid, and taking in the bright lights, sights, sounds and selection of entertainment related "collectibles" that kids and rich nerds wanted, nicely organized shelves, and trailers playing on televisions hanging from the ceiling, made choosing a movie part of the fun.
Say what you will about Blockbuster vs. the stay at home movie selection experience, but I already miss it. The wife articulated the void perfectly yesterday. She said, "I really miss watching all those trailers."
Yes! That’s it. The foreplay of watching a movie is now gone.
Though we can seek out trailers on-line, we have to choose the trailers. Choice is good but you don't know what movies are coming up if you don't constantly check. For us, this was an important part of the experience.
If the expression, "you get what you pay for" is true, then the overpriced cost of the Blockbuster experience was somehow worth it.
Good-bye, Blockbuster.
But what does the closing of the last surviving "big box" video store really mean? Well, not being an economist, I don't know - but I'd love to hear your comments. For me and my family it means browsing through movies on computer, which is kind of boring. Searching genres, searching by actors, classics or new releases, the experience has changed. No longer can we spend way too much on impulse snack items near the checkout counter. No longer can we walk past the bargain bin of "previously viewed" movies for sale and say things like, "wow, Half-Baked is only $9.00!!!" or "Battlefield Earth? Wow, never saw that one. Should I pay $15.00 for a movie I will likely watch once?" Or "I liked Costner in Field of Dreams, maybe I should pay $12.95 for Water World."
Naturally I jest, but it was the experience - not the ridiculous cost of new DVDs, previously watched crap movies and impulse items, that made the local Blockbuster a community icon. Walking in, greeted by a pimply faced kid, and taking in the bright lights, sights, sounds and selection of entertainment related "collectibles" that kids and rich nerds wanted, nicely organized shelves, and trailers playing on televisions hanging from the ceiling, made choosing a movie part of the fun.
Say what you will about Blockbuster vs. the stay at home movie selection experience, but I already miss it. The wife articulated the void perfectly yesterday. She said, "I really miss watching all those trailers."
Yes! That’s it. The foreplay of watching a movie is now gone.
Though we can seek out trailers on-line, we have to choose the trailers. Choice is good but you don't know what movies are coming up if you don't constantly check. For us, this was an important part of the experience.
If the expression, "you get what you pay for" is true, then the overpriced cost of the Blockbuster experience was somehow worth it.
Good-bye, Blockbuster.
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Anonymous
Does epic still mean epic? As in grandiose, great size or extent, heroic, majestic? Or will it lose all meaning as it becomes part of slang?
The trailer makes this look like one of those epic period pieces, but holy crap, what are they saying?
I like the plays of William Shakespeare. I've read many of them and the name Shakespeare is synonymous with tragedy - not to mention his work is the cornerstone of great literature. We even use the term "Shakespearean" as a literary device.
Though I've heard, over the years and during my studies that there has always been debate over whom really wrote his plays, it kind of sucks that it's now truly public. It's a can of worms that, in my opinion, should be reserved for the halls of academia.
According to the synopsis, the events in this film are of one opinion, but why create this level of doubt in something that is an integral part of English studies beginning in junior high school? Why give youth more reason to doubt adults and ask the question: if this guy is a fake, why do we hafta read this confusing crap? South Park showed us that, though nothing is sacred, humour and satire can illustrate some of the flaws in what we hold sacred. You know, like Barbara Streisand. No humour or satire in Anonymous.
Speaking of sacred, I've also heard that Bob Dylan stole most of his songs from others. Did Einstein really create the Theory of Relativity or was he just a Beautiful Mind? Stephen King couldn’t have written all those novels, it must have been Richard Bachman. Not to mention Milli Vanilli didn't really sing their songs... See where this is going?
That said, regardless of this film's importance or relevance or whether it's even a good film or not, I think that publicly implying that Shakespeare was a fake is, how do the kids say it? An epic fail. Or, maybe my perception of the trailer is really the epic fail. Hmm... maybe I will see Anonymous.
The trailer makes this look like one of those epic period pieces, but holy crap, what are they saying?
I like the plays of William Shakespeare. I've read many of them and the name Shakespeare is synonymous with tragedy - not to mention his work is the cornerstone of great literature. We even use the term "Shakespearean" as a literary device.
Though I've heard, over the years and during my studies that there has always been debate over whom really wrote his plays, it kind of sucks that it's now truly public. It's a can of worms that, in my opinion, should be reserved for the halls of academia.
According to the synopsis, the events in this film are of one opinion, but why create this level of doubt in something that is an integral part of English studies beginning in junior high school? Why give youth more reason to doubt adults and ask the question: if this guy is a fake, why do we hafta read this confusing crap? South Park showed us that, though nothing is sacred, humour and satire can illustrate some of the flaws in what we hold sacred. You know, like Barbara Streisand. No humour or satire in Anonymous.
Speaking of sacred, I've also heard that Bob Dylan stole most of his songs from others. Did Einstein really create the Theory of Relativity or was he just a Beautiful Mind? Stephen King couldn’t have written all those novels, it must have been Richard Bachman. Not to mention Milli Vanilli didn't really sing their songs... See where this is going?
That said, regardless of this film's importance or relevance or whether it's even a good film or not, I think that publicly implying that Shakespeare was a fake is, how do the kids say it? An epic fail. Or, maybe my perception of the trailer is really the epic fail. Hmm... maybe I will see Anonymous.
Saturday, 22 October 2011
VIEWED: The Thing (1982)
In between watching season one of Dead Like Me, my day job, family, community work and trying to get through the pilot of American Horror Story, I watched the John Carpenter version of The Thing.
My recommendation for the new version of "The Thing" was....
"It doesn't look different enough for me to want to see it. I will, however, look for the John Carpenter version and watch it just to see if they make reference to the prequel team."
Well, in the very beginning of the Carpenter version, the prequel team arrives in a panic and then quickly dies. We do discover that a Norwegian team does extract the creature and the 1982 team is now stuck with it. However, unless everyone dies in the 2011 version of The Thing, then it's not a true prequel.
The 1982 version is a brilliant exercise in suspense, paranoia and fear. I really enjoyed it. The quote: It's better to remake a bad movie then it is to remake a good movie badly, is not mine. It belongs to my friend, Huss, who just sent me this commentary on the 2011 version of The Thing. I think it addresses his own quote. Now, I don't need to see it.
"Here's the problem & you can quote me; there is true clever & there is impulse or stoned clever. True clever means the idea has lasted through a hangover & it's actually good. Impulse clever is not waiting for the hangover test & going through with it.
The Thing 2011 is the perfect example of filmmakers staying drunk & keeping up impulse clever.
Here's what you need to ask yourself after you watch the impulse clever prequel; how did the Norwegians chopper over to Carpenter's crew? Where did the dog come from? And if the alien is so vicious & unrelenting, why would it be running away?"
Enough said. The Thing (1982) is enough for me.
My recommendation for the new version of "The Thing" was....
"It doesn't look different enough for me to want to see it. I will, however, look for the John Carpenter version and watch it just to see if they make reference to the prequel team."
Well, in the very beginning of the Carpenter version, the prequel team arrives in a panic and then quickly dies. We do discover that a Norwegian team does extract the creature and the 1982 team is now stuck with it. However, unless everyone dies in the 2011 version of The Thing, then it's not a true prequel.
The 1982 version is a brilliant exercise in suspense, paranoia and fear. I really enjoyed it. The quote: It's better to remake a bad movie then it is to remake a good movie badly, is not mine. It belongs to my friend, Huss, who just sent me this commentary on the 2011 version of The Thing. I think it addresses his own quote. Now, I don't need to see it.
"Here's the problem & you can quote me; there is true clever & there is impulse or stoned clever. True clever means the idea has lasted through a hangover & it's actually good. Impulse clever is not waiting for the hangover test & going through with it.
The Thing 2011 is the perfect example of filmmakers staying drunk & keeping up impulse clever.
Here's what you need to ask yourself after you watch the impulse clever prequel; how did the Norwegians chopper over to Carpenter's crew? Where did the dog come from? And if the alien is so vicious & unrelenting, why would it be running away?"
Enough said. The Thing (1982) is enough for me.
Thursday, 20 October 2011
The Thing(s) - 1951, 1982, 2011
First came The Thing from Another World (1951).
"Scientists and American Air Force officials fend off a blood-thirsty alien organism while at a remote arctic outpost." (IMDb). I do love the old sci-fi trailers - the poster is funny, too.
Then the John Carpenter remake called The Thing (1982).
"Scientists in the Antarctic are confronted by a shape-shifting alien that assumes the appearance of the people that it kills. (IMDb)."
The newest version is also called The Thing.
"At an Antarctica research site, the discovery of an alien craft leads to a confrontation between graduate student Kate Lloyd and scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson. (IMDb)"
While snooping around Google for some background on the three "Things", I came across discussions, some quite heated, arguing that the newest version is a prequel. Judging from the trailers, the stories, with slight modifications, all look pretty much the same. The only difference I can tell is that in the 2011 version, they discover and extract the apparent "organism" and let it loose. So, does this constitute the prequel label?
So, if the new "Thing" is a prequel, then the (1982) research team showed up blindly, not knowing that all their colleagues were eaten by a monster and they, too had to fight it off or die trying.... prequel, sequel, equal... it's still a remake of sorts and do you remember what I say about remakes? It's better to remake a bad film then it is to remake a good film, badly.
Because I haven't seen any "Things" I can't comment. I did hear that the first one (1951) was good and that the 1982, John Carpenter version was very good. John Carpenter. There's an interesting fellow. Conceptually, I don't know if there is a better film maker. The concepts behind the original Halloween, Escape from New York, They Live, Prince of Darkness and many more are often brilliant. The problem with some of Carpenter's work is that the execution or delivery of the final product does not or cannot live up to the concept. This applies to films like They Live, The Fog, Prince of Darkness, but Halloween, Escape from New York and, from what I hear, his version of The Thing, indeed deliver.
So, after watching all three "Thing" trailers, what can I say about the new version of The Thing?
It doesn't look different enough for me to want to see it. I will, however, look for the John Carpenter version and watch it just to see if they make reference to the prequel team.
"Scientists and American Air Force officials fend off a blood-thirsty alien organism while at a remote arctic outpost." (IMDb). I do love the old sci-fi trailers - the poster is funny, too.
Then the John Carpenter remake called The Thing (1982).
"Scientists in the Antarctic are confronted by a shape-shifting alien that assumes the appearance of the people that it kills. (IMDb)."
The newest version is also called The Thing.
"At an Antarctica research site, the discovery of an alien craft leads to a confrontation between graduate student Kate Lloyd and scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson. (IMDb)"
While snooping around Google for some background on the three "Things", I came across discussions, some quite heated, arguing that the newest version is a prequel. Judging from the trailers, the stories, with slight modifications, all look pretty much the same. The only difference I can tell is that in the 2011 version, they discover and extract the apparent "organism" and let it loose. So, does this constitute the prequel label?
So, if the new "Thing" is a prequel, then the (1982) research team showed up blindly, not knowing that all their colleagues were eaten by a monster and they, too had to fight it off or die trying.... prequel, sequel, equal... it's still a remake of sorts and do you remember what I say about remakes? It's better to remake a bad film then it is to remake a good film, badly.
Because I haven't seen any "Things" I can't comment. I did hear that the first one (1951) was good and that the 1982, John Carpenter version was very good. John Carpenter. There's an interesting fellow. Conceptually, I don't know if there is a better film maker. The concepts behind the original Halloween, Escape from New York, They Live, Prince of Darkness and many more are often brilliant. The problem with some of Carpenter's work is that the execution or delivery of the final product does not or cannot live up to the concept. This applies to films like They Live, The Fog, Prince of Darkness, but Halloween, Escape from New York and, from what I hear, his version of The Thing, indeed deliver.
So, after watching all three "Thing" trailers, what can I say about the new version of The Thing?
It doesn't look different enough for me to want to see it. I will, however, look for the John Carpenter version and watch it just to see if they make reference to the prequel team.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Martha Marcy May Marlene
I do like alliteration...
The first thing I do when I'm about to watch a trailer is check the duration of the trailer. If it's more than 2 minutes long, I add further judgment by assuming that it will give too much away and thus, not worth my viewing. So, not only do I judge a movie by its trailer, I sometimes judge a trailer by its duration. In The Book of Matthew (New Testament), somewhere near the beginning, we are told to, "judge not, lest ye be judged." There are so many ways to judge and misjudge... but you be the judge or Miss Judge.
There was a quiet intensity to the trailer for this film. The story is about a young woman who was a member of a cult-type group (unclear if by choice), somehow gets out and is taken in by her sister and brother-in-law. She is clearly distraught and struggles with both clear and vague memories of her experiences. One could say dreamlike or even nightmarish.
We ocassionally hear about abductions and involvement with cults and, should the victims survive, hear only about their return to their families. Rarely do we hear about the re-adjustment into the family or what effects do the victim's experiences have on themselves and their loved ones.
I know of a young girl that was abducted by some evil people, forced to take drugs and prostitute herself. After six months the police found her and reunited her with her mother. Two years later I heard that she still struggles with addictions and hasn't been able to heal from her ordeal. Very tragic.
The trailer seems to weave between Martha Marcy May Marlene's current situation (away from the "cult") and her experiences with the "cult." Before too much is given away, the trailer ends. I was very impressed that I didn't look at the timer once. This film looks like a good one.
Whether I view this on a big screen or not, I fully intend to see this film. But, as they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions..."
The first thing I do when I'm about to watch a trailer is check the duration of the trailer. If it's more than 2 minutes long, I add further judgment by assuming that it will give too much away and thus, not worth my viewing. So, not only do I judge a movie by its trailer, I sometimes judge a trailer by its duration. In The Book of Matthew (New Testament), somewhere near the beginning, we are told to, "judge not, lest ye be judged." There are so many ways to judge and misjudge... but you be the judge or Miss Judge.
There was a quiet intensity to the trailer for this film. The story is about a young woman who was a member of a cult-type group (unclear if by choice), somehow gets out and is taken in by her sister and brother-in-law. She is clearly distraught and struggles with both clear and vague memories of her experiences. One could say dreamlike or even nightmarish.
We ocassionally hear about abductions and involvement with cults and, should the victims survive, hear only about their return to their families. Rarely do we hear about the re-adjustment into the family or what effects do the victim's experiences have on themselves and their loved ones.
I know of a young girl that was abducted by some evil people, forced to take drugs and prostitute herself. After six months the police found her and reunited her with her mother. Two years later I heard that she still struggles with addictions and hasn't been able to heal from her ordeal. Very tragic.
The trailer seems to weave between Martha Marcy May Marlene's current situation (away from the "cult") and her experiences with the "cult." Before too much is given away, the trailer ends. I was very impressed that I didn't look at the timer once. This film looks like a good one.
Whether I view this on a big screen or not, I fully intend to see this film. But, as they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions..."
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Margin Call
I recently watched Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. Gordon Gekko predicts the decline of Wall Street before taking advantage of his position, state and family for his own personal gain. Greed never sleeps.
So, in Margin Call, with its great cast (and the Voice of Scar as Jeremy Irons is the perfect villain), are we exposed to the 12 hour period before the Wall Street crash? This appears to be the story of the events that led to the beginning of the end of America's economic power.
It's nice to get a bit of history and context, visually and in less than 2 hours. I guess my question is: Do we need movies that show us where we went wrong or could we instead use the hundreds of millions of dollars to try and fix the problem? Nah, short term profit for the 1% is better. Greed never sleeps.
I often wonder if making a film about a crisis, and so recent, somehow trivializes it. And, how timely this one is with the Occupy Wall Street movement gaining momentum? Is this a coincidence, will it add fuel to the fire or is it meant to trivialize the movement? Will the 1% care as much as the 99%? The 99% are the ones who will likely pay to see this one... wow, what irony.
I never do this, but the links below are to some very interesting perspectives on all of this.
http://shinderconsultants.blogspot.com/2011/10/99-percent.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/theres-something-happening-here.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Wait a minute. This blog isn't supposed to be serious. I'm not supposed to be serious. I review trailers not make social commentary on issues beyond my comprehension. I cater to an A.D.H.D., short attention spanned, borderline slacker audience.... namely, me.
I want to see Margin Call so's I kin gets me an edumacation on this here stuff.
So, in Margin Call, with its great cast (and the Voice of Scar as Jeremy Irons is the perfect villain), are we exposed to the 12 hour period before the Wall Street crash? This appears to be the story of the events that led to the beginning of the end of America's economic power.
It's nice to get a bit of history and context, visually and in less than 2 hours. I guess my question is: Do we need movies that show us where we went wrong or could we instead use the hundreds of millions of dollars to try and fix the problem? Nah, short term profit for the 1% is better. Greed never sleeps.
I often wonder if making a film about a crisis, and so recent, somehow trivializes it. And, how timely this one is with the Occupy Wall Street movement gaining momentum? Is this a coincidence, will it add fuel to the fire or is it meant to trivialize the movement? Will the 1% care as much as the 99%? The 99% are the ones who will likely pay to see this one... wow, what irony.
I never do this, but the links below are to some very interesting perspectives on all of this.
http://shinderconsultants.blogspot.com/2011/10/99-percent.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/theres-something-happening-here.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Wait a minute. This blog isn't supposed to be serious. I'm not supposed to be serious. I review trailers not make social commentary on issues beyond my comprehension. I cater to an A.D.H.D., short attention spanned, borderline slacker audience.... namely, me.
I want to see Margin Call so's I kin gets me an edumacation on this here stuff.
Sunday, 16 October 2011
VIEWED (by accident): Dream House
A funny thing happened on the way to Moneyball. At the last minute, the wife didn't feel like seeing a "baseball" movie and I couldn't convince her to see Red State again, so we ended up in Dream House.
My recommendation for Dream House was...
Maybe Daniel Craig becomes possessed by the house and kills (or tries to kill) his family like in The Shining...? You know what? I don't really feel compelled enough to want to see this film.
While the movie was not at all what I expected and the acting was pretty good, the story was sad, but the payoff comes too early, the climax is disappointing and the epilogue is cliché.
My recommendation for Dream House was...
Maybe Daniel Craig becomes possessed by the house and kills (or tries to kill) his family like in The Shining...? You know what? I don't really feel compelled enough to want to see this film.
While the movie was not at all what I expected and the acting was pretty good, the story was sad, but the payoff comes too early, the climax is disappointing and the epilogue is cliché.
Friday, 14 October 2011
New Monthly Feature: No Parking Zone
Starting this month I am adding a monthly "No Parking Zone." In the zone will be movie trailers or synopsis that:
A) caused me to make that teenage girl sound, "meh"
B) the synopsis didn't warrant a trailer viewing
C) content I had no interest in
D) trailers viewed that evoked nothing
E) trailers that were so forgettable that by the time I was ready to review them, I couldn't even remember the title of the film
F) All of the above
G) None of the above
Think of the No Parking Zone as a public service....
So, in no particular order, I give you October's No Parking Zone:
Footloose (Waste of time remake)
Force (Bollywood badass bore)
I Don't Know How She Does It (And a don't give a rats...)
Harry Potter and the.... whatever part 92 (Enough already)
Higher Ground (Not for me)
The Lion King 3D (Classic, but just another Disney cash grab)
The Smurfs (Yeah, I reviewed it, but I was stupid)
Resurrect Dead: The Mystery of the Toynbee Tiles (Where's Waldo? Who cares?)
Restless (Sorry, Gus)
Transformers 5 or 6 (Wherever the hell they're at)
What's Your Number? (My number is: Piss off)
Please send your comments to beerbohmtastic@gmail.com or click on 0 comments below each post to comment on a specific posting, publically.
Thanks for reading.
A) caused me to make that teenage girl sound, "meh"
B) the synopsis didn't warrant a trailer viewing
C) content I had no interest in
D) trailers viewed that evoked nothing
E) trailers that were so forgettable that by the time I was ready to review them, I couldn't even remember the title of the film
F) All of the above
G) None of the above
Think of the No Parking Zone as a public service....
So, in no particular order, I give you October's No Parking Zone:
Footloose (Waste of time remake)
Force (Bollywood badass bore)
I Don't Know How She Does It (And a don't give a rats...)
Harry Potter and the.... whatever part 92 (Enough already)
Higher Ground (Not for me)
The Lion King 3D (Classic, but just another Disney cash grab)
The Smurfs (Yeah, I reviewed it, but I was stupid)
Resurrect Dead: The Mystery of the Toynbee Tiles (Where's Waldo? Who cares?)
Restless (Sorry, Gus)
Transformers 5 or 6 (Wherever the hell they're at)
What's Your Number? (My number is: Piss off)
Please send your comments to beerbohmtastic@gmail.com or click on 0 comments below each post to comment on a specific posting, publically.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, 13 October 2011
The Warrior's Way
Trailer made me think that the title should have been: Cowboys and Illegal Aliens.
The western theme, mixed with Aliens, Asians and/or Assassins (sorry, but I like the alliteration), seems to be popping up lately. The Favreau film, of course, which I intend to see. I tried to like Bunraku, but couldn't sit through it. Does it seem like every few years we see a few western themed movies?
Wild Wild West is memorable because, according to Kevin Smith, Jon Peters couldn't put his giant spider in the new Superman movie so he made Wild Wild West.
It appears that we have another apparent unconventional western. Truth be told, it kind of had the spirit of the old David Carradine series, Kung Fu. You know, the mysterious stranger shows up in the west, running from his past, looking for peace and finding only trouble.
So, the warrior in The Warrior's Way shows up in this town of misfits, meets a girl, befriends a washed up gunfighter (gee, there's a new one...), brings the wrath of an (illegal) alien force (flying ninjas) down upon the town and the town must unite in order to defeat the alien (flying ninja - in the trailer they literally fly) attack...
Hmmm.... maybe this IS Cowboys and Illegal Aliens?
I do like action movies. I like westerns. I know that the obviousness will be blatant, but I'm sure the fighting scenes will be cool.
I think it'll either view this at the Rainbow or (because Blockbuster finally closed in my neighbourhood) I'll wait until it's available on that movie site that costs $8.00 a month.
The western theme, mixed with Aliens, Asians and/or Assassins (sorry, but I like the alliteration), seems to be popping up lately. The Favreau film, of course, which I intend to see. I tried to like Bunraku, but couldn't sit through it. Does it seem like every few years we see a few western themed movies?
Wild Wild West is memorable because, according to Kevin Smith, Jon Peters couldn't put his giant spider in the new Superman movie so he made Wild Wild West.
It appears that we have another apparent unconventional western. Truth be told, it kind of had the spirit of the old David Carradine series, Kung Fu. You know, the mysterious stranger shows up in the west, running from his past, looking for peace and finding only trouble.
So, the warrior in The Warrior's Way shows up in this town of misfits, meets a girl, befriends a washed up gunfighter (gee, there's a new one...), brings the wrath of an (illegal) alien force (flying ninjas) down upon the town and the town must unite in order to defeat the alien (flying ninja - in the trailer they literally fly) attack...
Hmmm.... maybe this IS Cowboys and Illegal Aliens?
I do like action movies. I like westerns. I know that the obviousness will be blatant, but I'm sure the fighting scenes will be cool.
I think it'll either view this at the Rainbow or (because Blockbuster finally closed in my neighbourhood) I'll wait until it's available on that movie site that costs $8.00 a month.
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
The Big Year
Guy bonding movies are usually fun, unless they involve Very Bad Things (sorry Jon Favreau).
Steve Martin is awesome every which way. Whether serious or insanely comedic, he gives every performance "every man" compassion.
Speaking of "every man," Jack Black is the epitome of said type. His humour is a bit edgy because his characters often poke fun at the lazy-ass slacker in all of us.
I've said this before, but I am sooooooo tired of Owen Wilson. He's such a whiny little bitch on screen - with all due respect to his personal struggles. Even when the characters he plays aren't whiny bitches, he seems to portray them as whiny bitches. He looks a little more edgy in this one, so maybe there's hope.
If I could take a year off to do anything I want, I would get my hands on the EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle (the Winnebago from the Bill Murray classic, Stripes) and drive through the most volatile, war-torn places on earth to first, see what I trust TV news doesn't show us and, secondly, to try to make sense of it.
It seems like, as we in western society continue to reap the benefits of evolving technologies, we become more disconnected from a deteriorating third world. Or maybe we just feel helpless... Besides, I'd be safe in the EM-50. I digress.
I'll see this film because of Steve Martin and Jack Black and not because I like birds.
Steve Martin is awesome every which way. Whether serious or insanely comedic, he gives every performance "every man" compassion.
Speaking of "every man," Jack Black is the epitome of said type. His humour is a bit edgy because his characters often poke fun at the lazy-ass slacker in all of us.
I've said this before, but I am sooooooo tired of Owen Wilson. He's such a whiny little bitch on screen - with all due respect to his personal struggles. Even when the characters he plays aren't whiny bitches, he seems to portray them as whiny bitches. He looks a little more edgy in this one, so maybe there's hope.
If I could take a year off to do anything I want, I would get my hands on the EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle (the Winnebago from the Bill Murray classic, Stripes) and drive through the most volatile, war-torn places on earth to first, see what I trust TV news doesn't show us and, secondly, to try to make sense of it.
It seems like, as we in western society continue to reap the benefits of evolving technologies, we become more disconnected from a deteriorating third world. Or maybe we just feel helpless... Besides, I'd be safe in the EM-50. I digress.
I'll see this film because of Steve Martin and Jack Black and not because I like birds.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
P.S. on Real Steel
Yeah, it's Rocky.
Yeah, it manipulated emotions like a Disney movie.
Yeah, it was predictable.
Yeah, it was entertaining. I say that begrudgingly.
And yeah, I misjudged a book (movie) by its cover (trailer).
Book closed on Real Steel.
Yeah, it manipulated emotions like a Disney movie.
Yeah, it was predictable.
Yeah, it was entertaining. I say that begrudgingly.
And yeah, I misjudged a book (movie) by its cover (trailer).
Book closed on Real Steel.
Monday, 10 October 2011
NOT VIEWED BY ME: Real Steel
A reader has viewed and reviewed Real Steel and was kind enough to send it to me. I will add my P.S. once (if) I see the film whose trailer I completely hated.
Please note: The views in this review do not necessarily reflect the views of Beerbohmtastic because I haven't seen the film yet. Thank you for sending this.
Via email:
Subject Line: VIEWED: Real Steel
"Real Steel" IS "Rocky", make no mistake.
But in an age where originality is as rare as a safe oil tanker, we must suffer with the best re-envisioning, re-imagining that the mediocre talent producing studio movies has to offer. Having spit that like cobra venom, I will say this; as a new millennium "Rocky", "Real Steel" works on every level.
Hugh Jackman & Evangeline Lily are, as the aforementioned premise & plot, exactly what you expect them to be. And say what you will about the "festive" & oft paycheck driven Hugh Jackman, that sumbitch is one entertaining bastard.
But the real star here is Dakota Goyo*, who plays Max Kenton the estranged son if Hugh Jackman's character. I preface this by saying, I don't like kids. In real life or on screen, not a fan of children. This kid though, got my attention. If Ryan Reynolds had half the acting chops & a quarter the charisma of Dakota Goyo, he would still be an asshole but at least a better performer.
I applaud & bow to the makers of "Real Steel" for knowing how to throw the same old shit in our faces & make it smell like an almost fresh rose. On an entertainment scale of 1-10, 10 being the best, I'd have to honestly give "Real Steel" a solid 7.
I mentioned I really hate kids though, right?
*Dakota Goyo or his management, if you ever read this, what the hell? Do you hate this kid(you) & want him to be face down in front if the Viper Room in four years? Change his(your) name.
Please note: The views in this review do not necessarily reflect the views of Beerbohmtastic because I haven't seen the film yet. Thank you for sending this.
Via email:
Subject Line: VIEWED: Real Steel
"Real Steel" IS "Rocky", make no mistake.
But in an age where originality is as rare as a safe oil tanker, we must suffer with the best re-envisioning, re-imagining that the mediocre talent producing studio movies has to offer. Having spit that like cobra venom, I will say this; as a new millennium "Rocky", "Real Steel" works on every level.
Hugh Jackman & Evangeline Lily are, as the aforementioned premise & plot, exactly what you expect them to be. And say what you will about the "festive" & oft paycheck driven Hugh Jackman, that sumbitch is one entertaining bastard.
But the real star here is Dakota Goyo*, who plays Max Kenton the estranged son if Hugh Jackman's character. I preface this by saying, I don't like kids. In real life or on screen, not a fan of children. This kid though, got my attention. If Ryan Reynolds had half the acting chops & a quarter the charisma of Dakota Goyo, he would still be an asshole but at least a better performer.
I applaud & bow to the makers of "Real Steel" for knowing how to throw the same old shit in our faces & make it smell like an almost fresh rose. On an entertainment scale of 1-10, 10 being the best, I'd have to honestly give "Real Steel" a solid 7.
I mentioned I really hate kids though, right?
*Dakota Goyo or his management, if you ever read this, what the hell? Do you hate this kid(you) & want him to be face down in front if the Viper Room in four years? Change his(your) name.
Sunday, 9 October 2011
First response to my Real Steel trailer review....
I received this email late last night and love it...
Subject Line: Re: the horrible bloodbath offering, "Real Steel"
To the Cruel & thoughtless heads of Touchstone Pictures:
As the President & first & only member of PETCGR(People for the Ethical Treatment of CG Robots) I was appalled by your latest Robot Snuff film, "Real Steel".
Was three Transformers not enough? When will the Torque Madas of Hollywood stop allowing CG Robots to be tortured & battered for their own sick amusement? What if the combatantant in the CG ring were your own CG son or daughter?
For shame, Touchstone Pictures for allowing such blatant CG cruelty to be exploited to line your coffers.
Sincerely,
NAME WITHELD
President
PETCGR
Subject Line: Re: the horrible bloodbath offering, "Real Steel"
To the Cruel & thoughtless heads of Touchstone Pictures:
As the President & first & only member of PETCGR(People for the Ethical Treatment of CG Robots) I was appalled by your latest Robot Snuff film, "Real Steel".
Was three Transformers not enough? When will the Torque Madas of Hollywood stop allowing CG Robots to be tortured & battered for their own sick amusement? What if the combatantant in the CG ring were your own CG son or daughter?
For shame, Touchstone Pictures for allowing such blatant CG cruelty to be exploited to line your coffers.
Sincerely,
NAME WITHELD
President
PETCGR
Friday, 7 October 2011
Father of Invention
Kevin Spacey. He's a very talented actor who has played some very interesting roles. Through roles such as, Williamson, the douchebag office manager in Glengarry Glen Ross, to the killer in Seven, the love interest in Pay it Forward, to the lead in American Beauty and his unforgettable performance in The Usual Suspects, he became an A-lister by showing his talent and versatility. But something happened. In many of his roles there seems to be a level of arrogance in his acting, regardless of the character he's playing. Maybe it's just my own observation. I used to like him. Now, when I see he's in a movie, I'm usually indifferent. Horrible Bosses? (Please see my review and my VIEWED comments).
Thus, while looking at the movie poster for Father of Invention just before clicking on the trailer, I thought this was going to be more of the same. Well, it looks like I was wrong again - sort of.
The Kevin Spacey at the beginning of the film - the infomercial character is exactly what I'm talking about. However, his fall from grace and struggle to reach the top again, hopefully will show the talent and versatility that we know he's capable of.
The Jerk, with Steve Martin popped into my mind when I saw the first part of the trailer. Steve's character invents a handle of sorts to prevent eye-glasses from falling off Bill Macy's face. His invention makes him millions, but when people start going cross-eyed, he loses everything. That's where the similarity ends... I think.
Riches to rags to riches stories can be entertaining. There were some funny moments in the trailer. Spacey, in a few scenes, actually looked humble.
I'd like to see Spacey play humble. But likely not first run. Maybe at the Rainbow.
Thus, while looking at the movie poster for Father of Invention just before clicking on the trailer, I thought this was going to be more of the same. Well, it looks like I was wrong again - sort of.
The Kevin Spacey at the beginning of the film - the infomercial character is exactly what I'm talking about. However, his fall from grace and struggle to reach the top again, hopefully will show the talent and versatility that we know he's capable of.
The Jerk, with Steve Martin popped into my mind when I saw the first part of the trailer. Steve's character invents a handle of sorts to prevent eye-glasses from falling off Bill Macy's face. His invention makes him millions, but when people start going cross-eyed, he loses everything. That's where the similarity ends... I think.
Riches to rags to riches stories can be entertaining. There were some funny moments in the trailer. Spacey, in a few scenes, actually looked humble.
I'd like to see Spacey play humble. But likely not first run. Maybe at the Rainbow.
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Bellflower
Many words of praise periodically (within the 2 minute trailer) fill the screen during the trailer. Praise from Film.com and Rolling Stone. MSN said it was a weird mix of John Hughes and Mad Max and I think I read something about a stylish critique of the idiocy and confusion in young manhood...since Fight Club.
Umm.. the words idiocy and confusion in relation to Fight Club? Though Fight Club was a "stylish critique" it very clearly defined our flaws. "We are a generation of men raised by women..." "our fathers didn't give a shit..." "God doesn't care about you..." Fight Club became a way to FEEL something beyond the banality of our existence. I wouldn't call Project Mayhem idiotic or confused. On the contrary, it had a clear mandate: eliminate debt so that all are equal again. It was a statement about taking control of the shit lives, and debt, that were handed to us by our parents. At least I think that's what Chuck Palahniuk was telling us...
Oh yeah, I'm not reviewing MSN's idiocy and confusion here.
Bellflower has a gritty look to it and I get the sense that it's one of those movies that catches the viewer off guard. The title evokes a sense of calm that, from the trailer, seems non-existent. You just know that it will be shockingly violent, yet feel quite real.
A Bellflower is an invasive weed.
So, young men playing Mad Max with their cars, building weapons awaiting the apocalypse. Sounds like a Sunday afternoon in any North American suburb. One of the young men gets a girlfriend and everything goes to shit. Common theme given the idiocy and confusion of young men...
It's a first film by cinematographer turned director, Evan Glodell, so I'll reserve further judgment until I see it.
Yeah, I'm kind of curious.
Umm.. the words idiocy and confusion in relation to Fight Club? Though Fight Club was a "stylish critique" it very clearly defined our flaws. "We are a generation of men raised by women..." "our fathers didn't give a shit..." "God doesn't care about you..." Fight Club became a way to FEEL something beyond the banality of our existence. I wouldn't call Project Mayhem idiotic or confused. On the contrary, it had a clear mandate: eliminate debt so that all are equal again. It was a statement about taking control of the shit lives, and debt, that were handed to us by our parents. At least I think that's what Chuck Palahniuk was telling us...
Oh yeah, I'm not reviewing MSN's idiocy and confusion here.
Bellflower has a gritty look to it and I get the sense that it's one of those movies that catches the viewer off guard. The title evokes a sense of calm that, from the trailer, seems non-existent. You just know that it will be shockingly violent, yet feel quite real.
A Bellflower is an invasive weed.
So, young men playing Mad Max with their cars, building weapons awaiting the apocalypse. Sounds like a Sunday afternoon in any North American suburb. One of the young men gets a girlfriend and everything goes to shit. Common theme given the idiocy and confusion of young men...
It's a first film by cinematographer turned director, Evan Glodell, so I'll reserve further judgment until I see it.
Yeah, I'm kind of curious.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Real Steel
Are you kidding me? Hugh Jackman, who I like as an actor, is in a live action version of Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots - the toy that kids enjoyed for about 20 minutes several generations ago? This is surely some kind of joke. Is it produced by Mattel or Toys R Us? I'm sure Real Steel merchandise will hit the shelves shortly after opening weekend, if it hasn't already. Wasn't there some reality show where amateur inventors built little remote control robots to fight each other? I noticed that the viewer reviews where high (8.3 out of 10) but come on?
I'm a guy. I do guy stuff. I leave my socks right beside the laundry hamper without thinking how much it irritates my wife. I love car chases and watching things blow up. I was saddened when Hunter S. Thompson died while doing his favourite thing, blowing shit up. His death made me re-evaluate some of the things I do for amusement in my own back yard.
So the premise, according to the trailer is that boxing has evolved from human combat to machine combat. Jackman, a washed up fighter now builds machines and has one last chance for redemption by building a machine that can beat up another machine. Is it just me or does this sound completely idiotic?
I am really bothered by the fact that I want to see this movie just to find out if it is really as ridiculous and pointless as the trailer appears. And of course, so I can review it again.
I'm a guy. I do guy stuff. I leave my socks right beside the laundry hamper without thinking how much it irritates my wife. I love car chases and watching things blow up. I was saddened when Hunter S. Thompson died while doing his favourite thing, blowing shit up. His death made me re-evaluate some of the things I do for amusement in my own back yard.
So the premise, according to the trailer is that boxing has evolved from human combat to machine combat. Jackman, a washed up fighter now builds machines and has one last chance for redemption by building a machine that can beat up another machine. Is it just me or does this sound completely idiotic?
I am really bothered by the fact that I want to see this movie just to find out if it is really as ridiculous and pointless as the trailer appears. And of course, so I can review it again.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
The Ides of March
Gosling, Clooney, Seymour-Hoffman, Giamati, Marissa Tomei.... this is a serious cast. The music and pace of the trailer made it a serious trailer.
Dating back to 1933, there are no less than 107 movies made about fictional Presidents. In the movie Dead Presidents, the bank robbers wore masks of dead presidents. In Point Break the bank robbers wore past president masks.
Devo wore Ronald Reagan plastic wigs on the cover of one of their albums. I think it was New Traditionalists or Duty Now for the Future. I can't remember.
In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, the soothsayer told Julius Caesar to "beware the Ides of March." This was the day of his death. So, from the title, does the main character's career die on March 15? Is this a parody of Julius Caesar?
It looks like one of those films where the older established campaign professionals are jealous of the young arrogant, genius ladder climber who looks to be on the winning team. So, he's set up to be scandalized and then his choices will have an effect on his boss, the president or presidential nominee.
The Ides of March must foreshadow the professional death of the young blood.
Seems kind of predictable. Maybe, I'm wrong,
Likely a rental.
Dating back to 1933, there are no less than 107 movies made about fictional Presidents. In the movie Dead Presidents, the bank robbers wore masks of dead presidents. In Point Break the bank robbers wore past president masks.
Devo wore Ronald Reagan plastic wigs on the cover of one of their albums. I think it was New Traditionalists or Duty Now for the Future. I can't remember.
In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, the soothsayer told Julius Caesar to "beware the Ides of March." This was the day of his death. So, from the title, does the main character's career die on March 15? Is this a parody of Julius Caesar?
It looks like one of those films where the older established campaign professionals are jealous of the young arrogant, genius ladder climber who looks to be on the winning team. So, he's set up to be scandalized and then his choices will have an effect on his boss, the president or presidential nominee.
The Ides of March must foreshadow the professional death of the young blood.
Seems kind of predictable. Maybe, I'm wrong,
Likely a rental.
Monday, 3 October 2011
Machine Gun Preacher
I laughed when I saw the title. Matter-of-factly titles sometimes work. What's Snakes on a Plane about? What about Cowboys and Aliens? What about Alien vs. Predator? And you can't forget Bambi vs. Godzilla.
From the trailer, however, the Machine Gun Preacher title seems to trivialize the spirit of this film. Unless, of course, the makers wanted to attract guys looking for a shoot 'em up action movie, only to make them cry. Or, girls could dupe their boyfriends into seeing it by saying, "honey, let's go see Machine Gun Preacher tonight." What guy wouldn't fall in love all over again at the suggestion of such a movie?
In the last ten years or so, through news, media and movies we've learned about the horrors of war in Africa. Senseless slaughters, child soldiers, blood diamonds, lawlessness and the western world's inactivity have created a bleak picture of Africa. Years ago I read a book by Franz Fanon called, the Wretched of the Earth. It talked about the effects of colonization and de-colonization. I didn't really get it at the time, but I think we are witnessing the effects of de-colonization, but what do I know?
Gerard Butler is a solid actor. I liked him in Reign of Fire. Hell, I loved Reign of Fire. He was okay in one of the Tomb Raider movies, 300 was okay, too.... Damn! I just IMDB'd him and he was in Phantom of the Opera. I mentioned in another review how much I hated the stage version. Phantom of the Paradise was better, anyway. No more on Gerard.
The trailer tells us that this is based on a true story. Whether it is or isn't, it looks like a pretty inspiring story about one troubled man's search for meaning and finding it helping orphans in Africa. Truth be told, I found the trailer to be quite moving, even though it gave away too much.
Despite the title and the connection to Phantom of the Opera, I still want to see this film.
From the trailer, however, the Machine Gun Preacher title seems to trivialize the spirit of this film. Unless, of course, the makers wanted to attract guys looking for a shoot 'em up action movie, only to make them cry. Or, girls could dupe their boyfriends into seeing it by saying, "honey, let's go see Machine Gun Preacher tonight." What guy wouldn't fall in love all over again at the suggestion of such a movie?
In the last ten years or so, through news, media and movies we've learned about the horrors of war in Africa. Senseless slaughters, child soldiers, blood diamonds, lawlessness and the western world's inactivity have created a bleak picture of Africa. Years ago I read a book by Franz Fanon called, the Wretched of the Earth. It talked about the effects of colonization and de-colonization. I didn't really get it at the time, but I think we are witnessing the effects of de-colonization, but what do I know?
Gerard Butler is a solid actor. I liked him in Reign of Fire. Hell, I loved Reign of Fire. He was okay in one of the Tomb Raider movies, 300 was okay, too.... Damn! I just IMDB'd him and he was in Phantom of the Opera. I mentioned in another review how much I hated the stage version. Phantom of the Paradise was better, anyway. No more on Gerard.
The trailer tells us that this is based on a true story. Whether it is or isn't, it looks like a pretty inspiring story about one troubled man's search for meaning and finding it helping orphans in Africa. Truth be told, I found the trailer to be quite moving, even though it gave away too much.
Despite the title and the connection to Phantom of the Opera, I still want to see this film.
VIEWED: The Killer Elite
My recommendation for this one was...
"With all the love in this review, I have no choice but to see this movie."
The funny thing about love is when it's going well, expectations are hightened. What happens when expectations are high? They often disappoint. That's why love is supposed to be forgiving.
Owen was the expected badass, even more so. Statham showed a human side to his badassary and it looked like it was as hard for him to be sensitive as it was for me to watch him be sensitive. DeNiro could play a lamp post and still be worthy of an Oscar nomination. His screen presence is amazing.
Yeah, love is forgiving....
I liked this movie, but I didn't love it.
"With all the love in this review, I have no choice but to see this movie."
The funny thing about love is when it's going well, expectations are hightened. What happens when expectations are high? They often disappoint. That's why love is supposed to be forgiving.
Owen was the expected badass, even more so. Statham showed a human side to his badassary and it looked like it was as hard for him to be sensitive as it was for me to watch him be sensitive. DeNiro could play a lamp post and still be worthy of an Oscar nomination. His screen presence is amazing.
Yeah, love is forgiving....
I liked this movie, but I didn't love it.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
October Film Quips
Danny DeVito needs to direct more movies. Danny, stop tweeting and give us another Throw Momma from the Train.
I wasn't fond of Tim Burton until I saw Big Fish. Make us another one like that, Tim.
Am I a freak because I love Chan Wook Park movies?
Takeshi Miike IS a freak. If I even think of Ichi the Killer, I feel sick.
New love for Quenten Tarantino after seeing Inglorious Basterds... again and again.
Red State is a feather in Kevin Smith's cap. Does Kevin Smith wear a cap?
I wasn't fond of Tim Burton until I saw Big Fish. Make us another one like that, Tim.
Am I a freak because I love Chan Wook Park movies?
Takeshi Miike IS a freak. If I even think of Ichi the Killer, I feel sick.
New love for Quenten Tarantino after seeing Inglorious Basterds... again and again.
Red State is a feather in Kevin Smith's cap. Does Kevin Smith wear a cap?
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Max Beerbohm Quote for October...
"You cannot make a man by standing a sheep on its hind-legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position you can make a crowd of men."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)